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.

 

Hey Dude - Where's my Global Warming?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
An interesting piece I came across this morning:

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government feel sick.

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn't warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

Sea ice now isn't melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren't increasing and the rain in Australia hasn't stopped falling.

What's more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.

In fact, it's even a bit cooler. So, dude, where's my global warming?

Full Article & PDF Graphs

Yet another kick in the backside for the doom mongers.

Doubtless some will try and refute the info - well here's what I say:
Argue with the people who produced the figures then publish their answers to your questions in this thread - if you dare.




posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Interesting. I have to disagree with the assertion that there has been no increase in Tornado activity though. I didn't see that even tracked on his charts. I remember someone posting a chart on ATS recently that showed the Tornado activity increase in the US this year and it is off the charts.

I still think that the weather is getting "wilder". I think this guy is illustrating the fact that statistics can be used to prove whatever you want to prove.

Again, not disagreeing completely with the article, just about the tornados and the wilder weather.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Perhaps the most telling part of the argument is this, from the same article:

Only one of the four, in fact, claims temperatures are still rising. That's NASA, whose program is run by Dr James Hanson, Al Gore's global warming adviser and a controversial catastrophist whose team's reworking of data has been heavily criticised for exaggerating any heating.


Funny how there's no conflict of interest there, is it not...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Ya gotta love NASA. They can always be trusted to give correct information, regardless of the consequences right?

[^sarcasm]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Taken from your link



That's why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon.


Wow,I wouldn`t have guessed there were that many scientists involved with the weather to begin with.That would nearly fill a footy stadium with weather scientists.

Interesting and looking foreward for members like melatonin that may give their views on those graphs etc.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Global warming my butt!
I live in Ontario Canada, and we've barely had a summer here yet.
Nothing but 6 days of rain for one day of sun, and only one day this season so far in my area has been over 75 degrees.
Not just here though..
If global warming really is "WARMING" everywhere, how come they are getting SNOW in Australia where they have NEVER had it before?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I have been saying from day 1... pffft global warming doesnt exsist. I don't know why exactly i thought that, i had no real reason to think that.

I guess the main reason come to think of it, is simply the planet isnt warming up at all. Its just normal. Infact colder if anything. I aint gonna adjust my life dramatically just because the government suddenly brought up global warming.

Hope it turns out to be aload of rubbish, the amount of times i had to defend my views against my parents who are all for a "greener" life



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I found this link a long time ago and thought can I believe anyone anymore? It has some good information and reading.

epw.senate.gov...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 38181
I found this link a long time ago and thought can I believe anyone anymore?


Thats how most of us feel I think,were told so many conflicting things.

I still think its good to at least start to wean off of fossil fuels etc,pollution wise and the strife oil dependency has caused.

But like AccessDenied mentions above,I`m in Australia and at this moment in time feel as though I could cut glass with my nipples.

Global warming
I cant feel it.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


The problem is that they have little to refute it with except the same tired old bullplop - people need to wake up to this scam.

I agree with many real environmental issues - but GW or AGW is not one of them, it's just a way of milking more from the public.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Oddly enough, no-one has yet even attempted to falsify that actual theory - all they do is refute computer model predictions. Not the same thing


To disprove AGW you have to demonstrate that carbon emissions, methane, deforestation, other land use change, changes to cloud cover, soot, sulphur, ozone etc all either have no effect whatsoever on climate or all have not been changed in any way by human activity.

If you accept that any of those things can affect climate, and accept that they have been altered due to human activity, then you accept AGW. Which vitually everyone does.

The question mark is how much of recent climate change is due to AGW and how much more climate change will occur in the future.



btw there are certainly more than 31,000 scientists involved in studying climate and weather. But very few of these are amongst the scientists who signed that letter



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan


To disprove AGW you have to demonstrate that carbon emissions, methane, deforestation, other land use change, changes to cloud cover, soot, sulphur, ozone etc all either have no effect whatsoever on climate or all have not been changed in any way by human activity.


Well I take the opposite view - these things have to be shown to irrefutably cause GW, and they haven't shown it at all, except to those who make a living from GW.

You can't come up with a half baked theory and then say "disprove it" that's the wrong way around - even now, many people still believe the gore version of GW simply because he's the one who has shouted loudest.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Well I take the opposite view - these things have to be shown to irrefutably cause GW, and they haven't shown it at all, except to those who make a living from GW.


You're entitled to your view. You're also entitled to refuse to believe Australia exists or that the Earth is round.

But maybe you could explain to us all why you do not believe that cloud cover has any effect on climate? Why you think that if there were no clouds on Earth at all the climate would be the same as if the whole planet were covered in clouds?

What about the effect of soot on snow? Do you think darker snow melts faster than white snow? Do you think the rate of snow melt has any effect on climate?

What about albedo? Do you think that changing landuse affects albedo? If not, why not?

