It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the funny part ?
no mention of what has happened from about 1875 to 1990
congratulations, the oil guys got you
and I'm sure there is no bias in the data, and the stations are all high quality, right ?
you don't expect me to just accept the data now, do you ?
March 20, 2003 (date of web publication)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
Originally posted by IrVulture
If global warming is such a big hoax,
Then tell me why it's going to be 70 degrees here in North Carolina, tomorrow, in the middle of WINTER!
Since I've moved here 6 years ago, I've had to shovel snow at LEAST a couple of times a year by now...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
It's called CLIMATE CHANGE...
Perhaps you haven't noticed but the climate has been FLUCTUATING... It hasn't been "the warmest" all this time, some years have been warmer, others have been cooler...
I find it ironic how people like you forget all the record lows WORLDWIDE that have been occurring...
Originally posted by Kaploink
Global warming includes unusual fluctuations in temperatures. Which can either be high or low extremes. The one constant is that the average global temperature is rising.
Originally posted by FAQAmerica
Wow... massive fail from the OP. Thinking Daily Mail was a credible source.
And to then go on and be so cocky about it... shame on you.
There should be a way of removing stars and flags from people found out to be spouting rubbish.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, I don't believe a word the Met Office has to say.
They have been found to lie in the past about Climate Change and they will keep lying.
BTW, you guys do know even the BBC broke their contract with the Met Office because they have failed to predict cold events due to their "warming bias"?...edit on 30-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
What I do expect is this summer or the next, we will get the "mother of all red tides" -- and because it is so massive an area of oxygen depletion, there won't be enough ecosystem left in the Gulf for it to recover.
What’s the matter with your command of the English language? There is a difference between warm (values) and warming (a trend). The last 10 years may have been warm, but there has been no warming trend. That is what people are talking about all over the world. No warming for 15 years. That’s accurate – until you produce HadCrut v4 with its new Arctic stations (no cherrypicking there then).
As for your models saying CO2 trumps the Sun, well, we’ll see. Your models and predictions so far have a batting average of 0.
Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Tsurugi
Well clearly the "journalist" (aka fiction writer) at the Daily Mail fell for all the global catastrophist theories in the 70s - which, oddly, are still being circulated by some of the same people today (like Nigel Calder) even though there is more evidence the Moon is really a giant marshmallow. And inhabited by 20ft tall sentient snails.
Originally posted by minor007
Link to a story saying otherwise
BBC may dump Met office after complaints about 'BBQ summer' and 'mild winter' predictions
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 10:01 AM on 18th January 2010
The Met Office may be dropped by the BBC following complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts.
The state-owned forecaster has recently been criticised for predicting it would be a 'mild' winter when we have just shivered in the biggest deep freeze for 30 years. And last year it infamously predicted a 'barbecue summer'.
The blunders could not have come at a worse time for the Met Office, which has provided forecasts for the BBC for nearly 90 years, as its contract with the broadcaster expires in April.
The Big Question: Should the BBC drop the Met Office as its official weather forecaster?
Why are we asking this now?
Rather than renewing its current weather forecasting contract with the Met Office automatically, when it expires in April, the BBC is putting it out to tender – for the first time since 1922, when national broadcaster and national forecaster first became partners. No one on either side says how much the contract is worth.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Anyone care to argue with
30,000 measuring stations
worth of data?
Cause you're going to need 31,000 reasons to even get me to flinch.
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
“There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
Tomorrow the journal Science publishes a remarkable Lead Letter supporting the accuracy of climate science.
The must-read statement, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” is signed by 255 of the world’s leading scientists.
It begins: We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.
The lead signer, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, notes in a HuffPost piece: It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial.
The letter underscores our deep understanding of human-caused climate change and helps illuminate how science works. It deserves to be widely read in its entirety:
Originally posted by TrueAmericanWell I for one feel glad that I never bought into the Global Warming hoax
It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Originally posted by sickofitall2012
The arrogance of humans never ceases to amaze me. You tiny little insignificant people are not making any impact on the entire globe.