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.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 24
37
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

yes its the raw "unadjusted' data.

Tirec of Control Freaks




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

What is your angle here? Are trying to claim the data has been manipulated?

Clearly we are observing a sharp rise of CO2 as a direct result of human activity. This fact is indisputable. Furthermore, the laws of physics based on the concept of radiative forcing tells us the excess CO2 will cause a warming effect.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

yes yes 2016 is blowing away heat records. At least atmospherically. And you know why. You know it was an el Nino year and that heat was discharged from the ocean into the atmosphere.

As we have already agreed. It ain't what is happening in the atmosphere that is important. It what is happening in the ocean!

Here is what is happening in the ocean now.

www.climate.gov...

Looks like we are heading for a La Nina year. We should know in the next couple of months.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Why don't we just "adjust" the temperature data again!

We have no historical data to put all this in perspective.

Ice core is crap -they declared that the current climate change was unprecedented in history - a full 25 years before knowing about gas bubble moving and how it affects analysis.

tree ring is already known to be crap. The trees didn't match up to modern temperatures, therefor something went wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

yes its the raw "unadjusted' data.

What is?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

For me, there is no issue that it is happening. When I was a child, I remember learning about all the different cloud types, hell there was a little song we all learned, and now....there are mare's tails, hole punch clouds, satellite clouds, sun dogs used to be a rare occurrence, I saw a set back in the seventies, all the sudden they are visible pretty much every day and double rainbows appear after every storm. The clouds that used to be do not even exist anymore. And the storms. The changes in severity, patterns, and frequency are clear.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

For me, there is no issue that it is happening. When I was a child, I remember learning about all the different cloud types, hell there was a little song we all learned, and now....there are mare's tails, hole punch clouds, satellite clouds, sun dogs used to be a rare occurrence, I saw a set back in the seventies, all the sudden they are visible pretty much every day and double rainbows appear after every storm. The clouds that used to be do not even exist anymore. And the storms. The changes in severity, patterns, and frequency are clear.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MayRenee

And what was it like before you were born?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The graph I posted on the previous page (23) showing large year-to-year fluctuations in CO2 was the non-adjusted raw data, and regarding the lag, there was an interesting study by Humlum et al (2012) that found a 11-12 month lag between global sea-surface temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, with temperature-change preceding CO2-change. The lag was apparently present in global surface and tropospheric temperatures too, although it was shorter at 9-10 months. So I think the lag is not just exclusive to the paleo-climate data, and honestly, we should expect a lag, since the oceans absorb or emit CO2 based on temperature, in accordance with Henry’s law.

Highlights of the paper:



► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes


Humlum et al (2012), CO2-changes lagging corresponding temperature-changes by 9-12 months



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You did not address the indisputable CO2 rise we are observing. The trend in temperature data is also consistent based on real world observation observed all over this world.

I have a difficult time accepting your 'thesis' that there has been a global adjustment of temperature data to 'sell' the world on the global warming theory.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
The graph I posted on the previous page (23) showing large year-to-year fluctuations in CO2 was the non-adjusted raw data, and regarding the lag, there was an interesting study by Humlum et al (2012) that found a 11-12 month lag between global sea-surface temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, with temperature-change preceding CO2-change. The lag was apparently present in global surface and tropospheric temperatures too, although it was shorter at 9-10 months. So I think the lag is not just exclusive to the paleo-climate data, and honestly, we should expect a lag, since the oceans absorb or emit CO2 based on temperature, in accordance with Henry’s law.

Highlights of the paper:



► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes


Humlum et al (2012), CO2-changes lagging corresponding temperature-changes by 9-12 months

So just ignore the actual data source it comes from, then? Why?

What was your purpose in trying to compare noise from temperature with noise from CO2 on the page prior to that one?

That paper is pretty bad. Also, its title is "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature." I assume you lifted that title from here.

There's a whole lot of suspension of disbelief needed in order to accept that paper. For one example, the paper would suggest that oceans are releasing CO2... so what's causing acidification? Another issue is, you know, the whole human CO2 emissions thing being measurably altering the CO2 in the atmosphere. Driven by temperatures that is not.

e: So much so, that there was this rebuttal:
Richardson, M. 2013. Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim. Global and Planetary Change (107):226–228.

Abstract
Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1

Highlights
• Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
• Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
• This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
• Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
• The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.

edit on 22Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:07:07 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod

Why don't we just "adjust" the temperature data again!

We have no historical data to put all this in perspective.

Ice core is crap -they declared that the current climate change was unprecedented in history - a full 25 years before knowing about gas bubble moving and how it affects analysis.

tree ring is already known to be crap. The trees didn't match up to modern temperatures, therefor something went wrong.


Why do you keep ignoring the physics?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   


What was your purpose in trying to compare noise from temperature with noise from CO2 on the page prior to that one?

The point was to show that there is a lag between temperature and CO2 and of course this has been found by others: such as the ice-core data and on shorter time-scales as shown in the paper above.



There's a whole lot of suspension of disbelief needed in order to accept that paper. For one example, the paper would suggest that oceans are releasing CO2.

