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 PuterMan
You really must try to keep up to date!!
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You are sourcing an article in the Examiner, the in the usual conveinant way to skeptics, quoted outdated information, that the NASA article followed up and reported that the Atlantic temperature information was incorrect, due to the measurements the buoys were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Pretty sad that GW skeptic ATSers are still picking and choosing tiny bits of outdated information to prove their points.
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.
(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
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.
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)
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?
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)
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)
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 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.
You really must try to keep up to date!!
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).