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
18 hours ago.
by Kendall78
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

Why do you refuse to address the margin of error in the NASSA data? Sorta blows a hole in your case doesn't it?

Posted 82 days ago.

Kendall78

"What you or I believe can happen has no bearing on what IS happening.."

True but all you care about is what you believe and nothing about facts.

So is it logical to assume that the current dominant species on the planet has the ability to effect the planet's climate?

I mean, if you are completely ignorant on the possibilities, you can just admit that.

Posted 82 days ago.

Kunectdots

Marilyn vos Savant posted, in her May 3, 2015 national commentary, that there are reasons other than ice cap melt for which to attribute the cause of rising sea levels. She suggests that our pulling up of groundwater, with subsequent losses back into the oceans (evaporation and runoff) accounts for 42% of the rise in sea level. The warming of ocean water (causing it to expand) is responsible for nearly an additional 50% of the oceans rise, she surmises.

I would think that are declining water tables would be as alarming as the threat of global warming to nation-states. Nations that have the material wherewithal to do so should be considering the construction of solar powered desalinization plants and the cessation of funding for programs that support the runaway human population growth around the planet.

I KNOW! I KNOW! The Democrats would have a tough time supporting that last one.

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

Nothing a value to add but thanks for trying, have a nice weekend

Posted 84 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Head liar and denier ! No matter what proof is shown you'll get the same over and over because that's the party line !

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

Let me help you, from NASSA website

Q. 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 tim

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

Should read what is the admitted.......

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

What you or I believe can happen has no bearing on what IS happening, So stick to the facts, Mehta is the admitted margin of error in NASSA data?

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

Dang auto correct

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

Like what about data accuracy and error bars

Posted 84 days ago.

Kendall78

Thank you for agreeing with us that the oceans absorb heat.

Now then, do you believe that the dominant species of our world has the ability to effect climate?

Posted 84 days ago.

Stillhere

trollish behavior, shake that limp thing boy, NOW back to the topic

Posted 85 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Just the same lying and denying !

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

I guess not! You warmers claimed the rate of change was somehow proof of your socialist agenda but when the trend stopped u point to the oceans as magically taking in the warming that isn't happening. But the admitted margins of error are your undoing and you avoid that discussion at all costs

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

Well Kendall, care to discuss the accuracy of nassa data?

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

Thanks for your best effort as flaccid as it was, have a great day

Posted 85 days ago.

Ohwiseone

More of the tiredbrain trolls serial lying and denying !

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

Oceans absorb heat and release heat that's what El Niño cycles are all about, natural occurrence. That does not justify your claims that man made co2 is warming the planet now does it?

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

Read carefully for understanding this time, The error rate of the ESTIMATED warming is higher than the supposed warming, Pontificate all you want, the math doesn't decieve like many here try

Posted 85 days ago.

Stillhere

Q. 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 85 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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