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.

 

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

A full analysis of satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperatures indicates that none of the global temperature variations from 1978 to 2008 can be attributed to the effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The record shows global climate oscillations with a period of three to five years and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius about a common, fixed mean temperature that lasted from 1978 to 1997. Since this mean
temperature did not change for twenty years the late twentieth century warming touted by IPCC and others simply did not happen.


ICECAP
icecap.us...

In light of reports based on biased, flawed, incomplete or fabricated data and projections, from such reputed sources as IPCC, NOAA, Nature, the BBC, and others, several independent researchers have formed a loose collaboration called ICECAP.

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather.

Anyone who wants to take a position on AGW, pro or con, would be well advised to review the research conducted there.

ICECAP is not funded by governments or corporations. Its funding comes from donations of people genuinely interested in the global environment and sound policy for dealing with climate changes; natural, man-made or otherwise.

Perhaps a bit of independent thinking from unbiased and well qualified experts can assist all of us in OUR understanding of the nature of our climate and its effects upon humanity.

Link to ICECAP:
icecap.us...

deny ignorance

jw




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
According to Al Gore, I believe that would make them a terrorist organization and a threat to "National Security".

According to me, he is.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
In light of reports based on biased, flawed, incomplete or fabricated data and projections, from such reputed sources as IPCC, NOAA, Nature, the BBC, and others, several independent researchers have formed a loose collaboration called ICECAP.

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather.


Those people sound really interesting. But I'm sure I've heard of most of them before...



As for Icecap being some sort of utopia for reliable information:

tamino.wordpress.com...

tamino.wordpress.com...

Just two assessments of D'Aleo's musings, there's many more around. The first has a guest appearance from the man himself, who gets a good whipping by a statistician who sees through his smoke and mirrors.

Deny pigs in pants.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Originally posted by jdub297




ICECAP is not funded by governments or corporations. Its funding comes from donations of people genuinely interested in the global environment and sound policy for dealing with climate changes; natural, man-made or otherwise.
Yes I read this on their website too, so should I just swallow that pill, but the people on the board are paid by big oil and energy. Look them up. There are some cool professors on there, and a few that have Emeritus, retired with no professional reputation at stake.


Perhaps a bit of independent thinking from unbiased and well qualified experts can assist all of us in OUR understanding of the nature of our climate and its effects upon humanity.
Perhaps you should explain to me why i should take the word of the BLOG author, Arno Arrak. He reviews books for a living. How independant.

Contributors to ICECAP include:
Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist;
Robert C. Balling Jr, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University;
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]



Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist;


The energy industry provides significant funding for groups that employ some of the authors or promote their new study. Soon's co-authors were Sallie Baliunas, also from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center; Sherwood Idso and his son, Craig Idso of Tempe, Ariz., who are the former president and the current president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; and David Legates, a climate researcher at the University of Delaware.

Soon declined to say how much he is paid to serve as a "senior scientist" with the Marshall Institute. Both he and Baliunas have that title.
seattlepi.nwsource.com...
MAn, not looking so independant now, unbiased now.


Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany;


THOMAS A. BIRKLAND a1
a1 Political Science, State University of New York at Albany

Yes, I want my scientific data interpreted by a Political Advisor.

Reid Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin;


Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.
www.wecnmagazine.com...
Ok, so he is old. Wise and old. If he was argueing FOR AGW, I bet it would be an issue. He's on the Books to give ICECRAP some respect. This is typical of think tanks. BTW the link is to an Energy Magazine. LOL.

Robert Carter, Researcher, James Cook University, Australia;
"Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community."
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.
He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.
Nah, not at all.
Spreading himself around the think tank community.

John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist KUSI-TV, San Diego
Hey its the crazy TV weatherman, I can dig it.


William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University; and
Man I have actuallyseen Cottons power point display on GW, he actually highlites the correlation between what we put into the air and GW via GHG's.


This is embarrassing. Remember, OP, when you copied this from your source,

Perhaps a bit of independent thinking from unbiased and well qualified experts can assist all of us

I like to independently look at these BLOG sources myself. I suggest you do the same.
www.sourcewatch.org...



