Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Sure, here's the answer - I said population growth is down globally. Here is the global rate:
Disprove that, or look for another straw man and please try to do better than the Newt Gingrich "it's up in one are so it's up and that's it" approach.
Still no insight on the Trump policies you disapprove of I see. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what they are.0 -
-
Sure, here's the answer - I said population growth is down globally. Here is the global rate:
Disprove that, or look for another straw man and please try to do better than the Newt Gingrich "it's up in one are so it's up and that's it" approach.
Still no insight on the Trump policies you disapprove of I see. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what they are.
Still waiting for a reply on the African growth link .0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It didn't take me long to find out why:I have read scientific reports that indicate it has. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists have found a solution to debunk the 15-year pause in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record. To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Sneaky devils... We’ll prove there was no pause in global warming by hook or by crook.Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years. The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.
However, over the past couple of decades, they act to very slightly increase the overall global surface warming trend.
Very slightly. Here's the graph that shows the change from raw data to adjusted data.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
oscarBravo wrote: »We're not talking about how the money you donate is utilised; we're talking about demanding a say in how the money others donate is utilised because you donate money too. Actually, an alternative solution is to accept money from grown-up countries like the Netherlands who recognise that abortion is an integral part of reproductive healthcare, rather than from wannabe 19th-century theocracies like the USA seems to be determined to become. No, you haven't. You've read opinion pieces claiming it has. They're not scientific reports, because the science doesn't say that. The only way to arrive at a conclusion as false as the one you did is to ignore the science. Case in point: See, that's not science. That's a GOP anti-science talking point. The reasons for the NOAA adjustment are well-explained and scientifically valid; the reasons for disagreeing with them are "I don't agree with them, therefore they're wrong. No, there aren't. There are people who claim there are, but then there are people who argue that there is science behind young-Earth creationism.
They're wrong. What they're doing isn't science. It's like evolution: the science is settled, and the determination of some people to believe that it's not won't change that fact.
I’ve seen the list of scientists who have claimed it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century and that that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Odd that Trump and Conway aren’t the only people on the list, wouldn’t you say?David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.
And there is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement