It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Yea, I go with cow farts too. Easy to blame them as the won't confirm nor deny anything.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: SirKonstantin
No doubt it is happening. It has happened (climate change) since the first dawn on earth, so to speak.
There are clearly documented cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods since a single land mass began blocking the currents that used to virtually circle the earth. As a result we can see that we are nearing the end of the current interglacial period. Also, as we can see, this interglacial period has not yet, and may not, experienced the higher global temperatures as seen in previous interglacials.
I would like to point out that the growth in Antarctic ice coverage (sea ice) increases the planet's albedo, as has the slight increase in Arctic ice over the last year. Combine that with the drop in average global temps over the last 4 years and maybe we have something significant, or maybe not. 1 year of ice growth in the north does not a trend make. 4 years of dropping temps is not enough to establish a pattern either.
Hence, the temperatures we see, and have experienced over the last 150 years are not outside the norm. Add to that the GHG hype is vastly overstated. Glacial periods have begun with co2 levels at multiple times our current level.
Therefore, the questioning of man's responsibility for the temperature increases over the last 150 years is valid. It is well known that co2 rises as ocean temps rise. In fact, there is documentation that shows a typical lag of 800-1000 years of co2 increases as compared to the rise of temperatures.
The co2 hysteria is being manipulated to forward the green agenda.
I can provide academic, in most cases, sources to support my above statements. The sources that are not academic are not from tin-foil-hat wearing websites, but rather NOAA and other similar sources.
Being a semi-retired, no longer practicing geologist I knew the whole co2 hysteria agenda was bogus when I first watched Al Gore's a "Convenient Lie". Obvious manipulation of truth, combined with (most importantly) the exclusion of data which promoted the belief that man was directly and provably responsible for global warming.
The approach that our climate was in balance until man's Industrial Age is such a load of bull crap it boggles the mind. Climate is never in balance. It is always changing...always. Again, I stress that we are not outside the norms of previous interglacial periods and, indeed, we are actually below the highs in temps reached in previous interglacial periods.
17 years of global warming pause, combined with a decrease in average global temp over the last 4 years, may not mean much, or it may be signaling the approaching end of our current interglacial period. There is not enough time involved to declare it...but in the future we will know which is true.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: network dude
Neither the growth of Antarctica sea ice, nor the growth of Arctic ice last year was predicted by the IPCC or any other model.
The IPCC seems not to know about the scientific method. They keep presenting their predictions as if they are based on something sound, ignoring the fact that everything they predict is faulty. Ergo, their model is faulty. By definition they should be going back to the drawing board.
originally posted by: network dude
Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.
Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.
Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.
Is this proof of Global warming, or is this expected? I don't want to just claim it's significant, but damn, it sure sounds like it.
Or perhaps this is irrelevant.
The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
Lovejoy's new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998—a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis. "We find many examples of these variations in pre-industrial temperature reconstructions" based on proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediment, Lovejoy says. "Being based on climate records, this approach avoids any biases that might affect the sophisticated computer models that are commonly used for understanding global warming."
What's more, the cooling effect observed between 1998 and 2013 "exactly follows a slightly larger pre-pause warming event, from 1992 to 1998," so that the natural cooling during the "pause" is no more than a return to the longer term natural variability, Lovejoy concludes. "The pause thus has a convincing statistical explanation." The methodology developed in Lovejoy's two recent papers could also be used by researchers to help analyze precipitation trends and regional climate variability and to develop new stochastic methods of climate forecasting, he adds.
It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.
The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.
Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter