Quote:AP, Reuters, et al are NOT scientific studies, they are news organizations. You are assuming reporters both understand and accurately report the science. They don't. News organizations tend to sensationalize the facts on any subject, not just <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change.
Wikipedia is a poor source for controversial subjects. You might want to Google William Connolley.
Wikipedia is the best source for controversial subjects and it's not even close.
But anyways, we are down to journalists are dumb. What a compelling argument.
Quote:AP, Reuters, et al are NOT scientific studies, they are news organizations. You are assuming reporters both understand and accurately report the science. They don't. News organizations tend to sensationalize the facts on any subject, not just Global Warming Climate Change.
Wikipedia is a poor source for controversial subjects. You might want to Google William Connolley.
You have eliminated bloggers, news agencies, wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, a branch of the US security (can't remember which) and others. You have eliminated, journalists, scientists, scientific agencies, agencies charged with the protection of our national security, presumably the sources you don't agree with. Those you do, you post and tout as legitimate sources.
Quote:You have eliminated bloggers, news agencies, wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, a branch of the US security (can't remember which) and others. You have eliminated, journalists, scientists, scientific agencies, agencies charged with the protection of our national security, presumably the sources you don't agree with. Those you do, you post and tout as legitimate sources.
Hah. Good luck getting a legitimate response.
What he'll tell you is that you have to do your own homework on the subject. So, go back to school. Graduate. Get a relevant degree. Apply for an internship in Antarctica. Literally take the ice core samples yourself. Analyze them. Write your dissertation. Get published in a science journal. Cause that's the only way to be certain.
Quote:You have eliminated bloggers, news agencies, wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, a branch of the US security (can't remember which) and others. You have eliminated, journalists, scientists, scientific agencies, agencies charged with the protection of our national security, presumably the sources you don't agree with. Those you do, you post and tout as legitimate sources.
I post the actual data, in graphical form because it's easier to understand. Unlike press releases and such, the actual data does not show any reason for concern.
And Wikipedia is very biased about controversial topics. To think otherwise is clueless.
Quote:I post the actual data, in graphical form because it's easier to understand. Unlike press releases and such, the actual data does not show any reason for concern.
And Wikipedia is very biased about controversial topics. To think otherwise is clueless.
You've posted some out of contexts graphs and then lied about what they mean. Congrats.
Evidently you don't understand how Wikipedia works either. Not surprising.
Quote:I post the actual data, in graphical form because it's easier to understand. Unlike press releases and such, the actual data does not show any reason for concern.
And Wikipedia is very biased about controversial topics. To think otherwise is clueless.
You have eliminated everyone who disagrees with you. You practically have said as much in the previous statement as well as disregarding NASA NOAA etc throughout this thread.... You might be right or wrong on the final issues, I don't claim to be smart than most of the world's scientists though their are plenty of arrogant people who think they are.
Quote:You have eliminated everyone who disagrees with you. You practically have said as much in the previous statement as well as disregarding NASA NOAA etc throughout this thread.... You might be right or wrong on the final issues, I don't claim to be smart than most of the world's scientists though their are plenty of arrogant people who think they are.
Eliminated?
NASA and NOAA are about a lot more than just climate.
As far as NOAA climate science is concerned, they take the original measurements and adjust them based on theory. They publish both the original raw data and the adjusted data. They explain their adjustments. I disagree with their reasoning, but I don't 'eliminate' them. Their adjustments increase the warming rate, double it in the US. They continually re-adjust data. I'm not talking about fixing problems with recent measurements. Since just 2010 they have made additional adjustments that have added another 0.1 degree to their long-term warming, with the biggest adjustments on data in the 1930s. To me this screams of confirmation bias, fitting the data to one's theory rather than the other way around. Even if you accept every adjustment as being right, what does it say about their pre-2010 calculations when they now consider than to be off by 0.1 degrees. I know 0.1 doesn't sound like a lot, but when the warming is less than one degree it's a significant change.
NASA uses the NOAA data and calculates their own adjusted data series. I believe they also use a different subset of the measurements. Like NOAA, they continually adjust the data to add more warming.
The two satellite data sets show no warming for over 18 years. These are really global (with small missing circles at the polar caps).
The NOAA data
is from ground-based temperature measurements, and water temperature measurements from ships. Since 2003 they use ARGO buoys for sea temperatures. As you might guess, the sea temperature measurements before 2003 are very sparse, and there is much infilling of the 70% of the globe that is covered with water. Although they publish a global temperature back to before 1900, there is almost no data from the southern hemisphere before 1950.
History also provides some clues. Much of recorded history disagrees with what the climate scientists say. Fortunately Winston Smith is on the job.
