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.
Jack I've now already explained my initial response. I've posted an article about NASA to back up my position that over the long term the ice caps are not significantly melting no matter how many headlines scream it hysterically and no matter how many green peace commercials show polar bears falling out of the sky which in itself should show how hysterical it all is to begin with.
originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
acknowledging that both warming and cooling exists is exactly what makes the "it's hot/cold outside" arguments null.
longer term change.
LONG TERM.
Looking outside once is less useful than watching "The Day After Tomorrow".
Deflect with your coherent arguments if you want, that specific one is not.
In the US, they don't have to pass a law about environment (which makes it Unconstitutional from what I can tell), the EPA creates a regulation and assesses a fine structure. That is a big problem really because this is currently supported by the courts.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL
This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL
This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.
But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL
This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.
But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.
Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.
That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL
This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.
But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.
Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.
That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.
With respect, I could say the same thing. And every article/story/publication denouncing AGW as a hoax can be counter balanced with a solid scientific article stating AGW as a theory at least as solid as evolution or gravity. A lot of times I find those articles against AGW as being written by a scientist funded by big oil, like the Heartland Institute.
You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.
originally posted by: amazing
You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL
This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.
Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.
But I don't get my science from blogs, news sites and MSM. I read articles from Scientists and Scientific publications.
Then why are you so misinformed? I think not on purpose, but if you would just reread the posts right above yours for ones you appear to have 'missed' by accident in forming your scientific opinion. We must look at all the material when forming our opinions of the theory.
That information you claim to be seeking has been provided and at this point, I think I can rest my case, thanks.
With respect, I could say the same thing. And every article/story/publication denouncing AGW as a hoax can be counter balanced with a solid scientific article stating AGW as a theory at least as solid as evolution or gravity. A lot of times I find those articles against AGW as being written by a scientist funded by big oil, like the Heartland Institute.
You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.
With all due respect, no you can't say the same thing. The truth as best I can tell is what I have been trying to relay to you. I have, we have on ATS, given lots of solid evidence and yet you guys want to say we are wrong and some guy who's team has a series of failed prediction after failed prediction are who you are choosing to go with so far. I see this clearly and many others do too. Why you won't let loose and read it all and not just what the MSM is pushing down our collective throats with all we have been providing here on ATS is beyond logic. You want the 'truth' but you want the 'truth' you have been taught must be the 'truth' is what I see. Theory's that fail to make predictions are no longer considered valid by the Scientific Method.
Here is the flow chart we use for scientific method evaluation:
www.sciencebuddies.org...
Synopsis: When your experiment fails you go back thru the steps to determine the error but you do not ignore the errors.
ETA
The theory of Evolution is still standing as plausible unlike AGW. And it really matters not who has the truth if it is the truth so claiming big oil is not right. That group literally has made trillions of $'s since all this started. They benefited from the taxation scare and the 'they are coming for oil" IPCC people who caused the price to go up. Big oil is running the Gov is what EPA people have shared with us in meetings in the past.
originally posted by: amazing
So let's start at Zero.
I'm looking for Scientific Truth. On Climate...where should I turn to first. First research. NASA? That would seem to be a logical choice. They got us to the moon. They talk about a Scientific consensus and list over 200 scientific organizations with a position on Climate Change that man is a leading cause in this warming cycle we're on now.
Tell me why that would be a wrong move?
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
You can see that I'm not just spouting some rhetoric I heard on the TV, I'm looking for the truth.
What do you think of the IPCC "hiding the decline"?
As for me that was a bellwether moment of "figures lie and liars figure". The truth was being smacked around there amazing!
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: amazing
So let's start at Zero.
I'm looking for Scientific Truth. On Climate...where should I turn to first. First research. NASA? That would seem to be a logical choice. They got us to the moon. They talk about a Scientific consensus and list over 200 scientific organizations with a position on Climate Change that man is a leading cause in this warming cycle we're on now.
Tell me why that would be a wrong move?
Ok, i think the data has been manipulated by the IPCC people. I know there are lots of Atmospheric Scientist who have stated contradictions. Type those two things in Google and read both sides to decide is my best suggestion. Trust worthiness of the presenters went into my decision.
The stories of Scientist being fired who dare even try to present the data in opposition to the UN's plan, or are being threatened to be so, have been reported here in the numerous threads.
We must decide credibility at this point. I support protecting the environment since I was a child and work in the field. I sincerely feel my profession's credibility is under assault by the Gore's and the UN when they present this theory that fails the predictions over and over so, I am here trying to vent.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It's a deflection from the charges that it's man made and that we must stop using wood burning stoves? That may fly in California but not in Montana or Wyoming where people would die without wood burning stoves. I have a friend who relies on one every day in the winter so I really wish people would stop with this argument.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
What does it matter what the change is from? That is just deflection. What made us the top species on this planet is adaptability. We have lost that, all we fund is war. Good future there.
originally posted by: Justoneman
The oceans are holding less and less carbon because they warm up is right but the reason it warmed is simply geothermal,
and therefore Sun driven.
Boy these guys are going to have egg on their faces as it gets cooler the next few decades.
originally posted by: Greven
...
originally posted by: Greven
Lower Troposphere: +0.12 C/decade
As the lower troposphere warms, it prevents more heat from reaching higher altitudes. However, there is still heat being trapped up a bit higher, because CO2 is well-mixed:
...
