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: TheRedneck
OK, looks like I can unveil this... I have been hinting for quite some time about some information I had concerning Global Warming. I have been running an analysis as described below:
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SRPrime
As I understand it, the source is ambient (air) temperature. Of course, one of the assumptions in the analysis is that the temperatures as reported are accurate, but that assumption would apply to any similar analysis, be it by me or by NASA.
There may be more information on the WeatherUnderground web site. You might also search for the stations used in the analysis; I provided identification as to the specific stations used.
Incidentally, what you are doing is called "peer review."
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
However, the claims are minimized by including prior time periods, showing clearly that starting analysis in 1960 maximizes any obvious linear trends and camouflages polynomial trends. If this is corrected by extending the temperature record to 1950, not only is any linear trending minimized, but the polynomial trend indicates that while we are at present warming, we can expect to begin cooling in approximately ten more years with almost level temperature trends until then. The observed warming is likely simply a portion of a long-term sinusoidal variation which is quite likely natural. Any carbon dioxide based increase appears to be minuscule compared to this cycle.
The data also indicates that any variation in growing season resulting from varying temperature trends is further minimized. The amount of warmth experienced may well affect the speed of plant growth, but it has little effect on growing season length. Thus, it is reasonable to say that any temperature changes over time we have seen thus far have had little to no effect on the viability of the ecosystem.
I am upgrading the dataset as new information comes available.
In closing, this is real, hard data analysis people. Now, you know what it looks like.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker
Solutions, any solutions, are premature until one has identified a corresponding problem. ...
Until we can determine there is an issue with carbon dioxide levels, any talk of solutions is moot. Solutions do no good unless they address a problem.
I agree with you, though--I have mentioned before that, IMO, the only data that should be used should all be from the same sources and from the same quality of instruments. When we start mixing old stations (where, like you note, cities and industry have often cropped up around them) with new, and then throwing in satellite measurement into the mix, we get a hodgepodge of data that isn't consistent, and therefore shouldn't be mixed.
I would point out the coordinates listed are all near Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville AL and reflect a small window of the regional data. But your observations convincingly depict a need to review the hourly data averages for quality.
So, what you're saying is what many/most of us already know but only few are willing to accept: Climate data is easily tampered with to get a desired effect, and that if you have noticed how one decade of data effects the graphical trend, so have climatologists and they are consciously choosing to only include the data that best supports their goal (which in my opinion is alarmist reactions).
There's a reason the data has issues in the 50's. It's why most analysis starts afterwards.
You're also going to get some statistical issues when you combine all of this data for just one region. for example, if you have some locations in your sample, that get hotter over time (like population centers chugging out more industrialization, and more glass and concrete, etc.) it is going to lead to an overall increase when you smash all the data together.
Instead, in the methodology, you'd have to look at non-industrial areas, and their over time temp analysis, to see if the planet itself is warming, or if it's just because you added in crap data from the 50's and data from growing urban centers.
When we start mixing old stations (where, like you note, cities and industry have often cropped up around them) with new, and then throwing in satellite measurement into the mix, we get a hodgepodge of data that isn't consistent, and therefore shouldn't be mixed.