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.

 

NOAA: Better Than 97 Percent Chance 2015 Will Be Hottest Year on Record

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cArLoSCuBsTaR
I am so goddam sick of hearing this regurgitated bullocks time and time again. It blows my mind that people still don't understand or aren't willing to research how NOAA comes up with this drivel.


But if NOAA didn't do adjustments to raw data to prove that recent summers are all hotter than the 30's dustbowl then how on earth are they going to get their carbon tax through?





posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit


That is Still up for Debate about the Real Cause for that isn't there ? So , your Point is >?


This is what you said:

There is a Great Discrepancy between Satellite Recorded Earth Temperatures and Surface Recorded Temperatures . Why is there such a Divergence between them ?


My point is that there is no such discrepancy. No such divergence.

edit on 9/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: glend



But if NOAA didn't do adjustments to raw data to prove that recent summers are all hotter than the 30's dustbowl then how on earth are they going to get their carbon tax through?

You provided no source for your "data."



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




Is that the graph that does away with any GW hiatus

Do you know how to read a graph?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

he false premise is that this will create a better world. You are only assuming it would.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And your premise (that doing nothing?) will do what?
Everthing fine here. Keep on keeping on. Status quo.

edit on 9/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well I don't know but it seems to me that if you look around, you'll see an awful lot of things, very necessary things, that are dependent on our use of fossil fuels, and I'm not talking about the things that are dependent on the energy. It's not just a matter of coming up for a replacement for the energy but also for all the other things in our lives that are dependent on petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Just deciding to stop using them would create a drastic reordering of society, top to bottom. And we don't have the replacements for nearly all of those things and they are integrated into more areas of our lives than most people realize.

But hey! I'm sure no one needs all those nifty little plastic do-dads that make, for example, complex surgeries and other medical procedures sterile ... or industrial lubricants ... any of those other things no one thinks about when they advocate the complete abandonment of fossil fuels. Fiberglass for those light, fuel efficient vehicles and energy efficient homes ...


edit on 20-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Plastics that are light enough to allow an electrical vehicle to maybe go more than 60 miles without needing an 8 hour recharge ...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

And besides, the better data set to look at regarding actually global warming, from coverage and physics is oceans.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

I frequently reference this data analysis in such debates and I have never seen any skeptical reply. The usual BS just doesn't work, such as

a) there's been a hiatus (not when you look at the water which covers 70% of the planet)

b) the temperature sensors are all in urban areas and there is some urban heat effect which I know about and yet I believe the people doing it for a living have somehow totally forgotten about and ignoring, and when they do adjustments I call it manipulating data



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Just deciding to stop using them would create a drastic reordering of society, top to bottom.
Yes. But that's not really part of any plan.


And we don't have the replacements for nearly all of those things and they are integrated into more areas of our lives than most people realize.
Yes.


But hey! I'm sure no one needs all those nifty little plastic do-dads that make, for example, complex surgeries and other medical procedures sterile ... or industrial lubricants ... any of those other things no one thinks about when they advocate the complete abandonment of fossil fuels.
The problem is not making things out of petroleum. The problem is burning petroleum. Actually, burning it is pretty wasteful, never mind the CO2 it produces.

edit on 9/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Phage

Well I don't know but it seems to me that if you look around, you'll see an awful lot of things, very necessary things, that are dependent on our use of fossil fuels, and I'm not talking about the things that are dependent on the energy. It's not just a matter of coming up for a replacement for the energy but also for all the other things in our lives that are dependent on petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Just deciding to stop using them would create a drastic reordering of society, top to bottom. And we don't have the replacements for nearly all of those things and they are integrated into more areas of our lives than most people realize.


So then, we better start cracking on the problem now, right?

And in fact people have been looking at potential technologies and changes which would ameliorate this, but there is a large problem in installed capital base and immediate economic rewards making this transition difficult. And then when people propose the natural market solutions to help make this distributed change more economically favorable they are accused of being part of some undefined evil globalist scam.

