Thanks, Im tired of this.
Too much science after work.
Gotta get back into the basket with the rest of the deplorables.
Too much science after work.
Gotta get back into the basket with the rest of the deplorables.
Science doesnt care how you feel.
I'm not sure 30-40 year old satellite data is relied upon by most scientists. Just making the point that our Earth Science technology has gotten a ton better in the last 20 years... not that it changes the discussion much.
I was always here.Hey look at that, you're coming around!!
I guess thats why nobody looks at satellite data anymore. *sarcasmThe notorious UAH satellite data was shown to be in error years ago, for fairly simple reasons. The original authors have acknowledged that.
We discussed that issue repeatedly on the old forum.
I guess thats why nobody looks at satellite data anymore.
Not at all.What an odd statement, just about everyone looks at satellite data....
So Berns, do you feel like you need to prove AGW isn't a thing? If yes, why?
Encouraging.What an odd statement, just about everyone looks at satellite data....
Nothing in the NTSB AA report supported your statement that modified maintenance saved AA money.Nothing in there that supports Sen. Nielsen's statement.
Have you read the actual report yet?
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3328/cap-trade-revenues-012116.pdf
Your Ehrlichian bent is showing again.Easily the best description of why small temperature changes could have gigantic ramifications to our environment going forward. Check this graphic out, it's amazing!
http://xkcd.com/1732/
"Instead of plotting temperature vertically and time on the horizontal axis as is usually done, he makes time vertical, starting 22,000 years ago. That makes the temperature move from cooler on the left to the present record heat we’re seeing today on the right. "
Fluctuations in temperature have large effects every year. Perhaps Summer and Winter come to mind?I thought it was a very effective way to explain the possible ramifications of mild fluctuations in temperature. A few degrees has very large effects.
Longer Life expectancy, lower child mortality rates, higher crop yields, etc.I don't understand either question. The link is where I got it and the global temperatures through time are reflected on the very long graph. What am I missing?
Why would he have to refute why small temperature changes could have gigantic ramifications to our environment going forward when going forward actually means less births and and a ton of baby boomer deaths going forward? Less consumption maybe?I'm sorry, have you successfully refuted anything yet? Also, do you feel a need for the graphic I posted to be wrong just because we don't agree on politics?
The data is too data-centric.So you are saying the data is wrong, can you prove it?
Shocking!Science is not a Liberal conspiracy.
Okay, that was freakin' funny!!We dont need Vostok ice core temp data for the last 100 years. We have records for that.
Yup, they do the same method of graphing to show income inequality.Mann's "hockey stick" was "peer reviewed".
The actual data is something else.
Your homogenized cartoon smoothed all the spikes and valleys and turned them into barely discernable gradients.
To run in 500 year blocks, and then throw in a 16 year slice at the end is hilarious.
I would also contend, as would others, that the medieval warm period was warmer than today.
Well, he recently took a trip to Hawaii and back. Will that suffice?Can you point me to the proof of anthropogenic co2 induced global warming?
Im short on time.
Nothing in the NTSB AA report supported your statement that modified maintenance saved AA money.
How much money did AA save through the alleged short cut. That was your entry point. Please continue.The NTSB directly criticized the airline practice of shortcutting the prescribed maintenance procedures.
Tell us again why you think the NTSB was at fault for the accident.