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.

 

A "Dummies Guide" showing how easy it is to disprove the global warming myth

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Like many of you, I've watched the last couple of truly brutal winters in the northern Europe and North America with nothing short of amazement and awe. I've been around on this planet for long enough to know for a fact that such winter weather extremes are most certainly NOT a normal occurence. In fact, one has only to take a look at the pounding that eastern Europe is taking right this very moment with temperatures plummeting to nearly -40c and major rivers and seaports freezing solid.
For a short while, it appeared that perhaps the UK would be spared a repeat of the last 2 winters but unfortunately, not so. Even though arriving late, the UK is now being hit hard once again with winter weather extremes.

Personally, I've always believed that the specter of "global warming" was nothing more than a politically based fabrication created with some kind of "global agenda" in mind.
I have always asked myself how can any person with common sense credit the idea or theory that the extremes of winter weather that the planet has been experiencing these last few years is somehow "the result of the planet getting warmer" and of course the chief culprit being CO2 emmissions. Even our beloved (
) leader here in Australia, Julia Gillard, apparently believes the planet is on an uphill path to warmer days and has had no hesitation in slapping us with a so-called "carbon tax" !

Now as serendipity would have it, just a couple of days ago I happened to find and read an article published in England's "The Telegraph" paper back in April 2006 leading with the headline



There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998


The article states that


... for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).


When I read the article, it basically added confirmation supporting what I had long since believed ... namely, that the much hyped and publicized global warming trend was nothing more than a "bogey-man".

It was at this point that a brilliant (at least in my opinion !) idea came to me. I thought surely a very simple way to prove/disprove the "global warming" scenario was to select a number of cities in the northern hemisphere and also select a number of cities in the southern hemisphere, and then obtain their respective temperature statistics going back a sufficient number of years and analyze them for any sign of temperature increase.
After all, it wasn't being called GLOBAL warming for nothing. So it stood to reason that any warming trend simply HAD to manifest itself in both hemispheres and more importantly, be plainly obvious.

Now I ask you ... how brilliantly simple was that !!


Ok, so I selected the following cities in the northern hemisphere:

London, UK
Naples, Italy
Beijing, China
Tokyo, Japan
Moscow, Russia
Seoul, South Korea
Nome, Alaska
New York, USA
Mumbai, India

and the following cities in the southern hemisphere:

Auckland, NZ
Singapore, Singapore
Asuncion, Paraguay
Adelaide, South Australia
Santiago, Chile
Sydney, Australia

For added measure, I also selected the closest inhabited location to the south pole, namely

Vostok Station, Antarctica


I then went to underground . com and looked up historical temperature data for each of the selected cities.

I decided that a 15 year historical range spread between 1997 and 2011 should be sufficient and that if there were actually any warming (or even cooling) trends to be seen, that they'd be obvious within that range.
Furthermore, I decided to focus on the 2 extremes of each year when it's normally coldest and hottest, namely the middle of summer and the middle of winter. January and July are respectively the middle of winter and summer for the northern hemisphere but for the southern hemisphere, it's the opposite with January and July being respectively the middle of summer and winter.

Ok, the next step involved calculating, for each city, an overall average or mean high temperature for January and July in each of those 15 years.
This was done simply by taking the highest temperature reached each day during that month, adding them together and then finding the average or mean low temperature for that month.
So as an example, I looked at the daily high temperatures reached in London in January, added them together, then calculated the average high temperature for that month. I felt that doing it this way would give me an easy way to compare the month of say January in London over that 15 year period and see if there were any significant temperature changes in either direction. My reasoning being that the average temperature of say January should give a very similar value no matter what year you choose to look at. After all, if the average temperature for London in January 1990 was around the 10c mark, then I would expect to see a similar 10c value for January in London no matter what year I looked at. Any significant deviation from this average January high temperature would imply either a warming or cooling process was taking place.

