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.
Originally posted by marg6043
One of the reasons that disasters kill so many humans in this time
Originally posted by Muaddib
....The increase in temperature is associated with Holocene sea level rise"... You know, the Holocene is the period for the past 10,000-12,000 years after the Ice Age, when temperatures began increasing... Learn how to read please...
It does not, Hansen tried to erase the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age...that does not make his models impressive at all...
Originally posted by Muaddib
"It's too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods" on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack
Originally posted by Muaddib
You are now recanting from your slip of the fingers about the drastic warming which is talked about in that paper I gave a excerpt and link to, and you do it as if it was something normal, yet I made a mistake with one name and then you claim "I must get my script"...
Is that a slip of your own tongue/fingers and you have been using a script all this time?...
Nevermind your other slips of the tongue/fingers, such as the "tons upon tons, upon tons of CO2 released by mankind".. Never mind that the total trace of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere is 0.0325%...and that mankind's contribution of CO2 from that 0.0325% low percentage is 0.28% (0.0325% being 100 percent).... or the fact that water vapor which constitutes 95% of all trace gases on Earth, CO2 is a trace gas, or that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, yet people like yourself don't say a peep about that terrible trace gas water vapor, which is worse and more abundant than CO2.....
Originally posted by melatonin
..............
And just a few micrograms of '___' that affects serotonin can send a brain full of serotonin on one hell of a trip. It not about the small percentages but the effect of these percentages.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you haven't noticed but we are not interested in drug use....or at least i am not... The Earth is not a human body...
I wonder why is it that you can't play around with the "real numbers"....
Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
Could someone please just explain to me just one time, what evidence is there that increasing CO2 levels form any source are causing warming when:
Correlation coefficient between temperature and CO2 levels is below any scientific conventions for decision making.
CO2 has always and continues to lag temperature. It is a result not a cause.
Although the IPCC gives the sun almost no creedance for causing the warming and has little or no understanding of ENSO cycles, How come a supposedly know nothing can look at solar cycles and predict the last 3 ENSO events?
Originally posted by melatonin
Do you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Its physical properties will cause warming, it's really that simple. How much warming is what the science is aiming to show.
Originally posted by melatonin
Not this time.
Originally posted by melatonin
As mentioned above, CO2 is a GG, it will cause warming. You cannot deny basic physics. GCMs also show how this will affect climate.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you know that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does?
Do you know that 95% of trace gases is water vapor?
Do you know what happens during warming events to the water vapor levels? they increase, yet for some reason you and some other scientists want to dismiss those facts.
Temperatures began increasing since the early 1600s, CO2 levels didn't begin to increase until around the 1860s. Again, CO2 levels lagged this time around 260 years after temperatures began increasing.
and you cannot deny the science and physics which tells us that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 and it is more abundant in the eArth's atmosphere.
You can't either deny the fact that during warming events water vapor levels increase too.
There are several factors which are converging this time around, and those factors play a bigger role at Climate Change, yet you and some other scientists just want to blame mankind for Climate Change.
The only reason the policymakers want to blame mankind for Climate Change is to set up a Global tax system, so they can use taxpayers money to try to stop nature from following it's natural cycle, and at the same time it fills their pockets with more money...
The Hockey Stick Curves
On the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled, by combining the distorted proxy ice core data and the recent direct atmospheric CO2 measurements. The authors of such studies claimed that their curves represent the atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 300 years (Neftel et al. 1985, Pearman et al. 1986, Siegenthaler and Oeschger 1987), or the past 10,000 years (in the “Summary for Policymakers”), Figure 1,or even the past 400,000 years (Wolff 2003). They all show low pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, ranging from about 180 to 280 ppmv during the past 400,000 years, and soaring up to about 370 ppmv at the end of the 20th Century. These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
They were created by illegitimately mixing the false proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.
However, the worst manipulation was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the core, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of the core, taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al. 1985) and not the 290ppmvneeded to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the preindustrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.
To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped!
...
Originally posted by dawnstar
just wondering....
how many of you global warming skeptics are also anti-smoking supporters?
the science behind both are probably as equally credible ya know...
....................
Originally posted by melatonin
Wow. So the little bit of warming in the 1600s has produced over 5000 years worth of CO2 in just 100 years. That's amazing.
Originally posted by melatonin
You're just making this stuff up now. No-one seriously proposes that.
Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, you said that before. Difference is this CO2 is human-sourced. We have little effect on water vapour. It is a feedback, not a forcing. It is cycled in 10 days and when removed, will just fill back up in a few weeks.
SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY
A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.
Originally posted by melatonin
It also increases due to human-induced warming.
Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, of course, Arrhenius in the 1800s had exactly that planned when he discovered the physical properties of CO2.
Originally posted by melatonin
What is converging, Muaddib?
It's not solar, research shows it to be pretty insignificant. It's not ISD, that should cause cooling. It's not cosmic rays, they show no trend. It's not water vapour, that's a feedback. Do you mean that human activity is converging? Destruction of the biosphere, trillions of tonnes of CO2 etc etc.
"We're surrounded by hot gas," Zank notes. "As our sun moves through extremely 'empty' or low-density interstellar space, the solar wind produces a protective bubble -- the heliosphere around our solar system, which allows life to flourish on Earth. Unfortunately, we could bump into a small cloud at any time, and we probably won't see it coming. Without the heliosphere, neutral hydrogen would interact with our atmosphere, possibly producing catastrophic climate changes, while our exposure to deadly cosmic radiation in the form of very high-energy cosmic rays would increase."
........
"Space," Zank notes, "is full of clouds." One particularly troublesome cloud region, located in a star-forming region towards the Aquila Rift, clearly is headed our way, according to Zank. Pushed by galactic wind, the cloud may collide with Earth's protective bubble within the next 50,000 years, he says, and some researchers think we could encounter fluffier knots of gas -- containing 10 to 100 particles per cubic inch of space -- far sooner. Our immediate or local interstellar environment is chock-full of gas clusters known as the Local Fluff, Zank points out, and existing instruments aren't sensitive enough to detect extremely small clouds. Consequently, Zank says, "We won't know that our heliosphere is collapsing until we see highly elevated levels of neutral hydrogen and cosmic rays, and a hydrogen wall in the vicinity of the outer planets."
............
Undisturbed by clouds, the heliosphere appears to take a breath every 11 years, as fluctuations in solar-wind speeds produce a gentle, arhythmic motion, Zank says. Flowing outward, shock waves push the wall and interstellar boundaries farther into space until at last they break and wane, allowing the boundary to contract. This shifting region between the heliosphere and its boundary may filter hydrogen through a process known as "charge exchange," in which neutral hydrogen and charged particles swap an electron, and so, change identities.
The Galactic Environment of the Sun
The heliosphere appears to protect the inner solar system from the vagaries of the interstellar medium
Priscilla Frisch
Pieces of interstellar matter are constantly passing through our solar system. These galactic visitors—atomic particles and bits of dust—flow through interplanetary space and may collide with the major bodies in the solar system—the earth and the other planets. Although each particle is microscopic, their total mass in the solar system is enormous. Indeed, about 98 percent of the gaseous fraction in the heliosphere—the volume of space filled by the solar wind?consists of interstellar material! How do these particles interact with a planet's environment? Do they have a significant impact on a planet's atmosphere? No one knows.
.................
The interstellar cloud currently surrounding the solar system—often referred to as the Local Interstellar Cloud—is warm, tenuous and partially ionized. Like all interstellar clouds, our local cloud is made of dust and gas, with the dust fraction making up about one percent of the cloud's mass. The elemental composition of interstellar clouds is much like that of the sun, about 90 percent hydrogen and 9.99 percent helium. The heavier elements make up the remaining 0.01 percent.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Little warming?.... I am sure you mean "the little anthropogenic CO2 being released cannot be blamed for Global warming"...when the facts show that warming started 260 years before CO2 levels increased.......
Really?... so noone proposes that when oceans become warmer more trace gases are released into the atmosphere?....
Funny i remember at least three dozen research papers and articles which prove you wrong.....
No matter how you try to paint it an increase in water vapor levels does warm the planet...
A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.
Again, you are trying to separate all natural factors, you are not dealing with children here melatonin... and you are now claiming mankind has released "trillion of tons of CO2"?....
Temperatures began increasing before CO2 levels increased, the warming of the oceans which has been linked to "Holocene warming"...which is warming as we have been coming out of an Ice Age, and not because of anthropogenic CO2....
"We're surrounded by hot gas," Zank notes. "As our sun moves through extremely 'empty' or low-density interstellar space, the solar wind produces a protective bubble -- the heliosphere around our solar system, which allows life to flourish on Earth. Unfortunately, we could bump into a small cloud at any time, and we probably won't see it coming. Without the heliosphere, neutral hydrogen would interact with our atmosphere, possibly producing catastrophic climate changes, while our exposure to deadly cosmic radiation in the form of very high-energy cosmic rays would increase."