NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

The deniers will keep pretending it's not happening until they have to commute by rowboat - and probably even then.

The objections to anthropogenic warming are not scientific but ideological.

Originally posted by xmotex
The deniers will keep pretending it's not happening until they have to commute by rowboat - and probably even then.

The objections to anthropogenic warming are not scientific but ideological.

Noone is denying Climate Change is happening...in fact the climate is always changing.

i have been one of the members who since 2004 have been discussing this topic. My views have changed since then because of the data. i also used to think mankind might have some effect on the global climate, now because of contradicting data and because more and more scientists, who also thought mankind could be a cause or could be accelerating Climate Change, are also changing their minds because the data shows the claim that mankind is at fault is false, and there are scientists who have been falsifying their data just so they can keep their "Anthropogenic related Climate Change/Global Warming jobs


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Okay, heres a suggestion for the giant brains at NASA: start crackin on fixing stuff down here - directly, immediately and with stuff that we can all buy for cheap.

I want NASA to develop its own automotive group. I want NASA to develop its own power generation division. I want NASA to grow my next case of clementines so I know they'll taste good and not hurt the environment.

Kay!?

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by forestlady
The Avenger: So we should believe you just because you say so? Why don't you explain to us why GW is a hoax?

Global warming is real. The belief that humans and nothing else causes it is erroneous. At best, humans have been minor contributors. IN MY OPINION.

You want my justification for my thinking? Read my ATS A.G.W. thread which has over 400 posts. Believe whatever you choose, it makes me no difference. I have nothing to prove or any case to make. I am an independent scientist trying in my own small way to get people to learn the truth about climate change.

Me not open minded? My complaint here was that the news media doesn't show both sides of the issue, especially since us 33% A.G.W. skeptics are not a small minority. 66% is also not a consensus as the "warmies" would have you believe. Al Gore has ZERO scientific credentials, so almost anyone here is more qualified to render opinions on A.G.W. than he is. PERIOD.

How do you argue for open mindedness when you don't show me any? It would seem that I am the open minded one here. I want both sides of the issue examined and/or reported by the press. Again, I could care less who believes or doesn't believe what I have written. I will point out, however, that intelligent people examine ALL of the information available before deciding an issue for themselves. It's a somewhat rare human trait these days known as "thinking".

Where do you get this 33.3% figure?
I HAVE examined both sides. Your science to me, doesn't hold water. I didn't say one thing in this thread that would indicate I'm close-minded. You OTOH choose to ridicule those who don't agree with you and then say it doesn't matter to you.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 1-6-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by forestlady

I HAVE examined both sides. Your science to me, doesn't hold water. I didn't say one thing in this thread that would indicate I'm close-minded. You OTOH choose to ridicule those who don't agree with you and then say it doesn't matter to you.

I have also examined "both sides of the issue" and sorry to tell you there is no real "scientific concensus", despite the claims by some organizations, on what is causing Climate Change/Global Warming. I have presented several times scientific research from Africa, Spain and other European countries, Japan, South America, North America, the Sargasso sea, the Southern oceans, China, Japan, etc, etc.. All of those research papers were done by "real scientists" and their findings all say "todays warming as of yet is not the warmest the Earth has been in the past 1,000 or 2,000 years.

The Earth has seen warmer and more extreme Climate Changes in the past, when there were no factories and CO2 levels were much lower than they are now.

The Earth goes through such extreme Climate Changes, and even worse than the current change we are facing and it has happened much faster once in a while and none, nomatter how much they want to, is going to be able to mitigate the changes or stop them. Plain and simple.


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Theres another interesting thread about AL Gores connections with NASA and Google and the coming IA. Al gore even says its ten years before the point of no return.

Could be some links

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I have examined both sides of the issue, originally from the position of a doubter and there is a significant consensus among scientists out there concerning the human contribution to global warming.

It is a nasty slur of plenty of good and decent and concerned scientists to claim that they are promoting man made global warming in order to keep their jobs. Muaddib you should be ashamed.

You have also claimed that it was a leftist plot by China and India to weaken America and the west.

