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.

 

2010 To Be Warmest or Coldest Year?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
2010 To Be One of 3 Warmest Years


This year is set to be among the three warmest since records began in 1850 and caps a record-warm decade that is a new indication of man-made climate change, the United Nations said on Thursday.



"There is a significant possibility that 2010 could be the warmest year," he said. A final ranking for 2010 is due to be published early in 2011.


This is very significant, if it is true. However, here's is another article that says this winter will be the coldest winter in 1,000 years.

Coldest Winter in 1,000 Years On Its Way


Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.



The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.


I guess it is possible to have a warmest, and coldest in a single year?

I dont know if this is a sign of troubled climate in the near future, but this does seem significant.

I guess we will have to wait and see what this winter brings.




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Well, I know from my own point of view that this year hasn'y been particularly warm in Scotland. We have gone through one of the chilliest summers I can remember. Day time high temperatures struggled to hit 20c(dont know fahrenheit) for most of the summer when we would normally expect it to be 4 or 5 degrees warmer. (this is based on my own observations and I cant provide a source)

And right at the moment, we are struggling through one of the worst snow storms in 45 years link... Outside my window looks like something out of "The Day After Tomorrow"!



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 



This year is set to be among the three warmest since records began in 1850 and caps a record-warm decade that is a new indication of man-made climate change, the United Nations said on Thursday


See now that's plain missleading...
They conveniently leave out the fact that scientists studying core samples etc have seen much warmer weather in the past...History has shown warmer periods...

But no, they use "since records began in 1850"..
Suits their agenda nicely...hoaxers!!



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


For me in Bulgaria this year is warmest. Now(at night) temperature is 18 degrees celsium. And when temperature go down it is not for long. Nothing bad for me, this is nice weather.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Of course it's possible.

One is the overall mean global temperature for a year, t'other is the temperature in one region of the globe.

A bit like this:

Lets say that the previous global temperature record was (I'm using easily understood numbers and simplifying) 10.

And this is made up of 5 equal regions. In one region (lets say R5), the lowest average temp was 5.

It is still entirely possible to have a sample which provides the following:

R1 = 18
R2 = 9
R3 = 11
R4 = 16
R5 = 4

Mean = (18+9+11+16+4)/5 = 11.6

So, we'd have both a regional coldest and a global warmest.

Basic stats and sampling, really.
edit on 3-12-2010 by melatonin because: she talks in maths, she buzzes like a fridge...



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I never believe anything the UN has to say.

What a bogus organization they are.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
You mean I came in from my sunbathing just to read about you guys freezing.... Man is it hot out there.

Here's a clue:

One side of the earth is always freezing it's butt whilst the other is sweltering.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Of course it's possible.

One is the overall mean global temperature for a year, t'other is the temperature in one region of the globe.

A bit like this:

Lets say that the previous global temperature record was (I'm using easily understood numbers and simplifying) 10.

And this is made up of 5 equal regions. In one region (lets say R5), the lowest average temp was 5.

It is still entirely possible to have a sample which provides the following:

R1 = 18
R2 = 9
R3 = 11
R4 = 16
R5 = 4

Mean = (18+9+11+16+4)/5 = 11.6

So, we'd have both a regional coldest and a global warmest.

Basic stats and sampling, really.
edit on 3-12-2010 by melatonin because: she talks in maths, she buzzes like a fridge...


No. That's absolutely not how it's done. The "overall mean global temperature" is a senseless value.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. That's absolutely not how it's done. The "overall mean global temperature" is a senseless value.


Yes. That effectively is how it is done.

You might want to believe it is 'senseless', but means/averages/central tendencies are a pretty easy concept to grasp and very useful.

It's why they teach them to children.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 




2010 To Be Warmest or Coldest Year?


It will be whatever you can be made to believe it was. The gassers want global warming to be more than an imaginary friend so they pretend it is real. The new ice agers want the Earth to freeze over so they are wishing it so.

Personally, I can't see much, if any change in the weather patterns. But... a little suggestive disinformation may make you susceptible to thinking that there's arctic ice in your back yard and the hottest summer in a million years just around the corner.

