Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
9 hours ago.
by Stillhere
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Stillhere

Shall I post the NASSA data again for your consumption, or are you just ignoring it since it doesn't fit your narrative?

Posted 45 days ago.

Stillhere

Shall I post the NASSA data again for your consumption, or are you just ignoring it since it doesn't fit your narrative?

Posted 45 days ago.

Stillhere

Furthermore, even if you were correct there is no direct correlation between that and carbon or the warming wouldn't have stopped nearly two decades ago. Did Carbon output cease?

Posted 45 days ago.

Stillhere

You fail to address the NASSA error bars, why?

Posted 45 days ago.

Stillhere

NO that is NOT the fact, how much warmer were the years you site than those before???? You never actually quantify the warming just claim its happening.

Posted 45 days ago.

harryanderson

The relevant fact is that 9 of the 10 warmest years in the record books have all occurred since 2000.

What are the odds of that being an accident?

Global warming hasn't stopped by any means.

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

That's just complete BS Harry to claim that 2014 was the warmest on record. SIMPLY A LIE

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

Nasa and Noaa scientists report 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than previous records and the 38th consecutive year of above-average temperatures

NOW if the margin of error is more than TWICE the claimed warming, how can one believe any warming happened at all?

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

I have already proven that 2014 was NOT the warmest on record and you claimed it was a statistical tie, now why are you recycling that lie again?

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

Still telling that lie Harry? How much did the climate warm during that time?

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

(PhysOrg****) -- Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that -- a full quarter of the globe -- warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C), according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Read more at: *******phys****/news/2008-12-earth-years.html#jCp

So according to physics**** any warming they claim is within the margin of error and therefore doesn't mean a thing

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

Global warming hasn’t “stopped.”

9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.

htt p://w ww.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413

The RATE of increase has slowed, but the increase continues.

The warmest years on record are, in order:

1. 2014

2. (tie) 2010 and 2005

4. 1998

5. (tie) 2013 and 2003

7. 2002

8. 2006

9. (tie) 2009 and 2007

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

For the years past 1900, aka the Industrial Age, we have a magin of error of .1c and .2c for seasonal and .3c for monthly. Before 1900 it's doubled. So how can we tell that the warming, which stopped nearly 20 years ago is unprecidented?

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

So let's take a look at what this NASSA data means

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)? A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means.

Posted 46 days ago.

Ohwiseone

No , not with you ! Funny how no one wants to talk with a troll !

Posted 46 days ago.

Stillhere

Oh Kendall, Harry? what about the error bars, don't wanna discuss the data all of a sudden?

Posted 47 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Yes please , just move along !

Posted 48 days ago.

Stillhere

That's fine just move along, oh and have a great day

Posted 48 days ago.

Ohwiseone

No , not with you ! Funny how no one wants to talk with a troll !

Posted 48 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or