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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Following the money will lead you straight to Big Oil and all the resources they pump into disinfo about climate change. They have by far the most to lose if they can't keep their stranglehold on the world's energy production.




posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
[You see how the blue part shoots up really high at towards the right of the graph? That's us. THAT'S the effect of man made climate change. YES climate changes naturally, BUT we adding onto the Earth's natural changing climate. THUS the derivative of heat exchange increases. For some reason people refuse to understand this. Do they not understand calculus?


Man made climate change? That's the same as AGW, let's just call it that instead of all this Global Warming nonsense.
Dear, dear, Gavin Schmidt is such a drama queen when he plays with his er, models made up of corrupt stats.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
And what happened here?

How did those spikes happen? What events led to them? Also hugely important to know when looking at the BIG picture. I am not discounting anything you presented, but since you seem to be an authority on this matter, these questions are important to the overall future of our survival.


First off, those aren't temperature spikes. They are derivative spikes, and as you can see the current spike is MUCH higher than those spikes. However, those spikes are merely naturally occurring spikes. The current spike is a combination of naturally occurring and artificially occurring events.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Like I said. You are a denier. There is no debate on if the climate changes naturally. Everyone already believes that. That is just denier speak trying to reframe the argument.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.

The only problem with all that , I see no who,what , when , where , why , or how....
"Just words , just speeches"
In other news , a self-proclaimed climatologist from Georgia states that NASA is incorrect and the world has cooled an average of 10deg C.
Makes as much sense
BugBeGone



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Nice article. Too bad it's not from NASA. It's an interpretation of a NASA report.


Abstract: “Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average (+/-)0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from
uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the (+/-)0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of (+/-)0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This (+/-)0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically
indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”
Source: www.warwickhughes.com...

Notice the values on the vertical on the first graph. The maximum deviation is around 0.5C. The uncertainty as stated above is 0.46C. The values are therefore not statistically significant.

Without statistically significant readings, the derivative is meaningless. Let's try to calculate the derivative, shall we?

Looking at the graph, it appears the temperature climbed from -0.1C to 0.5C in about 20 years. That gives a differential of 0.6/20 or about 0.03C/yr. Pretty high! Now let's include the uncertainty, being conservative and taking 0.4C instead of 0.46C. That means a possible error of 0.8C total. The derivative is now between -0.2/20 and 1.4/20, or between -0.01C/yr and 0.07C/yr.

That does not mean the 'true value' is the median of that range. It means the 'true value' exists somewhere in that range. We could have actually cooled slightly (although I doubt that). In other words, this is just another scare tactic based on spinning statistical data.

It's working. I'm really getting scared of what Gavin Schmidt is going to try and do next.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Names mean nothing. You are just looking for excuses to deny instead of actually looking at the data and denying ignorance anyways.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

So because I'm not pointing fingers and blaming people it isn't happening?


In other news , a self-proclaimed climatologist from Georgia states that NASA is incorrect and the world has cooled an average of 10deg C.

Got a source for this? And what data is he using?
edit on 31-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Wow if cows are such a concern I can't imagine how destructive the dinosaurs were.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fully agree with your posts, but I have stopped commenting on AGW as I have come to the view that no matter how many facts you bring to the table, the denialists will NEVER accept it.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Hellhound604

You may be right, but I can't stop trying. If I stop trying then we've truly lost everything. Now that I've pulled my head out of the sand (yes I used to be a denialist, well actually a skeptic but I came around after looking at the evidence carefully) I don't want to stick it back in.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Farlander
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Following the money will lead you straight to Big Oil and all the resources they pump into disinfo about climate change. They have by far the most to lose if they can't keep their stranglehold on the world's energy production.

This is a great point. If deniers would actually practiced what they preached and literally followed the money, they'd be in for a HUGE surprise.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
In following the money and corruption it would seem that the AG have played a stupid game to make a buck .


The Competitive Enterprise Institute today filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, seeking copies of any agreements his office signed that would protect internal communications stemming from his investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change record. CEI’s suit in New York state court comes after Schneiderman denied the conservative think tank’s May 5 request under the state’s freedom of information law for any common interest agreements that his office reached with other state AGs involved in his climate oversight efforts, as well as seven individuals and green groups also involved in Exxon probes.
wattsupwiththat.com...

