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.

 

Scientists find evidence for climate change in satellite cloud record

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
For some reason climate change topics are not very popular on ATS, as least those which support the narrative that climate change is really happening. Threads without evidence, or very spurious evidence in contrast generally are a lot more popular. Despite this, I'm not posting this thread as part of a popularity contest, but rather because the evidence available to support anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming, and more and more valid science is presented all the time. Ergo, if one person who previously denied the reality of this change becomes aware of the deception foisted upon them, I think it will have served its purpose.

Obviously there will be dissenting opinions about the study presented, but it would be nice if those arguments address the points presented in the study.

www.sciencedaily.com...




Scientists have found that changes in cloud patterns during the last three decades match those predicted by climate model simulations. These cloud changes are likely to have had a warming effect on the planet.

Records of cloudiness from satellites originally designed to monitor weather are plagued by erroneous variability related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration and other factors, so the team used a new technique to remove the variability from the records. The corrected satellite records exhibited large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and 2000s that are consistent with climate model predictions, including poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones and increasing height of the highest cloud tops.


Essentially, what has been predicted in the past is not being matched by current satellite data.


"After the spurious trends were removed, we saw consistent responses among several independent datasets and with model simulations," said Mark Zelinka, an LLNL scientist and co-author of the paper. "That is a nice confirmation of the models' predictions, at least for the types of cloud changes that models agree on.

The authors also were able to assess the causes of the observed cloud trends using a variety of climate model simulations with and without influences of humans, volcanoes and other factors.


Even though there scientists do not agree on everything, they certainly agree on this.

www.npr.org...


These changes are predicted by most climate models of global warming, even though those models disagree on a lot of other things related to clouds, says Joel Norris, a climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

"I guess what was surprising is that a lot of times we think of climate change as something that's going to occur in the future," says Norris. "This is happening right now. It's happened during my lifetime — it was a bit startling."


It's interesting, as when I was young I remember some of the predictions for anthropogenic climate change very clearly. Now I see many of these coming to pass, and it's certainly worrying, at least for me.
edit on 11-7-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
So, if I understand this correctly. They removed the data that did not match the predictions, and lo-and-behold, the data remaining now matches the predictions? Sorry, manipulation of data to match the desired outcome is definitely bad science.

Unless I misunderstood the story as presented.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Do you mean to tell me that the weather doesn't stay exactly as i remembered it as a child?

This is very bad. Surely the weather has always been exactly like it is right now, right? Please tell me that humans aren't too blame for a slight change in temperature. If that's true then species will die out and humans should hate themselves.


Feel free to ignore this obvious trolling of your hard work. Everyone else does.

Flag for your hard work.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




Unless I misunderstood the story as presented.

Yes. You pretty much did. No data was removed.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa




Unless I misunderstood the story as presented.

Yes. You pretty much did. No data was removed.


Could you explain this statement from the OP, that was taken from the study then?


After the spurious trends were removed, we saw consistent responses among several independent datasets and with model simulations,


Sure sounds like they removed data, and only then saw it match up with the expected results in the simulations.



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

Spurious.


not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

edit on 11-7-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure sounds like they removed data, and only then saw it match up with the expected results in the simulations.
That's what happens when you look for keywords instead of reading and understanding what is actually said.

Trends are not data, they are the result of data analysis. Because of the wide variation in quality and type of data from various satellites previous techniques of analysis which did not take that variation into account showed trends that didn't make sense.



edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Krakatoa

Spurious.


not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.


Does it explain how they determined and classified them as spurious? Other than a very general statement of


erroneous variability related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration and other factors


I could define that "other factors" are they didn't match the predictions, so they can be removed. I have a problem with the term "other factors" in a scientific assessment. That is my point. Bad science.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Krakatoa

Spurious.


not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.


Does it explain how they determined and classified them as spurious? Other than a very general statement of


erroneous variability related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration and other factors




Yes.


In this week's issue of the journal Nature, the researchers explain how their findings match what scientists would expect to see, based on climate models.

www.npr.org...

Their results will be closely looked at. As well they should be.

