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.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by buddha
Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.
so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?
Don't worry dear friend. You will!
Just give it about 10 years or so.
ETA: By the way the thread title is 1880 IS getting colder and NOT 2012 is getting colder.
edit on 19/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
It should be noted that what has been charted are temperature anomalies not actual temperatures.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by PuterMan
Yes the older data is being changed. Not the data in the archives but on the published report. By comparing the 1880 figures from archived copies of the reports on the Wayback Machine I can see that the older figures are not the same
Oops, looks like the Global Warmers forgot to scrub the pots and pans....
Originally posted by GreatScot
I know a lot of people on here are in the know about what is really going on with our weather patterns and that the information is in and has been in our grasp for years.
The man made ahem cough * global warming agenda is a fallacy sold to the masses for profit and for other more sinister purposes!
They are bluffing us all cause the facts and the real data is being manipulated is because a ICE AGE is creeping in at a pace that has increased steadily in recent years, the planet is becoming WETTER and weather patterns are becoming erratic and the is also reflected and driven by the ocean. YES some country's are the polar opposite! Pardon the pun, but this is to be EXPECTED as the current forecasts and also models based on core samples and other data shows that is NORMAL and CRITICAL to the process as the hotter climates evaporate at an alarming rate the HIGH PRESSURE drives the newly formed rain clouds that are inevitably created are dispersed in colder more northern parts. Our lands in the north become saturated and our water levels rise and the colder more harsher winter does the rest once the freeze starts , our focus should be on the spread and global coverage this could reach critical fairly quick years not days or months , also all it took was for a global drop of 2 degrees for the 1800 mini ice age to start. Add to this the ocean temperatures if they decrease by 3 degrees the process is massive catastrophic in fact, our existence is so fragile that either way a few degrees + or - and we can expect global changes that will threat our existence and or populations numbers and I aint even touched on the ocean and how critical this is in the whole process aint got time on mobile and I'm sure others will link and dig into this, plz I implore you all to investigate this and the effects and make up your own mind AGAIN.
But my spidey senses are all over the place they know and so do we but now we are being made to FORGET THRU MISINFO and this is what makes me look a little closer. TPTB or GLOBAL INC have and do know the truth makes one wonder are we being left out in the cold.
You're claiming ocean temperatures are decreasing? Please provide a reference/link for that one.
The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. New research suggests global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.
Originally posted by buddha
Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.
so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?
Originally posted by sumgai
reply to post by PuterMan
So this means that pumping toxic gases into the atmosphere 24/7; dumping industrial waste into our lakes, aquifers, rivers, and oceans; burning a resource when we can be making stuff out it; etc, all that is ok now?
Originally posted by mbkennel
Actually, CFC's are extremely potent greenhouse gas molecules. Their concentration in the atmosphere is small relative to other greenhouse gas molecules so the net forcing is smaller, but not negligible.
CFC's also are the primary cause of the human induced changes in the ozone hole. The global treaty to reduce manufacture of CFC's has been successful and what previously appeared to be a growing problem is no longer a growing problem.
The treaty has ameliorated some global warming from CFC's.
Solar wind hammers the ozone layer
The Arctic ultraviolet shield took a battering from storms in 2004.
Quirin Schiermeier
A stream of particles from the Sun, in combination with extreme weather conditions, caused an unprecedented thinning last year of the upper Arctic ozone layer.
Scientists have been puzzled by the chemical processes that destroyed up to 60% of ozone molecules in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere (the atmospheric layers that lie 30 to 40 kilometres above ground) in the first months of 2004. Reactions with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the compounds responsible for ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere, could not explain the decline in higher layers.
Now an international team of atmosphere researchers, led by Cora Randall of the University of Colorado at Boulder, has suggested a natural cause for this ozone loss at high altitudes.
Strong solar storms in October 2003 carried energetic electrons and protons into the Earth's upper atmosphere, where they boosted production of nitrogen oxides by a factor of four. Such oxides are a known group of ozone killers. Very strong winds inside the polar stratospheric vortex, which was exceptionally powerful last winter, then transported the excess nitrogen gases further into the atmosphere. At around 40 kilometres' height, they mixed with, and attacked, the ozone layer.
...
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by PuterMan
It's funny how you deniers jump to conclusions BEFORE YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, then you get upvoted/starred to high heavens because some of you seriously want to believe that global warming is the conspiracy (and somehow global warming denial ISN'T a conspiracy even though it's repeatedly proven to be *facepalm*).
So let me get this straight, PuterMan-
What you're showing is that the average mean temps for the year 1880 have changed in the records over the past decade? In other words, the mean temperature anomaly hasn't remained static as you believe it should have?
Ok, so the scientist in me has questions, but it certainly doesn't jump to ridiculous conclusions of conspiracy or cooking the books....
FIRST, you must ask yourself- WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORDING? In other words- what is an ANOMALY.
SECOND, you must ask yourself- AM I INTERPRETING THE DATA/GRAPH CORRECTLY? Which hinges on many factors. You need to figure out EXACTLY how the graph is to be read before you start jumping to conclusions.
THIRD, you must ask yourself- DO THESE MEAN ANOMALIES CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO NEW DATA? Which is to say- as more data comes out on PREVIOUS temps (to clarify/correct them, NOT alter them with some hidden agenda), does the record/graph change?
Furthermore, does the MEAN ANOMALY automatically alter NO MATTER WHAT as each year progresses and provides a NEW year with which to ADD to the total recorded temp data and thus alters the AVERAGE (aka "mean").
C'mon people. Use your goddamn thinking caps.