1880 IS getting colder!

page: 3
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Good Find, Unfortunately, we are all at the mercy of greedy $$$ people and truth and reason does not exist. Scientist still Postulate..ie guess, about a lot of things, even when presented with real data. They continually argue amongst themselves, often for "Notoriety" or just plain ego..and the $$ that come with it...not to mention towing the line of the Benefactor for research..therefore more $$$ if they say the right thing.
Yes it is a conspiracy.
Mini ice ages, Yes 1400s, 1700s...etc...When white man colonised Australia is was lush and green, in a few years the drought cycle kicked in (about every 10 years) and the country dried up. 4 years ago Australia had just come out of a "We're all gonna die" 10 year drought, and the last few years have been the wettest and coldest since records (only 100 years). This is Normal...This is Earth...This is our Universe.

In the 1880s there was MUCH MORE Pollution around than nowadays, for almost 100 years there was more pollution, EVERYBODY burnt wood and coal and Cow dung to heat water, Cook food, Heat houses/buildings, Build Railways, feed Locomotives, Ships, Transport, build buildings....etc etc...
In fact most of the forests of Europe were cut down over 400 odd years...Huge tracts of land in the new World were cleared for pasture, and some became dustbowls...only since the conservation 1970s have people planted trees again.
What effect did all this carbon of that period, have on the Climate? Did everyone die?
Not to mention the 1883 Krakatoa eruption that spewed millions of tons of ash, carbon, chemicals into the atmosphere (probably cooling certain parts of Earth)
There are TOO many variables in our climate just to blame humans and carbon. In fact the past few years have seen Many Volcanic eruptions, perhaps the reason seasons are getting colder.




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


WOW. In the last 7 years the mean temperature raised by six hundredths of a degree Celsius.

.06 isn't much at all.

So basically if it's true and the trend continues then it will be 20 years before it raises about 1 degree.

Not too worried yet.....



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 


gort51....why are there replies from you under this (Panic2k11) name profile, AND from gort51? One Panic2k11 is accusing Puterman of feeding "the ignorant" and then Gort51 is saying "good find" blah blah blah, all from the same
Panic2k11 profile "replies I posted" links. Kinda fishy. You trolling or what? Or is it some sort of glitch? Hmmm....



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 


What you fail to understand is that by "adjusting" the recent temps up, or down in the past, does two things.
It gives the appearance of an ever INCREASING warming trend, AND allows them to make claims of new record highs, ie BIG HEADLINES.

PROPAGANDA



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Here's my line of thinking:

These scientists are getting their historical record data from different sources. Some are direct temperature readings, others are various proxy data (tree rings, grapes harvests, ice cores, boreholes, corals, etc etc), some from the northern hemisphere, some from the southern, and so on... and each claiming to be the more accurate reading.

Now depending on how you mix these data up to arrive at an overall mean temperature for that time frame, you will come up with different answers of +/- degrees. And in this case, we are calculating temperatures to the tenths of degrees, so there should no allowance of error margin.

Follow that as you go further down the timeline plugging in the data, and you get more and more eschewed.

It would be like measuring a 12 foot run of countertop to cut and fit into place nice and snug up against your wall... If the wall is slightly out of square by 1/8th of an inch at the corner, by the time you reach the end of the 12 foot run it'll be out by over 1/2 an inch at that opposite end.


Either that, OR


These guys have a time travel machine and they're zinging back to 1880 and gathering proxy data from different sources at different places and each time using the newer data as their starting point.




Perhaps it may be worthwhile for you to look into where each of your source reports are collecting their source data from ? You might find out one guy got his from grape harvests in Italy while someone else got theirs from Yucca tree rings in Central America.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Well again you are feeding the ignorants, when I say climate change I'm clearly not referring to "normal climate pasterns" but to the prevalence of abnormal ones.

As for the numbers I have only skimmed the claims of change. Since any scientific claim must be sourced and published (preferably in a recognized peer reviewed site, as to become relevant and verifiable/traceable) I see no point on shifting the numbers (even if possible in a non-scientific but propagandistic context). If we are talking about scientific papers even if a rouge scientist (or a group, working together) could produce false information. The factual data shouldn't be prone to change as it has already been made public, one would simple need to get new paper with the wrong facts get the source reference for the facts and contact the publisher of the new paper or the organization that employs the researcher...


