1880 IS getting colder!

page: 7
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by buddha
 



Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.

so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?


Don't worry dear friend. You will!

Just give it about 10 years or so.

ETA: By the way the thread title is 1880 IS getting colder and NOT 2012 is getting colder.


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


You may actually be write on this, but only in the longer term. Climate change models suggest that with overall global warming, the change in ocean current flows may well bring cooling to the England, but over most of the earth temperatures will increase, particularly in equatorial regions, where hotter temperatures will have profound and negative effects.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


We shall see my friend we shall see.

I have to say that I like your style even though we perhaps are at odds on some points. I have added you to my friends.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



It should be noted that what has been charted are temperature anomalies not actual temperatures.


Thank you Phage. I personally am quite clear on what anomalies are but no doubt your post may have helped some.

On the subject of the datasets another poster had given the information. I have downloaded and will look at them.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I know a lot of people on here are in the know about what is really going on with our weather patterns and that the information is in and has been in our grasp for years.

The man made ahem cough * global warming agenda is a fallacy sold to the masses for profit and for other more sinister purposes!

They are bluffing us all cause the facts and the real data is being manipulated is because a ICE AGE is creeping in at a pace that has increased steadily in recent years, the planet is becoming WETTER and weather patterns are becoming erratic and the is also reflected and driven by the ocean. YES some country's are the polar opposite! Pardon the pun, but this is to be EXPECTED as the current forecasts and also models based on core samples and other data shows that is NORMAL and CRITICAL to the process as the hotter climates evaporate at an alarming rate the HIGH PRESSURE drives the newly formed rain clouds that are inevitably created are dispersed in colder more northern parts. Our lands in the north become saturated and our water levels rise and the colder more harsher winter does the rest once the freeze starts , our focus should be on the spread and global coverage this could reach critical fairly quick years not days or months , also all it took was for a global drop of 2 degrees for the 1800 mini ice age to start. Add to this the ocean temperatures if they decrease by 3 degrees the process is massive catastrophic in fact, our existence is so fragile that either way a few degrees + or - and we can expect global changes that will threat our existence and or populations numbers and I aint even touched on the ocean and how critical this is in the whole process aint got time on mobile and I'm sure others will link and dig into this, plz I implore you all to investigate this and the effects and make up your own mind AGAIN.

As we see this is a calm peaceful period for our planet and during this we as a species have thrived rapidly, HOWEVER this isn't the norm for our little blue marble we call home it is actually very abnormal. FEAR not though this period isn't understood very well and is based on models and projections from data even the experts don't agree on , so how can we, but they expect it to be 10s of years rather than 1000s YAY or 1000s not 10s cough and scratch head mmmmkay experts huh.

But my spidey senses are all over the place they know and so do we but now we are being made to FORGET THRU MISINFO and this is what makes me look a little closer. TPTB or GLOBAL INC have and do know the truth makes one wonder are we being left out in the cold.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by PuterMan
 





Yes the older data is being changed. Not the data in the archives but on the published report. By comparing the 1880 figures from archived copies of the reports on the Wayback Machine I can see that the older figures are not the same


Oops, looks like the Global Warmers forgot to scrub the pots and pans....


Oops, looks like climate-change deniers are latching onto any arguments to confirm their world views, without bothering to investigate the reason(s) for the dataset changes that have to do with how science works, i.e improving data corrections, given additional information provided by advancements in technology and knowledge; OR realizing that the overall trend in the data, which points to climate change, is not affected by this small difference in the datasets that the OP has brought up. But why deal with facts, statistical significance and dataset refinements when one can make a mountain out of a mole hill -- without knowing the basis for the mole hill in the first place -- and use that to prove a conspiracy theory?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
As I understand it the evaporation of ocean water, bringing rain, is largely caused by sun light rather than ambient heat. Perhaps the recent reduction in certain polar regions has more to do with the amount of sun light reaching the surface instead of increased temperatures. I'm wondering if fairly recent efforts to reduce pollution in the atmosphere, efforts to reduce the erosion of the atmosphere, are allowing more sun light in.

This would mean that Global Warming is an incorrect theory and what we are witnessing in polar regions is actually a return to something more normal, the reduction of human impact rather than the result of human impact.
edit on 19-11-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


How can anyone deny climate change this is impossible it is akin to denying the suns existence!, people on both sides are arguing over natural cycles are we and what we are doing to add to this not part of nature too. We can say we cause it or we don't that is ignorant yes we can help and be concious of our efforts to be green or not but in the scale of things it is insignificant over our industrial existence. This has been our planets existence, just cause we aint seen it does not mean it can be denied.

