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 endisnighe
I am just going to post these pesky little graphs put out by the high Priest Hansen himself.
And I will ask you, what is wrong with the three graphs? And what is wrong with the statement that this has been the hottest decade on record?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2888569bfcae.gif[/atsimg]
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Now, allow for me to explain the first two graphs provided here:
What these graphs show however, is not only the obvious cyclical pattern to Arctic Temperature Variation over the past Century, but also this pattern's direct relationship with the AMO(Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)/PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation) cycles as well. The AMO/PDO are well established natural variants which dictate the general Oceanic Current and Atmospheric Air Stream patterns over their corresponding regions (ie, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean). With such being established, it is a well placed conclusion that the Arctic Temperature Variations are brought about by these very natural and very real cycles.
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Anyway why don't we ask for CRU to give us the raw data, oh what's that?... they DUMPED MOST OF THE RAW DATA TO MAKE SPACE?....
This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The content of the WMO statement is verified and peer-reviewed by leading experts from other international, regional and national climate institutions and centres before its publication.
Originally posted by ANNED
Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.
I believe that much of the warming come from particulates(smoke) in the air and not CO2.
Originally posted by pilot70
Originally posted by Animal
Originally posted by pilot70
What about he decade 1995-2005 ...that one was a lot warmer ....
This is spin and pure [BS].
A way to spin the declining temperatures away by selecting an arbitrary timescale that gives the desired result .... nothing to see here ...
Could you please elaborate on this? Thanks.
Sure
When comparing those data you have to take into account all the decades
in the period 1990 to 2009, since there is nothing special about the decades ending on xxx9.
1990-1999
1991-2000
1992-2001
...
2000-2009
When you only compare 1990-9 and 2000-9, and call the last one the hottest decade ever, you filter out all the intervening 10 year periods for no good reason.
Originally posted by pilot70
What about he decade 1995-2005 ...that one was a lot warmer ....
This is spin and pure bull#.
A way to spin the declining temperatures away by selecting an arbitrary timescale that gives the desired result .... nothing to see here ...
Originally posted by pilot70
Originally posted by Animal
Originally posted by pilot70
What about he decade 1995-2005 ...that one was a lot warmer ....
This is spin and pure bull#.
A way to spin the declining temperatures away by selecting an arbitrary timescale that gives the desired result .... nothing to see here ...
Could you please elaborate on this? Thanks.
Sure
When comparing those data you have to take into account all the decades
in the period 1990 to 2009, since there is nothing special about the decades ending on xxx9.
1990-1999
1991-2000
1992-2001
...
2000-2009
When you only compare 1990-9 and 2000-9, and call the last one the hottest decade ever, you filter out all the intervening 10 year periods for no good reason.
Several (most) of these were warmer.
But of course "the hottest decade ever" sounds better than "9 years of decline"
[edit on 9-12-2009 by pilot70]
[edit on 9-12-2009 by pilot70]
Originally posted by DocEmrick
Don't trust science. Only trust your intuition.
You see - if I could just get to see this damned data that CRU etc.. refuse to re-distribute, I could do my own analysis of the data. "Peer review" is a joke in this age of mass communication and easy data sharing. Let us peer review the raw data for ourselves.
Originally posted by rnaa
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that record is getting old, please change the music.
All the data you could ever want is right here. And it has been online all the time, except for some that the various National Meteorological Services think they can get people to pay for. CRU has been trying to get that stuff online too, if you want to help, contact your own National Meteorological Service and tell them so.