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.

 

SCI/TECH: New Research Finds Errors In Data Critical Of Global Warming

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Earlier research by the University of Alabama which found that the planet was not warming up has been debunked in three new research papers. Originally the 1990 data callected found that the low level troposphere was not warming up in line with computer predications but now it has been found that the University's satellite was collecting faulty data. The original study has been quoted and used by opponents to the global warming theory and the correction in data shows a much more rapid warming more consistent with what is seen on the planet surface.
 



www.abc.net.au
Two other studies, which are also published in the journal Science, have also revealed global warming miscalculations.

Yale University, in Connecticut in the United States, has found that the sensors on older weather balloons were either faulty or positioned incorrectly.

The researchers say the sensors read too warm in daylight, so the results could not be trusted.

California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has also smoothed out discrepancies between 19 different climate models and measurements.

Researchers there have ruled that the differences are due to human errors in calculations.

Dr Jones says these developments are a critical example of theory winning over data.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


With these mistakes being found, what does it mean for the global warming debate now? It seems to becoming overwhelming when a study which has been quoted to disprove a theory turns out to contain errors.

I think an idea to prove or disprove this whole issue would be to conduct a series of tests by as many universities that will participate worldwide and have the data collected from all areas and correlated by everyone.

World News today ABC


[edit on 12-8-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
most opponents to the human cause of global warming do not disagree that the earth is changing at this time. but it is believed that it is simply a natural cycle.

a volcano releases more gasses than man does in many years. cows alone release more methane than man does. the earth normally handles these kinds of issues. and as much proof as there is that the earth is changing, there is just as much proof showing that this has happened many times before.

Arctic Forest

this article was hard to find. ideas that frustrate "popular theory" tend to not be widely published. anywho, on both sides of the "origins" argument are many who admit that the arctic was once tropical. each side just believes it was that way due to different causes.

why can't we just admit that we are not at a level yet of understanding our home? it's like ants trying to figure out the happenings of the pentagon. they cannot perceive it all at once, let alone understand the information being observed.
daved



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
* Space Shuttle Commander comments on the widespread devastation of the planet visible from space.

Deforestation, human population growth, building in natural habitats, and you know pollution and greenhouse gases are one tiny part of the whole scheme.

We have damaged this planet and now we will pay the price for our mistakes.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I am kinda in the middle with all this...that we as a species are wrecking havoc with the biosphere should be beyond dispute by now unless you have some idiotlogical (yes I know it's spelled ideological :lol
reason to deny it. Of course denial is not some river in Egypt, nor does it make wishful thinking true. However, for reasons unknown the earth has passed through many epochs of drastic warming and cooling...the mini-ice age between 1300 and early 19th century is just the most recent example...It could indeed be volcanic, some have been anyway, a drastic cooling in the mid-400's has been fairly convincingly linked to one of the sucidial explosions of Krakatoa but others have not. There is a current idea being floated that I have entertained for years, that the earth periodically passes through space clouds which dim the sunlight reaching the earth....be all that as it may, it also seems beyond dispute that we are escalating the process and taken in concert with natural processes have created some fairly extreme changes with the earth. Regardless of the level of our cupablity, it is certianly wrong headed to deny it or refuse to do anything about it based on narrowly nationalistic or economic lines, because regardless of nation, it effects us all. All these corporate holdfasts like Exxon who fight the notion tooth and nail are more concerned about their profit margin than the welfare of humanity, and as such their behaviour is criminal. The irony is that if they volenteerly took the plunge and began retrofiting our economic supersturcture to be more energy nurturing, environmentally friendly and worked to disperse such technology as broadly as possible, their profit margins would expand beyond their wildest dreams.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I guess it comes down to choice

what would you prefer.....to make a multi billion dollar profit for a year or to build some green corridors at cost to you but for the future generations.

sadly most choose the multi billion dollar profit and stuff the future.....



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
* Space Shuttle Commander comments on the widespread devastation of the planet visible from space.

