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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

What is the true science?

Second time I see this presented, can you say who the 'true' scientist are and why the ones that you don't agree with are not?

1) The climatologists records for temps only go back to 1920s . Even then , they show a cyclical stage
2) Geologists , Archaeologists , Astronomers , even biologists that can tell the climate and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere all agree that this type of change has been around for millions of years. And actually , the times the temps and the CO2 levels have been higher , it has contributed to better tree and plant growth.

Unfortunately , shortly after these temporary rises , the CO2 has actually contributed to a sharp decline in temps and then the following ice ages and mini ice ages. The last was app 1500 years ago when the resulting mini ice age covered the US in 2 feet of ice as far south as Texas
This started by some people using the planet Venus and its atmosphere and temps as a guide. Yes , Venus does have high temp. Yes , Venus does have lots of CO2 . But to call it "greenhouse" gases is incredible . The planet is closer to the sun , most of other gasses have long been lost. Had it been closer to the distance of Earth's orbit things would have been different on that planet.But they still used it as an example . Thats what started the so-called greenhouse gasses and global warming kick and climatology was started. Before , there was just meteorologists and weather people....





posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Def more then just climatologist that agree and saying they only have info from 1920 is false.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
The headline should read NOAA: Better Than 97 Percent Chance of us screwing with the data to say what we want it to. NOAA going to say whatever the government wants them to say. They know if they fail to do that, funding will be cut. Climate is always changing, some years we have warmer summers or colder winters.
I'm all for more energy efficient appliances in our homes, vehicles that get better gas mileage, products that are better for the environment. All those things are already happening due to public demand and regulations. The government wants to use climate change as a new source of revenue and to control more of our lives.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
While temperatures may well be on the rise - the real question remains - what percentage of the rise in temperature is caused by humans, and what percentage caused by natural (cyclic) factors?

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say one way or the other - though in general, I'd say it's a lot more likely that natural factors will have a larger and more consistent influence upon the Earth's temperatures than what we can dish out.

Either way I think cleaner alternative energy is the way to go - but even so I think it's important to know the correct answer to the above question. If drastically reducing CO2 emissions and creating and utilizing cleaner sources of energy isn't going to put a dent on the perhaps naturally rising temperatures - then I'd like our scientists to start focusing their energy at finding actual solutions that might help us pull through - however hot is gets.

I'd want scientists from both sides of the climate change/global warming aisle working to cover all our bases - whatever the case may actually be.
edit on 23/9/15 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Navieko
While temperatures may well be on the rise - the real question remains - what percentage of the rise in temperature is caused by humans, and what percentage caused by natural (cyclic) factors?

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say one way or the other -


Your belief is not backed up by the scientific facts.

There is now very sufficient evidence (there wasn't, say 40 years ago), and an extensive observational, experimental and theoretical effort to look at all possible influences and their magnitudes.

Calling something 'cyclic' without explaining the causative physics behind that cyclic behavior is not sufficient.

The best known and well established long-term cyclic influence, Milankovitch cycles, is currently in a downturn (i.e. towards cooling with time), having peaked in about 6000-8000 BC. And global climate was on average slightly cooling until the industrial period.
edit on 23-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gothmog

What is the true science?

Second time I see this presented, can you say who the 'true' scientist are and why the ones that you don't agree with are not?

1) The climatologists records for temps only go back to 1920s . Even then , they show a cyclical stage
2) Geologists , Archaeologists , Astronomers , even biologists that can tell the climate and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere all agree that this type of change has been around for millions of years.


Not true.

Emitting fossil CO2 which was sequestered for millions of years, very suddenly in less than 200 years in bulk has never previously occurred in geological history.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Navieko
While temperatures may well be on the rise - the real question remains - what percentage of the rise in temperature is caused by humans, and what percentage caused by natural (cyclic) factors?

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say one way or the other - though in general, I'd say it's a lot more likely that natural factors will have a larger and more consistent influence upon the Earth's temperatures than what we can dish out.


Over what time period? A billion years, yes (stellar evolution). 100 years? No.
edit on 23-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Well here in bonny Scotland our summer has been rather crap compared to 2014, just saying.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
Over what time period? A billion years, yes (stellar evolution). 100 years? No.

I would imagine within a 1 billion year time period, there are potentially hundreds - if not thousands - of different cyclic influences, some that may have very long lasting and gradual/subtle effects on the planet, and some that have a much more sharp and dramatic effect on the planet.

We may be beginning to learn and understand some of these cyclic influences - but I still believe we're a ways off before we can say we know all of them.

edit on 28/9/15 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Navieko

originally posted by: mbkennel
Over what time period? A billion years, yes (stellar evolution). 100 years? No.

I would imagine within a 1 billion year time period, there are potentially hundreds - if not thousands - of different cyclic influences, some that may have very long lasting and gradual/subtle effects on the planet, and some that have a much more sharp and dramatic effect on the planet.


That's certainly true. But what's happening now, and in human control? Burning of fossil fuels causing global warming which causes climate change. It's significant and not good.

edit on 2-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)







 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join