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.

 

New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I just don't think that you can insult someone that says they believe in Man Made Global Warming due to all the scientific data out there. Sure, I know there is a lot of noise and clutter and crap in the debate on both sides. And, to be sure, there is a lot of stuff that appears to refute Man Made Global Warming, but it's like evolution or the moon landings. There is more scientific data and evidence for it than against it. That's my opinion but it's also based on science and lot's of reading and research. I think I'm pretty well informed on the matter. Not an expert, just as informed as most and probably more than 80% of the members on ATS at the least.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mbkennel

I know a rocket scientist.
Really.

(It don't make me a rocket scientist)

(really)


Exactly my point! And you wouldn't mock rocket scientists who said why rockets work or don't work, but with climate, because the experts are telling people unpleasant truths with political consequences, whatever the geophysical scientists say, well, screw them and their ideas?


Except that many experts have been shown to falsify data.

Except that many experts have been shown to have political agendas that coincide with their "data".



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I do not know if man is responsible for global warming or not. I do know this is our only planet and we cannot afford to take a chance.

purp.:-)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Isn't it sort of a stretch to think that we know every single volcanic eruption in the last 4500 years?


No idea, have you looked into it?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mbkennel

I know a rocket scientist.
Really.

(It don't make me a rocket scientist)

(really)


Exactly my point! And you wouldn't mock rocket scientists who said why rockets work or don't work, but with climate, because the experts are telling people unpleasant truths with political consequences, whatever the geophysical scientists say, well, screw them and their ideas?


Except that many experts have been shown to falsify data.

Except that many experts have been shown to have political agendas that coincide with their "data".


You just described the climate denier machine, funded by industry and foxnews.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

That's the problem with climate-whatever!

So much data by so many people all who have agendas!

If you're all man-made-climate-change then there is data!
If you're a skeptic, then there is data!

The Earth is @6 billion years old. Give or take.

Mankind isn't even a ripple in its timeline.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
This seems to be the source, yet for some reason you didn't bother to link it:


The source was in my second reply.

I'm going to have to say that at first glance it looks like garbage.


Perhaps you should take it up with the authors.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mbkennel

I know a rocket scientist.
Really.

(It don't make me a rocket scientist)

(really)


Exactly my point! And you wouldn't mock rocket scientists who said why rockets work or don't work, but with climate, because the experts are telling people unpleasant truths with political consequences, whatever the geophysical scientists say, well, screw them and their ideas?


Except that many experts have been shown to falsify data.

Except that many experts have been shown to have political agendas that coincide with their "data".


You just described the climate denier machine, funded by industry and foxnews.


I also described MSNBC and Mother Jones.

*meh*



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If weather is the measurement of air temperature, moisture level, cloud cover, wind speed, air pressure, etc. for a given place and a given point in time.... and we can't predict it with a great deal of accuracy for a 48 hour period in a given place and time.... and climate is based on how weather varies over the entire planet for extended periods of time... I fail to see how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that anyone, anywhere on this planet, can in any way whatsoever, predict the climate of the planet when we can't even accurately measure and predict the weather, which is far smaller scale with almost the same set of variables.


That question has been answered and answered and answered innumerable times but the ignorant don't want to learn.
The objects of prediction in climate and weather are not the same, and the models, though related are not the same either. It is not necessary to predict whether in 2178 whether it will be sunny or cloudy in Vladivostok (weather prediction) to have some idea about climate prediction which is about averages and physics and patterns.
The people who do this for a living understand it. There is no fundamental scientific problem.

You can't predict what anybody's poker hand at a casino will be. However, you can predict how often kings come up, averaged over time, if you know the properties of the deck.


Oh, I suppose that the science is also settled too, because you say so.

No it isn't.

And the questions have NOT been answered over and over again, they have been dodged over and over again by the arrogant who don't want to learn how to learn.

My field of work creates models AND the software that runs them, for just about every industry you can think of. I can tell you that you are completely wrong in your statement. The same variables that are used in predicting weather are aggregated, averaged, transformed, to be used in climate models.

How unbelievably stupid to think that temperature today and temperature tomorrow won't be used to generate a mean temperature for the month or year, and then that data will be rolled right into a climate model to extrapolate what the climate would be based on the known variables used in the algorithm / model. You think scientists come up with these models? LOL The scientists certainly rely on them, but they hire other people and companies to write the models and software to run them.

Your analogy of poker is quite ironic... because you know there are 52 cards in a deck... 4 suits... aces to kings.... you have all of the variables.

You do NOT have all of the variables that go into weather OR climate, both of which rely on the same properties and variables based on either measurements or proxies. Constants, variables and algorithms is what your "climate science" is based on my friend, I have seen it first-hand and worked with it. It is all based on math and data that may or may not be accurate depending on its source.

Climate is the measure of weather in a specific location over an extended period of time. Those changes in weather are due to weather patterns. Weather patterns are caused by atmospheric pressure changes, which are caused by convection, which is generated mostly by heat from the sun.

The excuse that weather and climate are separate is getting old and is an insult to any intelligent individual.

Even NOAA says so, perhaps you should go argue and insult their staff.

~Namaste
edit on 4-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I think your bias is making you miss the point. All data, I repeat, ALL DATA, shows that in fact, the global temperatures have ALWAYS changed. If you dispute that, please go away, if you understand that, then you can look at another point of view. With knowledge that our Earths history is cyclic, it's reasonable to assume that current climate may in fact by cyclic as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
So you don't believe in a cyclic nature of climate?

