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 pheonix358
CO2 follows the temp rise. It is not the other way round.
We are heading for another ice age. Mankind may be helping a tiny bit, but the truth is, it does not matter.
The Earth's heat comes from the big heater in the sky. We call it the Sun. It's output in the past decade has been a lot less than expected.
I think the image says it all!
Pedit on 2/1/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)edit on 2/1/2013 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)
The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way.
But now comes cooling. Researchers blame the Decadal Oscillation, an ocean phenomenon that brought chillier surface water temperatures toward Alaska.
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming James Delingpole · April 11, 2012 at 1:40am Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano) Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam. The letter says: We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming James Delingpole · April 11, 2012 at 1:40am Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano) Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam. The letter says: We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
ricochet.com...
It is not hard to find the evidence that it is a natural cyclical occurrence after you weed through the propaganda.
Originally posted by Christosterone
reply to post by abecedarian
This is way before Al gore threw his hat into the climate ring...I am old....
Gore and his acolytes were yet to go after the rap industry when I was a kid...
Environmentalists are the same buffoons who railed against nucleur energy which is infinitely safer and cleaner by exponential margins than deriving energy from convential means (eg coal, etc...)
-christosterone
Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
So because of who wrote the article are you claiming the letter is a fabrication?
Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by atlasastro
IT DOES NOT MATTER!
In the natural cycle of the Earth we are heading for an ice age. There are many who believe that man's additional CO2 is helping to stave off the inevitable. Look at the chart!
Prove it.
The science of it all is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Believe who you will, but that is all you have, a belief in one side or the other. Science is a prostitute to the wealthy and spins whichever way the money points.
Science is science, physics and the laws of nature do not change due to currency being exchanged.
You can not tell the true science for the paid science.
www.sciencemag.org...
The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).
Originally posted by Christosterone
reply to post by abecedarian
This is way before Al gore threw his hat into the climate ring...I am old....
Gore and his acolytes were yet to go after the rap industry when I was a kid...
Environmentalists are the same buffoons who railed against nucleur energy which is infinitely safer and cleaner by exponential margins than deriving energy from convential means (eg coal, etc...)
-christosterone
Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by pheonix358
Just a basic question. Were in the natural cycle is the 7 billion humans burning copious amounts of Co2? Were is it?
Just point it out in the historical record of the natural cycle?
Hmmmmm?
Still waiting?