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.

 

Why Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Typical. Another science denialist gets proven wrong and closes his eyes and ears to the evidence.




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
So you don't want to bother with past discussions? OK. And you think the climategate emails are "cherry picked"? Riiiiight. Here's just a single example of the manipulation we have been fed.

Tree ring data is often used as a so-called "proxy" for temperature records because we didn't have any accurate thermometers thousands of years ago. Tree-rings are convenient substitutes--when they work. The way tree-rings are confirmed as accurate proxies is by comparing tree-rings from the near present with thermometer readings for the same period. If the tree-ring thickness follows the thermometer readings, you know they are accurate FOR THAT PERIOD. The next step is to use tree-ring data from long ago and use the same kind of correlations to extrapolate previous temperature records. That's how Manning and others have "proven" climate change over time.

The controversies arise over 1) what trees they used, 2) where they are, 3) how many trees they used, 4) How they took samples, and 5) whether the tree-ring data is accurate in terms of 'predicting' past temperature. ALL these things are controversial, and if you care to look into it in depth, you'll see why. But basically the tree-ring data is 'rather thin' (no pun intended) and basing a world-wide theory on just tree-rings is highly suspect.

But it gets worse. It turns out the tree-ring data gathered to support the idea of global warming was not cooperating with the theory. In modern times, when they had accurate thermometers along side tree ring data for the same year, the data showed a decline in temperatures. This was obviously untrue because we had accurate thermometers showing the temperature really was rising, albeit nowhere near as fast as the computer models predicted (yet another problem with the overall theory). So what did our erstwhile expert climate scientists do about this unfortunate data?

They hid it:



Cherry picked? Folks, that's fraud, pure and simple. These guys didn't want to explain the issue, so they "hid the decline" from all of us BECAUSE it contradicted their theory. Now WHY is this important? Because if the tree ring data is inaccurate for years when we have correlative data that absolutely proves without a doubt that it is inaccurate, HOW can we rely on tree ring data when it is the only data we have? Wouldn't you think that if they had iron-clad data that showed the tree ring data was inaccurate for the near present, that they would find some other way to figure out past temperatures? But no, they did it anyway and tried to hide it from us.

Now tree ring data by itself is highly suspect anyway. here are a couple of reasons:

+ First, thick and thin tree rings, which is basically all you have to go on, can be the result of moisture, not temperature. Lots of water yields thick rings. Drought conditions yield thin rings. Those two conditions do not correlate well with temperature.

+ Tree-rings are very 'gross' measurements. You have two rings per year, one for the growth season of the tree, one for the 'dormant' season for the tree. By reading this you can't really tell if high temperatures spiked over, say, a few weeks of time, or whether it wasn't quite as warm over a longer period of time. The "degree days" would be exactly the same so that the area experienced the same overall temperature in a vastly different set of time.

+ Tree-rings are highly individual and localized. A set of tree-ring data taken from one mountain is going to be vastly different than a set of data taken from another valley or the mountain next door. The presence or absence of water is an obvious point here. Trees growing by a stream are going to have thicker rings than trees a mile inland and today, with the stream entirely gone, you may not be able to tell the difference, but so is the individual micro-climate. In my area, for example, moving 10 miles north is the difference between 25 inches of rain a year and 50 inches of rain a year. The biggest cause for this is a mountain range that creates a "rain shadow" over the north part of the region. Where I am it rains a lot. Even further 50 miles north the climate is arid and dry requiring irrigation. It's a great retirement community.

So the point is when "they" go out and gather tree ring data they don't really gather a lot over a wide area. Budgets being what they are, they gather a small amount of data over a small area. Some of the tree-ring data used as part of the UN IPCC report last time were based on six trees from one mountainside in Siberia.