That's because I believe in a cyclic nature of climate.

True! When I see science that validates what I believe, I'm more likely to believe that data.

As you will believe the data that supports your beliefs and negate any data that doesn't support your beliefs. As seen in this thread.

Are you still holding your breath?

Yet another strawman, and a revealing self-depiction.

You have continued to construct strawmen, refuse to apologize for your slander, and generally been sarcastic or worse to anyone calling you out on your behavior.

I haven't said anything about the cycles at all. You seem to want to focus on that rather than the simple fact that the charts that keep getting posted do not accurately portray recent history, thus falsifying them entirely. If you cannot accept that, you should not even bother questioning science.

originally posted by: beezzer
Except that many experts have been shown to falsify data.

Except that many experts have been shown to have political agendas that coincide with their "data".

Says the person who is falsifying other peoples' posts and arguments in this very thread.
edit on 18Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:43:24 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: clarification



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
continued from: jadedANDcynical



Evidence that the solar system resides in a dust congested environs, of a current influx of interstellar dust, of acid residues in 15,800 year old polar ice bearing a solar cycle signature, of episodes of accelerated deposition of cosmogenic beryllium, Ir, and Ni during the Pleistocene, and of intense solar flare activity at the end of the ice age together suggest that the Termination I29 deglaciation, and other climatic transitions before it, may have been extraterrestrially induced.


But how are you gonna blame the earthlings for this?


Such extraterrestrial disturbances could account for the abruptness and global coherence of climatic transitions observed in the terrestrial record. Moreover such short-period stochastic forcings could account for a large percentage of the variance in the Earth's ice volume record which is not explained by orbital cycle forcing.


Um, seems to me all of these thbgs are grander in scale than what ever we may be doing.

Now, we are poisoning our ecosystem in so many ways but I maintain there are greater forces thanbare dreamed of by most people, scientists included.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The only thing I know for sure is that as time goes on, the rate of temp increase is deviating further and further from the rate of CO2 increase.... which is going to eventually throw the AGW theory totally on its head.

It's bad enough these half-assed scientists are forever having to "massage" their numbers to fall back in line with real-world observations.

There will come a time when they're going to run out of "explanations" for their shortcomings.

... and I have a nice bottle of Crown Royal Special Edition whiskey waiting for just such a day.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So, you're just going to post a chart and don't care to defend the contents of the chart when it's clear the chart disagrees with reality?


originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

I think your bias is making you miss the point. All data, I repeat, ALL DATA, shows that in fact, the global temperatures have ALWAYS changed. If you dispute that, please go away, if you understand that, then you can look at another point of view. With knowledge that our Earths history is cyclic, it's reasonable to assume that current climate may in fact by cyclic as well.

What bias?

Those are temperature readings from GISTEMP. They say a totally different thing from what that chart says. How is that biased? It's just plain, unadulterated fact



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
The only thing I know for sure is that as time goes on, the rate of temp increase is deviating further and further from the rate of CO2 increase.... which is going to eventually throw the AGW theory totally on its head.

It's bad enough these half-assed scientists are forever having to "massage" their numbers to fall back in line with real-world observations.

There will come a time when they're going to run out of "explanations" for their shortcomings.

... and I have a nice bottle of Crown Royal Special Edition whiskey waiting for just such a day.



I'll bring my own glass and join you.



~Namaste



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
So, you're just going to post a chart and don't care to defend the contents of the chart when it's clear the chart disagrees with reality?


Frankly, I hope it is wrong, I want the earth to get warmer. I pray that Global Warming is real.

So let the authors defend it if you feel it is inaccurate, maybe they can do the Ask Me Anything thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I realize the current tactic is to refute all data and data sources, but many, many things point to the fact that the Earth's climate is not static. Things have changed. Some took a LOOOOONG time, and some happened almost overnight. I have one question for you.

Do you believe that the Earth's climate has in fact varied up and down over the history of it's existence?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
In spite of the fact that I enthusiastically embraced modern tech then minute I could get my hands on my first (nearly shoebox sized 4 function calculator), there are times I doubt whether computers and computer modeling were all that much of a gift...

The amount of Native American blood in my family tree is barely enough to mention but one of my best friends (who I've known as long as I've known my wife and is my blood brother) is about 40% Native American and was on top of the "outdoor burning" controversy pretty well as soon as I first heard of it. The Elders know that the hearth is part of the natural order of things. Just as a forest needs the occasional fire to make room for new growth, a healthy environment needs those bits of airborne ash in order for the moisture to have a medium with which to merge and condense into rain.

Quite possibly, California would be better off if those who send down proclamations from their ivory towers about what is best for everyone else would bite their tongue once in a while and allow a few more Pleasant Valley Sundays.

THIS worries me a whole lot more and nobody seems to care...

September ‎03, ‎2014, ‏‎9:11:43 AM


September ‎03, ‎2014, ‏‎1:16:13 PM



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne




I'll bring my own glass and join you.



It's a date then.

I'll be the one wearing the smug Fozzy Bear smile from ear to ear.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornShucker
...a few more Pleasant Valley Sundays.


The street this song is named after is in my home town.


Now back to your never-ending global warming debate...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join