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.

 

Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Tomatoes-tomatos




posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: strongfp

Tomatoes-tomatos


No. Stop. Stop it.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Why because it exposed your ignorance of science?

A law predicts what will happen under certain circumstances....

A theory explains how it happens.

Neither is superior.. evolution will never be a law. You don't understand science.
edit on 12-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier





Why because it exposed your ignorance of science? A law predicts what will happen under certain circumstances.... A theory explains how it happens. Neither is superior.. evolution will never be a law. You don't understand science.

Thanks for setting me straight.




A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: strongfp




A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.


Oh boy...dig deeper my friend. It's only getting worse for you.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: luthier





Why because it exposed your ignorance of science? A law predicts what will happen under certain circumstances.... A theory explains how it happens. Neither is superior.. evolution will never be a law. You don't understand science.

Thanks for setting me straight.




A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.


So in your opinion once you prove the theory of evolution it will become a law?

That is how you think it works?

Where as the law of gravity won't change because it's been proven.?



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Theory = a reasonable explanation or an educated guess
(scientific) Law = proven by long term observation

Is evolution still considered a theory?

Edit: Is climate change a theory?
edit on 12-8-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: luthier

Theory = a reasonable explanation or an educated guess
(scientific) Law = proven by long term observation

Is evolution still considered a theory?


Your making yourself look foolish.

Have you looked up the scientific meanings?

Does the law of gravity explain what it is?

Have you taken science classes before?

Evolution will never be a law. It doesn't work the way your stating.

However if you did have a science back round you would know parts of evolution are laws

A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
OK, first off - do you understand what that graph is showing? It's showing temperature anomaly - ie departure from normal. Meaning it takes a reference year range for an average temperature, and plots how much the current year varies from that. Since it has a reference range that is relatively recent (ie it includes much of the recent severe warming), some of it shows "cooling". But, that's ok. Second. do you understand what the fact that most of the data points on that graph are above 0 means? That means that the vast majority of temperatures since 2005 are above the reference mean - meaning it was hot. The fact that any given year within that range is less than another is meaningless. Third, and most importantly, is the range we're looking at. Let's look at another graph:



Its reference range is 1961 to 1990, and its plotted range is 30 years, instead of 13 like in your graph. Notice the upward trend - and again, these are anomalies, or departures from normal, not absolute temperatures.

Finally, let's look at another graph:



This again shows the temperature anomaly, again with a reference range of 1961 to 1990, but with a whopping 11,300 year span. Notice the slight (that's sarcasm) upward trend at the end. That's the current situation. What we can glean from that is that it's getting pretty f*&king hot pretty f*&king fast. Here's a blurb from the associated article for that graph:


Natural variability can explain much of the temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, resulting from factors such as changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Over the past century, though, global average temperatures have "risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels" in the past 11,300 years, the 2013 study authors explain. Over this same period, emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have increased.


www.climate.gov...

So, yeah, whoopy - you take a graph from the last 13 years and plot 2 Xes on it and, wow, the more recent is lower than the other. Big f-ing deal. The fact is that the earth is warming more in a shorter time period than it ever has, and it's mainly because of man-produced greenhouse gases. Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

The 1-2 degrees that the earth has "heated" could and more than likely a natural cycle.

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming
www.forbes.com... ac19af4a9



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: redtic

The 1-2 degrees that the earth has "heated" could and more than likely a natural cycle.

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming
www.forbes.com... ac19af4a9


Get the Heartland Institute bs out of here. Does that 2nd graph I posted look "natural"?? Jesus, the denial/ignorance is strong.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Algore won a Nobel Prize in 2007? Was it for inventing the internet?

My goodness..he should have ran for President again!



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Actually it does look natural. Today it is 73 degrees in my neck of the woods. Tomorrow it will be almost 90.

1934 is the hottest year in recorded history, that would also spike a graph is scaled correctly.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic


Again I think the 1.5 degree rise in temps we have seen since 1880 is a natural cycle and is nothing to get to worked up about.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: redtic

Actually it does look natural. Today it is 73 degrees in my neck of the woods. Tomorrow it will be almost 90.

1934 is the hottest year in recorded history, that would also spike a graph is scaled correctly.


Thanks for your input. This is very enlightening as to the uphill climb we face.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic

Global Warming Hoax Exposed: Australia Weather Bureau Tampered With Climate Numbers
www.dailywire.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: redtic

Actually it does look natural. Today it is 73 degrees in my neck of the woods. Tomorrow it will be almost 90.

1934 is the hottest year in recorded history, that would also spike a graph is scaled correctly.


Thanks for your input. This is very enlightening as to the uphill climb we face.


it's very much akin to the tobacco industry claiming smoking doesn't cause cancer, these oil companies blowing billions on denial missions yet only finding support from non science types crackpots but they sure love shouting loudest.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Have you eaten oranges?


Yes, yearly from the trees I helped my father plant over 30 years ago?
Your point?



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp



Remember when there was a hole in the ozone over Australia and skin cancer ran rampant? I do...


Remember when the world banned ozone depleting refrigerants, solvents, and propellants? I do...

From Wikipedia Ozone Depletion

The Montreal Protocol succeeded: after the ban came into effect (in 1989), ozone levels stabilized (in the mid-1990s), and have since started to recover (in the 2000s). Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole is expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075.[4] In consequence, the Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date.



new topics




 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join