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.

 

Antarctica Melting FASTER!

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


They went to NIWA site. Used the official graph and were given access to the raw data.

Way to state the obvious



CSC(climate science coalition does not provide the raw data to show how they got their graph either? WTF


You answered your own "WTF".


The fact that NIWA makes the raw data available to groups like this is significant. It also makes the data available to the Public.


Yes, the raw data is available to public. What's not available to the public is the 'adjusted' data.


So they have nothing to Hide. Are Hiding Nothing.

Wrong. They are hiding their adjusted data, which is what was said. Not sure why you have trouble grasping that.

You quoted this:

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.


Would you like to see what their explanation is?

NIWA's analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
source< br />
They give an explanation for ONE of their sites, and just expect us to trust they've adjusted appropriately.

Here's a rundown of their explanation for Wellington

In their own words, NIWA describe their logic thus.

Where there is an overlap in time between two records (such as Wellington Airport and Kelburn), it is a simple matter to calculate the average offset and adjust one site relative to the other.
Wellington Airport is +0.79°C warmer than Kelburn, which matches well with measurements in many parts of the world for how rapidly temperature decreases with altitude.
Thorndon (closed 31 Dec 1927) has no overlap with Kelburn (opened 1 Jan 1928). For the purpose of illustration, we have applied the same offset to Thorndon as was calculated for the Airport.
The final “adjusted” temperature curve is used to draw inferences about Wellington temperature change over the 20th century. The records must be adjusted for the change to a different Wellington location
Now, it may be that there was a good and obvious reason to adjust Wellington temps. My question remains, however: is applying a temperature example from 15km away in a different climate zone a valid way of rearranging historical data?

And my other question to David Wratt also remains: we'd all like to see the metholdology and reasoning behind adjustments on all the other sites as well.
source

So while you are happy to accept their explanation, I believe they've got far more explaining to do. Especially when other sites raw data show a mild NEGATIVE trend over thier lifespan, then unexplained adjustments show warming?

Take a look at this -
New Zealand climategate participation - for mofe ino.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Well, maybe...
Nothing like alarmist statements. I never said that, by the way. I'm more concerned about dwindling potable water, global food production and rising sea levels than I am about desertification and milder weather north of the 49th parallel.
............


Did you know that increased level of CO2 allow for plants to use water more efficiently? At about 1,200ppm to 1,500ppm plants, trees, and entire green ecosystems use less water, and still grow up to 60% bigger, and produce more harvests.

Remember that part of the goal the Socialist elites have is for "population control." What better way to control the population than by not allowing enough food to be produced because of lack of atmospheric CO2?

Climate Change is happening. Perhaps you remember that back in 2004 I was urging people to move out of coastlines, under the name Muaddib. But the thing is MOST people won't move. Look at New Orleans, people should be LEAVING that area yet even after knowing what can happen they stay there.

It would create millions of jobs if cities like New Orleans were moved, or build inland to avoid flooding, but that is not going to happen until New Orleans is destroyed by nature. It is the nature of many people.

The same happens with people in California. I have visited California and lived there for a week during a vacation and I would never move to that place. It is a ticking bomb.

But the fact of the matter is that mankind is not the cause of Climate Change. There have been several threads posted by others and myself that show the Earth's magnetic field an dthe large fluctuations it is going through haven't occurred for tens of thousands of years.

The interplanetary field of the Solar System is weaker than it has been for a long time, and it is allowing more charged particles and radiation to enter the Solar System and to affect planets like Earth, including the climate.

Scientists found that even when the Sun's defenses are down SOMETHING ELSE is warming the Earth's atmosphere, and it is happening because of the weakened interplanetary magnetic field, as well as the weakened magnetic field of Earth.

Not only that but more interstellar dust, alongside more charged particles, more plasma, etc is entering the Solar System and their levels are increasing exponentially.

ALL of the above causes changes in the Earth, including Climate Changes.

We can only adapt to what is happening, NO ONE can "save the Earth."

The Earth doesn't need saving, it is going through a process that has occurred before and there is nothing we can do about it except adapt and survive.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
ALL of the above causes changes in the Earth, including Climate Changes.

We can only adapt to what is happening, NO ONE can "save the Earth."

