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: 11
51
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




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).


That doesn't contradict anything I said. In fact it doesn't mention NOAA-14 at all.



The latest models of both RSS and UAH have about the same correlation to radiosonde data for the lower troposphere.


Do you have a source for this? The only data I can find is old (from the 80's to 05 or so).

Regardless, I don't know what we're even supposed to be arguing about anymore. It could just be my getting tired after an 18 hour day of work.




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




In fact it doesn't mention NOAA-14 at all.

I know. That's the point.



Do you have a source for this?
Yes I do. While it should be noted that you have provided none.
See Fig. 6



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



I know. That's the point.


Ahhh, yes, that reminded me what this is about. You believe global warming is science. When it's politics. Don't you find it odd, that a scientific endeavor would leave out one of their own satellites they launched to track this? Seems like politics more than science, doesn't it?



Yes I do. While it should be noted that you have provided none.


What would you like sources for?
edit on 3-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You still haven't provided a source for that claim. You asked for a source, I gave it. I asked for a source, you didn't.


edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This guy ( Tony Heller ) shows countless fraud and the lies told by the people who are paid to push an agenda.. No B.S. just past and present published temperature records without all the alarmist propaganda and flat out lies..

youtu.be...



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You want a source for what? That NOAA-14 existed? The data from NOAA-14 vs 15? What?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky




This guy ( Tony Heller )

You mean Steven Goddard?



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


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 the point is to determine the average temperature of the planet, would it not then be prudent to take readings from all equidistant points on the surface to arrive at a non-weighted sum? You do realize we do not do this... there are some areas where temperature data can literally be plotted to 1/2 mile, while others, like Antarctica and vast areas of the oceans, may have sensors 500 miles or more apart.

It just seems that particular attention is only paid to areas which indicate warming, while areas which may indicate cooling are never mentioned. Why is that?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The source of this claim

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.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




It just seems that particular attention is only paid to areas which indicate warming, while areas which may indicate cooling are never mentioned. Why is that?

Shirley, you jest.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Here you go



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Surely you're not using a 6 month window and comparing it to a 30 year period. That's not cherry picking or anything. Certainly not.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Thanks. It says that satellite temperature proxies aren't very good (in this case, because of water vapor problems).
But it does address your claim:

On the other hand, RSS (and likely NOAA and UW in some manner) choose to retain the relatively warm trend of NOAA-14, which they termed an ‘unexplained mystery’ (Mears and Wentz 2016 Mears, C. A., and F. J. Wentz. 2016. “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment.” Journal of Climate 29: 3629–3646. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]).


RSS, "and likely?" That's just great, we're not sure but we think so. How Christy of Christy.

But you see that it's talking about a trend through 2001. Not quite what you claimed.

We have shown substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that the satellite datasets experienced spurious warming during the period that began with NOAA-12 and ended with NOAA-14 (1990–2001+) that could not be explained by the processes already addressed.

So what does that have to do with the "pause?"


edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

No. I'm taking a half year snapshot comparison of that same half year average over 30 years.
But you missed the point. I posted that in reply to this claim:

It just seems that particular attention is only paid to areas which indicate warming, while areas which may indicate cooling are never mentioned. Why is that?

See the cooler areas? Yes, they are there, but on average, the world is warming up. Or don't you think so?

Take an annual look if you wish. I provided the link. Same result.

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're still taking a single year and comparing it to an average. Yes, sometimes it will be more red, other times it will be more blue. It doesn't prove anything. Next year if it's cooler than the 30-year average and most of the map is blue does that mean the earth is not warming? See my point?

"The world is warming" compared to some point. That's for sure.
edit on 3-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

While 'likely' isn't the strongest language he could use, the point he was making was that they all have very similar outputs so it's likely their inputs are very similar. Whereas UAH discards the NOAA-14 data when it begins to diverge significantly from the NOAA-15 data.

ETA:
What it has to do with the pause is the fact that they keep using faulty data if it suits them. Saying the pause didn't happen because they went back and massaged some data to make it go away is denying the fact that it did happen. Even in their updated numbers it happened, it was just 17 years instead of 20.
edit on 3-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The notion that the "pause" invalidates the theory that increasing CO2 concentrations have, are, and will, increase global temperatures is absurd. The theory acknowledges that there are internal processes (vulcanism being a fairly strong one, one which seems to be the primary cause of the LIA rather than solar activity) which will produce decadal variation with the trend. But the energy is retained and the trend will continue.

As we speak I am experiencing another round of anomalous tides. Higher highs, and higher lows. Once again, in the past 5 years, my yard is going away after being stable for at least 60 years. The oceans are getting "bigger" because of thermal expansion and ice melt.

Or don't you think the planet is warming at a greater rate than natural influences can account for? Which natural forces would that be? Something we don't know about, or the greater levels of radiative forcing? Surely it must be something other than us, all of us. Right? Surely, it must be.


Saying the pause didn't happen because they went back and massaged some data to make it go away is denying the fact that it did happen.
Did you miss the part about Bates not saying the data was manipulated? Him saying that he knew the "skeptics" would take him out of context? Confirmation bias much?

edit on 8/3/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ummm.... what's that big grey area on the bottom of your map?

TheRedneck (aka Shirley)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The notion that the "pause" invalidates the theory that increasing CO2 concentrations have, are, and will, increase global temperatures is absurd. The theory acknowledges that there are internal processes (vulcanism being a fairly strong one, one which seems to be the primary cause of the LIA rather than solar activity) which will produce decadal variation with the trend. But the energy is retained and the trend will continue.



Phage says carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperatures.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Interesting claim, since sunspot records only go back 400 years.

In any case the worries about cooling, even with a grand solar minimum, seem to be just another Nibiru.



I guess we can use a couple of big volcano eruptions. It is funny that many .edu/.org publications that talk about the cooling between 1250 and 1850 is said over and over again to be a combination of eruptions and low sun radiation with grand solar minimum mention as periods with lower radiation.

To be honest our path as humans is really based on where we are at in 2040 to correct all this, and that will mean that science has finally reached a point to go prime time in replacement of CO2 emitters. If we do not change over by then we will see a continued rise in temps past 2 degrees, and if we do not change by 2100 we could see a devastating 4.5 degree increase.

The problem we face today is we are not ready to instantly switch, but we got 20 years to get there. Much like the horse that reached an environmental disaster before the car was invented it took a good 35 years for the car to reach the point of replacing the horse. We are most likely 10+ years away from when the electric car can honestly replace the combustion car without serious negative impact.

The car was invented around 1885 with the Model T production started in 1916 and that was the point of when the car finally reach the technological level to go prime time and that took another 20 years to truly replace the horse. The big question is were are we on this timeline with the electric car? Are we at the point to go prime time or are we still before the Model T era?

What if in 1910 the order was given to kill all horses due to the huge environmental problems we faced back then. What serious impact would that have had with the car still 20+ years away from truly replacing the horse. That is kind of where we are today as all democratic presidential candidates are pushing zero CO2 emissions in their 4 years as President, even Biden is now on board with it.

Then we have Asia who are still building coal plants today and seem to not want to stop anytime in the near future. China and India alone have 600+ GW being built or plan to build around the world in the next 40 years. This kind of pushes us well past the 2040 date with 600+ new coal plants ready to produce massive CO2 for 40 years of their avg life expectancy. With around 2000 GW world wide we need to shut down 100 GW per year and that is not happening either as we retired around 30 to 40 per year, and this is seen as extremely good number compared to the past. China once again has close to half of the world GW in coal, so what do we do about that?



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join