You can refuse to believe basic physics if you like, but that doesn't change them!

There is a lot, lot, lot more to GW - including AGW - than carbon emissions!

[edit on 22-7-2008 by Essan]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Let's break down this newspaper article, because, whatever 'side' you take in the global warming issue, this is simply bad journalism.

First, take a look at this PDF.

Picture number one:

Uhm, well, I don't know where they got this dataset, because, if you go to

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

Which is the site of the Hadley Centre, which is where they claim they got the graph proving that temperatures aren't rising, you'll find their data shows clearly, that temperatures ARE rising. Heck, every data set they provide substantiates global warming claims.

So where did this newspaper get this graph data? Or did they make it up?

Picture number 2:

They label the graph as 'cooling' when the graph clearly shows an upwards trend. WTF? Yes, yes, we see the spikes from La Nina and El Nino, but the overall trend is upwards even though there's a downwards spike at the moment. The labeling and claim is misleading and incorrect.

Picture number 3:

They are? This is another wtf picture, since, clearly, the graph ascends no matter the periodic spikes. Clearly misleading and incorrect.

Picture number 4:

Again, the trend is pretty clear to the eye. Yes, there is a spike at the end. So? It's the overall trend that's the core of the matter. We will have variables, that's the nature of, well, nature.

Again, misleading and incorrect.

Picture number 5:

Atlantic Storms show a sharp upwards trend:

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.martinfrost.ws...

www.mindfully.org...

But these things said, Hurricanes frequency is only speculation; the theory predicts more extreme weather, so it could be an indicator.

Picture number 6:

It still rains? Uhm, whomever wrote this, doesn't understand Climate change at all. Global warming doesn't mean, "Global dehydration", afterall, there are plenty of very hot places where it rains a great deal. What it can mean is, wet places get wetter and dry places get dryer. It's all about the climate pushing things around, changing them, promoting existing trends, or changing do to weaknesses in the environment.

So, again, bad, bad reporting on their part.

Picture number 7:

It's been hotter...according to one guy with one paper. And it's not even been published in a main stream publication.

Compare his data to ten of the most accepted and peer reviewed data sets:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Until I see someone else that can show that somewhere around 600-800 it was hotter than now, it's merely food for thought, not evidence.

I also find it suspect that the graph in the article stops at the year 2000, which I think was done deliberately, in order to further mislead.

After saying all this, you might think I'm a global warming supporter, when, in actuality, I'm not convinced. I think we're going through climate change, but temporary or not, I do not know. There's a LOT of data out there, and I would be foolish to claim that I know enough to know better than the 1000s of scientists that study this every day.

But I do know BS when I see it, and I do understand how to read a graph.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Perhaps I should have been clearer - the whole GW industry is founded on carbon emissions, and that is what I have a problem with.

Perhaps if they stopped chopping down the rainforests (for money as usual) we would have a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere.

As for your "basic physics" dig - anyone who thinks that we have even scratched the surface is sorely mistaken - and the interactions that come to light in future will probably make this generation look like flat earthers.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
No smoking hot spot

The greenhouse signature is missing.

David Evans,




I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.





Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.


www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 

The first dataset is for combined land and sea temperature, which is not the data provided in the page you linked.
In order to produce the graph, we would need access to the raw data.

I've done this with the GISS data, but that's been shown to be flawed and probably still is, despite the "corrections" (which basically fell off the back of a lorry)

So it's less shoddy journalism, than manipulation of the data - which ALL GW proponents do, and if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.

I agree with what you say about storm frequency, but I would assert that is due to better ways of measuring them.



[edit on 22/7/2008 by budski]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Essan
 


Perhaps I should have been clearer - the whole GW industry is founded on carbon emissions, and that is what I have a problem with.



The problem is that certain politicians and others have jumped on the bandwagon and pushed the carbon emissions agenda ad nauseum: and the public thus have a very skewed idea of what AGW involves.

Meanwhile, most atmospheric scientists involved in climate change studies are looking at stuff other than GHG emissions. But that doesn't get through to the public. Yet.

Obviously these scientists benefit from the 'GW industry' - in the same way a doctor benefits from the medical industry (except they get paid an awful lot less than a doctor!)



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Let's not forget about methane from both bovine species and termites, methane being a far bigger culprit than we are told if warming even exists,and it's not just earths cycles.

I disagree though with your statement about doctors earning far more than AGW researchers - not all docs are GP's earning a fortune, they are just the ones near the top of the hierarchy, and that hierarchy is similar in alleged AGW research.

Then there's the governments who use this as an excuse to tax us more, and that's even we get to the bullplop "carbon credits" which is worth billions a year.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
epw.senate.gov...

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer , 7/22/08


Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback.I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated -- not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.

Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
www.weatherquestions.com...

southern osculation La Nina. El Nino, that's pretty much what I figured

[edit on 113131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join