Finally, after a significant amount of number crunching of temps for each city over a 15 year period, I was able to generate the following January/July high temperature graphs for each of the target cities around the world. I used a mathematical modelling/analysis software package called Maple14 to generate each graph from my raw data.

Now I would highly advise that you take a very quick look at each graph in turn. Don't try to initially over analyze them but merely glance or "eye ball" each one in turn and try to get an immediate "gut feeling" as to whether you're seeing one of three possibilities ... a graph steadily increasing and signifying a warming trend ... a graph steadily decreasing and signifying a cooling trend ... or a graph thats essentially relatively flat and signifying a steady state.
If you're like me, you'll get a clear impression that over the 15 year analysis period, that temperatures globally have remained essentially steady and level with no indication whatsoever of gradual temperature increases as we've been led to believe are "supposedly" happening.


Northern hemisphere cities:




















Souther hemisphere cities:

















Continued next post ...

edit on 13/2/12 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Continued from previous post ...



The remainder of this post will have a mathematical basis so if you're feeling "mathematically challenged"
, by all means feel free to skip as I believe the previous graphs readily speak for themselves and from a visual point of view, easily dispute the myth that "global warming" is a "done deal" !


Now that you've had a look at each graph and hopefully agree with me that the initial impression is one of flatness or relative stability in temperatures recorded in each of the locations over a 15 year period, I'm going to now perform a statistical test on each cities average high temperature data to show from a mathematical perspective that the graphs are indeed essentially flat over that 15 year period.

I'll be using a simple statistical tool called the "Two Sample T Test. You can easily Google a number of easy to understand explanations if you're interested.
But basically, it's a test that requires you to select randomly, 2 smaller samples of data from a much larger data pool. For each of the samples, a mean or average value is calculated and then compared against each other. If the means are essentially equal, this implies that there is no significant variation in any of the data comprising the larger data pool. For our purposes, no significant variation in any of the means is basically a confirmation that the data contained in the larger data pool is relatively constant with NO significant up or down trends.

Let's do this test firstly using London's mean July monthly temperature values during the 15 year period 1997 to 2011 inclusive.


Here's the raw data that we'll be selecting 2 smaller samples (of 7 values each) from:

23, 21, 24, 21, 24, 22, 24, 22, 23, 27, 21, 23, 22, 24, 21

and randomly selected, here are the 2 smaller samples:

22, 24, 21, 24, 21, 24, 23
23, 24, 21, 21, 22, 23, 22

We are now going to make an assumption (called the Null Hypothesis) that essentially says we believe that the 15 years worth of data is relatively uniform and will show NO significant deviations that would imply a warming (or cooling) trend is occurring.
Essentially we want to see as little as possible difference (preferably zero) when comparing the means from the 2 smaller sample data sets. If such is the case, then we can assume that our "Null Hypothesis" is indeed correct and that there is NO evidence of any kind of warming (or cooling) trend in the larger data pool.

Here's the result from Maple14 after plugging in the above data.



The important part is at the bottom where the results state:


Result: [Accepted]
There is no statistical evidence against the null hypothesis

In other words, analysis of the data obtained from 15 years of July monthly high (summer) temperature readings from London indicate NO evidence of an increasing (or decreasing) trend.



And here's the analysis of London's monthly January high (winter) temperature readings over that same 15 year period:
Here's the raw data that we'll be selecting 2 smaller samples (of 7 values each) from:

5, 9, 9, 8, 7, 9, 8, 9, 10, 7, 11, 11, 6, 4, 7

and randomly selected, here are the 2 smaller samples:
9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 11
10, 4, 11, 9, 6, 5, 9




Again, the important part is at the bottom where the results state:


Result: [Accepted]
There is no statistical evidence against the null hypothesis

In other words, analysis of the data obtained from 15 years of monthly January/July high temperature readings from London indicate NO evidence of an increasing (or decreasing) trend.


So, using London as a test case, we can see that there is NO obvious indications that London's annual weather patterns have statistically grown warmer or colder during that 15 year period from 1997 to 2011 inclusive.


