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 average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.
...
Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind
www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
...
She and her colleagues used magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California for three solar cycles, from the period of 1976 to 2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers — another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations matched closely. Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. “Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” says Zharkova.
...
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Teikiatsu
So you are just going to ignore the real world data and try to play the definitions game. I am not going to play along.
CO2 is increasing at about 20ppm a decade. This is quite significant!
The 'golden' solution is to end our addiction to fossil fuels, just my humble opinion.
The burden of proof is on you guys who think humans are not a major factor, not me to defend what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us.
I challenge you guys to humble me, bring some real world data and sciencey stuff, not opinion pieces or political rhetoric.
originally posted by: jrod
If someone were to actually read the links you post, then one would realize that you misrepresent what the information actually says in order to cast doubt on AGW. Or you just provide junk links.
originally posted by: jrod
The solution of greatly reducing CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption has the fossil fuel worried and resorting to dishonest tactics to preserve their profits.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Oh wait they've done it in the past. These tactics seem familiar though...
Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
...
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Dont put words in my mouth!
The majority of ppl who denyb the science of AGW are simply ignorant and many have bought the lies that groups like the Heartland Institute and JoNova puts out.
Likw I said, AGW is an easy sell to the layman who does not understand the actual science very well.
l
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Oh wait they've done it in the past. These tactics seem familiar though...
Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
...
Are you really that obtuse? First of all cigarettes are not the same as CO2... Cigarettes do have several toxins in them. CO2 is not toxic to plant life, or the animal kingdom at the levels they exist today...
Inside that building you are in CO2 levels reach up to 1,000ppm. Billions of people and their pets, plus plants live inside buildings and CO2 levels are around 800ppm-1,000ppm or more, and none of them have died.
The only way you would die from that amount of CO2, is if there was a lack of oxygen...
Second of all, yes there are some scientists who have been paid by oil companies, but not all of them were paid to lie...
Third of all, the majority of deniers of AGW do not work or ever worked for the oil industry. This is nothing but a red herring on your part, and that of other AGW proponents.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Apparently you have trouble understanding parallels. The point is that the Climate Change denial camp is literally using the entire playbook that the cigarette companies used to downplay the risks of smoking cigarettes.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you trying to suggest that EVERY scientist in favor of man made climate change was paid to lie here? Because if you are, then you need to produce some evidence for that. And you posting links to Climategate isn't going to cut it, even if it WASN'T a manufactured scandal.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Denial scientists work for the oil industry. Most deniers are just useful idiots for the oil industry.
originally posted by: jrod
...
Also you make a big deal over an obvious typo, that tells me that instead of addressing the science and data you just want to resort to dishonest debate tactics where you 'win' by making the other guy look bad. Go post on reddit or somewhere else with that crap.
Still waiting for actual evidence that disputes AGW....
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Wrong... It is not a parallel because CO2 is not the same as cigarettes... Life does not need cigarettes to exist... Life does need CO2 to exist, and today's level's are nowhere even close to "causing a cataclysm"...
The AGW camp have been using fear, and propagandizing that fear to push for an agenda that is simply based on "faith".
That is relevant, because again CO2 is not the same as cigarettes
oThere is no need to have so many scientists paid off... In fact not that long ago I made a thread about it.
Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?
When you control the flow of information, you can make people believe a lie is the truth.
You, among some others, always like to try to claim that everyone who disagrees with the AGW claim must be working for oil field industry. A red herring among many others. As we can see above, you would even only accept websites that are "pro-AGW". As if there are not scientists that keep making research that is in favor of AGW simply to get funds, and get paid. Not to mention that the majority of scientists who post research in favor of AGW is getting funding, so according to your own logical conclusion, they all must be lying as well.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.
Nice, more insults in the mix... I keep seeing that the majority of the AGW camp can't make an intelligent counter-argument, and instead resort to these claims that "they must be working for the oil field"...
I guess jrod must be right... The majority of the AGW camp are laymen who don't need to understand the science and simply back "the hoax out of faith"...