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.

 

Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



I didn't say the data was not reliable. I said that Watts' "interpretation" is unreliable. And so are you, in making the claim that average temperatures necessarily indicate extremely high temperatures.


Never met Watts, nor do I care. The fact that NOAA is constantly changing the yardstick (changing historic data) for a desired outcome is the issue.



No, it didn't. Unless you can provide data which says otherwise?


RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature, link

I'm off to the dentist, have fun




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LSU0408

Got some numbers with that?
Or should I just take your word for it.


I got some links. August is our hottest month so I'll go with that. And January for our coldest. Any other months, you can do those.

www.wunderground.com... c=1&reqdb.wmo=99999

August 2011 (29 days over 100)
High 109°
Ave 102°
Low 82°

August 2012
High 98°
Ave 92°
Low 80°

August 2013
High 99°
Ave 97°
Low 95°

August 2014
High 96°
Ave 91°
Low 71°

August 2015 (6 days over 100, all in a row)
High 104°
Ave 94°
Low 75°

January 2012 (No days below 48°)
High 78°
Ave 52°
Low 23°

January 2013
High 76°
Ave 49°
Low 26°

January 2014
High 73°
Ave 42°
Low 14°

January 2015
High 74°
Ave 44°
Low 15°

Anyways, using the link I gave you, you can choose any city you'd like and break them down daily, weekly, monthly, or custom.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can tell you that Alaska stay frozen so I don't why it has any red near it. Looks like the main culprits are in Asia.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Never met Watts, nor do I care. The fact that NOAA is constantly changing the yardstick (changing historic data) for a desired outcome is the issue.
So you think that raw data which is known to be inaccurate should be relied upon?

Oh, here's that homework which was eaten. Seems someone lied about it being gone.
www.giss.nasa.gov...
Included on that page is this image, a comparison with the global trend.


So, why were US temperatures adjusted?

Subsequent improvements (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001) to the original analysis included use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

Surprise, it was because of exactly the thing that warming skeptics complain about, heat islands. The instrumental biases were adjusted for. It was the rural trends, away from heat islands which were used. Of course, Watts won't tell you that but if you want to read about it in detail; here you go. More of that "hidden" stuff that's all secret and stuff.
pubs.giss.nasa.gov...
pubs.giss.nasa.gov...


RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature,
Yes. A warming trend. Particularly in the Arctic. But RSS is not the only satellite.
www.drroyspencer.com...




edit on 1/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408



I can tell you that Alaska stay frozen so I don't why it has any red near it. Looks like the main culprits are in Asia.

The colors represent deviations from the average temperatures from 1981 to 2010. Alaska is warmer than it was over that period of time.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LSU0408

Um... no they are not.


They don't blame the man made part of global warming on man?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t
In light of the post above, I stand corrected. This person thinks that CO2 stays in one place.



Two people that buy into the global warming hoax and the billions coming out of our paychecks to fund it. Y'all aren't intimidating and it's funny that you think others look foolish when comes to something you found an article about. Yay for finding an article that fits your agenda.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think the point being made is that, in comparison to cities, rural areas produce less carbon. Which may be true, unless looked at on a per capita basis.


edit: I see your followup post.

Now you know why I said his reasoning is ridiculous.


Yeah, because you believe in a made up lie and I don't. I can totally see why I'm the ridiculous one.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Well they say man is contributing to it, but I misunderstood your point.
Thought that was about people living in rural areas and not big cities, my apologies.




Two people that buy into the global warming hoax and the billions coming out of our paychecks to fund it.


All the while fossil fuels is a trillion dollar industry that guess what, you help subsidize .
So if you wan to take this 'follow the money' point then follow the money of who denies this.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Yet you fail to understand how 40 billion tons from one person is the same amount as 40 billion tons from any other arbitrary number of people. Nor that a gas does not stay in the place it was released. Not ridiculous at all.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Wait.

Are member actually trying to use their own local weather patterns to try and say that Climate Change isn't real?

Really?





It's quite clear, that the world on average is getting warmer, year over year, as the data sets have suggested. I'm not inclined to call it manmade or natural cycle, but the fact of the matter is, that's what happening. Even the bloody GOP admit it.

My god, if only the people who were arguing against this had anything else but the two above logical fallacies going for them, it might be easier to take them seriously.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you aware that many of the significant hotspots around the world occur over the oceans and not land?


Are there cities out there in the middle of those oceans or could it just be normal changes like the ones that have been going on for millions/billions of years? That # has nothing to do with humans.


How do you look at two molecules of carbon and determine which was released by human production and which was released by natural production exactly? Because I'm pretty sure even scientists can't tell the difference, so it's rather amazing and remarkable that you are able to do that.


So how then, exactly do you know this is caused by man?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

Target the big cities (10% of the Earth) that are responsible. Not sure what part there is to understand about that.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It says it represents changes from Jan to Jun 2015.......which doesn't make sense. Maybe I read it wrong. My bad.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LSU0408

Well they say man is contributing to it, but I misunderstood your point.
Thought that was about people living in rural areas and not big cities, my apologies.




Two people that buy into the global warming hoax and the billions coming out of our paychecks to fund it.


All the while fossil fuels is a trillion dollar industry that guess what, you help subsidize .
So if you wan to take this 'follow the money' point then follow the money of who denies this.


Too bad we don't have a choice. it'd be nice if I could pick and choose what my taxes funded and didn't fund. Oh well, life goes on.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Because CO2 from fossil fuels have different isotopes from atmospheric CO2. Krazyshot was wrong, and in fact he even conceded it in this very thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I was asked about proof that MY area's weather pattern was cooling.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

I know what you're saying. I'm suggesting targeting the biggest culprits. And they're not in the USA.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

You don't subsidize it from your taxes, you subsidize it from the continued purchase of fossil fuels and fossil fuel products.

By target the big cities I assume you mean the carbon tax? Do you not benefit from industry in big cities? I know I do, and I live in the countryside.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I was asked about proof that MY area's weather pattern was cooling.


Okay, but as noted, your local weather pattern doesn't have much to do with climate.

Are you still willing to state that the world on average is not warming?

~Tenth




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join