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.

 

Black Monday For The Climatistas

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, ever since the last glacial maximum—way before any anthropogenic contributions to CO₂ began to accumulate.





posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

At least you can not deny the rising sea levels.

Why is it rising? NOAA has some insight:

oceanservice.noaa.gov...



The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

edit on 22-6-2017 by jrod because: Punctuation



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




At least you can not deny the rising sea levels.

And you can't link man made climate change to an acceleration in the rate of rise. It's natural, has been going on for far longer than we've been outputting C02.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

So NOAA is wrong?

And you, who is cheerleading for fracking, continuing use of fossil fuels, and demonizing solar and wind power on other threads got it right?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ZaneDog

So NOAA is wrong?

And you, who is cheerleading for fracking, continuing use of fossil fuels, and demonizing solar and wind power on other threads got it right?
That NOAA clickbait article is wrong, yes. Are you interested in seeing the peer reviewed work that disputes it? If you are not, don't make me waste my time.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog
It is you who is wasting time.

We know you are new, but how many threads have you started today? Give it a rest.

It is mighty arrogant of you to claim you got it right, and NOAA plus pretty much all other scientific groups have it wrong.
edit on 22-6-2017 by jrod because: Instant replies are very fishy




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



It is mighty arrogant of you to claim you got it right, and NOAA plus pretty much all other scientific groups have it wrong.
That is a NOAA clickbait article, you have to have a full understanding of GMSL, RSL and much more to interpret it correctly.


Satelite altimetry data is processed and published by the University of Colorado. Here is a link to a recent paper of theirs. There is no dispute. There has been no detection of an acceleration in the rate of rise of GMSL.


Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?


Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.

Link
edit on 22-6-2017 by ZaneDog because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2017 by ZaneDog because: (no reason given)


Anyways, start a thread on Sea Level if you want to discuss it, hijacked this thread enough with it.
edit on 22-6-2017 by ZaneDog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

One abstract disputing sea level rise?

I do not have time to post many others that support the observation that the sea is rising. It is not like I get to post on here....

You have contradicted yourself by claiming sea level is rising to citing 1 abstract thatvsays otherwise.

NASA got it wrong also?
climate.nasa.gov...

National Geographic is not credible?
www.nationalgeographic.com...

Yet you want an intelligent and free thinker to believe they have it wrong and you got it right?

How is that not extreme arrogance on your behalf?
edit on 22-6-2017 by jrod because: Add linx

edit on 22-6-2017 by jrod because: Fix tag



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You really don't get it. That abstract is from the University of Colorado, it's the group that collects, analyzes and interprets the satellite altimetry data.

That the GMSL is rising has never been in dispute. Claiming that there has been an acceleration in that rate is. The only papers that will show an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise rely upon semi empirical data model reconstructions. The empirical evidence of over century long tidal gauge stations show no such acceleration. Believe what you want, but the evidence says there has been no acceleration in sea level rise. Do you even know the difference between GMSL and RSL?



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod




You have contradicted yourself by claiming sea level is rising to citing 1 abstract thatvsays otherwise.
I did no such thing, you are unable to comprehend what I am posting if you think that I have posted anything that says sea level rise is not occurring. Sorry can't help you out there, go back and re read the posts and point me to anywhere that I have posted anything that says sea level is not rising.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZaneDog

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, ever since the last glacial maximum—way before any anthropogenic contributions to CO₂ began to accumulate.



This is your post.

When you make 50 posts a day it can be tough to actually remember what you wrote.

So now you are saying sea level rise is decreasing despite the evidence from NOAA and NASA.
edit on 23-6-2017 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Woodcarver

Science is not a liberal leftish conspiracy.

I see many of you self described 'right conservatives' do not like the valid science so you all make up an 'alternative' view point that strokes your confirmation bias.
first off where did I self describe myself as a right conservative? This is my first sign that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are willing to make up # to get your bill advised opinion agreed with on these boards. Second I can tell you obviously have not looked at any of the data or sourced any of the names on these petitions that claim global warming is caused by man. I do agree that man has caused a slight rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but I do not agree that these CO2 levels are causing any kind of global warming. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .03% that is 3/100s of 1%. Water vapor Fluctuates to between one and 4%.
edit on 23-6-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

CO2 does not "have a great effect on greenhouse processes"... CO2 in the Troposphere accounts for only 5% to up to 8% of the "greenhouse effect". Water vapor accounts for 97% or more of the greenhouse effect in Earth's Troposphere.