So here we have, once again, some very specialized scientists into tree-rings making vast pronouncements about the rise and fall of empires based on their narrow view of the world. But they really aren't qualified to do that. Life is more complex than staring at tree rings that have been proven to be unreliable proxies for climate in the first place. Making grandiose claims on such thin data would not be tolerated anywhere else, but since this is all politically correct, we all swallow it as gospel truth.

There are a lot better ways to determine climate change over time. Ice core data is one. The following is a graph that shows the long term trend. It was done NOT for the current debate on climate change, but as research for trying to explain the "Younger Dryas" cooling phase thousands of years ago. As the Earth was warming (shock!) recovering from the last Ice Age, the temperature suddenly dropped for a thousand years. The result was the extinction of mammoths, not to mention the tribes hunting them. There is controversy over whether this was the result of an asteroid strike, increasing vulcanism, or whatever. (Very recent studies claim it was NOT an asteroid, but the debate continues.) In any case, observe:



This shows a bit of recent warming, it sure does, but nothing particularly alarming compared to the overall record. What it DOES show is an overall cooling trend. Does this indicate the coming of another Ice Age? After all, we're right on schedule for the end of the current "inter-glacial" stage. Perhaps you all might want to pay attention to that phrase: "inter-glacial." What do you think another Ice Age will do to global civilization? Would you rather see it warm up a bit so you can grow grapes and produce wine in Scotland (like you could during the "Medieval Warming period") Or would you rather see a glacier cover Puget Sound a mile thick and scrape the top of the Olympics and the Cascades? The Thames freezing over in Winter (as it did during the "Little Ice Age" during the 1700s) would be the least of your worries.

Or how about this?



which basically shows, as many people have suggested, that the climate change models are all wrong. The climate is not cooperating with all these predictions. Damn the climate anyway! Or here's a little perspective:



Your reaction? Predictable. "It's cherry picked." You'll believe anything the NWO says about climate change because they're "scientists" and "scientists" are always right. And even if the next Ice Age sweeps down upon us, you'll find a way to blame us for it anyway.
edit on 5/8/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I believe you're looking at the man in the mirror.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Climate change??????

Is it not planetary frequency change then?
The planetary frequency the same as within was but due to rise in technological advancements not only climate is effected but cellular life.

FACT.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Where are you getting those graphs and your information from exactly?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Climate change is so hard to understand only because some people want it that way.

Change costs money, so some will pretend the whole thing is a plot to fund big government, or say that the scientific experts are suddenly wrong when the experts say something they don't like... like the constant, looming warnings that we are in deep, deep doo-doo if we keep on as we are.

I get the denial in that respect... especially in the face of worse case scenarios that predict acidification of our oceans to the point where the algae that produces the oxygen we breathe will be dead within 50 years... along with everything else but anaerobic bacteria. Rising oceans, displaced populations and food shortages is the least of it.

The downside to changing to cleaner alternatives is ...what? Expense? Well, we pay to live, anyway, in the world we created for ourselves... and I don't think we can spend money when we're dead.

Even IF all the scientists are all totally wrong, or some x-factor instead of human activities are to blame, what possible harm would come from cleaning the mess up?!

The bad news is that it's likely too little, too late, anyway... but curling up and dying is bad form, imo.

I am flummoxed as to why certain people continue to deny and accuse... but I'm fed up with being nice to people too selfish to change and too dumb to live. Too bad we can't let them be to see if their ill informed suppositions enable them to waste and pillage indefinitely... but, we are on this world together... stand or fall.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

We need links to the data for those graphs to be considered valid evidence.

Again, you make great claims that the data has been manipulated, there are some emails and such, but you do NOT offer any links to prove your point.

Intelligent people do NOT take someone's claims and consider that fact. When you make claims like you do, you NEED to link sources to back said claims up.

CO2 is up ~120ppm, this correlates to us burning fossil fuels/coal for energy. CO2 does indeed cause radiative forcing.....



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

That is beyond trash nothing was hidden, where did you find all that nonsense? Have you bothered to read any of the scientific analysis of Mann's 1999 paper? My guess is no.

