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.

 

New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The lost data is a myth. CRU did not lose any raw data nor did anyone else, NASA has it all, through GISTemp I believe, readily available...

And why, may I ask, are you listening to a politician over scientists? If you're going to refute the Theory shouldn't you go to the science rather than Al Gore?




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
The lost data is a myth. CRU did not lose any raw data nor did anyone else, NASA has it all, through GISTemp I believe, readily available...


I will modify my position, not lost but withheld. It appears they do not readily share the data for review.

And why, may I ask, are you listening to a politician over scientists? If you're going to refute the Theory shouldn't you go to the science rather than Al Gore?


Politicians are the ones that pass legislation.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The raw data is available to anyone always has been. CRU stated that they weren't at liberty to give out what was done with the data by various scientists sue to confidentiality agreements and such. All those request were responded to with instruction as to how to go about getting whatever one was looking for. For example if someone requested the data from a weather station but it wasn't a weather station associated with CRU but a university or nation, the information was provided on how to go about contacting the proper persons to get the data they were looking for. If I develop a new formula for coke should upon FOIA request violate my confidentiality agreement and give it out? No. Many times requests were for the manner in which the data was being applied, if someone was writing a paper should they have honored those requests? No. The outrage is just as preposterous as it would in the coke formula.

Politicians doing what they do is no reason to refute the science. In that case you state the politician's solutions are wrong and why. If the government wanted to tax the hours we spend looking at the stars, would you say stars don't exist? I hope not... denying global warming because of politics is just as silly.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The southern part, due in part to the medieval warming, could very well have been green, in parts. Along the southern coast temperatures were higher than today.



Schweger recalls vividly the day the team uncovered GUS. Smells frozen in permafrost for 500 years exploded into the air. “It stunk to high heavens,” said Schweger. “There was no question about this being a farm.”

The Viking ships that had brought Icelandic adventurers to Greenland may have been mini versions of Noah’s Ark with sheep, goats, horses and Vikings sharing the crowded space. The Greenland Vikings raised sheep and fabricated woollen garments. The centre of the farm was a typical Viking longhouse, the communal building where Vikings gathered around the fire. The settlement flourished. In the North Atlantic, walrus, seal and whale were abundant and the Greenlanders made rope from walrus hide and controlled the European walrus tusk market.


The Norse colony on Greenland lasted almost 500 years. Yet the settlements in North America, no doubt more hospitable, did not last for any appreciable period, at least we have no evidence of such.





edit on 7-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
The Vikings also had farms in northern Norway and Sweden. So what? You know that seasons occur, right? You know that it does get warmer in the summer, right? Greenland was not so named because of lush vegetation, not then, not now.



Along the southern coast temperatures were higher than today.
Yes. Various locales may have been were warmer then than they are now. That doesn't mean the global mean was higher and it doesn't mean that the current warming trend is not primarily due to burning of fossil fuels. What it does mean is that there were changes in ocean circulation patterns.
edit on 9/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you take that approach, then the following is also true: It also does not mean that the warming we are experiencing now is due to man's efforts.

In fact, because temps in the previous inter-glacials reached a higher peak than today before glacial growth resumed, there is nothing in prehistorical temperature/co2 records that would suggest man is culpable.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

There is a recent paper published which provides an alternate view of the MWP. It suggests that the MWP was, indeed, a global event and provides the documentation and research to support.

