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

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Riffrafter

Can't keep saying that Climate Change is a hoax. Reality is starting to catch up with the deniers.



I don't think anyone is making claim to Climate Change being a hoax. I think what is being questioned is anthropogenic climate change. We tend to think we are more powerful than the reality of it.




posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

That's what I'm talking about. No one is question general Climate Change science and you should know I wasn't referring to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

That's what I'm talking about. No one is question general Climate Change science and you should know I wasn't referring to it.


I'm sorry, you have me at a disadvantage here. What do you mean? Can you clarify?

What *I* was saying that what some people are calling a hoax is the actual general rift between those who study anthropogenic climate change (because they either believe or disbelieve the actual effects). Calling those that can show evidence of a largely cyclic nature of the climate changing is not hoax worthy any more than outright dismissing the element caused by mans influence.
edit on 18-11-2016 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Its from all the hot air the DNC and media are spewing (including this bs story)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

When I refer to Climate Change I'm referring to the man-made Climate Change discussion. I just say Climate Change for short because I don't feel like typing all that out. I also get slightly irritated when people insist on pointing out how they believe in natural Climate Change, like that needs to be said or anything. There's only one discussion about Climate Change and that is the man-made variety. Natural Climate Change isn't contested (well outside of normal scientific peer review contesting), so bringing it up is a red herring.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: panaque

BS story? So you have temperature readings from the Arctic that show a different temperature than what is being reported or something?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Here you go...
www.cfact.org...
edit on 18-11-2016 by panaque because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Here is a good link for temperatures and weather.

www.windytv.com...,89.705,-10.319,3

Zoom in and out with mouse wheel. Click on Temp on the right scale.

The N pole usually fluctuates temperature wise more than the S pole.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep, here you go...
m.facebook.com... ZPigwa2m7T_vLnS8kypfGKHTNhyM7g3oBQpYn1RKvQFWf1aO_bUjDCliHW5lvJ7AUfHFiN1Jr_i3Im2ObrTV9PkrcA7C81TkSyXbDYyq0YYsfA7l7twNc8vrXj-a_hJTx1-9X8lmlwdf0lChW5-wWd gcbzn4xq9ooSPPHMUjOan_b7q6tvgehmdiwEo1nswjXXu3gc4uGqrYvll2TdbeY1N1lc5RwjasnUl2ET4vwdG3zwjLnpUMn50363j-bPOmki_TJGXjWbbDgfl7cKGNIcKOi6W78FTUrY7Q_ywuVZXr XBhkDa4TkPMKTxgpR_6h-xdTFaAn3LbtfpWJnQzBCAbZr_PXXwnrkIG5lbzICflLw&s=1

That link isn't working for me. It's getting blocked because it is Facebook. In any case, quote the text you are talking about (though you posting Facebook as a credible source is completely laughable).



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, was linking and messed up. Computering isnt my bag...
I fixed and edited my original post.
edit on 18-11-2016 by panaque because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

When I refer to Climate Change I'm referring to the man-made Climate Change discussion. I just say Climate Change for short because I don't feel like typing all that out. I also get slightly irritated when people insist on pointing out how they believe in natural Climate Change, like that needs to be said or anything. There's only one discussion about Climate Change and that is the man-made variety. Natural Climate Change isn't contested (well outside of normal scientific peer review contesting), so bringing it up is a red herring.


It's not a red herring >.>

And you can get irritated all you want, but bringing up one without the other and having a real comparison is completely disingenuous. How much of it is attributable to man is still an unknown and will likely continue to be.

Again, people tend to believe they are far more powerful than they truly are and there are far more considerations to weigh than what is simply being spewed out by the mainstream, as much as they would like to believe that there is some magic button to reverse it all. There is no doubt that carbon based exhaust has negative impact. There is no doubt that chemical pollution has negative impact. Curbing those elements is always a good plan.

However, like a blind spot in a mirror, we cant be broadsided by the things we don't see coming simply because we choose to look in only one direction.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, was linking and messed up. Computering isnt my bag...
I fixed and edited my original post.

How does some Climate denier showing up at a UN summit disprove what is being reported in the OP? That the Arctic is hotter than it usually is this time of year.
edit on 18-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Lord have mercy with your anthropocentricity BS....
The Climate is set by much larger forces than mankind.....period.
And im not even a Trump supporter so there nyah.....



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because it naturally does that from time to time.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

When I refer to Climate Change I'm referring to the man-made Climate Change discussion. I just say Climate Change for short because I don't feel like typing all that out. I also get slightly irritated when people insist on pointing out how they believe in natural Climate Change, like that needs to be said or anything. There's only one discussion about Climate Change and that is the man-made variety. Natural Climate Change isn't contested (well outside of normal scientific peer review contesting), so bringing it up is a red herring.


It's not a red herring >.>

And you can get irritated all you want, but bringing up one without the other and having a real comparison is completely disingenuous. How much of it is attributable to man is still an unknown and will likely continue to be.

Yes. In a scientific discussion these conversations are important, but the shape of the conversations about man-made climate change take are usually political in nature. Bringing up natural climate change when talking about man made climate change in a political discussion is almost ALWAYS a way to distract from the topic at hand. That is what I mean by it being a red herring.