The Earth doesn't need saving, it is going through a process that has occurred before and there is nothing we can do about it except adapt and survive.


That was a good post and I agree with much of what you've said. Not too sure about the increased greenery you suggested, what with the massive deforestration happening worldwide, but it's food for thought.

You're right the earth doesn't need saving. I guess I'm more concerned about population growth and our ability to feed that population in the future. There's not much good news coming out of third world countries these days.

You're also right about people not moving until they're forced to. For those living on the main continents, it's not so much of a problem... they can just move inland. For those on islands, maybe not so easy, especially atolls and such.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

That was a good post and I agree with much of what you've said. Not too sure about the increased greenery you suggested, what with the massive deforestration happening worldwide, but it's food for thought.
.............


I agree with part of what you said. But you see it has been reported several times and we have had threads about the increase in the green biomass of Earth.

secure.ntsg.umt.edu...


The United States also introduced the Lacey act in 2008 which was the first country to introduce a law banning all wood from illegal deforestation. Several months later the EU introduced a similar bill.

The problem is that third world nations are going to continue illegal deforestation and they will sell it to those who buy it. From the Middle East, to China, to Russia, etc.

How is anyone going to make these people stop deforestation?

How is anyone going to stop China, Russia, India and others from polluting the world without any regards for the environment, when all they want is to control the world economy, or at least to be a big part of such control.

China, Russia, India and others have emphatically stated they will NEVER accept any emission caps.

The worse polluters in the world are these countries, yet the UN, and environmentalists want for western nations to be the ones to pay for what others are doing. At the end the bill will be paid by the PEOPLE, meanwhile there is more control over people and countries like China, Russia, India, and some others keep polluting the world.

The Kyoto protocol and other similar protocols the UN, and environmentalists want to introduce will not do anything in favor of the environment, it will just distribute wealth to the rich elites in countries that will never accept any emission caps, or any environmental problems to get in their way.

How is that going to help anyone?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
man over and over is heating its cooling .
well let me assure you the temp will go up a cooler year not withstanding as a matter of fact ill give u a conterdiction .
in the prosses of heating up the earth Will First go through what appers to be a cooling faze.
ok kiddes try this at home . make a chunk of ice in the frezzer say 2 gallon block now get a hammer and wak it untill its broken up into major chunks pluse lots of smaller pices .
now get a Large cake pan retangeled say 4 inches high buy 5 inches wide buy 10 inches long.
now put it on the stove tops burner just ONE end and put the ice at the other and put 2 inches of water in with it.
now turn the burner on LOW as it goes and stick a temp gage at the warm end and watch what happens .
first the free water will heat up fast but then something strange happens as the ice starts to melt faster and faster the water gets COLDER not hoter even though its being heated. well ovesly the ice is mealting so fast at this point its putting in cold water so fast that it takes longer to heat it.
now as the ice melts off and gets less and less this prosses reverses its self and the water once again gets hoter faster and the little ice left melts even faster .
This my friends is a excample of geometric progression starts slow and even appers to stall but we still see the ice melting BUT the water is accult cooler temp wise UNtill only untill you reach a tipping point and theres no longer enough ice to off set the heating .
Man wake up in science class every one picks at my spelling then post this oo its heating oo its cooling without a clue as to whats accutly happening.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The United States also introduced the Lacey act in 2008 which was the first country to introduce a law banning all wood from illegal deforestation. Several months later the EU introduced a similar bill.


I've read that the United States is a world leader in reforestration. That's amazing. Canada is lagging a bit, but trying:


With the addition of a new forest reserve in Manitoba, Canada has now set aside 250 million acres of its vast boreal forest as parks or preserves, prohibiting logging, mining or oil drilling in these areas.

e360.yale.edu...




The problem is that third world nations are going to continue illegal deforestation and they will sell it to those who buy it. From the Middle East, to China, to Russia, etc.

How is anyone going to make these people stop deforestation?


Not to mention Brazil and a host of other countries in Central and South America...

It's a problem alright. The value of wood as building material is just too tempting.


How is anyone going to stop China, Russia, India and others from polluting the world without any regards for the environment, when all they want is to control the world economy, or at least to be a big part of such control.


China is well on the way to becoming the number one world economy already. India is growing quickly as well. Soon enough, they will be in a position to dictate how policy is going to be written. Not too sure if I like that notion.



