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.

 

NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MMPI2
you asked for a citation...i gave it. you immediately rejected it in a rather anti-intellectual manner.

did you even read the article? did you look at the graphs that were published by noaa and nasa, and were then deleted off of their websites?

yes, indeed. there is a sucker born every minute...especially those that buy into the global warming con.



I read the first couple lines of the "conspiracy".
an account created in september on godady had a chart up of nonsense that of course cannot be validated.

Sure, why not...lets go with that guy over the american science academy or the international science institute...
"that guy" is the truth...everyone else on earth is crazy

all hail "That guy".


see what i mean? there is a religious fervor to this kind of retort...it is based all in faith in the algore god.

it really is kind of sad and pathetic.





posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
What has made 2010 warm is March and June due to El Nino, a short-term natural effect and nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

January was cooler than January in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 1998.

February was cooler than February in 2007, 2004, 2002, and 1998.

March was exceptionally warm at a temperature anomaly of 0.971. However it was, given the errors, statistically comparable with March 2008 (0.907) and March 1990 (0.910).

April was cooler than April 2007, 2005, and 1998.

May was cooler than May 2003 and 1998.

June was exceptionally warm at 0.827 deg C though statistically identical to June 2005 (0.825) and 1998.

July, when things started to cool, was cooler than July 2006, 2005 and 1998.

August was cooler than August 2009, about the same as 2005, and cooler than 2001 and 1998.

September was cooler than September 2009, 2007, 2005, 2001 and 1998.

October ­ the last month for which there are records ­ was cooler than October 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 1998.

The pattern is therefore of an unexceptional year except for a Spring/early summer El Nino that elevated temperatures.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.

Check the figures for yourself here.


wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored?
just want to see -your- angle on this.


The majority agree we need to get off fossil fuel..
The MMGW is just a money making scam and actually takes attention away from the OTHER things that are polluting our planet..
The Governments should be encouraging alternative fuels but some say they are actually hiding them..

Like here in Australia, solar panels could be much cheaper but are taxed so high..
Why is that?? And if you attache your panels to the grid you actually pay more...

It's all a scam....



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored?
just want to see -your- angle on this.


The majority agree we need to get off fossil fuel..
The MMGW is just a money making scam and actually takes attention away from the OTHER things that are polluting our planet..
The Governments should be encouraging alternative fuels but some say they are actually hiding them..

Like here in Australia, solar panels could be much cheaper but are taxed so high..
Why is that?? And if you attache your panels to the grid you actually pay more...

It's all a scam....

shouldn't we all be fighting against the con-men that want to implement "cap in trade" simply in order to tax us even more while simultaneously skimming off the top of the "carbon credit" tax pile.

it is an obvious con!!!!!!!!!! are my fellow countrymen really this naive!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...

I may not know the true problem here.


To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.

Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


any data presented that "supports" the global warming" thesis is criminally suspect. the east anglia garbage, and the michael mann & kevin trenberth "book cooking" pretty much flushes that stuff down the toilet, right where it belongs.

to quote: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

"hide the decline", remember?




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


suns getting hotter



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
 


You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...

I may not know the true problem here.


To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.

Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?




Thanks FX..That graph clearly shows our current temp is at the LOW side of a 10,000 year trend..
Good to see you are open to truth..



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Why are you quoting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) when you should be quoting the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration who is charged with keeping the temperature records? My best,



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Thanks FX..That graph clearly shows our current temp is at the LOW side of a 10,000 year trend...


...in central greenland. Up to whatever period that paleo-data reaches.
edit on 11-12-2010 by melatonin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Why are mars's polar ice caps melting?

(hears crickets....)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong

Why are mars's polar ice caps melting?

(hears crickets....)


I don't know, why are mars's polar ice caps melting?

...

Oh, it's not a joke.

Dust, anybody, no?




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored? just want to see -your- angle on this.

Let's see, now. Did I EVER say I want to keep fossil fuels forever, or even favor them over "green" energy? NO!
Did I EVER say I like corporate carbon emissions? NO!

What I DO believe, though, is something I've posted on many threads over the years, namely that you CANNOT take a small sample, and draw long-range conclusions from it. That goes for both those who claim we are heading for extreme warming, or an Ice Age. On a scale of almost 5 BILLION years of Earth's existence, to draw conclusions from 10, 20 or 100 years, is poor science.

