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.
Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data
page: 7share:
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Zaxxoncoinop
And you are being willfully ignorant when you deny CO2 is greenhouse gas.
280ppm to 405ppm is incredibly significant. To pretend this will not have consequences to our climate(and oceans) is embracing ignorance.
It'll make the plants happier for sure. 280ppm was near-starvation levels. 405ppm is good, but they'd like more. Don't believe me? As the greenhouse keepers who maintain their concentrations as high as 1500ppm.
Gosh, that would suggest that plants evolved with a much higher CO2 level than today, and animals still thrived... wierd.
a reply to: Teikiatsu
CO2 is plant food, therefore more is better is a fool's argument. Nitrogen is also plant food, but too much caused algae blooms and fish kills.
www.theguardian.com... s
Try again:
www.theguardian.com...[ editby]edit on 7-7-2017 by jrod because: Late
CO2 is plant food, therefore more is better is a fool's argument. Nitrogen is also plant food, but too much caused algae blooms and fish kills.
www.theguardian.com... s
edit on 7-7-2017 by jrod because: Broken link....past my bed time
Try again:
www.theguardian.com...[ editby]edit on 7-7-2017 by jrod because: Late
edit on 7-7-2017 by jrod because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Zaxxoncoinop
No, you are repeating a myth.
In other words you are beating a dead horse.
Cute how you have zeroed in on me to attack anything I write thatvsupports AGW.
No, you are repeating a myth.
In other words you are beating a dead horse.
Cute how you have zeroed in on me to attack anything I write thatvsupports AGW.
a reply to: Zaxxoncoinop
Hi perhaps you missed this since it was the last post of the previous page:
UAH lower troposphere v6.0 data divided into 10-yr means:
1970s Mean : -0.284583
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017)
WHERE'S THE PAUSE NOW?
Hi perhaps you missed this since it was the last post of the previous page:
UAH lower troposphere v6.0 data divided into 10-yr means:
1970s Mean : -0.284583
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017)
WHERE'S THE PAUSE NOW?
edit on 0Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:20:24 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: Zaxxoncoinop
a reply to: Greven
How many data sets do you have to choose from?
How many times has that particular data set been 'corrected'?
Show me the RSS data set for comparison?
It's UAH v6.0 - a favorite of 'skeptics.'
It's late here, not doing your research for you tonight.
originally posted by: Zaxxoncoinop
a reply to: Zaxxoncoinop
We can play the data set game if you like,it's what the thread is about.
NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
realclimatescience.com...
Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.
Said radiosonde would be RATPAC. Here's annual data for that at the surface:
1950s mean: -0.05 (1958 & 1959)
1960s mean: -0.118
1970s mean: -0.13
1980s mean: 0.06
1990s mean: 0.185
2000s mean: 0.352
2010s mean: 0.739 (through 2016)
Hmm nope looks pretty much the same sorry.
edit on 1Fri, 07 Jul 2017 01:00:40 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no
reason given)
Wow... I didn't realise people still denied this stuff.
New-age flat-earthers up in this thread.
Ignore all scientific research... unless they can find a study that suggests Climate Data is inconclusive and then spam that all over the place.
I'm going to go ahead and jot down all the users in this thread making a fool of themselves, be fun to bring it back up in a couple years.
New-age flat-earthers up in this thread.
Ignore all scientific research... unless they can find a study that suggests Climate Data is inconclusive and then spam that all over the place.
I'm going to go ahead and jot down all the users in this thread making a fool of themselves, be fun to bring it back up in a couple years.
Greven... jrod, I fear at this point you are just arguing with trolls.
They are not interested in scientific studies, historical data or common sense, they've read the OP's title and made their decision.
Even the OP himself refuses to respond to the fact the study he posted has been debunked for manipulating chart data to prey on the easily fooled.
They are not interested in scientific studies, historical data or common sense, they've read the OP's title and made their decision.
Even the OP himself refuses to respond to the fact the study he posted has been debunked for manipulating chart data to prey on the easily fooled.
Averaging temperatures is meaningless without humidity.
100 degrees in Pheonix can be equal to 80 degrees in New Orleans due to variations in humidity.
The Earth's temperature could increase an average of 5 degrees, yet actually lose energy if the humidity was decreasing.
100 degrees in Pheonix can be equal to 80 degrees in New Orleans due to variations in humidity.
The Earth's temperature could increase an average of 5 degrees, yet actually lose energy if the humidity was decreasing.
Consider that we continuously keep 10x more water vaporized into the atmosphere than total CO2 levels. That water is much more effective as a
greenhouse gas as well.
We've artificially boosted the average humidity of the planet.
We've artificially boosted the average humidity of the planet.
a reply to: SudoNim
This seems to becoming more common in the climate threads, especially the ones where the OP takes the anti human induced climate/warming change.
That was the 2nd one in this thread to earn a ~, they come in as new posters and flood the thread with posts that support a certain agenda.
Who do you think is pushing an agenda, a handful of fossil fuel think tanks like the OP's Cato Institute and fossil fuel funded PHDs like Lindzen or thousands and thousands of reputable Universities and PHDs have independently decided to push AGW as an agenda?
This seems to becoming more common in the climate threads, especially the ones where the OP takes the anti human induced climate/warming change.
That was the 2nd one in this thread to earn a ~, they come in as new posters and flood the thread with posts that support a certain agenda.
Who do you think is pushing an agenda, a handful of fossil fuel think tanks like the OP's Cato Institute and fossil fuel funded PHDs like Lindzen or thousands and thousands of reputable Universities and PHDs have independently decided to push AGW as an agenda?
a reply to: seasonal
There is absolutely no evidence that other planets are heating up. It is a myth your camp keeps repeating and because your confirmation bias is so strong it becomes a favorite fallback argument.
So many of you blindly accept myths like that without fact checking it.
Face it, your link in the OP has been debunked, you refuse to address Greven when he points out how your camp manipulates charts, and now you are repeating a myth that you used an opinion piece as a source to back up said myth.
I realize some will never be convinced AGW is actually happening, but it is unacceptable to provide false and misleading information over and over again.
There is absolutely no evidence that other planets are heating up. It is a myth your camp keeps repeating and because your confirmation bias is so strong it becomes a favorite fallback argument.
So many of you blindly accept myths like that without fact checking it.
Face it, your link in the OP has been debunked, you refuse to address Greven when he points out how your camp manipulates charts, and now you are repeating a myth that you used an opinion piece as a source to back up said myth.
I realize some will never be convinced AGW is actually happening, but it is unacceptable to provide false and misleading information over and over again.
edit on 7-7-2017 by jrod because: PS Your source on other planets warming is an opinion piece NOT backed valid science or evidence.
a reply to: jrod
Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...
Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.
I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.
Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.
Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
www.space.news...
Not is a "camp" just looking at the money and recognizing this has happened before. And it happened before we had the industrial revolution.
I would love not to have gas stations, natural gas furnaces and coal fired gen plants. But in the real world we "need" this dirty power. And whether the tech is not there yet or is being restricted ( I vote for restricted) we have little control because we do not individually have the $$$ to push for what I think is right.
Separated we do as we are told, together we could change the status quo.
edit on 7-7-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)