China, Russia, India and others have emphatically stated they will NEVER accept any emission caps.


Another good reason to be watching the Copenhagen Conference next month.


The worse polluters in the world are these countries, yet the UN, and environmentalists want for western nations to be the ones to pay for what others are doing. At the end the bill will be paid by the PEOPLE, meanwhile there is more control over people and countries like China, Russia, India, and some others keep polluting the world.


China is the worst and India comes in second. If they, by some miracle, are able to drastically cut emissions, maybe that 'brown cloud stretching across the western Pacific will dissipate a bit. Am I holding my breath?

Uh... no.



The Kyoto protocol and other similar protocols the UN, and environmentalists want to introduce will not do anything in favor of the environment, it will just distribute wealth to the rich elites in countries that will never accept any emission caps, or any environmental problems to get in their way.

How is that going to help anyone?



It's not. What HAS to happen is that the worst pollutors cut their emissions the most. Without their willingness to do more than talk and make empty promises, the pollution is only going to get worse. China has been talking the talk lately and, if you look on the conference website:


China announced plans Thursday to cut its carbon emissions by up to 45 percent as measured against its economic output – a target aimed at keeping its surging growth while still reining in pollution.

en.cop15.dk...


Sounds good, right? Thing is, they won't sign anything.


Still not walking the walk.

[edit on 26/11/09 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
BTW, scientists have also been able to find out the following.


Are scientists underestimating nature's ability to absorb CO2?

Posted On: November 10, 2009 - 6:50pm

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, UK, found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

www.sciencecodex.com...


Some people keep trying to blame CO2 for the Climate change which we have been undergoing which is completely natural, and this can be seen by the fact that the Earth's temperature has been fluctuaing from warm to cold.

The Sun's activity had been at the highest for more than 1,000 years for the past about 100 years, and right when the Sun's activity decreased to low levels the Global temperature DECREASED, but now scientists are finding that with the interplanetary field being as weak as it is, more space radiation is entering the Solar System, alongside other charged particles, plasma, and interstellar dust, and some other source is WARMING the Earth's atmosphere.

It is not because of CO2, but because the interplanetary field is very weak.


Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.


The fact that Earth's temperature has been fluctuating, even during the times when the Sun's activity was at it's highest, which increases naturally water vapor, and even CO2, as well as other ghgs.

If CO2 caused the warming claimed by the AGW, we wouldn't be seen these fluctuations. We wouldn't have seen the Earth's global temperature drop at the same time that the Sun's activity started to weaken.

Yes, there are many environmental problems, but the solutions being presented by Al Gore, policymakers, the UN, environmentalists and even the Obama administration to accept cap and trade, etc, is not going to stop the environmental problems. It will only get worse since these other countries, China, Russia, India, and others have stated they won't accept any sort of emission caps, and they are not concerned about the environment, but rather to keep producing without any regards.

How is that going to stop environmental problems?

More jobs will be moved to China, Russia, India, etc, meanwhile they keep polluting the world without any restrains.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The amount of ice melting in the Antarctica is minuscule.
less then half the size of the state of Oregon.

To support there AGW scam they are blowing it out of proportion and not telling the true story.
www.iceagenow.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Antarctica is not melting, the ice pack seems to be retreating but the land mass is not getting any smaller.

I hate when we people post these doom and gloom scenarios and then try to blame human activity on it.

Heck there are ancient maps showing the complete continent without ice.

Maybe it is just reverting back to what it is supposed to be.

Ice free.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Did you know that increased level of CO2 allow for plants to use water more efficiently? At about 1,200ppm to 1,500ppm plants, trees, and entire green ecosystems use less water, and still grow up to 60% bigger, and produce more harvests.

I did know that.
But plants also need water to have a coefficient balance with the CO2 levels in the first place and temps need to be set within certain parameters for these optimum conditions to exist. This limits the places on the Globe where this kind of CO2 Booster will work EU.
Extra levels of CO2 does not instantly mean ALL Plants will be better off.
ALL the systems in balance, Water, temperature, nutirents, pH etc. etc. You don't simply add CO2 and get a forest. The boost in efficiency still needs ALL factors in conjunction with those levels of CO2.


