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.

 

2016 is (predictably) set to be the hottest year on record

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

What are you talking about? Source your claims. You can't just say things and they be true. Insulting scientists doesn't make you credible either. Put up or shut up. I want to see actual scientific evidence and not political rhetoric like usual.
edit on 22-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I almost told you to go screw yourself, but ...
Source1
Source2
Source3
Source4
Source5
Don't forget to read every word.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you getting it yet?

Have you noticed the fall-off in climate change rhetoric lately?

The (fake science) scientific claim that the warming trend tapered of and has been doing so since the '90s?

Do you now know why that happened? You see ... they manipulated the data from the past. They manipulated the data and got caught frikkin' doing it. Caught red-frikkin'-handed, my boy. And since they got caught ... and the method of how they did it was exposed ... they can't go about doing it again.

Do ... you ... get ... it ... now, McFly?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lostbook

Typical ATS response: "Climate is always changing. Nothing to see here folks!"

Don't expect any alarms to be sounded here.


Agreed. The climate is always changing but this statement is used as a write-off to do nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you getting it yet?

Have you noticed the fall-off in climate change rhetoric lately?

The (fake science) scientific claim that the warming trend tapered of and has been doing so since the '90s?

Do you now know why that happened? You see ... they manipulated the data from the past. They manipulated the data and got caught frikkin' doing it. Caught red-frikkin'-handed, my boy. And since they got caught ... and the method of how they did it was exposed ... they can't go about doing it again.

Do ... you ... get ... it ... now, McFly?


The climate "IS" changing. The seasons seem to be off as well. Yes, it's not warming everywhere on the planet at once; it's a global average. Here in DC, we barely had a winter; there was no snow on Christmas or even in the month of December. I guess some people won''t see it until it's at their doorstep.
edit on 22-7-2016 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
originally posted by Snarl

Source1

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

Source2
Source3

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

Source4




Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States)

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry

Source5


Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I can't argue with you because that's been the experience in Texas; summer was late, Spring was late. Played hell with gardening. June and July have been in line with usual temperatures with unusually high humidity in southwest Texas.

I don't know what to make of any of this. It seems like the so-called experts call every summer the hottest on record.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

That is what is been propagandized and having a weather channel owned by private companies behind the clima change is not making it any better.

Summer is hot winter is colder and in between is the fall and spring, that have not chance, but what have change is the way is been sold to the people by clima change propaganda.

Its starting to look like the movie Tomorrow land when people were bombarded by end of times scenarios to the point that people were actually feeling that it was the end of time approaching.

Its hot because is summer.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
I guess some people won''t see it until it's at their doorstep.

Where I live we got wicked volumes of snow. Everyone was going on about it.

But ... you're right. I haven't seen it at my doorstep yet, Henny Penny, but I'll let you know the moment I do. Matter of fact, I'm gonna make a note of that in my will, that my kids should inherit that responsibility, and pass it down to their children as well.

"Notify lostbook when Climate Change is really happening."



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

LMAO ... I wonder how many people will understand what you just said was posted from one of the hottest environments on the planet!!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Don't worry. I read sources and am well prepared to take down all 5 of them. Though I thought we were on more friendlier terms than me deserving to be told to go screw myself, so I'm not exactly too keen on taking you too seriously going forward. Just FYI. So don't get your feelings hurt if I start getting a little brash with this response. So here you go:


Source1

Ok. This guy is nuts. First off. He's a retired geologist. He's not even a climate scientist.

For one he says that earth is in a cooling phase. Except that is directly disproven by this:
The past 5-year period is the hottest ever recorded, U.N. says
Just so we are clear. That is the UN agreeing with NASA. Furthermore, this guy only questioned NASA's data not the UN's.


Source2

This guy is using flawed sampling to try to display a cooling trend. Why is he taking samples over land and not the oceans for instance? I read both of the articles this guy wrote on this matter and the guy is CONSTANTLY picking spots over land. I already pointed out to you that the majority of all the warming is occurring over the oceans. This study is stupidly flawed. Plus there are more indicators of global warming than just this.


Source3
Source4

Fancy. Unsourced graphs... And the ones that are sourced go back to OTHER pages of unsourced graphs. Tons of dead links too. Where is this data coming from and what does it mean? Though titling the graphs sure helps people's biases.

Though now I see that this is Steve Goddard's blog. The fact that you are sourcing a blog is very sad... But hey, let's talk about this data.:
Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming


Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

...