One could also wonder if this was also a extension of the RICO scam that was trying to be played .That alone could have its own thread and is quite the story . This new case is bound to require lots of popcorn for those watching . Yes things are heating up but its not associated with poor proxy values .



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

That's not following the money. That's taking a lawsuit and extrapolating your own narrative on why it occurred. THIS is following the money:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Try denying some ignorance for a change. Though I'm sure you'll just tell all these sources are biased so you don't have to do that.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
At this point in time, the cause is irrelevant.
Coming up with a viable defense, even if its weak, unsustainable or unsuccessful.
People are learning what will and will not work.


How can you propose solutions without understanding the cause?

cause: greenhouse gases released in the atmosphere
solution: CO and methane scrubbers around farmlands, cities, etc.

or

Cause: solar radiation is on a high due to solar activity
Solution: atmospheric clouding and tinting to reduce solar rays, etc.

or

Cause: earths ozone layer has thinned out from a weakened magnetic field
Solution: similar to option 2.

see...if you reject the discussion of the cause, you can't propose a direction for a solution..not even in science fiction answering can you bypass the cause and go straight for the solution.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your links to the money that other groups get is like the data graphs the AGW crowd suffers . When pointed out the issues they change the narrative to well not be so cock sure of themselves

Some other viewpoints on this claim. Dr. Lubos Motl: We received 1 billion dollars ‘Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just “may have received” the billion instead of the phrase “did receive” it.’ — ‘The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude…This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two…If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people’s minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude.’ Marc Morano: This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true. Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’ Tom Nelson: After UK Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly ‘fixed’ with the addition of weasel words ‘may’ and ‘up to’ [Guardian story yesterday, from the Internet Archive] Conservative groups spend $1bn a year to fight action on climate change Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change [Guardian story today] Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change …This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.
wattsupwiththat.com...


They go from very positive to well less so and as their research is questioned then more issues come up but its always to make the head lines for a day or two and that is what matters I guess .

Its also great to see the mine quoting in that guardian artificial . Much like the AG problem with EXon where they took quotes out of context and didnt supply the next sentence .


Robert Brulle pushes back on @Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of "climate change counter movement" funding: "You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle
www.twitlonger.com...
edit on 31-8-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

So is whatsupwiththat the only source you care about and think is credible or something? If they say it then it MUST be true.

I mean your article is merely saying that some of the money may have gone elsewhere, it isn't exactly denying that tons of money (to the tune of millions) is being funneled to climate change deniers. It is just refuting how much. Though I guess flimsy rebuttals like that are good enough when you aren't looking to challenge your worldview.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just from a layman's observation, here in Philly, we have had the hottest August on record, average temperature wise, around here, also the most 90+ degree days.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So when the elite force Hilary to become POTUS and they pull her strings to press the big RED NUCLEAR button....

What Difference Does It Make when smiley face mushroom clouds are going to vaporize millions of people and kill the rest with cancer ?

There is no point bothering with a soon-to-be radioactive wasteland, worldwide.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, it's "unprecedented in the last thousand years," but one millennia is NOTHING to indicate that it's man's fault, or that the world will end with this trend. Even in your own graph, there are areas noted that have a .5-degree rise in a very short period of time, well before industrialization occurred (and you'll not that following all of those, there was also a period of cooling, meaning that the trend corrects itself and there is no runaway melting of earth).


Furthermore, going back within the last 50kya, there is absolute evidence that warming trends--even dramatically sudden and long-lasting--calm down and then will eventually cool down again...especially if you're willing to look at the trend going back 450kya from the Vostok ice-core samples. Note that the yellow area in the first chart shows a temperature rise of between 7 and 8 degrees total, not this .5 or one degree that everyone is whining about in the chart that you supplied. Life is still around, even after that massive shift in climate.




Call me nuts, but this is pretty good evidence that this "trend" is going to go away at some point (and also that it's not all man's fault, if any, considering that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise by at least 400 years). Also, I'm sure that plenty of people by now have noted that the claimed record-setting temperatures every month and every year is a farce as well.

Please peddle this doom porn somewhere else..."derivatives" or otherwise. I like how you end your OP with name calling and pretending that people who don't buy into this crap don't look deeper into graph analysis. It's a pathetic tactic, but one that we're all used to at this point. Sticks and stones...and all that jazz.

Carry on, as we all know that you will, regardless.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join