Remember that part of the goal the Socialist elites have is for "population control." What better way to control the population than by not allowing enough food to be produced because of lack of atmospheric CO2?

Come on EU.
You think the elites would really run such a long and drawn out campaign. Create Global warming scam so as not to let CO2 boost crops. The fact is they are killing more people through famine via a economic system of commoditization of certain crops that poorer nations must grow to reach a Global market to pay of loans from the IMF, at the expense of a self sustaining agriculture that traditionally was local and regional.


Climate Change is happening. Perhaps you remember that back in 2004 I was urging people to move out of coastlines, under the name Muaddib. But the thing is MOST people won't move. Look at New Orleans, people should be LEAVING that area yet even after knowing what can happen they stay there.
It is happening. No one can account for apathy. But many people feed it in this debate.
Your comments are alarmist by the way.


It would create millions of jobs if cities like New Orleans were moved, or build inland to avoid flooding, but that is not going to happen until New Orleans is destroyed by nature. It is the nature of many people.
They would probably have to put a specific tax in there somewhere to pay for it or use massive amounts of Govt spending that would then be passed on in taxes or interest rates, and once that would happen, sKeptics would pop up questioning the science and the policy of having to Move people because there is climate change. Sound familiar?


The same happens with people in California. I have visited California and lived there for a week during a vacation and I would never move to that place. It is a ticking bomb.
How alarming, you sound like Hansen.


But the fact of the matter is that mankind is not the cause of Climate Change.
So it is a fact now.

There have been several threads posted by others and myself that show the Earth's magnetic field an dthe large fluctuations it is going through haven't occurred for tens of thousands of years.

Geez, its the magnetic field now.
Last week you said it was a variation in Solar output as claimed by Wilson. You said it was the Sun.


The interplanetary field of the Solar System is weaker than it has been for a long time, and it is allowing more charged particles and radiation to enter the Solar System and to affect planets like Earth, including the climate.
This increase would also effect all the CO2 in the atmosphere too. Would it not?


Scientists found that even when the Sun's defenses are down SOMETHING ELSE is warming the Earth's atmosphere, and it is happening because of the weakened interplanetary magnetic field, as well as the weakened magnetic field of Earth.

So its not the Sun but a weakened interplanetary field.


Not only that but more interstellar dust, alongside more charged particles, more plasma, etc is entering the Solar System and their levels are increasing exponentially.
Just wondering, photon radiation is roughly 3K or -270 degree Celsius in space is it not.


ALL of the above causes changes in the Earth, including Climate Changes.
All of it now!


We can only adapt to what is happening, NO ONE can "save the Earth."
This is why people don't move from places like New Orleans and California.


The Earth doesn't need saving, it is going through a process that has occurred before and there is nothing we can do about it except adapt and survive.

You mean the earth is going through a process that has 6 billion people on it doing as they please, and it has happened before. REALLY!
I never knew that.


Well then, we know now thanks to EU that we have records of 6 billion people in the past that have had no effect on the planet so we can rule out Human activity as not contributing or effecting climate change.

Case closed.


[edit on 27/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
the planet has been cooling for 10 years now..the ice sheets in the antarctic are being pushed off into open water ...they are breaking off and floating north towards new zealand and oz...NOTHING THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SAYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE........global warming is one the major lies in their end game plan to depopulate the planet by 80/90 per cent...without the global warming hoax there is no carbon tax etc.....



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
It...Is?





posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Oh No!!!! The ice is melting!!
Let's hurry up and throw 200 million people out of work worldwide
and see if that helps.
Let's also raise everyones taxes and spend it on whatever.
Maybe then the ice will stop melting in Antarctica.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should build a new prison on Antarctica.
Put those lying liberal scientists in it for 20 years.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Graybeard
It...Is?





This is for Sea Ice in the Southern Hemisphere.
Not the Antarctic Ice Shelf which is land based.
I like how you tried to hide that by coding it for an Image link.
But here is the link without your manipulation.

nsidc.org...
Here is the whole linked spaced out but people will see it in their address bar.
//nsidc.org /data/ seaice_index/ / images/s_plothires.png

Nice try.
Keep up the twisting, the Spin and the manipulation.
And you Guys think Hadley are the shills.


The graph actually comes from these pages.
nsidc.org...

