Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

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?

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

I am thinking the cooldown begins in earnest by 2022 and I hope i am wrong.

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.

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.

Early 17th Century thermometers were invented and one hundred + years later they had very well mastered accurate measurement and were able to develope the metric system around the thermometer in Celsius and the property's of one cubed milliliter of water which equals one cubic centimeter of space. That one ml heated one degree Celsius higher requires one calorie. A very neat package to use in calculations.

ETA a reference
www.theguardian.com...

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?

This theory is on the table yes. AND you are right to point it out because it is ignored and not explored very much anymore.
IS the array doing high altitude experiments I ask?

and the answer is yes.

Asimov would have a field day with this if he were alive. He covers that concept several times as a thing that man will do, in the "Foundation" books series, a good read.

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: 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

Well the universities would have set up sites and had students work the data, similar to today only we have better tech. You are right about not a lot of public interest but the science geeks were on it like white on bleached rice.

a reply to: TheRedneck








Take that, 'climate change'...

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.

So you can't refute anything he said? Got it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why be concerned with false data? 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? It's all a complete waste of time and wasted electricity to run your computer! And you haven't even taken into account the sun solar activity, the main driver of temperature change on earth, which the hoaxsters have all deliberately excluded from their computer models to make the BIG LIE convincing to puppet govts. You also haven't taken into account the Medieval Warm Period which the same hoaxsters have left out of their computer data models to make it work. They were growing cabbages in Greenland at that time. Fossil fuels hadn't been discovered and the industrial revolution was centuries away. The temperature rose much higher than today with a human population well under 500 million.

www.sciencedirect.com...

It would be more worthwhile for you take that wasted time and to bake a cake or make some cookies instead!

You don't have data at all. You have rubbish! No point doing any calculations! However, I do wish to thank you for starting this discussion, so your effort on fake data was not wasted at all! Your posting has been a valuable lesson on how to connect the dots and how to detect a very well-funded LIE, and has informed many people by your effort, that human-caused global warming is a HOAX!

GLOBAL WARMING ATTRIBUTED TO HUMAN ACTIVITY IS SIMPLY A CAREFULLY CRAFTED HOAX BY A SATANIC ZEITGEIST DETERMINED TO LOOT THE PUBLIC AND TRANSFER WEALTH TO ITS SUPPORTERS. THIS TYPE OF LOOTING HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MUCH OF HUMAN HISTORY, AND WILL CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE- IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP!

a reply to: TheRedneck

And if you're still not convinced that there is a Satanic Zeitgeist that manipulates these issues into govt. policy and legislation, forcing the looting of the public to transfer wealth to its supporters, I suggest you listen to this radio interview, to shed light on who operates that Zeitgeist. It's well worth your while...

The Satanic Cult that rules the world- Christopher Jon Bjerkness and Henry Makow (2h50):
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: SkeptikCal

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?

One advantage to using data from a local source is that I was alive during most of the time the data was collected. Why is that important? Because as I was entering data I would come across exceptionally warm and cold periods, and the vast majority I remembered! Like the year I was living in Decatur and came home for my sister's wedding. We were going to stay three days, but cut it short because a sudden cold snap happened and we were concerned about pipes freezing in our house. As we drove back, an ice storm closed most of the roads and I had to carefully pick my way around them. It took 4 times the normal travel time to get home (and our pipes had already frozen when we got there).

Or that one exceptionally hot summer when I was in my late teens and was roofing a house when it was so hot the toter could only bring up enough shingles to hand one to each roofer, to keep them from melting before we could place them.

Or more recently, that one bitter cold January that set records everywhere around here.

All of those things are still in the temperature records. That gives me great confidence in the data.

Your claims do not make sense. My analysis only runs from 1950. Your claim that I did not include data from the Medievel Warm Period makes no sense, seeing as it ended around the year 1300 which is well outside the time span I included. Temperatures during that period have no bearing on temperatures today.

