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: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna
a reply to: jonnywhite

Sorry, I know you were talking to the OP, but I just wanted to slip in and ask this:

Who says it must remain the same? With all the technology we've got, we can make shelter and farming that will take 15% of the entire surface of Earth, instead of the 60% we are right now taking.With all the new chemicals (and I mean chemical as meaning the bonding between various particles to form a stronger material) we can manufacture, we can stop all the logging, the petroleum, the mining. With further researches into chemistry, we could very well purify once more water and the atmosphere, either completely dissolving the polluants, or transforming them into something useful, like nutrients.

Healing the planet is now within reach of science's achievements, and will even more be in a few decades. We shouldn't give up healing the damage we caused: it is our moral duty to take that responsibility in our hands, and heal as much we can what we can heal, and reduce our impact on the environment.


People in the past would say the same thing. "With all of the technology humans will get, they'll be able to leave the forests and oceans and everything else alone." That's not what happened.

And that's what will continue to not happen. We'll continue our transformation of spaceship Earth until it mirrors our ideal. Our ideal will be collectively manifest, just as it's now. It'll be human in nature.

Sorry we're too entrenched. Too many things have changed. There's no such thing as natural with our presence here.

I'll even grant you that humans will be trying to recreate the past with some fantastic results. I'm confident you'd be sold. Shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it recaptures the past as it really was.

I'm too old or too jaded to think that way anymore. I'm all for balancing our ecosystems, I just don't believe it's natural. If we miraculously leave Earth entirely and don't monkey with it further then maybe. But I seriously doubt we'd leave and I also doubt our scientists and engineers would deny the chance to further monkey with things. That's what they live to do.
edit on 26-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

I understand.


I am afraid I am still too young and hopeful/naive to give up just yet.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
The scientific consensus is clear! and public opinion is moving toward their consensus.



Some of us prefer making up our own opinion with our own observations, thank you very much.

I agree with buddha6: until someone, and everyone, does a clear report on all variables, all natural occurrences of CO2, all effects of the ocean evaporation on satellite reception, and the atmosphere reflecting heat back to the satellite, Everything, manmade and natural, there is not one true answer.
But no one does that job, and if someone did, no one published it, so everyone is exposed to one single theory: AGW.
I'm sorry, but that's not how it works in real life.
There is more than one theory in everything, and you shouldn't bash at anyone for wanting to explore other possibilities.

BTW, must I remind you that the OP wasn't about the ocean getting warmer and acidic, it was a thread debating AGW. Of course the following replies would be a debate about AGW.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna

originally posted by: jrod
The scientific consensus is clear! and public opinion is moving toward their consensus.



Some of us prefer making up our own opinion with our own observations, thank you very much.

I agree with buddha6: until someone, and everyone, does a clear report on all variables, all natural occurrences of CO2, all effects of the ocean evaporation on satellite reception, and the atmosphere reflecting heat back to the satellite, Everything, manmade and natural, there is not one true answer.
But no one does that job, and if someone did, no one published it, so everyone is exposed to one single theory: AGW.


In fact, that's where the theory came from---understanding why other planets (Mars and Venus in particular) didn't have the temperature naive physics thought it would.

You don't think that all of the above (plus much more technical detail you don't know about) isn't considered by climatologists? Of course it is. For decades. And when it is all included and considered and checked against data, the denialists call it "computer model poppycock" or something like that. And this global consideration is exactly what prompted the publicity: when the scientific consensus on the overall balance was pointing towards human sources of greenhouse gases as likely to cause substantial global warming and climate change. They had to do the work & observations first, and they were doing that from the 1950's until the late 80's---when this was entirely an internal technical issue and not a public issue.

The science climatologists do isn't any different from that that geophysicists do. In fact the data sets are even better because we can't directly monitor the inside of the Earth in detail with instruments placed directly in situ, but we can with the surface, ocean and atmosphere.



I'm sorry, but that's not how it works in real life.
There is more than one theory in everything, and you shouldn't bash at anyone for wanting to explore other possibilities.


I don't bash them for that. But criticising them is entirely justified when many other possibilities have already been explored by the professionals many decades ago and to the degree they are important, they are already included in current climate understanding.

And also, just because a layman has an alternate 'idea' (already thought of decades ago of course) doesn't mean we should take it seriously or change public policy because of it. We need data---reams of solid data and theoretical understanding to show why this explanation is BETTER than the existing scientific explanation.