And it also includes the Northern Hemisphere anomalies.
nsidc.org...

Look at that for a trend.
The Slope of anomaly for the South is. +08
The slope going down in the average for the North is -5.9.

So we have an average Anomaly of + 0.8 for the South and -5.9 in the North.

Sea Ice is not what they are talking about in the article from the OP.

Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.
Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).


Sea Ice does not effect water levels.
Land bound Ice does.

Thank you for sharing your ignorance.
It can now be denied.


[edit on 27/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by grail
the planet has been cooling for 10 years now.... the ice sheets in the antarctic are being pushed off into open water ...they are breaking off and floating north towards new zealand and oz...
And that is because there is cooling? Ice is melting and breaking of because it is colder!

Ok.NOTHING THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SAYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE........
Really, I have seen skeptics in the MSM for 10 years now. So I should stop listening to them. Cool. Thanks for that.

global warming is one the major lies in their end game plan to depopulate the planet by 80/90 per cent...without the global warming hoax there is no carbon tax etc.....

So the elites, with all their military, biological and nuclear weapons, control of the laws, the authorities, the police and the politicians need a TAX and fear of Bad Weather to reduce populations.
OK.


When you want to discredit something you claim is a "fear campaign" and you need an even bigger 'fear campaign" to do it.
You are no different.




[edit on 27/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Oh No!!!! The ice is melting!!
Yes it is.


Let's hurry up and throw 200 million people out of work worldwide
and see if that helps.

200 millions Jobs. Wow. Is that all. Phew! I was worried about having to hurry the relocation of millions and millions of people and families when their low Island homes and entire Countries are lost.
I guess you have put it in perspective for me , Thanks. We really need to worry about Jobs.

My government subsidizes industry to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year to help them pay for fossil fuels they use in production and transport. 10 billion tax dollars a year.

The ETS in my country will raise 4.5 billion a year. Not even half of the money already being spent on fossil fuel subsidies.
It intends to reduce the FOSSIL FUEL power consumption that is supports at a cost of 10 billion dollars annually, and invest in smarter technologies, jobs and industry with the 4.5 billion it raise annually.
The tax will be passed on through to the consumer when producers who buy emissions permits try to cover these costs as part of their production costs. Just like all Fossil Fuel cost in production would be passed on but are subsidized by Govt.
In reality, if my Govt. was not subsidizing these costs, we would be forced into paying for it anyway and the demand would drop due to costs blowing out and then Jobs, business and industry go out the door and investment would be going into smarter, cheaper, cleaner ways to do things.

The Govt. cannot simply pull out subsidies in order to fund new technologies, industry or businesses that do not really on fossil fuels because it will cost jobs.

The other option is that Govts borrow heavily, not use specific taxes and pass on the cost of repaying those borrowings by using broader tax increases and pushing up interest rates in order to sell bonds to back the Govt spending so it can be paid for.

So by using a specific tax on fossil fuel emissions, govt. raise money from the users. It maintains the subsidies so that the transition will follows a tactic of supporting existing industry whilst trying to find newer smarter ways of doing things.

We will eventually have to confront these issues anyway, regardless of AGW being true or not. I think that is a fact. We need to find new ways of doing things and we would be confronting the prospect of massive job losses regardless.

To use an excuse that you think "job losses" should be an excuse to ignore innovation and progress is intellectually retarded.
All innovation has cost jobs, but created them too, and new markets and new ways of doing business.


Let's also raise everyones taxes and spend it on whatever.
The tax is specific. So is the spending. In my country anyway.


Maybe then the ice will stop melting in Antarctica.
Doing nothing will cost us more. It always has.


I think we should build a new prison on Antarctica.
Put those lying liberal scientists in it for 20 years.

With all the Ice gone, and a warmer climate, they will probably all move there anyway to get away from people like you.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 



So while you are happy to accept their explanation, I believe they've got far more explaining to do.
The whole gist of my original reply is that the group you got your belief from does not explain how they got their graph. You don't ask them to explain it. Why?
You are happy to accept what they say!

NIWA has explained what they do. It just is not enough for you. They even mention explaining it before to the Coalition, so why would they bother answering AGAIN, baseless attacks.



Especially when other sites raw data show a mild NEGATIVE trend over thier lifespan, then unexplained adjustments show warming?

