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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
It's a date then.

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


Can I come if I bring the cigars? We can light them on the smoldering corpse of Manbearpig.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I have been studying the history around where i live and the area has been slowly warming for 5000 years since the holocene climate optimum.

There was a lake where i live 5000 years ago now its a dry desert and the tree rings show a very slow warming.

For most of my life in the summer month of Aug the temperatures would run around 105 to 112 degrees most days.

The last few years the temperatures have been down in Aug to around 100 to 105.

This year its ran 98 to 103 avg with only a couple days hitting 105.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
It's the SUN !!

I bet 100 carbon credits !!






posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I hear you.

This summer for us has been like the last 3: kind of mild, and not hitting any 100s, which is kind of unusual for us.

Couple that with how cold this past winter was (and now the long range winter forecast for the SE is: worse than last winter).

However, it's just weather (since weather and climate are two different things).



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I wouldn't worry too much about that being the case. Let's look at it again:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Now look at the measured GISTEMP records (anomaly & index) back to 1880:

It literally does not align to reality, so it's pretty safe to call it bunk. Look at where the temps are on the first chart and where they are on the second.
a reply to: network dude

I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding refutation. If a chart is wrong in part, why bother looking at it more?

Of course the climate has changed in the past. Otherwise we wouldn't have had ice ages long ago, for example. Do you know how much it has varied, though?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Can I come if I bring the cigars? We can light them on the smoldering corpse of Manbearpig.


If you're bringing cigars, yer damn straight you can !

Hell, we can make it a full blown ATS revival tent gathering, dance around the smoldering manbearpig corpse, and bite off the head of the Bobble-Head Al Gore car dash decoration.



Think I'm gonna have to get a bigger bottle...




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the SUN !!

I bet 100 carbon credits !!


I felt bad for Discover Magazine when they bought some carbon credits a couple or three years ago in order to help readers understand what the process they were describing was all about. Amazingly enough, when they went back later to try to document where the money had gone and what it had accomplished nobody could give them a specific answer. The money went somewhere and did something it's just that nobody can say what!!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
I wouldn't worry too much about that being the case. Let's look at it again:


Looks like a fairly consistent rise in both charts from 1880 to the present.

But to be honest, I am more concerned about the colder periods on the chart I linked; I do not want them to happen. I hate shoveling my roof.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Can I come if I bring the cigars? We can light them on the smoldering corpse of Manbearpig.


If you're bringing cigars, yer damn straight you can !

Hell, we can make it a full blown ATS revival tent gathering, dance around the smoldering manbearpig corpse, and bite off the head of the Bobble-Head Al Gore car dash decoration.



Think I'm gonna have to get a bigger bottle...



If I show up then yes, you'll need a bigger bottle.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Must be a localized thing, because it sure as heck ain't been getting cooler. Refer to this. While it's cooler in parts of North America this summer, that's not necessarily the case everywhere:
Year Ja Fe M Ap Ma Jn Ju Au S Oc No De
2008 23 31 69 48 46 43 54 39 59 62 63 50
2009 56 48 49 57 59 61 66 61 64 58 71 57
2010 65 74 87 82 70 59 56 59 56 65 74 44
2011 45 44 57 60 47 54 70 68 51 59 50 47
2012 39 42 52 61 70 58 50 57 67 72 69 46
2013 62 53 61 47 55 60 50 60 72 60 75 60
2014 68 43 58 71 76 62 52

edit on 19Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:14:42 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: trying to fix alignment



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the SUN !!

I bet 100 carbon credits !!


I felt bad for Discover Magazine when they bought some carbon credits a couple or three years ago in order to help readers understand what the process they were describing was all about. Amazingly enough, when they went back later to try to document where the money had gone and what it had accomplished nobody could give them a specific answer. The money went somewhere and did something it's just that nobody can say what!!!!


It became invisible.

Just like CO2.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




If I show up then yes, you'll need a bigger bottle.


