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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Reply to post by tauristercus
 


People just don't get it do they?

Some spend so much time trying to disprove something to where they look like asses.

It shouldn't matter at this point. We are seeing eath changes whether we own up to them or not.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
According to a report in 'climate depot' Arctic ice is thicker this year, so I am presuming that the Arctic is colder this year?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:27 AM
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.


It is a short coming of trying to explain complicated process in a simple fashion for mass consumption that the simplification can be misunderstood.

The bottom line of what is happening is that the Earth's atmosphere is retaining more energy than in the recent past (i.e. the last few 10thousand years or so). That 'extra' energy means there is more energy to create higher high pressure areas and lower low pressure areas, which means storms are both stronger and more frequent. The average temperature of the atmosphere is higher, so it can dissolve more water longer, so rain disappears from some areas, and is dumped in record amounts in others. The ocean temperature rises, which means it can dissolve more CO2 which makes it more acidic, which means the coral reefs cannot form.

The important thing about the term 'Global Warmth' is that it means the AVERAGE temperature of the atmosphere is rising. It doesn't mean that any individual recording station will record in lock step with every other recording station. It means that overall, the trend is up.

And that trend did not stop in 1998. 2011 was the 11th warmest year on record since 1880 (tied with 1997).

In 1998, the year the deniers like to think of as the end of the warming period, the warmest year on record was 1997. Understand that 1997 was number one, the warmest on record. It should be pretty easy to understand that one year doesn't make a trend, and even if 1998 wasn't as warm as the record year of 1997, that 1998 was still warmer than most of the preceding 10 years.

Fourteen years later and 1997 is no longer the warmest on record, it is tied for 11th. That means that 11 of the 14 years since 1997 have been warmer (or the same as) than 1997. It is impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, or spin of the data, to find a cooling trend, or even a flat trend in those facts.

Global warming is very real, and is having very real effects all over the globe, from melting ice packs at the pole to melting glaciers in the Himalayas and the Andes; from earlier harvesting in the wine regions of France and Australia to the collapse of entire ecosystems due to a mismatch between flowering and pollen spreaders; from coral reef collapse to devastating fish stock reductions; from catastrophic drought/flood pendulums in Australia to increased numbers and strengths of hurricanes/typhoons in the Oceans.

A few actual statistic summaries for 2011:

State of the Climate
Global Analysis
Annual 2011


2011 Climate Change in Pictures and Data: Just the Facts

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Extreme Weather Events in 2011

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Science and Impacts



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 





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.


Er... no. "Global Warming" is a shorthand way of saying that the total energy in the Earth system is increasing. It does not mean that any one spot is going to be getting warmer that is weather, and "Global Warming" isn't about weather.

"Global Warming" is about Climate Change brought about by the increasing total energy being retained. The overall global temperature trend is up, that is what adding energy to a system does, it warms it up, whether that system is a kettle on the stove or the atmosphere around a planet.

Adding energy to a system inevitably causes changes in the behavior of the system; the water in a kettle starts boiling, a warmer atmosphere holds more water for longer resulting in drought and floods more violent than previously recorded.

It is real, and it is happening.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa


 




That means that 11 of the 14 years since 1997 have been warmer (or the same as) than 1997. It is impossible, by any stretch of the imagination, or spin of the data, to find a cooling trend, or even a flat trend in those facts.

And yet I've presented you with verifiable data that has NOT been "imagined or spun" for those 15 years showing essentially a flat temperature trend. Have you actually investigated the data yourself and satisfied yourself that there was indeed a warming trend for 11 of the 14 years that you mentioned ? Because I certainly don't see any such trend and neither does the data. Perhaps then you'd be kind enough to show me where my interpretation of the 15 years worth of data is in error.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 




Please explain why there's no "noticeable temp" increases in the last 15 years.


In actual fact, the last 15 years include at least 12 of the warmest years on record since 1880. 1997 was once the warmest on record it is now tied for 11th with 2011. It looks like the ceiling has become the floor.

Some of your graphs show the years between 1997 and 2011 being mostly warmer quite clearly, some of them don't. You don't have enough data points to establish any trend, up, down, or flat. Starting your graphs in 1997, which is warmer than every year before it, is misleading you. Go back another 15 or 20 years or more, and you will see the trend.
edit on 14/2/2012 by rnaa because: cleared up my meaning in the last paragraph.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Most proxy data is accurate within 2 degrees Celsius. This means we have a high, a low, and in most cases what's in between +/- 2 degrees. We have multiple proxies from multiple sources which all more or less agree.


But that's my point... a +/- 2 degree error margin is not good enough when we are currently screaming for global policy changes due to a 0.7 °C increase in temperature. Again, precision then becomes a must for historical comparisons if we are to apply panic over tenths of degrees. And no, we do not have proxy data from multiple sources all over the globe, most of the proxy data has been taken from the northern hemisphere. You can't deny that.


Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Here's another challenge for you since you failed quite miserably at the first one. Try and find any naturally occurring phenomenon which we attribute the current rise in global temperature to.


I didn't "fail miserably" at anything because we both know there are no such scientific data points showing what you asked for. This does not mean that absence of data equates to non-existent events. Again, precision of tenths of degrees in a short geological timescale is needed to compare the tenths of degrees we're claiming right now in this short geological timescale.

And as for finding any naturally occurring anomaly attributed to global temperature rise and/or fall, well that gets back to the base arguments, doesn't it ? Something as simple as the hydrological cycle and oceanic circulations has changed their predicted "trends" just in the past decade or so. They are no longer on track with "runaway" global warming, nor are they on track for their calculation of a 3°C rise in temps for every doubling of CO2. Nor has the oceans risen at their predicted rates, nor has the arctic icesheet disappeared at their predicted timeframe, nor are the glaciers melting at the rates they predicted. All they can do now is move the goal posts by saying, "Well, we may go through a small cooling period, or slowdown rate of warming due to temporary natural occurances, but eventually the unprecidented warming will kick back in and take over."

Sounds like assumption and speculation based on (already) faulty calculations to me.


Originally posted by 1littlewolf
We have inaccuracies of +/- 2 degrees ranging across temperature spans of 20+ degrees over a known period of time. You do not need to be accurate to the tenth degree to get a fairly precise picture of what's going on.


But we do need that accuracy when we're panicking over tenths of a degree as it stands right now.


Look, I don't argue over the fact that we've warmed, and I certainly don't argue the fact that we need to clean up our act, whether AGW is happening or not. But what I do argue is that this science had damn well better be spot on perfect, with no room for error, if we're to utilize it as a means of making drastic changes to socio/economic policies worldwide.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 




And yet I've presented you with verifiable data that has NOT been "imagined or spun" for those 15 years showing essentially a flat temperature trend. Have you actually investigated the data yourself and satisfied yourself that there was indeed a warming trend for 11 of the 14 years that you mentioned ? Because I certainly don't see any such trend and neither does the data. Perhaps then you'd be kind enough to show me where my interpretation of the 15 years worth of data is in error.


Your mistake, whether intended or not, was to start your window on the previously record setting warm year; you deny your readers and yourself the knowledge that every preceding year was cooler, and not a continuing 'flatish' sequence going back in history. In addition,15 years is not long enough to see the trend, it is simply not the case that every year is strictly warmer than the previous year (as you seem to be trying to imply), and there is always a large amount of local variation due to a number of local weather pattern anomalies. You simply don't have enough data points to be meaningful, and looking at individual reporting stations is not looking at climate, its looking at weather.

Twelve of the warmest years on record occurred in the 15 year window you use. Clearly, that 15 year period is warmer than the fifteen year period before it. That fact alone demonstrates a continuing warming trend, not a flattening and certainly not a cooling.

You have no way to notice that because the year you started with is warmer than every year before it; the specific values oscillate up and down, there are peaks and valleys. The value for 1997, once a peak, appears to now be a valley. You have no way of seeing that while 2011 is cooler that most of the years in your 15 year window, it is still warmer that every year that preceeded your 15 year window.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Most proxy data is accurate within 2 degrees Celsius. This means we have a high, a low, and in most cases what's in between +/- 2 degrees. We have multiple proxies from multiple sources which all more or less agree.


But that's my point... a +/- 2 degree error margin is not good enough when we are currently screaming for global policy changes due to a 0.7 °C increase in temperature. Again, precision then becomes a must for historical comparisons if we are to apply panic over tenths of degrees. And no, we do not have proxy data from multiple sources all over the globe, most of the proxy data has been taken from the northern hemisphere. You can't deny that.


It is good enough if you what you are looking for is average rates of climate change over very long periods of time. Even with a 2 degree margin of error factored in there is still no evidence for temperature rises of more than 1 degree over the course of 1000 years except as rebound effects of a rapid cooling. Besides this is only the error margin for proxies which stretch back 10s to 100s of thousands of years. The ones we have for under a 5000 year time span are far more precise and do show tenths of a degree.

And you do have to keep in mind that the two well known rapid cooling periods have occurred after long periods of gradual warming which has in turn caused the northern ice sheets to melt. You do not deny that the Earth is warming, and the evidence is overwhelming that this warming is human induced.

Yes you are quite right about most of the data being collected in the northern hemisphere...... but this is also where most of the worlds population lives, which means we have the most data in the areas where climate change will affect the most people.



Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Here's another challenge for you since you failed quite miserably at the first one. Try and find any naturally occurring phenomenon which we attribute the current rise in global temperature to.


I didn't "fail miserably" at anything because we both know there are no such scientific data points showing what you asked for. This does not mean that absence of data equates to non-existent events. Again, precision of tenths of degrees in a short geological timescale is needed to compare the tenths of degrees we're claiming right now in this short geological timescale.

And as for finding any naturally occurring anomaly attributed to global temperature rise and/or fall, well that gets back to the base arguments, doesn't it ? Something as simple as the hydrological cycle and oceanic circulations has changed their predicted "trends" just in the past decade or so. They are no longer on track with "runaway" global warming, nor are they on track for their calculation of a 3°C rise in temps for every doubling of CO2. Nor has the oceans risen at their predicted rates, nor has the arctic icesheet disappeared at their predicted timeframe, nor are the glaciers melting at the rates they predicted. All they can do now is move the goal posts by saying, "Well, we may go through a small cooling period, or slowdown rate of warming due to temporary natural occurances, but eventually the unprecidented warming will kick back in and take over."

Sounds like assumption and speculation based on (already) faulty calculations to me.


Yet there is data which shows rapid cooling....

There have been no documented major shifts in either global wind or water currents which can be attributed to the warming we are experiencing at the moment. And if there was then climate change debunkers would be all over it like a rash. Glaciers are receding as is the arctic ice sheet. Just because it has not happened as fast as some climate change analysts have predicted does not mean we should throw our arms in the air and declare it all a sham. It is still happening, and it was predicted it would happen. You are merely cherry picking the direst predictions in a large pool of possible scenarios. According to many climate change analysts we are right on track.



Originally posted by 1littlewolf
We have inaccuracies of +/- 2 degrees ranging across temperature spans of 20+ degrees over a known period of time. You do not need to be accurate to the tenth degree to get a fairly precise picture of what's going on.


But we do need that accuracy when we're panicking over tenths of a degree as it stands right now.


Look, I don't argue over the fact that we've warmed, and I certainly don't argue the fact that we need to clean up our act, whether AGW is happening or not. But what I do argue is that this science had damn well better be spot on perfect, with no room for error, if we're to utilize it as a means of making drastic changes to socio/economic policies worldwide.


We will never have that data until it's far too late to do anything because gathering that data requires a few more centuries on top of what we have now. I am not denying that there is a very small chance that I might be wrong, but it is very unlikely. All these scenarios have been independently verified by 1000's of scientist around the world as the most likely outcome. And these are people who know far more about the situation than both of us.

Besides, even in the most unlikely event that we are wrong about climate change..... the payoffs that we receive from global environmental policy changes will still far out way the benefits....










edit on 14/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Allow this dummy to chime in. Your observation constitutes fact! Interesting but without foundation.

You chose some cities. Hardly representative of the entire planet.

By all means ignore the anomalies maps at www.esrl.noaa.gov...

By all means ignore that the tropospheres is much thinner at the poles.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
So basically, wading through all the blah blah, global warming is caused by us, according to a lot of you.
Why then, is Mars, as well as the rest of the planets in our solar system, experiencing proportionally similar warming trends? Must be all those Martian SUV's....



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
If you still have the data readily available, I wonder if you could do the following and let me know what you find?

Take the difference in the highs and lows and plot that difference over time. I'd like to get a sense of the volatility of the temperature swings which seems to me to be increasing dramatically over the past 15 years, moreso than the average temperature itself seems to be moving. 15 years isn't long enough to pick up a trend in an average for what you're trying to do but it might be long enough to identify increasing fluctuations, which shows that the "extremes" are becoming more common and that concerns me more than the temperature itself frankly.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 





Besides, even in the most unlikely event that we are wrong about climate change..... the payoffs that we receive from global environmental policy changes will still far out way the benefits....


Well at least that part we can agree on. (The rest of your post I still disagree with though)


However, it seems that environmental policy changes are not taking place as they should be... and instead, these damn politicians are pushing their carbon tax ponzi scheme in front of everything else. And as far as I'm concerned, this carbon tax thing is a completely useless corporate money grab guised under the umbrella of 'doing the world some good'.

Yet again, corporate agenda is going to win the fight. Come hell or high water (pun intended) these guys are going to keep us poisoned, polluted, and choking on our own fumes.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
And yet I've presented you with verifiable data that has NOT been "imagined or spun" for those 15 years showing essentially a flat temperature trend. Have you actually investigated the data yourself and satisfied yourself that there was indeed a warming trend for 11 of the 14 years that you mentioned ? Because I certainly don't see any such trend and neither does the data. Perhaps then you'd be kind enough to show me where my interpretation of the 15 years worth of data is in error.
I think that's already been suggested in this post:


Originally posted by kwakakev
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.
It looks to me from that graph like there was not only a flat line but perhaps an actual decrease from 1945 to 1965, which is a 20 year period. Yet is not the overall trend of that graph moving higher, despite a 20 year period where it moved slightly lower?

