










Comments     Threshold


By Apprentice777 on 12/30/2008 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 5
Can one of you smart guys help me understand the NASA report from 2007? The way I understand the story NASA (GISS) had been using bad data in one of their reports. After learning of it and correcting the numbers it showed the warmest year in the US not to be 1998 as preciously thought, but 1934 followed by 1998, then 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

As someone who’s trying to figure this out it’s seems momentous to the discussion but I see it being tossed out (by some) as meaningless. I understand its US numbers, but wouldn’t it be wise to put more stock in these numbers than “world” ranking numbers. As I’m learning about this I find I’m dubious (skeptical) of measurements gathered from other countries. I presume there are hundreds if not thousands of locations across the globe being monitored. Who knows who’s doing the monitoring? Is it a sheep herder in some third world country? Are they competent? Are they accurate? Is the equipment up to date? Is it located properly away from equipment? Are they TRUTHFUL? How many well meaning UN appointed dirt farmers would it take to skew the numbers up just enough to show a warming trend?

RE: Question
By Screwballl on 12/30/2008 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on who is "cherry picking" the data and conveniently forgetting to include certain key data structures that could prove/disprove the very point they are paid to make, that GW is manmade.

From a real and honest perspective, I understand a good chunk of pollution is manmade, but not global warming. The earth goes through normal heating and cooling cycles and can balance itself out if man increases the CO2 cycling around in our atmosphere. It would do the same if we increase Nitrogen or Oxygen or any other naturally forming compound. Even manmade waste is handled by nature as it was designed, spread it out enough so that over distance and time, the waste product is minimal and no longer dangerous, even at the source.

We do not have enough data to predict ANY long term changes to this planet. Hell even with todays technology, the high tech weather channels can barely predict any weather a few hours later, they still rely on "chance of precipitation percentage", and "chance of winter weather" and the watch/warning systems.

Only one thing is for certain:


RE: Question


RE: Question
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2008 4:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
It rained here yesterday. The weather channel said it wouldn't on Sunday.

But people trust politicians with no scientific background when they say in 50 years its going to be hotter than it is today.

Shows how stupid people really are.

RE: Question

RE: Question




RE: Question
By geochem1st on 1/5/2009 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
People have a large misconception when it comes to modeling. Modeling daily weather events is far more complex than modeling climate scenarios. For daily events a great amount of detail needs to be known about the starting conditions of a weather system, which is why we the results are hit or miss. Climate by definition is the average weather for a large region. The constraints on the starting conditions are far less stringent as you are dealing with averages. Therefore the models will tend to be far more accurate in their predictions than daily weather models.

