-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Global warming 'fabricated' by nasa and noaa
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
I looked at this….if I got the wrong one, it's because you put up the wrong one…
The date on that report is 12/10/2010.Crabtownboy said:
Your link. And even if it was the wrong link, you say 13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred in WHICH century ?
Last edited by a moderator:
And you still have not even acknowledged the fabrication, shown and referenced in the O/P.
land
1998 0.9362
1999 0.7797 down
2000 0.6279 down
2001 0.8125 up
2002 0.9337 up
2003 0.8889 down
2004 0.8132 down
2005 1.0472 up
2006 0.9077 down
2007 1.0833 down
2008 0.8505 down
2009 0.8624 up
2010 1.0724 up
2011 0.8763 down
2012 0.9065 up
6 up and 8 down
ocean
1998 0.5156
1999 0.3312 up
2000 0.3523 up
2001 0.4493 up
2002 0.4900 up
2003 0.5206 up
2004 0.4883 down
2005 0.5001 up
2006 0.4788 down
2007 0.4043 down
2008 0.3843 down
2009 0.4949 up
2010 0.5021 up
2011 0.4012 down
2012 0.4505 up
9 up and 5 down
land and ocean
1998 0.6325
1999 0.4556 down
2000 0.4293 down
2001 0.5504 up
2002 0.6124 up
2003 0.6227 up
2004 0.5778 down
2005 0.6510 up
2006 0.5971 down
2007 0.5894 down
2008 0.5121 down
2009 0.5955 up
2010 0.6580 up
2011 0.5312 down
2012 0.5752 up
7 up and 7 down
up
6+9+7=22
down
8+5+7=20
Info gathered & compared from….
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06...e-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/
1998 0.9362
1999 0.7797 down
2000 0.6279 down
2001 0.8125 up
2002 0.9337 up
2003 0.8889 down
2004 0.8132 down
2005 1.0472 up
2006 0.9077 down
2007 1.0833 down
2008 0.8505 down
2009 0.8624 up
2010 1.0724 up
2011 0.8763 down
2012 0.9065 up
6 up and 8 down
ocean
1998 0.5156
1999 0.3312 up
2000 0.3523 up
2001 0.4493 up
2002 0.4900 up
2003 0.5206 up
2004 0.4883 down
2005 0.5001 up
2006 0.4788 down
2007 0.4043 down
2008 0.3843 down
2009 0.4949 up
2010 0.5021 up
2011 0.4012 down
2012 0.4505 up
9 up and 5 down
land and ocean
1998 0.6325
1999 0.4556 down
2000 0.4293 down
2001 0.5504 up
2002 0.6124 up
2003 0.6227 up
2004 0.5778 down
2005 0.6510 up
2006 0.5971 down
2007 0.5894 down
2008 0.5121 down
2009 0.5955 up
2010 0.6580 up
2011 0.5312 down
2012 0.5752 up
7 up and 7 down
up
6+9+7=22
down
8+5+7=20
Info gathered & compared from….
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06...e-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/
Thank you for an intelligent post!
Up or down from the previous year and trying to say that has meaning over the long run is false logic. Sure there will be ups and downs from the previous year, but long term the trend is up.
If 2005 & 2010 was - say an average of 91
and 2006 was 90 - it would still be considered cooling - even if it was in the top 10.
How does the Book of Revelation fit into the equation? See also the Olivet Discourse, Mt. 24.
Statistical conclusions are usually skewed toward the livelihood and politics of the data gathering entity, also the worldview. Example: It is statistically impossible for macroevolution to have occurred, yet many scientists(?) believe such to be so. Seen any Nova programs? FDA is another example of political skewing of data? Many of the once O.K. pills are now is class action lawsuits. The lawyers are still winning. So is Bayer, etal.
Not many take Gen. 1:1 literally--the whole book actually.
This would not be the first time someone in a white coat plotted a curve on the wrong graph paper using a few skewed data points. This kind of falls into the same mindset as concluding the tooth of a pig is a missing link in human evolution. The premise is false along with the conclusion. This is all part of good scientific methodology, right? Wrong.
The cause of the falsity: spiritual wicked in high places, given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.
Did some one say Al Gore's books are now half price?
Happy data crunching.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Statistical conclusions are usually skewed toward the livelihood and politics of the data gathering entity, also the worldview. Example: It is statistically impossible for macroevolution to have occurred, yet many scientists(?) believe such to be so. Seen any Nova programs? FDA is another example of political skewing of data? Many of the once O.K. pills are now is class action lawsuits. The lawyers are still winning. So is Bayer, etal.
Not many take Gen. 1:1 literally--the whole book actually.
This would not be the first time someone in a white coat plotted a curve on the wrong graph paper using a few skewed data points. This kind of falls into the same mindset as concluding the tooth of a pig is a missing link in human evolution. The premise is false along with the conclusion. This is all part of good scientific methodology, right? Wrong.
The cause of the falsity: spiritual wicked in high places, given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.
Did some one say Al Gore's books are now half price?
Happy data crunching.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say that is unlikely. Looking back the last two to three decades the trends is upward.
June's heat was record breaking for the planet
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/07...d-breaking-for-the-planet-california-and-s-f/
There is no evidence that global warming is slowing
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2014/07/more-evidence-there-is-no-pause-in-global-warming/374807/
Computer models are proving to be pretty accurate
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
All-in-all it is quite conclusive that the earth is warming.
You know, they say that Venus is very hot because of the gasses in the atmosphere. Why would we think that this would not happen on earth as gasses build up in the atmosphere?