Deforestation, human population growth, building in natural habitats, and you know pollution and greenhouse gases are one tiny part of the whole scheme.

We have damaged this planet and now we will pay the price for our mistakes.



in fact, your point is well made. it has gotten my attention for sure.


the whole reasoning behind the earth being able to handle pollutants from mankind and itself is made void if the "filter" is destroyed. destruction of the rain forests and reefs are by far the worst of our problems. in resolving these issues, we could help the earth fight against the poisons that are man-made and natural. but if we make the earth incapable of healing itself from even it's own natural pollutants, we are dooming our home.

our focus should not be on clean fuel, but rather repairing the natural healing process of our planet.

daved



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
our focus should not be on clean fuel, but rather repairing the natural healing process of our planet.

I think what you mean is that we should focus on both



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
They want to point out possible errors in data collection. I have one for you. Most land based observation stations are located either in airports or city centers. The data over the decades has been contaminated by the urban heat island effect. That fact cannot be denied. They can speculate on the weather balloons but the heat island effect is very well. The larger the city becomes the greater the impact of the heat island. This of course will push numbers up without a single bit of CO2 being added. Data collected in and around city centers is contaminated and is basically invalid for any scientific studies. Of course they have no problem using contaminated data when it supports their claims.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I think what you mean is that we should focus on both


nope. do i have to restate again that there are many natural causes of pollution? mankind's damage is just a drop in the bucket. the problem is that the earth's ability to heal being destroyed.

we can't even gauge how long it takes our earth to recover from nuclear radiation! it turns out that it does so many times faster than thought. the earth is tough, but we have nearly severed it's jugular.

of course as responsible people we should find clean fuel over time, but our focus right now should be the survival of the earth. 100% focus on restoring the rain forests and reefs.

daved



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
They want to point out possible errors in data collection. I have one for you. Most land based observation stations are located either in airports or city centers. The data over the decades has been contaminated by the urban heat island effect. That fact cannot be denied. They can speculate on the weather balloons but the heat island effect is very well. The larger the city becomes the greater the impact of the heat island. This of course will push numbers up without a single bit of CO2 being added. Data collected in and around city centers is contaminated and is basically invalid for any scientific studies. Of course they have no problem using contaminated data when it supports their claims.


"discrepancies between 19 different climate models and measurements. "

Indy these studies were done by satellites travelling well above earth on the troposhere. Cities wern't the only places studied.

Basically they are saying oops we were wrong, it is happening.

Dasher yes you are right, with the destruction of our environment the earth loses the ability to produce more oxygen to levels that can sustain humanity.

having said that, the earth is change, the planet will heal itself and adapt. We just may find in her adaptations there is no room for humanity.



[edit on 12-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
of course as responsible people we should find clean fuel over time, but our focus right now should be the survival of the earth. 100% focus on restoring the rain forests and reefs.

Non-clean fuels are fossil/nuclear fuels. We have at best 10 years before oil becomes prohibitively expensive. We have to focus on clean fuels (e.g. renewable) if we ever want to consider keeping our current way of life.

I think you'll find we have to focus on clean fuels, not just for the pollution it will save.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Regardless of whether or not some "natural cycle" is partially responsible for current global warming effects, mankind's contribution to global warming is now indisputable. We may not be responsible for all of it, but we sure are responsible for seriously aiding & abetting any "natural cycle," if indeed a "natural cycle" is partially responsible. Do any of you remember all those satellite pictures the U.N. released showing just how much change mankind has made. If you don't remember, or didn't see that particular thread when it was current, the link to that discussion is appended to the end of my post.