The claims of change are data based and climate change is a consensus based on the data, not all climatologists are in agreement with the data, especially the modern data. Neither do they need to be in agreement with the consensus for the same reason, and a whole lot more reasons when it comes to putting money into the kitty. At the moment the whole climate debate has become a shambles. As for you saying "feeding the ignorants" you could start at home since you have not looked at the numbers, then you have to decide whether you believe or not.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Just couldn't be put better, cheers, smurfy.

The -/+ is a totally unknown to throw a mean at.

edit on 18-11-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by wlf15y

Originally posted by joecool9887
I understand what you see but there is no reason to change data but who knows. The only thing I see these days is more fluctuation in temp and more in winter why I don't know this year in winter it hit 80 just unreal. It could be a sign of our weather destabilizing faster then what we thought. This is all theory of coarse. They said if it warms to much the weather could spin out of control just maybe it is starting. We need to change the way we do things I know we have the technology to produce clean energy. It just needs to move faster. We also need to save what we have left of our oil supply in case we ever need it you just never no.


You have to understand that there are things that effect our climate/weather on many different timescales. For one, there are ocean oscillations that have approximately 60 year cycles, so weather, or weather patterns we're seeing now may not have occurred in the last 60 years at least. I don't know about you, but I'm only 41 y.o. and know I haven't seen it all.
Here's the key though. When they make claims of unprecedented, never before seen, all time record, etc...when you actually do the research, you will find it ALWAYS has precedence, especially if you look at all the different proxies we have available to us now, in addition to written history. A good example is Arctic sea ice. The "records" we're seeing are the SATELLITE record, all 35 years or so of it. But there are papers out there that prove it has completely disappeared for periods during the Holocene Optimum. There is also evidence that as recent as the MWP, it was gone in summer. So apparently we still aren't as warm as they claim we are, seeing how Mann and Hansen claim we're now warmer than during the MWP.


I can go with that, all through the 1940's most of the 50's and 60's and 70's this part of the world had pretty cold winters, and sustained periods of coldness, and rough weather to boot. 2009 winter was cold, 2010 winter was severe...questions about 2010 in particular! There are also questions about the modern temperature gathering, how they are sited, and questions about the validity of NOOA satellite findings, all part of the mechanics used by climate scientists.


Yep, and in regard to station siting, most of the "record" temps are due to average temps (day and night), or higher "lows" caused by primarily UHI effect, as most stations are now located in urban areas, or had urbanization built up around them. The new USCRN (U.S. Climate Reference Network) which has pristine siting conditions as per NOAA, shows that "record" July at 2.1º F COOLER than the old USHCN, poorly sited network.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
edit on 18-11-2012 by wlf15y because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by wlf15y because: reply to wrong member



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Here's my line of thinking:

These scientists are getting their historical record data from different sources. Some are direct temperature readings, others are various proxy data (tree rings, grapes harvests, ice cores, boreholes, corals, etc etc), some from the northern hemisphere, some from the southern, and so on... and each claiming to be the more accurate reading.

Now depending on how you mix these data up to arrive at an overall mean temperature for that time frame, you will come up with different answers of +/- degrees. And in this case, we are calculating temperatures to the tenths of degrees, so there should no allowance of error margin.

Follow that as you go further down the timeline plugging in the data, and you get more and more eschewed.

It would be like measuring a 12 foot run of countertop to cut and fit into place nice and snug up against your wall... If the wall is slightly out of square by 1/8th of an inch at the corner, by the time you reach the end of the 12 foot run it'll be out by over 1/2 an inch at that opposite end.


Either that, OR


These guys have a time travel machine and they're zinging back to 1880 and gathering proxy data from different sources at different places and each time using the newer data as their starting point.




Perhaps it may be worthwhile for you to look into where each of your source reports are collecting their source data from ? You might find out one guy got his from grape harvests in Italy while someone else got theirs from Yucca tree rings in Central America.