Not to mention that the Earth has been undergoing dramatic changes since the 1600s. The Earth's magnetic field have been weakening more and more. Global earthquakes have been increasing in frequency and the Earth's molten iron jet has been increasing in speed. This alongside the dramatic changes we have seen the sun undergoing have been affecting the Earth, it's climate. Not to mention that because of these changes Earth has been undergoing, it has been releasing "CO2" into the atmosphere as well. Yet there are people that simply want to blame mankind for everything.
edit on 24-6-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Your logic is flawed.

First 280ppm to 405ppm(and rising) is quite significant.

Because CO2 is measured in ppm you write it off as insignificant....this a major flaw of reasoning. It tells us you lack an understanding of basic chemistry.

CO2 is a trace gas myth debunked



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Skeptical science as your only source? It's run by an IPCC flunkie, the same guy that came up with the discredited 97 percent consensus. Can you come up with a more credible source?



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

It is not the only source of said information, but full of cited material. Here is another link that explains who your main arguments are wrong:
www.scientificamerican.com...

Nice ad hominem attack on skeptical science though. Is that all you have to support your agenda? Attacks and logic fallacies?

Where are your sources to back up your claims on your previous post?
edit on 24-6-2017 by jrod because: Link

edit on 24-6-2017 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod
30 published peer-reviewed studies and 5 unpublished low estimates of climate sensitivity [updated]:

Lindzen & Choi [2011]: 0.7 C

Spencer & Braswell: 0.62 C

Bjornbom: 0.67 C

Eschenbach: 0.2 C

Levitus 2012 = 0.39 C

Douglass & Knox [2012]: 0.16 * 1.3 = 0.21 C

Lindzen & Giannitsis: 0.67 C

Douglass et al [2005]: .22 * 1.3 = 0.29 C

Bogdanov: .41*1.3 = 0.53 C

Chylek: .385*1.3 = 0.50 C

Monckton: .12 * 3.7 * 1.3 = 0.58 C

Paltridge: .1 - .3 (based on NCEP trends, figure 10) (ave .2)*1.3 = 0.26 C

Schwartz: 0.3 * 1.3 = 0.39 C

UPDATES:

Bengtsson: 2C with lower bound 1.167C

The Hockey Schtick: 0.28C [to doubling of man-made CO2 emissions]

The Hockey Schtick [alternate method]: 0.25C [to doubling of CO2 levels]

Harde: 0.43C

Norden: 0.8 C

Lewis & Curry: 1.3C Transient Climate Sensitivity, 1.6C Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

Irvine: 1.3C

Cederlöf: 0.32C mean, [0.23C to 0.32C range]

McLean: CO2 played little if any role in post-1950 warming, i.e. sensitivity



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

And 14 more..

Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi: 10.1002/env.2140.

Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011. On the genera­tion and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change, 104, 324-436.

Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012. Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L24702, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053872

Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1.

Lewis, N. and J.A. Curry, C., 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 focring and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamic, 10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implica­tions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, 47, 377-390.

Loehle, C., 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling, 276, 80-84.

Masters, T., 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics, doi:101007/s00382-

McKitrick, R., 2014. HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.

Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415-416.

Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.

Schmittner, A., et al. 2011. Climate sensitivity estimat­ed from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 334, 1385-1388, doi: 10.1126/science.1203513.

Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175.

Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.

van Hateren, J.H., 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ZaneDog

My turn to copy and paste.

From Scientific American


Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.




Rebuttal found in link. Way too long to post.

edit on 24-6-2017 by jrod because: Too big of a quote

edit on 24-6-2017 by jrod because: Tag



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Don't tell others their logic is flawed when you still to this day believe that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been caused only by mankind, when that is not true.

BTW jrod...what science is your "theory" based on?... Global Circulation Models/computer models 95% of them which have been wrong?

What about the fact that even though atmospheric CO2 kept increasing, temperatures did not increase as the AGW hoax claimed it would?

BTW, skepticalscience has been proven to be full of lies, yet you keep reciting it as if it was your bible... Skepticalscience is the blog that John Cook created... The same Cook, who "cooked" the claim that 97% of scientists agree with AGW"...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join