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: 6
92
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
OK, looks like I can unveil this... I have been hinting for quite some time about some information I had concerning Global Warming. I have been running an analysis as described below:




Wow Redneck I have tried to post this remark two times now so if it pops up three times forgive me ATS.


I am impressed with this OP very much. S N F.




posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SRPrime

As I understand it, the source is ambient (air) temperature. Of course, one of the assumptions in the analysis is that the temperatures as reported are accurate, but that assumption would apply to any similar analysis, be it by me or by NASA.

There may be more information on the WeatherUnderground web site. You might also search for the stations used in the analysis; I provided identification as to the specific stations used.

Incidentally, what you are doing is called "peer review."


TheRedneck


I would point out the coordinates listed are all near Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville AL and reflect a small window of the regional data. But your observations convincingly depict a need to review the hourly data averages for quality.

ETA

The way we determine some of the null data reasons is based on other parameters such as knowing there was a power outage on site. The data storage device, commonly referred to as a data logger, will be able to pinpoint to the minute the power went out and came back on. At least 45 mins of an hour must be good data to consider that as valid but rarely does that happen that part of an hour is lost and it cause the whole hour.

Usually if data is not lost in a power fail event, there will be integrity checks that pass or fail that are bracketed with passing failing checks to preserve integrity of the data. This applies to any instrument measuring ambient data unless the UN's bogus IPCC see numbers they want to cherry pick.
edit on 3-12-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's some good sleuthing there OP, S&F.

I subscribe more to the climate change than the global warming side of things, and I will say without a doubt the winds they are a changin.'

On Wednesday where I come from we had an unexpected heat rise, and even the emergency services were baffled, as was I. I knew it would be a bit hot but almost 120F indoors? that one day killed my cherry tomatoes, they were literally cooked to death.

When people like myself live in a certain area for a certain amount of time, you notice changes in the climate. 20 years ago I could set my clock to the summer storm, now the summer storms come in winter, the monsoon comes in summer rather than autumn etc.

I've seen climate change in action. As I said before I could set my clock to a summer storm, now I might just throw that clock out the window.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

That I will agree with.

Seasons don't seem to be more extreme to me over what I recall. I recall blazing hot summers as a kid that were worse than summers we've had recently. I recall mild winters over time too.

What seems strange these days is that winters have set in later and lingered longer although this past year was different in that we went from depths of cold to blazing heat over the course of literally three days. I'm not joking on that, either. Our April was one of those coldest on record Aprils, but then we hit May and hit the 90s in a 3-day. May was on of the warmest on record; June was top 20. July and August were normal/average for July and August. Then we plunged off quickly to November being the coldest ever for November.

This year has been all over the map, up and down. There has been no real predicting it. But even in those extreme swings, our temperatures haven't been record setting in the coldest ever (although we did hit a record low once or twice in November or October) or hottest ever since, just hot or cold for those times of the year.
edit on 3-12-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, exactly. If it really is such a dire situation, and we are in IMMINENT DANGER of destroying ourselves, then China et al should be willing to follow the same regulations as the "wealthier" nations. Otherwise, it seems like a political scheme for a certain section of the population to make $$$, and to prop up China's economy at our expense.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
However, the claims are minimized by including prior time periods, showing clearly that starting analysis in 1960 maximizes any obvious linear trends and camouflages polynomial trends. If this is corrected by extending the temperature record to 1950, not only is any linear trending minimized, but the polynomial trend indicates that while we are at present warming, we can expect to begin cooling in approximately ten more years with almost level temperature trends until then. 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.


So, what you're saying is what many/most of us already know but only few are willing to accept: Climate data is easily tampered with to get a desired effect, and that if you have noticed how one decade of data effects the graphical trend, so have climatologists and they are consciously choosing to only include the data that best supports their goal (which in my opinion is alarmist reactions).

Thank you for doing this, though, because it supports other studies/number crunching that I have seen that negates the alarmist claims and attributes this to a natural cycle as well, with minimal effect from us pesky humans.


The data also indicates that any variation in growing season resulting from varying temperature trends is further minimized. The amount of warmth experienced may well affect the speed of plant growth, but it has little effect on growing season length. Thus, it is reasonable to say that any temperature changes over time we have seen thus far have had little to no effect on the viability of the ecosystem.

It's almost like nature knows what it's doing--in years with colder averages, it extends the growing period, and with higher averages, it shortens it because the plants grow better.

It's almost like there's a balance that can be measured...



I am upgrading the dataset as new information comes available.

 


In closing, this is real, hard data analysis people. Now, you know what it looks like.

Again, thanks for doing this. I look forward to any updates.

Of course, this is only a local thing and may not reflect trends around the world in every location, but then again, when it comes to daily life, localized trends and cycles are what matter to people living there.




posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
There's a reason the data has issues in the 50's. It's why most analysis starts afterwards.

You're also going to get some statistical issues when you combine all of this data for just one region. for example, if you have some locations in your sample, that get hotter over time (like population centers chugging out more industrialization, and more glass and concrete, etc.) it is going to lead to an overall increase when you smash all the data together.

Instead, in the methodology, you'd have to look at non-industrial areas, and their over time temp analysis, to see if the planet itself is warming, or if it's just because you added in crap data from the 50's and data from growing urban centers.

I'm not criticizing your analysis, just the assumption that these other factors aren't more to blame for higher recorded temps over time.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker

Solutions, any solutions, are premature until one has identified a corresponding problem. ...

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.

And since we all know that politicians are great at finding "solutions" to problems that don't exist, that is an indicator that the whole CO2 "issue" is mainly political in nature.

IM(H)O



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

But see, therein lies the issue when people talk about "since the 1880s" and like to link the warming to the industrial revolution.

I agree with you, though--I have mentioned before that, IMO, the only data that should be used should all be from the same sources and from the same quality of instruments. When we start mixing old stations (where, like you note, cities and industry have often cropped up around them) with new, and then throwing in satellite measurement into the mix, we get a hodgepodge of data that isn't consistent, and therefore shouldn't be mixed.

And maybe this has been done, were they are separated and the readings from each show the same trends and have the same data lines, but if so, I haven't seen it. Instead, what we tend to see is the cherry-picking of certain ones for different messages at different times that these scientists and politicians want to push.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Wow, so many posts! I'll get to as many as I can...

a reply to: buddha


is any one in the world keeping a record of the deep earth temperature?

Not to my knowledge... it would be an interesting study, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

I agree with you, though--I have mentioned before that, IMO, the only data that should be used should all be from the same sources and from the same quality of instruments. When we start mixing old stations (where, like you note, cities and industry have often cropped up around them) with new, and then throwing in satellite measurement into the mix, we get a hodgepodge of data that isn't consistent, and therefore shouldn't be mixed.


Yep, that's the problem, garbage in, garbage out, and to no fault of the one doing the analysis. Older values could have come from anything ranging from pure guesses to various homemade thermometers.

The simple fact is that we know, in the Earth's past, there were periods where much of the planet was a lot warmer. We also know there were periods where much of the planet was much cooler. We haven't even been on this planet long enough to have witnessed what we can even guess is a "cycle" or even if there is one. Sure, we've been able to pull all kinds of info to determine these different conditions, but we're still throwing darts at a moving target, to actually figure out patterns to it.

And there's a REASON for this. Have you ever seen a realistic depiction of how the solar system orbits the sun? It isn't as simple as we imagine it from school, where the sun is stationary, and the planets go around it like Saturn's rings do (of course, even it's rings don't do as we envision, but that's off topic...hehe).

No, the sun too, is traveling as well. All of the planets aren't orbiting in the same "plane" around it. To be honest, looking at a realistic video of how the solar system travels in the galaxy, it just seems a miracle we don't all just fly off, lol....

