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.

 

Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Medieval Warming Period

Get with the program.

LoL, you don't even know what you are arguing about but you argue anyway . . .

Meanwhile, you don't know what the acronym MWP means:

Medieval Warm (no -ing) Period.

Close, but not quite.




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli




To remain civil, I will just suggest you go back and reread the exchange very carefully.

I had read it.

Maybe you can more clearly explain the relationship between the MWP and CO2 levels, and how they relate to the present. Because I haven't seen that stated as yet.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Maybe you can clarify it better than the IPCC, but as of yet it is still fairly anomalous. NOAA IPCC data. Is there some special relationship you are trying to construct between then and now?

Greven
Whatever kiddo, have a nice night.

-FBB



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Greven
Whatever kiddo, have a nice night.

Ah, the ever-hilarious attempted age mocking.

If you're going to say someone doesn't know what they are talking about, you had better be sure that you do.
edit on 22Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:31:15 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli




Is there some special relationship you are trying to construct between then and now?

No. Since you seemed to think it was pertinent, I was asking you.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Well it makes sense that over 10,000 years generally things are cooling as that's what's predicted by orbital forcing: the Milankovitch cycles.

And in very recent periods (50-150 years), which is very fast geologically, warming has increased because of increased human added greenhouse gases.

Remember that the heat capacity of the oceans is huge and that excess warming can accumulate for hundreds of years and go down in the deep ocean and then come back up.

Everything is proceediing as one expects from physics.

Global warming from greenhouse gases is fundamentally a physics issue, not a data or paleoclimate or statistics or whatever, it's physics. And the physics has never been disputed or refuted, but completely and fundamentally confirmed by now conclusive experimental observation.
edit on 22-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli




Is there some special relationship you are trying to construct between then and now?

No. Since you seemed to think it was pertinent, I was asking you.


Where did I claim it was pertinent?

Are you confused again?

I only posted in this thread because someone asked why Soros gets hated on, then Kali was determined to argue about the James Hansen's most recent press release, sarcastically responded to post, then I expanded on how some of the graphs presented in this thread were calculated, then had to explain to you what you decided I was arguing about.

This must be a joke, right?

-FBB



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Where did I claim it was pertinent?


Here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Where did I claim it was pertinent?


Here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yeah . . . Bro, listen you are wasting my time.

That post in response to you asking what period you were going to argue about, which was in response to you claiming my response to jrod was a dumbass response. Then you asked me to contribute some incite towards the MWP as if I was ever making an argument.



Re-hash of events:

Me: Hey jrod there was a species putting tons of C02 into the atmosphere during MWP

You: That is a dumbass response, more C02 is being put out by humans now.

Me: I was remarking on jrod's scientifically inaccurate insinuation.

You:I didn't see that, what evidence do you have about that period.

Me: Go reference ice core and IPCC data.

You: But humans are putting more out there.

Me: Not the point I was making.

You: What period am supposed to be arguing about?

Me: MWP.

You: What does that have to do with the rate that is being put out by humans today?!

Me: Nothing, go read the thread.

You: I did, now tell me an incite about the MWP.

Me: Here. Let me note I never argued anything.

You: Yes you did! See where I asked you what period I was arguing about and you responded!

Me: Yeah . . . Bro listen


At no point was any point being made other than there was in fact multiple tons of C02 in the atmosphere during the MWP.

Do YOU have any point that you would like to make other than you think I made a "dumbass" comment and that you are a very confused individual?

-FBB
edit on 22-11-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Grevin

You have the right study - you are completely off on the wrong topic.

Kali74 stated that according to AGW proponents, the MWP was a regional and not a global event.

The Rosenthal study shows that the Pacific and the Antartic were both involved in the MWP indicating that it was a global event and not a regional event.




We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Of for goodness sake why do so few of you understand basic things.

The climate is always changing and has been warming since the end of the last ice age.

The sun has a HUGE effect on our weather and climate as it does on Mars.

Volcanic activity also has a large effect.

Surely there is nobody who denies we are constantly polluting our atmosphere and oceans. If you change the composition of things eventually it has a noticeable effect. (smog above bigger cities for one).