It sure looks like the deniers just don't want to face the problem or do anything about (which happens to be economically profitable for a few dependent on legacy technology) something which could be catastrophic to technological civilization.

I sure as heck don't like it, but being a global warming denier (there are no truly scientifically legitimate skeptics any more) is like a doctor being a cancer denier.
edit on 20-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Cap and Trade was---is (it's still in effect I believe)---the free market solution advocated by US Repblicans for ameliorating acid rain from power plants. It was, and is, very successful and delivered the most results at the best economic efficiency and lowest total cost.
edit on 20-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
are there not a lot of volcanoes under water spewing out heat????
they have being doing this for many years.....

would this not contribute an input of heat energy to the oceans????
what about the Pacific ring of fire...underwater chain of volcanoes?????

an honest reply and I am wondering,,,volcanoes are heat producing engines.......a reply to: mbkennel



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Global warming happens when an Ice Age wasn't all that long ago, relatively speaking. ...not to mention a mini-ice age of sorts within historical time periods.

We'll adapt, as there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it...



Sure there is. A Carbon Tax will make it all work for the best. Why you ask?

Because it will tax us into the Stone Age and thus eliminate our Carbon Footprint. Just ask jet-setting Al Gore. Of course he would need to shut down his multibillion dollar plan to trade in Carbon Credits --- As if!

But it's all good. It fits nicely with the UN's Agenda 21 and would satisfy the wannabe King of England who categorically thinks it could eliminate the "Useless Eaters"". His words, not mine.

The scam is in progress, just ask our privileged Overlords. It's a sure bet they won't be changing their lifestyles anytime soon.

For the eco-weenies that got sucked into believing in this con, all I can say is ------ Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ----- in the a$$

edit on 20-9-2015 by Cynic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy



Is that the graph that does away with any GW hiatus

Do you know how to read a graph?


I use to be able to read graphs until they started moving all the time NOAA 1999 version certainly looks different than NOAA 2012 version



And the GISS 1999 version certainly looks different to their 2012 version



I find it hard to believe that people will swallow that recent con that weather is hotter than 30's dust-bowl when its obviously getting colder. Surely people arn't that stupid!




edit on 20 9 2015 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tri-lobe-1




an honest reply and I am wondering,,,volcanoes are heat producing engines..

Volcanoes do produce some heat. Not nearly as much as insolation does though. But the problem is not heat "produced" on the planet, it is heat that does not escape into space.


In any case there is no indication that there has been a long term increase in volcanic activity. So, even if there has been an increase in volcanic activity, the increase in CO2 levels resulting from the burning of fossil fuels makes the matter worse.

edit on 9/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




I use to be able to read graphs until they started moving all the time NOAA 1999 version certainly looks different than NOAA 2012 version

Why is it you never provide sources?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You can find a copy of the 1999 NOAA graph recorded on this page. .

This is just one station that showed a cooling trend in which NOAA adjusted to make a warming trend.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So who would that be?
That is what I am asking.

Who would decide if the data is disputed or not?


A better question, who would decide for all of science what science position on it shall be ??

Science, is fully controlled just like any other political party, or group.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: glend
Thank you for providing your sources.



This is just one station that showed a cooling trend in which NOAA adjusted to make a warming trend.

How about the stations for which the corrections showed a cooling trend? Those don't count?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Historical data is not adjusted to "make" anything. It is the nature of many weather monitoring stations to have built in biases in their raw data. Some stations may read consistently high, some may read consistently low. Over the past 100 years instruments have changed as have the way observations are made (such as the time of day). In order to make sense of these things statistical adjustments are made to the data. These corrections sometimes result in lower temperatures than the raw data shows and sometimes result in higher temperatures. Stations that read low, still show an increasing trend. Stations that read high, still show an increasing trend. While the adjusted data shows a slightly greater increase, both the raw data and the adjusted data show the trend.



www.ncdc.noaa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join