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.

 

Study Finds Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Basically zero

page: 10
51
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I wouldn't say there's no correlation, as the pause would seem to suggest that there is at least some.




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

There was no pause. Temperatures have continued to rise.
insideclimatenews.org...

There is none to scant evidence that solar activity has a significant effect on global temperatures.

edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh you mean after they adjusted the data to remove the pause, there was no pause. In the real world, there was a pause. You'd think after climate-gate and climate-gate II, you guys would have realized this is not science, it's politics.

Have a gander at your pause buster paper.
edit on 2-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So, you don't think the planet is warming?


In the real world, there was a pause.
Prove it.


You'd think after climate-gate and climate-gate II, you guys would have realized this is not science, it's politics.
Science uses the evidence at hand. When there is new evidence, or problems with evidence is found, science changes. It's politics that continues to rely on things like "climategate", even after they are shown to be wrong.

www.ucsusa.org...
edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




So, you don't think the planet is warming?


From 1998-2015, nope.




Prove it.


OK. We'll use the NOAA stats since they're the least favorable (red line):



Well, that makes it pretty obvious.



Science uses the evidence at hand. When there is new evidence, or problems with evidence is found, science changes.


Yes, and when that evidence doesn't fit the narrative for AGW they give it a little massage. Because it's politics.

ETA:
You don't find it convenient that after 17 years of no increase and constant scrambling to explain the pause, and nothing but failure, they instead went back and "re-evaluated the data" and changed how they used it to make the pause no longer exist???
edit on 2-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Have a gander at your pause buster paper.
Have a look at what Bates' issue actually was:

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
www.eenews.net...



OK. We'll use the NOAA stats since they're the least favorable (red line):
Please provide a source for that chart.


Yes, and when that evidence doesn't fit the narrative for AGW they give it a little massage.
You know that the IPCC reported the "pause", right?


You don't find it convenient that after 17 years of no increase and constant scrambling to explain the pause, and nothing but failure, they instead went back and "re-evaluated the data" and changed how they used it to make the pause no longer exist???
So, if it is discovered that there was a built in bias in water temperature records it should be ignored? Arctic temperatures should be ignored in calculating global temperatures? You have an odd notion of what science is.

edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There's an awful lot of that in "climate science."



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, that is how all science works.
edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



So, if it is discovered that there was a built in bias in water temperature records it should be ignored? Arctic temperatures should be ignored in calculating global temperatures? You have an odd notion of what science is.


Of course not. I just find it a little too convenient that the bias just so happened to turn on right as the pause began and pray tell how adding arctic temperatures to the data would result in an overall increase in global temperatures.

I guess my point is, if the problem was with the equipment, it should have adjusted the data before the pause began. Same with arctic temperature data.
edit on 2-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They release reports without going through the proper verification process? No, that's not how all science works.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




I just find it a little too convenient that the bias just so happened to turn on right as the pause began

It didn't.


pray tell how adding arctic temperatures would result in an overall increase in global temperatures.
What is being studied is the increase in temperatures. Arctic temperatures were, and are rising far faster that those elsewhere. That rise was previously not included. When it was, it results in a greater average increase.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




They release reports without going through the proper verification process?

That is incorrect.


Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

source
edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your link is broken.

However, I'll refer you to your prior quote from mr bates:



"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,"


That's what you're saying science is. That's what you're defending here.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, there was no tampering of data to produce any particular result.

I fixed the link. Read it.
edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How nice.



Bates’ complaints boiled down to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational data for its land-surface temperatures.”


So he was mad that they were citing research data (which had likely been massaged) rather than operational data and not disclosing that fact. Why would they not disclose it? This doesn't seem to change the underlying problem with "climate science".



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I thought the issue was the quality of the data.

Bates says there was nothing wrong with the data. Prior and subsequent studies have confirmed the data.

You can remain focused on Bates' temper tantrum if you wish.


edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The quality of the data, the quality of the process, the quality of the statistical anlaysis, the quality of the models, the quality of the hypothese, they're all problems in climate science

ETA:
Take the NOAA data, for example. In 1979 NOAA launched NOAA-14 which operated until 2004. In 1998 they launched NOAA-15 which is still operating. For six years NOAA had two data sets to compare and they did not agree much at all. So what was NOAA's response? Well, to keep using the NOAA-14 data. But why? It was higher. In fact all of the satellite data sets incorporate the bad data from NOAA-14 except UAH. Funnily enough, UAH shows the least amount of warming and also has the smallest deviation from radiosonde's. So what's the scientific explanation for using higher deviated data, from a satellite that hasn't been calibrated in 20 years over data from newer equipment which was recently calibrated?
edit on 2-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


What is being studied is the increase in temperatures. Arctic temperatures were, and are rising far faster that those elsewhere. That rise was previously not included. When it was, it results in a greater average increase.

Would that not be considered a local phenomenon? Why does it suddenly need to be applied globally?

We know the temperature of the Bering current is increasing. What we don't know is why. Which is more logical: to blame the rise in temperature in a localized area on carbon dioxide, or to look in the local area for some source specific to it?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



The quality of the data, the quality of the process, the quality of the statistical anlaysis, the quality of the models, the quality of the hypothese, they're all problems in climate science
All sciences have "problems". That's where independent verification comes into it. You know, replication of results. That's important in science.



So what was NOAA's response? Well, to keep using the NOAA-14 data.

Source? Your statement would seem to contradict what NOAA says:

The diurnal adjustment is completely empirical, calculated by comparing a diurnally-drifting spacecraft against one that is not drifting during their overlap comparison period (for a.m. spacecraft, NOAA-15 vs. (non-drifting) AQUA, and for p.m., NOAA-18 vs. (non-drifting) NOAA-19 during 4 years).
source


Funnily enough, UAH shows the least amount of warming and also has the smallest deviation from radiosonde's.
The former is correct, the latter is not. The latest models of both RSS and UAH have about the same correlation to radiosonde data for the lower troposphere. The "lower troposphere", btw, is a proxy temperature up to about 12,000 meters (weighted to 3,000 and below). Roy Spencer seems to be one of the few people that think satellite data is better than surface data. They don't drop thermometers into the troposphere.
journals.ametsoc.org...

edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Would that not be considered a local phenomenon? Why does it suddenly need to be applied globally?
Regional, perhaps. Why does it "need" to be applied? More data. More data is good because the point is to determine if, on average, the planet is warming and how rapidly. If a global average of regional temperature anomalies shows a warming trend (and, indeed, that is what the temperature models show) it means that, on average the planet is warming. Even if some locations don't show that same trend.


edit on 8/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join