Quote:Eliminated?
NASA and NOAA are about a lot more than just climate.
As far as NOAA climate science is concerned, they take the original measurements and adjust them based on theory. They publish both the original raw data and the adjusted data. They explain their adjustments. I disagree with their reasoning, but I don't 'eliminate' them. Their adjustments increase the warming rate, double it in the US. They continually re-adjust data. I'm not talking about fixing problems with recent measurements. Since just 2010 they have made additional adjustments that have added another 0.1 degree to their long-term warming, with the biggest adjustments on data in the 1930s. To me this screams of confirmation bias, fitting the data to one's theory rather than the other way around. Even if you accept every adjustment as being right, what does it say about their pre-2010 calculations when they now consider than to be off by 0.1 degrees. I know 0.1 doesn't sound like a lot, but when the warming is less than one degree it's a significant change.
NASA uses the NOAA data and calculates their own adjusted data series. I believe they also use a different subset of the measurements. Like NOAA, they continually adjust the data to add more warming.
The two satellite data sets show no warming for over 18 years. These are really global (with small missing circles at the polar caps).
The NOAA data
is from ground-based temperature measurements, and water temperature measurements from ships. Since 2003 they use ARGO buoys for sea temperatures. As you might guess, the sea temperature measurements before 2003 are very sparse, and there is much infilling of the 70% of the globe that is covered with water. Although they publish a global temperature back to before 1900, there is almost no data from the southern hemisphere before 1950.
History also provides some clues. Much of recorded history disagrees with what the climate scientists say. Fortunately Winston Smith is on the job.
You have eliminated the previously mentioned as credible sources. You believe you interpret the data better than them. ok then.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://gizmodo.com/the-global-warming-pause-never-actually-happened-1716701502'>http://gizmodo.com/the-global-warming-pause-never-actually-happened-1716701502</a>
^^some of the worse news we've gotten yet
"There’s been much debate these past few years over the cause of the so-called global warming “hiatus”—a pause in the overall uptick up of Earth’s temperature due to cooling at the surface of the Pacific Ocean since the early 2000s. Did climate warming stop? Nope, we just weren’t looking deep enough.
Earth’s extra heat, you see, has spent the last 10 years sinking into the vast depths of the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans.
That’s the conclusion of a new study, conducted by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and published today in the journal Science. The study, which examines two decades of observational data, offers the most definitive evidence to date that Earth’s largest ocean has been massively redistributing heat since 2003. Specifically, cooling in the top 100 meter layer of the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by warming in the 100 to 300 meter layer of both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, which together cover over 40% of our planet’s surface."
From the link^^
Comment stolen from reddit:
"The second image in the article is really the key.
The vertical blocks are avg. temperatures at increasing depths, i.e., the top left block is avg temperature at the surface in 1994, the block beneath that is the avg. temp at the next depth, (looks like 10-20 meters ish), and it continues like that in units of depths and blocks of time.
Basically take a slice of the ocean from surface to the bottom, and measure the temperature of the depths over time and watch how that changes.
As you move left to right, you see that while the surface does warm, it was not enough to account for the 'missing' energy.
However, if you look at the middle of the image, and move left to right, you see that it becomes VERY red. This implies that it wasn't the surface of the ocean which warmed, but some intermediate depths, somewhere between 100-300 meters.
This essentially explains where the 'missing' energy went, which was responsible for the 'pause' in increase of surface temperature.
i.e., if carbon dioxide is really trapping more energy from the sun, it has to go somewhere. If it isn't surface temperatures, it must add energy some place else, and we have found it! And it's not good!"
Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...k-minister
This is why I continue to post this stuff here. It's going to be so much worse in the future if we don't act now. A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This is not a conspiracy about control, but a very serious threat to our security and it should be treated as such. Shame on republicans for lying through their teeth about it and shame on Foxnews for not carrying any stories on it. Really the RNC needs to rethink their talking points on this very real security threat -- a security threat much graver than simple terrorism.
Quote:Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...k-minister
This is why I continue to post this stuff here. It's going to be so much worse in the future if we don't act now. A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This is not a conspiracy about control, but a very serious threat to our security and it should be treated as such. Shame on republicans for lying through their teeth about it and shame on Foxnews for not carrying any stories on it. Really the RNC needs to rethink their talking points on this very real security threat -- a security threat much graver than simple terrorism.
Silly, they forgot the frogs, flies, sores, water turning to blood and the Death Angel.
Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming
After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 21st year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satell...z3gErxuNwO
</div>
![[Image: troll-dance.gif]](http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/Celtic_Maiden/gifs/troll-dance.gif)