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.

 

Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

page: 2
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker

Solutions, any solutions, are premature until one has identified a corresponding problem. My analysis indicates a ~90 year period cycle that accounts for any warming that we have been experiencing. That cycle effectively will mask any longer-term or linear changes unless we have a minimum of a full cycle of data. In this case, that would be 90 years worth of direct temperature observations, as opposed to the 69 years I have available. Perhaps we can get a better idea around 2040 or so.

Until we can determine there is an issue with carbon dioxide levels, any talk of solutions is moot. Solutions do no good unless they address a problem.

TheRedneck


Not really. Solutions that are needed anyway for other reasons which just happen to lower CO2 and pollution are quite helpful. Not needing additional landfills, being completely self sufficient with Algae oil and related by-products for animal feed, replacing nuclear reactors, etc. Check out that thread, you may be surprised with some of the innovation.
edit on 2-12-2018 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would have to agree with that. I'll admit, I suspected a cyclic pattern for some years now, but I was surprised when the period came out to ~90 years. Even at that, I can't pinpoint the exact period yet, as it does not appear we have crested. It's still an educated guess.

Even if we are warming due to carbon dioxide, the process is reversible should we discover later that it is happening. We have technology available already that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It's just expensive, but I say it is no more expensive than the economic distress of increased taxation and energy costs.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

If the solution is needed for other reasons, it is not a solution in search of a problem. That was my point. I'll check out the thread, but at this point I have to discount any solutions aimed primarily at carbon dioxide emissions. There is simply no verifiable problem with them.

Reducing landfills, on the other hand, is a solution to an actual problem. We can use the land used for landfills for better purposes.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
So basically we are warming a bit but this is not related to CO2 levels like the scammers desiring to tax us want us to believe. I personally think it is the multitudes of unnatural and concentrated natural chemistry we are dumping into our environment that is causing problems. Lots of microbes tie up carbon into the soils. We are poisoning our environment, upsetting the balance of nature.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
They also have the technology to take CO2 out of the air and turn it back into fuel. The biggest effect on temperature is water vapor not CO2. All the numbers listed above are B.S.. There are far more factors to climate change other than altered temperatures taken on hot tarmacs, especially from a single location/source. From salinity levels in oceans to the flow of ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, methane being released from the ocean floor into the atmosphere, solar activity, etc. The numbers in the OP only offer speculation & will most likely be different in the future compared to what the OP theorizes. If people are truly concerned about CO2 emmisions, they'd be boycotting ships and airplanes from traveling. 16 superfreigjter ships produce more CO2 enmisions than all the automobiles in the world combined. They run on bunker oil with no emmisions standards. If CO2 is an issue these ships would be banned from burning bunker oil and all jet airplanes would be grounded & people would buy products produced domestically instead of halfway around the world. Solar activity could increase making temperatures warmer tomorrow or decrease making temperatures colder. Volcanoes eruptions could increase, throwing us into another ice age. Ocean currents could slow down or stop, also throwing us into another ice age. There are too many variables to account for. What we know for sure is that climate changed long before we were here & will continue to change long after we are gone.
edit on 2-12-2018 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
You're not done.

Do it again. Ocean temperatures. Not weather stations.

We are 2/3 water.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Close... what my analysis suggests is that any linear warming trend is undetectable at this time due to the ~90 year temperature cycle we are approaching the crest of. That's not to say there is zero contribution from carbon dioxide levels, but it does suggest such contribution is not required to explain present warming trends.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ

I'm interested to know if you have better temperature records?

What I attempted is a simple analysis. There must be hard data to perform such an analysis. Now, if you want to dispute the data, that is perfectly acceptable... but recall that by doing so you are also disputing a dataset that is in use in the vast majority of studies showing carbon dioxide based Global Warming.

I have actually proved those studies that show warming since 1960. I got similar results. When I added in data prior to 1960 I got a more realistic and expected results, however.

Feel free to show your own results. I am interested.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Archivalist

No, I'm done, at least for now. Feel free to repeat the analysis using ocean measurements. But I am done.

