The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

Just like in anything in the nuclear industry, prove with chain of custody documentation that ANY of the values used in ANY charts, graphs, text have not been altered through the entire chain of handlers from the sensor to the viewed final document.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Climate predictions and readings aren't just done through ground thermometers

Really? What do you think was used to measure global climate prior to the sixties?

ANOTHER source from 1997...

Must I point out that the graph itself extends up to 2013?

are you trying to use the tired fallacy that if you can prove science has been wrong once before in the past, then the theory in question is automatically invalid?

Although it does not make the theory automatically invalid, it does not make the theory automatically valid neither.

To question is the mark of an open and inquisitive mind. The kind of mind from which truth emerges

To swallow the popular narrative is the sign of insecurity in ones belief system and closes the door to finding truth

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Climate predictions and readings aren't just done through ground thermometers

Really? What do you think was used to measure global climate prior to the sixties?

Who cares? This isn't the 60's. Are you going to doubt medical science today because doctors in the past used to do and believe some weird things while practicing medicine?

Must I point out that the graph itself extends up to 2013?

Yea... Your graph from your science denialist blog that talks about Al Gore. I don't care about anything that wants to focus on a politician. Get a better source/graph.

Although it does not make the theory automatically invalid, it does not make the theory automatically valid neither.

Don't be daft. Rarely are theories ever completely overturned in the world of science. Especially ones with as much data supporting it as man made climate change.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Who cares? This isn't the 60's.

So in your opinion, we should just dismiss records made prior to the era of satellites?

Get a better source/graph.

Hey. The graph comes directly from Dr Roy Spencer, it's no monkey business.
From wiki:

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[3]

Especially ones with as much data supporting it as man made climate change.

Data which is gathered and altered by the same agencies who promotes the theory...

Well, your faith is touching, although I share it not. I believe it is best if I leave you to it, I am not here to change anyone's mind about anything, merely present the bigger picture. I withdraw from this pointless conversation; I give you the last word if you want it.

originally posted by: swanne
So in your opinion, we should just dismiss records masde prior to the era of satellites?

They should be superseded by more accurate records. When a scientist uses data from a flawed gathering method, he has to say as such in his writeup at the end of his research. A scientist is concerned with getting the most accurate data. So I'm sure he would be more willing to use more modern climate sampling methods to get climate data than rely on previously collected data from 50 years ago.

If the old data aligns with the new data then the data is kept. If they don't align then we need to explore why and what is causing the discrepancy. Dude, this is science 101 here, and I shouldn't have to be explaining any of this to you.

Hey. The graph comes directly from Dr Roy Spencer.

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[3]

A little about the history of the science that Dr. Spencer pushes:
Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

That doesn’t mean Spencer’s new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know. And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.

That little bit is BEFORE the article gets around to debunking Spencer's paper.

By the way, Dr. Spenser also rejects Evolution and believes Intelligent Design.
Roy Spencer

Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"

Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[19]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[20]

View: creation has a better scientific basis

In the book The Evolution Crisis[21] Spencer is quoted as saying:

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world..." [22]

Yea...

Data which is gathered and altered by the same agencies who promotes the theory...

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge the fact that the sources he posted in his OP conflict with the conclusion he has presented.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your counter argument is ad-hominem attack.

Okay. Well, all I can say before I go is, hope you learn more about science, and I hope you never get to see AGW theory getting falsified.

*tip hat*

Edit:

By the way I am glad you couldn't resist to have the last word!

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your counter argument is ad-hominem attack.

Okay.

Showing that a scientist's (or anyone really) claims are untrustworthy isn't an ad hominem attack.

By the way I am glad you couldn't resist to have the last word!

Dude I didn't even SEE that ninja edit you made before I started responding to that post (if you notice, I didn't quote that text from your post). Then you turn around and decide to get the last word anyways. Whatever. Flee your thread. I'm about to log off for the weekend anyways.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: nataylor

And your source for this "information" is imgur.com?!

No, the source of the data is the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as clearly stated on the image.

Here's a link to the absolute newest version on UAH's website: nsstc.uah.edu...

a reply to: nataylor

And this is from the Columbia University:



csas.ei.columbia.edu...

Just goes on proving my point: the data is highly dependent upon who you're asking.

originally posted by: swanne

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

Dr Roy Spencer (climatologist, former NASA member) adds:

Excuse me, but are you actually familiar with how satellites measure temperature?

To put it bluntly, they are not very good at it. I've posted about this in past threads, but people mostly ignore it and continue to cite satellite data as if it is authoritative.

My disbelief comes from 40 years ago when the scientists said,with as much vigor, that we were in a period of global cooling. They gave the same argument as the global warming people of today. Now, we have global change not cooling or warming. Then a scientist/ educator/ professor from Sheffield College had his e-mails to another scientist/educator/professor at Penn State Univ. outed while planning more climate change deception.

