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.

 

The ABC's of debating AGW.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

I'm not sure how to parse your first sentence, and furthermore I debunked all of those "Consider:" claims from that article before you posted them. Please read the thread. That article is nonsense written by literal paid anti-AGW shills.




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
The link in the statement regarding pre-inductrial co2 concentration takes on to Mauna Loa co2 ..

I would like to point out that correlation does not equal causation. As temperatures rise, co2 is released from the ocean. As temperatures drop, co2 is stored in the ocean. This is one of the reasons that at the end of glacial growth that co2 level increases typically lag behind temperature increases by 800-1000 years.

...And? I list the relevant contents to the point I'm making immediately afterwards - that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is considered to be 280ppm before the industrial age began.

Correlation does not equal causation, but the CO2 concentration is increasing slightly less than what we humans are estimated as emitting into the atmosphere - and it seems to be getting worse. Historically, CO2 leads temperature increase. I want to again note here that the term "historically" means during written history, which is well after the last ice age. Prehistorically, CO2 lags temperature rise by less than 200 years - in the Southern Hemisphere. What about the Northern Hemisphere? Well, CO2 leads temperature rise there - by hundreds of years.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
Here I'll answer it for you with today's news, which is Old News to all of us that knew it was All About That All mighty Tax Dollar!

Obama’s Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home




Eric Worrall writes: The imminent climate summit in New York is rapidly turning into an utter embarrassment for President Obama and UN Secretary General Bank Ki-Moon, in addition to becoming a bit of a punishment round for national deputy leaders.

Aussie PM Tony Abbott today defended his decision not to hop on an earlier flight to America, so he could attend the UN climate conference in New York, because he has more important matters to attend to, such as running the country.
www.heraldsun.com.au...




Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also indicated they likely won’t attend the summit.
thediplomat.com...



Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated he will not be attending. ca.news.yahoo.com...

Even Angela Merkel, President of über green Germany, will not be attending the UN climate summit. notrickszone.com...

Of course, things would probably have been totally different, if the summit organisers had guaranteed that attendees would definitely not have to sit through any more boring climate presentations by former Vice President Al Gore.

Link
Global Warming and or Climate Change is Bull Sh^t it's no different than the 70's scare of the Ice Age returning.
Call it what it is!

You want a Scientific Fact to Dwell on I'll give you on, When Mt Pinatubo erupted in the 90's, it released more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL human activity in history!
That is a scientific FACT!
edit on 16-9-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Just remember that there are literally thousands of scientists who actually look at the data and believe in Man made global warming. Actual Scientists that is, reading actual data.

Keeping that in mind, it's not too far fetched that some of us would actually listen to them, especially knowing that many scientists who publicly disagree with man made global warming have there hands in the wallets of big fossil fuel companies.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: guohua

There was never any huge clamor on global cooling. That's been debunked. There were a small handful of scientists who put forth that theory and some science fiction writers etc. But it had nowhere the huge consensus that man made global warming has now.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Is there currently a pause in warming, and if not, why are scientists trying to explain it?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: guohua
Global Warming and or Climate Change is Bull Sh^t it's no different than the 70's scare of the Ice Age returning.
Call it what it is!

You want a Scientific Fact to Dwell on I'll give you on, When Mt Pinatubo erupted in the 90's, it released more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL human activity in history!
That is a scientific FACT!

I frankly don't give two cents about what politicians think, so why is any of that relevant to this discussion?

You'll note in that cartoon that it says "INCONVENIENT TRUTH: GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DECLINING." This is a rather odd claim, given that this is what temperatures look like according to RSS and NASA's GISTEMP since August 1996 - neither of which show decline:


Additionally, you are demonstrably wrong about Mt. Pinatubo and quite ignorant of what our emissions are.

CO2 emission events
Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt
Mount Pinatubo, 15 June 1991 0.05 Gt
Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 3500


We emitted an estimate 36 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere last year alone.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

Is there currently a pause in warming, and if not, why are scientists trying to explain it?


