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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Okay that didn't help to clear the mud in this thread...

LOL





posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Why does it have to be either/or?

There’s no doubt the current spike is related to the El Nino, and I made no bones about that in the OP, but what it’s also done is put the underlying long term trend back in clear context.

This is why I brought up what I did in the OP – because for years now dishonest skeptics have been trying to minimize that trend by using the last big El Nino as their starting point in all these cherry-picked claims that warming stopped. Now you have two monster El Ninos to compare the data across and the long term trend is chugging right along as expected.

Amazing was also onto an important point as well - El Ninos themselves do not generate heat, they simply recycle what's stored in the ocean. As all the skeptics were dancing about proclaiming global warming dead the last few years, it was repeatedly pointed out that the vast majority of trapped heat was actually going into the oceans:



This was routinely written off as a "convenient excuse". Now those chickens have simply come home to roost: we had a massive input of heat into the oceans during the so-called pause, which is now being released in a (potentially) record El Nino, while heat records are being broken at an unprecedented rate, due to BOTH the long term trend and the supercharged El Nino.

So I really don’t see what the confusion is – maybe you’re just shocked someone was honest enough to mention both things in parallel instead of cherry-picking and skewing all the data to fit one side of the story?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Well we didn't cool back down after the huge El Nino or any of the other ones we've had. La Ninas haven't cooled us off. When is the last time we had a cool enough year to bring us back to 0 degrees warming? None since we started warming. Last time we had a cooler decade? Nope. Last time we had a 30 year period result in cooling? No luck there either. So why are we continually warming with some years not warming much and other years warming a lot? Other Oscillations can factor in for sure with releasing more heat from the ocean or containing more heat in the ocean. We still have not come anywhere close to going back down to 0 degrees warming.

The shrinking of the atmosphere should contribute to cooling or at least less warming but not more and the atmosphere hasn't significantly shrunk but one time and is rebounding or back to 'normal'. Funny thing, there is a huge increase of CO2 in the Thermosphere which does the opposite of what CO2 does in the Atmosphere which is that it has a cooling affect on the Thermosphere which can cause that huge shrinking we had back in 2013 which was out of it's normal shrink expand with solar maximums and minimums.

Not the sun or our tilt or where in our orbital precession either, as those factors (Milankovitch cycles) should be giving us mild cooling, no warming. Not volcanoes. So what is it?

This El Nino is massive and it's very warm and it's still growing and warming. This will cause an increase in the rate of warming, both in intensity and duration than the relatively stable rise we've seen (Since 2005? Not sure on that one). But we also are right now passing the halfway point in the expected 2C warming by 2100. We're crossing 1C warming.

Even if we had a near time La Nina it won't bring us back to under 1C warming. Provided this does not set off another positive feedback loop somewhere the rate of temperature rise should slow again. Notice the word slow, not stop, not reverse. Maybe if we had a chain of cooling events... ash from a big volcano spewing, La Nina, negative Arctic and Atlantic oscillations? Asteroid impact? Boom.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Actually you are incorrect.

The last cooling period was from 1880 to 1935

www2.ucar.edu...

As you can see from the graph, global temperatures were actually cooling until the 1940s. It cooled so much that with a level of uncertainty, the global temperature dropped to just about 0.65 degrees C. Then the warming starts and it is currently sitting at about 0.86 degrees. It would appear that this is all within the normal range of variability in global temperatures.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Okay I'm confused.


Is this thread about El Nino ?

Or is this thread about anthropogenic global warming ?

Or is this thread trying to say that El Nino is the result of AGW ?



Could somebody please clarify...

Thank you.


How about this? This El Nino is considered to be the most powerful and stongest ever. A higher Average Temperature is considered to make El Ninos stronger. We're always arguing about weather a warmer Globe is mans doing or not.


Well thank goodness, the ski hills are all opening where I am with the highest snowfalls in years!

I bet all that snow will be a danger for us next summer though, more snow melt = higher oceans.


Dam I would hate to be scientists in this field....I think they should abandon the teachings they have had ingrained and start over, the religion they are being ordered to follow is just too incomplete, it is UNSCIENTIFIC.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Good to hear you are getting lots of rain...err...snow. One is an indication of above freezing temperature and the other is indication of below-freezing temps, but the amount of snow or rain is not an indication of global climate.


FYI somewhere it summer.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO
When you refer to climate science as a 'religion' that tells me and the rest of board you do not understand science, but rather try to insult the actual science because it does not agree with your cognitive bias.

AGW science is valid, claiming climate science is religion is embracing ignorance.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Crazy planet; It's at it again. To think we trusted it to not act like itself for little ol' humanity. Tsk tsk



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher

It's only acting in accordance with our changes to it.

We recognized this decades ago:

This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

-President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty: February 8, 1965.

Over 50 years later, and nothing has really been done to address it.
edit on 21Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:52:54 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Your link only goes to the UCAR home page, regardless if they put out a chart that shows cooling from 1880 to the 1940's it would be incorrect.




posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Oh so when its cooling, the scientists are incorrect? Does this chart not show cooling (line is BELOW 0) from 1880 to 1935? The UCAR graph is better because it indicates levels of uncertainty but it is essentially the same chart.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

I'd hate for you to be a scientist too if you can't tell the difference between local weather and global climate.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

BTW - if I compare current temperatures to about 1942, we haven't "smashed" through 1 degree of warming yet. We are still at about 0.8 something. Funny how that works!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is why scientists can't use relative words to describe action in science. Because people such as yourself who can't think relatively try to use comparisons like the one you just made to "debunk" the adjective describing the action being reported on by science.

I suppose you think that 120 degrees F is really hot out too huh?
edit on 20-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am so sorry. I humbly apologise. I guess I just could not see that dip in temperature from the 1980s to about 1935. I also did not see the hump in temperature from 1940 to 1942. And I guess it totally inappropriate to point out that it makes a big difference in relative temperature if you compare todays temperature to 1942 instead of just 0.

I guess I am just too stupid to worship at the feet of a scientist the way you do.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Just done a trawl through my archives, two reports, one stating that piles of snow still there is Buffalo, NY, in June, and unmelted snow still there in Scotland (UK) in July, this year, so where is the heat?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The chart clearly shows "warmer than average" over the area I live. That is a fracking joke!! Hahahahaha! We haven't reached 90 degrees for the last two summers. The last two winters we hit -40 below multiple times and smashed cold records. I've seen enough.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't think you are fully grasping what "relatively" means...



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Just done a trawl through my archives, two reports, one stating that piles of snow still there is Buffalo, NY, in June, and unmelted snow still there in Scotland (UK) in July, this year, so where is the heat?


Local weather != global climate



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The chart clearly shows "warmer than average" over the area I live. That is a fracking joke!! Hahahahaha! We haven't reached 90 degrees for the last two summers. The last two winters we hit -40 below multiple times and smashed cold records. I've seen enough.


"Warmer than usual" doesn't necessarily mean 90 degree weather. It means it's usually x degrees, but currently it is x + y degrees. X very well could be -45 degrees or something.

Though, the difference in temperature is less than a degree so it would be hard for YOU to notice it anyways.




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join