I won't bother boring you by reproducing the T Tests for the remaining cities but please feel free to do them yourselves if you're feeling particularly bored ! :-)


However, for each city, and especially the Vostok Station in Antartica, the summary of each test will display the following result:



Result: [Accepted]
There is no statistical evidence against the null hypothesis



So, in conclusion, it doesn't take super computers, teams of dedicated scientists and huge sums of research money to cast significant doubt on the "Global Warming" myth ... al it takes is a little bit of research using readily available data, perseverance and most importantly of all, plain honest to goodness common sense !

An additional and unexpected conclusion:
As has been shown, on one hand there appears to be NO significant statistical basis for assuming that the world is gradually heating up.
But on the other hand, there also appears to be NO significant statistical basis for explaning the la



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
One easy way to prove it is not a hoax: Look at the North Pole. Just water left.


Also, if global warming is actually happening, where do you think it would start to be the most notable? Near the equator, or near the poles? I see most of the cities you choose are pretty close to the equator except the vostok station.

Comparing the last 15 years is no good when talking global warming, you need to have the years before the industrial revolution included at the very least, as that is where we started messing with the environment. So try including the last 200 years if you want the full picture. Oh, and don´t forget the North Pole!

edit on 13-2-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Briliant! That must have taken some time to do! S&F Thanks!


Simple maths, love it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Been saying this for 10 years, but people always want to fight me on it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
My fridge is really hot at the back. So how then can it be freezing inside.

Damn conspiracy weirdos selling me a bunk item and telling me it will keep my food cold.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh
My fridge is really hot at the back. So how then can it be freezing inside.

Damn conspiracy weirdos selling me a bunk item and telling me it will keep my food cold.


Because your fridge is a heat exchange mechanism ... it removes heat from one location and moves it to another. However, overall there is no NETT loss or gain of heat/cold.

But "global warming" stipulates that the entire earth is gaining heat ... not merely shifting it around !



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
GREAT post!

I appreciate the work and effort you put into this. I only had to watch "Great Global Warming Swindle" to see Gore's same charts from Inconvenient Truth added to solar activity, our number one source of heat! Der!


Also looking into the history of Maurice Strong shows a very ugly, corrupt, greedy man, who's now hiding in China after being kicked outta the U.N. teaching them how to make money in carbon taxes.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The main problem with your method is that it only takes in account 15 years. According to the theory that CO2 and other compounds are affecting our weather, it goes back a couple of hundred years and to the start of the industrial age that this trend began.



www.epa.gov...

When looking at more in depth studies of the overall global mean temperature there is a small increasing or warming trend. The forecast is for more extreme and unusual weather events, both hot and cold depending where you are.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
The main problem with your method is that it only takes in account 15 years. According to the theory that CO2 and other compounds are affecting our weather, it goes back a couple of hundred years and to the start of the industrial age that this trend began.



www.epa.gov...

When looking at more in depth studies of the overall global mean temperature there is a small increasing or warming trend. The forecast is for more extreme and unusual weather events, both hot and cold depending where you are.

I understand your point but still have to disagree


We've been constantly told that "Global Warming" is an ongoing condition that is affecting the overall temperature of the planet. This logically implies that average temperatures MUST be on the increase and therefore, these increases MUST be visible over time.

I elected to use 15 years as I believe that to be a sufficient period of time in which to see any temperature anomalies being manifested ... whether continual temp increases (global warming) or continual temp decreases (global cooling).

But based on temp data for many cities scattered around the globe over a 15 year period, there is NO such trend (up or down) to be seen.

We either have global warming with temp increases ... or we do NOT have global warming, in which average temps for cities around the world will be relatively flat lined .. and thats what my test cities are showing.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by mainidh
My fridge is really hot at the back. So how then can it be freezing inside.

Damn conspiracy weirdos selling me a bunk item and telling me it will keep my food cold.