Never mind... it's all an NWO plot? LMFAO! Nothing you say matters one bit after that. Please let me know when Alex Jones gets even one thing right.
edit on 5/8/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

Personally agree, and thanks for the well-stated reply!



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
It comes down to a couple of simple questions.

Do you believe most scientists or science or science organizations?

Which scientists or scientific organizations or science advocates do you believe?

Is Bill Nye lying to me? Is Neil Degrass Tyson lying to me? Is NASA lying to me?

Why are they lying to me, if you think they are?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can guaranty those are Roy Spencer and Steven Goddard's graphs. Searching them up now.

ETA: Too much work for my frame of mind today... sorry

edit on 5/8/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I've been noticing that many of the posts in this thread that are against climate change are using the science, the possible manipulation of scientific data, as the root cause of your skepticism.

To you I have several questions:

1. Is science in general offensive to you? Can you give another example where science was wrong and public opinion was right? An example I can offer is once-upon-a-time science was of the opinion 'rocks' could not fall from the sky even as the public often recorded meteor phenomena.

2. If the global warming scientists are wrong or corrupt, then rather than proving them wrong, should there not be scientific studies that either show the earth is cooling, or that the atmosphere is going through a cycle with defined parameters? If that is true, which scientists/publications would you recommend, and how do their credentials measure up to the scientists that propose man-made Climate Change?

3. If science is not wholly offensive to you, what makes this particular theory so polarizing? Why are people so strongly for one side or another, rather than say arguements applying to String Theory? Why do people care so much as to bully, insult, ridicule, and berate the opposition?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Ha! I just posted similar questions, well done and yes - these are the same sort of questions I am seeking answers to!



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus
The data is manipulated. I will try and link you the proof.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jazz10

I address my total lack of interest in that data in previous posts. I've seen that arguement both for and against, and I'm not really impressed by either side. When conflicting or contradictory data is at hand, the data becomes useless without a n understanding of motive and context. Since neither motive nor context can be fully understood in this situtation, all of that data, and all opinions about that data, are just noise.

You'll note that this thread is full of back and forth about this particular aspect of the issue, and I'm sure any one of these nice people would be happy to discuss it. Another poster also mentioned that there are many threads about this issue on ATS, which I am apparently totally ignorant of



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jazz10

Already discussed in this thread that you obviously didn't read.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Indeed!

Also I was noticing your signature phrase, and would like to offer a tid-bit of info I mentioned earlier from working as an oil-field geologist. Most oil companies and oil-field opperators I have met and worked with (many over eight years) absolutely think climate change is man-made and caused by fossil fuels. Now because I would get into all kinds of trouble if I said who and when and where, I can't do that. But they know, and they laugh about it, and seeing that/hearing that changed my life.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus

I'm sure they do. An ex-boyfriend of mine was a regional manager for company that contracted with oil and gas companies (well management). They all know, and they all know that their PR side lies about it.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

One of my former co-workers was a huge Dune fan, and used to always say in response to this issue, "it doesn't matter, the Spice must flow..."

Many of the posters on the thread so far talk about the complexities of the science, the data, and the debate without taking into account that a huge mound of money depends on things staying the same. That vested interest is big enough to sway public opinion because jobs and business prosperity are threatened by any change in legislation.

The location I just finished working in has gone through a massive 'bust' from the dropping price of oil, and the city has an essentially dead economy. There are very real motives to manipulate the data, and to my mind, more motive to manipulate it against the public accepting man-made CLimate Change.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: amazing

Ha! I just posted similar questions, well done and yes - these are the same sort of questions I am seeking answers to!


Thanks! No one ever answers them though. They always come off with complicated graphs and analysis as if they, themselves, are scientists. But at some point, even the smartest of us, have to defer to some experts.

The whole NASA can't be trusted thing. If you can't trust NASA on Climate Change, then why would you trust them on the Mars mission data or the moon landing.

Arg.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join