The "pause" is dependent upon certain data sets. Not all data sets show a pause. You can check this yourself using this tool.

There are 8 data sets: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid.
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

Some data sets disagree on which year was the hottest - 1998 was the hottest in RSS, while 2010 was the hottest in GISTEMP, as you can see in the previous post.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

But why, if the pause is not accurate, are scientist trying to explain it? I am not sure you understand the problems non-science folks who try to use critical thinking have with all this.


ETA:
and please understand that I sincerely do appreciate your input here. But I need to understand this in layman's terms.


edit on 16-9-2014 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

But why, if the pause is not accurate, are scientist trying to explain it? I am not sure you understand the problems non-science folks who try to use critical thinking have with all this.


ETA:
and please understand that I sincerely do appreciate your input here. But I need to understand this in layman's terms.



You may be on to something really important or...you may be getting caught up in the details.

Again, keep in mind that the thousands of scientists of all types including climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, nuclear physicists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers and on and on. They all agree that by looking at the data, we are in the midst of Man Made Global Warming...despite any pause that you see.

So that leaves only a couple of options...

A. They are all in on a conspiracy. Every last one of them. You see through it! Not likely.
B. They made some big mistakes and you are the only one that sees the truth. Again, not likely.
C. This pause you speak of, is the most important piece of data that they are NOT looking at for some reason. They've missed this small yet monumental piece of the puzzle. Not likely.
D. All the evidence is there, yet you continue to look at small pieces of it that seem anomalous, so as to justify your belief...you're need to disprove man made global warming for some unknown reason.

My guess is D.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I would actually call "brain dead' all the people who keep believing in AGW despite the fact that the "main proponents of AGW" have been caught LYING, time and again... Tell us again, IF there is any truth about AGW WHY THE LIES?... Why publish and post false information?...

BTW, fyi, because a majority thinks something it doesn't mean "it must be right"...

How about discussing the topic itself?... But of course not, if anyone disagrees with you it is better to just proclaim "you are a science denier, a climate denier" than to actually use your brain and discuss the topic itself...

Who cares about discussing the topic itself huh?...

Oh and btw...what research did you post in this thread?... Absolutely nothing... A commentary piece based on "opinions" about some scientists most of us have never heard about and the "imagined" claim that "they must be receiving money from oil" which is what we see coming from the AGW camp all the time... Nothing at all but the claim that people must "believe" in AGW otherwise the witch hunt begins...

Since when is an "OPINION article based on fact"?... perhaps you missed the part about it being "an opinion"?...

lol, some people these days...



edit on 16-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

Again, keep in mind that the thousands of scientists of all types including climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, nuclear physicists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers and on and on. They all agree that by looking at the data, we are in the midst of Man Made Global Warming...despite any pause that you see.


...


False, all you need is to "control the information" about global warming/climate change, and there is plenty of "real" (not imagined) evidence that there are a core of scientists who have been publishing FALSE information, blocking the release of information, and even deleting raw temperature data so that no one can verify their results...

You don't need to have "thousands and thousands of scientists in the hoax", only a few main proponents who control the information. More so when there are not thousands upon thousands of scientist experts in climate change... That is a lie, there are only a few hundred or so.

There are scientists who are experts in other fields of science, and even non-scientists who are policymakers and proclaim to be scientists and part of the "thousands upon thousands of climate experts who all agree"...and the majority of them make decisions based on the "controlled information" campaign behind the climate change debate.

BTW, yes there is actual evidence to support this. For example...



Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim
Updated 17:21 11 January 2010 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide



Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.


Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

High probability

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."



The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.

'Disturbing' prediction

The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
...

www.newscientist.com...








edit on 16-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and link.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Yea, I get that I am an idiot and all, but even the billions and billions of YOUR scientists are trying to explain the pause that you don't believe in. Are they just as dumb as me?

And why on all the charts. Please read that last sentence slowly, ALL the charts, there are peaks and valleys. Meaning that at times in the past, there were hot points and cold points. And based on the FACT that we aren't under water right now, or anywhere close to being underwater, the models that predicted runaway warming seem to be a tiny bit flawed. Pardon me if I don't just ignore that so keep thing convenient.

