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.
WASHINGTON — Two years ago, a United Nations scientific panel won the Nobel Peace Prize after concluding that global warming is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by man. Then came a development unforeseen by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC: Data suggested that Earth's temperature was beginning to drop. That has reignited debate over what has become scientific consensus: that climate change is due not to nature, but to humans burning fossil fuels. Scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming cite the cooling as evidence for their case. Those who do believe in man-made warming dismiss the cooling as a blip triggered by fleeting changes in ocean currents; they predict greenhouse gases will produce rising temperatures again soon.
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by justine093
only a true fan would know where those lyrics came from. (most folks hated that album.)
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Essan
one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more. The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.
So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?
BTW- as for waiting a few years before getting excited about cooling, we should do the same for the warming. In fact, by looking at the historical charts, one could almost pinpoint a close to exact amount of time before cooling starts all by itself.
Roger waters was a wordsmith of biblical proportions.(IMHO)
Because conditions are different. Humans burn a forest the size of the USA and burn rather a lot of coal. Do you think that has no effect? Remember, despite what the Goristas tell you, climate change is about a lot more than CO2. Just urbanisation has an effect. So to do aircraft contrails. Or are they all inconsequential? A forest fire occurs naturally. Does that mean that if you throw a lighted match into a tinder dry forest it cannot also cause a forest fire?
Originally posted by network dude
one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more. The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.
On a graph, the models' temperature projections ultimately point upward, signifying warming. But along the way, each line has dips -- temporary periods of cooling. The timing and depth of the drops differ from model to model.
Most climate scientists have regarded these zigs and zags as noise. Their models are designed to project how greenhouse gases will affect the global thermostat over a century, not what temperatures will be in any year or even in any decade.
it does appear that it has done this exact thing in the past quite a few times. So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?
The reality is more complex. A few years of cooling doesn't mean that people aren't heating up the planet over the long term. But the cooling wasn't predicted by all the computer models that underlie climate science. That has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect.
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Essan
What affect does a large volcano erupting have on the things mentioned here? I saw a timeline showing a proposed correlation between that and global temp swings. Again, I an not a climate guy, just someone with an opinion. Did we have a climate change right about the time Pompey erupted?
On a graph, the models' temperature projections ultimately point upward, signifying warming. But along the way, each line has dips -- temporary periods of cooling. The timing and depth of the drops differ from model to model.
Most climate scientists have regarded these zigs and zags as noise. Their models are designed to project how greenhouse gases will affect the global thermostat over a century, not what temperatures will be in any year or even in any decade.
This article talks about how the climate models were/are flawed.
The recent cooling wasn't predicted.
So is it possible that the Earth melting, or exploding in a fiery death, maybe aren't true either? Maybe it's possible that a natural change was in play and it will correct itself just as it has many time in the past. I know, death, destruction, and mayhem sell, and a natural cycle seem so mundane.
one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more.
The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.
When I look at the evidence provided, I see things like global temeperatures over a long period of time. When I see them, it does appear that it has done this exact thing in the past quite a few times.
So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?
My original post was asking the question that if the climate models didn't predict this cooling (however insignificant it may be)...
...can any other outcomes be trusted?
I look forward to being belittled with your next post.
Originally posted by network dude
thanks, you didn't disappoint.
Just so I understand, if we in fact continue with a cooling trend through next year, at what point might that trend be able to be calculate into discussions? Please note that I make no claims that it will continue to be cooler than normal, I just want to know when it's ok to bring it up in discussions. And that question while it may sound condescending, was serious.
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by melatonin
the site you listed seems a bit biased. Kind of spends the first two paragraphs defending against the opposing side even before any data is presented.