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 watcher73
Originally posted by mikerussellus
Source
news.bbc.co.uk...
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
Didnt 1998 end up being a math error and the warmest year on record is in the 1930's?
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Fact is that globally, over the last 2 or so years, the Earth has actually cooled significantly. Wether we will see this trend continue is anyones guess....but in my opinion, I think the global warming issue may have been inaccurate after all.
You make a number of inane claims here. Firstly, I know weather might be your thing, but climate is more than 2 year trends. A quick look at numerous 2 year periods in the past would show cooling and warming - might as well fling dice as to make predictions from such data.
Try woodfortrees to play around with the data from HadCRUT, NASA-GISS, RSS-MSU, or UAH. To put any inferential weight on such timescales is ridiculous.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
Source
news.bbc.co.uk...
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
blah blah continue standard denier's ignorant waffle yadda yadda
our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by melatonin
would it?
Originally posted by melatonin
(along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).
Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the earliest snow since records began
Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the earliest snow since records began
In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.
And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions.
The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.
Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.
But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.
According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998.
If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.
Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of the environment.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ing-go.html?ITO=1490##ixzz0Tw6RfwR0
"There was for all intents and purposes no hurricane damage in the United States this year," Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, told Reuters.
But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.
This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph.” The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).
Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as gospel by all manner of proselytizers. In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that promise to be the Hockey Stick’s (HS) long overdue epitaph. And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart’s fraudulence, but also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and leading UN sponsors.
And without the Hockey Stick’s counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century warming, climate crisis peddlers’ credibility levels are reduced to those of used car salesmen. Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either direction.
So they cheat. And they lie. And they have from the very beginning.
In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.
In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:
“The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which environmental activists and government representatives are setting the agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign barrow.”
Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.
Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Hey Mel, since you posted this, would you like to explain to everyone what the bold grey line represents? You know, the one that forms the so called "hockey stick"?
You would think it would be a trend line of best fit, but it is obviously not an accurate fit at all. For starters, it starts below not just some, but ALL of the data sets, then magically arcs up over the data sets. So if it's not a trend line, what is it?
It wouldn't be intentionally trying to exagerate any warmingwould it?
Originally posted by melatonin
(along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).
Originally posted by Essan
After over 150 years no-one has even attempted to disprove the greenhouse effect ......
Originally posted by network dude
do you have any thoughts on the 1000AD problem with your chart?
Any ideas on how that warming trend occurred?
I don't think anybody is denying it became warmer than it used to be for the past say 10 years, but now it seems to be returning to previous temperatures. And we needn't bother discussing the warming trend on Mars. Quite a coincidence that it happened at the same time ours did. Perhaps there is a common theme.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just tell people the truth and attempt a cleaner planet by informing people of the real reasons we need to clean up our act?
Originally posted by network dude
Why is it that GW believers don't look any further than 10 years when they look at data? There was an ice age. Humans didn't cause it. Then there was a warming period. We didn't cause that either. Then if you look back 10 thousand years you can see it happen quite a few other times. It is so far from rocket science, it is pittiful.
And you claim that Mars has dust clouds that are to blame for it heating up at the same time the Earth does and the two have no commonalities between them in regards to warming. You don't even have to believe the sun will rise tomorrow to see a trend. We see NASA talk about solar flares, they are peaking right now. They have been building up to a peak. Kind of like how the temperatures have been building up.
We don't need to be scared into doing a better job with the planet. When everyone finds out Al Gore is an idiot and we wasted millions chasing a ghost, he will be tared and featherd. Untill then, He will have his minions trying to sell his snake oil. We ain't buying anymore. Historical data is what you need, not pictures of polar bears looking sad.
Originally posted by melatonin
You're just making the same logical error. Yes, natural variations and influences exist. No-one doubts that. I know you think you're making some sort of slamdunk point, but it's actually rather inane and fallacious.
None of these negate the evidence showing human impacts.
.
(along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).
Originally posted by melatonin
The dataset represented by the bold grey line is one often ignored by those perseverating on Mann, and is barely associated with the infamous 'hockeystick' - probably best to say hockeysticks, really, more than enough for the Montreal Canadiens.
PS2004 is a borehole dataset. Not a tree-ring in sight.
Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
It wouldn't be intentionally trying to exagerate any warmingwould it?
Originally posted by melatonin
(along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).