See, I don't deny that it's happening, and I am not even sure that it's not man made, I just am not ready to be another lemming like you.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...


Then there is the Russian data, which the Russians themselves stated that the Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with climate data from Russia...


...
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
...

en.ria.ru...

The same thing was done with the Chinese stations and other data. You can find more info on the following thread.

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

Yea, I get that I am an idiot and all, but even the billions and billions of YOUR scientists are trying to explain the pause that you don't believe in. Are they just as dumb as me?
...



Errr... there are no "billions and billions of scientists"... You do know Earth only has about 6 billion people right? And the large majority of them do not have a college degree...


edit on 16-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add quote



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Are the deniers still employing former tobacco scientists? Funny how the deniers are always connected to the same old right wing think tanks and or industry....ever notice that?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

Yea, I get that I am an idiot and all, but even the billions and billions of YOUR scientists are trying to explain the pause that you don't believe in. Are they just as dumb as me?

And why on all the charts. Please read that last sentence slowly, ALL the charts, there are peaks and valleys. Meaning that at times in the past, there were hot points and cold points. And based on the FACT that we aren't under water right now, or anywhere close to being underwater, the models that predicted runaway warming seem to be a tiny bit flawed. Pardon me if I don't just ignore that so keep thing convenient.

See, I don't deny that it's happening, and I am not even sure that it's not man made, I just am not ready to be another lemming like you.


You're obviously not dumb. Not even close. I'm not a lemming either. But you can see what I'm saying right? I'm going with science. It's like evolution. There are some gaps, but what's the alternative? Almost all scientists agree. it's the same with Man made global warming. There are some things like the pause and the peaks and valleys but overall it's good science, just like evolution.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, I was using dramatic affect since 99.99999999999% of all scientist think man made GW is real.

(see, in reality, there are some who aren't quite sure yet, but nobody seems to count them.)

Sarcasm for humor. It helps me deal with being talked down to.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: network dude

Are the deniers still employing former tobacco scientists? Funny how the deniers are always connected to the same old right wing think tanks and or industry....ever notice that?


Wow... that is the "smoking gun" of the AGW proponents... EVERY TIME... can't discuss the topic so proclaim "they are today's tobacco industry'"... "they are all paid shills of the oil industry"...

Grow the hell up please...
edit on 16-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: amazing

Again, keep in mind that the thousands of scientists of all types including climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, nuclear physicists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers and on and on. They all agree that by looking at the data, we are in the midst of Man Made Global Warming...despite any pause that you see.


...


False, all you need is to "control the information" about global warming/climate change, and there is plenty of "real" (not imagined) evidence that there are a core of scientists who have been publishing FALSE information, blocking the release of information, and even deleting raw temperature data so that no one can verify their results...

You don't need to have "thousands and thousands of scientists in the hoax", only a few main proponents who control the information. More so when there are not thousands upon thousands of scientist experts in climate change... That is a lie, there are only a few hundred or so.

There are scientists who are experts in other fields of science, and even non-scientists who are policymakers and proclaim to be scientists and part of the "thousands upon thousands of climate experts who all agree"...and the majority of them make decisions based on the "controlled information" campaign behind the climate change debate.

BTW, yes there is actual evidence to support this. For example...



Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim
Updated 17:21 11 January 2010 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide



Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.


Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

High probability

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."



The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.

'Disturbing' prediction

The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
...

www.newscientist.com...









Yeah, but you can say the same thing about those scientist that are against man made global warming. Sure, there may be some scientist in a core group that are disregarding facts to push forth an agenda. That's entirely possible. We also know that there is without a doubt, money pouring into scientists from oil and car and big industry money who are paying for data that says there is no global warming.

Now, let's do something smart and cancel both of those groups out. What are we left with? Real scientists doing real science and a big chunk of them believe that we are in the midst of man made global warming.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join