Just whatever you DO believe, make sure that you DO FEAR it... that makes the government and the science industry happy.


edit on 4-12-2010 by redoubt because: Typos



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I can easily imagine that many of the reporting stations reporting yearly temperatures are in cities or near buildings. Over the years and decades people have expanded cities and built other brick buildings, paved new roads, built more structures in the area and in surrounding cities. Temperatures in the man made cities retain heat, brick retains heat, asphalt retains heat. In some larger cities like Atlanta, the heat island effect evens alters the weather. Anyway take thousands of these types of readings from across the globe and I bet you'll see global warming looking strictly at that data collected. Meanwhile, the temperatures away from the heated cities hasn't gone up nearly as much if at all. This doesn't fit the data blueprint that some people want to use to claim global warming so they don't even bother relocating temperature stations to check true data. This is my opinion of data probably being off and people not recognizing it. It would be more accurate if we used temperature readings from the ocean at different depths to gage the level of global warming. I don't know if we use methods like these or if we are using old reporting stations that could be experiencing heat island effects.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. That's absolutely not how it's done. The "overall mean global temperature" is a senseless value.


Yes. That effectively is how it is done.


No. Actual temperatures across the globe are not averaged together by climate scientists to determine if the planet is warming or not. That is not how it's done.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. Actual temperatures across the globe are not averaged together by climate scientists to determine if the planet is warming or not. That is not how it's done.


Yeah, yeah. They use anomaly data.

Thus, they use a baseline comparison and compare trends to that. Moreover, the combining of data is much more complex than simply adding data, and requires assessment of the coverage etc, along with homogenisation, blah blah.

However, the exact same concept applies. Which is why using the simplified example I did illustrates the concept perfectly well. We have a grand mean and regional means for anomaly data, and there is no reason whatsoever that one region could show a regional coolest in the same sample with a grand mean showing the warmest.

However, we're not even talking about trends to assess warming here. Just comparison of regional and global records at two data points (i.e., past records and present states). For example, lets say we have a regional/global year record of temperature, we are comparing to the current yearly temperature. Doesn't even need an assessment of trend and the main point of the OP is not about warming. That's just your obfuscation.
edit on 4-12-2010 by melatonin because: we know a place where no planes go...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. Actual temperatures across the globe are not averaged together by climate scientists to determine if the planet is warming or not. That is not how it's done.


Yeah, yeah. They use anomaly data.

Which you just now learned after searching the web. Apparently you want us to believe now that you knew it all along. You've been lecturing to everyone on the board for months about climate change.



Thus, they use a baseline comparison and compare trends to that. Moreover, the combining of data is much more complex than simply adding data, and requires assessment of the coverage etc, along with homogenisation, blah blah.

However, the exact same concept applies.

No, it doesn't. And you would have never wrote what you wrote to begin with if you understood.



Which is why using the simplified example I did illustrates the concept perfectly well.

No, it doesn't. Not even close.
edit on 4-12-2010 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
Which you just now learned after searching the web. Apparently you want us to believe now that you knew it all along. You've been lecturing to everyone on the board for months about climate change.


And perhaps at some point in the past I actually came across the concept of anomaly data. Of course, you prefer to think I had to google that, lol.

ABE: here's a post from here in 2007 where I mentioned the concept of anomalies:


Originally posted by melatonin
...

Lets see a better view of the last 10,000 years or so, here's an approximation of average temperature anomalies over the last 11,000 years from 8 proxies around the world.
...
[edit on 1-4-2007 by melatonin]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you should ask for a name change to 'IamWrong"


No, it doesn't. And you would have never wrote what you wrote to begin with if you understood.


lol


No, it doesn't. Not even close.
edit on 4-12-2010 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)


Look, it isn't my fault you decided to blag on about climate trends. The assessment of trends isn't even that important here.

We take look for past records of temperature globally and in Europe, these data would have produced using homogenisation etc. Lets say we find

Max temp is 2005 globally. Lets say it was 10
Min temp is 1981 in Europe. Lets say it was 4

We then compare to the current temps. And we find:

Global Temp is 11
Europe Temp is 3

We therefore have a record in both cases. Coolest is Europe, warmest globally. We don't even need to assess the trend - it's not actually relevant. The absolute values would suffice.

This is entirely possible because Europe is but part of the sample used in the global assessment (i.e., a fraction of the data). And it is possible for the remainder of the sample to be quite different (i.e., higher).