If your hypotheses is: Temperatures do not increase every year in every city. Then you have proven that, but I think that's a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the global warming claims. The time scales you're looking at are pretty short and your data selection pretty narrow.

I don't see a flaw in the data you presented, just in the conclusions you are drawing from it versus your strawman interpretation of global warming claims which are not the actual global warming claims...that's your error.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Severe global warming always precedes an ice age (whether mini or significant).
People need to remember that Earth spends more time cold than mild; a ratio that stands at around
10,000-15,000 years of mild weather for every 90,000-100,000 years of "ice age". We're currently deep into the ending of a 15,000 year warm period, evident in the sudden decrease in ice, and rise in severe winters.

Whether or not mankind is responsible for this mess or not is kinda trivial. We know pollution affects air quality. That's reason enough to go green. Screw the temperature, though the temperature is about to become a factor too, and soon people are going to have to make some tough decisions in regards to food and society as temps continue to fall.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
You also have to understand that most places have more thermal mass that absorbs heat.

100 years ago it would be pretty sparse in most of the country. Now we have lots of places that are built and they absorb energy. That mean is a station was set up to record temps back when there were only a couple of buildings around and now its surrounded, those buildings would be artificially increasing the temp.

Also, not sure if this was brought up, only read the first page but the climate gate emails sure give credence to it being made up.

Now it could still be happening, of course they changed it to "climate change" now so that they can't be wrong.

I know around hear the climate changes sometimes within minutes.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


I agree, I know there isn't enough data to charge humans with global warming or climate change.

I do care about my health and the health of those around me, so that is enough to invest on going "green" even though I hate that term. I prefer environmentally sustainable. We are stewards on this planet and we are doing a very poor job of managing its resources. Their is enough data that we know that particulate matter being ejected after combustion of carbon base materials affects us (oil, gas, trees). Heck breath in the exhaust of a car (don't, please!) and you can tell right away its bad (cough, cough). We know that continued exposure to stuff like that is bad for our health.
edit on 14-2-2012 by calnorak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
skepticalscience.com has a great graphic that sums up the OP's naive argument in a nutshell:




This is exactly the type of exploitable ignorance you are asking for when you seek out a "dummies guide" shortcut to a topic as complex as man made global warming.

If you want a "smart, critical-thinking person's guide" to global warming - I suggest reading a website like skeptical science - which offers a HUGE repository of information on the many myths associated with this subject (including the idea that it's been cooling) while presenting the FULL side of the story, and still making it easily digestable in layman's terms.



...
When you actually take a "smart, critical-thinking" approach to global warming - you will also come to realize that all the singular focus on surface temperature records is ultimately quite useless. Man made global warming is all about the physics.

Because of the physics - we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a heat-trapping effect of ~3.7 Watts/m^2.

We also know, beyond reasonable doubt, that absent any feedbacks - this heat-trapping effect would lead to an overall global warming of ~1.2 °C.

However, because the majority of climate system feedbacks are positive (amplifying) this number is expected to actually be somewhere in the range of 1.5-4.5 °C.


If you are going to effectively argue that the Earth is cooling - then you need more than some sketchy cherry-picked station data: You need to provide a physical explanation for why it is cooling. This means you need to find a mechanistic cause, or a mathematical model on how overall feedbacks, and thus "climate sensitivity", are actually negative instead of positive.


Thus far no skeptic out there has even come close to producing this result. Certainly not enough to overcome the mountains of evidence we have pointing in the other direction.

Until you do that - all the graphs are moot, all these "dummies guides" are moot, all the so-called skepticism is moot - because it is nothing but a stand-in for lazy, blind, willful ignorance on a subject that has 150+ years of rock-solid science behind it that you need to go learn FIRST.


Making the effort to analyse and understand the FULL body of evidence is how you come to deny ignorance. Trying to weave your way around that with dummies guides is nothing but a shortcut into ignorance.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Waste of space this is the same as looking out the window in winter seeing snow and calling hoax because it is cold out - in winter. There are a lot of actually science that would beg to differ with your science fair research project.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Global warming exists but humans are not the cause its just a natural cycle in the earth. If we have Ice Ages every once and a while your telling me we can't have Hot ages lololol. People will come up with the craziest theories just to get money. I mean look how hot is was on this planet when dinosuars existed majority of the planet was rain forest. We have only existed on this planet for how many years, we can only know so much about the earth. But if you guys want to continue to think there is a problem and that we are causing go for it lol.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join