1880 IS getting colder!

page: 5
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by elvisofdallas
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Funny that you mention textbooks. I have been told (on multiple occasions) that my memories of being taught about the "coming ice age" that might cause the extinction of humanity are imaginary, caused by a false meme spread by climate change deniers. I've even had links sent to me debunking my memories.

Seriously, I remember science class at Harper Elementary School in the late 70s/early 80s where we were given a greatly simplified explanation for the end of large reptiles (ice age) and in the text books it was explained that humanity (through the use of dangerous chemicals like CFCs) was contributing to a potentially disastrous tipping point of heat loss that would result in a global ice age.

I'm shocked by how easily people forget the stories they are told when the stories are changed completely.

Related more recent story: I remember after 9/11 how the taliban were said to have angered the eastern block mafias because they had destroyed the poppy crops as they hated heroin trade. Within a few years, the story was shifted to say that they were in fact the biggest drug dealers ever (like, totally, oh my gerd!)...
--

I rarely comment or reply, but I really appreciate seeing that other people exist who recognize that much of what we're told is at best incomplete and at worst complete bull#.

THANKS!


Oh dear how to make history match your opinion by changing one single word and a totally wrong relationship.

The wrong relationship is in linking CFC's to global warmning. This was never ever the case. CFC's were always linked ozone layers and ultra violet radiation and the increase in skin cancers. This is something skeptics do all the time to try confuse the issue......very cheap trick.

The offending word is in paragraph 2 where you have stated "would" instead of "could". The theory of how an ice age "could" trigger is still a theory (once you replace the incorrect link to CFC's with the correct link to ice loss) and still valid .....until proved to be false. Now we can't prove the theory to be false until the arctic melts !




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by elvisofdallas
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Funny that you mention textbooks. I have been told (on multiple occasions) that my memories of being taught about the "coming ice age" that might cause the extinction of humanity are imaginary, caused by a false meme spread by climate change deniers. I've even had links sent to me debunking my memories.

Seriously, I remember science class at Harper Elementary School in the late 70s/early 80s where we were given a greatly simplified explanation for the end of large reptiles (ice age) and in the text books it was explained that humanity (through the use of dangerous chemicals like CFCs) was contributing to a potentially disastrous tipping point of heat loss that would result in a global ice age.

I'm shocked by how easily people forget the stories they are told when the stories are changed completely.

Related more recent story: I remember after 9/11 how the taliban were said to have angered the eastern block mafias because they had destroyed the poppy crops as they hated heroin trade. Within a few years, the story was shifted to say that they were in fact the biggest drug dealers ever (like, totally, oh my gerd!)...
--

I rarely comment or reply, but I really appreciate seeing that other people exist who recognize that much of what we're told is at best incomplete and at worst complete bull#.

THANKS!


Oh dear how to make history match your opinion by changing one single word and a totally wrong relationship.

The wrong relationship is in linking CFC's to global warmning. This was never ever the case. CFC's were always linked ozone layers and ultra violet radiation and the increase in skin cancers. This is something skeptics do all the time to try confuse the issue......very cheap trick.

The offending word is in paragraph 2 where you have stated "would" instead of "could". The theory of how an ice age "could" trigger is still a theory (once you replace the incorrect link to CFC's with the correct link to ice loss) and still valid .....until proved to be false. Now we can't prove the theory to be false until the arctic melts !

The EPA seems to think that there is a connection between CFC's and global warming....


CFCs are very stable in the troposphere. They move to the stratosphere and are broken down by strong ultraviolet (UV) light, where they release chlorine atoms that then deplete the ozone layer. CFCs are commonly used as refrigerants, solvents, and foam blowing agents. The most common CFCs are CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115. The ozone depletion potential (ODP) for each CFC is, respectively, 1, 1, 0.8, 1, and 0.6. A table of all ozone-depleting substances shows their ODPs, global warming potentials (GWPs), and CAS numbers. CFCs are numbered according to a standard scheme.

EPA



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 



Can please provide links to data that we can check otherwise those charts are entirely out of context and created by you and totally subjective.


If you bother to read the OP you will see that I have provided you the means to do this.

It requires a little bit of application on your part to offer a rebuttal, not just expecting things on a plate. Please do download the data as I have, and create the charts, as I have and then tell me that it is out of context or subjective. In the absence of any effort on your part your remarks are also out of context and purely subjective.