Go take some stats courses.

edit on 4-12-2010 by melatonin because: you killed the sound, removed backbone, a pale imitation with the edges sawed off



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IamCorrect
Which you just now learned after searching the web. Apparently you want us to believe now that you knew it all along. You've been lecturing to everyone on the board for months about climate change.


And perhaps at some point in the past I actually came across the concept of anomaly data. Of course, you prefer to think I had to google that, lol.

ABE: here's a post from here in 2007 where I mentioned the concept of anomalies:


Originally posted by melatonin
...

Lets see a better view of the last 10,000 years or so, here's an approximation of average temperature anomalies over the last 11,000 years from 8 proxies around the world.
...
[edit on 1-4-2007 by melatonin]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you should ask for a name change to 'IamWrong"


No. All that does is show that you didn't even know what the term "temperature anomalies" even means. You only used the term because it was in the graph that you found.




edit on 4-12-2010 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. All that does is show that you didn't even know what the term "temperature anomalies" even means. You only used the term because it was in the graph that you found.


And from a year ago:


Originally posted by melatonin
...Comparison of 4 temperature anomaly measures - 2 satellite (RSS, UAH) and 2 station (NASA-GISS, HadCRU). They do a good job.
...
Each uses different baseline comparisions, so main differences due to that. But the satellite data is very comparable to adjusted surface datasets.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quit projecting. I can see that you're happy to post about stuff you barely grasp. Doesn't apply to all, you know.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. All that does is show that you didn't even know what the term "temperature anomalies" even means. You only used the term because it was in the graph that you found.


And from a year ago:


Originally posted by melatonin
...Comparison of 4 temperature anomaly measures - 2 satellite (RSS, UAH) and 2 station (NASA-GISS, HadCRU). They do a good job.
...
Each uses different baseline comparisions, so main differences due to that. But the satellite data is very comparable to adjusted surface datasets.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quit projecting. I can see that you're happy to post about stuff you barely grasp. Doesn't apply to all, you know.


Not really. The evidence is preserved above in the posts I quoted of yours where I told you that the "overall mean global temperature" that you talked about is a senseless value and that's it's not used by climate scientists to determine global warming. You even gave an example series of actual temperatures and averaged them together to try and help educate someone and show them how it's done. When I told you that's NOT how it's done, you initially responded that, "That effectively is how it is done", arguing with me and making some remark about even children being taught such things. Then when I again told you that's not how it's done, you finally responded after doing web searches on the issue, pretending to have known all along what temperature anomalies are, and gave a post or two where you included the word without knowing what it meant because that's the term that was used in the graphs. (Nevermind that the two types of calculations can give completely different results and are dissimilar). And it was really quite pathetic. And even above in the post where you first claim to know what anomalies are and how they're used, it's still quite clear to me that you still didn't really know what they are, although I'm sure at this point you're busy with your typical five minute, armchair-scholar Google searches trying to figure it out. And on top of that, you keep insulting me by saying things like, "go take some stats courses", "I can see that you're happy to post about stuff you barely grasp", etc.

All of this is climatology 101 type of stuff. Anyone who had a basic amount of knowledge as to how global warming or cooling is determined wouldn't be taking a hypothetical set of absolute temperatures and averaging them together to illustrate to someone else, and talking about "overall mean global temperature" at the same time.
edit on 4-12-2010 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
lol, if you bothered to read my post I did say it was a simplified example.

Your problem is that you have confused how climate scientists assess climate trends and comparison of data at individual timepoints.

Anomaly data is not required.

Moreover, the example I gave, while simplified, suitably illustrates why it's possible to have the events that the OP was interested in.

The rest is just your obfuscatory noise.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Looks like the chinese whispers of the media is the main source of the claim of coldest winter evar!!!!

The Polish scientist, Mikhail Kovalevski, seems to be the original motivator of the media kerfuffle. He recently said:


The reports in some media are absolutely unbelievable. A journalist who interviewed me for radio had asked me about the theoretical climatic effects of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream. I answered that this purely hypothetic scenario would lead to much colder winters in Poland. A few days later I found on the internet the article of a journalist who mixed his own words with some of my quotes without their context so well that a completely new meaning came out. An absolutely absurd thesis. My quotes as such are correct, so I was not able to demand a correction.

dinky

RealClimate also follow the development of the story from the original Polish news-site. Interesting how it mutated, eventually being pushed by a well-known denial site in the US. Ah, the denial machine at work.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join