No, Puterman is comparing instrumental data, and what they're doing to it, not proxy data.
Now that's not to say that they're making these adjustments according to proxy data, which
would be foolish at best, but I don't think they are. They're making excuses to adjust it, mostly
due to alleged "time of observation" discrepancies. It is interesting though as the adjustments
ALWAYS result in a "cooler' past and ever warming present. AND, it's not like they went
through the data, made the adjustments, and that was that. They continue to go back,
sometimes MONTHLY and make more adjustments. Somewhere I read how they made
adjustments over and over and over, for a period of like 6 months, continually adjusting
the past down, and the present up, to all the same data.

If anything, all the metadata is probably garbage by now.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


Ah, okay... thanks for that.

I had to go back and reread his post. He's just simply pulling the data from GISS and plugging it into an excel spreadsheet. So in theory there should be absolutely no changes to previous entries, the numbers are what they are... unless he's got recalculations linking back and forth somewhere...

I've just downloaded his spreadsheet from his blog and am now looking through the cells to see how he's linking the individual worksheets back to his collection sheet and charts.

I'm curious to see if I can catch a simple human error in his linking somewhere. I'm a spreadsheet addict so this gives me a little makeshift project to putter around with.


edit on 18-11-2012 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I don't need to look at numbers to be certain that the climate is not "normal" or even to believe that to a large degree humans are to blame, empirical evidence besides the statistical analysis of the weather pasterns and a longer time frame will not be more than further indication that we, humans are the primal cause. I do not require certainty that we are the primal cause (even if I'm interested to know, as all other causes) the indisputable fact remains that we humans are the only ones that can do something about it. Now what we should do and the scale would be the starting point of debate...

To me one thing is simpler to understand in any given system the more energy is put into it the more chaotic/dynamic it becomes, reducing the human generated stress on the system will undoubtedly provide a more clearer picture, this of course is not simply reducible to green house gases emission, even if the focus has been mainly been that because there is an economic interest in the game of carbon trading.

The ozone layer issue is clearly our creation as well as the shifting weather pattens due to creation of new large water basins and the extinction of others due to human use. Another less talked issue is the heat we introduce on the system on all our activities and we could also cover the deforestation (less humidity in certain regions and less wind drag and soil protection). That air pollution (not specifically green house gases) also affect weather patterns, for instance by promoting precipitation. There are many factors to consider and some should have already been globally addressed...

As for the idea that the whole climate debate has become a shambles I couldn't agree more, but is simple to find the culprits, as always just fallow the money (those that will lose it and those that will gain it). As for "feeding the ignorants" I stand by what I said...



Well again you are feeding the ignorants, when I say climate change I'm clearly not referring to "normal climate pasterns" but to the prevalence of abnormal ones.


Only someone clearly deluded can believe that things have remained the same in the last 3 decades, and there are many that are still living in an "altered reality" or are simply incapable of extracting meaningful ensign due to lack of personal experience or the convoluted discourse.

I was clear and transparent in regards to the importance that I give the allegations of the OP, and I explained why, I trust the scientific process, even if I can accept that there could have been intentional deception I do not accept as credible that it would on ATS that I would find someone exposing in first hand a proper analysis. With no disregard to the OP anyone doing a proper work of it would also pursue a better avenue to expose the misdeed.


edit on 18-11-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


I see this, too. Similar use of parentheses, but Gort51 tries to look different with random use of Capitals. Sorry, side conspiracy. Carry on.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Okay, hold on a minute... now I've just confused myself.

PM, you've got several excel worksheets in your workbook that do not carry the same data numbers from the GISS index that I can see. Which I guess is what you're talking about.

So where were you pulling those numbers from ? And what are their sources for those same temp dates ? Because every one of them is different...

With that in mind, I go back to my other post where you should be questioning where these scientists are getting their temp data from. Like I say, not all temps, for example 1880, are going to be the same if these guys are getting their info from proxy data. If you're using several different proxy data to get your mean temp calculation, it won't be the same as someone else's who may have used different proxies than him.