It's like saying "oh these molecules aren't actually toxic, in contrast to what the biochemical societies over the planet say, because I think quantum mechanics is wrong and chemistry works different (How exactly in mathematical detail isn't specified)"



BTW, must I remind you that the OP wasn't about the ocean getting warmer and acidic, it was a thread debating AGW. Of course the following replies would be a debate about AGW.

edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


Why are the oceans getting warmer and acidic? Where is the heat coming from? Where is the acid coming from?

What does the science say?
edit on 26-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

...are actually detecting how much heat has been reflected back to space,
You are mistaken. Tropospheric temperature is derived from microwave data from satellites. Specifically, the microwave emissions of oxygen. It is not the same thing as "heat". For that you would be more interested in infrared data since that is what actually warms the atmosphere when it is absorbed. Emissions at those wavelengths have shown a decline. Less infrared is escaping to space.


Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
www.nature.com...


Increased greenhouse gasses reduce the transmission of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space along spectral absorption lines eventually causing the Earth’s temperature to rise in order to preserve energy equilibrium.
proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org...

Microwave data:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

edit on 7/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: jrod

Have any of you geniuses realized the blatant obvious?

Satellite data is gathered from space. From outside the Earth's atmosphere. Haven't any of you realized that therefore, satellite records such as these...



...are actually detecting how much heat has been reflected back to space, where the satellite's sensors are located?


Well of course, but the bulk of data for many of those figures also includes ground based and balloon measurements.

You do know that for operational weather prediction, there are instrumented balloons launched all over the planet every 12 hours, and have been for decades?

And of course there is a complex data reduction process from satellites. Most energy from the Sun is in optical so direct reflection from albedo is a different band from infrared. They obviously know that and aren't reporting the temperature of the Earth as being the very hot black body temperature of the Sun's photosphere and hence that of the photon distribution impacting the Earth.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Hello, Ministry of Truth.

It does give you a neat rationale for completely dismissing everything in earth's pre-history though. Pay no attention to the paleoclimate behind that curtain ... or the Medieval Warm Period ... or the Little Ice Age.


Yeah, all those things had COMPLETELY different factors that went into those various climates developing. Some of them are direct results of previous climates. Oh and the little ice age may have been man-made climate change as well (well kinda...).

Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World


Mr. Ketsuko wants to know ... since you seem to be so terribly informed, what would the exact climate of today be if there were no human impact on it? I mean if we all still lived in caves or didn't exist at all?


FIRST off, Mr. Ketsuko should know that there is no such thing as "exact" anything in science. Every and I mean EVERY measurement has a margin of error. Second off, it is impossible to know what the climate would be, because we have no way of determining what would have evolved to be the dominant species on the planet if we didn't already do it.


In exact degree ranges, please. I mean, if we can measure human impact so closely, then you ought to be able to tell us this. Just saying "A lot cooler" won't be enough.


Again I can't do it, nor can anyone else. It is an impossible question to answer. You are asking me to define any number of different evolutionary paths that could have redirected the climate in any number of ways. I don't even think that there is a computer on earth that could calculate such a thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ha! My point exactly.


Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems. The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.


en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, those AGW theorists who claim that satellites have directly recorded a global warming (as in, increase of surface temperature) are misinformed; for satellites cannot directly measure the surface temperature, only the radiance from the atmospheric oxygen (since, after all, there is an entire atmosphere between the surface and the satellite).

Secondly, satellite records reliability are influenced by a bunch of factors, such as orbit altitude, orbital decay, and sensors deterioration.

You state that,



Emissions at those wavelengths have shown a decline. Less infrared is escaping to space.

But then, this is in itself no proof in favour of AGW theory. For all we know, it could also simply mean that the Earth's atmosphere is less and less warm as a whole - it has less and less energy to send at space in the first place. Like a cooling ember.

Thank you for confirming my original point.


edit on 27-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne
What about all the weather balloon data? Are you going to ignore that data or write it off as bogus too?



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Given that most ground temperature thermometers are in weather stations at airports the results of suburban sprawl and increased artificial ground covers (roads and buildings) ensured that temperatures at those locations would continue to rise so long as climate remained the same.

My skepticism of MMGW was born of the theory initially being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations. All one needs to do to see what trends are coming is read their agenda from the last few meetings. The CFR is IMO the top dog of all the globalist hangouts. When you read the membership list and compare it with who have been the movers and shakers among politicians it becomes readily apparent where the real power lies. And lies are what it does best.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

What about weather balloon data?

