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.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you getting it yet?
Have you noticed the fall-off in climate change rhetoric lately?
The (fake science) scientific claim that the warming trend tapered of and has been doing so since the '90s?
Do you now know why that happened? You see ... they manipulated the data from the past. They manipulated the data and got caught frikkin' doing it. Caught red-frikkin'-handed, my boy. And since they got caught ... and the method of how they did it was exposed ... they can't go about doing it again.
Do ... you ... get ... it ... now, McFly?
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
Zwally, H. Jay (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States)
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry
Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.
originally posted by: lostbook
I guess some people won''t see it until it's at their doorstep.
Source1
Source2
Source3
Source4
Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.
As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.
Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.
"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."
Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.
...
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
Source5
The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:
Warming indicators
The 10 indicators are:
Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
Air temperature over the oceans.
Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: 727Sky
LMAO ... I wonder how many people will understand what you just said was posted from one of the hottest environments on the planet!!
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: lostbook
I know and it's tediously annoying. Just look at the # I'm getting in this thread for agreeing with you.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Snarl
I can't argue with you because that's been the experience in Texas; summer was late, Spring was late. Played hell with gardening. June and July have been in line with usual temperatures with unusually high humidity in southwest Texas.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky
There is not much "if" involved. Short of ceasing the combustion of fossil fuels entirely (not gonna happen any time soon), temperatures will continue to rise.
While methane is a much more "powerful" greenhouse gas than CO2 there are two major factors which limit its effects on climate. First, sunlight breaks it down (not so for CO2). Second, atmospheric concentrations of methane are very low, it will take huge releases of stored reserves to significantly change that. Somewhere down the road though, it will be a concern.
Taxes have never solved any problem. However, if carbon taxes reduce the rate of combustion of fossil fuels it will slow the rate of warming. Slowing the rate of warming will provide more time for adaptation as well as the development of technology to deal with the release of fossil carbon.
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: lostbook
I guess some people won''t see it until it's at their doorstep.
Where I live we got wicked volumes of snow. Everyone was going on about it.
But ... you're right. I haven't seen it at my doorstep yet, Henny Penny, but I'll let you know the moment I do. Matter of fact, I'm gonna make a note of that in my will, that my kids should inherit that responsibility, and pass it down to their children as well.
"Notify lostbook when Climate Change is really happening."