Jump to about the 4 minute mark, for a great visual representation....(and where this still shot seems to be from)



To think our actions are impacting it, is a bit presumptuous, and arrogant.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more environmentally conscious about how we do things. But it does mean that we shouldn't give into alarmist nonsense.




edit on 3-12-2018 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


I would point out the coordinates listed are all near Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville AL and reflect a small window of the regional data. But your observations convincingly depict a need to review the hourly data averages for quality.

Yes, the area around Redstone Arsenal was the earliest data that was available. The first official temperature reading I could find in this general area was January 1, 1950.

I had not considered power outages; that is a good explanation for the missing individual readings. The longer periods of missing data I attributed to sensor failure... it can take time to get a sensor replaced. Where I had to actually change sensors was likely due to construction that moved the sensor (or simply removed it). The one period in 2000, however, seemed to be the result of a widespread database corruption. While I was searching for alternate sites in the vicinity, I mistakenly typoed the code name and wound up with data from Washington DC, and it showed the same inconsistencies.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I always wondered how Florida factors into it. I mean, today, we're basically in the 70's. By tomorrow night, we'll have two nights in the 40's. Then, we'll be back to more 70 degree weather afterwards. Seems we'd really throw off the stats, hehe.... You'd almost have to look more at the most common occurring temps versus a true average.
edit on 3-12-2018 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There are also seemingly workable solutions to things like plastic islands, too, that seem to get ignored by government "solutionists" that we have populating our elected seats.

This is a project called "Ocean Cleanup," which was just launched in September. We'll see how it does--of course, it only addresses floating plastic, but if we can get the majority of that collected, it will help reduce the breakdown and addition to the subsurface microscopic plastics as well. (the second video is more in-depth)


And here is the project's website: The Ocean Cleanup

One thing of note: There was "only" $30-Million needed to get this project going. Considering how many billions that just our government wants to take for carbon-related issues, we could have the ocean cleaned up dramatically in just a few years for a LOT less.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


So, what you're saying is what many/most of us already know but only few are willing to accept: Climate data is easily tampered with to get a desired effect, and that if you have noticed how one decade of data effects the graphical trend, so have climatologists and they are consciously choosing to only include the data that best supports their goal (which in my opinion is alarmist reactions).

That's one conclusion, yes. To be honest, it was always a foregone conclusion, though. Any analyst worth a pinch of salt can twist data to give desired results.

That's why I wrote the methodology section in the same kind of detail I would use for an actual paper. In many ways, that is the most important section of the whole study. I have to ensure the reader that I did not put any personal bias into the methodology, or my results will be seen as flawed.

The conclusions will almost always have some bias in them; that is fine as long as the results and methodology are presented properly. The conclusions are interpretations of the results, and others can still form their own interpretations with some degree of confidence if I have done my job properly. That is what we have been missing in this debate, and I hope that by pointing it out we will in the future have more attention paid to the most important aspects of any study. I grow weary of listening to MSM interpretations of interpretations of results that are hidden behind pay walls, along with the methodology.

So I became the change I wanted to see.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok


There's a reason the data has issues in the 50's. It's why most analysis starts afterwards.

You're also going to get some statistical issues when you combine all of this data for just one region. for example, if you have some locations in your sample, that get hotter over time (like population centers chugging out more industrialization, and more glass and concrete, etc.) it is going to lead to an overall increase when you smash all the data together.

True enough.

Of course, that bias shifts the results in the direction of Global Warming, not opposed to it as my conclusions indicate. That is actually a good thing for the veracity of the analysis, since the whole point of any experiment is not to prove one's hypothesis, but to disprove it. If I can still dispute Global warming in the face of an almost certain bias in the sensors themselves, that says a lot more for my position than if I could dispute it in the face of no bias.


Instead, in the methodology, you'd have to look at non-industrial areas, and their over time temp analysis, to see if the planet itself is warming, or if it's just because you added in crap data from the 50's and data from growing urban centers.

Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury. Every sensor reading is a snapshot in space and time, not an indicator of trends. Not every position has a sensor, and not all sensors work correctly all the time or have a sufficient record beyond a certain point in time. Our available information is quite limited.

So, in the face of limited data, we have to learn to work with what we have. Maybe that restriction drops the confidence level a bit, but on our side is the fact that minor deviations in such a huge dataset (~75,000 individual entries) will likely have a negligible impact if any.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


When we start mixing old stations (where, like you note, cities and industry have often cropped up around them) with new, and then throwing in satellite measurement into the mix, we get a hodgepodge of data that isn't consistent, and therefore shouldn't be mixed.

Not only that, but actual temperatures can deviate quite a bit in a short space of either distance or time.

For example, as I type this, the temperature sensor on my porch (which has been calibrated) is reading 60 degrees. The temperature reading from my computer's weather monitor shows the temperature less than 5 miles away as 55 degrees. Yesterday it hit the mid 70s here, and tonight the forecast is back to freezing (32 degrees).

We cannot account for all of those differences. To do so, we would essentially have to find a new planet so we could coat this one with solid temperature sensors. Bu we do know that over a long enough period of time, the averages tend to cancel each other out and give a decent representation of the actual temperatures. It might be 5 degrees warmer here than at the closest temperature sensor now, but tomorrow could just as easily be 5 degrees colder.

That uncertainty has a lot to do with why the proposed solutions seem so drastic and draconian without cause. I consider a temperature reading within 5 degrees of actual surrounding temperatures to be accurate, yet we are all going to die because of a 3-4 degree rise in global temperature?

I think the politicians would have had a better shot at getting the Global Warming agenda passed had they not been so forceful with the doom and gloom.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

The absolute temperatures are not the important thing... the trend is, as in how much the average temperatures change over time. The planet is quite chaotic, with inputs from within (internal heating, heat sinks, etc.) and inputs form without (solar energy, space conditions, etc.) as well. An uncountable number of feedback systems exist, some stable and some unstable.

That's why the climate models all get it wrong thus far. We are attempting to boil down a system that complex into a handful of equations, and the package just won't fit in the box.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Please don't take this as a critique on you or your work, you clearly put a lot of time into this and I commend you for it.

Why should we believe this over the entire scientific community? No offense at all, but I'm going to side with the 97% (or more) of scientists who say/show that global warming/climate change/whatever it's called nowadays is actually happening, and it's most likely that humans have a hand in it.

Looking at all of the scientific research (including yours) certainly helps (and I'd argue is incredibly important), but we can simplify the argument by looking at it logically:

Earth's climate goes through cycles. With or without us. And CO2, Methane, etc have an affect on the climate, causing the greenhouse effect, which has an affect on those cycles. All facts.
Now, there are billions of people pumping CO2, Methane, etc, into the atmosphere at a rate that's never been seen before. How could that NOT affect the climate? If the climate is affected by those gases with or without us, and we're adding more of those gases into the atmosphere, how would that not affect it?

The US is the only country that (if the Trump administration has their way) won't be part of the Paris Climate Accord. The. Only. Country. We're being left behind.

But...America First! That attitude is going to drive us into the ground. I'm very pro-America First in some instances, but this is something we need to join together to accomplish.
Picture 15 years down the road, all of these countries have lowered their CO2 emissions, doing more and more to fix the environment, and then here's the US, pumping pollution into the air at a higher rate than when we left the Accord (population growth). I can see a lot of those countries sanctioning the US for this. Not doing business with us, etc, because of this. This is not an America First situation. This is a worldwide issue, and we are part of the world, so we should help deal with the issue. The rest of the world is going to, and it's making us look like a stubborn child.



posted on Dec, 3 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
what we made the numbers with prime numbers first and filled in the rest after. would we start at 137? the teacher.




top topics



 
92
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join