Most skepticism and the misleading information out there is brought to us from companies like Exxon who bankroll think tanks to come up with the BS.

The consensus of the experts is overwhelming. Human activity is changing this planet significantly.


edit on 27-7-2015 by jrod because: o



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Given that most ground temperature thermometers are in weather stations at airports the results of suburban sprawl and increased artificial ground covers (roads and buildings) ensured that temperatures at those locations would continue to rise so long as climate remained the same.


This has been addressed for a long long long long long long time in the professional community. This is another example of a slightly clever layman thinking of a complication after a minute or two or of thought and imagining 'gotcha', something "They" haven't figured out yet. Really? Maybe in people's every day life, other people put in half-assed superficial sloppy work, but not a scientific community of thousands over decades working on it as their life's profession.

Can you imagine telling this to your heart surgeon, after a couple of minutes of very slightly informed thinking, "hey what about the XXX effect", when they've known about that since oh maybe 1910? You think you'll come up with something the cardiologists have never thought about before? "OH yeah, we never thought of checking his blood pressure!" That's what the silly uninformed skeptic memes seem like to the pros.

See the Berkeley Earth project, for a recent complete re-analysis of all the raw data. There was a skeptical statistics professor who engaged in a serious effort with a number of people; he thought the climate community was sloppy and could be wrong with systematic errors. The results: bang on (or even higher) than what the climatologists said, and now the former skeptic says that the data clearly show that humans are the major contributor to the change.



My skepticism of MMGW was born of the theory initially being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations.


Your skepticism is based on an untruth. What the heck would the Council on Foreign Relations know about climate physics?

On the other hand, oceanographers do. Roger Revelle (look him up) wrote about the concern about anthropogenic global warming in an environmental report sent to President Lyndon Johnson in 1968. At that time, there was no global observational system and direct evidence, like there is now---and yet the prediction (that the effect would be clearly noticable by 2000) was based on the simple fundamental physics of the problem and a simple order of magnitude computation, and it was right. (Actually, too conservative, by early 90's the data was convincing enough).

It was not a policy issue for many years. And it came all out of science.



All one needs to do to see what trends are coming is read their agenda from the last few meetings. The CFR is IMO the top dog of all the globalist hangouts. When you read the membership list and compare it with who have been the movers and shakers among politicians it becomes readily apparent where the real power lies. And lies are what it does best.


If they said "Eat Your Wheaties", would you go looking for polonium in the cereal?

edit on 27-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

But the governments aren't doing anything meaningful to fight global warming / decrease co2. Each year it's only more. If you want to really fight an increase of co2, they should for example forbid meat consumption and or flatten or even lower economic growth and stop also human population growth, for just naming a few. Ok you could say economic growth is stagnating but I don't think it's their goal? Then again this whole climate change will cost each year more and more with natural disasters, floods,droughts, food growing problems and so on though.
In fact if you hear opinions / thoughts about climate scientists which say (although they don't let their opinion hear often since they getting death threats and tons of hate mail etc if they do..), it looks very bad. You almost never hear politicians say how really bad the situation is...
It's all about economics, not about saving this planet/climate. So yea don't believe political figures about how serious they are fighting this problem, first they hardly ever mention this and also they don't got solutions either, let alone some global plan to tackle this problem.
They often as always make things worse lol.





edit on 27-7-2015 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod


What about weather balloon data?

Well, it all comes down to the question: can one prove that they are more reliable than ground thermometers and satellite measurements? I mean, do they not face as many influencing factors as ground thermometers do? Add to that that the weather balloon can often unpredictably drift in the presence of atmospheric currents.


Most skepticism and the misleading information out there is brought to us from companies like Exxon who bankroll think tanks to come up with the BS.

You think we don't know that? Are you really going to resort to calling us oil-paid shills? Do you really mean to say that because of the existence of Exxon, we have no right to question AGW theory? I fear you have failed to notice that I have provided sources from NASA and IPCC (not Exxon) to better describe my personal scepticism.


The consensus of the experts is overwhelming.


Check the scientific method. A consensus is not an automatic validation of a theory. Otherwise our understanding of the forces of nature would have never evolved. Alot of theories went mainstream in the past, including the theory that there most probably existed a "luminiferous aether" - this did not make such theories any more valid.


edit on 28-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne




Emissions at those wavelengths have shown a decline. Less infrared is escaping to space.

