The Earth Should Be Cooling. My Question to ATS: Why Isn't It?

originally posted by: superman2012
Then there's this. From this thread.

Which seems to show that the Earth is indeed cooling. Which would be one answer to the OPs question.

And then there's this thread, which long ago demolished the hyperbolic nonsense in that thread. (Phage I'm still waiting for you to debunk it mwahahahahaha)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

Huh. A single location shows the Earth is cooling. Imagine that.
I wonder if we could find another location that shows the opposite.

I'm sure you could, I could give you one from the same that shows the opposite if you'd like? All I was doing was giving you one example of where the data was altered. I'm sure you know all about the number of stations that monitor the temperature and where they are located. Checking things out for yourself is on you. It's not my job to convince you one way or the other. Me? I like to check things out and then decide.

a reply to: superman2012

Me? I like to check things out and then decide.

Fair enough. How much do you know about the hows and whys of the adjustments?

a reply to: mc_squared

Cool! If shown to be a lie, would you mind linking to the proof? I would like to read it. Thanks in advance!

a reply to: superman2012

Read the thread.

a reply to: Phage

I lol'd.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

Me? I like to check things out and then decide.

Fair enough. How much do you know about the hows and whys of the adjustments?

Obviously not much lol, otherwise I would not have brought that graph into the discussion. (See Kali, I did it!) Care to enlighten me about the hows and whys? I just want to know now.

a reply to: superman2012
The adjustments are made to compensate for known biases (in the technical sense) in the instrumentation. Here is a pretty good overview. Feel free to delve as deep as you wish.
arstechnica.com...

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: superman2012

I'm not a climate scientist so I don't have an expert opinion. I trust the climate scientists who are experts and have definitively stated man made emissions are causing most of the observed warming we are experiencing now.

I do have a physics degree so I understand the basis of their argument. I understand that an enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to lead to warming, so I get where their story adds up.

I'm also a wild conspiracy guy though and I've been endlessly told how all the scientists are apparently lying and corrupt. Except I like to think for myself instead of just mindlessly nod along with every tinfoil pronouncement - so I've spent a great deal of time investigating these claims, and every time - I mean literally: every. single. time. it turns out the "skeptics" making these accusations are the ones lying and being corrupt.

^So there you go - that's my "expert" opinion as a critical thinking conspiracy theorist with a slightly better knowledge of physics than your average blog-reading bear.

Why do you trust the scientists whom you agree with? What makes them more trustworthy than the ones that don't agree with Al Gore?
I get that the science makes sense, that the media sure jumped on the greenhouse effect very quickly, and that it is important to take care of the planet. What made you believe group A of scientists, over group B?

a reply to: Phage

So when they move a station, repair or replace equipment it creates a break in the data that then gets filled in to create a continuous reading? That makes a lot of sense and is a far cry from tampering with the data. I apologize for bringing that graph into this thread but also thank you for sending me off in the right direction to learn why.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Phage

So when they move a station, repair or replace equipment it creates a break in the data that then gets filled in to create a continuous reading? That makes a lot of sense and is a far cry from tampering with the data. I apologize for bringing that graph into this thread but also thank you for sending me off in the right direction to learn why.

Actually a lot if scientists are reevaluating things. Several are coming out and saying do to sun activity over the next two cycles we could have as much as a 1.5 degree drop in global temperatures. I know this doesn't sound like a lot but 2 you have a mini ice age.

a reply to: dragonridr

If solar irradiance decreases significantly (it shows no signs yet) warming will slow or even reverse.
Want to bet on it happening? How much?

a reply to: Phage
i wish it would happen ha ha
last summer was the worst ever..we had no winter and this summer they say will be worse.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

If solar irradiance decreases significantly (it shows no signs yet) warming will slow or even reverse.
Want to bet on it happening? How much?

Well I've defended global warming until recently I'm seeing sone disturbing trends. Seemed to be climate change has turned into a political issue. And as such seems that peiple are starting to manipulate the science incolved. Granted astrophysics isn't my field but I have a friend who it is. And we discussed this and I must admit it makes alot of sense to link climate change to solar cycles. The pattern can be seen throughout history. So far thus year the sun has been dormant so will see.

Now if we have institutions correcting data making it warmer well see logic tells us we should rarely have to raise temperatures at a recording station. You would have to take into account blacktop buildings etc. But thsee things would increase temorature reading not decrease them.Havnt done any research into it yet really don't have the time with a research project I'm working on now. However this article has me wondering I'd were being lied To.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: dragonridr

However this article has me wondering I'd were being lied To.

Lied to, yes.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Uh because we are facing abnormal droughts. I see them everyday firsthand in Northern California. The food basket of your country. If there's no water...no food. Nio food, starving people. It's a serious issue. Stop watching football and TV, go outside, read a book and get genuinely cultured on what's happening, a reply to: VoidHawk

originally posted by: superman2012
We don't know for sure that human even are causing the CO2 emissions to stay up! We don't know for sure but they believe that the oceans absorb a lot of the CO2.

Uh...

By a relatively simple calculation, a change of +1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to approximately +7.820536 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2. Here's the last decade of CO2 in ppm in March:
March 2015: 401.52
March 2014: 399.58
March 2013: 397.31
March 2012: 394.45
March 2011: 392.49
March 2010: 391.09
March 2009: 388.77
March 2008: 385.97
March 2007: 384.56
March 2006: 382.66

So let's see, that's a change of +18.86 ppm, which means a change of +147.49530896 gigatonnes of CO2. Estimates put us at more than that in cumulative annual emissions of CO2, so clearly some of it must be going elsewhere. I would suggest the oceans.

a reply to: Greven
The oceans, yes (leading to lowered pH levels), as well as other natural sinks. But those sinks cannot keep up. That's why CO2 levels are rising.

Considering the population on Earth has increased almost one order of magnitude in the last 150 years, is it possible there's some source of heat buried in that fact?

a reply to: paradoxious
The problem is not so much heat being produced. The Sun heats the surface of the Earth far (far) more than human activity does.

The problem is that heat being trapped in the atmosphere.