It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."
Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.
Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Venit
This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.
Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?
C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.
Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.
We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!
[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]
[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]
Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by audas
ORLY? How am I wrong? Is it because your liberal teachers, liberal politicians, liberal media have you brain washed into believing all this garbage?
Where is the real science, in their computer models that they program data into? James Hanson of NASA has been caught cheating the actual numbers what, like 4 times now?
Why do satilite numbers show cooling in the upper troposhere when their models show it should be warming? Why is there more ice now in the antarctic than ever before and satilites show that the temp there is getting colder?
Humans are like tiny ants on this planet, nothing we have made can even be seen from space with the naked eye during the day. Only our lights can be seen at night.
Why dont you help clean up a river or brook or stream near your house, that is where the real pollution is. Pull out all the tires, bags or garbage and other trash from the water ways. There is no global warming and if there was, it would be great for the planet, it would make it greener, warmer and more hospitable to everyone. Plant would grow like mad with the extra Co2 in the air and rainforests would populate the earth. Isnt that what you want?
[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]
Originally posted by audas
Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Venit
This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.
Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?
C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.
Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.
We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!
[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]
[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]
Wrong,
Wrong,
wrong again,,,......and whatever.
Originally posted by centurion1211
[
You must have had an open mind at one point when they talked you into believing all the global warming hype. What has happened to close it since?
Several hundred scientific studies and the vast majority of the academic community would disagree with you. Furthermore, 'liberal' has nothing to do with it. Global warming isn't a political issue, it's a planetary issue. If people would stop attributing global warming as being a liberal lie or something similar, then perhaps more people would look at the evidence for themselves.
GMD's mission is to observe and understand, through accurate, long-term records of atmospheric gases, aerosol particles, and solar radiation, the Earth's atmospheric system controlling climate forcing, ozone depletion and baseline air quality, in order to develop products that will advance global and regional environmental information and services.
With global warming, you have to talk about clouds on a global basis; tropospheric water vapor on a global basis—a lot of things that are not easy to measure and have to be done globally, not locally. You just can't do that quickly because it is a global problem.
What I did for the next few years was to show, in a manner somewhat similar to the polar stratospheric clouds, that other kinds of surfaces could also enhance ozone depletion at lower latitudes. We were able to show, for instance that when El Chichon went off in 1981 and then Pinatubo in the 1990s, both had significant effects on the ups and downs of ozone depletion. Pinatubo, in particular, had a measurable effect in the northern mid-latitude depletion via chlorine chemistry on the volcanic particle surfaces in the stratosphere. That was a pretty major finding and really helped to explain why, at that time of history, the ozone in our latitudes looked the way it did.
I have also done some work on the issue of gases other than carbon dioxide that could contribute to global warming. This has been fascinating from the chemistry point of view. Among other things, one question my colleagues and I have probed is the role of perfluorinated chemicals like CF4, SF6, and others. There’s not a lot of that stuff in the atmosphere today, so I’m not saying they are significant contributors to today’s global warming. But we’ve shown that these molecules live for literally thousands of years—they may as well be immortal—and they are potent absorbers of infrared light, hence greenhouse gases. A molecule that can outlast the pyramids of Egypt might be one to think about venting to the atmosphere especially carefully.
As we think about the possibility of future climate change, I think it’s important to think about chemistry, and about the lifetimes of the things that could contribute to the climate. Carbon dioxide lives about 150 years in the atmosphere, so that fact should be part of a science-based risk assessment. Climate change is a complex problem, and this kind of scientific information is one piece of the problem.