Al Gore worked to set up the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange several years ago. You could buy dispensation for buying and selling carbon fuel credits. However, he couldn't show how this endeavor would clean one bit of the environment. Al was a self appointed carbon czar. He was selling something that he didn't own and had no authorization from anyone to sell. Where I come from there is one word for this...scam.

Just yesterday, Martin O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for POTUS, stated that global warming was the major cause for the ISIS terrorists. How can an environmental issue be the reason for religious extremism? Why is climate change advanced as a predominantly Democratic issue?

How can anybody buy into environmental cooling/warming/change with a track record of disinformation and scams? It would appear that it is more like a cultive religion not science.

The scientist were screaming global cooling in the 1970's is a myth, only a handful of scientists were suggesting this might be the case, while the vast majority thought otherwise.

Once again someone has to mention Al Gore, politics, a tax scheme, and science=cult following. What a bunch of nonsense.

As far as a tax scheme goes, do you realize how much the fuel you put in your car is taxed?

originally posted by: jrod
The scientist were screaming global cooling in the 1970's is a myth, only a handful of scientists were suggesting this might be the case, while the vast majority thought otherwise.

Once again someone has to mention Al Gore, politics, a tax scheme, and science=cult following. What a bunch of nonsense.

As far as a tax scheme goes, do you realize how much the fuel you put in your car is taxed?

Did you take a poll of the scientists in the 1970's? It wouldn't be a myth if two groups of scientists disagreed as to what was happening. I think that's called a disagreement not a myth! They never brought their concern to the forefront and the majority of public information came from LOOK and TIME magazines. The scientists remained silent until the 1990's but not like the fervor of today. None of them were willing to jeopardize their credibility by "doctoring" the data to match the government's rhetoric. Today the majority of scientists/researchers/professors are employed by colleges, universities or the government and need to go with the flow to keep their jobs. They agree with climate change to remain employed.

I pay 84 cents per gallon of gasoline that I buy and zero for "carbon credits". That's not nonsense but fact.

Can you tell me why it's a predominantly Democrat pushed issue? It seem they are always looking for new tax sources. Carbon credits and health care...all new money for their coffers.

Yes, I bring up Albert Gore Junior every time I can. He is the poster child for sleazy scam artist not to mention a hypocrite. He wants us to conserve gasoline usage but flies a 64 million dollar jet that burns more fuel in an hour than my hometown does in a year. He lives in a house in Nashville that uses more electricity than my hometown monthly. He dares to tell us how to live.

BTW, did you buy some of his carbon credits? If you didn't, then you aren't a good environmental supporter. We must practice what we preach.

a reply to: buddah6

You are absolutely ridiculous buddy. Oil is already taxed heavily and your cries of carbon credit scam tell me you do not care about the actual science, instead you hammer an emotional talking point. I hate to break it to you, but if you think all this talk of climate change is nothing but a great hoax to levy more taxes, then you truly have been deceived and I suggest you do a little research on the science before spewing a bunch of nonsense and asking bogus questions.

I agree that carbon credits are not going to solve anything, however that does not change the reality of the changes our species is making to this planet.

In order for us to continue to thrive, we will need to make changes to a sustainable lifestyle.

This is a thought-provoking OP indeed.

No one needs to look at charts to know that the global warming isn't exaggerated as Al Gore pretended. In some places, it even regressed:

NEW DELHI: The cold wave in north India as Gurgaon almost touched freezing point on Sunday with the minimum temperature dropping to 0.4 degrees Celsius. Delhi recorded its second lowest December temperature in at least 15 years at 2.6 degrees.

"This is the lowest temperature recorded in Delhi in past five years. It could be the lowest in past decade too but records for the same aren't immediately available," said a MeT official.
...
...Three homeless people were found dead in the capital on Monday, and officials said that the cause of death was likely due to hypothermia.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.in...

LUCKNOW, India (AP) -- More than 100 people have died of exposure as northern India deals with historically cold temperatures.

Police spokesman Surendra Srivastava said Thursday that at least 114 people have died from the recent cold in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Many were poor people whose bodies were found on sidewalks or in parks.

The weather department said temperatures were 7 to 18 degrees F below average in the state.

Temperatures in New Delhi, which borders Uttar Pradesh, hit a high Wednesday of 49.6 degrees F, the lowest maximum temperature in the capital since 1969.

Source: www.usatoday.com...

Chicago broke a 79-year-old record: The air temperature at O'Hare International Airport dropped to minus 8 degrees around 6 a.m. — inching ahead of the -7 F recorded on Feb. 19, 1936, NBC Chicago reported.