This reminds me when liberals were complaining that the Republicans were going to cut (I think) food stamps. The truth is that they were going to cut the increase. I don't remember the exact amount, but lets say it was propsed a 5 % increase in food stamps. But the R's would only give a 3% increase. The benefits were NOT decresed - they were increased. Yet people still believed the lie of the liberals.
Like wise, if 2005 was a record year for temps, and 2006 was not - THEN there WAS cooling. Those ARE the Hard facts.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
This thread is a case study in the futility of arguing with mindless robots.
Starting when ?
Salty, small increases have large effects. Here is a chart:
I do not know of a chart that gives temperatures as I understand your request. If you find one I would love to see it.
Also, if there are any Elliott Wave believers on the BB I would like to hear their take on the climate if they know of anyone who has applied climate to the Elliott Wave. The Elliott Wave theory is usually applied to financial markets. I have a friend who made a lot of money using the Elliott Wave analysis.
I've looked, and cannot find a chart of actual temperatures. Somebody, somewhere, has to have one.
Otherwise, all these anomaly charts wouldn't be available. I suspect there is one reason:
The anomaly charts look more horrific.
Think about it - if there was a chart showing the actual temperatures, rated in whole degrees, it would almost be a flat line across, with a flux of +/- 1 degree
But when the anomaly charts are used, they can make a half degree look enormous.
The chart provided is also showing an anomaly in Celsius. If we think of "0" as 70 degrees Fahrenheit, that would be 21.111 Celsius. So add the anomaly and convert to Fahrenheit:
1880 - 69.82 degrees
1890 - 69.64 degrees
1900 - 69.01 degrees
1910 - 69.01 degrees
1920 - 69.64 degrees
1930 - 69.82 degrees
1940 - 70.18 degrees
1950 - 69.82 degrees
1960 - 70.0 degrees
1970 - 70.0 degrees
1980 - 70.18 degrees
1990 - 70.36 degrees
2000 - 70.54 degrees
200? - 70.72 degrees
Oh my goodness ! ! ! !
the year 200? (the last year on this chart) was an entire .9 degree warmer than the year 1880.
Whew ! !
It's gettin' hot up in here, now.
But that anomaly chart looks MUCH more drastic than the reality.
Good grief
Otherwise, all these anomaly charts wouldn't be available. I suspect there is one reason:
The anomaly charts look more horrific.
Think about it - if there was a chart showing the actual temperatures, rated in whole degrees, it would almost be a flat line across, with a flux of +/- 1 degree
But when the anomaly charts are used, they can make a half degree look enormous.
The chart provided is also showing an anomaly in Celsius. If we think of "0" as 70 degrees Fahrenheit, that would be 21.111 Celsius. So add the anomaly and convert to Fahrenheit:
1880 - 69.82 degrees
1890 - 69.64 degrees
1900 - 69.01 degrees
1910 - 69.01 degrees
1920 - 69.64 degrees
1930 - 69.82 degrees
1940 - 70.18 degrees
1950 - 69.82 degrees
1960 - 70.0 degrees
1970 - 70.0 degrees
1980 - 70.18 degrees
1990 - 70.36 degrees
2000 - 70.54 degrees
200? - 70.72 degrees
Oh my goodness ! ! ! !
the year 200? (the last year on this chart) was an entire .9 degree warmer than the year 1880.
Whew ! !
It's gettin' hot up in here, now.
But that anomaly chart looks MUCH more drastic than the reality.
Good grief
It would seem what many do not understand is that what looks like a small rise has very big effects on the planet.
Crabby,
Change is relative. I'm sure when we were kids, you would remember that candy bars were only 5 cents. When they went up to a dime - that was a 100% increase. A few years later they cost 15 cents, but this time is was only a 50% increase.
Then 20 cents = 33% increase. At 25 cents, the price increased 25%. But over all the price increased 500 % - but when you add the % as I listed them - it only adds up 208%
That is the reason I want to see the actual figures for the past 150 years.
Change is relative. I'm sure when we were kids, you would remember that candy bars were only 5 cents. When they went up to a dime - that was a 100% increase. A few years later they cost 15 cents, but this time is was only a 50% increase.
Then 20 cents = 33% increase. At 25 cents, the price increased 25%. But over all the price increased 500 % - but when you add the % as I listed them - it only adds up 208%
That is the reason I want to see the actual figures for the past 150 years.
Why won't you answer any questions, C.T.Boy ? What are you afraid of ?
The anomaly chart also shows something interesting:
The avg. temp was the same in 1880 as it was in 1930, with a gradual lowering, then rise, then a sharp dip in temperatures between 1900 and 1910.
That dip should probably have looked just as horrific as the most recent rise - yes/no?
The avg. temp was the same in 1880 as it was in 1930, with a gradual lowering, then rise, then a sharp dip in temperatures between 1900 and 1910.
That dip should probably have looked just as horrific as the most recent rise - yes/no?
Dumb question: what is the systematic error of this data collection system? In 1880, our meteorological data measuring systems did not have two decimal repeatability. The accuracy was plus or minus an unknown order of magnitude--with equipment with questionable calibration and standardization.
Crunch the numbers all you want--six decimals if you like. The unknown system error order of magnitude kills the validity of the conclusions.
Not to worry, the world and all the works will melt with fervent heat, maybe sooner than later--and Hell is hotter--how many degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit is purely academic.
Now what?
Are we ready?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Crunch the numbers all you want--six decimals if you like. The unknown system error order of magnitude kills the validity of the conclusions.
Not to worry, the world and all the works will melt with fervent heat, maybe sooner than later--and Hell is hotter--how many degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit is purely academic.
Now what?
Are we ready?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator: