Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 




German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.



dailycaller.com...



According to the scientists, the oft-cited “stagnation” in rising global temperatures over the last 15 years is due to the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle, which lasts about 65 years. Ocean oscillation is past its “maximum,” leading to small decreases in global temperature.

The de Vries solar cycle is currently at its “maximum,” explaining why temperatures have risen since 1870, but leveled off after 1998. However, this means that as solar activity starts to decrease, global temperatures will follow.






Scientists, however, have been increasingly turning against the global warming consensus and arguing that the world is actually in line for a colder century.

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University argues that the world is set for global cooling due to rapidly falling solar activity.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Lockwood] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”



www.bbc.co.uk...



After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

“So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”




Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
ccsenet.org...




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


WINTER IS COMING..!!



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I found a lot of that information in searching, and it make sense. Cycles come and go and we are balancing out back to whatever normal happens to be this time. If you look at what some archaeologist have found, there used to be a temperate climate in the northern Illinois area. They were doing a dig there for something and found evidence of tropical plant life, fossilized. So way back then, apparently it was warm enough there to support tropical plants long enough to have them grow, die, and get pressed in rock formations.


So in our arrogance to claim "Global warming! It's hotter than it's SUPPOSED to be!" and we really have no idea how the temperatures are supposed to be "long term" we can only comprehend "now".



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Just for the record , 2013 saw the Lowest amount of Hurricanes forming in 60 YEARS .



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
It's illogical to make conclusions about global warming based on only a few years.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I will never understand wing nut logic. I guess they aren't aware there is weather going on outside of the U.S.

en.wikipedia.org...

How about this storm, www.rawstory.com...

Nothing to see here folks. Look, this heritage foundation report says so, lol.....

Never underestimate the stupidity of the 5% who are certain they have the correct answers. They are nothing more than useful tools for those who already know.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Agent67Canada
There were few hurricanes this season but the strength/enormity of the storms are increasing.Even the tornado in Oklahoma was as incredible size.
So something is changing...Living in Northern Ontario,Canada..am seeing animals migrating further south ie. bears,moose,elk.The animals know something is up,so wake up and pay attention.Is it climate change ? or something else going on? Regardless I encourage everyone to learn basic homesteading skills,have alternate source of heat for cooking,comfort.Be prepared for the worse .
I have had a horrific push/strive for getting back to basics...doesn't matter where you live urban,rural do what you can to prepare...stock a full pantry etc. This is not a Y2K hoax type thing..the writing is on the wall..please please do not ignore it ...


Observation is anecdotal evidence.

Some of it is light pollution, affecting the ranges of animals. Some of it is deforestation and forcing animals to move into territories they normally wouldn't inhabit.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

ketsuko

webedoomed
All of the ridiculous talking points of the skeptics have already been addressed by the scientific community several times over. Idiot skeptics continue to mindlessly spout them out.

Agw never stopped. The heating went into the oceans. One shouldn't expect every hurricane season to consecutively break records. It's absurd to focus on this one aspect of weather and claim it proves climate change is bunk.

Yea, cyles, we all know about them. How does an ice free summer this decade fit into a non agw cycle of yours? Oops, you failed to mention that one.

Freaking ridiculous.


Ice free?

The ice levels have been low, but never gone.

And how do record amounts of ice in Antarctica fit into your AGW beliefs?


Because Antarctica is the world's driest desert. It should not be receiving any precipitation at all.

But the ice that Antarctica is gaining is sea ice, but it is losing land ice. Indicating a rise in sea levels.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

network dude
reply to post by webedoomed
 




What would NSIDC and our media make of a photo like this if released by the NAVY today? Would we see headlines like “NORTH POLE NOW OPEN WATER”? Or maybe “Global warming melts North Pole”? Perhaps we would. sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines.


Link to knolwedge.


Assuming how people would respond to a picture is not only not evidence, it is sensationalism. If I saw that picture today in the paper, I would say they need to update their submarines.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

rickymouse
reply to post by blkcwbyhat
 
We need to stop wasting and creating things we do not really need that are built so poorly that they have to be replaced in a few years or the economy will suffer. The whole system we have developed is wrong, we need to examine the direction that society is going in and correct it faster...this includes the big corporations planned obsolescence tactics.


Probably the truest words on this thread.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

network dude
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You make me smile. I should not look at sources that discredit global warming for my information. I should be looking at your sites. The ones that keep changing the story. Yep, I'll remember that. Perhaps I'll adopt your strategy of name calling when logical arguments fail. Perhaps not.

But either way, in 20-30 years, if we all haven't been burned to a crisp, or drowned by the rising seas, if perhaps all is much like it has always been, you can look back here and wonder how your arrogance did you so wrong. TTFN.
edit on 5-12-2013 by network dude because: Beating a dead horse will make you tired, and the horse tender.


So you admit that you don't care to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision? You are admitting that being skeptical is such an ingrained habit that you want to keep it that way?
That you insist on remaining ignorant?

That is like a smoker refusing to quit because "everyone dies one day anyways".

What you need to read is informed sites, one way or the other, by scientists and researchers. Not other skeptics who have no idea what they are talking about.

If you can't find any evidence from researchers and scientists that support your skeptic view, then that should tell you something.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

BobM88
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Geeze, you sure seem to take this all personally, and your replies sure get personal. If you're right, why not just be content that you are, and know that when he's treading water in his living room he'll realize you were.

Not that I know if global warming is happening or not...I figure I'll wait and see and just do what little I can to try to reduce the mass amounts of pollution that nearby (to me) industries spew out. I'm with the earlier poster on that.


It is personal for everybody when society as we know it is threatened. I take it personally that people take such a rigid stance on something, but are so embarrassed to admit that they are in the wrong that they can't even bother to find proof of it, instead, they throw it on the poster.

Not to mention that it degrades the quality of ATS.

When I started ATS many moons ago, if you had a point, you better be able to back it up. Because if you ever wanted the general population to accept it, you had to vet it here first. The burden of proof is on the presenter.

So this person makes a grandiose statement that the entire science community is wrong, yet when called on it to provide the proof, they give a silly statement with the instructions to go find it.

If that is the best they can do, they have no business being on a conspiracy forum.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Stormdancer777
reply to post by network dude
 


German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.


dailycaller.com...


Have a link that isn't from a right wing propaganda site that is quoting research in German? *rolls eyes*





Scientists, however, have been increasingly turning against the global warming consensus and arguing that the world is actually in line for a colder century.

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University argues that the world is set for global cooling due to rapidly falling solar activity.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Lockwood] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”



www.bbc.co.uk...

ONE scientist (way to try to spin things) thinks that we may head into a little ice age (there is no such thing as a little ice age, it was a cool period for Europe) that has been designated to a volcano eruption, not solar minimum. As the solar cycles don't affect climate, that has been proven.

If that were the case, the climate would change every 11 years, and form that cycle. Instead of every 100,000.
And obviously, since you only stick to your own information and not have read what both Kali and I have been trying to say, is that the Earth IS in a cycle where it should be cooling, but because of human activity, we have deviated from the natural cycle.

And blogs are not sources.






After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

“So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”




Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
ccsenet.org...



And here I had high hopes that actual scientific information was being posted by a skeptic for a change, instead of created information and blogs, but alas, you posted information from a known nutter, and the abstract is a theory, and nothing more.

I mean really, he knows EXACTLY that the cooling will start in 2014? Is he channeling Sylvia Brown?


*laughs* the man violates the second law of thermodynamics in his "theory".




Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
edit on 6-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

network dude
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I found a lot of that information in searching, and it make sense. Cycles come and go and we are balancing out back to whatever normal happens to be this time. If you look at what some archaeologist have found, there used to be a temperate climate in the northern Illinois area. They were doing a dig there for something and found evidence of tropical plant life, fossilized. So way back then, apparently it was warm enough there to support tropical plants long enough to have them grow, die, and get pressed in rock formations.


So in our arrogance to claim "Global warming! It's hotter than it's SUPPOSED to be!" and we really have no idea how the temperatures are supposed to be "long term" we can only comprehend "now".




QUIT blaming cycles when you have already admitted that you don't know what they are!!



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
**WOAH MEOW**

How about we carry on this conversation with a little bit of tact?

Let us remember that it's no fun to play in a playground when people are throwing rocks from the jungle-jim.

Please be mindful of the Terms & Conditions and respect all fellow members.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod
edit on 12/6/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

nixie_nox

network dude
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You make me smile. I should not look at sources that discredit global warming for my information. I should be looking at your sites. The ones that keep changing the story. Yep, I'll remember that. Perhaps I'll adopt your strategy of name calling when logical arguments fail. Perhaps not.

But either way, in 20-30 years, if we all haven't been burned to a crisp, or drowned by the rising seas, if perhaps all is much like it has always been, you can look back here and wonder how your arrogance did you so wrong. TTFN.
edit on 5-12-2013 by network dude because: Beating a dead horse will make you tired, and the horse tender.


So you admit that you don't care to look at both sides of the issue and make an informed decision? You are admitting that being skeptical is such an ingrained habit that you want to keep it that way?
That you insist on remaining ignorant?

That is like a smoker refusing to quit because "everyone dies one day anyways".

What you need to read is informed sites, one way or the other, by scientists and researchers. Not other skeptics who have no idea what they are talking about.

If you can't find any evidence from researchers and scientists that support your skeptic view, then that should tell you something.


I think you may have ASSumed a bit. I look at all the information I can. I look at the links provided by the opposition. If I find something that is enough to change my mind, then I will. When I ask why the global temperature cycles have happened for ever, yet all of the sudden, it's caused by some C02 and we need to charge folks for the privileged to pollute, and the answers aren't convincing. I get that the temperature has been on a warming trend. I also get that we have had warming trends before. So while you are busy calling everyone who doesn't jump on you bandwagon names, you should look down from that high horse every now and then and make sure you know who you are talking to and what they think. Have a super day.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join