Whatever your real agenda, you have absolutely no credibility on this subject whatsoever.

Is it really so impossible or unthinkable that it is maybe a combination of many, many different factors, none of which should be discounted? Now that I think about it, why should something like this even be debated? Why don't we just try to do something about each possible cause or problem that we can, no matter what each individual person thinks about it?

PS: to whoever put that tag "junk science" down there, no science is junk science. Plus, that's simply an ignorant thing to do no matter what your opinions or views on this debate are, and last time I checked the ATS motto was "deny ignorance".

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Theres another interesting thread about AL Gores connections with NASA and Google and the coming IA. Al gore even says its ten years before the point of no return.

Could be some links

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know, even one of the websites which is being used by members and others who want to believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is linked to Al Gore. The "Real Climate" Website, where Michael Mann, the same scientist who created the Hockey Stick Graph which has been discredited by scientists, is linked to Al Gore, through Arlie Schardt, who has been Al Gore's former communications director for Gore presidential campaigns, not just once, but on at least three occasions.

Arlie Schardt funded Environmental Media Services (EMS), an organization which primary activity is "providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate".

Link

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Hawker9
Is it really so impossible or unthinkable that it is maybe a combination of many, many different factors, none of which should be discounted?

Yes, it is the combination of many, many natural factors...

The Earth has had higher CO2 levels, yet there never was "runaway Global Warming" and the Earth has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels were lower. Not to mention the fact that CO2 increases lag temperature increases, and most of the time by hundreds of years.

The present warming started around most of the world in the early 1600s, yet CO2 levels did not begin increasing until the 1860s, thats 260+ years of difference.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Interesting Muaddib. I am on the fence about global warming, I don't expect earth to stop changing as it has never stopped. But humans have had it pretty good in the last 5000 years in terms of global climate. Earth may have cycles, may be random, may be caused by man, but no matter what earth is always changing.

Well, like I said before, the CO2 produced by humans probably does have some impact - large or small - on the whole deal, and, like I also said before, better safe than sorry. Plus, what harm could it do if we tried to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions? The least it would do is make the air we breathe just a little bit healthier.

edit: sp.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by Hawker9
Well, like I said before, the CO2 produced by humans probably does have some impact - large or small - on the whole deal, and, like I also said before, better safe than sorry. Plus, what harm could it do if we tried to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions? The least it would do is make the air we breathe just a little bit healthier.

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is in fact needed for the Earth's ecosystem to exist.

BTW, it has been demonstrated that even a doubling of CO2 levels, that is if CO2 levels raise to 700ppm, it will only increase noticeably any warming.

The Earth has had 4,000-4,400 ppm of CO2 and vegetation and fauna flourished during those times. the Earth has had even 7,000 ppm, yet no "runaway Global Warming" occurred. Now we have 380ppm and some want to claim this is going to bring the end of civilization...

Old civilizations have flourished in much warmer climates than now, such as the Vikings, during the Roman Warming period, and during the Medieval Warming period, and CO2 levels were lower than they are now.

Yet scientific research shows that in Europe, Africa, North America, South America, Japan, and even in our oceans temperatures were in general much warmer than they are now up to 3C during the Roman Warming period, and 1C-2C warmer than now during the Medieval Warming period.

BTW, the following shows that in the past hurricane activity has been worse and more dramatic than what it is now.

First-Ever 5,000-Year Record of Hurricanes Compiled
...................
Clues in the dirt

When scientists examined the sediment cores from the lake, the coarse-grained beach sand, as well as bits of shell, stood out from the lake’s normal finer-grained silt--a tell-tale signal that a hurricane struck the island at that point in history.

The 5,000-year record the researchers lifted from the dirt showed large and dramatic fluctuations in hurricane activity, with long stretches of both intense storm activity and quiet periods. The research was detailed in the May 24 issue of the journal Nature.

www.livescience.com...


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

So its a plot by Al Gore and his compatriots now? ROTFLMAS!!! Probably to drum up support for his movie. Man that is genius... start up talk about global warming in the late 80's so you can increase ticket (and DVD and book) sales for a yet unmade movie you intend to do in the 2000's. man that is brilliant marketing... why isn't that man on Wall Street?