Either that, or they've been messaging the original instrumental data thinking their making the appropriate changes necessary in order to account for differentials in time, place, etc.

It's the only thing I can think as to why all these different sources have different temps for the same months in the same years.

Example is your worksheet 2005-11: The 1880 temps from Jan-Dec are different from worksheet 2005-12 which is different from worksheet 2007-08... and so on. If each of these are coming from different science articles, then again I ask: Where are they (each different scientist) getting their monthly/yearly data from ?

Before having a good look, I just assumed you were pulling all of your numbers from the one gistemp website you linked in your blog, and making your yearly temp change comparisons from that ?

Now I'm lost...




reply to post by wlf15y
 


I agree, if these fools are physically horsing around with rare metadata and then other people are using that as their starting points for their own research and then they're horsing around with it and so on... then original historical data could very well be lost forever and these SOB's won't admit to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Ugh !!

I had to go back and reread your post for a third time until it sunk into my brain what you were doing.

Okay, so for the past year you've been accessing gistemp to record the following months data and then plugging it into your worksheet... but at some point you noticed that previous years numbers were not the same, even though their site page seemed to be.

So now you're having to peck around the internet trying to find their old sets of data to prove to yourself that you weren't losing your mind. And lo and behold, sure enough, they've been changing past years numbers. And that's what all these different worksheets are about (2005-11, 2007-10, etc).

*sigh*

Now, I've got it... I think what threw me off was looking through your worksheets before properly reading your post. Anyways, now that I'm past my blond moment, I can see what your saying.

It's obvious to me that these guys are blatantly messaging numbers... not by accident, and not for the purpose of accounting for differentials. They are outright messaging their own data.

So my question is: Have you noticed at all whether or not on each of those old data sets if they've changed their stated sources ? Example: On the now current data sets they have online, at the top they show their sources as :
sources: GHCN-v3 1880-10/2012 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1
12/1981-10/2012 Reynolds v2
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

GHCN and Reynolds (NOAA) are version 3 and version 2 by the looks of it... so were there other versions used before ? And if so... why the revisions ?

You better believe it's very fishy. There is no reason to change (if they are) already existing historical data coming from the same sources, and/or no reason for those sources to be changing theirs, never mind changing almost constantly. Which makes me wonder if these guys ever stated the reasons for their revisions, or is that top secret info that the rest of the public is not to know about ?

I haven't been following this climate stuff for quite a while, so I haven't been up to snuff with the lastest and greatest snafu's going on... but I think I'll be revisiting my favourite climate news blog, you've tickled my fancy on the topic again.


Damn those slippery little goal posts, just can't seem to get them under control, can they...?
/tinfoil hat off



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Didn't "THEY" used to call it Global Warming but when that didn't work out too well, based on the data you posted, they changed it to Climate Change?? It was like someone said, "hey, dont use that global warming anymore but use the term climate change".

Someone has the ear of the media and I wonder who that is. Otherwise, this isn't really all that new but having the proof and data to back it up sure helps. You still will have those that throw up the Climate Change banner which is truth. There is Climate Change but that has been in existence for like 4 billion years or so.

I guess the main question is if this Climate change is because of something we did which I dont think we have THAT kind of power.......YET.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Ugh !!
It's obvious to me that these guys are blatantly messaging numbers... not by accident, and not for the purpose of accounting for differentials. They are outright messaging their own data.


TYPO of the Century!!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
You mean to tell us all that someone is cooking the books to support an agenda that is based on bad data, bad science, cultish behavior, government intervention, and educational brainwashing?

.
....
.......
..........

Holy Crap! I'm not shocked........ one... little..... bit.....

And here I was about to give some hipster corporation a bunch of money for carbon credits... whew, glad I didn't fall for that one...... lmao.....
edit on 19-11-2012 by aravoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
each year the early temperatures get progressively cooler and the later years get very slightly warmer. This takes place either side of the base 1950 to 1980 figures.

Global warming: An inconvenient falsehood.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Excellent find, it is threads like this that ATS is for.

As someone already said follow the money.





new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join