I certainly agree that both conversations are important and relate to each other. WITHIN science. But I've yet to experience a MM Climate Change discussion that wasn't immediately dragged into a political conversation.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because it naturally does that from time to time.

Well yeah. That's because the world is heating up due to excessive CO2 output.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

When I refer to Climate Change I'm referring to the man-made Climate Change discussion. I just say Climate Change for short because I don't feel like typing all that out. I also get slightly irritated when people insist on pointing out how they believe in natural Climate Change, like that needs to be said or anything. There's only one discussion about Climate Change and that is the man-made variety. Natural Climate Change isn't contested (well outside of normal scientific peer review contesting), so bringing it up is a red herring.


It's not a red herring >.>

And you can get irritated all you want, but bringing up one without the other and having a real comparison is completely disingenuous. How much of it is attributable to man is still an unknown and will likely continue to be.

Yes. In a scientific discussion these conversations are important, but the shape of the conversations about man-made climate change take are usually political in nature. Bringing up natural climate change when talking about man made climate change in a political discussion is almost ALWAYS a way to distract from the topic at hand. That is what I mean by it being a red herring.

I certainly agree that both conversations are important and relate to each other. WITHIN science. But I've yet to experience a MM Climate Change discussion that wasn't immediately dragged into a political conversation.


Yes, youre right. It always becomes political. The 2 should stand worlds apart.

Frankly, I believe that any discussion on climate change should always be scientific and the only time the political sphere should be approached is to simply guide ill-informed politicians about the findings of the scientific community.

Politicians remind me of my sister (whom I haven't seen in about 30 years), who to me was the scariest person on the planet...why? Because she is one of those people who get a hold of one or two keywords du jour and run with them simply because they are vogue all the while trying to assure people she is an authority on the subject matter referenced by those keywords.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep, here you go...
m.facebook.com... ZPigwa2m7T_vLnS8kypfGKHTNhyM7g3oBQpYn1RKvQFWf1aO_bUjDCliHW5lvJ7AUfHFiN1Jr_i3Im2ObrTV9PkrcA7C81TkSyXbDYyq0YYsfA7l7twNc8vrXj-a_hJTx1-9X8lmlwdf0lChW5-wWd gcbzn4xq9ooSPPHMUjOan_b7q6tvgehmdiwEo1nswjXXu3gc4uGqrYvll2TdbeY1N1lc5RwjasnUl2ET4vwdG3zwjLnpUMn50363j-bPOmki_TJGXjWbbDgfl7cKGNIcKOi6W78FTUrY7Q_ywuVZXr XBhkDa4TkPMKTxgpR_6h-xdTFaAn3LbtfpWJnQzBCAbZr_PXXwnrkIG5lbzICflLw&s=1


I'm going to debunk this dude's idiocy now:

Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming

This is straight up not true. The IPCC has been releasing reports YEARLY showing that global temperatures are at their highest point. Then that record gets broken next year. I'd say that is the exact OPPOSITE of "virtually flat for about 18 years". Whether you believe in MM CC or not is irrelevant on this point. The world is warming and pretending it isn't is just dumb.


The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.

There are more places in the world than JUST the US. In fact Marc Morano had to travel to one such place to get to this UN summit


Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

Again this point is US centric. Global Warming effects the WHOLE globe.


Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.

What claims of snow being a "thing of the past"? This is a straight up strawman on par with that idiotic Representative who brought a snowball into a Congress to "disprove" Climate Change.


Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

Yeah. No.


Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.


Wait. Katrina and the various uptick in superstorms isn't "unusual"? This guy is seriously clueless...


So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

This argument is basically, "Temperatures aren't increasing because I've chosen to accept fewer significant figures than what science is reporting". Well sig figs matter!


A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains


In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade

Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic

In October 2016, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.40 million square kilometers (2.5 million square miles), the lowest October in the satellite record. This is 400,000 square kilometers (154,400 square miles) lower than October 2007, the second lowest October extent, and 690,000 square kilometers (266,400 square miles) lower than October 2012, the third lowest. The average extent was 2.55 million square kilometers (980,000 square miles) below the October 1981 to 2010 long-term average.



Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Polar bears aren't the sole indicator of Climate Change.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just look at this thread. I have a guy who is trying to dispute the claim in the OP by posting about some yahoo going to a UN summit and saying a bunch of strawmen like that disproves scientific findings or anything. That's textbook mixing of politics and science.
edit on 18-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just look at this thread. I have a guy who is trying to dispute the claim in the OP by posting about some yahoo going to a UN summit and saying a bunch of strawmen like that disproves scientific findings or anything. That's textbook mixing of politics and science.


Of course.

Part of the problem is mixing junk science with opinion and voila, you have a politicians talking points.

I tend to ignore (whether it be here, in my day to day or mainstream media) any view that doesn't have clear and concise science involed in it. I'm willing to be wrong and I'm also willing to be right, but by way of sound reasoning and critical thinking. Even someone who turns out being wrong but has done their due diligence deserve a far greater level of respect than the twitter and facebook champions.

As a hobby, I have studied paleoclimatology and meteorology for the better part of 15 years and being passionate about my hobby, I have met with and corresponded with many people in the field. It gives one an incredible perspective not only on the Geo Sciences, but also on people in general. Guys like that facebook hero are mere, barely discernable background noise that I tend to ignore and remained focused on what I truly believe.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join