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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.