Let me say that it is natural for people to do that.. People frequently set their beliefs, based on various heuristics. Without getting into great detail, there are various ways that people set their beliefs, based upon observations or encounters.
For instance, studies have been conducted, whereby a group of people have been put on a street corner, and asked what they believe is the most common color of cars in America. Frequently, either the first car, or the last car's color will affect their choice, regardless of whether that is the actual answer.
Likewise, people who have recently experienced a heat wave are more likely to believe in global warming, than those who have recently experienced a blizzard. We all do it, consciously or otherwise.
By the way, although this certainly falls within the purveyance of the field of Psychology, Marketing & Business people use this to their advantage in selling products.
A recent study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, specifically deals with Global Warming Beliefs and heuristic influences.
Here is the link to that study, published this year:
www.vanderbilt.edu... imes%20and%20anchoring%20on%20global%20warming.pdf

Here is the abstract:

It is generally acknowledged that global warming is occurring, yet estimates of future climate change vary widely. Given this uncertainty, when asked about climate change, it is likely that people’s judgments may be affected by heuristics and accessible schemas. Three studies evaluated this proposition. Study 1 revealed a significant positive correlation between the outdoor temperature and beliefs in global warming. Study 2 showed that people were more likely to believe in global warming when they had first been primed with heat-related cognitions. Study 3 demonstrated that people were more likely to believe in global warming and more willing to pay to reduce global warming when they had first been exposed to a high vs. a low anchor for future increases in temperature. Together, results reveal that beliefs about global warming (and willingness to take actions to reduce global warming) are influenced by heuristics and accessible schemas. Several practical implications are discussed.


By the way, I am personally in favor of curtailing pollution, improving the environment, and moving towards green energy, not because I believe man is causing Global Warming, but because it is the right thing to do.
edit on 12-12-2010 by ProfEmeritus because: Added the last sentence.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
 


You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...

I may not know the true problem here.


To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.

Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?


Can I ask where you got this graph? It seems to me to be one of those bastardized "skeptic" versions. Not only is the information exclusively from central Greenland, it also seems to be conveniently using the high end of uncertainties for natural variations while completely leaving out current trends. You can find more complete reconstructions here for example.

Also remember it isn't simply the amount of warming that's such a big concern, it's more the rate. Hence all the hoopla over the hockey stick:




- edit because now that I took another look at it I also noticed the scale on the x-axis is completely off. According to that graph the "Medieval warm period" took place around the fall of Rome and the Little Ice Age (16th to 18th century) happened some 1000 before it was supposed to lol.


edit on 12-12-2010 by mc_squared because: makes you wonder how out of scale the y-axis is!



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
 


You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...

I may not know the true problem here.


To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.

Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?


Can I ask where you got this graph? It seems to me to be one of those bastardized "skeptic" versions. Not only is the information exclusively from central Greenland, it also seems to be conveniently using the high end of uncertainties for natural variations while completely leaving out current trends. You can find more complete reconstructions here for example.

Also remember it isn't simply the amount of warming that's such a big concern, it's more the rate. Hence all the hoopla over the hockey stick:




- edit because now that I took another look at it I also noticed the scale on the x-axis is completely off. According to that graph the "Medieval warm period" took place around the fall of Rome and the Little Ice Age (16th to 18th century) happened some 1000 before it was supposed to lol.


edit on 12-12-2010 by mc_squared because: makes you wonder how out of scale the y-axis is!


Thanks, I found this graph on a different forum online, now trying to find out the source of this graph.

man the waters are muddy on this issue..some serious agendas being pushed on it appears both sides.

Common sense tells me that a oil company would want to destroy and corrupt evidence considering they become directly impacted from carbon emmissions laws..and oil companies are not lazy in reacting to threats..however, I would like to find some sources of independent and transparent understandings of whats going on...

a nice worldwide open debate by the leading warmist and anti-warmist scientists with as much evidence as needed to be presented, sourced, and one and for all figure out what the hell is and isn't fact here.
edit on 12-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX

Found the source. Seems to be from a report by a Professor Don Easterbrook.

Report is here.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The data is actually sourced from Richard Alley's GISP2 study in 2000.

