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.

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by Laykilla
 


So what if its off topic a little, cant you just entertain the thought without busting chops. And I more meant "changing climate change"

edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)


Sorry, that's just generally how things work around here -- we create topics of discussion, and the discussion pertains to the topic. If it doesn't, generally it belongs in a different thread.

I certainly didn't mean to bust your chops, I legitimately didn't understand what you meant, I kind of still don't -- but that's okay.

I did, until you said "And I more meant 'changing climate change'" -- that really throws me through a loop.

I am so confused



And no, it's cool man -- we're good. We just aren't on the same page, I wasn't intentionally trying to bust chops.


edit on 14-10-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laykilla

I did, until you said "And I more meant 'changing climate change'" -- that really throws me through a loop.

I am so confused




Ya, you never heard of a changing rate of change



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

Awwwww .. poor Al Gore. He'll have a lousy Christmas this year .. what with his carbon tax credit scam in danger of collapsing at any time due to this information coming out. I almost feel bad for him. NOT!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Well I gotta go to bed since its 4:30 am here. So I just want to say thanks for the stimulating discussion, have fun justifying the absolutely absurd pollution of the planet and I leave you with this

Pollution from space




Thanks for the picture.

There is no doubt that the earth is polluted. Have you ever been to China? The pollution is breath taking. Truly unbelievable.

Apparently China is building 2 coal power stations a week. While that sounds like an exaggeration, the damage they are doing to the planet is enormous.




edit on 14-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Every time I see these types of arguments I like to look at how people color their points with believershaait. I am rather fast in getting fed up with believers who can't keep their bloody colors out.

Let's see....

global warming hoax.
Scam
myth
hypocrites
I cant believe people still believe blahblah is blahblah
there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax


Ah my bucket overrun again.

Shame.
edit on 14/10/12 by D.Wolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
The earth goes through cycles. There is nothing we can do about that. Blaming fossil fuel burning and the like is very convenient. I completely fail to see how the carbon tax actually works? In Australia the muppets in charge tax the top 500 polluting companies, yet many are exempt - including fuel. How does that work? Utility prices are absolutely sky rocketing though. The carbon tax is solely a money making venture, not to save the environment. What’s just has bad as horrible policy is that they flat out lied about it before the election - “there will be NO carbon tax under the government I lead”. About six months later the plans were announced.

I attempted to do a ‘global warming’ presentation in Year 12. As I researched it I could not find any credible evidence anywhere that suggested global warming has anything to do with man let alone even existed in its apparently evil form. I turned 180 degrees. But seriously, as has been point out; man made global warming is a complete hoax, a total scam put forth for little more than money and more control. That’s it. “Evidence” that appears to support the official line is often misleading, crocked up or just plain out and out wrong. But hey, if it keeps you warm at night keep telling yourself that being tax into homelessness may indeed save the earth some day. Unfortunately it won’t, but it’s a nice thought though, isn’t it?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
Every time I see these types of arguments I like to look at how people color their points with believershaait. I am rather fast in getting fed up with believers who can't keep their bloody colors out.

Let's see....

global warming hoax.
Scam
myth
hypocrites
I cant believe people still believe blahblah is blahblah
there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax


Ah my bucket overrun again.

Shame.
edit on 14/10/12 by D.Wolf because: (no reason given)


I'm not quite sure what your getting at here, who exactly is this a stab at? The Global Warmers, The Nay Sayers, or anybody that has a belief?

I'm trying to figure who is overrunning your bucket.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
Every time I see these types of arguments I like to look at how people color their points with believershaait. I am rather fast in getting fed up with believers who can't keep their bloody colors out.

Let's see....

global warming hoax.
Scam
myth
hypocrites
I cant believe people still believe blahblah is blahblah
there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax



In a sense you are absolutely correct.

Having said that, this thread is the most civilized one I have ever had with proponents of climate change.

I liked your Seven of the greatest scientific hoaxes

You could have included climate change. No?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
The 2 data plots presented don't really seem to disagree massively if you compare what they show over the same slice of time.
The NASA plot doesn't show any great increase over that 16 year period either.
If you look at the longer timeline the picture emerges.
If you were selective enough and narrow enough in what you plotted you could show a fall. That would not change the fact that the planet is slowly warming.