So to sum up it is a combination of everything but our emissions in my opinion are making things worse not better.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnb
Of for goodness sake why do so few of you understand basic things.

The climate is always changing and has been warming since the end of the last ice age.


Actually it warmed rapidly (with big fluctuations) from 15000 BC to 8000 BC and it has been slightly cooling since about 6000 BC, until human industrial times.



The sun has a HUGE effect on our weather and climate as it does on Mars.


It potentially could. But it isn't changing very much now.



Volcanic activity also has a large effect.


Sure, if we had Tambora erupt again, (largest volcano of last 10,000 years) it would have a large effect on climate for a few years.

Humans emitting fossil fuels will have a large effect on climate for a few centuries.



Surely there is nobody who denies we are constantly polluting our atmosphere and oceans. If you change the composition of things eventually it has a noticeable effect. (smog above bigger cities for one).

So to sum up it is a combination of everything but our emissions in my opinion are making things worse not better.


Indeed, and it is important to know exactly what and how.
edit on 4-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Think this thread could use an update.

We all know 2015 smashed the temperature record, but in the OP I mentioned there's a good chance 2016 would be hotter. NASA just updated their dataset through February. Here's how that's going:



Even the skeptic sites can't hide it any more, as Roy Spencer's blog will attest:



All the deniers there be like:



It got so bad that poor Roy had to shut down the comments. I can't lie - it's fun to see. He's been incubating these nutjobs for years, and now they've all turned on him. That's what happens when you're so far removed from a reality even "The Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" can't protect you from.

The whole situation runs parallel to what's going on with the Republicans and Trump. They bred this hatred and insanity in a lab for their own agenda. Until it evolved into something they could no longer control. Now it's simply come home to roost.

The future is coming much faster than any of us are ready for, but some will take it on with courage and innovation, while others will waste away in ignorance and apathy.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Semicollegiate

This is getting hilarious. I JUST POSTED direct experimental proof of this connection, and here you're jumping on the bandwagon now explaining to me how "there's no proof". Do I need to quote the papers again?

Maybe if I highlight some text for you this time:


This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.



The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.


Some of you self-proclaimed skeptics are either exceptionally dense or outright delusional, or both. Either way I don't care - I have better things to do than entertain these psychological issues



There is no experimental data that proves man made global warming. The warming could all be from natural variation. Greenhouse gases are real and they are maxed out.

There is no experimental data from the future, which is when the AGW is supposed to happen, so there is no experimental data proving run away man made warming..

AGW is all models, which have never predicted accurately.

Since we live in a time following the Little Ice Age, what is so unusual about global warming?

And warming has always been associated with more precipitation and prosperity.

The Black Death happened after cooling, crop failure, and famine. Warming is a good thing.

Unless you need a contrived apology for global socialistic government.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Maybe its warmer in the Alps because its colder in the US.

But, it isn't colder in the US.



This winter seemed relatively warm. I travel the whole country and from the 2000 mile long blizzard in 2011 to the Polar vortex in the winter of 2013-2014, the USA has been colder in the winter lately.

The idea of measuring every where on the surface of the planet without actually measuring everywhere is bogus on its face.

Ultimately the AGW people's data is the same as poling results from a biased survey agency.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared


It's fascinating that the graph starts in 1979, when there is peer reviewed data back to 1957



Here, maybe you can use this yourself:




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


Did you just imply that was cherry-picking ... for posting the last 37 years of satellite data, from a notorious climate skeptic, which starts in 1979 because that's when satellite data began ... and then counter it by posting 20 years of random data that ended 40 years ago???



Funny how you ignored the other graph too that already covers what you just posted in much more context. Here it is:



Climate denier arguments are a great way to work out the "WTF" muscles in your face



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I think all of the science oriented sane AMERICANS need to start moving the deniers towards the truth of there denial.

Simply put, they deny global warming because of the potential impact on business, and the potential impact on "freedom" of business, paired with the potential intervention of the big bad government.

This is the argument we need to have now. These people are dishonest and we need to call them on it.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Oh great we're going to see an increase in bio diversity and it's going to rain more right?


...right?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join