Lexington, Kentucky, checked in at -7 F, the coldest on any day since January 2003. Bowling Green also hit 7 below, the coldest there since January 1994. In the town of Embarrass, Minnesota: -41 F.

Source: www.cnbc.com...

Source: www.weather.com...

And even more spectacular: People dying of cold... in Siberia:

Winter in Siberia is usually spectacular and always very cold.

But this winter has been relentless. Week after week, temperatures have been dipping to 50 below zero. Siberians are accustomed to the cold, but they were completely unprepared for temperatures this low.

Not surprisingly, the hospital in the city of Irkutsk is overwhelmed. In just one week, the cold killed 17 people, and doctors amputated the limbs of at least 70 others who suffered severe frostbite. Pausing for just a short period of time could prove extremely dangerous — one man who stopped to fix his car had to have both his hands and feet amputated because of frostbite.

Some aid has been sent — the American Red Cross recently came to Siberia bearing more than 40,000 pounds of food.

But still, in cities and villages across Siberia, heating systems are breaking down. People are warming themselves around outdoor fires, and frozen pipes have forced others to get their water from community wells.

Source: abcnews.go.com...

Plummeting winter temperatures have claimed dozens of lives across Central and Eastern Europe as the region battles a big freeze that is expected to worsen over the next few days. At least 50 people have died, mainly in Ukraine and Poland, as an icy continental weather front from Siberia has dragged temperatures to as low as -27 degrees Celsius, and forecasters in Poland have said that thermometers could hit -30 later in the week. The cold weather has even travelled as far south as Bulgaria where temperatures in the capital Sofia fell to -20, the lowest in 50 years

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Those are all random sources, found quickly on top of my head.

But that is not just in Europe or US. In Canada, where I live, since the last 5-6 years, there has been no severe drought in the summer, like it used to in the past. There was times during the summer where we couldn't step foot outside for long, as the heat was unbearable, and we had to have fans cooling the house 24/7 until the heat went away.
Now, since 5-6 years, there are some heat moment, but never to the level it used to years ago.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "Extreme warming!!!" trend.

The CO2 level in the atmosphere creates an opaque filter; metaphorically, an opaque dark filter. True the rays from Earth can't get out and get trapped, like a greenhouse. But does no one realize that the Sun's rays can't thus pass through this dark filter? And thus can't warm up the Earth, as it can't even reach the surface in the first place?

That's the main reason why you wear dark glasses to protect your eyes against the Sun's ray; the Earth works the same way if there is a thick layer of smog and CO2 between the Sun and the surface. The Sun can't thus warm the Earth.

And does anybody realize what happens when a really big volcano explode? What happens when all the ashes and smoke fills the atmosphere: the local temperature gets colder, as the sun don't get through.

When the Sun's rays couldn't reach the Earth, that is what caused Ice Ages!! Not global warming.

a reply to: Yavanna

It has been shown that smog, particularly SO2 and soot can cause a dimming and thus cooling effect.

However you have cherry picked some data points that agree with your mindset while ignoring a plethora of other data that suggests you are wrong.

Also most would consider Roy Spencer a quack and is apparently bankrolled by Exxon/Mobil via the Heartland Institute.

www.exxonsecrets.org...

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: buddah6

You are absolutely ridiculous buddy. Oil is already taxed heavily and your cries of carbon credit scam tell me you do not care about the actual science, instead you hammer an emotional talking point. I hate to break it to you, but if you think all this talk of climate change is nothing but a great hoax to levy more taxes, then you truly have been deceived and I suggest you do a little research on the science before spewing a bunch of nonsense and asking bogus questions.

I agree that carbon credits are not going to solve anything, however that does not change the reality of the changes our species is making to this planet.

In order for us to continue to thrive, we will need to make changes to a sustainable lifestyle.

Actual science! The subject of this OP is Data War, why I can't warm up to climate change. I can't condone the methodology used to prove a questionable science. There are too many peripheral factors to support your view. But yet, you attack me personally for having a different view calling me ridiculous. This is exactly my point in saying that climate change is nearly religious for some people. You can't just leave it as we just disagree.

a reply to: buddah6


It is not a different view that I am attacking, it is your straight up ignorance on the subject.

It is extremely ignorant to use Al Gore as an example when trying to have an intelligent discussion about climate science. It appears to me you are trying to discuss the politics to support your view point while completely ignoring the science and what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us about the climate.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: nataylor

And this is from the Columbia University:

csas.ei.columbia.edu...

Just goes on proving my point: the data is highly dependent upon who you're asking.

You're comparing apples and oranges if you're somehow trying to compare absolute surface temperature of a single site during one month month to global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly over the whole year.