So will other climate researchers buy this new history of clouds? Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado isn't so sure.

edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
/edit

Already covered by Phage

edit on 11-7-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
And you also need to read your sources, fully. And not hold back that it states,


So will other climate researchers buy this new history of clouds? Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado isn't so sure. "This is a very good attempt to try and get a handle on this, but I don't think it's the final answer," says Trenberth, who notes that the time frame studied was pretty short and included a period often described as the global warming hiatus, from 1999 to 2013.


And if you dig a bit deeper to the ACTUAL source of the claims of the removal of data, you will read this from the original author.

The corrected data cannot be used for studies of globally averaged cloud change, however, because the methods employed remove any real cloud variability occurring on global scales together with spurious variability

Norris, Joel. R. (2014). Empirical Removal of Artifacts from the ISCCP and PATMOS-x Satellite Cloud Records

Have you read the source data or just the resulting synopsis? Taking this corrected data and attempting to use it in a long-term climate assessment was openly not recommended by the originator of the data. Climate change is inherently a long-term predictive process. In addition, the data set used was for a very short time as well.

I stand with my claim of "bad science" here.


edit on 7/11/2016 by Krakatoa because: spelling



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa




Unless I misunderstood the story as presented.

Yes. You pretty much did. No data was removed.


Could you explain this statement from the OP, that was taken from the study then?


After the spurious trends were removed, we saw consistent responses among several independent datasets and with model simulations,


Sure sounds like they removed data, and only then saw it match up with the expected results in the simulations.

How come every single statement , chart , et al that comes out is always accompanied by "spurious data being removed" Who declares it "spurious data" in the beginning ? Why is it declared "spurious data"

I think everyone knows the answer to the above questions. But some have to go into deep denial to keep their faith in a false belief.


edit on 7/11/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




Who declares it "spurious data" in the beginning ? Why is it declared "spurious data"

Like it says, because it doesn't make sense when compared to other data.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




Who declares it "spurious data" in the beginning ? Why is it declared "spurious data"

Like it says, because it doesn't make sense when compared to other data.


And shouldn't be used in a long term climate assessment when the originator of the data openly states it should not for valid scientific reasons.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




And if you dig a bit deeper to the ACTUAL source of the claims of the removal of data, you will read this from the original author.
You are the one who claims data was removed.

But yes, the known unreliability of previous analyses was exactly why a new study was undertaken.

Records of cloudiness from satellites originally designed to monitor weather are plagued by erroneous variability related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration and other factors, so the team used a new technique to remove the variability from the records.

www.llnl.gov...



And shouldn't be used in a long term climate assessment when the originator of the data openly states it should not for valid scientific reasons.
You are talking about the conclusions reached by studies previous to this one.

edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa




And if you dig a bit deeper to the ACTUAL source of the claims of the removal of data, you will read this from the original author.
You are the one who claims data was removed.

But yes, the known unreliability of previous analyses was exactly why a new study was undertaken.

Records of cloudiness from satellites originally designed to monitor weather are plagued by erroneous variability related to changes in satellite orbit, instrument calibration and other factors, so the team used a new technique to remove the variability from the records.

www.llnl.gov...


A new technique using corrected data that was never meant to be used in a global cloud study. Is that good science, or bad science?

ETA:
Y'know what, never mind. Science cannot fight religion. Science requires proof, religion does not.


edit on 7/11/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




A new technique using corrected data that was never meant to be used in a global cloud study. Is that good science, or bad science?

The study you quote used another method of correction. This is a different method. One which, apparently, provides more consistency with other datasets.
edit on 7/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The peak of the melt off from the last ice age occurred about 10,000 years ago. If sea levels rise again before the next ice age, it won't be by more than a couple of meters.... following a pattern that has remained consistent for millions of years.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75




If sea levels rise again before the next ice age, it won't be by more than a couple of meters.... following a pattern that has remained consistent for millions of years.


Actually, sea levels are rising. But "a couple of meters" of average sea level rise are nothing to sneeze at. Especially when it occurs rapidly, for us.


edit on 7/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bone75




If sea levels rise again before the next ice age, it won't be by more than a couple of meters.... f

Actually, sea levels are rising. But "a couple of meters" of average sea level rise are nothing to sneeze at.


But a far cry from the 125 meters climate change scientists are "predicting".



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join