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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Phage



So you like Spencer's adjustments and reject others? Why?


Nothing amusing about it at all, the MSU/AMSU data by the University of Alabama collaborates RSS data which also collaborates the UAH dataset, there has been no global warming for at least 15 years.

Quite amusing actually.You don't even see it, do you? You rail against the adjustment of data from surface based instruments because the adjustments show increasing temperatures where previously they did not. And yet, you accept the adjusted data from satellite based instruments because where previously they showed an increase, you think the adjusted data does not.

Oh. About that "no warming for 15 years", I'll refer to the link I provided earlier:
www.drroyspencer.com...
Seems that Dr. Roy has found that temperatures have indeed risen since 2000 (15 years ago, right), even if you leave out the el nino of 2015. I make it close to 0.2º. Still like his adjustments or do you want to try to cherry pick another time range?


Are you are mapping from the low of a cycle to the high of another cycle? If you start in middle of the 2001 cycle and end in middle of 2014 cycle it looks less than ,1 to my eye. From 2001 to 2013 zero,




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: glend



If you start in middle of the 2001 cycle and end in middle of 2014 cycle it looks less than ,1 to my eye. From 2001 to 2013 zero,


Ah. I see you took me up on my offer to cherry pick. But go ahead, ignore the "long term trend."
But it seems your new basket holds shy of 15.

How about that "long term" trend in sea levels? Got anything?

No comment on what your source said about Antarctic precipitation and warming models? Time to disregard it because...why?
edit on 1/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JHumm

A vacuum cleaner that only seems to be sucking up 10% of the carbon in the air. So it's not exactly a world saving measure on the planet's behalf.


Giant icebergs, defined as greater than 18km in length, make up half the ice floating in the Southern Ocean, with dozens present at any one time. The researchers calculated that the fertilisation effect of the icebergs in the normally iron-poor waters contributes up to 20% of all the carbon buried in the Southern Ocean, which itself contributes about 10% of the global total.


The world isn't in need of saving. The Earth is just doing what it's been doing for millions/billions of years.


thats the dumbest unscientific thing ive ever read. sorry to be so crude but its true
edit on 12-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Thanks Greven for the detailed and thoughtful explanation. Seems like the Global temperature stats from satellites is barely worth their lift off weight which is sad!

Its clear that the Arctic has been shrinking but there are also existing maps that mapped the Arctic extent at the beginning of 20th century that suggest that shrinkage is cyclic in nature. Which points the finger at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation more so than global warming. Given that the majority of land based temperature gauges are in the northern hemisphere the PDO could easily be perceived as global warming whilst the cooling and rising ice mass of Antarctica gets largely ignored,

The arctic ice shelf growing again in 1940's after a shrinkage in 1930's does map nicely against the cycles of the PDO as does its growth in 2013 (29% in a year).


edit on 12-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




Its clear that the Arctic has been shrinking but there are also existing maps that mapped the Arctic extent at the beginning of 20th century that suggest that shrinkage is cyclic in nature.

Ah, another deflection rather than addressing questions put to you. But yes, there are indeed cycles, but there are also trends.

The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.
neven1.typepad.com...


The arctic ice shelf growing again in 1940's after a shrinkage in 1930's does map nicely against the cycles of the PDO as does its growth in 2013 (29% in a year).
False. I do not see Arctic sea ice following the PDO index. I see a trend. nsidc.org...
No overall increase ca. 1990. No overall increase ca. 2000. Just a declining trend.

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



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend



If you start in middle of the 2001 cycle and end in middle of 2014 cycle it looks less than ,1 to my eye. From 2001 to 2013 zero,


Ah. I see you took me up on my offer to cherry pick. But go ahead, ignore the "long term trend."
But it seems your new basket holds shy of 15.

How about that "long term" trend in sea levels? Got anything?

No comment on what your source said about Antarctic precipitation and warming models? Time to disregard it because...why?


No I read the details on precipitation from warming and its a possibility that needs further investigation. But I think its more important at this stage to recognize that Antarctica ice cover has been variable in the past. The bigger question I feel is what causes that variability (before the industrial age) and how much of that variability is being ignored by today's models.

Sea levels rise ... Post me when Maldives sinks, not before!