Surely you cannot seriously regard these observations as being outlandish? The idea that CO2-changes lag temperature-changes is based on a well-established law of physical chemistry: Henry’s law, which governs the solubility of gases in water. When the water-temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere and when the water-temperature drops, more CO2 is absorbed by the water. Henry’s law has been established in science over a century ago and long before the IPCC was even a gleam in Maurice Strong’s eye.



so what's causing acidification?

Well, there are problems with the claim that global acidification is occurring and what is causing it. One such issue is that there is no accepted reference pH-scale, as Wikipedia points out: ‘Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4. However, there is no universally accepted reference pH-scale for seawater and the difference between measurements based on different reference scales may be up to 0.14 units’. Also pH can apparently change due to other factors, such as eutrophication/degradation, land-based effluents and temperature. If we are doing proper science we must endeavour to exhaust all of the possibilities — thoroughly. There is also another possibility, and that is the oceans are absorbing more human CO2 than they are releasing from the temperature-changes.



Another issue is, you know, the whole human CO2 emissions thing being measurably altering the CO2 in the atmosphere. Driven by temperatures that is not.

I suppose it depends on how much you think human CO2 emissions are contributing to the atmospheric CO2 increase.
edit on 18-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I am tired, but I want to address this right fast.

originally posted by: Nathan-D
The point was to show that there is a lag between temperature and CO2 and of course this has been found by others: such as the ice-core data and on shorter time-scales as shown in the paper above.

Apparently you are not getting this, given your citation of that paper and your comment here affirming a reasoning for using that isolate function from woodfortrees.com...

If you detrend data, which is what that isolate function does, you can no longer say anything about the trend. When you remove the trend, you aren't looking at the trend anymore. You are seeing noise. That's it.

Please also see my previous post which I note a rebuttal of that paper.
edit on 22Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:37:15 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Because physics can only explain so much given that not all the forcings have been identified. We have only recently recognised the dominant forcing of ocean currents and the fact that atmospheric temperature is really irrelevant in comparison with ocean temperatures.

Really - we have so much trouble getting really accurate temperature data at all, its a wonder that any conclusion can be drawn.

We keep getting told that the earth is like a green house. But it is not. I have been to many very large greenhouses. I have never seen one with its own oceans, trade winds, polar caps, naturally occuring clouds and a naturally variable heat source.

I am glad we are studying climate. We are learning lots and lots but we still don't know enough to make heads nor tails of it.

You can talk about physics but until you can take in all of the various factors ACCURATELY, you can't really apply it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The fact that climatolgists that support AGW cannot explain climate changes except by blaming the very stuff of like (carbon) and a non-pollutant like carbon dioxide is not proof of AGW. They haven't really looked.

Hanson made his speech to Congress in 1978, long before all the facts were in and how many times has the data been "adjusted since 1978.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

According to your post, you are seeing much more than "noise" when you detrend data




The MATLAB® function detrend subtracts the mean or a best-fit line (in the least-squares sense) from your data. If your data contains several data columns, detrend treats each data column separately. Removing a trend from the data enables you to focus your analysis on the fluctuations in the data about the trend. A linear trend typically indicates a systematic increase or decrease in the data. A systematic shift can result from sensor drift, for example. While trends can be meaningful, some types of analyses yield better insight once you remove trends. Whether it makes sense to remove trend effects in the data often depends on the objectives of your analysis.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

If you detrend data, which is what that isolate function does, you can no longer say anything about the trend. When you remove the trend, you aren't looking at the trend anymore. You are seeing noise. That's it

I do understand what you’re saying. Short-term variability in atmospheric CO2 from temperature cannot necessarily be extrapolated to long-term. That said, the increase in temperature clearly affects atmospheric CO2 on short-term and so that must have some affect on the total CO2 content in the long-term, as the long-term trend in temperature has changed beyond that of the short-term variability.


Please also see my previous post which I note a rebuttal of that paper.

Ok, so what about his conclusions violate the conservation of mass and why does temperature not explain any of the long-term trend in the CO2 increase?
edit on 19-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

yes yes 2016 is blowing away heat records. At least atmospherically. And you know why. You know it was an el Nino year and that heat was discharged from the ocean into the atmosphere.


that explains 2015 but why now 2016? ENSO conditions have abated.

And why is it so much hotter now than in 1998, when the ENSO was stronger?

A: because of global warming which is a consequence of increased greenhouse effect.

Really, there is no other significant known cause, even though some people seem committed to dismissing the explanation which has extensive evidence in favor of hypotheticals which have little or no evidence.

Some of that extra heat in the supposed 'pause' went into the ocean and now we're seeing. There will be additional novel climate patterns.



www.climate.gov...

Looks like we are heading for a La Nina year. We should know in the next couple of months.


And what about the year after that, and after that, and after that and after that?



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The fact that climatolgists that support AGW cannot explain climate changes except by blaming the very stuff of like (carbon) and a non-pollutant like carbon dioxide is not proof of AGW. They haven't really looked.


That's entirely false.

There is extensive mechanistic physical predictions and observational evidence showing precisely the changes expected by the theory, and substantial effort to impute changes to whatever reasonable other forcings are available, all failing.

As in measure the atmosphere and see directly the changes in radiative properties from greenhouse effect.
edit on 19-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join