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by jdub297
I like to independently look at these BLOG sources myself. I suggest you do the same.
www.sourcewatch.org...


Even if every disagreeable authority were to vanish from the record, it would not make such bogus hype as AGW any more real.

Man cannot change global weather, and imposing unrealistic "solutions" that serve more to line interested pockets than remedy, is unwarranted and counterproductive.

Most people critical of the AGW hypothesis do not support "big oil" or any other boogeymen of the AGW disciples. Most agree that dependence on fossil fuels should be minimized.

Disparagement and character attacks add nothing to the alternative argument. Rather, they evidence it's lack of reason and support.

(Of course, you know that "Sourcewatch", the product of the "Center for Media and Democracy," is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. It is essentially a two-person operation of Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber who depend on deep pocket multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

Village Voice (April 2001): "These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

And self-aggrandizing at that. When confronted about a phony "news conference," Stauber admitted, "What you see is a true PR campaign around our book. This is how book publishing is done. I think it’s bad. I hate it.” )


deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 23-2-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
You laid out their motivations and background as fair game, so don't complain.


Originally posted by jdub297
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather.


So they completely agree with the scientific consensus then? Because all those components are accepted by the IPCC. However, even though you paint them as some sort of open and balanced processors of information, what's the sentiment of the article you post...


A full analysis of satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperatures indicates that none of the global temperature variations from 1978 to 2008 can be attributed to the effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas...Since this mean temperature did not change for twenty years the late twentieth century warming touted by IPCC and others simply did not happen.


No warming, no problem!

lol

Problem is, the article is two big cherrypicks, and even then appears wrong. The author starts by cherrypicking 1978 to 1997, because the 1998 El Nino year is problematic when trying to show no warming. Then he decides to discard everything from 1999 and 2000 and cherrypick 2001 to 2007, even though it's now 2009, because if we start from 1999/2000 we also find obvious warming, and 2008 is also a problem.

He then disingenously tries to apply his cherrypicking to the whole data, from 1978 to 2008, lol. However, is his data for the cherrypick even correct? The data from the UAH satellite data reconstruction appears to show this:



So we have some warming from 1978 to 1997, some warming from 2001 to 2008, and clear warming when we just let the data speak for itself without cherrypicking.

Then he tries to make these claims...


A direct comparison of these satellite data with ground-based measurements is also possible. Comparing satellite (UAH MSU LT) and land-based (HadCRUT3) data for the eighties and nineties gives HadCRUT3 a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade (one degree per century) while lower tropospheric satellite data show no warming at all. This is compounded by the fact that satellite measurements of midtropospheric temperature show a long-term cooling effect for this period. Looking for sources of error in ground-based data one is led to the usual suspect, the urban heat island effect.


Piffle. I assume he means his analysis of the cherrypicked data, because the UAH data itself shows clear warming over its history and is quite comparable to surface data and the other major satellite reconstructions. The presentation below isn't ideal as some of the data series use different comparisons for anomaly, but the trends are the relevant feature (all 12 months means). I've also tried to compare the temp trends to CO2 trends (again not ideal, as I've mucked around to get it on the same scale, but trend is the relevant feature).



And then we get back to your recent post...


Even if every disagreeable authority were to vanish from the record, it would not make such bogus hype as AGW any more real.

Man cannot change global weather, and imposing unrealistic "solutions" that serve more to line interested pockets than remedy, is unwarranted and counterproductive.


And the $$$$$$$$ whine comes through loud and clear, along with the 'AGW is bogus hype' whilst you attempt to paint these dudes as essentially not much different than the scientific consensus...


It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols


Yet both the articles they post and the people who spread their manure are just plain old ideologically motivated denialists.

Hence, walks like a duck, looks like the same species of duck, quacks like a duck ect ect...

Deny duck-like plants.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
You laid out their motivations and background as fair game, so don't complain.

Originally posted by jdub297
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. /



You know what? I'm just going to watch out my back door.

Your drivel will manifest itself, as it already has, in reality.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join