The adjustments are explained. They are also explain here on ATS.

The Climate Science Coalition has been involved in manipulating and distorting science in other ways. Like the Manhattan Document.
Why are you not questioning ALL the sources in relation to the NIWA situation?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
LOL!!! Anything to try and scare people. Gloal Warming or rather Cooling now isn't what is melting the ice. An active volcano has been discovered under the ice.

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
The whole gist of my original reply is that the group you got your belief from does not explain how they got their graph. You don't ask them to explain it. Why?

I guess you did not look at the links I provided. They clearly say they used the raw data available on NIWA's web site. They have made no adjustments to the raw data, so why would they need to explain it? Do they need to explain how to plot a graph?
Even so, they have said they will release their data and show where there was some assumptions that needed to be made. They concede that they may have made errors, which is why they are explaining it.


Originally posted by atlasastro
NIWA has explained what they do. It just is not enough for you. They even mention explaining it before to the Coalition, so why would they bother answering AGAIN, baseless attacks.


They would have given the same explanation they did in their press release. They explained ONE of their sites, then said they don't need to explain the rest, as they use "internationally accepted techniques". Even then, their explanation for Wellington is a little dubious (see previous post). So yeah, your right. That's not enough for me, or many others for that matter.

You would question the reasons for adjusting if it showed cooling, would you not?
Here is a link to a pdf where NZCSC have taken a look into one of the sites, Hokitika. They have shown their methods and it raises further questions, which are yet to be explained. For example, it is shown that adjusting data for height (as in Wellington) isn't neccessarily an accurate method.


Originally posted by atlasastro
The adjustments are explained. They are also explain here on ATS.

This is refering to the other sites apart from Wellington. And as far as I'm aware, they have not explained their adjustments for these sites. However, if you could point out where they have, that would be great to clear up the matter.


Originally posted by atlasastro
The Climate Science Coalition has been involved in manipulating and distorting science in other ways. Like the Manhattan Document.
Why are you not questioning ALL the sources in relation to the NIWA situation?

I'm not entirely familiar with the Manhattan document, so I can't comment on that, sorry. However, I agree that we should be questioning ALL sources, including NIWA, instead of accepting broad, generalised statements as an acceptable explanation.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Curious and Concerned]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned


I guess you did not look at the links I provided. They clearly say they used the raw data available on NIWA's web site. They have made no adjustments to the raw data, so why would they need to explain it? Do they need to explain how to plot a graph?
And you just believe that. How many stations did they use? All of them or Just one? Why do they claim that no data needs adjustment given known changes in stations etc. It is a known fact that jut a simple rise in elevation can alter reading by over 1 degree. They need to show that the adjustments are irrational and fraudulent. They simply do this by claiming no adjustments are necessary, when they are.


Even so, they have said they will release their data and show where there was some assumptions that needed to be made. They concede that they may have made errors, which is why they are explaining it.
Yep.


They would have given the same explanation they did in their press release. They explained ONE of their sites, then said they don't need to explain the rest, as they use "internationally accepted techniques". Even then, their explanation for Wellington is a little dubious (see previous post). So yeah, your right. That's not enough for me, or many others for that matter.
They use Wellington as an "example" in the press release. The Climate Science Coalition questions that there are SEVEN adjustments to stations. They have explained it, and more, you just won't get these explanations from Dunlevy et al at NZ Climate Coalition Blogs.

Renwick, Salinger and Niwa chief climate scientist David Wratt hit back at the claims of manipulation.

Wratt said Niwa climate scientists had previously explained to members of the coalition why such corrections had to be made. He was disappointed they continued to ignore that and present misleading analyses.

Salinger said adjustments were made for legitimate reasons, such as changes of site.

"I haven't seen this work but it will be b......., because I have worked on this for many years.

"When I was doing my PhD, looking at the record up to 1975, there were at least 50 to 60 climate stations started in the 1930s that, before we did anything, 90 per cent of them showed warming."

Renwick said there were several reasons for adjusting the temperature record, including introducing new thermometers or sensors to a weather site, and changes to its exposure caused by growing vegetation or urbanisation.

For example, the Wellington figures had to be adjusted down when the official weather site moved from the Thorndon waterfront to Kelburn.
www.stuff.co.nz...