It appears you are trying to argue against Global Warming. If that is the case, then I suggest your thinking is flawed. My analysis, which you have discounted, indicates thus far that there is no appreciable indication of a carbon dioxide related warming trend. It instead indicates more of a long-period sinusoidal function responsible for temporary warming, which would be a natural trend.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wasn't ignoring your reply, it just popped up now in my replies feed now. Weird!

Anywhoo, you seem to have gotten the idea that I don't care that plastic has gotten into the ocean. Not true. I just live in reality land and this kid's "solution" is nothing of the sort. It's a band aid on cancer and I object to it costing $30 million just to get off the ground.

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.

Waves aside, out in the ocean most plastic doesn't even float on the surface. Observe.



His $30 million dollar monorail would capture zero percent of the stuff floating below the surface. Like I said, this kid has not thought through his grand idea, the adults are probably well aware of what I've pointed out, but they still clap and cheer and award him his money just for the appearance of "doing something about it".

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.

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.

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.

www.weforum.org...

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.

a reply to: TheRedneck

"One advantage to using data from a local source is that I was alive during most of the time the data was collected. Why is that important? Because as I was entering data I would come across exceptionally warm and cold periods, and the vast majority I remembered! Like the year I was living in Decatur and came home for my sister's wedding. We were going to stay three days, but cut it short because a sudden cold snap happened and we were concerned about pipes freezing in our house. As we drove back, an ice storm closed most of the roads and I had to carefully pick my way around them. It took 4 times the normal travel time to get home (and our pipes had already frozen when we got there).

Or that one exceptionally hot summer when I was in my late teens and was roofing a house when it was so hot the toter could only bring up enough shingles to hand one to each roofer, to keep them from melting before we could place them."

Anecdotal evidence is always interesting, however, even if you are 72 years old, meaning that you were born in 1946, the US had already weaponized the weather and was certainly using it all over the United States. There is an abundant amount of proof of this! Those odd temperatures could have been geoengineering, for all you know, perhaps early experiments on the population, just as the US experimented on Pacific Islanders with nuclear radiation, whose effects continue to today. And you don't know if they were not or were they "real weather". Not knowing if real or not = rubbish data!

foreignpolicy.com...

"Your claims do not make sense. My analysis only runs from 1950. Your claim that I did not include data from the Medievel Warm Period makes no sense, seeing as it ended around the year 1300 which is well outside the time span I included. Temperatures during that period have no bearing on temperatures today."

OK, that's great: from the 1950s, in which geoengineering was already weaponized... even if we accept your dataset as being "real" weather and not geoengineered weather, which we cannot ascertain, are you saying that the temperature has warmed from the 50s through today depending on your uncertain (flawed) dataset which we cannot ascertain was real and not geoengineered. Is that what you're claiming? And from mainly in locations where the data is skewed from the effects of the urban heat island issue (cities)? For these reasons, I hope you understand why I consider your dataset "laughable" and not useful in trying to determine anything, not your calculations?

"It appears you are trying to argue against Global Warming." 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"*!

*From Wikipedia:
"The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.


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 shows that the earth creates its own weather, regardless of the presence of humans on the earth or not, and fluctuates between hot and cold depending mainly on sun solar radiation intensity: claiming that humans caused something that cannot be proved in the first place, is insidious and comes with a financial penalty to the public: those $trillions will be transferred as rewards to unknown others- it's the manipulated and rigged tax casino by the few against the many, that I deplore! It's this politicization that I recommend that all who read this, should look into. It is being orchestrated by a Satanic Zeitgeist...

The Satanic Cult that rules the world- Christopher Jon Bjerkness and Henry Makow (2h50):
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: SkeptikCal

Anecdotal evidence is always interesting, however...

So are conspiracy theories. However, it takes more than a YouTube video and a conspiracy web page to prove one.

My analysis did not rely on anecdotal evidence. It relied on data. Now, can you provide any evidence that the data used is inaccurate? If so, I'm listening.

