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

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cynic
a reply to: Chickensalad
Those facts are in direct contradiction to Big Al's Inconvenient Hogswallow. The fact is that the IPCC think tank was caught with their collective pants down in fudging their data. The fact that the AGW proponents fail to understand that or are too proud to look it up serves to prove that they are totally wrong in pushing the IPCC agenda. Climate change is real but natural and AGW is nothing but a touchy feel good tax grab.


Like I've already posted, this supposed fudged data was as the result of a study by one man...an admitted phony who used a fake name (Steven Goddard) to write articles as a skeptic of climate change. Tony Heller, this individual, then came out claiming to be a life-long environmentalist yet all the while crusading against AGW.

This one man vs. climate scientists, meteorologists, major climate organizations and etc.

Whatever!




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Ok let's just agree to disagree?

So the climate is changing? Why should we be concerned? It might be changing for the better...

Like you already stated, when climate was different, forests existed where deserts now exist or vice versa.

So the climate changes? The world adapts to the new climate, such is life.

In the end we will have to adapt either way man made or natural.


That's the problem. You see, the world can go through these changes, but these extreme changes that will occur, we, mankind, cannot survive. When such drastic climate changes occur, such as a forest where there once was a desert, man wasn't here and man won't be here after either. Sorry to be a doommonger, but it is what it is. Sure, life on this planet will survive, but we won't. We are already seeing the evidence as the ocean's die off, as they warm, and acidify. Pay attention to the mass fish die offs occurring all over the planet. It's alarming and if you read between the lines, it has quite a story to tell.


Look I know what you're trying to say and yes it would be hard to survive in sudden change. But did we not also survive an ice age? I remember hearing the Neanderthals couldn't hack it but humans did.

We are a rather resilient species.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find a way of stopping devastating climate change, what I'm saying is there's no stopping it because it's natural, and it will happen whether we want it to or not.


I think we finally agree on something. That's what I'm saying as well...it is natural (now) and it may be too late to stop. I also agree that we are a resilient species and because of that (and the fact that I have three beautiful children and another on the way next month), I hold out hope for us all and that we will survive it. It shall be interesting to see what lies on the other side.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
Hold on didn't you guys just have one of the coldest winters in decades?

Oh also they are predicting another freezing winter this year. So which is it global warming or cooling, you can't pick and choose.


In case people just don't get this, March is usually the hottest month of the year. In the northern hemisphere, this might seem kind of strange. Part of the reason for this is that the Earth is closest to the Sun in January, and furthest from the Sun in July.

Average monthly temperature from data.giss.nasa.gov...
From 1979-2014:
Mar: 14.46ºC
Feb: 14.43ºC
Jan: 14.42ºC
Apr: 14.42ºC
May: 14.399ºC
Jun: 14.39ºC
Oct: 14.39ºC
Nov: 14.39ºC
Dec: 14.39ºC
Aug: 14.3889ºC
Sep: 14.385ºC
Jul: 14.38ºC

Over the longer term, the trend is slightly different - but it's possible that could be from less accurate measurements.
From 1930-2014:
Mar: 14.18ºC
Jan: 14.17ºC
Feb: 14.17ºC
Apr: 14.16ºC
Oct: 14.16ºC
May: 14.152ºC
Nov: 14.15ºC
Jul: 14.15ºC
Aug: 14.148ºC
Sep: 14.148ºC
Jun: 14.14ºC
Dec: 14.14ºC

edit on 18Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:42:28 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: forgot ºC on second bit



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Bilk22

Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change

This article is trash written by anti-AGW shills who are literally paid to do this stuff.

Please see this post discussing that article.
Yeah it's not like there are no shills writing for the AGW side

edit on 03753Tuesdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

If it's provable their claims are wrong, their work ought to be dismissed, like Gore's movie grossly exaggerating the speed at which sea levels are rising.



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

You really arent reading ANY of the links presented here are you. Its more than one man. There have been plenty of other meteorologists and researchers calling b.s. too.

And how does everyone forget about all those emails so quickly. Its like you guys dont even want to admit to their presence...