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

No I read the details on precipitation from warming and its a possibility that needs further investigation.
In other words, you didn't actually read the source until I pointed out what it says, and at that point you question its validity.



Sea levels rise ... Post me when Maldives sinks, not before!
So, nothing to back up this claim:

nor are oceans rising above the long term trend,
I thought not.


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



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

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend
You said this:


Antartica's ice isn't melting, nor are oceans rising above the long term trend, nor are polar bear numbers declining.
The long term trend I was a referring to was sea level rise. Your link does not seem to include any data on that. Nor does it seem to mention the effects of glacial ice entering the ocean due to the loss of ice shelves though this quote is pertinent:

Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level.

Interesting, don't you agree? From a paper which is 4 years old, in light of recent discoveries.
dailycaller.com...


Not really, Global climate models have only proved one thing, their inaccuracy. Mapping all the variables that result in an accurate projection of future weather might be beyond the capability of today's computers. Given that they even know all the variables that can alter climate.


so I doubt they not any more sophisticated than an excel spreadsheet in which they enter corrupted data multiplied by their cosmological constant to come out with the global carbon tax.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




so I doubt they not any more sophisticated than an excel spreadsheet in which they enter corrupted data multiplied by their cosmological constant to come out with the global carbon tax.

So, in other words, you have no idea what the models entail but you reject them completely because you don't like what they indicate.

Just like the adjusted data which you reject unless it corresponds to your notions.


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



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LSU0408

The earth hasn't had humans on the planet doing what we do to the planet for all that time.

Not really a fair comparison.


Yeah just giant volcanoes everywhere!


You wouldn't think you were being so clever and witty if you applied a small bit of critical thinking to what you just said. The volcano element still exists on the planet. Human carbon production is in addition to the volcano element.
so the earth can only handle valconano co2, but not human co2?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

Well when we keep cutting down all our trees and clearing out land for more buildings, it is getting harder for the co2 to be handled.

And yes, why would it not make sense that the earth wouldn't be able to handle an added amount of co2 from something that is man made and doesn't occur in nature?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I reject them because 95% of the models have failed to follow reality? Yet you continue to whip the dead horse on the hope that it will run.



edit on 13-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: glend
Don't you remember that thing I just said about satellites?

Here's what GISTEMP looks like, for comparison:



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I do, your graph does a better job. thanks



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Well ,silly, THEY CAN'T charge a CARBON tax for THAT...it's not like they are attacking REAL sources of pollution or they would have to go after the Chinese.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The point is we all benefit from it (walmart (asda in the U.K, etc.)) , so no matter the nation if the carbon tax was valid it should apply to all those who benefit. Personally I believe in man made global warming, but instead of a carbon tax I'd much rather prefer an optimization set in place for the current method of energy production and I do not mean a tax on the corporations as that is the same as taxing the average citizen, so no citizen, anywhere, has to pay it. Taxes are not something I feel that should NOT be implemented till we at least see they have a positive effect.
edit on 13/1/2016 by Learningman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman
Stop using combustion engines and go with magnetics.
Oh yes and the banks will want your head as well.
The Carbon tax looks like funding for globalists. the UN is where Obama is heading to next so it would suit him to push it from his new house in Dubai.
On this we disagree, I very much doubt we have THAT much impact on temperatures.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

I do, your graph does a better job. thanks


For reference, the yearly temperature from January through November 2015 stood at +0.87 ± 0.09°C. I don't think December was significantly cooler than average.

GISTEMP tells a similar story at +0.84 °C Jan-Nov 2015.
edit on 20Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:11:19 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Happy to disagree, I come from a chemistry/physics background so naturally I will lean toward the scientific stance of 40 billion tons extra per annum of C02 being detrimental, but again, i lean towards the making our methods more efficient over taxation. I don't wish to pay my hard earne-ds to what I see as nothing more than a war on fossil fuels (which again I fully believe to be a detriment) because i do not recall ever voting for a reliance on such. If i diddn't vote for it, why am I responsible?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

WE should have weaned off of the combustion engine in the 50s.
You don't get "votes" without owning BILLIONS,BUT it IS getting exposed now so maybe we'll fix it.
THAT is why I also believe Tesla's science are repressed as are many others so they will get paid.
I'D of course like to shoot THEM too,but that's a given I'm sure...

edit on 13-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join