Now the only way we can determine (without other folks going off on the usual rah rah rah see I am right ATS rant) is for you to provide links to the data that you state is changing. Both the old and changed data. Since you state the historical archive has not changed then that is a perfect link to a base reference. Once we have the link to the "changed" data then we can assess why.


So now I have pointed out to you that I already did provide the links, off you go and check it out.

By the way I am a programmer and I deal with data all day long. I know better than many here perhaps the importance of being able to go back to the data that created a chart which is why you will find if you are familiar with my posts that I NEVER post a chart or give an opinion without referencing the data from which that chart or opinion was drawn.

edit on 19/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


If you read carefully you will notice that I haven't been rude, at best direct and frontal. If one does not make his statements clear those that can will exploit them to further their own objectives. Not being clear is something that should not be pursued, it is the path of those that have no convictions or capacity to defend them. Being clear and frontal cuts on the duplicity, that was what I always aim for...



me you are actually in agreement


In the generalities and conclusions we are, I was just asking that you be more clear on how you presented them so that those that still claim that all is "normal" that we shouldn't be concerned do not feed on it...



The question really is have we been around long enough with accurate records to determine what is and is not a 'normal climate pattern'?


I think that this is an important question but it confuses the issue we live in a world that is human centric, to our scale, most of the inferences we can be sure have been made in the last 400 years. We should first center the issue on a time scale that the population can understand. I'm not very old and in my life experience I can assert that things are not as they used to be, records adulterated or not point to a great variation but that normally is slower, what we are witnessing is an acceleration of the extremes in regards to the time scale. We are almost on a point that we can only distinguish 2 seasons.



I do not believe that in all honesty we can say what is or is not a 'normal' pattern with regard to weather, earthquakes, volcanoes or anything else.


In general terms that is valid but looking into the problem at an human scale you can make valid observation, understanding the human nature, you can also promote human action to the short list of suspects, if not only due to inaction (lets say that the cause definitely is not us, should we not consider to do something about it ?).

It is clear that weather related problems are worsening, getting more common and having a larger impact. To a point we understand what we can do to at least reduce the risks and promote stability.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 



The offending word is in paragraph 2 where you have stated "would" instead of "could".


I would suggest that before you start pontificating about what may or may not have been said back in the 1970s you consider this:

I was around in the 70s and the phraseology use was indeed would in exactly the same manner as warmists now say the co2 increase will cause an increase in temperature and the melting of the ice caps and raising of the sea levels.

The scaremongers then were preaching ice age, and they used would and will in exactly the same way as the scaremongers do now. I have never seen a warmist say could or might or may. Think on't lad.

By gum. Pot and kettle eh?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



If you read carefully you will notice that I haven't been rude, at best direct and frontal. If one does not make his statements clear those that can will exploit them to further their own objectives.


First time I have been accused of not making my statements clear, but there is always a first time for everything. Direct and confrontational could be considered to be the same as or bordering on rude, but hey I am 64 and been there done that so please don't think i was offended. Water/duck/back and all that



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Yes the ozone layer erosion has impact to climate change. The more radiation gets in the more heat/energy it provides, creating an increase in weather patterns dynamics...



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Yes the ozone layer erosion has impact to climate change. The more radiation gets in the more heat/energy it provides, creating an increase in weather patterns dynamics...

Ozone layer erosion lets through UVC radiation, which has very little heating effect.

Most of it is reflected back into space.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I didn't accuse, the first was a request for clarification and the second a compounded realization that you seemed to be making an effort not to be as clear as you should...

Sorry if I'm the first to call you out on it but as I said re-examine the dialog and note that I had no intention of being rude.

If you are interested into this subject, the wikibook Climate Change needs some help. Consider participating in making things clearer and information free.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Are you stating that it has no impact ?

How little or how it is reflected depends on surface conditions, even on the level of humidity/pollution, I don't see a point in the correction since I clearly did not state that it was a major contributor but in your wording you make it seem that UVC radiation is the only concern and something that should be ignored. I disagree with oversimplified that view...



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Ach stop being so serious! You are labouring something that frankly I am at a loss to understand since I considered I was quite clear about the graph but..............