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Bilk22

If it's provable their claims are wrong, their work ought to be dismissed, like Gore's movie grossly exaggerating the speed at which sea levels are rising.
What hasn't been proven is how CO2 influences climate change. This is what the debate is about. Until someone can prove that, the conversation is silly. Actually until someone can prove that climate change is anything but a natural occurrence that's happened since the formation of the galaxy, the conversation is silly.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
What hasn't been proven is how CO2 influences climate change. This is what the debate is about. Until someone can prove that, the conversation is silly. Actually until someone can prove that climate change is anything but a natural occurrence that's happened since the formation of the galaxy, the conversation is silly.

Your statement is in disagreement with research on the matter.

CO2 and other gasses keep heat from escaping our atmosphere. This permits life to exist on our plane. Without these gases (mostly water vapor), none of us would be here. Current theory is that most of ancient Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide and very little oxygen; the evolution of plants/algae-like organisms enabled oxygen-breathing organisms to arise.

Complaining that we don't know effects from CO2 is essentially disregarding more than a century of research into what CO2 does in the atmosphere.
edit on 19Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:35:54 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

I can't say I am on the Global warming bandwagon so far. Sheets of ice in the polar regions are more widespread than before, though thinner. A lot of data also shows that we may be entering a cooling period. I agree with a lot of things you say, such as methane and such. But this is climate data we are talking about and doing a year to year study is all well and good, but it's going to take a long view I think.

This summer has been the coolest I have ever known in my five decades, as a case in point. More time and more data is needed. Not only that, but I have a feeling that both sides of the argument are just trying to create more money for themselves.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Bilk22
What hasn't been proven is how CO2 influences climate change. This is what the debate is about. Until someone can prove that, the conversation is silly. Actually until someone can prove that climate change is anything but a natural occurrence that's happened since the formation of the galaxy, the conversation is silly.

Your statement is in disagreement with research on the matter.

CO2 and other gasses keep heat from escaping our atmosphere. This permits life to exist on our plane. Without these gases (mostly water vapor), none of us would be here. Current theory is that most of ancient Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide and very little oxygen; the evolution of plants/algae-like organisms enabled oxygen-breathing organisms to arise.

Complaining that we don't know effects from CO2 is essentially disregarding more than a century of research into what CO2 does in the atmosphere.
It's never been proven and you know it. There are other greenhouse gasses that are more plentiful in the atmosphere as well.

A few decades ago we were told that CO was dangerous and all cars needed to reduce it. So they developed the catalytic converter which transforms CO to CO2. Now they're telling us that CO2 is dangerous.

This is how liberals work. They said incandescent bulbs were causing global warming so they gave us CFLs. Now we're being poisoned with mercury. Brilliant!

Just because Al Gore was the alarmist should make everyone skeptical about AGW!



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Cynic

I could be wrong, rare but possible


I just don't know how we are going to enclose thousands of acres of wheat to protect it. Wheat handles drought pretty well, but you need the rain at the right time for high yields.

To add: The Palouse has NEVER needed irrigation. If we have to put in irrigation, then I know for sure BIG changes are coming.
edit on 16-9-2014 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: DAZ21
Hold on didn't you guys just have one of the coldest winters in decades?



In an attempt to get up a silly fast post for stars, it's obvious you didn't read the OP.

I, in my little neck of the woods, am not the WORLD


Pfft...I couldn't give a damn about stars thanks.

I am just a staunch believer against global warming, and hate to see lies spread about.

And yes I read your thread, it took me two minutes, I'm a fast reader.

It was a mild summer here in the UK. Nothing spectacular.

You can't just pluck a month from decades or even centuries and because it happened to be hot in most places across the globe that the world is heating up.

Maybe it was a random event and just happened to be a hot month. People like you need to stop scare mongering people.


Seriously?? So "14 of warmest years on record happened since 1998/ 2012 hottest US year by a whole degree " is randomly picking a month from decades or centuries ago.?? Look at the data. The trend is clear, the global average temperature is increasing even if there are local record lows in your town or state or country. Not only temperature measurement but ecosystems are changing in the ways that are consistent with an overall global warming trend. There are wider local fluctuations in temperature but the overall global average temperature is increasing. As well 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real AND mankind is a major contributing factor. Personally, I wish it were not true but it is which means that we should be planning now how to deal with those coming effects over the next few generations.


edit on 16-9-2014 by metamagic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's never been proven and you know it. There are other greenhouse gasses that are more plentiful in the atmosphere as well.