Because your fridge is a heat exchange mechanism ... it removes heat from one location and moves it to another. However, overall there is no NETT loss or gain of heat/cold.

But "global warming" stipulates that the entire earth is gaining heat ... not merely shifting it around !


That's simply not true. It is a gradual change that has many different affects in many different regions.

Global warming involves more than warmer temperature. You have to factor in that more water vapor in the atmosphere means more rain elsewhere, bringing with it cooler temperatures. The oceans also are affected and as one area heats up, it causes changes in the weather, bringing cooler water to other areas.

It's not "It's getting colder, so there can't be such a thing as global warming." It is a gradual and erratic process that involves various differing weather patters, getting extreme cold weather is not proof there is no warming, it's an indication that things are not stable.

The arctic region is undeniably getting warmer.

This sort of sums it up

Dr. Overland discussed the remarkable winter of 2009 – 2010, which brought record snowstorms to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, along with the coldest temperatures in 25 years, but also brought the warmest winter on record to Canada and much of the Arctic. He demonstrated that the Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a “Polar Vortex” of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009-2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air around the pole. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward. This pattern is kind of like leaving the refrigerator door ajar--the refrigerator warms up, but all of the cold air spills out into the house.


Link

It's a fallacy that has risen by the nature of the phrase "Global Warming". The real term should be "Climate change" and it is changing. And it is getting warmer in some areas while those warming regions are the cause of the extreme climate changes in others.

It's not as simple as "There is a blizzard in Europe, so much for that global warming fiasco."



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


ever heard of heat distribution? If one area of the world gets extreme hot weather another area will get extreme cold weather. This is due to the weather patterns and other things that make up the climate. When you get a degree in climate science give your opinion then....



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh

Global warming involves more than warmer temperature. You have to factor in that more water vapor in the atmosphere means more rain elsewhere, bringing with it cooler temperatures. The oceans also are affected and as one area heats up, it causes changes in the weather, bringing cooler water to other areas.

It's not "It's getting colder, so there can't be such a thing as global warming." It is a gradual and erratic process that involves various differing weather patters, getting extreme cold weather is not proof there is no warming, it's an indication that things are not stable.


So are you agreeing that global warming as such is a fallacy ?

Bear in mind that the term "global warming" implies that the NETT temp of the earth is increasing over time. This means that theoretically, no matter what part of the planet you choose to measure, the average local temp must be on the increase.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by tauristercus
 


ever heard of heat distribution? If one area of the world gets extreme hot weather another area will get extreme cold weather. This is due to the weather patterns and other things that make up the climate. When you get a degree in climate science give your opinion then....


Errrr, what ?????

What part of the term "global warming" do you NOT understand ?

If we go by your simplistic explanation, we do not have overall warming but have something along the lines of LOCALIZED climatic variations.

Your degree and experience in climatic science sure shines bright


ETA: Hmmmm ... so according to your theory, there should be parts of the world where the temp must be way over what they normally expect in order to "balance" the -28c temps in eastern europe at the moment .... care to tell us which unfortunate country (ies) are at the moment roasting with an additional +20c or more above their normal temps ?
edit on 13/2/12 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by tauristercus
 


ever heard of heat distribution? If one area of the world gets extreme hot weather another area will get extreme cold weather. This is due to the weather patterns and other things that make up the climate. When you get a degree in climate science give your opinion then....


Errrr, what ?????

What part of the term "global warming" do you NOT understand ?

If we go by your simplistic explanation, we do not have overall warming but have something along the lines of LOCALIZED climatic variations.

Your degree and experience in climatic science sure shines bright


like i said get a degree in climate science...
oh in case you was wondering heat distribution gives rise to convection currents that attempt to equalize the heat distribution. So on a global scale you will have warming and on a local scale you can have cooling as the heat is distributed elsewhere.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007

like i said get a degree in climate science...
oh in case you was wondering heat distribution gives rise to convection currents that attempt to equalize the heat distribution. So on a global scale you will have warming and on a local scale you can have cooling as the heat is distributed elsewhere.