I'm not getting paid for this.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

very nice work. It's nice to see that work and time getting edumacated didn't go to waste or just produce a nice bit of wall art. Now, do that for every town or city, and you can end this charade. Or just know that you did your part and everything will be alright. Either way, nice work and glad to see it's not "the end of the world as we know it".




posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




temperature rise since 1950




as it simply indicates a natural cyclical behavior


Does this information show you if the temp rise slowed down once carbon capture and environmental regulations started?

We have done a lot to change how much c02 and other pollution we put out. Couldn't that be the reason for the fall in temp?



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No, it's up to others to cover additional cities. I already said I would make my spreadsheets available; that's the hard work. Adding in the temperatures is just plain tedious (and making the animated gifs is pretty bad too).

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

There's actually not a prolonged fall in temperature, at least not since 1984-ish. Before that, the trends indicate temperatures were falling, but that is still after industry in this area was sufficient to potentially make an impact and before the majority of the carbon regulations. There is really no correlation I could see between industrial activity, carbon-cutting regulations, and actual temperatures.

One could make a correlation that 1984 was about the time the population in Madison (where two of the sensors used are located) exploded, but that would speak more to a heat island effect. Our electric is nuclear, so it's carbon-neutral.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Congratulations on your work. But the moment you said "missing data" Oh only a day here and there ALL your work was nullified. Then you say a few months worth of data was missing (I don't care how they came to the conclusion they did), then to top this a corrupted database was discovered. So now I'm reading a conclusion from a multiple missing and corrupt database and you want me to believe you?



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rickymouse

Close... what my analysis suggests is that any linear warming trend is undetectable at this time due to the ~90 year temperature cycle we are approaching the crest of. That's not to say there is zero contribution from carbon dioxide levels, but it does suggest such contribution is not required to explain present warming trends.

TheRedneck


The earth cycles, that has been known for many decades. But we have to quit poisoning the environment like we are these days, I do not want to go fishing in lakes and streams and never get a fish. I do not want to eat fish that is grown in ponds because the natural ones went extinct or are toxic because we have poisoned them.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well done red!

I'd be curious to see what other cycles do correlate with what we see.

I'm not personally convinced that humans are at the core of climate change, even if we do have a detrimental environmental impact. That said, if we were the ones at "fault," that's almost a bit more comforting than something that is entirely, completely out of our control like solar cycles.

I've always seen "seasons" as a bit like nesting dolls. In that, we would be likely to see the changes of a typical annual cycle, but over longer periods of time.

I think my biggest issue are the solutions here. I want to see a heavy push to implement technology that has environmental impact as only one aspect. I think this is not only more realistic and feasible, but that it could reduce our environmental impact substantially alongside immense general progress.

Framing it this way is something everyone can get behind for their own reasons. It makes me deeply suspicious that this isn't what is happening.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I don't think many people want to poison the Earth. But when you lump everything in together where people have to accept the Earth is about to become a wasteland due to carbon and you can't get a bill to support real reasonable change without accepting that, it makes it impossible to act at all for many people.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I would like to understand whats in it for climate change deniers. Do you imagine us others in the future being poor living in slums while you can dine in chatels?

And this is completely random and not a coincidence at all that 19 of 20 World Leaders Just Pledged to Fight Climate Change. Trump Was the Lone Holdout. has happened today, too.

Okay, you do yours. Even the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians and the whole of the EU thinks otherwise. That COULD be a black-hat operation, something going on behind the scene and Donald looked right through it.

Or.. maybe not.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The Chinese think otherwise because what is proposed hurts the US and Europe and helps China. Tell China they need to follow the same rules and have the exact same carbon output as Europe and see how quick they laugh in your face.

What's in it is not destroying our economy to help China.

climateactiontracker.org...



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Nice work. It appears from the animated graph of actual temperatures, there is a drift to later in the year for summer temps.. Maybe in 800 years or so, winter will occur early in the year instead of late in the year. Looks like a drift in the times of the solstices. This is much faster than what would be caused by precession.

It could be a short term oscillation, also.


edit on 2-12-2018 by eManym because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join