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

So in others words the way this data was collected has changed. Including the stations moving to entirely different parts of the state they reside. Oh and this asshole here has made the same "only use weather data over land" fallacy that your other source made. Why do Climate Deniers only try to refute part of the theory and not the whole thing? You do know that disproving one part of it doesn't necessarily disprove the whole theory right? Ah well. I digress. Let's continue with your #ty sources.


Source5

This is your weakest source since it is just political theater and has nothing to do with the science being real or not. So I'm not even going to talk about it.

Ok not it is my turn for some evidence:
Evidence for global warming

The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:

Warming indicators

The 10 indicators are:

Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
Air temperature over the oceans.
Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.

Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.


Soak that in.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

No you are just deceiving yourself and acting like an asshole while doing it.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: 727Sky

LMAO ... I wonder how many people will understand what you just said was posted from one of the hottest environments on the planet!!


I thought this place was gonna look like the Gobi Desert in another 20 years simply because the monsoons have not been monsooning properly... However this monsoon season has been proper and I have learned to once again enjoy golfing in the rain !

Last year and the first part of this year was hotter than it has been in 65 years... Notice 65 years ago it was this hot or hotter... But we must never say it is a cycle of earth's climate.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I know and it's tediously annoying. Just look at the # I'm getting in this thread for agreeing with you.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lostbook

I know and it's tediously annoying. Just look at the # I'm getting in this thread for agreeing with you.


I see what you're going through. Some people either have political or financial gain by dissing climate science as false... Don't let it get to you.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Snarl
I can't argue with you because that's been the experience in Texas; summer was late, Spring was late. Played hell with gardening. June and July have been in line with usual temperatures with unusually high humidity in southwest Texas.

I've got a buddy down in San Antonio says the same thing. Another up in Dallas was talking about some Very unusual cold and snow.

What we've got to never let go of, was the narrative started off being defined as Global Warming. And ... they keep saying the average temperatures of the planet are 'rising ... not changing'. Any fool can tell you that the weather changes. Smart guys can pick out patterns.

What these guys did was manipulate the data. They did it for the nefarious purpose of causing change ... which made Al Gore (and his corporate cronies) boatloads of cash. Remember all the talk of 'prosecuting' people who spoke out in dispute of this nonsense?

Remember when they said 97% of all scientists were in agreement? Guess what? I'm a scientist ... and no one ever even asked me what I thought. I know bunches and heaps and gobs of scientists ... and when I asked them if they were polled ... each and every single one of them started laughing ... 'cause not one of them was.

 

Personal to Krazy: I'm not going to debate you today. I'm not in this thread for that. I had a nice little response typed out, but my keyboard died and I had to reboot my machine. It's not worth the effort trying to re-create it. And ... sorry if I offended you initially. I gave you credit for thicker skin.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky
There is not much "if" involved. Short of ceasing the combustion of fossil fuels entirely (not gonna happen any time soon), temperatures will continue to rise.

While methane is a much more "powerful" greenhouse gas than CO2 there are two major factors which limit its effects on climate. First, sunlight breaks it down (not so for CO2). Second, atmospheric concentrations of methane are very low, it will take huge releases of stored reserves to significantly change that. Somewhere down the road though, it will be a concern.

Taxes have never solved any problem. However, if carbon taxes reduce the rate of combustion of fossil fuels it will slow the rate of warming. Slowing the rate of warming will provide more time for adaptation as well as the development of technology to deal with the release of fossil carbon.


I hear ya, Phage. Not many listen to solid science anymore.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I usually don't. It's always the same tired rhetoric. Hence my first post in the thread. Lol.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: lostbook
I guess some people won''t see it until it's at their doorstep.

Where I live we got wicked volumes of snow. Everyone was going on about it.

But ... you're right. I haven't seen it at my doorstep yet, Henny Penny, but I'll let you know the moment I do. Matter of fact, I'm gonna make a note of that in my will, that my kids should inherit that responsibility, and pass it down to their children as well.

"Notify lostbook when Climate Change is really happening."


Yes, there's more snow in places.....there's more evaporation from the increase in heat. More water in the atmosphere= more snow/rain, etc. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence but aren't you the least bit concerned? We've broken the record for the hottest year for 3 years in a row from 2013-2016 and we've been breaking heat records since 1998!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Yea, I'll be the first to say I don't know what's going on. I can understand where man made emissions would be harmful to the environment; the plastic bags are a down right scourge on the planet, as are the plastic bottles and other plastic waste in the oceans. From what I understand, (oil field knowledge provided by Geologist friends), the earth has been in a warming phase since the last mini-ice age I think dates back to the Napoleonic age. Per wikipedia: It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850: en.wikipedia.org...

I guess we'll just watch and see how it works out.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join