It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: TrueAmerican
I call this a load-O-crap. This is just one bloggers opinion and its very obvious that he cycles through whatever data he can to find discrepancies to use to push his agenda.
And he's been doing a long time!
And it gets him lots of clicks.
So, again, Drudge is spreading fake news!
Every one knows AGW is settled science, there's nothing to argue about, the numbers speak for themselves, even if the numbers are sometimes jerry rigged to produce a desired result! It doesn't mean all the data is bad. If you don't believe it, ask some Marshall Islanders who are having to move to the US because their Islands are disappearing beneath the rising seas!
When you deny AGW, you're simply supporting the industrialists who could care less about anything except their obscene profits!
originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: TrueAmerican
unless I have direct access to all the data and know how to interpret it I have to rely on the priest class to tell me the "truth"
Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."
originally posted by: network dude
as of right now, this is a "blogger's claim", so don't be so fast to accept it since it's what you want to hear. IT needs to be verified and vetted.
But by the same token, criticizing the source without checking the claim is equally ignorant. (IMHO)
originally posted by: luthier
The problem here is that many skeptics don't produce peer reviewed papers.
Now this could be because of the ridicule they get or that they are just giving opinions.
Vs say in the journal nature.
In any case the fact is the population is growing and anyone who isn't concerned protecting habitat is just ignorant. Not that that means carbon is the problem. Human consumption of resources and habitat infringement are.
A couple volcanoes alone could put pressure on the food production. There should be a goal to protect the spaces left in the wilderness and to limit needless artifacts.
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Metallicus
I dont think its completely BS.
Its just being overhyped into doom porn used against us.
Earth climate does change in cycles. And though we are not causing it, we are likely speeding it up.
Just means we get to the end result quicker. Meh.
The important thing is the west will survive.