You would question the reasons for adjusting if it showed cooling, would you not?
Here is a link to a pdf where NZCSC have taken a look into one of the sites, Hokitika. They have shown their methods and it raises further questions, which are yet to be explained. For example, it is shown that adjusting data for height (as in Wellington) isn't neccessarily an accurate method.
Dude, read the actual PDF, they only use the overlap period to get a cooler average. The reason why they only use the overlap is because if they where to trend out the South and the Higher station, the south historically is warmer, so what they do is find a point that show cooling and then make a claim that this is typical for the entire history.

Here we have a station almost at sea level (Hokitika South) reading (during the overlap period 1964/5) on average 0.3ºC colder than the other at 39 m altitude (Hokitika Aero).
www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz...
See how they cherry pick a point and then smear it to present an argument that the relocation that NIWA uses is wrong. This is not science bro. This is propaganda.
They have the overlap of 64/5. They then use that average to claim that the relocation in general is cooler. Look at the two periods, the earlier period at the lower position is warmer in general. Actually look at the graph. The overlap is cool, that is all.
So Hokitika was MOVED as well. IT WAS MOVED. That is why there are adjustments. NZ CSC know this but they take the readings of ONE point and then compare it to adjusted figures to point out a fraud that it not there. Just adjustments for stations that move but if you compare the trends from those moved stations, the trends are the same over the long term. NIWA has explained this by using the examples of Kilburn and the Airport. Hokitika is also explained this way.
NZ Climate Science Coalition claims there is no reason for the adjustments. Lincoln as well, it was moved four times.
Dunedin was adjusted and it goes against the trend. Sigh, some conspiracy to show warming hey! They adjusted and it showed cooling.

All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
From the Horses mouth. NZ Climates Science Coalition.
When they say "all the Adjustments" do you actually know how many station are adjusted? Wellington is explained, Lincoln, Dunedin and Hotikita. I have read that the Coalition claim there are 7, Four i mention above. Dunedin shows cooling. Some conspiracy hey. NIWA adjusted it, and it shows cooling after the adjust.
I bet you won't be questioning that adjustment.



This is refering to the other sites apart from Wellington. And as far as I'm aware, they have not explained their adjustments for these sites. However, if you could point out where they have, that would be great to clear up the matter.
Here is a link to multiple site adjustments. They use wellington and the Airport to show how even though sites move, the temp trends are the same with a variation due to relocation.
www.niwa.co.nz...

Hokitika also moved. And was adjusted. Lincoln was moved Four Times, Mclean from the Climate Science Coalition has mentioned that in his blogs and commentary on other sites. Dunedin was adjusted, it showed Cooling. Anyway, its a conspiracy yada yada.


I'm not entirely familiar with the Manhattan document, so I can't comment on that, sorry. However, I agree that we should be questioning ALL sources, including NIWA, instead of accepting broad, generalised statements as an acceptable explanation.
Well get familiar with it. And research The Climate Science Coalition in NZ. It is the same dribble coming from the Climate Science Coalition that you are accepting now. They tried this in 2006. Is it not funny that it is happening again on the back of the Hadley Hack and Copenhagen?
You want to use example of "bad" or what you label "dubious" explanations from NIWA but neglect the same habits in those presenting an attack on NIWA. What was the Coalitions rationale for presenting that none of the locations needed to be adjusted given the changes in the stations over time? Changes in location, technology etc. They simply claim that no adjustments needed to be made.
NIWA has been presenting the same samples and data without question for decades now.
Look at the Timing of the release, Curious. We have the Hadley Hacks and then the Climate Change Coalition wants to build on that smear by this attack when the data is also being misrepresented by them to accuse NIWA of doing the same. They accuse NIWA of not explaining their methods, But NIWA releases both the raw data and the adjusted. Think about it? This issue is under close scrutiny, NIWA has been scrutinized by the Climate Science Coalition before the Hadley Hacks. Do you really think they would hand over such incriminating, easily exposed findings if they were conspiring to show warming. Really, think about it!
It makes no sense for NIWA to expose the very data that would incriminate them in dubious practices given the veracity with which climate science skeptics like the Coalition attack.

Thanks for the reply.


[edit on 2/12/09 by atlasastro]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join