Naw, I'll just stick a carrot in your drink to make the liquid level rise up to give the illusion that you have more in your glass.

I'm kinda smart that way.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except for, you know, 1883 being a degree Celsius cooler than 2009.
And 1982 being listed as warmer than 2009 even though 1982 is tied with 1985 as the coldest year since 1979.
And 1991 being listed as warmer than 2005, even though it was actually more than a quarter of a degree Celsius cooler.

You know, little things.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding refutation. If a chart is wrong in part, why bother looking at it more?

Of course the climate has changed in the past. Otherwise we wouldn't have had ice ages long ago, for example. Do you know how much it has varied, though?


Enough to freeze glaciers and then thaw them out. I'd say more than .7 degrees.


Weather you like the data shown, or even agree with that particular chart, data exists, showing the same sort of variance.
You like to discredit specific data, yet try really hard to ignore the really BIG picture. This is where those of us on the fence cringe at the sides that seem cemented. I know that chemtrails are fantasy, but I am not sure about AGW. My logical side points to the big picture and even though you all have some good points, your reluctance in accepting the fact that our climate has always changed naturally as opposed to "this time, it's us" puts you into the cemented feet category.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Naw, I'll just stick a carrot in your drink to make the liquid level rise up to give the illusion that you have more in your glass.
I'm kinda smart that way.


Reminds me of an old Dean Martin/Frank Sinatra joke they did on stage:

"I have this healthy drink now, it's Jack and carrot juice."

"Dean, how is that healthy? You still get drunk."

"At least I can still see straight."



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Good, like I said, I hope it is wrong.

Go, go, global warming.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

George Burns once said, "It only takes one drink to get me drunk. It's either the 13th or the 14th".

Global warming means Oceanside property in Nebraska. (think about it)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

That's how science works. If something is clearly wrong in part, the whole is discredited, and should be redone. This is a fundamental building block of science. If this bothers you, sorry, but that's how it goes.

I think I've told you this before, but yeah - the difference between today's global mean temperature and that of the last ice age was about 5 degrees Celsius.

From 1951 to 2001, the global mean temperature rose half a degree Celsius. It doesn't sound like much, but that change is a lot - and over a very short time frame.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
I have been studying the history around where i live and the area has been slowly warming for 5000 years since the holocene climate optimum.

There was a lake where i live 5000 years ago now its a dry desert and the tree rings show a very slow warming.

For most of my life in the summer month of Aug the temperatures would run around 105 to 112 degrees most days.

The last few years the temperatures have been down in Aug to around 100 to 105.

This year its ran 98 to 103 avg with only a couple days hitting 105.


Some friendly advice if you are going to use that source that was mentioned to you for the GISTEMP data, make sure that you read the fine print too (emphasis mine):


sources: GHCN-v3 1880-07/2014 + SST: ERSST 1880-07/2014
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing


Translation: Data was thrown out when it didn't match a statistical average and couldn't be explained (elimination of outliers), and was then averaged and "flattened" on the peaks (extremes) to make it homogenous (homogeneity adjustment).

You can look up for yourself what this means.

Basically, if a measurement came in too far above or below a threshold determined by "someone" to be acceptable, it was considered an anomaly and thrown own as "not being significant" or being too far to one extreme or another to be "valid" or "statistically significant", instead of asking why first. No explanation needed, just toss it... that's how it was handled. Almost every climate model uses data that is based on the same exact process.

"Must be something wrong with the thermometer Charlie, I've got a whacky measurement..."

"That's ok, no need to figure out why, just toss that one out... there's plenty more."

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



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
That's how science works. If something is clearly wrong in part, the whole is discredited, and should be redone.


Just out of curiosity, how would this science thing you speak of work if people fudged their data?


ETA: Oops, I see that SonOfTheLawOfOne just addressed this in the above post.



edit on 4-9-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because global warming flooded his Coor Lite kegerator




top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join