I will try and find a link to the document. All I have right now, you have to belong to access the paper, and that will not help anyone see the paper.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Interesting tidbit related to increasing co2 levels:




Decades ago it was determined that CO2 's ability to trap heat rising from Earth's surface declines logarithmically or very rapidly (see first figure below). This means that early on, at low concentrations, CO2 does exert a significant warming of the lower atmosphere. But as the absorption bands in which CO2 captures this rising heat begin to get saturated, CO2 can capture less and less heat with each additional unit of CO2 . Depending on how sensitive or reactive one thinks Earth is to additional CO2 , the level of influence of rising CO2 today can be very small or still of significant impact. Once again, we have chosen the path recommended long ago by Winston Churchill who once said, "The farther backward you look, the farther forward you are likely to see." As we look back at Earth's climate history, far beyond the popular 1980's and 1990's which happened to see a supposedly rapid rise in temperature coinciding with a real and admittedly rapid rise in airborne CO2 , we find many examples where rises in CO2 were accompanied by declining temperatures (see the Predictions vs. Reality figure below).
These real world observations lead us to believe that Earth is not very sensitive to CO2 and that many other factors have a stronger influence on the climate. This is one of the reasons that one of the world's most prominent scholars, Professor of Meteorology, Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., has been "going crazy" for decades at humanity's infatuation that CO2 is a major cause of global warming. ("Resisting Climate Hysteria" by Richard S. Lindzen, 7-26-09)

edit on 7-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

If you take that approach, then the following is also true: It also does not mean that the warming we are experiencing now is due to man's efforts.
We are not seeing large changes in ocean currents. We are not seeing an increase in solar radiation. We are, however, seeing an increase in anthropogenic CO2. It is known that increasing CO2 leads to increased radiative forcing. It is known that increased radiative forcing must result in higher temperatures. It is known that such increase can lead to feedback effects, enhancing the anthropogenic effect.



In fact, because temps in the previous inter-glacials reached a higher peak than today before glacial growth resumed, there is nothing in prehistorical temperature/co2 records that would suggest man is culpable.
Except that the influences which caused those changes are not now occurring. We are not in the correct orbital/axial cycle to cause warming. Solar radiation has not increased enough to account for the warming.



I will try and find a link to the document. All I have right now, you have to belong to access the paper, and that will not help anyone see the paper.
I have seen various papers which postulate that, they are based on various localized proxies (including things like rainfall which may or may not be caused by global warming) and they show little consistency in timing.

edit on 9/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
If I develop a new formula for coke should upon FOIA request violate my confidentiality agreement and give it out?


Not a very good analogy. Coke Cola is a publically traded corporation whose product is protected under trademark and copyright law. NASA and NOAA are government agencies and must disclose all information not directly related to national security issues.


No. Many times requests were for the manner in which the data was being applied, if someone was writing a paper should they have honored those requests? No. The outrage is just as preposterous as it would in the coke formula.


See above. A FOIA should be granted regardless of what a government agency's sentiments happen to be. That is why the process exists. Who cares if they do not like how that person was going to 'apply the data'. Who is to say that application is wrong or would not be revelatory in a manner germane to the argument?

Politicians doing what they do is no reason to refute the science. In that case you state the politician's solutions are wrong and why. If the government wanted to tax the hours we spend looking at the stars, would you say stars don't exist? I hope not... denying global warming because of politics is just as silly.


I am sure the government would love to tax that as well. However star-gazing is not being blamed for the plethora of weather-related phenomenon occurring.

I do not deny the climate is changing, that is why the term is so moronic, of course climate changes, only a cretin would think it is static. I question man's contribution and the hysteria and lies that surround the debate.

But frankly, I do not care if it is changing and if it is getting warmer, so much the better. Ice ages are bad. Plant and animal diversity were greater during recent, more warmer, eras.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

NASA and NOAA do disclose everything, they have the raw data there was never a need for CRU to be targeted (yes it very much was an attack to delay the group before the Copenhagen Summit) by 'skeptics' with floods of FOIAs and you're ignoring the crux of the matter... each request that CRU was unable to provide was replied to with how to go about getting in the information or why the information could not be released (due to agreements).