[sarcasm]
Ok,obviously without knowing your background, we'll take it completely on face value that you DO know what you're talking about
[/sarcasm]

Soooooo .... how about explaining (use the Laws of Thermodynamics if you need to) exactly how a process of heat re-distribution i.e. moving heat from A to B, actually increases the NETT global temperature ?

Again, to refresh your short term memory, we're discussing GLOBAL WARMING ... the implication being that the average heat content of the earth is INCREASING over time and not remaining constant as it would if we simply shifted x amount of heat from say, europe to asia.

The term Global Warming automatically implies an input of "additional heat" from some external source.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 




We either have global warming with temp increases ... or we do NOT have global warming, in which average temps for cities around the world will be relatively flat lined .. and thats what my test cities are showing.



www.pewclimate.org...

When you view the last 15 years of mean global temperature variations they do seam fairly flat compared to the longer term trends over the past 100 years. In trying to understand and predict the weather it is a tough complex job with many complex scientific, political, economic and environmental factors to consider with the repercussions. Big systems do move slowly and not every year is consistent, but there is a lot of force behind it when it does move. Ask questions, but don't keep the blinders on too tight.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I think u need to reread what i posted where did i say this:- moving heat from A to B, actually increases the NETT global temperature.

I said no such thing are you twisting my words to fit your agenda or what?

Global warming does not imply an external source. The warming is due to an excess of CO2....and very soon methane which will accelerate the warming even more giving way to more extremes of highs and lows in temps..
edit on 13-2-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 




Bear in mind that the term "global warming" implies that the NETT temp of the earth is increasing over time. This means that theoretically, no matter what part of the planet you choose to measure, the average local temp must be on the increase.


This is incorrect. 2/3rd of the Earth's surface is water, so the global mean temperature is a more accurate gauge of the water temperature rather than the land temperature, but it includes both. On average some places will get hotter, some get colder and other not change as much. Overall, the average global water temperature is on the increase defining Global Warming. The result this will have on land is Climate Change as long established weather patterns alter with pressure changes between the ocean, air and land.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
So you've gone back 10--15 years in a few cities around the world and really expect this debunks 1000's of independent studies conducted globally around the world!?!?! Come back to me when you've drilled some ice core or done isotope studies on sedimentary rocks around the world. This is a little beyond the $5 thermometer you bought down at cash and carry and an excel spreadsheet.

Cities are not even the most accurate places to take these measurements as the large amounts of skyscrapers act as thermal sinks and will throw off your measurements

As anyone who has studied the global temerature across millions of years knows the global temperature fluctuates all the time.



However it does this over thousands of years not just a few decades. Rises in global average temperature by just 1 degree typically can take up to one millenia, and we've seen a rise of 0.7 degress just in the past 100 years or so. Typically a rise of 1 degree or more can take more than 1000 degrees. This is very serious and can only be caused by man. There will always be small scale fluctuations but the global mean temperature is definitely on the rise.

So in short we should all be very worried.

1 degrees may not seem much when you’re adjusting your air conditioning, but it can push the snowline up mountains by several hundred feet, push the territory of malaria carrying mosquitoes hundreds of miles further than it has previously ever been (Malaria by the way kills more people per year than any other disease in the world), and can push temperature zones much further north at a pace which cannot be adapted by native flora and fauna, even assuming we had not created all these blockages by building roads and fragmenting forests through our ‘progress’. And this is just the 'tip of the iceberg' so to speak.

Increased temperature means increased energy in the atmosphere, which means far more intense storms and hurricanes heading further north than ever before. It also effects the world in a feedback loop meaning the wetter places will become far wetter and the drier places will fry even more, meaning more droughts in areas which are already on the brink. It can mean colder winters in places which are already cold, but this will only ever be short term.



edit on 13/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join