Muaddib put aside all your so-called (cherry picked to reflect your viewpoint) facts and answer me this one salient question:

Why is it so hard for you to even accept the possibility that we do indeed contribute to the changes in our climate by our activity, including the crap we spew into the air?

I will agree with you on a couple of points however: our climate is always in flux and until the planet is bone dry and dead with all atmosphere stripped away, it always will be. Also, this focus on CO2 is seriously misplaced. CO2 is a contributing factor most certainly but there is also the fine particles we spew into the atmosphere as well that has its own effect.

I know you won't answer this since you have me on ignore. But if you do answer my question for once.

Why is it so hard for you to even accept the possibility that we do indeed contribute to the changes in our climate by our activity, including the crap we spew into the air?

[edit on 1-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not to mention the fact that CO2 increases lag temperature increases, and most of the time by hundreds of years.

Or maybe not...

Climate of the Past Discussions, 3, 435-467, 2007

New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr
L. Loulergue, F. Parrenin, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, R. Spahni, A. Schilt, G. Raisbeck, J. Chappellaz

Gas is trapped in polar ice sheets at ~50–120 m below the surface and is therefore younger than the surrounding ice. Firn densification models are used to evaluate this ice age-gas age difference (Δage) in the past. However, such models are not well tested on low accumulation and cold sites of the East Antarctic plateau, especially for periods with different climatic conditions. Here we bring new constraints to test a firn densification model applied to the EPICA Dome C (EDC) site for the last 50 kyr, by linking the EDC ice core to the EPICA Dronning Maud Land (EDML) ice core, both in the ice phase (using volcanic horizons) and in the gas phase (using rapid methane variations). We use the structured 10Be peak, occurring 41 kyr before present (BP) and due to the low geomagnetic field associated with the Laschamp event, to experimentally estimate the Δage and Δdepth during this event. It allows us to evaluate the model and to link together climatic archives from EDC and EDML to NorthGRIP (Greenland). Our results reveal an overestimate of the Δage by the firn densification model during the last glacial period at EDC. Tests with different accumulation rates and temperature scenarios do not entirely resolve this discrepancy. Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.

www.copernicus.org...

And to corroborate my other statements.

P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss (in press) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science.
The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
.....
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period.

www-user.zfn.uni-bremen.de...

A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

Link

Some members, and scientists claim that the RWM (Roman Warming period), the MWP (Medieval Warming Period), and the LIA (Little Ice Age) were not global events, yet research from around the world also contradicts that claim.

Chilean Continental Slope, Southern Chile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Lamy, F., Hebbeln, D., Röhl, U. and Wefer, G. 2001. Holocene rainfall variability in southern Chile: a marine record of latitudinal shifts of the Southern Westerlies. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 185: 369-382.
Description
The authors used the iron content from an ocean sediment core taken from the Chilean continental slope (41°S, 74.45°W) as a proxy for historic rainfall in this region during the Holocene. Results indicated several centennial and millennial-scale phases of rainfall throughout this period, including an era of decreased rainfall "coinciding with the Medieval Warm Period," which was followed by an era of increased rainfall during the Little Ice Age. Given these results, they concluded that their data "provide further indications that both the LIA and MWP were global climate events."

www.co2science.org...

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Abstract It is hypothesised that the Medieval Warm Period was preceded and followed by periods of moraine deposition associated with glacier expansion. Improvements in the methodology of radiocarbon calibration make it possible to convert radiocarbon ages to calendar dates with greater precision than was previously possible. Dating of organic material closely associated with moraines in many montane regions has reached the point where it is possible to survey available information concerning the timing of the medieval warm period. The results suggest that it was a global event occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D., possibly interrupted by a minor readvance of ice between about 1050 and 1150 A.D.

www.springerlink.com...

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

All this claim that "if we don't do something now we are all going to die" is just a ploy to get people to accept a global tax.