..........I like your link to other posts I might enjoy that is in your signature. I definitely do enjoy them


Peace my friend. Life is too short.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Regarding your reply to my point about lack of Antartic weather stations, by noting expeditions to the region, you appear to fail to realize that expeditions do not make for weather stations. Yes, they took temp. measurements, but they didn't do it on a regular basis at the same place, year in and year out. There were likely some whaling stations in the Antartic ocean, which would make for regular observations, but expeditions don't cut it; they're to ephemeral.

And Antartic stations are but one component of what I brought up regarding the difference in observation sampling points between now and back then. What about floating weather buoys and satellite observations over large portions of the earth, i.e. the oceans, which it was not possible to get static, regular temperature measurements? Again, I'm guessing that the historical average temperatures are corrected for this to make them consistent with current observed average temperatures.

As for belittling models, citing your programming experience, if you know anything about science, everything is model based. And yes models can make bad predictions or get fed bad data, but models can also be very powerful at predicting things. To just say models are bad and can introduce errors is not a compelling argument.

Also your response to my point about correcting for the fact that ice sheets are now much smaller compared to 1880 seems to miss the point. I would imagine IF such a correction is used, it is done for regions of the earth for which there were regular (by this I mean consistent, time-wise and location-wise) measurements back then, i.e. the oceans and the Antartic. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this field, so I don't know if such modeling corrections are made or not, but I can conceive of why they may be introduced in order to count for poor spatial distribution of weather stations back in the day. Yes, we have data from back then, but not nearly as much, so such extrapolations may be necessary.

Back to the satellite temperature imaging issue for a moment: I believe that sometime in the last 10-15 years there was some paradigm shift in what was believed to be the best estimate of the global average temperature and this had to do with measuring the temperature of the ocean via satellite imagery; furthermore, I believed this changed the absolute value of global temp averages. If this is indeed so, then there would be corrections made to data before such measurements were possible, based on the difference between contemporary conventional temp. measurements and these satellite ones.

You seem to know where the data is, but not to know precisely how this global temperature average is determined. I don't mean this as a dig at you, but rather to suggest that you ought to look into this aspect of the matter further to see if there are such changes in technique that would give rise to these small changes in the data set over time. Rather than contacting the climate blog, how about checking with whatever agency/institution generates/maintains the dataset?

***

A few questions about your OP:

Also I am confused about your dates, your post's title and throughout it you refer to 1880, but then you talk about using a data set for the base period 1951-1980. Is there a typo here?

Additionally, in the lowest most plot in your OP, what are the units for the vertical axis, 0.01 C? I infer this to be the case.

***

Finally, keep in mind that these data set changes are on the order of 0.06 degrees C and the observed temperature difference over the period of 1880 to 2005 is about 0.9 degrees, so you are talking about a 1/15th difference or systematic error of less than 7%, which isn't insignificant but the trend/signal is still much larger than this, which means it is statistically significant. And keep in mind, this "error"/change in these data maybe because of more accurate corrections such as the one I suggested involving improved global temp. estimates from satellite imagery.

And yes, governments are entirely capable of suppressing reports and data and not allowing certain studies to be conducted. And sure, scientists are also capable of manipulating data, but what is in it for them to do so in this case? Governments are definitely influenced by business, in particular the petroleum sector. But are you claiming that all or the vast majority of the scientists in the climate field are in cahoots with environmentalists? That's an extremely doubtful proposition.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to respond to my previous post.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Simple explanation: They're using different data sets. The current data set uses GHCN-v3 (originally released in May, 2011. The data set you link to from 2005 used the original GHCN.

And within each version, there are refinements. The current version being used as of Septempber, 2012 is version 3.2.0. You can read up about the refinements to that version in the technical report here.
edit on 19-11-2012 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Nice catch! Typical agenda driven politics from the go green crowd - they will do anything to get what they want.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



Also I am confused about your dates, your post's title and throughout it you refer to 1880, but then you talk about using a data set for the base period 1951-1980. Is there a typo here?

Additionally, in the lowest most plot in your OP, what are the units for the vertical axis, 0.01 C? I infer this to be the case.


I will answer this part first. If you look at the pages from which I extracted the data it states that the base period is 1951 to 1980. No typo. That is what it states so basically the mean to which all the others are anomalies are related is the mean of the period 1951 to 1908 which is about 14°C

The axis is labelled Hundredths of a degree Celsius. 0.01°C is indeed one hundredth. Nothing needs to be 'inferred' as it is clearly stated what the units are. The text was quite small and in words instead of numbers so maybe that confused you?


you appear to fail to realize that expeditions do not make for weather stations.


