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.

 

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted


www.newscientis t.com

Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year's "climategate" scandal.

Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bbc.co.uk




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
It will be refreshing to see the results of the sudden availability of raw climate monitoring data which, up until now, seemed to be held as someone's property.

Perhaps it will show that the researchers, despite their personal beliefs, made an honest effort to report what they thought it meant. On the other hand, it may show model assumptions and methods which others may find improperly applied.

Either way, this is one example of why freedom of information requests are necessary. And should this prove to be an incomplete set, or somehow manipulated, it will only be a matter of time before it is known.

We need to take better care of this world. Someone has yet to explain how 'money' is the solution.... Disingenuous propaganda films aside, whatever inconvenient truth arises from the information will likely be politically inexpedient for some...

www.newscientis t.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Who says it is "raw" and "untampered"?

Them?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
please explain to me why sea levels are not rising and why there was a mini-ice age in the middle of the industrial revolution, i would really really really like you input on it

welshy



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


I'm just the messenger. The response to a freedom of information act request like this should reasonably be expected to be free from 'tampering,' although I can appreciate your skepticism.

We've been led down that path before....



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Even when they saw 'Raw Data' There isn't too much rawness about it 5,000 Stations of Data. Doesn't Sound to convincing too me.

Especially when the Earth is 40,000 Kilometres in Circumference.

With the Entire Surface area of Earth (Including Water) Being 510,072,000 km2

I'm not exactly inclined at all to believe in the BS they release.

So for every 102,014Km2 On Average(Including Water Surface Area) There is a weather Station with Data. BS!

They only take what Data fits their agenda to show a warming trend.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Not Happening




edit on 28-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
THANK YOU!!!

Some people will still create excuses to treat this planet like crap but hopefully some more people will realize that sucking the Earth dry of it's natural resources is only going to get us in trouble.

Great post S&F



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JennaDarling

Who says it is "raw" and "untampered"?

Them?


We alreadt know their temp, sea level and CO2 monitoring stations were cherry picked and situated to give the results they wanted.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Three words: Hide The Decline



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Render a sphere with 5,000 vertices and maybe you'll come to the conclusion that that's a pretty good resolution if the distribution is reasonable.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I'm amazed that there are still people who think that climate change isnt going on. Notice how those that deny that humans are having such an effect on climate change have such a lack of concern. Even if this was true and it was a natural process we still should be very concerned about it as history has shown what dramatic climate change can do to life on earth.

But these people dismiss that we are effecting our own planet at all which is ridiculous when you understand how the earth functions. If this was the case they should still be worried! So what if its a natural process? It can still cause awful disaster on our planet.

I dont see how people can still think this way though, its so painfully obvious that we are causing a lot of the damage, in my lifetime I have noticed dramatic changes in weather in the UK and when you look at our activities on this planet its no suprise. Big business has literally almost no concern about the planets welfare until its customers do and they suddenly race to be 'green'.

Do people still believe the flimsy lies pushed by scientists on the polluting parties payroll? A few theories have made me think that things maybe arnt as apocalyptic as some claim, but honestly I think both sides exagerate to achieve the most shock factor which means that we get two distorted arguments. It is so awful that the average person on the street is so ignarant as to how important our most precious resource is.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Welshextremist
 


Thats what the telegraph said www.telegraph.co.uk...

But look how they have changed their tune totally now! - www.telegraph.co.uk...

They went from saying it was the biggest lie ever told to now confirming that they are rising faster than ever in the past 2100 years than any other time in the pasty 2millenia.
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
After 5 years of trying to get the data threw FOI
they were ordered to comply .A person could easily become suspect and think they were hiding something .The data is useless to my mind but there are skeptics within the scientific community that want to know and are able to understand the data .It wont take them long to figure out what the data is saying and put it in a context that us feeble minded people can understand ..who knows maybe there will be a consensus ...peace



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 
false, doctored, padded data is as good as no data...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Welshextremist
 


What's a "mini ice age"?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I for one am not going to post ether way on this till i can find the adjusted data and compare it to the raw data.

Then i also will keep a watch on climateaudit.org... to see if it compares to my conclusion.

But the raw data is only a small part of the controversy one of the major parts is the short time the AGW suporters go back in time.
Few go back any more then 3000 years using tree rings and there is a lot of contravirsy about ice core data and the fact that no studies have shown if the data recovered is not altered by time and pressure on the ice.

I do know that the scare tactics of the AGW people do not match Paleoclimatology data or conclusions.
en.wikipedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by clintdelicious
 


Of course there is climate change, the climate is changing every second of every day. What we should really be concerned about is the deliberate climate change caused by geophysical weapon systems in the hands of the US military.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
reply to post by Welshextremist
 


What's a "mini ice age"?


a min-ice age was a figure of speach however the mini ice age or little ice age was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, different climatologists put a different date on it but most say it was around the same time as the industrial revolution



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
It is quite obvious that we need to take better care of our home. It is in pretty bad shape. That diesn't mean watching "green" television or driving a turd Prius either. Most of the real damage is definately being done by mega-corps who don't care what or who they harm in their thirst for money and power.

Also, regardless of what this "raw" data shows, doctored or not, it doesn't prove that human beings are causing the change.

IMO, from some classes I took in college with a really awesome climatologist, the idea that human beings can cause such changes in the global temperature are completely retarded. Hello! The largest greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR! It makes up 97% of the gases...

Still, responsibility for your home is just a good idea..



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Does anyone have a list of the CRUT3 stations?

They mention having data from Canada, but I can't seem to find the datasets for the 300 stations we have recording.

I can find the datasets from Environment Canada, not from MET.

Also, in MET's diagram:
MET (bottom of page)

there is a very little on Canada in the diagram.

However, Environment Canada produces a fairly detailed digram:
Environment Canada-Spring 2011

Any help?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join