And it doesn't cover the 20th century warming period. But, hey, do the damn research yourself!

lol

ABE: saturn, I know you spend time discussing evolutionary theory with creationists. Although you might not see it clearly at this point, this area is very much the same. Indeed, both are based on science around about 150 years old, which has only grown stronger over the years. Mainly the ideologically motivated who have issues with them.

If you view it from that perspective, you'll see the similarities soon enough


edit on 12-12-2010 by melatonin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



man the waters are muddy on this issue..some serious agendas being pushed on it appears both sides.


The waters are definitely muddy. But for myself personally I have spent HUNDREDS of hours studying the issue and for what it's worth - I think the ultimate conclusion actually becomes clear as can be in the end. The conclusion being that, despite whatever personal agendas some people have attached to it, MMGW is resoundingly real, the science behind it is incredibly robust, and the only reason the waters appear muddy is because there is one side deliberately trying to muddy it.

And a lot of people around here will tell you how biased or brainwashed I am for saying that, but the only reason I am biased at this point is because I've spent those hundreds of hours studying both sides of the debate, in fact I will bet any skeptic on here that I've spent more time looking at their side of the story than they have. And I can tell you virtually every single skeptical talking point always turns out to be rooted in some sort of myth, cherry-picked piece of evidence, distortion of the truth, or flat out lie. And that especially goes for the ones where they accuse the other side of doing the same thing. All this can be proven with some dilligent research.

And by every single skeptic talking point I mean that quite literally. Despite my bias I am completely open to the skeptic side of the argument, but still waiting for someone to show me one, just ONE, single piece of evidence that I can't go look at the full story on and then come back and show it's been either highly compromised or completely debunked.

Since you're one of the few members on this site who actually is truly open-minded about this SaturnFX, please feel free to ask away on any of these issues. I'd love to actually put some of those hundreds of hours of work to use by contributing to something constructive and positive rather than just bickering away with people who can't handle anything that conflicts their narrow and often backwards world view.

I have like a gazillion links bookmarked on this stuff, so if there's anything you want more info on I'd be happy to dig it up and send your way and you can decide for yourself. Cheers



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


looks like mel's right (what else is new?
)



Funny this would be coming from Richard Alley's work, since he's one of the most famous AGW proponents around.

Everyone should watch this.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...
You surprised me!


I may not know the true problem here.


Here's another graph, from a different source, and somewhat different shape, but the picture it conveys is somewhat similar:

www.geocraft.com...
Interestingly that graph does show am uptrend near the present so it's a little different than the one you posted, but if they are from independent sources, I think much of the information correlates though it's not an exact match, and there are also differences.


Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record


I need to study this topic further to form an opinion. From what I have seen so far, I am kind of on the fence and I think both sides of the debate are right:

1. I agree that the climate record shows dramatic climate variations which predate man's industrial activity. There appear to be roughly 100,000 year ice age cycles (more about that in the link I just posted), and possibly shorter period cycles also.

2. I agree claims by climate scientists that man's activity is probably having an effect on the climate. I've seen data that seem to support this

So now, the question to is really, what portion of the climate variation we see is caused by naturally occurring variation, and what portion is influenced my man's activity? I'm not sure if I believe that site, but it claims:


Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.


Is this true? False? I don't really know, and that's why I need to research it further.

Regardless of which side is right in the debate (and maybe both are right about some things as I said), we are left with the inescapable fact that our fossil fuel resources are finite. Estimates vary for how long it will take to deplete them, but the way I see it, whether they are depleted in 50 years or 300 years, they will be depleted, and all that carbon is going to go back into the environment. I don't think anything will stop that from happening. Taxing will only slow it down.

There is one thing that concerns me. In the past, I suspect elevated CO2 levels have stimulated plant growth, and more plants consuming more CO2 prevented a runaway condition. I don't know how likely a runaway warming condition is, but the amount of jungles we have cut down would seem to limit the ability of those missing jungles to consume the extra CO2 though faster plant growth. I'm not sure if I'm right but that's just a thought about deforestation having a possible destabilizing effect on preventing runaway warming from CO2.

Bottom line is we need to find alternative fuel sources, no matter which side is right. Because the fossil fuels will run out whether the Earth heats up substantially, or not.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join