A few decades ago we were told that CO was dangerous and all cars needed to reduce it. So they developed the catalytic converter which transforms CO to CO2. Now they're telling us that CO2 is dangerous.

This is how liberals work. They said incandescent bulbs were causing global warming so they gave us CFLs. Now we're being poisoned with mercury. Brilliant!

Just because Al Gore was the alarmist should make everyone skeptical about AGW!

I link scientific articles and other information discussing this, and you do not counter it.

You just ignore it and say it's not proof.

Then go off on some tangent about lightbulbs.

P.S. I'm a registered Republican from Oklahoma.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: Rezlooper

You really arent reading ANY of the links presented here are you. Its more than one man. There have been plenty of other meteorologists and researchers calling b.s. too.

And how does everyone forget about all those emails so quickly. Its like you guys dont even want to admit to their presence...


You really haven't read any of the links I presented here have you? It's more than one agency, or scientist or meteorologist. It's like you don't even want to admit their presence!



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
While in some places like Upstate New York, we are looking at the coldest summer that turned into fall two weeks ago.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's never been proven and you know it. There are other greenhouse gasses that are more plentiful in the atmosphere as well.

A few decades ago we were told that CO was dangerous and all cars needed to reduce it. So they developed the catalytic converter which transforms CO to CO2. Now they're telling us that CO2 is dangerous.

This is how liberals work. They said incandescent bulbs were causing global warming so they gave us CFLs. Now we're being poisoned with mercury. Brilliant!

Just because Al Gore was the alarmist should make everyone skeptical about AGW!



P.S. I'm a registered Republican from Oklahoma.
I'm very happy for you. Ever vote republican? I was a registered democrat for 25 years. Only democrat I ever voted for was Ed Koch.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Rezlooper

I can't say I am on the Global warming bandwagon so far. Sheets of ice in the polar regions are more widespread than before, though thinner. A lot of data also shows that we may be entering a cooling period. I agree with a lot of things you say, such as methane and such. But this is climate data we are talking about and doing a year to year study is all well and good, but it's going to take a long view I think.

This summer has been the coolest I have ever known in my five decades, as a case in point. More time and more data is needed. Not only that, but I have a feeling that both sides of the argument are just trying to create more money for themselves.


Ice is actually less in the Arctic but more in the Antarctic and even that may be linked to global warming. I provided some information on that in the OP.

I just don't understand what data shows we are in a cooling period. I mean, constant record high temps are shown and very few record lows. Take for example, all the way up through the 1970s there was balance between record highs and lows on average each year. But then, it started to swing in one direction. Each year the record highs began to trounce the record lows. In the link in my OP about 2012 being the hottest US year on record, it says there were 34,000 record highs versus only 6,000 record lows. That's a pretty big swing. And, 14 of the warmest years since we started keeping records have been in the last 16 years. Where is there data that shows otherwise?

Up here in northern WI it's been cooler than average since March of 2013. Brutal winters and cool summers two years running now, but that doesn't represent a global scale. Sure, we here in most of the United States are experiencing cooler than average temps while other parts of the world, especially the southern hemisphere, are sweltering. South America and Australia are extremely hot.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Bilk22
What hasn't been proven is how CO2 influences climate change. This is what the debate is about. Until someone can prove that, the conversation is silly. Actually until someone can prove that climate change is anything but a natural occurrence that's happened since the formation of the galaxy, the conversation is silly.

Your statement is in disagreement with research on the matter.

CO2 and other gasses keep heat from escaping our atmosphere. This permits life to exist on our plane. Without these gases (mostly water vapor), none of us would be here. Current theory is that most of ancient Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide and very little oxygen; the evolution of plants/algae-like organisms enabled oxygen-breathing organisms to arise.

Complaining that we don't know effects from CO2 is essentially disregarding more than a century of research into what CO2 does in the atmosphere.


Your research links are from 2006 and 2001, respectively.

There have been several advances on both sides of the debate since then, and a TON of papers that directly refute your papers, but you already know that.

You also linked the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, which is a US Government Agency funded by the Department of Energy, which is silly because their entire existence is predicated on showing there is an effect from greenhouse gases. In other words, they only exist by creating the reason for their existence and by continuing to provide a need for them to exist under. Without greenhouse gases, or global warming, or whatever your nomenclature, they have no pay check to collect.

