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.

 

Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Anyone who uses that chart to say that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases is lying. There is no way to determine a consistent vector of separation between the red and blue graphs to see which came first.
edit on 19-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

So a prediction was wrong, that doesn't mean the overall theory is wrong.

Also, I'm not questioning science, I'm questioning the source.

No you have been questioning science since your first post in the thread. Don't pretend otherwise.


All I did was make a statement that its hype, most likely a fabricated scenario to run a scam. I also cited a couple of instances of how things are completely opposite of your chicken little claims.

Exactly. This is what I'm talking about. You are questioning science. Not performing it.


Well since you are a budding scientist of ATS, perhaps you have some evidence you found on your own to corroborate with the "science" you are claiming to be the correct "science"

Look, we can talk in circles all day as you try and defend your thread.. and that's fine. But, in conclusion, I believe that there is too much hype in this stuff to just claim 100% fact that its all due to man made sources. You should lay your blame on other factors as well such as Volcanoes and Methane Seeps.

I'm not denying that if people continue to pollute that it won't cause big problems. I personally don't go out of my way to pollute, but it doesn't matter when you have countries that pollute just as bad as the US. I can't subscribe to guilt shoved down my throat disguised as "science". The ultimate question is, how much of an impact does humanity have on Climate Change versus Natural Climate Change.

You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it? I admit, I used to believe the hype too, but over time I just kind of didn't think it was all true, especially after talk of carbon taxes and other BS.

SCAM

edit on 5/19/2017 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Go look, they are all over the internet lol. If I had to provide evidence for everything I have researched and done, I would need at least another 60 years. Do some research.

A quick search.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Go look, they are all over the internet lol. If I had to provide evidence for everything I have researched and done, I would need at least another 60 years. Do some research.

A quick search.

Cheers - Dave

You made the claim, you post the studies. Your search is full of links from theinconvienentskeptic, whatsupwiththat, and skepticalscience. All big time anti-science sites. Not a single real research paper published in a real journal though.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And how's that, exactly? Because charts are produced by data, and data is input by scientists and then used to create charts/graphs like this. So, it would seem that the scientists who recorded the data and input the data would know fairly well if there is a generalized trend of temperature preceding CO2 and by how much.

Unless, of course, you feel like citing proof that dictates facts to the contrary.

ETA: And no, just claiming that the only sources that use this data are "anti-science" is not enough.
edit on 19-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And how's that, exactly? Because charts are produced by data, and data is input by scientists and then used to create charts/graphs like this. So, it would seem that the scientists who recorded the data and input the data would know fairly well if there is a generalized trend of temperature preceding CO2 and by how much.

Unless, of course, you feel like citing proof that dictates facts to the contrary.


I'm just saying that it is impossible to eye ball that graph to make a determination which came first. If you had the actual data, then definitely I could make that conclusion.
edit on 19-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them


earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.


a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

edit on 5/19/2017 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, especially since you are trying to turn over a new leaf, but your apparent refusal to look into it for yourself and realize that I'm saying is true is part of the issue, here.

You could easily, as bobsuruncle noted, use the internet that you are already accessing in order to find this stuff out for yourself, if you truly had the spirit of seeking the truth. Your unwillingness to do so, at least as it pertains to this issue at hand, doesn't speak well to your desire to know the full story.

I'm tired of spoon-feeding links like what you're requesting to people who are unwilling to look into it. The facts that (a) this comes from a scientific expedition and (b) was created by scientists researching historical climate trends should be enough to make you say, "Hmmm...I should look into this."

Again, that's assuming that you truly want to know more, but if you just want to be a contrarian to valid information and data backing claims made in this thread, let me know, and I'll quit participating.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them


earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

Lol. You totally failed to read that article didn't you? This is the final paragraph:

“To questions about whether this warming is natural or just a fluctuation, the answer has become clear: the world is getting warmer,” Hansen stated. “This fact agrees so well with what we calculate with our global climate model that I am confident we are looking at warming that is mainly due to increasing human-made greenhouse gases.”



www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

Doesn't look like you read this source either:

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
This year, Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent while the Arctic reached a minimum extent in the ten lowest since satellite records began. Why are these trends going in opposite directions?
Credits: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Joy Ng

A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.

“Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.

Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.



weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.

Weather != climate.



a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

And simply reading these articles would have shown they don't say what you think they are saying.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you, I'm just saying that using that graph to say that temperature preceded CO2 increases without the accompanying data is dishonest because graphs are an approximation of the data and it's hard to tell how a graph behave in a local area without zooming it. These are simple aspects of graph interpretation I learned in Calculus class. Not because I'm being obtuse.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them


earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

Lol. You totally failed to read that article didn't you? This is the final paragraph:

“To questions about whether this warming is natural or just a fluctuation, the answer has become clear: the world is getting warmer,” Hansen stated. “This fact agrees so well with what we calculate with our global climate model that I am confident we are looking at warming that is mainly due to increasing human-made greenhouse gases.”



www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

Doesn't look like you read this source either:

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
This year, Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum extent while the Arctic reached a minimum extent in the ten lowest since satellite records began. Why are these trends going in opposite directions?
Credits: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Joy Ng

A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.

“Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.

Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.



weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.

Weather != climate.



a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

And simply reading these articles would have shown they don't say what you think they are saying.



You aren't understanding my entire point of entering this thread at all. It was to point out that you are trying to hype up something that is all just THEORY and you are trying to present it as FACT. Like you are obsessed with doom porn and your sky is always falling.

Every year there is a new study that finds out new things we never knew. I just feel you are jumping the shark but claiming that its all man made lol.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well lets move already.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: eXia7

You keep saying I don't understand it, but I do understand it. You are trying to dismiss Man Made Climate Change unscientifically and appealing to your biases. Then you buffer that opinion with cherry picked information that you haven't fully read to see if it supports your opinion. It's the same basic # I deal with in any CC thread I author.


Every year there is a new study that finds out new things we never knew. I just feel you are jumping the shark but claiming that its all man made lol.

Every year, the new things we find support MMCC. Also I'm not claiming it is all man made. I've said several times in the thread that Man Made Climate Change and Natural Climate Change work concurrently.
edit on 19-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

You keep saying I don't understand it, but I do understand it. You are trying to dismiss Man Made Climate Change unscientifically and appealing to your biases. Then you buffer that opinion with cherry picked information that you haven't fully read to see if it supports your opinion. It's the same basic # I deal with in any CC thread I author.



I dunno man... I appreciate your dedication to the cause, but I'm just not buying it. The earth has a way of balancing stuff out, I just focus on my own problems and go through life the best I can. I damn sure don't want to pay more taxes (Carbon Tax) because somebody said "well this is how it is, and you need to shut up!" I just feel in time more will come out that it was all a hoax to make Al gore rich. Al Gore is the lynch pin of global warming/climate change discussion.. you discount his shenanigans in with your research bud.

As for my sources, I don't 100% believe them either lol.. I used them as a way to just prove its all just THEORY.
edit on 5/19/2017 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is just more Liberal LARPing their fantasies, Antarctica has always been green, there's hot springs there ffs.

ETA: & wait for it... An ACTIVE Volcano! Yes this is Antarctica.

www.atlasobscura.com...
edit on 19-5-2017 by WhyDidIJoin because: Green eggs and ham



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Two separate uses of the word "obtuse" directed at me in two different threads. You know, if you consider someone requesting that you do a simple search to seek out information for yourself as being "obtuse," you and I must have different dictionaries that define that word.

As part of my job, I create graphs, often daily, and every single one is based off of minutely accurate data and used as evidentiary charts for federal criminal trials--I know how to make graphs, and when you use scientific data that specify certain points on X and Y axis, this is not an approximation, it's quite specific.

If you opt to not further research the data that produced the chart, that's on you, but you can't accuse someone like eXia7 of cherry picking data to bolster a bias when you yourself are spoon-fed graphs based on data that, at the least, should have you researching them and their original data but refuse to do so, then call the provider of the chart "obtuse."

This is exactly why it's hard to take threads like this seriously, no matter how civilly and respectfully I try to debate the topic.


edit on 19-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

You're very welcome! It for me was an interesting read and just touched the tip of things that were blurbed over in the MSM in the last few years.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Caver78

You know I never once made the 97% claim in this thread right? Clearly you aren't paying attention.


You've said multiple times in this thread all "the Climate Scientists agree". Your one-liner comments to posts also is in pretty poor form. If you're going to address the issue then do it comprehensibly. There was a defined start to the nonsense of Global Warming/Climate Change and there is STILL serious issue with the data being used to perpetuate the hype. Your continued cherry-picking while disregarding all the valid points brought up by other posters such as eXia7, Slap Monkey and WhyWhyNot distracts itself from your alleged purpose of "convincing doubters".

Didn't even read the link did you?
Lets see...three minutes between my post and your reply...hmmmm? Guess not.
friendsofscience.org...

They have conveniently aggregated a host of relevant SCIENTIFIC studies for those willing to educate themselves.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
So the evidence this is caused by people is that an acceleration happened from the 1950's? Seriously?
The earth is warming and there is nothing we can do about it. We can't even predict it with even a moderate degree of accuracy.
edit on 19/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Rezlooper has done a bunch of threads on Methane accelerating Climate Change, definitely worthy reading.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


No one is certain if the sun is driving climate change along with the resultant ocean current changes, or if it's just part of a larger normal cycle, NO one yet has been able to definitively point to a single cause. Not one scientific paper has been produced YET to state conclusively that Climate Change is solely human driven.

Then theres this...releases of freshwater driving the arctic oscillation affecting global weather.

wattsupwiththat.com...

But lets blame it ALL on humans without actually looking at the bulk of information out there! Some increased moss growth on a couple of outlying islands off Antarctica doesn't equate to "Antartica is Greening" as a Continent in it's entirety.




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join