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.

 

Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I was raised in Muncie Ind remember having to dig out of blizzards back in 79-80 almost every year U would make money shoveling driveways from what I hear there's nothing like that now.




posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly my point. Science is not a consensus. We had scientists warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age, we had scientists warning us about global warming, we had scientists predicting all major marine life would be extinct before 2000, and we had scientists warning us that the coasts would be uninhabitable because of the stench of rotting marine life.

Think critically is all I ask.

Almost 20% of people approve of Congress.

There are always a few cranks out there - in any field.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
So global warming isn't a thing ?

Sure. It sure does get hot and hotter. But is that man-made?

The Earth has gone through cyclical climates for millennia. Didn't you learn that in elementary school? We had a fairly recent iceage, so now the sea level is rising, and that's normal.

We've only been recording temperatures for a very short period of time compared to how long we've survived these climates.


Except actual Scientists look at ice core samples and tree rings and other indicators and have a pretty good idea what the climate was hundreds, thousands, even millions of years ago. Actual scientists have written thousands of peer reviews scientific papers that indicate that most of this recent warming is man made. I learned in school that it's generally good to listen to scientists over bloggers and news pundits.

Except "actual scientists" don't agree on this. As a matter of fact "actual scientists" are very very often wrong. I implore you to go back to the 70's and listen to what "actual scientists" told us about where we'd be at today. Seriously, do it.

That said, I'm an "actual scientist" because I've been in the field observing physics for decades.

Btw, "you learned in school" xyz. I learned in school that white people were devils, that Al Gore was a prophet, and that the most important part of journalism is selling the story over facts. Be careful of what people teach you. Think critically.

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”
If that wasn't enough...
This was a speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson, titled Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty, given on February 8, 1965

Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Entire regional airsheds, crop plant environments, and river basins are heavy with noxious materials. Motor vehicles and home heating plants, municipal dumps and factories continually hurl pollutants into the air we breathe. Each day almost 50,000 tons of unpleasant, and sometimes poisonous, sulfur dioxide are added to the atmosphere, and our automobiles produce almost 300,000 tons of other pollutants.

But hey some idiot media outlets hyped ICE AGE NOW and 45+ years later people are using it as propaganda to cast doubt on science.

On the internet.
A thing resulting from scientific research.
First developed by the government and universities.
Younger than the science that tells us adding CO2 to the atmosphere will redistribute heat nearer to the surface.

Kind of ironic.

Ok, so where do you think the problem lies? I'd argue that deforestation has way more to do with it than pollution by far. I'm not saying we don't produce CO2, I'm questioning how big of a factor it is. Especially considering the cyclical climate of Earth.

I'm not saying pollute the earth. Be mindful, and be careful of deforestation. But let's not jump to conclusions and say the sky is falling yet.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

Depends.

Indiana use to be under an ocean.

GD CLIMATE CHANGE.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
n/m
edit on 6-7-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Yeah, well. Like I said, a few scientists were worried about particulate pollution in the northern hemisphere. We fixed that problem, pretty much. Now, about that other one...

edit on 7/6/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gargoyle91

Depends.

Indiana use to be under an ocean.

GD CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND...Greenland used to be Green Land.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555




Are they all time highs, or just the highest recorded accurately in recent times, since real data has been measured and kept instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.

I said recorded, didn't I? You don't think things are warming up?

The daily records summarized here are compiled from a subset of stations in the Global Historical Climatological Network. A station is defined as the complete daily weather records at a particular location, having a unique identifier in the GHCN-Daily dataset.

For a station to be considered for any parameter, it must have a minimum of 30 years of data with more than 182 days complete each year. This is effectively a "30-year record of service" requirement, but allows for inclusion of some stations which routinely shut down during certain seasons. Small station moves, such as a move from one property to an adjacent property, may occur within a station history. However, larger moves, such as a station moving from downtown to the city airport, generally result in the commissioning of a new station identifier. This tool treats each of these histories as a different station. In this way, it does not "thread" the separate histories into one record for a city.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


The point is, lots more all time high records than all time low records. Lots more. The point is I said it's interesting.

edit on 7/6/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly my point. Science is not a consensus. We had scientists warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age, we had scientists warning us about global warming, we had scientists predicting all major marine life would be extinct before 2000, and we had scientists warning us that the coasts would be uninhabitable because of the stench of rotting marine life.

Think critically is all I ask.

Almost 20% of people approve of Congress.

There are always a few cranks out there - in any field.

What an off-topic post...



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

There is a finite amount of energy that the Sun is casting upon the Earth at any given time.
Yet, the energy that strikes the Earth only sums out to about 255K, which is -18°C or 0°F.
This is indeed the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

So, why isn't the Earth a frozen ball?

Greenhouse gases redistribute the energy in Earth's atmosphere.
The surface averages about 288K, which is 15°C or 59°F.
The temperature declines from the surface up to the tropopause, as energy trapped more at the surface.
The temperature remains virtually the same in the tropopause.
The temperature rises from the tropopause through the stratosphere because of oxygen/ozone reacting with UV.

It's really not that hard of a concept. We are alive because greenhouse gases retained heat nearer to the surface. Water vapor is the most prevalent, but also the most transitory - it fluctuates from hour to hour and depends on warmth to exist in the atmosphere for the atmosphere to carry water vapor.

The second most important is CO2. We know roughly how much CO2 we emit each year, and each year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises by about 40% of what we estimate that we emit.
edit on 18Fri, 06 Jul 2018 18:43:56 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




AND...Greenland used to be Green Land.


You know that was an advertising campaign by Eric the Red to get settlers to show up. Right?



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly my point. Science is not a consensus. We had scientists warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age, we had scientists warning us about global warming, we had scientists predicting all major marine life would be extinct before 2000, and we had scientists warning us that the coasts would be uninhabitable because of the stench of rotting marine life.

Think critically is all I ask.

Almost 20% of people approve of Congress.

There are always a few cranks out there - in any field.

What an off-topic post...

Clearly you either didn't read the post I responded to or understand the response.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This is effectively a "30-year record of service" requirement

Now , divide that by the age of the Earth. Or , at least the age of the US....
That is approximately 15% of the age of the US
What is the age of India ?
MATH ROCKS
Especially Ratios and Proportions
You didn't take that into effect ?
Shame on you
(The word in bold was performed by me to stress a point)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




AND...Greenland used to be Green Land.


You know that was an advertising campaign by Eric the Red to get settlers to show up. Right?


Apparently it worked for a while
Greenland flourished until the chill set in...



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Phage

That's exactly my point. Science is not a consensus. We had scientists warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age, we had scientists warning us about global warming, we had scientists predicting all major marine life would be extinct before 2000, and we had scientists warning us that the coasts would be uninhabitable because of the stench of rotting marine life.

Think critically is all I ask.



Almost 20% of people approve of Congress.

There are always a few cranks out there - in any field.

What an off-topic post...

Clearly you either didn't read the post I responded to or understand the response.


Clearly , I did not feel the need..



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

I said recorded.
What's your point? That the Earth was warmer when dinosaurs roamed?



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




Greenland flourished until the chill set in..

Not really. No. Those glaciers that are now melting had been there for a very long time.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


simplistic counts of records to provide insight into recent climate behavior,


It's been way back when all this first started to heat up (pun intended) I went to the NOAA site they had at the time. You could easily download their actual data in comma separated text.

The Weather Channel had just got rid of the guy (I forget his name) who had the most accurate forecasts but did not buy into man caused warming. It was controversial at the time.

I copied monthly averages they had on TWC sourced from NOAA for where I live as a starting point. Then I took the raw numbers and calculated an average. In every case NOAA's average was 3 degrees higher than the real number from raw data. I've never trusted them since. It also became very apparent just how few years data it was based on. Not nearly enough to even entertain making a guess IMO. I've come to think they think it's the right thing, since it helps them get funding and that's what it's really about.
edit on 7/6/2018 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
121 hot enough for you?


www.bing.com...


Yuma is hell on Earth. I honestly don't know how or why people live there. It has always been one of the hottest cities in the world.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join