You just beat me to the punch; should've gotten up earlier.

The difference is perspective.

Now, to truly get the full perspective, people should consider the periods from 20,000 B.C.E. to the present, and then the period for the 400,000 years prior to today.

What is revealed is a natural cycle.
AGW is a myth, capitalized (literallly) upon by the few quick and smart enough to create a "cause" upon which they can enrich themselves, their "industry" and philosophy.

The "models" depend upon tweaks and fudges to even come close to an approximation of past observations and "proxies." Going forward, they fall apart, because nature doesn't tweak or adjust or use proxies.

The acceptance of subjective "proxies" as the basis for modern climate "science" opens the door to manipulation - they all have to be smoothed or adjusted to fit the users' biases and expectations.

If you dig deeply, you will see that there is no consensus on which proxies mean what or even which are the most accurate. To the extent that AGW theory thus relies upon proxies, there can be no real "consensus;" everyone sees what they want to, and then go from there as if it were fact, when it is not.

Deny ignorance.

jw
edit on 14-10-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Then again, there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and that we didn't land on the moon. Its funny how something can slap you in the face and people still deny it.


Love how people play the Holocaust card to justify their arguments these days. I guess your name is bibi also?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


I'm aware of that, but the topic at hand, and all posts up until that have been about global warming.

Nary a soul on the planet will tell you climate change doesn't exist, because it always has, and always will -- to infinity.


Again, it's all a matter of perspective and interpretation.
The large concept of "climate change" encompasses ALL change, including what some call "global warming."
Global warming, in turn, includes a subset called "anthropogenic global warming" or "man-made global warming."

A lot of the problems in these discussions are the interchange or misuse of one concept for another:

The climate changes.
Sometimes it warms, globally.
Sometimes it cools, globally.
Sometimes it cools and warms , regionally, simultaneously (weather).
Anyone who believes that man can warm or cool the entire planet uniformly over an extended period is relying upon assumptions, projections and speculation that are (as of this date) impossible to confirm.
Even the IPCC agrees that the best they can say is that, "we don't know what is causing it (warming), so it must be us."

That is no basis upon which to govern or tax.

jw.
edit on 14-10-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laykilla

I'm not quite sure what your getting at here, who exactly is this a stab at? The Global Warmers, The Nay Sayers, or anybody that has a belief?

I'm trying to figure who is overrunning your bucket.


Try all of the above. But my bucket ran over when the holocaust came into view. That one sickened me to the stomach. If I where a fence sitter, which I am, I most certainly would not favor that side of the fence to jump to.


Originally posted by ollncasino

In a sense you are absolutely correct.

Having said that, this thread is the most civilized one I have ever had with proponents of climate change.

I liked your Seven of the greatest scientific hoaxes

You could have included climate change. No?



I could if I was 100% certain that there is nothing to it. We as a species are undeniably putting out shaait into the atmosphere. Question is, is it causing impending doom or ehrmmm no impending doom. I dunno, I can only reduce my shaai output as much as I,m comfortably willing to. Reducing costs as I go. (led lighting, economic car, growing vedgies.)

I call maybewin-win until the scienceguys can get me off my fence. ATS provides some usefull info until the colouring hurts my eyes and I'm gone again.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


See, that's the thing, bro, we're learning from the hysteria of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. The scare is hopefully teaching us, especially the new generation, that we do indeed need to take care of the earth (Fuxin duh, right
), it's yet another logic that we're learning. I just hope people have such a strong stance on keeping it clean as they have had on promoting global warming and been taxed the sh## out of by govs. Hopefully those taxes get used correctly....


reply to post by Renegade2283
 

Here's a wider view:



reply to post by justwokeup
 


If you look at the first graph above, the earth is cooling.


reply to post by Renegade2283
 


There is a delay in the cycle of ocean temps, I can't remember the measure of the delay exactly, but it's possible, if not an actuality, that what we're seeing in the Arctic is the high trends, warmer waters, from a few years ago.

I found some info on this, not quite what I was looking for though:
Pacific Decadal Oscillation

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs.





posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
We as a species are undeniably putting out shaait into the atmosphere. Question is, is it causing impending doom or ehrmmm no impending doom. I dunno, I can only reduce my shaai output as much as I,m comfortably willing to. Reducing costs as I go. (led lighting, economic car, growing vedgies.)



Clearly, we are putting a lot of filth into the atmosphere.

How unbiased are the climate change scientists who have built a career on the premise that climate change is man made and who rely on generous funding grants based on that premise?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
There are some strange things about that article.

If that's from a Met Office report, why does the graph says "BEN WELLER" and why is it cut off to the right? Why no link to the published report?

Searching for that image I could only find sites referencing the Daily Mail Article, and the same happened when I searched for a Met Office report from this year.

What I did find was the Met Office blog, where they explain some of the things on that article (including that there was no report published).



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 

at least we agree more trees are needed
star for that.
what i don't/can't understand is why anyone is supporting the "carbon tax" initiative with bunk science ??

green removes CO2, it's a know fact.
levels of CO2 vary annually, also a known fact.
why are we even discussing any remedy beyond replacing what we removed erroneously ??????



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Oh and don't forget that global warming isn't the only repercussion of pollution. The build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect on everyone's health as well



Quit justifying the slow destruction of the planet!


Are you out of your mind?... You obviously know jack about the topic, the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere is NOWHERE close to being detrimental to humans, or to animals...and in fact HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 than exist now are benefitial to ALL life on the planet...

As it is there is 390ppm atmospheric CO2 on Earth.

All plants benefit with higher levels of CO2 at around 1,500ppm, and these levels ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO HUMANS OR ANIMALS...


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

and as a matter of fact...


Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


As it is, if you are inside a building with AC, or a heater the levels of CO2 inside your house/building are around 1,000ppm, even with good ventilation... But you aren't dead right?...

This is the actual fact about the levels of CO2 that are detrimental to humans...


www.analox.net...

edit on 14-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
There are some strange things about that article.

If that's from a Met Office report, why does the graph says "BEN WELLER" and why is it cut off to the right? Why no link to the published report?

What I did find was the Met Office blog, where they explain some of the things on that article (including that there was no report published).


There is no report. The data was released by the Met Office without a report.


Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

Daily Mail


Perhaps the data is buried somewhere in here

It would appear that it is in fact Met Office data as the link you supplied here MetOfficeNews has the Met Office stating the data in fact shows a 0.05 degree rise in temperature over the 16 year period, when questioned by David Rose.

Ben Weller is perhaps nothing more that a graphic artist who prepared the graphics of the graph.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
if you have to cherry pick your data, your argument is by definition weak

in a natural setting, I would expect changes in the rate of increase, decrease, and even some quiet periods of no change at all

so this more or less reinforces the data gathered for the most part is genuine

that's really scary

because a skeptic hired by the koch brothers to debunk global warming for tax reasons had to testify in front of congress and part of the data was from 1997 - of course

funny thing happened

he corroborated the consensus that not only is it getting warmer, it's closely tied to human activity and volcanic activity. solar activity is examined, and is deemed to be not a factor

i bet the koch bros were a little peeved !!!!

he eliminated the possibility of bias in the data by performing a massive random sample
he eliminated the poor quality stations by only using the best quality stations in the data
he went back 100 years further than most studies
he looked at 5 times as many stations than most studies

if you care to dispute his methods or data or conclusion you can reach the program manager the info is on the site


Has Global Warming Stopped?

Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits.

The large fluctuations up and down that take place every few years correlate very strongly with the North Atlantic temperatures (the AMO index) and with El Nino (ENSO index 3.4). See our paper on "Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures" for analysis of that. The presence of these fluctuations makes any strong extrapolations from short-term behavior uncertain.

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years

edit on 14-10-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by ollncasino
 


OK then lets just look at the immediate world around us, just to ponder. I live in Portland, Oregon and we just went through the longest period of dry weather for this time of year EVER. When I can begin to see the effects of climate change in my own back yard, I start to worry.

Nobody can deny that the weather is changing on a historical scale, whether it be from global warming or not.

Am I right?
edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)
you are not seeing the effects of global warming ... but, climate change ... which quite likely is a direct effect of the ongoing pole shift we are experiencing.
the poles are moving faster and to a greater degree than we've ever known or recorded previously.

how anyone can think these changes are the result of human activity (other than reducing our natural protections ... ie, forests) is simply ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join