Yes Climate Change will continue happening, and it is probably going to be devastating for some people around the world, but such changes have happened thousands of times without any intervention by mankind, and mankind has no control or say over these Climate Changes.

And, not to be repetitive, what's the harm in just trying to cut down on the "crap we spew into the air"? It just means healthier air, and who doesn't like that?

Plus I think sometimes we get too bogged down in the facts to take a minute to sit and just think about things with an objective mindset.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by Hawker9
And, not to be repetitive, what's the harm in just trying to cut down on the "crap we spew into the air"? It just means healthier air, and who doesn't like that?

Again, because "CO2" is not a pollutant...

If you want to concentrate on pollution, then the chemicals being released in to rivers is a lot more important than CO2.

Anyways, those who want to blame mankind are asking for extreme changes which will affect not only the economy of most developed nations in the world but the lives of most people in developed, and developing nations.

We can't change overnight, or tomorrow into another fuel source because every infraestructure in the planet depends heavily in "oil" whether you like it or not.

The food you, or whoever in your family, get to buy doesn't get there by magic. That food was grown with the help of oil byproducts, such as fuel, plastic, etc. That food is collected using the same byproducts, that food is transported with trucks which use such byproducts.

Any change into a new power source will take decades, and it has been ongoing, slowly but we are getting there.

The changes that some, through the "Kyoto protocol" or other such plans, want to make will only destroy the lives of millions, and still Climate Change will continue happening, it wouldn't even be mitigated.

Originally posted by Hawker9
Plus I think sometimes we get too bogged down in the facts to take a minute to sit and just think about things with an objective mindset.

Actually, you don't seem to have taken a minute to just sit down and think with "an objective mindset".

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

Or maybe not...

So now your friends are trying to make the CO2 lag dissapear too?... like they tried "their dissapearing act of the Roman Warming period, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age"?...

So what's new huh?...

This is culled from the Union of Concerned Scientists website: see the links

www.ucsusa.org...

It is very interesting and note that while it discusses CO2, it also discusses other fine particle pollutants as contributing factors as well.... To hear muaddib tell it the whole issue comes down to CO2 and that is simply not true.

Global Warming 101
Human Fingerprints

Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.

n its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land clearing has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

Climate is influenced by many factors, both natural and human. Things that increase temperature, such as increases in heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants or an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits, are examples of "positive" forcings or drivers. Volcanic events and some types of human-made pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere, lower temperature and are examples of "negative" forcings or drivers. Natural climate drivers include the sun's energy output, aerosols from volcanic activity, and changes in snow and ice cover. Human climate drivers include heat-trapping emissions from cars and power plants, aerosols from pollution, and soot particles.

Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heat-trapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone.

Measurements show that global average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades....
....Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from volcanic events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor fluctuations in the sun's output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any other current climate driver. Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human activities as the main driver of our warming climate.

Melanie Fitzpatrick (Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and UCS consultant) prepared this summary with input from Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists) and reviews by Philip Mote (Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and Washington's state climatologist), Richard Gammon (Chemistry, Oceanography, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington) and Peter Frumhoff (Union of Concerned Scientists). (c)2006 Union of Concerned Scientists

References
1. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2006. Global temperature trends: 2005 summation. New York, NY. Online at data.giss.nasa.gov...

2. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center. 2006. Climate of 2005 - annual report. Asheville, NC. Online at www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4. EPICA. 2004. Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature 429:623-628.

5. Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.

6. Siegenthaler, U., T.F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D. Lüthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J.-M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J. Jouzel. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310:1313-1316.

7. Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.

8. Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao, P.J. Gleckler, B.D. Santer, J.M. Gregory, and W.M. Washington. 2005. Penetration of human-induced warming into the world's oceans. Science 309:284-287.

9. Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer. 2005. Warming of the world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophysical Research Letters 32. Online at www.agu.org... (doi:10.1029/2004GL021592).

10. Santer, B.D., M.F. Wehner, T.M.L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G.A. Meehl, K.E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W.M. Washington, J.S. Boyle, and W. Bruggemann. 2003. Contribution of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropospheric height changes. Science 301:479-483.

I include the references in case anybody is curious.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by grover]