It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The trend continues in August; The World is Warming as NASA says hottest on record

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

No, I am not. Or rather, it is part of the 60-70 year cycle that includes the pacific decadal.

Not to mention that if you look at the most current data you will see that the Atlantic has hit what may appear to be a peak in the oscillation. In other words, cooling may very likely be right around the corner and may explain the growth of sea ice as well as the cooling of the last 4 years (surfacet temps).

Here is the link:

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:25 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

That's in contradiction to the peer reviewed paper that I linked on several counts. Always look at the source regardless of whether what is being stated supports one's view. The author of the paper you link (and host of the site is Joseph D'Aleo, who was the Director of Meteorology for The Weather Channel but now has moved on to D'Aleo never finished his doctoral dissertation and also was a signatory for the Cornwall Alliance.

The founding principle behind the Cornwall Alliance is this:

A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is an evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles.

D'Aleo is a signatory on their "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which is this:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.


Additionally, D'Aleo is involved as a contributing author with the Frazier Institute, which is Calgary-based. For those that don't know, Calgary is Canada's Houston as basically the energy/oil company capital of Canada. No great surprise that a few of their members of the board are actually involved in energy companies.

Pg. 10:

Additionally, Frazier Institute does receive a good deal of financial backing by oil and energy companies as well as other really loved companies like Phillip-Morris. Talk about a conflict of interest. The Frazier Institute seems to be pretty much Canada's ALEC.

He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute in the same capacity, which also has received a great deal of funding from oil companies. Over half a million from Exxon alone up until it was revealed. These days, the oil companies no longer support the hydras that they created:

From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.

Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

D'Aleo has also written for the Energy Tribune, which is based out of Houston. Quelle surprise. It's "about us" is pretty clear where their interests lie.

Again, this is why citing one's potential conflicts of interest are so very, very important. I grew up in and worked in the oil industry. I do actually know how it works.

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 09:50 AM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

First have, apprarently, not read all the posts in the thread, specially not mine. I do not disavow global warming (ouch).

I am a geologist and the numbers are there for anyone to see. Global warming is nothing special. It happens EVERYTIME there is an interglacial period, which we are in. The question is, when will global cooling kick in, since, time-wise, we are approaching the end of this interglacial and we are just about due.

As far as the peer reviewed paper, you realize it was written in 2001, and the supporting data is only good to mid to late 90s. At least 16 years have passed since that period. BTW...I am very familiar with that paper. They make some good points, but when they wrote the paper they did not forsee the growth of sea ice in the Arcitc this year, nor did they see the growth of Antarctic sea ice by 18% over the last few years.

Here is a chart that shows clearly the pattern established in past interglacials. I want you to notice the peaks in temperatures in the previous interglacials compared to our current position. Also, look at the time frame involved in the beginning of warming during the interglacials and the peak temps at which global cooling kicked in.

I am not sure what year comprises the year 0 on the is more for geological applications and is not current to the last few years, I am certain. The key is the pattern. I have seen a more recent one and I believe the year 0 on this one is either the turn of the 20th century, up to 1975 at the latest.

edit on 27-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 03:16 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

My post was not directed towards you per se. I'm usually very blunt. My target was the author of the paper that you presented and why I questioned both its validity in terms of the author and their associations as likely conflicts of interests. It's really that simple.

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:33 PM
a reply to: WhiteAlice
Oh...I didn't take it personally.

There are other sources that also agree that we may be heading into a cooling phase re: oceanic cycles. Which would explain, perhaps, why the arctic is now gaining ice coverage.
One theory I read somewhere stated that once the ice melted in the arctic, that the currently would be opened up fully which would result in ice growth. Not sure I understand all the reasonings there, I didn't put much time in it. It was proposed prior to the most recent growth.
My thought is the arctic ice will either continue to grow or melting will pick back up as it had been before and the current year is just an anomaly. If it continues to grow, then we will, most likely, enter into a period of global cooling. Very simplistic, but there are a bunch of indicators that we may see a period of cooling or flatline (trendwise) temps over the next few years. What happens after that will tell the tale.
Unfortunately, even if we do hit a period of cooling or flatline temp-wise, I can see how that could be taken "out of context" and interpreted in many ways. That would be no guarantee that warming will not resume. We have not yet hit the highs of previous interglacials... So either we will see more warming, or we will be seeing something pretty odd in that global cooling kicked in early, compared to most interglacials.
By early I mean temperature wise... the timing, time period-wise, is close.

edit on 29-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:56 AM
haha, you can debate the cooling of the earth until the sun of truth will shine in your face.

btw the second sun is hidden in plain sight. It's just dormant. This will change soon with the flickr of an eye.

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:40 AM
To add to the conversation:

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:35 PM
a reply to: MOMof3

There was never, at least for me, a question whether climate change is happening. It has been happening since weather and our atmosphere appeared billions of years ago.

To deny climate change is just as ignorant as to claim climate was stable until man entered the scene. lol Climate has never been stable.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in