Declining solar activity linked to recent warming
The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.
Quirin Schiermeier
...
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...
"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise
The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...
NEW OBSERVATIONS OF THE SOLAR 0.5 – 5 KEV SOFT X-RAY SPECTRUM
AMIR CASPI1,3, THOMAS N. WOODS1, and HARRY P. WARREN2
1 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA
2 Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA
Received 2014 October 28; accepted 2015 January 23; published 2015 March 18
ABSTRACT
...
These measurements show that the highly variable SXR emission is orders of magnitude greater than that during the deep minimum of 2009, even with only weak activity. The observed spectra show significant high-temperature(5–10 MK) emission and are well fit by simple power-law temperature distributions with indices of ∼6, close to the predictions of nano flare models of coronal heating. Observations during the more active 2013 flight indicate an enrichment of low first-ionization potential elements of only ∼1.6, below the usually observed value of ∼4, suggesting that abundance variations may be related to coronal heating processes.
...
originally posted by: Greven
So go on, prove these three things:
1) CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation
...
If you can do these three things, then you will disprove CO2-driven global warming. Anything less will be met with ridicule.
originally posted by: Greven
2) The troposphere isn't warming
originally posted by: Greven
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth's Upper Atmosphere
"This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). "It's a Space Age record."
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
"Something is going on that we do not understand," says Emmert.
...
By Astrobio - Sep 5, 2009
Scientists Uncover Solar Cycle, Sratosphere, and Ocean Connections
...
“The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. “Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades.”
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the Department of Energy. It builds on several recent papers by Meehl and colleagues exploring the link between the peaks in the solar cycle and events on Earth that resemble some aspects of La Nina events, but are distinct from them. The larger amplitude La Nina and El Nino patterns are associated with changes in surface pressure that together are known as the Southern Oscillation.
...
The team first confirmed a theory that the slight increase in solar energy during the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone. The energy warms the air in the stratosphere over the tropics, where sunlight is most intense, while also stimulating the production of additional ozone there that absorbs even more solar energy. Since the stratosphere warms unevenly, with the most pronounced warming occurring at lower latitudes, stratospheric winds are altered and, through a chain of interconnected processes, end up strengthening tropical precipitation.
...
Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean
Masao Fukasawa1, Howard Freeland2, Ron Perkin2, Tomowo Watanabe3,5, Hiroshi Uchida1 & Ayako Nishina4
Ocean Observation and Research Department, Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre, Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan
The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 4B2, Canada
Far-fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Shimizu, 424-8633, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, 890-0056, Japan
Present address: Central Fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Japan
Correspondence to: Masao Fukasawa1Howard Freeland2 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Top of page
Abstract
Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Like always, you are making up your own conclusions reached by fallacious arguments you always love to make.
Let's start.
First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the Sun's visible light has been increasing which has been warming the Troposphere...
www.nature.com...
This strange behavior from our sun didn't stop in 2007.
www.ssl.berkeley.edu...
Not to mention that you are ignoring the fact Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, or the other changes Earth is undergoing such as the increase activity of geothermal warming, and the global increase in seismicity which point to a fact that people like you want to ignore. Earth is going through changes that are bound to be affecting it's climate.
You are ignoring the fact that cosmic x-rays from outside the solar has been increasing.
You are ignoring the fact that even with what is supposed to be a decrease in activity in our sun, somehow it's soft x-ray emissions have been increasing.
www.ssl.berkeley.edu...
The sun itself is reacting weirdly to something that is affecting not only Earth, but other planets and moons with an atmosphere in the solar system which are undergoing not only dramatic climate changes, but have been undergoing dramatic warming.
This is happening at the same time we see other activity in the sun weakening.
You actually think that I did not notice your obvious attempt at using generalized claims such as "prove that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation"... Just because it does doesn't mean it absorbs as much radiation as you and the AGW scientists claim... More so when time and again GCMs have been shown to be wrong...
originally posted by: Greven
2) The troposphere isn't warming
I guess the fact that the sun's visible light and soft x-ray emission has increased which has been corroborated to have been warming the Troposphere just swoosched above your head huh?... If you quickly turn around and look above you you might still notice the "swoooshing" that keeps passing above your head meanwhile you yell "it must be CO2, it must be mankind causing climate change"...
originally posted by: Greven
3) The stratosphere isn't cooling
wow... I guess Greven is completely oblivious to the fact that there are many natural factors that account for cooling in the upper atmosphere.
For example, solar flares and cmes, apart from releasing billions of tons of solar particles into the Earth also cause shockwaves which not only heats and expands the upper atmosphere but it also causes the formation of nitric oxide which rapidly cools and shrinks the upper atmosphere.
www.colorado.edu...
Or how about the fact that meanwhile the sun's activity has recently been warming the Troposphere, the decline of other solar activity has cause the upper atmosphere to cool?
science.nasa.gov...
(continued below)
The ABSOLUTE accuracy of the measurements is not nearly as good… probably no better than about 0.5 deg. C. But since each deep-layer measurement of the atmosphere includes individual air layers spanning tens of degrees, even small errors in the microwave absorption theory will translate into that much uncertainty. -- Dr. Roy Spencer