The changes in the Arctic and Antarctic permafrost zones alone are frightening. Lord knows how much methane those huge areas will release as they continue to warm up (the permafrost zone in Siberia by itself is about 360,000 square miles). Further, weakening of the Atlantic Conveyor is accelerating due to the huge influx of fresh water flowing into the Atlantic ocean, coupled with the increased water temperature in the Arctic region. Moreover, the movement speeds of Antarctic and Greenland glaciers flowing to the sea is increasing radically, as is the rate of thinning of the ice caps and the collapse of the ice shelves. Most people don't think the ice shelves breaking off and melting will cause an increase in sea levels, but that is wrong. Ice shelves are fresh water and fresh water takes up more volume than salt water, therefore sea levels will rise. I have included a link to another article that explains this.

It may already be to late for mankind to halt some of the huge ecological and environmental changes global warming will cause, not to mention the devastating effects of sea level increases of only a few inches. For anyone to stick their head in the sand at this point in time is sheer stupidity. Mankind must change it's shortshighted stewardship of Earth now, not tomorrow, but right this instant. Not trying to mitigate the collective effects of our damaging policies and practices is clearly tantamount to criminal negligence.

Make no mistake about it, people will die as the climate warms up--lots & lots of people. Desertification of currently useable land wll continue to increase, putting a strain on efforts to just feed everyone. The changes we need to make will be extremely expensive--in the trillions of dollars--and they will inconvenience the dickens out of us. People will lose jobs, corporate profits will necessarily decrease and local conflicts may rage, but we still must do these things. The alternative to not doing them as soon as we can get started is simply to awful to contemplate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'.html

www.physorg.com...

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
There really isn't this fundamental debate outside the US.

I know you think we're all dumb but can the scientists of UK, France, Germany, Italy etc etc all be wrong and some oil-sponsored lightweights be right?

Seems in US you can get a university / scientist to say anything if the price is right.

Not saying the American people are stupid just that you're being lied to

It's happening, it's fact. Ask the Pacific Islanders!

For the country that popularised the green movement and first introduced emission control America's attitude to this global issue is truly shameful



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher

the whole reasoning behind the earth being able to handle pollutants from mankind and itself is made void if the "filter" is destroyed. destruction of the rain forests and reefs are by far the worst of our problems.


Sadly Dasher I have to disagree with you on this point. Your comment is what I believe to be a common misconception regarding reefs & rainforests. Far more dangerous to our health and the overall health of the earth is the damage we have done and are still doing to our oceans. The oceans are not just the cradle of life, they are life. The contribution of oxygen to our atmosphere and the cleaning of our atmosphere by the coral shoals/reefs and the rainforests is vastly overshadowed by the same processes taking place in our oceans. Every year you read about algea blooms, red tides, hypoxic zones, etc. springing up in the oceans, and we aren't talking about small areas either, these zones result in billions of fish and bottom dwelling animals & plants being killed yearly--and the numbers are going up every single year. Not mentioned is the fact that oxygen is not being generated by these zones--oxygen that you and I and everyone else, plus all the other life forms running around on the surface of the Earth depend on. If we continue to poison & pollute our oceans there is simply nothing we could do on land to save ourselves--we would all die period.

Here is a link to the comment I made concerning the inflow of fresh water into the Atlantic. It is a trifle outdated now, but not much:

www.physorg.com...

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Sadly Dasher I have to disagree with you on this point. Your comment is what I believe to be a common misconception regarding reefs & rainforests. Far more dangerous to our health and the overall health of the earth is the damage we have done and are still doing to our oceans.


well, although i think that you are being picky about my semantics, you are technically not incorrect. my thoughts lie with the oceans when stating "reefs" since it is the oceans that sustain such life. but i suppose it is fair to point out a more specific purpose than i.
daved



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I didn't mean to nit pick you Dasher, I did not know your thinking on this until your last post. However, I have heard others say for years that the rainforests are the lungs of the earth and the coral reefs are the filters of the seas. While there is much truth to both of those sayings (especially about coral reefs), they are technically inaccurate. The rainforest thing was popularized as a convenient way of trying to prevent conversion of the Amazon rainforest into farmland. While a laudable goal, the oceans never seem to be mentioned and they are much more vital to our survival. Again, if I offended you, I apologize.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join