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.

 

There was no global warming hiatus.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

LOL... Yeah, there's no bias in the correcting methods used...LOL...

nothing to see here folks move along and pay those carbon taxes....

Jaden




posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: mbkennel

LOL... Yeah, there's no bias in the correcting methods used...LOL...


That's the point of the paper. The paper was by scientists who were once SKEPTICAL of the NOAA adjustments, so they wanted to verify or refute the adjustments using secure high-quality validation data sets---each of which was taken from a single kind of instrument to eliminate various forms of bias.

They found the adjustments were in fact correct, and the NOAA procedure provided the best dataset available.


You seem to have an emotional bias that checking data with other data and continually improving the understanding of the data should produce an answer you want, rather than the answer which is ever more consistent with that from the laws of physics.

It's not an answer I want either, but the laws of physics do not care about what we want.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: everyone

Notice what was missing in the study"

They calculated ocean temperature using different data sets and were able to wave a magic wand and make the Pause (that never was) disappear.

But did they re-calculate the global temperature with each data set and make global warming disappear?


No, the global warming which was observed in many other datasets is now more apparent in the corrected sea surface temperature dataset. So that everything matches what is predicted by laws of physics.



Notice how they have sufficient data to now instantaneously "identify the footprint of Anthropogenic Warming" in weather events but somehow completely missed that if they looked at ocean temperatures just a little different, they could make the Pause (that never was) disappear.


You do understand that the 'pause' was a major unexplained apparent question in the climate community and was under investigation for a long time? The scientists knew its presence or absence wasn't clear and said so.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
wattsupwiththat.com...

Wow!

Under the Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0% column are:
Ocean Oscillations, Ocean Currents, Volcanoes, Wind, The Sun itself, Cosmic Galactic Rays and Milankovich Cycles!

Thats a lot of factors to leave out, is what is said in the article accurate?
Do the climate models predict the warming of an El Nino year even?



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

First of all and last of all for that matter, the PAUSE, which never existed was in the global temperature (average of land and sea) and not just sea.

Its funny to see you and Greven defending this study considering that both of you have argued till your blue that the PAUSE never existed.

Can you clarify something?

Are you now saying that it did exist but now that the data has been adjusted yet again, it no longer exists or are you saying that the PAUSE never existed and this study is just an exercise in lying with statistics???

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change



"based upon 'experts', it's been refuted long ago, and it's not up for scientific debate.'

Maybe it was refuted before the 'hiatus' began?


edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I see! Apparently as far back as the 1940s, the PAUSE was refuted. Of course, the PAUSE was refuted as a function of the wind, the AMO, ocean currents, a natural variation etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

The reasons for the PAUSE (that didn't exist) are so many and so varied that it is impossible to list them all here in text box.

Now we know that global temperatures dropped dramatically in the last half of 2016. We know that AMO has flipped to its cool phase, we know that globally SSTs have dropped like a rock and that heat is being lost in a very very dramatic way in the Arctic, along with minimum sun spots, I gotta wonder if the PAUSE (that never existed) will be back in 2017.

Better than watching a soap opera.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We also know that the 'scientists" that referred to 41 separate reasons for the PAUSE (that didn't exist) were blowing smoke up our asses because along come Berkly Earth to issue yet another study to prove why the PAUSE didn't exist! So alot of "experts" got a lot of money to study a problem that didn't exist and gave us alot of reasons for its non-existence and the reasons provided also didn't exist.

Climate alarmism at its finest!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Lets set up a reality TV show. People can choose to live in an environment where nothing fossil fuel related is available. Wonder how long the participants would stay? Some of the die hards might resort to hunting whales....



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Want to know what makes me really really laugh.....

James Hansen, the grandmaster poobah of alarmist anthropogenic global warming thought the PAUSE, that never existed, was caused by natural variation.

Now he ought to have known that Berkley Earth would proved, through the use of STATISTICS, that natural variability in nature DOES NOT EXIST and this was proved by the PAUSE, that never existed.

Bad James Hansen, BAD BAD BAD.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

clmate.gov




The deep ocean may have been able to "hide" excess heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases, contributing to the warming “pause” in the last decade, but scientists know that heat energy doesn't just disappear. Eventually, natural ocean circulation may bring some of the extra heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface, which can happen during an El Niño event, for example.



Why bother with lengthy explanations, just wait for the experts to manipulate the data and manufacture concensus.


This James Hansen?



The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
James Hansen

James Hansen


edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: spelling

edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Sorry dude, don't buy your outrage or your logic. The original statement stands and you will have to either except the fact that my opinion has equal validity based on my sources or not....I guess time will tell.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




Indeed
Follow the corporate money buying off your hero politicians and talking heads denying science..

or not.


Can you provide numbers on both sides as to how much is spent on funding? or not....



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Don't expect an answer.

The very concepts of "There's a scientific concensus that Global Warming is real" and "Denial studies are funded by big oil" are incompatible. Practically all scientific research in any field is done via grants. If there are more studies attempting to prove Global Warming than attempting to disprove it, then the bulk of the money is going to try and prove it. If the bulk of the money is going to try and disprove it, then there are more studies disproving it than proving it.

Apparently, someone didn't think things through when starting these talking points.

When I say "practically all," I do mean just that. There are precious few people on this planet willing to self-fund, like dumb old me. You can probably count all of them on your fingers. It's almost impossible to do.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SaturnFX




Indeed
Follow the corporate money buying off your hero politicians and talking heads denying science..

or not.


Can you provide numbers on both sides as to how much is spent on funding? or not....


Sure dude:
Scientific American discussion on dark money to deniers
Thats enough. they aren't even discussing the overt sources (oil barons / koch).
Over a half billion dollars to a handful of organizations to deny science.

This used to be a discussion a couple decades ago. it was less of a discussion a decade ago, but it was understandable..not everyone had the internet and there were a lot of big money backed shills.
Now most have the internet..go on google, type words in it and avoid your damn echo chamber. We only have 1 ecosystem. I am not a fan of cap/trade, but we cant even discuss other alternatives if we got millions of helmet wearing morons demanding science isn't true because Ted Cruz said it isnt.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: D8Tee

Don't expect an answer.

Dont expect to be taken seriously.

I provided links. I look forward to the propaganda to try and dismiss the scientific american link.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




Sure dude:





In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.



Thats only funding on one side, does the other side receive no money?
edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: included quote from article



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilliamtheResolute
my opinion has equal validity based on my sources or not....I guess time will tell.

No. it doesnt
your opinion is not based in accepted evidence

This isn't a discussion, its a examination of what can only be described as personally invested ignorance simply for a political ideology (which never..ever made sense to me outside of pure money fueling opposition to scientific taking..same exact stuff happened when they found Lead was poisonous to humans..tons of dark money trying to silence scientists for decades on end..same corporate slanting, but after 50 or so years, the lead deniers crawled away like cockroaches)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SaturnFX




Sure dude:





In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Thats only funding on one side, does the other side receive no money?

a few focused industries trying to push a denial of science verses various unrelated global studies as vast as the ocean all reaching the same theory based on mountains of evidence all with agendas spanning simple philanthropy all the way to trying to get grants for biofuel research and everything in between.

But sure, its all the same..if someone gets a paycheck, that makes them inherently dishonest..even though their career is on the line on their evidence


edit on 5-1-2017 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

You are unable to put a number on how much funding flowed to the other side during the same time frame?

I don't know if this is considered propaganda, you can tell me if it fits that label.


www.forbes.com...[edi tby]edit on 5-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join