Those odd temperatures could have been geoengineering, for all you know, perhaps early experiments on the population...

That would be a potential cause of the temperatures, not a refutation of the temperature data itself. I fail to see how you can refute the data, when your argument seems to be a refutation of the cause of the data. Do you believe the temperature record has been manipulated? If so, how was this accomplished for every location with temperature data?

You fail to see the difference between data and conclusions.

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"*!

1) Not indicative of data corruption.
2) Not indicative of data corruption.
3) Not indicative of data corruption.
4) Not indicative of data corruption.

Are you challenging the data or the cause of the data? Please slow down and ask yourself that. Then we can talk about the scientific method. If you are somehow trying to challenge the data because of the cause of the data, then you declare discussion of the scientific method irrelevant, since we can never obtain data with full prior knowledge of what caused it.

Unless you are saying the universe is not causal...

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...

...has nothing whatsoever to do with this analysis. The dataset used started in 1950. It is not inclusive of the Medieval Warm Period.

So far you have given potential examples of, and explanation for, human influences other than carbon dioxide levels for the temperature dataset. I have no issue with that as a potential cause of any trend (although if we go down that road it seems to be highly dubious at this point in the discussion). But none of that is claiming that the temperatures as reported did not exist. If it was 67 degrees Fahrenheit at 8:30 AM on July 3, 1968 in Huntsville, AL, then it was 67 degrees Fahrenheit at 8:30 AM on July 3, 1968 in Huntsville, AL. Why it was 67 degrees Fahrenheit at 8:30 AM on July 3, 1968 in Huntsville, AL is not the question if you are challenging the data.

Now, are you challenging the data or the cause of the data?

TheRedneck

P.S.: Your posts are quite difficult to read. If you enclose my statements between [quote] and [/quote] tags it will be easier to differentiate like my posts to you.

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.

a reply to: TheRedneck


I am inclined to think so too

I believe the increase in solar radiation has a lot to do with it

plus people forget we are in a completely different areas of space year to year with possible 'local variations' of things we are yet to know of

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

So far, I have not seen any reports of solar variability to explain a warming trend, but you are correct: we do not know everything yet. Yes, we measure solar radiation, but are we sure we are measuring all of it correctly? The visible spectrum is a tiny, very tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and some areas of that we still have trouble measuring. Someone will be along shortly to try and disprove that statement by showing how much we can measure, of course, but the fact remains that we cannot be sure we have measured everything.

TheRedneck

P.S: Any kin to George?

Welcome to ATS!

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.

That wasn't the point of my analogy.

It's coming from countries that don't have large-scale waste management systems in place, or just don't care.

Well, on that we agree--meanwhile, my parents are told by their state government that, even though there is a mountain range between them and the pacific ocean, as well as a two-hour driving distance, they must pay extra for plastic bags and they can't use straws. (and none of the rivers in the southern San Joaquin Valley make it to the ocean that I've ever seen)

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.

Well, to be fair, this kid is running a private company, and from what I understand, the $30-million was raised by investors and wasn't taxpayer dollars. Plus, this "kid" wants to create a fleet of these things, not just have one "spoon" floating around out here.

But, hey, maybe your cynicism is appropriate, but honestly, you won't know unless someone tries to do something. Maybe instead, he could string these things across major inlets to the ocean and just stop the plastic from getting that far out to sea in the first place. Of course, that would take many more "spoons" and government approval all over the world, so it seems to me that if the ocean is corralling the plastics for us, it makes sense to start there, first, and just see how it goes.

I am, however, informed that much of the oceanic plastic is below the surface, as well as much of it is microscopic from the degradation of the plastics catalyzed by UV rays, so if this "kid" can clean up much of the source of the microscopic stuff, we could limit how much of it degrades and becomes even harder to police.

I guess we'll just wait and see, and in the meantime, I'll go back to the belief that doing our best to limit this trash/waste problem at local levels first and foremost will go farthest in trying to tackle this problem.