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.

 

The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
As an ex-subscriber to AGW Theory, I used to believe that measuring climate was as simple as sticking a thermometer out and note the temperature trend (which I myself used to do for fun). As I grew older, I learned more about the science behind climate and that is when I realized that climate is actually much more complex than what I (and many sensationalist journalists) was led to believe. And instead of blindly keep on believing every words of many newspapers and politicians, I started broadening my mind and I stopped confusing a theory (yes, the very theory I myself had placed all my faith in) with facts. I kept my mind open (as any actual scientists are supposed to do anyway) and I investigated the factors behind climate models.

So, I thought that I would share a few of these factors in this thread, and give a glimpse of the actual complexity of climate change.

Well, first off, ground thermometers are subject to a bunch of factors.

Notable factors which can (and do) influence thermometers (and thus raw temperature records) are,

-amount of direct sunlight and/or shade on thermometer
-amount of indirect sunlight (reflected light) on thermometer
-wind flow around the thermometer
-colour of the box or device in which the thermometer is located (determines heat absorption)
-the amount of paint layers on the box (determines how efficient sunlight is reflected)
-direction of opening the box (influence records by allowing either shade air or sunlit air to reach thermometer)

The existence of these factors is confirmed by sources such as the Weather Network:


And Environment Canada:



Furthermore, ground thermometer records for the past century showed a trend which was lower than AGW theory model's predictions.

According to NASA,


Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect".


Source (NASA):


Because of these two combined factors, it became necessary to send sattelites in the 70s into space, away from the measurement interference on Earth.

But when this happened, sattelites showed rather puzzling results. NASA explains:


global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena






Dr Roy Spencer (climatologist, former NASA member) adds:







posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
The AGW Theorists explain this by stating that during these years, we have been experiencing something called, a "Global Dimming", in parallel with Global Warming.


Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space. This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.




Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.




But wait! Remember when records showed a reduction of global trends? Well, according to new, government-side studies, the data was actually inaccurate - the globe really was warming all along.


US researchers say new evidence casts doubt on the idea that global warming has "slowed" in recent years.
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data.




Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government




The IPCC data even completely erases the 1998 heat peak (which was visible in preceding charts), making subsequent years hotter instead:




This new US governmental study I mentioned above comes exactly 8 years after the CFR (Council on Foreign Relation) proposed to categorize climate change as a threat to national security:




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The matter is further confused by the fact that NASA does adjusts its records data:


Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
(...)
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands



Add to that the fact that weather modification technologies are being introduced...


...and that the Earth's climate is still subject to natural factors, such as the Sun which is expected to "go to sleep" around 2030, and trigger a downward temperature trend by reduction of irradiance:




All this to say, in the end, temperature records are much more complex than sticking a thermometer out. Climate is a complex model, which have way more than one factor.

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming theory false or true? Well, the truth is, it is a very good theory - but the thing is, only a few have the authority to interpret (and alter!) the data the theory is supposed to explain. So in the end, it is really up to you to either place faith in such authoritative sources or keep a more open-minded approach.

This concludes my opening post.




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
This is some cool information and all, but you do know that we can also track the effects of man made climate change in real time around the world right? Since you appear to trust information coming from NASA, here is a NASA link about real time climate change effects:
The current and future consequences of global change


Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
We are right in the middle of a heat record. Remember that conditions on a localized moment in time are not representative of long-term climate.

Additionally, desertification is not exclusive to global warming - it is an effect which is also recurrent during ice ages.


edit on 24-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Wait so you are going to accept NASA's data to support YOUR part of the argument, but when NASA says that these are examples of climate change, you can't accept that data? If I didn't know better, I'd say that you are selectively picking data that supports your predetermined conclusion and ignoring the data that doesn't.
edit on 24-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne

Wait so you are going to accept NASA's data to support YOUR part of the argument, but when NASA says that these are examples of climate change, you can't accept that data? If I didn't know better, I'd say that you are selectively picking data that supports your predetermined conclusion and ignoring the data that doesn't.


If I didn't know better, I could point out the same about you.



global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena






Dr Roy Spencer (climatologist, former NASA member) adds:






posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Your counter evidence is a source from 1997? You do know that it's been 12 years since that article was written? You don't think science has stayed stagnant since then do you?

Besides, your article isn't saying that man-made climate change isn't real either. It's just saying that we fully don't understand the impact of it and its effects. Not to mention the article seems to exist to explain why the Global Warming models of the day were flawed and that better models were needed to better explain Global Warming. Then the article goes on to explain the best ways science can look into improving their models.


A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees:

``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed."

- Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment



Improving our understanding of the potential magnitude and extent of any man-made global warming will require a significant amount of critical scientific investigation, both in space and on Earth, using both observational and computational analysis techniques. It is clear that if we've learned anything in the past two decades, it's that the response and dynamics of the Earth as a complex, interconnected machine are far more detailed, intricate, and complicated than we first envisioned. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere. NASA's continued direct observations of the Earth will help enable us to sort out the complicated issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet.


Again the article was written in 1997, we've learned QUITE a bit since then.

Still being selective with your data, I see. Now you aren't even reading the full articles you are using as evidence.
edit on 24-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I'm inclined to believe the thousands of scientists that are behind this theory so much so they have a summit every year for it



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are focusing your attack on but one of the sources in my OP. I have provided more recent sources (and graphs) in my OP.

Please feel free to ignore them at your convenience.


edit on 24-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

So you get caught pushing flimsy evidence and thus deflect real quick. My response to that article was more than JUST a critique of the date of that article. Why are you ignoring the fact that the article doesn't support your conclusion in the OP?

Now, you've made me doubt your integrity, so I AM going to go through each of your sets of evidence and address each one. I hope you are a bit more honest with your others sources than that one.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you mean to state that we now know the full mechanism of water phases distribution on Earth? The article I posted did not support YOUR conclusion - hense, your attack.

This 1997 NASA article I posted explained why climate models have a level of uncertainty: it is impossible to precisely know the exact state of the water phases, their future state, and their concentration over the whole world. Yet is a greenhouse gas way more dominant than CO2.

It is in no way irrelevant - unless, of course, one's intention is to promote a narrow view of Earth's climate.


edit on 24-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
The existence of these factors is confirmed by sources such as the Weather Network:


And Environment Canada:



These two links are for determining weather predictions, NOT climate. Climate predictions and readings aren't just done through ground thermometers (I mean CLEARLY you just showed why that is the case). Plus climate and weather aren't the same thing. Presenting this evidence is deceptive.


Furthermore, ground thermometer records for the past century showed a trend which was lower than AGW theory model's predictions.

According to NASA,
Source (NASA):


Because of these two combined factors, it became necessary to send sattelites in the 70s into space, away from the measurement interference on Earth.

But when this happened, sattelites showed rather puzzling results. NASA explains:




These are both from the same source I discussed earlier in the thread from the article in 1997. Already invalid.


Dr Roy Spencer (climatologist, former NASA member) adds:



ANOTHER source from 1997... Of course this article says the same thing as your previous article.


"Instead, we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved. These models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere," remarked Spencer.






This is a blog post talking about some rhetoric from a Democratic politician. I only care about scientific data, not what a politician thinks about climate change.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you mean to state that we now know the full mechanism of water phases distribution on Earth? The article I posted did not support YOUR conclusion - hense, your attack.


I haven't stated my conclusion. So how can you say this? Nor did I say that we now understand the full mechanism of water phases distribution on earth. I never said that our current prediction models aren't flawed. But again, none of that invalidates climate change theory. Which is something pointed out by ALL of your sources that you are steadfastly REFUSING to address.


This 1997 NASA article I posted explained why climate models have a level of uncertainty: it is impossible to precisely know the exact state of the water phases, their future state, and their concentration over the whole world. Yet is a greenhouse gas way more dominant than CO2.

It is in no way irrelevant - unless, of course, one's intention is to promote a narrow view of Earth's climate.



YOU are the one trying to promote a narrow view of Earth's climate. The article was saying that the models were flawed and was listing a possible way to explore in the future to better predict climate fluctuations. It SPECIFICALLY said that none of this invalidates climate change theory though. Like I said, you only accept the information that supports your viewpoint.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
The AGW Theorists explain this by stating that during these years, we have been experiencing something called, a "Global Dimming", in parallel with Global Warming.


Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space. This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.





Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.




No problems with these sources. They are just being informative.


But wait! Remember when records showed a reduction of global trends? Well, according to new, government-side studies, the data was actually inaccurate - the globe really was warming all along.


US researchers say new evidence casts doubt on the idea that global warming has "slowed" in recent years.
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data.




Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government




The IPCC data even completely erases the 1998 heat peak (which was visible in preceding charts), making subsequent years hotter instead:




This new US governmental study I mentioned above comes exactly 8 years after the CFR (Council on Foreign Relation) proposed to categorize climate change as a threat to national security:




You appear to have a problem with science self correcting itself here... Why is that? Are you saying that science can't ever be wrong or something? Or are you trying to use the tired fallacy that if you can prove science has been wrong once before in the past, then the theory in question is automatically invalid?
edit on 24-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
The matter is further confused by the fact that NASA does adjusts its records data:


Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
(...)
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands



Add to that the fact that weather modification technologies are being introduced...


...and that the Earth's climate is still subject to natural factors, such as the Sun which is expected to "go to sleep" around 2030, and trigger a downward temperature trend by reduction of irradiance:



No one said that the climate isn't still subject to natural factors in addition to man made ones. That's a strawman.


All this to say, in the end, temperature records are much more complex than sticking a thermometer out. Climate is a complex model, which have way more than one factor.

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming theory false or true? Well, the truth is, it is a very good theory - but the thing is, only a few have the authority to interpret (and alter!) the data the theory is supposed to explain. So in the end, it is really up to you to either place faith in such authoritative sources or keep a more open-minded approach.

This concludes my opening post.




More like you are trying to present a narrative that the scientists are really lying to us about climate change by selectively quote mining various articles from NASA and posting various articles from the media to promote your conclusion that you have had in your head the whole time.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
I'm inclined to believe the thousands of scientists that are behind this theory so much so they have a summit every year for it


First , scientists do not hold the summit every year. The United Nation does.And you believe and trust in the UN , right ? There are only a few "scientists" invited to speak there. For the most part , the summit goers are political dignitaries from countries around the world...

edit on 24-7-2015 by Gothmog because: add



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
OP you deserve more enthusiasm for your post than you have received so far. It is one of the most well researched and balanced posts on this subject that have been made. I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your hard work and thoughtful commentary. Excellent job!




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne


Here's a more recent version of that graph:




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nataylor



And your source for this "information" is imgur.com?!



edit on 24-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join