FOIA requests for raw climate data

From 1978 onwards, the Climatic Research Unit developed its gridded CRUTEM data set of land air temperature anomalies based on instrumental temperature records held by National Meteorological Organisations around the world, often under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes. Beginning in 1991, Phil Jones of CRU discussed data with Warwick Hughes (later of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition), and from 2002 onwards had requests from Stephen McIntyre for raw data relating to the hockey stick graph as shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2001. At first Jones met their requests, but increasingly felt that he was inundated with requests that he could not meet due to time or confidentiality constraints, and began refusing requests. In 2005 the new UK Freedom of Information Act came into effect, and in February of that year Jones discussed with fellow climate researchers the potential implications of the Act for McIntyre's requests. In 2007 he told colleagues that, having seen what McIntyre's Climate Audit blog was doing, UEA had been turning down FOIA requests associated with the blog. The scientists concerned saw such requests as disrupting the time available for their work, and those making them as nitpicking to suit an agenda rather than trying to advance scientific knowledge.[1]

Late in 2008, the university's FOI managers took advice from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on exceptions allowing refusal of requests. Between 24 and 29 July 2009 the university received 58 FOI requests for raw data or details of the confidentiality agreements from McIntyre and his readers at the Climate Audit blog. McIntyre complained that data denied to him had been sent to Peter Webster at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was working on a joint publication with Jones. On 12 August Nature News published a statement by Jones that he was working to release the raw data in a systematic way, and was writing to all the National Meteorological Organisations requesting their agreement to waive confidentiality.[1]

In mid October CRU issued a statement on data availability, describing how National Metereological Services (NMSs) and scientists had given or sold them data with written or verbal agreements that it must only used for academic purposes, and not passed onto third parties. There were difficulties in separating out raw data, some of which was subject to charges made by NMSs, and "These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists." They hoped to obtain consents and to publish all the data jointly with the Met Office.[2]

Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge made FOIA requests for the data that Jones had sent to Webster.[3] Both requests were refused by the UEA by 11 September 2009.[4]

On 24 November 2009, four days after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the university stated that over 95% of the CRU climate data set had already been available for several years, and the remainder would be released when permissions were given.[5]

Requests were sent by the Met Office to National Meteorological Organisations for agreement to waive confidentiality on raw instrumental data,[6] as CRU had announced on 12 August 2009.[1] Some gave full or conditional agreement, others failed to respond, and the request was explicitly refused by Trinidad and Tobago and Poland. In discussions with the ICO about the FOIA requests which Jones and Keiller had made before the email controversy had begun, the university argued that the data was publicly available from the Met organisations, and the lack of agreement exempted the remaining data. In its decision released on 23 June 2011, the ICO stated that the data was not easily available and there was insufficient evidence that disclosure would have an adverse effect on international relations. The ICO required the university to release the data covered by the FOIA request within 35 calendar days.[4] On 27 July 2011 CRU announced release of the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain, with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request. The data are available for download from Met Office website and from CRU. The university remained concerned "that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations."[3][6]


Wikipedia



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

NASA and NOAA do disclose everything, they have the raw data there was never a need for CRU to be targeted (yes it very much was an attack to delay the group before the Copenhagen Summit) by 'skeptics' with floods of FOIAs and you're ignoring the crux of the matter... each request that CRU was unable to provide was replied to with how to go about getting in the information or why the information could not be released (due to agreements).


FOIA requests for raw climate data

From 1978 onwards, the Climatic Research Unit developed its gridded CRUTEM data set of land air temperature anomalies based on instrumental temperature records held by National Meteorological Organisations around the world, often under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes. Beginning in 1991, Phil Jones of CRU discussed data with Warwick Hughes (later of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition), and from 2002 onwards had requests from Stephen McIntyre for raw data relating to the hockey stick graph as shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2001. At first Jones met their requests, but increasingly felt that he was inundated with requests that he could not meet due to time or confidentiality constraints, and began refusing requests. In 2005 the new UK Freedom of Information Act came into effect, and in February of that year Jones discussed with fellow climate researchers the potential implications of the Act for McIntyre's requests. In 2007 he told colleagues that, having seen what McIntyre's Climate Audit blog was doing, UEA had been turning down FOIA requests associated with the blog. The scientists concerned saw such requests as disrupting the time available for their work, and those making them as nitpicking to suit an agenda rather than trying to advance scientific knowledge.[1]