We only exist without these changing patterns evolution ceases to exist our enviroment dictates our selection that's why its natural.

So we should be united and alert instead of fragmented and docile!.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatScot
I know a lot of people on here are in the know about what is really going on with our weather patterns and that the information is in and has been in our grasp for years.

The man made ahem cough * global warming agenda is a fallacy sold to the masses for profit and for other more sinister purposes!

They are bluffing us all cause the facts and the real data is being manipulated is because a ICE AGE is creeping in at a pace that has increased steadily in recent years, the planet is becoming WETTER and weather patterns are becoming erratic and the is also reflected and driven by the ocean. YES some country's are the polar opposite! Pardon the pun, but this is to be EXPECTED as the current forecasts and also models based on core samples and other data shows that is NORMAL and CRITICAL to the process as the hotter climates evaporate at an alarming rate the HIGH PRESSURE drives the newly formed rain clouds that are inevitably created are dispersed in colder more northern parts. Our lands in the north become saturated and our water levels rise and the colder more harsher winter does the rest once the freeze starts , our focus should be on the spread and global coverage this could reach critical fairly quick years not days or months , also all it took was for a global drop of 2 degrees for the 1800 mini ice age to start. Add to this the ocean temperatures if they decrease by 3 degrees the process is massive catastrophic in fact, our existence is so fragile that either way a few degrees + or - and we can expect global changes that will threat our existence and or populations numbers and I aint even touched on the ocean and how critical this is in the whole process aint got time on mobile and I'm sure others will link and dig into this, plz I implore you all to investigate this and the effects and make up your own mind AGAIN.

But my spidey senses are all over the place they know and so do we but now we are being made to FORGET THRU MISINFO and this is what makes me look a little closer. TPTB or GLOBAL INC have and do know the truth makes one wonder are we being left out in the cold.


You're claiming ocean temperatures are decreasing? Please provide a reference/link for that one. You are right about the earth's weather getting wetter, but drastically wrong on it being associated with things getting colder -- it's exactly the opposite. The atmosphere and oceans heating will put more moisture in the air; this is basic chemistry and physics. In some parts of the country one needs a humidifier in the winter because the air dries out; in the same regions the summers can be fairly humid.

I fail to see where all the money is to be made in the alleged conspiracy to convince society that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming. I guess you could claim it is to be made in alternative energies, but I'd just argue that alternative, renewable energies are a lot better environmentally, socially and economically than hydrocarbon- and fission-based energy sources. The conspiracy is on the parts of governments and big business trying to postpone efforts to stem global warming. Northern nations and petroleum multinationals are jazzed that the Artic ice shelf is disappearing and that drilling and mineral rights will begin to be exploited. You do acknowledge that the Artic ice shelf and the Greenland ice sheet are receding, don't you? If not, then you are ignoring facts/data, and if you do, then how do you reconcile that with your contention that the earth is cooling?

Reading your other comment, I can't tell whether in fact you believe global warming is occurring and if it is, if it is man-made. My response here was to the best of my understanding of what you said in your post. if I misunderstood, then my apologies.
edit on 19-11-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



You're claiming ocean temperatures are decreasing? Please provide a reference/link for that one.


Oceans are cooling according to NASA

Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. - Sceptical Science


The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. New research suggests global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.

NASA

You really must try to keep up to date!!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Numbers? I don't need no stinking numbers!! But, really. You are off on a tangent here, OP was simply supposing that history is being re-written. OP does not portend to say why, how, for what purpose or by whom it is being done. He/She was in a very intelligent manner asking a question and providing a thereom to test. Is the data anomoly that OP discovered real/imagined? I followed the rabbit hole as far as my technically challenged mind could and reached my own conclusion. Then I had to ask why would they do it? The answer to that question is a little more shall I say, perplexing.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


I'm on board with all of these ideas, but would never present any of them as fact.

For example, some other scientific facts:

Earth is flat
Earth is center of the universe
Fire, Water, Air are the core elements
Nothing smaller than an atom
All life is Oxygen based
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light
Ether is all around us
My personal fave
Light is a wave
Light is a particle
Light is a wave/particle/electromagnetic oscillation thingy

Anyhow, you get my point! I am pointless- Sorry for that.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
Google River Thames and freezing.
you will see that up to 1800 it froze for two months!.
deep ice. you dont get ice on it now.

so tell me WHY if its getting colder,
why dont we get ice on the Thames?




Just a thought, but is it possible in your opinion that the River Thames no longer freezes because it is no longer just water? I mean, is it possible that certain pollution introduced into the water has lowered the temperature where it would freeze?

That's just my first thought, honestly I am quite sure we could come up with hundreds of other ideas as to why the river no longer freezes other than what you are implying. Not necessarily saying that what you are implying is wrong, simply that there may be other explanations and one should keep an open mind on subjects, even when they are convinced. Never know when new information can change an old and well supported belief.
edit on 19-11-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sumgai
reply to post by PuterMan
 



So this means that pumping toxic gases into the atmosphere 24/7; dumping industrial waste into our lakes, aquifers, rivers, and oceans; burning a resource when we can be making stuff out it; etc, all that is ok now?


I think you are being a bit dramatic. I don't think anyone here would advocate such things are OK. It seems to me that all people are asking for is that the data to be reported honestly and for science to be driven by that honest data and not the bias of an agenda.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
this is a great thread, and let me add an observation.
several years ago i began to wonder about global warming, and especially how it is measured.
One study constantly cited was based on Russian tree ring data from around 1900.
the width of a tree ring was assumed to be a measure of temperature...and moisture. tree rings, maybe poplar, or another hard wood from eastern russia were measured.
over a long timre span
sample size...12.
the data confirmed a long term, maybe 100 year span of warming.
then i noticed that one tree stood out...fat rings in the latest time period measured, around 1950.
if that one tree out of 12 was eliminated, the global warming trend disappeared.

now, this did not stop fhe global warming screamers at east anglia for citing it 1000 times.

but wait there is more.

when trees get tall enough to break throug the brush, they grow like gangbusters...



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


It's funny how you deniers jump to conclusions BEFORE YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, then you get upvoted/starred to high heavens because some of you seriously want to believe that global warming is the conspiracy (and somehow global warming denial ISN'T a conspiracy even though it's repeatedly proven to be *facepalm*).

So let me get this straight, PuterMan-
What you're showing is that the average mean temps for the year 1880 have changed in the records over the past decade? In other words, the mean temperature anomaly hasn't remained static as you believe it should have?

Ok, so the scientist in me has questions, but it certainly doesn't jump to ridiculous conclusions of conspiracy or cooking the books....

FIRST, you must ask yourself- WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORDING? In other words- what is an ANOMALY.

You'll actually find a lot of information here: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

SECOND, you must ask yourself- AM I INTERPRETING THE DATA/GRAPH CORRECTLY? Which hinges on many factors. You need to figure out EXACTLY how the graph is to be read before you start jumping to conclusions.

THIRD, you must ask yourself- DO THESE MEAN ANOMALIES CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO NEW DATA? Which is to say- as more data comes out on PREVIOUS temps (to clarify/correct them, NOT alter them with some hidden agenda), does the record/graph change? Furthermore, does the MEAN ANOMALY automatically alter NO MATTER WHAT as each year progresses and provides a NEW year with which to ADD to the total recorded temp data and thus alters the AVERAGE (aka "mean").

C'mon people. Use your goddamn thinking caps.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Any "global" climate "data" prior to the 1970's is a product of interpretation and does change. Large paved surfaces and roadways likely contribute more to "global warming" measurements recorded by sensors/satellite more so than CO2...The temperature of the planet is regulated by the oceans, pay a visit daily to www.iris.edu... and you'll see that it's likely that the cause of increase of ocean temp is volcanic/seismic activity increase, thus leading to rise in "global temp"



We can't look at one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and expect to know what the whole picture is....

Wheter global warming is real or not, or if it's man-made or not doesn't matter much...It's foolish to think that we could change it either way...Mother Earth has been here for billions of years and It will continue to be, humans just may not be a part of that future...Mother Earth will reset the balance if needed...

If anything is destroying the planet it's the production/use of PLASTIC.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by darkstar57
 


The infamous "hockey stick" tree...

The trees referred to are Bristlecone Pines. Here are two interesting articles. One is about the Methusela Tree (a bristlecone) and the other is about possible faulty data being used in a rather well-known paper.

A Tree's Secret to Living Long

Bristlecone Pines: Treemometers or rain gauges ?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

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.


You are very wrong in many ways. First of all, the ozone layer hole still exists, and many times it grows larger. I have shown many times throughout the years in these forums that there are natural factors which increase the size of the ozone hole such as extreme weather in the upper atmosphere and the solar wind.


Solar wind hammers the ozone layer

The Arctic ultraviolet shield took a battering from storms in 2004.

Quirin Schiermeier


A stream of particles from the Sun, in combination with extreme weather conditions, caused an unprecedented thinning last year of the upper Arctic ozone layer.

Scientists have been puzzled by the chemical processes that destroyed up to 60% of ozone molecules in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere (the atmospheric layers that lie 30 to 40 kilometres above ground) in the first months of 2004. Reactions with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the compounds responsible for ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere, could not explain the decline in higher layers.

Now an international team of atmosphere researchers, led by Cora Randall of the University of Colorado at Boulder, has suggested a natural cause for this ozone loss at high altitudes.

Strong solar storms in October 2003 carried energetic electrons and protons into the Earth's upper atmosphere, where they boosted production of nitrogen oxides by a factor of four. Such oxides are a known group of ozone killers. Very strong winds inside the polar stratospheric vortex, which was exceptionally powerful last winter, then transported the excess nitrogen gases further into the atmosphere. At around 40 kilometres' height, they mixed with, and attacked, the ozone layer.
...

www.nature.com...

Just because you don't hear it in the news doesn't mean it has gone away, or that it will be gone forever.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Really?... I doubt there is a "scientist in you", and it is obvious you are the one needing to put on your "thinking cap"... Your AGW scientists have been caught lying, posting false information, and they even have deleted raw temp data so that no one can double check their cooked up data...

BTW, you are right in one thing... AGW being shown to be a SCAM and a LIE isn't a conspiracy theory.... it is FACT...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by PuterMan
 


It's funny how you deniers jump to conclusions BEFORE YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, then you get upvoted/starred to high heavens because some of you seriously want to believe that global warming is the conspiracy (and somehow global warming denial ISN'T a conspiracy even though it's repeatedly proven to be *facepalm*).


Yes it is isn't it. Where did I say I was a denier? What exactly is it that you surmise I am denying? Climate change is a fact and for the time being global warming is a fact. So perhaps you should consider practising what you preach and look before you leap in with stupid comments. Maybe one day the AGW people will stop using that erroneous epithet for people who don't happen to believe that the human element of CO2 increase - which is NOT denied - does not have a significant effect on the whole, but somehow I doubt it as you people are so blinded by hate that you cannot see anything except your own point of view. How would you like it if I called all people like yourself climate liars?


So let me get this straight, PuterMan-
What you're showing is that the average mean temps for the year 1880 have changed in the records over the past decade? In other words, the mean temperature anomaly hasn't remained static as you believe it should have?

Ok, so the scientist in me has questions, but it certainly doesn't jump to ridiculous conclusions of conspiracy or cooking the books....


The scientist in you should perhaps be better able to read the OP then because I asked the question as to how this could be and said nothing about cooking the books. Obviously the scientist in you is not to be trusted if you cannot read a text correctly.


FIRST, you must ask yourself- WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORDING? In other words- what is an ANOMALY.


I think we have established not only that I know perfectly well what an anomaly is, and Phage has kindly presented the documentation of such. Talking about the significance of wording, why don't you try reading the thread? It sure helps.


SECOND, you must ask yourself- AM I INTERPRETING THE DATA/GRAPH CORRECTLY? Which hinges on many factors. You need to figure out EXACTLY how the graph is to be read before you start jumping to conclusions.


Once again read the thread. I asked the question how can this be? I did not jump to any conclusions. You need to figure out EXACTLY what there is to be read before you start jumping to conclusions.


THIRD, you must ask yourself- DO THESE MEAN ANOMALIES CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO NEW DATA? Which is to say- as more data comes out on PREVIOUS temps (to clarify/correct them, NOT alter them with some hidden agenda), does the record/graph change?


It would seem that it does but I am not convinced that it should and you cannot deny that it is curious that the earlier years have been cooled and that later ones warmed. That in itself warrants explanation. Had the changes been spread across the board I would probably not have queried it.


Furthermore, does the MEAN ANOMALY automatically alter NO MATTER WHAT as each year progresses and provides a NEW year with which to ADD to the total recorded temp data and thus alters the AVERAGE (aka "mean").


Here you manage to demonstrate that you obviously have absolutely no idea what you are looking at or talking about. AS I explained in the thread, which you would have discovered had you bothered to read it, the means are for the year. Adding data in 2012 does NOT change the data in 1880. If you don't understand anything about statistics perhaps you should refrain from commenting


C'mon people. Use your goddamn thinking caps.


In the same vein, c'mon NoHierarchy use your goddamn eyes.





top topics
 
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join