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.

 

Arctic cooled to pre-industrial levels from 1950-1990

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

The new results are said by their authors to indicate that solar activity exerted a powerful influence over Arctic climate until the 1990s, an assertion which will cause some irritation among academics who contend that atmospheric carbon is the main factor in climate change.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.theregister.co.uk...

The controversy is not over. I believe in the theory that the sun is the most important factor in earth's climate.




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
You mind if I laugh myself silly?

I could say I seen this coming, but that would be an understatement.
The only problem is when people delude themselves to such a level, you can show them the truth but the truth no longer matters because it doesn’t fit with “their reality“ When the facts that support the belief are no longer relevant, then you step into a religion.

That is all environmentalisim is anymore, just a religion. And when you show the true believer something that contradicts his belief, he doesn’t sit back and question why he believes what he does. He has too much invested into that belief/religion to step back now. So he just gets mad at you for daring to question his belief/religion.

If pushed hard enough, he will try to reinterpret the data so that it supports his belief/religion. If you try to question his reinterpretation of the data, he will revert back to anger…. At you……..


[edit on 2-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You sir speak truth.
Have you watched the documentary : The Great Global Warming Swindle (www.imdb.com...)?

edited to make link actually works

[edit on 2-8-2010 by gagol]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
...he doesn’t sit back and question why he believes what he does. He has too much invested into that belief/religion to step back now...
...
If pushed hard enough, he will try to reinterpret the data so that it supports his belief/religion. If you try to question his reinterpretation of the data, he will revert back to anger…. At you……..


lol, right back at ya!

Quoted denialist article:


The new results are said by their authors to indicate that solar activity exerted a powerful influence over Arctic climate until the 1990s


Actual scientific article:


In addition, after 1970 the coherence between solar
activity and tree-ring growth vanish, which may be explained by
the dominance of regional climate forcing over the global ones
during the last decades. This is in agreement to Lockwood and
Froehlich (2007) who report the lack of agreement between global
mean temperatures and solar variability after 1985. Therefore,
solar activity is maybe one of the major driving factors on summer
temperatures at Kola Peninsula and is probably most evident on
multi-decadal fluctuations.

Kononov et al., 2009

More a case of correcting the interpretation. We've known for a while that solar activity has little relationship to global temperatures from around the 1970s (e.g., Solanki & Krivova, 2003).

Nothing new, and nice to see it further confirmed by a regional dendro proxy.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Lockwood and Froehlich (2007)………… (ding ding ding ding…..)
(The BS detector has just went off.)

I already know what the “discrepancy” is that L&F 2007 are referring to. I know how they tried to “twist” the data to show something that wasn’t there. The subject has been beat like a dead horse for who knows how long? The temps still go up and down with solar activity, but they selectively use specific methods of solar activity calculation (not the combined average of all indicators) to calculate the quoted levels. They also leave out effects that the earth’s thermal mass has on long term trends, plus other things. They do that to try and show a long term lack of correlation between solar activity and temp levels. Over the last 20 or so years.

If the data from the 2009 paper correlates two the L&F 2007 paper, then I know what data sets they are using. And if they are using those data sets, then I know that they are doing it to push an agenda.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gagol
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You sir speak truth.
Have you watched the documentary : The Great Global Warming Swindle (www.imdb.com...)?

edited to make link actually works

[edit on 2-8-2010 by gagol]


"Swindle" is a perfect descrption of what's in that (inadvertent) mockumentary.

One of the actual scientists Carl Wunsch who appeared on the program found out how deceptive the producers were and how they twisted the explanations to create a denialist polemical.

www.realclimate.org...

www.realclimate.org...

To quote professor Wunsch:


I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

Source

Whatever "Swindled" says, believe the opposite.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by mbkennel]
 
Mod edit: external text trimmed.
No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

The controversy is not over. I believe in the theory that the sun is the most important factor in earth's climate.

Disagree.


Red is temperatures, Black is sunlight.




[edit on 3/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gagol
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You sir speak truth.
Have you watched the documentary : The Great Global Warming Swindle (www.imdb.com...)?

edited to make link actually works

[edit on 2-8-2010 by gagol]



Go to 2:40 of this video (although really you should watch the whole thing):



It will tell you everything you need to know about the role of the Sun AND The Great Global Warming Swindle.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Thank you all for the clarifications. There is nothing like education to get rid of false prophets!



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
next round, same thing, no change in PR.


when something is deemed inconvenient it's simply ignored and if need be derided. noone cares about arctic pack ice recoveries

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or longer ice seasons at the south pole

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...


www.newscientist.com...


none of this matters, seeing as the CRU leak caused about as much fuss as a sneezing ant in the middle of a rainforest in the MSM, while they'd normally be all over something one can reasonably spin. yeah, redemption comes only from reality, never PR, but we already knew that, censorship was yesterday, now we have blank stares and smiling dissociation instead. something to keep in mind, right?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
As someone who is not well versed in this topic, I wanted to ask what may be viewed as some obvious questions to whomever might like to answer:

If the case is not a 100% certainty either way, what's the harm in proceeding cautiously until we have a more complete understanding of what's happening?

What do people have to gain by propagating the idea that human activity is at the root of global warming?

Thanks in advance, and I apologize if these are elementary questions.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Virgil Cain
 


air tax, aka. carbon credits of course. In the same vein the oil industry & speculators wouldn't have gotten away with the 2008 fleecing without the concepts of peak oil (likely true, but maybe orchestrated) and AGW, which implies that oil will have to be phased out anyway and high prices might therefore be considered beneficial on the long run.

of course if it's untrue, they'll get to continually sell their stuff at doomsday prices while 'carbon credits' are even easier, just make a rudimentary plan a factory with enormous projected GHG emissions, then officially cancel it with great fanfare and drown in $$$$$. just one example, it's literally money for nothing in practice, ie. a form of tribute.




top topics



 
3

log in

join