No I do not fail. I was merely pointing out that temperatures were known. Why would these not be just as good a record as tree rings for example which are 'iffy' at best and do not give precise temperatures.


The first Australian AWS were deployed during over-snow glaciological traverses. AWS were deployed in Wilkes Land in the mid 1980s during IAGP traverses

Source

I guess my point is that if there have been Antarctic weather stations since the mid 1980s and your premise is that Antarctic data was not available then why are they STILL adjusting the figures in 2012? Answer me that.


To just say models are bad and can introduce errors is not a compelling argument.


No I said that models can be wrong and there is no good argument for using models in favour of actual data. Slightly different.


Also your response to my point about correcting for the fact that ice sheets are now much smaller compared to 1880 seems to miss the point.


No I believe YOU have missed the point which is that the ice sheets in the 1880s were the size they were. You cannot 'correct' that based on the size of the current ice sheets. That is absurd.


If this is indeed so, then there would be corrections made to data before such measurements were possible, based on the difference between contemporary conventional temp. measurements and these satellite ones.


This is nonsense. The measurement point of satellites is not the same as weather stations and really should not mix the two datasets together. And what of the contemporary conventional measurements? Are those just discarded for the earlier years to be replaced by extrapolated satellite data? That is just wrong.

In all this please remember that I said can anyone explain so I am not saying the figures are wrong but that they need explanation. In my opinion your suggestions do not seem to make such an explanation.


And yes, governments are entirely capable of suppressing reports and data and not allowing certain studies to be conducted. And sure, scientists are also capable of manipulating data, but what is in it for them to do so in this case?


:shk: If you need to ask that they we are obviously on different planets. Does the word 'grants' ring any bells?


But are you claiming that all or the vast majority of the scientists in the climate field are in cahoots with environmentalists?


I don't think so, I don't recall saying that. Did I? But NASA may be perhaps? It is NASA that produce the GISS figures.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



Simple explanation: They're using different data sets


Unfortunately there is nothing 'simple' about that explanation.

ETA: I read from that that the datasets were changed in May 2011 and September 2012. Whilst that may explain 2 of the differences it does not explain the others, neither does it explain the curious fact that the earlier figures are getting cooler and the later figures warmer.

I have downloaded (am downloading) both V2 and V3 datasets and will have a look at them. I also have the PDF of what has been changed and so far I see nothing that would explain the figures.

edit on 19/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 

Infrared and visible light contributes the overwhelming bulk of our planets heat from the sun. Ozone does not inhibit either one from reaching the Earth's surface.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Not to derail your topic Puterman, but just wanted to show this since it was brought up.

I too remember while growing up in the 70's and early 80's that the idea was that we were cooling off and going to go into another ice age, and no, it was not my nor other's imaginations.

Here's an article from Newsweek, dated April 28, 1975:

Newsweek: The Cooling World


To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”


Back on July 9th, 1971 The Washington Times also did a story about this:

The Washington Times


NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” Read more: Inside the Beltway - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Here's a link talking about it:

Climat Depot

So no. Those of us that grew up back then and were old enough to remember it, it was real. They really were predicting a coming Ice Age.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

The wrong relationship is in linking CFC's to global warmning. This was never ever the case. CFC's were always linked ozone layers and ultra violet radiation and the increase in skin cancers. This is something skeptics do all the time to try confuse the issue......very cheap trick.


Actually, CFC's are extremely potent greenhouse gas molecules. Their concentration in the atmosphere is small relative to other greenhouse gas molecules so the net forcing is smaller, but not negligible.

CFC's also are the primary cause of the human induced changes in the ozone hole. The global treaty to reduce manufacture of CFC's has been successful and what previously appeared to be a growing problem is no longer a growing problem.

The treaty has ameliorated some global warming from CFC's.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Good work Puterman, what you need to do, if I may be so bold, is to collate together all of the sources - Archive.org or wherever else it came from - the datasets/temperatures/dates/etc, so that it can be readily validated by the press and those who are so easily lead that all they can say is "Baaaaaa"
edit on 19-11-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum