1880 IS getting colder!

page: 8
89
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
This blog has problems with the temperature adjustments by NASA too:
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Showing this as a compare with the 1999 set and the 2012 set:




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I'm glad you posted I'm sorry you are confused this is mostly my fault. My post after reading again is a little disjointed! I was mixing a set on my decks and replying and seemed to miss some words and possibly a paragraph.

Sorry for that, but please re-read my post I don't say that the ocean temps are rising, I use this as an example as to how fragile the conditions we know as normal everyday weather are in fact unusual! I'm sorry I never explained the oceans role more , I presumed I was in company that knew the importance of the roll of the oceans and I was correct.

I'm also sure that when I was talking about this that I highlighted this in my post also our weather is not isolated to land and places where we all dwell.

My words were confusing and unorganised, so when I was talking about the temp rise in certain areas I wasn't specifically talking about an region of land I was talkin about our waters.

You ask me about the poles melting well they weren't always under ice, if I recall at the end of the last ice age or during less hostile times our ancestors actually left what we know to be warmer climates now to seek new lands, so imo what we are seeing in the poles is natural (but also effected by us).

You were really nice with your reply post thanks, I'm sorry for this confusion my bad grammer/post structure made it hard to grasp what I meant.

I was also on mobile phone so was restricted.
edit on 20-11-2012 by GreatScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
edit on 20-11-2012 by GreatScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


This is a usual and tired point from the GW skeptic handbook.

Only a handful of researchers predicted global cooling, and it became a media sensation.

Just like skeptics here will take any iota of information that may prove GW false(though there is mountains of data supporting it) and sensationalize it so they can say: SEE!

You probbably listed all the articles that supported it.

Other then the media articles sensationalizing it, you won't find much data to back it up.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


CORRECTION

You are sourcing an article in the Examiner, the in the usual conveinant way to skeptics, quoted outdated information, that the NASA article followed up and reported that the Atlantic temperature information was incorrect, due to the measurements the buoys were taking.

Pretty sad that GW skeptic ATSers are still picking and choosing tiny bits of outdated information to prove their points.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

You really must try to keep up to date!!


Good sir, you do realize that you are citing sources from 2009 and 2006, respectively, and the later article is citing the 2006 study? I would be curious to see what more recent sources cite.

I read the NASA report, it said that indeed there was a slight cooling from 2003-2005, but it was only a fraction of the overall warming trend of the last 50 years. In addition, it may well be that the melting ice shelfs and sheets are giving rise to this oceanic cooling. But this short-term cooling of the ocean was news to me; I appreciate your bringing it forth.

I'm still waiting for you to comment on the fact that the overall trend in the mean global temperature conservatively has still risen 0.78 C (this takes out the 0.12 deg systematic bias that you claim to be in the updated dataset).



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by PuterMan
 


CORRECTION

You are sourcing an article in the Examiner, the in the usual conveinant way to skeptics, quoted outdated information, that the NASA article followed up and reported that the Atlantic temperature information was incorrect, due to the measurements the buoys were taking.

Pretty sad that GW skeptic ATSers are still picking and choosing tiny bits of outdated information to prove their points.


Could your provide a link regarding the NASA article that reported on incorrect temperature readings from the buoys? And is one to then infer that this ocean cooling from 2003-2005 was actually a spurious artifact? I genuinely am curious. In any case, I do agree that GW deniers citing outdated studies is poor form.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Global cooling will run it's course after this global warming gets to a certain point. It will happen fast, spreading like the plague. It should have kicked in already, I don't know what is wrong. Maybe if we deforest more the earth will warm up faster and cause the ice age.

They are producing wood pellets here in the Upper Peninsula. They call it renewable energy and it helps keep the emissions down at the power plants. It better keep the emmissions down when used, we aren't going to have any trees left to take the carbon out of the air in a few years. All those chainsaws and logging machines will spew a lot of exhaust into the air also. I think people are going crazy with saying things are good for the environment when they are not. Maybe it will create extra local jobs but that's it. I wonder how much of a Ecology tax credit these kind of companies get for destroying the environment.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by phrig
 


There's a problem with just showing this figure out of context, and there is a more profound problem in the blog that you link to. It shows a correct figure that does seem to have a very extreme rise in it, but it fails to provide a link to where this figure is from or how it was constructed. This give the impression of cherry picking as well as possibly misrepresenting matters. Both this blog and all the commenters slam the scientist supposedly responsible for this change in the data, but no links are provided to the original material and/or a report about it. It's not how scientific discussion should be done.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by phrig
 


There's a problem with just showing this figure out of context, and there is a more profound problem in the blog that you link to. It shows a correct figure that does seem to have a very extreme rise in it, but it fails to provide a link to where this figure is from or how it was constructed. This give the impression of cherry picking as well as possibly misrepresenting matters. Both this blog and all the commenters slam the scientist supposedly responsible for this change in the data, but no links are provided to the original material and/or a report about it. It's not how scientific discussion should be done.

If you open the link, from my previous post, then follow the links as discussed on that page that points to these text files:
www.john-daly.com...
You'll get the 1999 data from Daly's site.

Then open this link for the up-to-date data from the NASA site.
data.giss.nasa.gov...

Here is a small part of both sets of data from the 1999 set and the 2012 set for comparison:


(Does not format well but you'll see what that there is a difference.)
Year, 1999, 2012
---------------------------------
1880, -.47, -0.5590
1881, .10, -0.0230
1882, -.09, -0.0970
1883, -.77, -0.9170
1884, -.80, -0.7100
1885, -.65, -0.7690
1886, -.38, -0.5850
1887, -.29, -0.3240
1888, -.44, -0.6330
1889, .17, -0.0560


Here too is a link that will demonstrate some of the data changes from NASA:
www.changedetection.com...


edit on 20/11/2012 by phrig because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

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.


Did you ever stop and think that maybe I was referring to those who replied to this thread too?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Psychoparrot
....
Why should TPTB do this - because of the money earning potential behind climate change industries/taxes? What on earth do they want all this money for? Or is it just to keep us in a constant state of fear?
...


TPTB have given the answer to these questions you made.

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)


Look no further, folks. This is a great example of cherry-picking information and willfully either lying or misunderstanding it to suit a false agenda.

What's funny is that this passage (if you actually read it) proves that the worlds' governments are complicit in IGNORING global warming, not in banking off of some kind of conspiracy involving thousands of scientists. So what ElectricUniverse has done here is used a passage which actually proves him/her WRONG and used it to bolster their case.

Every time I see you on here, ElectricUniverse, I can't help but think the world would be better off without your lies and obfuscation.
edit on 20-11-2012 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
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?


Well... thing is, you're wrong:




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


All of which of course ensures that the dogma is followed and those on the outside remain there!
Think about it!

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


Welllll, if you think about it... the word "dogma" is pretty much the opposite of "peer-reviewed science".



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
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)


Interesting thought, but it's not quite right:

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
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!!


You failed to actually read the entire first article. It doesn't prove your point.

Your second article is a link to the Examiner, nuff said.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 


So 70 degree weather in January in the north east is cosidered normal or how about only having two snow days in some places in New England last year.....I dont know I like to think I'm not that old but every year has been getting weirder weather wise, and since when do old people count as scientist.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



You are sourcing an article in the Examiner, the in the usual conveinant way to skeptics, quoted outdated information, that the NASA article followed up and reported that the Atlantic temperature information was incorrect, due to the measurements the buoys were taking.


No, I may have quoted one from the Examiner but I also quoted NASA. Now if what you are saying is correct you would think that they would link to that rebuttal on the article. They do not.

So, since you think the information is outdated and incorrect due to erroneous buoy readings (???? !!!! How many of those then that were not admitted) perhaps you would be so kind as to link to the latest NOAA/NASA information that shows the oceans are still warming. (I am NOT saying they are not by the way before you jump to conclusions)

You really should try and support your arguments instead of simply pontificating and expecting everyone to believe you. As a member of ATS since 2006 I would have thought you would have learned that by now. A WATS rating does not confer immunity from backing up your arguments.

edit on 21/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Dear Mr Inquisitive, you actually did not quote me exactly.....


You really must try to keep up to date!!


Notice the subtle difference?

Yes your point about other posters point to information that supports their rebuttal is extremely valid (as again mooted by you in your next post)


I'm still waiting for you to comment on the fact that the overall trend in the mean global temperature conservatively has still risen 0.78 C (this takes out the 0.12 deg systematic bias that you claim to be in the updated dataset).


I will come back to you on this one shortly. By the way I do not claim anything, I just report what I find.

edit on 21/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
89
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join