But then, this is in itself no proof in favour of AGW theory. For all we know, it could also simply mean that the Earth's atmosphere is less and less warm as a whole - it has less and less energy to send at space in the first place. Like a cooling ember.

Thank you for confirming my original point.



Ugh, more ignorance. That's NOT what the science says!

The reference about the lower infrared is referring to the particular *wavelengths* which interact with greenhouse gas. The lower amount of infrared seen *in these bands* mean that there has been an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and they are increasingly blocking and re-radiating (partially, back down) the infrared which came from lower parts of the atmosphere and surface. So, in this particular case, the observations are direct physical evidence of the exact mechanism of the greenhouse effect, as predicted, and its increase in time, as predicted.

It's not the infrared from the direct emission of the atmosphere which was being measured. We can distinguish them from the spectral distributions.

This is yet another example of a clever, but smug, layman who thinks he knows a large amount but really is barely a beginner compared to the experts and misinterprets known science and results.

There is no easy obvious "gotcha" that the professional scientists will get 'caught' on or anything like that. Would you or I go up to SpaceX or Rocketdyne and tell them that well obviously their turbowidget muffler bearing is spinning backwards and everybody been's doing it wrong since 1958? And I figured it all out?
edit on 28-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

Check the scientific method. A consensus is not an automatic validation of a theory.


Nevertheless the consensus of the scientists who actually work in it for a living is a far superior validation than any opinions by laymen, and the scientists generally have a good idea about when their understanding is weak or strong.


Otherwise our understanding of the forces of nature would have never evolved. Alot of theories went mainstream in the past, including the theory that there most probably existed a "luminiferous aether" - this did not make such theories any more valid.



Now this is a good example. Contrary to popular opinion, there never was any accepted theory of luminerferous ether. It was a general working hypothesis, but people studying the problem did NOT reach a consensus either theoretically or experimentally. In fact, there was no accepted theory of it in the modern sense because there was never any actual observational data, and the theoretical proposals were problematic.

And the scientists of the time were quite aware of the problem and lack of resolution.

Suppose in 100 years we have a new unification of fundamental forces that doesn't require string theory. Well, scientists now KNOW for sure that there is not compelling evidence for string theory and it is not a uniformly accepted theory, in contrast to Standard Model which, despite theoretical flaws and limitations, continues to predict quantitatively accurately.

With global warming, there is current strong theoretical understanding of the driving force, moderate theoretical understanding of the consequences (depending on where you look), and strong experimental and observational evidence diversified across many channels, areas, physics and biology.
edit on 28-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Ha! My point exactly.
Could have fooled me. Here is what you said:

...are actually detecting how much heat has been reflected back to space, where the satellite's sensors are located?
The sensors are not detecting heat being "reflected back to space". They are detecting microwave emissions and infrared absorption.

edit on 7/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

In fact, that's where the theory came from---understanding why other planets (Mars and Venus in particular) didn't have the temperature naive physics thought it would.

And some would consider that to be one of the problems: many would disagree that Venus is hot because of CO2. Not sure why you mentioned Mars.
edit on 28-7-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

In fact, that's where the theory came from---understanding why other planets (Mars and Venus in particular) didn't have the temperature naive physics thought it would.

And some would consider that to be one of the problems: many would disagree that Venus is hot because of CO2.


Who are those 'many' and do they include planetary scientists?

Venus's surface is hotter than Mercury but receives much less solar radiation. Clearly the atmosphere is really critical and it's heavy in CO2. Of course there are additional greenhouse effects.


Not sure why you mentioned Mars.


Because scientists were studying radiative transfer of various planets with remote sensing.
edit on 29-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
'Many' is just the people I have seen over the years disagree with the idea that back-radiation from CO2 is responsible for the high surface temperature on Venus. I could dig up names from scientists if you really wanted me to. I think Venus is probably hot due to the dense atmosphere and high pressure caused by the huge amounts of CO2 rather than the back-radiation from CO2 which is often given as the reason the planet is so hot which means the planet would be hot regardless what gas was up there. It can be shown quite easily with CO2 radiative transfer equations that the maximum temperature change from all the CO2 on Venus is less than 50K (above its effective temperature of 184K) whereas the actual temperature on Venus is around 737K. Back-radiation from CO2 isn't enough by itself, there must be something else going on.
edit on 29-7-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join