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.
Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect".
global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena
Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space. This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.
Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.
US researchers say new evidence casts doubt on the idea that global warming has "slowed" in recent years.
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data.
Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
(...)
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.
Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands
Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report 2, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:
Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.
Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.
Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.
Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
Southwest. Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne
Wait so you are going to accept NASA's data to support YOUR part of the argument, but when NASA says that these are examples of climate change, you can't accept that data? If I didn't know better, I'd say that you are selectively picking data that supports your predetermined conclusion and ignoring the data that doesn't.
global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena
A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature.
And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees:
``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed."
- Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment
Improving our understanding of the potential magnitude and extent of any man-made global warming will require a significant amount of critical scientific investigation, both in space and on Earth, using both observational and computational analysis techniques. It is clear that if we've learned anything in the past two decades, it's that the response and dynamics of the Earth as a complex, interconnected machine are far more detailed, intricate, and complicated than we first envisioned. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere. NASA's continued direct observations of the Earth will help enable us to sort out the complicated issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet.
originally posted by: swanne
The existence of these factors is confirmed by sources such as the Weather Network:
And Environment Canada:
Furthermore, ground thermometer records for the past century showed a trend which was lower than AGW theory model's predictions.
According to NASA,
Source (NASA):
Because of these two combined factors, it became necessary to send sattelites in the 70s into space, away from the measurement interference on Earth.
But when this happened, sattelites showed rather puzzling results. NASA explains:
"Instead, we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved. These models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere," remarked Spencer.
originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Do you mean to state that we now know the full mechanism of water phases distribution on Earth? The article I posted did not support YOUR conclusion - hense, your attack.
This 1997 NASA article I posted explained why climate models have a level of uncertainty: it is impossible to precisely know the exact state of the water phases, their future state, and their concentration over the whole world. Yet is a greenhouse gas way more dominant than CO2.
It is in no way irrelevant - unless, of course, one's intention is to promote a narrow view of Earth's climate.
originally posted by: swanne
The AGW Theorists explain this by stating that during these years, we have been experiencing something called, a "Global Dimming", in parallel with Global Warming.
Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space. This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.
Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.
But wait! Remember when records showed a reduction of global trends? Well, according to new, government-side studies, the data was actually inaccurate - the globe really was warming all along.
US researchers say new evidence casts doubt on the idea that global warming has "slowed" in recent years.
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data.
Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government
The IPCC data even completely erases the 1998 heat peak (which was visible in preceding charts), making subsequent years hotter instead:
This new US governmental study I mentioned above comes exactly 8 years after the CFR (Council on Foreign Relation) proposed to categorize climate change as a threat to national security:
originally posted by: swanne
The matter is further confused by the fact that NASA does adjusts its records data:
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
(...)
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.
Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands
Add to that the fact that weather modification technologies are being introduced...
...and that the Earth's climate is still subject to natural factors, such as the Sun which is expected to "go to sleep" around 2030, and trigger a downward temperature trend by reduction of irradiance:
All this to say, in the end, temperature records are much more complex than sticking a thermometer out. Climate is a complex model, which have way more than one factor.
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming theory false or true? Well, the truth is, it is a very good theory - but the thing is, only a few have the authority to interpret (and alter!) the data the theory is supposed to explain. So in the end, it is really up to you to either place faith in such authoritative sources or keep a more open-minded approach.
This concludes my opening post.
originally posted by: In4ormant
I'm inclined to believe the thousands of scientists that are behind this theory so much so they have a summit every year for it