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: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage
No. I agree that the data shows that Huntsville is experiencing a warming trend.
Good. Then you accept my analysis. That wasn't so hard, now, was it?
A conclusion is an interpretation of the results. My conclusions are that
- The overall trend of the results show a long-term periodic cycle during the period studied.
- Growing season as defined is not dependent on temperatures within the range shown.
- There appears to be a substantial amount of noise which lowers confidence in the period and amplitude of the long-term periodic cycle and requires additional analysis.
My prediction is that the temperature will continue to increase until sometime between 2025 and 2030, at which time it will start to decrease again. I have little confidence in that prediction, however, because of the uncertainty in my conclusions. Because I have so little confidence in that prediction, I am not going to waste time with you trying to debate it. My future plans for the analysis will likely change my prediction somewhat anyway, so why waste time on it?
The conclusions are up for debate. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusions?
TheRedneck
originally posted by: Gazrok
a reply to: TheRedneck
Why bother?
From the Times article...
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present,
And we can stop right there. Even temp records from as recent as 50 years ago are highly dubious, and you're going to tell me the conclusions are based on temp data including that from the 1700's? I'm sorry, but I'll have to call "poppycock" on the whole damn thing. A glowing example of why peer-reviewed isn't always the hallmark of being legit.
originally posted by: SkeptikCal
a reply to: SRPrime
I forgot to mention another large and undescribed problem in the temperature datasets from the arbitrarily chosen points on the earth's surface claiming to be able to provide an extrapolated dataset for the whole history of planet earth.
This is the incessant geoengineering that has been going on for over 70 years by all sorts of methods and most recently by the ionization of the earth's atmosphere using the HARP array in Alaska to change weather patterns locally. How can we even trust the temperatures taken at the data collection positions, with this sort of secret and not-so-secret intervention in the climates of the world by many, if not most technological nations around the world.
www.geoengineering.org
Is anyone with at least half a brain still not convinced that "global warming", which became "climate change" when temperatures were observed moving in the opposite direction to those predicted by the so-called experts (hoaxsters IMHO), is not a CAREFULLY CRAFTED WORLDWIDE HOAX?
I don't believe that Temperature measurements were bad in the 18th Century just not many locations were suitable for the types they used so very little data to compare even locally like we can today.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't believe that Temperature measurements were bad in the 18th Century just not many locations were suitable for the types they used so very little data to compare even locally like we can today.
I would be more concerned with completeness of the data. Back then there wasn't a lot of interest in temperature readings other than to know what to wear outside and whether or not it was going to freeze. Thus there wasn't much interest in keeping good records.
Now, I may be off on that, which is why I am willing to look at the data. Maybe I am right, maybe I'm wrong. An examination should shed further light.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: face23785
Alex Epstein?
You mean the author of "Moral Case for Fossil Fuels"?
You mean the person who cites Ayn Rand as his greatest influence?
You mean that man who has a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy?
The founder of the Center for Industrial Progress?
Yep, that must be a completely neutral, unbiased person in this.
Why calculate from datasets designed to be a CAREFULLY CRAFTED HOAX??? Why even consider your data to be data since you are fully aware of the geoengineering on that data?
Also, you understand that mass matters as to how things react to waves, correct? Yes, a giant, heavy-ass ship gets thrown up and down and side-to-side, but small plastics and light-weight tubes would generally ride on the surfaces still. But no one person involved in the project said that they have delusions of catching all plastic and every bit of it all at once--to expect such a thing is asinine.
Garbage trucks don't get all of the trash in the world, either, but they exist and are used because it's a good way to stop massive trash piles from forming all over the place. See how that concept works? Yes, storms still blow trash cans over and carry trash into the local environment, but it's a lot less than if garbage trucks didn't perform their services.
Over the last decade we have become increasingly alarmed at the amount of plastic in our oceans. More than 8 million tons of it ends up in the ocean every year. If we continue to pollute at this rate, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050. But where does all this plastic waste come from? Most of it is washed into the ocean by rivers. And 90% of it comes from just 10 of them, according to a study.
Anecdotal evidence is always interesting, however...
Those odd temperatures could have been geoengineering, for all you know, perhaps early experiments on the population...
No, that is not what I believe! I believe that we can make no conclusions one way or the other, for the reason of:
1) miniscule datatset (too few positions on the globe, that provide the data for an earth system that is vastly larger and beyond extrapolating from such a tiny dataset),
2)geoengineering uncertainty,
3)urban heat island skewing an already highly flawed dataset (too few positions from the vast earth, most of which remains undeveloped: in uninhabited, non built up areas of the planet, ie. deserts, forests, plains, jungles, etc. where humans do not live to be able to retrieve temperature readings).
4) exclusion of the most important data to determine temperature increase/ decrease on planet earth- sun solar radiation intensity from sun-surface activity. Do you have this data at all? Any results obtained without this main driver of temperatures on earth: what happens on the surface of the sun, is simplistic and MUST be considered only anecdotal at best ie. not in keeping of the scientific method- ie. "lacking rigorous skepticism"*!
I am arguing vehemently, not against Global Warming (which I consider un-provable for the reasons above), but against its politicization: blaming human activity as a means to create a gravy train of taxes to be taken by force from the public and stolen elsewhere. The medieval warm period...
a reply to: TheRedneck
The observed warming is likely simply a portion of a long-term sinusoidal variation which is quite likely natural. Any carbon dioxide based increase appears to be minuscule compared to this cycle.
originally posted by: TheAiIsLying
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Garbage trucks pick up bins full of waste that households have collected and placed in said bins. That waste then gets transported to landfill, which is usually well inland. The amount that escapes and ends up in the ocean from these kinds of societies is miniscule. This isn't where the bulk of ocean plastic is coming from.
It's coming from countries that don't have large-scale waste management systems in place, or just don't care.
This is the problem, and while this still exists the kid and his tugboats are the equivalent of cleaning up the spill from an oil tanker with a spoon. Sorry if it sounds cynical, but I am when it comes to this and the whole "carbon dioxide is a pollutant that we must clean up" thing.
They both come from the same mindset that believes the best way to fix any problems, perceived or real, is to tax them and hand the money to grifters.