Late in 2008, the university's FOI managers took advice from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on exceptions allowing refusal of requests. Between 24 and 29 July 2009 the university received 58 FOI requests for raw data or details of the confidentiality agreements from McIntyre and his readers at the Climate Audit blog. McIntyre complained that data denied to him had been sent to Peter Webster at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was working on a joint publication with Jones. On 12 August Nature News published a statement by Jones that he was working to release the raw data in a systematic way, and was writing to all the National Meteorological Organisations requesting their agreement to waive confidentiality.[1]

In mid October CRU issued a statement on data availability, describing how National Metereological Services (NMSs) and scientists had given or sold them data with written or verbal agreements that it must only used for academic purposes, and not passed onto third parties. There were difficulties in separating out raw data, some of which was subject to charges made by NMSs, and "These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists." They hoped to obtain consents and to publish all the data jointly with the Met Office.[2]

Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge made FOIA requests for the data that Jones had sent to Webster.[3] Both requests were refused by the UEA by 11 September 2009.[4]

On 24 November 2009, four days after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the university stated that over 95% of the CRU climate data set had already been available for several years, and the remainder would be released when permissions were given.[5]

Requests were sent by the Met Office to National Meteorological Organisations for agreement to waive confidentiality on raw instrumental data,[6] as CRU had announced on 12 August 2009.[1] Some gave full or conditional agreement, others failed to respond, and the request was explicitly refused by Trinidad and Tobago and Poland. In discussions with the ICO about the FOIA requests which Jones and Keiller had made before the email controversy had begun, the university argued that the data was publicly available from the Met organisations, and the lack of agreement exempted the remaining data. In its decision released on 23 June 2011, the ICO stated that the data was not easily available and there was insufficient evidence that disclosure would have an adverse effect on international relations. The ICO required the university to release the data covered by the FOIA request within 35 calendar days.[4] On 27 July 2011 CRU announced release of the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain, with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request. The data are available for download from Met Office website and from CRU. The university remained concerned "that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations."[3][6]


Wikipedia


Raw data is nice, but we want untampered raw data.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I don't think there is such a thing as global warming if I look at the last summers in Europe.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: truthmaker
I don't think there is such a thing as global warming if I look at the last summers in Europe.


They rebranded to Climate Change™... Because nobody can deny the climate changes




edit on 8-9-2014 by jajaja because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

If they are still releasing requested data then I will stand corrected.

It does little to diminish my overall skepticism and distrust as there are still many questionable actions and reports that have occurred.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: jajaja

If you want it, FOIA all the temperature stations in the world. But you could save time and visit NOAAs page instead because they match.
edit on 9/8/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As said ad nauseum now, the raw data is available through NASA and NOAA. What CRU did with the data was ordered released in court (though 95% of it was available anyway) as of 2009, forcing violation of agreements that CRU was working on ending anyway in order to release their full work. The whole thing was utter nonsense. If you follow the links at the wiki page I linked you, you'll see it. If you want to see it that is.
edit on 9/8/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
If you follow the links at the wiki page I linked you, you'll see it. If you want to see it that is.


I read it, that is why I amended my statement.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Keep reading. The only distrust you should feel is toward Stephen McIntyre (SP?) and James Dellingpole who applied the dirty tactics to begin with, that are still widely disseminated throughout the 'climate skeptic' blogosphere to this day, despite the truth.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
The only distrust you should feel is toward Stephen McIntyre (SP?) and James Dellingpole who applied the dirty tactics to begin with, that are still widely disseminated throughout the 'climate skeptic' blogosphere to this day, despite the truth.


And everyone on the other side has committed no fraud, hyperbole or scare-mongering?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join