Self-preservation trumps morality almost every time.

I don't think anyone disputes what CO2 does in the atmosphere... what most dispute is the AMOUNT of CO2 modeled in the atmosphere that it would take to create the warming effect being OBSERVED. (.03% increase from humans) The models don't match observations, period. You can try all you want to defend this, but people who are well-versed in the data can show otherwise, which is exactly what has been happening, and common sense says .03% is BS.

Can you explain this graph:



I can.

The problem... you are ALL consistently fed the RED line. This is the line the media, the CRU, the IPCC, Al Gore, all want you to see and buy into to believe. It's not hard to apply just the right filter to change the way the data appears on a graph, as you can see. It still USES the raw data, but is not an ACTUAL or FACTUAL representation of it.

However, there is another line, for the RAW data and measurements.

The red line is the FILTERED version of the data that you get. Notice anything unusual there?

Do you see how there are points in the graph that rise above the red line, highlighting that there were higher points on the graph that the trend don't show?

If I ONLY gave you the red line.... you would NEVER know that there were years where the maximum was higher than the trend.

Proxies are notorious for this, especially ice cores and tree rings. They give you a resolution of 5-10 years AT BEST (in most cases, it is a resolution of 20 years, and the further you go back, the less detailed the data is). This means you could have 4-9+ years in between where temperatures spiked, plummeted, etc. and you would have no clue because it's been "scrubbed" by the filters that are used to remove the "noise".

How can NONE of you AGW proponents find that relevant? You are all advocating throwing out data, clues, and evidence in favor of your political or idealogical beliefs. You are NOT scientists so stop pretending that you are. (excluding those who DO work in an actual field of science)

It's right in front of your face, like the days of Galileo, and you refuse to see it, and it's really simple math.

The GISS data is no different, it is not some sacred cow. You know what they say about sacred cows? They make great burgers...

Here is Reto Ruedy responding to a question about the accuracy of the GISS data (emphasis mine):


No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal, we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN data.

My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to assess our model results.
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results.

For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.


Source

So someone from GISS admits openly, that their data is not as accurate as the CRU. The CRU is where the whole ClimateGate scandal came from. Funny that in 1999, Hansen had this to say:


Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2). We caution that linear trends, as in Figure 2, can mask temporal detail. Indeed, Figure 1(b) indicates that the last 20 years have seen a slight warming in the U.S. Nevertheless, our analysis (Hansen et al., 1999a), summarized in Figures 1 and 2, makes clear that climate trends have been fundamentally different in the U.S. than in the world as a whole.


The leading AGW proponent, is essentially, confirming what I, and others, have been saying about how trends and filters hide details in the data, specifically, temporal data that changes in between two points on the graph.

Yet, the GISS data is plugged into every climate model used today.

So when looking at proxies and filtered data.... let's go back to the graph....

If I asked you what was the hottest year since 1950 based on the RED line, or the trend, you would say 1992-1993.

However, based on the RAW and ACTUAL data, the hottest year would have been 1983-1984.

Why did the original GISS data from 1999 that used to be on the GISS site HERE get deleted? Luckily, someone captured it and posted it HERE.

Compare that to the CURRENT GISS DATA, which has been CHANGED since 1999 and adjusted UPWARD.

Don't take my word for it... You can put both data sets in a graph, or just open them up side by side and see for yourself.

~Namaste
edit on 16-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

My source for Hansen's statement.

Source

Given the above, I'm shocked that more of you aren't skeptical and choose to ignore one side of the argument because it doesn't favor yours.

The information I provided doesn't favor one side over the other, it simply demonstrates that what you see, is NOT what you get when it comes to climate data.

Models lie.

So do people.

~Namaste
edit on 16-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

I think the problem is they wont release the raw data, and when petitioned for it they've said they lost it.

Oh really? You lost the raw data that you had to interpret to get the correct information?

The challenge people have with understanding the idea of global warming is the temperature outside. The temperature outside in most places really hasn't warmed that much because the ocean is trapping a lot of the heat.

I think the key factor for determining if global warming is real is just following the sea water rise. If the sea water is rising then more shxt is melting each year. Yes, sea water is rising, so now we have to determine is it man made. That I have no idea and you'll never convince me either way. I also don't think it matters since most countries are not prepared to do anything about it.




top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join