[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 wrote:

a unfairly generous take on Hansen

Quote:

and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S...[

Also insignifigant enough to be evidence of a warming trend.

WHAT WARMING?

In the US...Then why do you keep saying that this error applies to the whole world?

[Alfred909]

Zipperfish wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

a unfairly generous take on Hansen

Quote:

and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S...[

Also insignifigant enough to be evidence of a warming trend.

WHAT WARMING?

In the US...Then why do you keep saying that this error applies to the whole world?

It does in the idea that much of our science comes from NASA. A great book about NASA, called Space, shows the story of how great NASA was at one time. They were planning a mission to Mars when it got scrapped in the late 70s.

Satalites were using our modern day scanners. Then our modern day Megapixel cameras. A great deal of science was perfected and or created by NASA.

The Ozone Layer happens to be a big study by NASA. A lot of different scientific groups use NASA for research.

For instance, if I wanted to know how much energy from the sun was entering the atmosphere as opposed to leaving it, I could look it up on the NASA website. They have already done most of the testing, I just need to figure out the equations on what is happening.

Most Academic and Private organizations use NASA as help in studies for space.

So yes, NASA is huge. If one scientist screwed up, that means a lot of other science needs to be corrected.

Though it should be pointed out that the 3rd and 4th hottest days were in the 90s. Lately we have been cooling off.

What is really interesting is that Mars has been having similar fluctuations. This may mean that a lot of our weather is being based on Solar Rays. Which would mean the addition of a lot more equations when predicting rain.

"It appears that a solar shower will be hitting above us, so expect some cloud cover today. The clouds should travel Eastward to Boise and leave some rain on Twin Falls."

[Zipperfish]

Alfred909 wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

a unfairly generous take on Hansen

Quote:

and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S...[

Also insignifigant enough to be evidence of a warming trend.

WHAT WARMING?

In the US...Then why do you keep saying that this error applies to the whole world?

It does in the idea that much of our science comes from NASA. A great book about NASA, called Space, shows the story of how great NASA was at one time. They were planning a mission to Mars when it got scrapped in the late 70s.

Satalites were using our modern day scanners. Then our modern day Megapixel cameras. A great deal of science was perfected and or created by NASA.

The Ozone Layer happens to be a big study by NASA. A lot of different scientific groups use NASA for research.

For instance, if I wanted to know how much energy from the sun was entering the atmosphere as opposed to leaving it, I could look it up on the NASA website. They have already done most of the testing, I just need to figure out the equations on what is happening.

Most Academic and Private organizations use NASA as help in studies for space.

So yes, NASA is huge. If one scientist screwed up, that means a lot of other science needs to be corrected.

Though it should be pointed out that the 3rd and 4th hottest days were in the 90s. Lately we have been cooling off.

What is really interesting is that Mars has been having similar fluctuations. This may mean that a lot of our weather is being based on Solar Rays. Which would mean the addition of a lot more equations when predicting rain.

"It appears that a solar shower will be hitting above us, so expect some cloud cover today. The clouds should travel Eastward to Boise and leave some rain on Twin Falls."

Well, good response, but not quite what I meant. The flubbed data, when coreectly rewroked showed that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in US history. However, Smasquanch repeatedly claims that 1934 was the hottest year ever. In fact the list of the five warmest years according to NASA (source) are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.

And there's no doubt that climate is primarily affected by insolent soalr radiaiton. The problem is that the measured solar radiation doesn't seem to add up to the temperature increases we've been seeing.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish wrote:

And there's no doubt that climate is primarily affected by insolent soalr radiaiton. The problem is that the measured solar radiation doesn't seem to add up to the temperature increases we've been seeing.

We need a new measuring stick.

[fire_i]

Les-R wrote:

fire_i wrote:

(In the course of this post, I will assume global warming is already proven as true and indeed caused by humanity - it may or may not actually be the case, but I prefer warning already to avoid any backlash.)

It is true global warming can be considered a factor in peace across the Earth - it could even be a major one. The main reason why (war over ressources) has already been pointed out. In that sense, Gore did help further world peace by trying to prevent, or at least minimize, an event which could lead to many wars.

But what Has Gore contributed to preventing this? (assuming it is in fact preventable)

So far all I see are rich people throwing money at each other to assuge each-other's sins. (I.E. the whole 'Carbon-Credit' racket.)

