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.
Humans are causing great changes to this planet. Anyone who tries to debate this is truly living in the dark.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I know......isnt global warming so crazy! Ugh I can almost hear the polar icecaps melting and hear polar bears crying out.....
Ps...isnt this the mildest Summer we've had in like, at least 5 years?
LoL where do you people come up with this stuff
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Also, did you even watch the video? Whether it is on YouTube or not is irrelevent--it's the content that matters. For you to dismiss it just because of its location on the web is contradictory to your claim that you research all sides of the debate.
"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing.
Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards."
-Anthony Watts
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I've written this over 100 times this year on ATS:
As a result of the industrial revolution there has been over a 40% rise of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. This is accepted by climate scientist all over the world. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 280ppm, now they are around 400ppm. It is also true that CO2 causes radiative forcing. Humans without any reasonable doubt are responsible for this spike of CO2!
I have yet to meet a reasonable person who does not agree that we are doing great harm to this planet. Unfortunately most who realize this feel powerless and continue on as if there is nothing they can do about it
Ah, yes, a "reasonable person," per your definition. "Great harm," per your definition.
Here's the problem--and apparently you missed my comment earlier: Historic records (drawn from ice-core samples and tree ring samples, amongst other things) that are widely accepted by "reasonable people" (to include me) show that rises in CO2 are a RESULT OF global temperature increases, not the cause.
So, even IF the industrial revolution has increased the CO2 by 40% (keep in mind, the scientific measuring devices back then were NOT of the same degree of sensitivity or consistency as they are now), that does not indicate AT ALL that it is causing any warming--or changes in climate, period.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Real science has no consensus.
Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.
AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.
originally posted by: grandmakdw
I have a close friend who is a meteorologist for NASA
He says that global warming is in no way man made, rather it is part of the regular cycle of the earth
He also says we can no more stop it or start it by what we do on the planet
I remember in the 1970's when all the scientists were warning us that an ice age was coming if we didn't stop using hydrocarbens. They blamed global cooling on what people were doing.
Sorry the science changes regularly, just because a scientist says it doesn't mean it is true.
Scientists have basically all agreed in my lifetime that I recall:
1st - man made global cooling
2nd - man made global warming
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Real science has no consensus.
That's bull#. Ask cardiologists if they think circulation is driven by the heart and lungs, or if it's driven by the thymus.
Fortunately, other than the shameful tobacco companies, there hasn't been economically driven BS to convince people that smog is not a problem because the scientific "consensus' that you breath through your lungs is a conspiracy hoax by grant-seeking greedy cardiologists and pulmonologists.
After all, the body is very complex, and there are all sorts of natural cycles and stuff, and who knows about the thymus? And insects breath through their skin!
Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.
AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.
Denial and misinterpretation of scientific results is sophistry yes.
There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You can see me as close-minded and having no weight in this discussion--that's fine, that's your choice--but don't believe for a second that you have superior intelligence or understanding over those who research all sides and have formed our conclusion thusly. So, keep questioning my level of knowledge, and I'll take solace in the fact that any comment you make about me and my knowledge is based on assumption...and we know what assuming does.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: mbkennel
There was NO previous scientific consensus about man-made global cooling!
The 70's scientists were economists and political scientists who claimed that energy should be rationed because we would run out when the climate turned colder.
Much has been written and argued, from all sides in the global warming debate, about the meaning of the asserted 17-year pause in global warming. Is a 17-year pause significant? Is a pause even occurring? Does the pause signal a longer-term halt to global warming or even a long-term cooling trend? Would a resumption of global warming to pre-pause rates end the global warming debate? A look at recent temperatures and their appropriate context provides helpful meaning to the much-discussed global warming pause.
Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979. Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the chart below showing the following temperature trends:
a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997
a large temperature spike in 1998
a return to the 1979-1997 mean in 1999-2000
a modest escalation of temperatures in 2001
an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014
If we choose a starting point of mid-1998, the planet has cooled during the past 16 years. If we choose a starting point of late 1997 or early 1999, temperatures have been flat during the past 15 and 17 years. Examining the totality of the 35-year temperature record, we see approximately 1/3 of 1 degree Celsius warming during the period. Accordingly, global warming has occurred at a pace of approximately 1 degree Celsius per century over the duration of the satellite record.
HAMPTON, Va. (WNEW) – A NASA scientist described a recent “global warming hiatus” that shows Earth’s surface temperatures warming at a slower rate than previous decades – but it is still warming.
Norman Loeb delivered a lecture entitled, “The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?” at the NASA Langley Research Center auditorium on Tuesday. The talk addressed challenges to scientists and increased skepticism among climate change skeptics due to the recent “hiatus” of global warming.
The federal space agency climate scientist explored research into a slow-down in surface warming over the last 15 years referred to as the “Global Warming Hiatus.” In recent years, the global mean surface temperature on Earth has increased at a rate that is about one-third of that from the past 60 years.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That doesn't negate the truth that people like me (Cincinnati area) experienced one of the coldest winters on record with (I think) a top-three ranking for the longest consecutive period of standing or accumulating snow on the ground.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: canucks555
Science has to be used to be proved. That is what science is for, to make things possible.
There are just as many true believers on the secular side as on the Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto sides.
The secular true believers are just going with the flow.
Real science has no consensus. Consensus is a political term. Anyone using the word consensus is pushing to make something involuntary.
AGW is political sophistry, not scientific knowledge.