He very certainly has, at least indirectly. See how much we talk about him and his work only : he brought a lot of light to global warming. Sure it already had lots before he arrived, but I'd go as far as to say his interventions had a multiplicative effect on global warming awareness.

JJ wrote:

I naturally assume a more suitable winner would have been someone half the world doesn't already know.

Err... as much as celebrity shouldn't be a reason why give someone a nobel prize, anonymosity shouldn't either. It's a simple award, not really a means to push a little-known "agenda" (please disregard the negative connotations of the word, I don't mean them), so celebrity or lack thereof should simply be ignored when it comes to picking a winner.

Quote:

That GLOBAL WARMING is actually occurring......no evidence Hansen/NASA temp data indicates the hot time was the 1930's....not the 90's. WHAT WARMING?

Over the whole world, it would seem the recent years are the hottest.

I think everyone has seen this graph now

And two other graphs from Landcare Research from New Zealand :

This one is nothing spectacular and probably not original research, but this one is quite interesting. Spikes in temperatures are normal through the last 400 000 years, but the current one is the warmest.

Whether or not this warming is natural... its existence can hardly be argued, and it's particularly strong.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

Quote:

However, Smasquanch repeatedly claims that 1934 was the hottest year ever. In fact the list of the five warmest years according to NASA (source) are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.

Couldn't help but notice that you failed to put my post in a quote box. perhaps you should do that when you repost----if you repost.

fire_i

Quote:

This one is nothing spectacular and probably not original research, but this one is quite interesting. Spikes in temperatures are normal through the last 400 000 years, but the current one is the warmest.

There seems to be no attribute to this graph. Is this the product of some-body's evening on a crack pipe?

[Alfred909]

PluggyRug wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

And there's no doubt that climate is primarily affected by insolent soalr radiaiton. The problem is that the measured solar radiation doesn't seem to add up to the temperature increases we've been seeing.

We need a new measuring stick.

Possible. This is a new part of science. Recent studies show that certain solar radiants hitting one of the earths spheres causes clouds. These clouds block the radiants from fully hitting earth.

Others show that it was much hotter on earth during the time of the dinosaur.

We also seem to be slowly moving away from the sun, yet the temperature is beginning to get better.

Lots of questions, a very complex system to study. No one really knows how it all works. Thats why they experiment and test it all.

The problem that seems to be happening is pretty old. As in you see it through out history of science. There seems to be politicians that want certain things to happen. So they say it is scientific. I have friends that have quit jobs as scientists because of how bad it gets. And at the moment, both sides are doing it.

So science is really tough to follow on this subject. I have my hypothoesis, but need more research... And a PhD. I am certain that scientists are working to figure this all out. In 10 years we will have a better answer. And the politicians now will look pretty stupid.

[Prestwick]

Wrong Chamberlain J.J. You're thinking of ol' Joe Chamberlain:



When you really want Neville Chamberlain:



Apart from the moustache and lack of monocole, two identical people!

[Quantum_Wizard]

Prestwick,

JJ already stated that he meant Austen (not Neville or Joseph) Chamberlain.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Now that I think of it, it seems that Joseph and Austen look nigh indistinguishable!

[Prestwick]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Prestwick,

JJ already stated that he meant Austen (not Neville or Joseph) Chamberlain.

I Know! And I intend to remind him again and again and again until he gets it right! Even if its not Neville Chamberlain.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Prestwick wrote:

I Know! And I intend to remind him again and again and again until he gets it right! Even if its not Neville Chamberlain.

But he already got it right, didn't he. The guy he drew is clearly Austen Chamberlain.



Or did I misunderstand you somehow?

[Prestwick]

You did misunderstand me. I was making a joke.

[fire_i]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

However, Smasquanch repeatedly claims that 1934 was the hottest year ever. In fact the list of the five warmest years according to NASA (source) are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.

Couldn't help but notice that you failed to put my post in a quote box. perhaps you should do that when you repost----if you repost.

Speaking of quotes - if you want to quote somone in particular, write

Person wrote:

. That way the person's name appears as it should.

sasquatch2 wrote:

fire_i wrote:

This one is nothing spectacular and probably not original research, but this one is quite interesting. Spikes in temperatures are normal through the last 400 000 years, but the current one is the warmest.

There seems to be no attribute to this graph. Is this the product of some-body's evening on a crack pipe?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Zipperfish]

fire_i wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Don't worry--neither does anyone else.