jecornel
New Fish
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/siberia-mystery-craters-methane-climate-change
But this article us scary as shit.
But this article us scary as shit.
I know climate is a hoax
- Thread starter jecornel
- Start date
Apparently I've reached my New Yorker article quota for the month.
Any of you basement dwellers feel like posting a tl, dr version?
Any of you basement dwellers feel like posting a tl, dr version?
Can't you borrow your mom's Discover card to buy a subscription?
Putin.
sarktastic
New Fish
...[/i]and there’s a precedent: during the deglaciation that occurred at the end of the last ice age, some twelve thousand years ago, volcanic activity in Iceland is estimated to have increased by as much as a factor of thirty...[/i]
nobody denies climate change.
nobody denies climate change.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environme...was_earths_hottest_winter.html#incart_m-rpt-1
But it doesn't exist because it's really cold in Boston.
But it doesn't exist because it's really cold in Boston.
Nope, she cut me off
HoustonHusky
New Fish
an example of GHCN data "analysis"
The nature of the homogeneity adjustments made to remove non – climatic influences that can bias the GHCN – M temperature record are described in Lawrimore et al. 2011 for version 3.0.0. In brief, adjustments are necessary because surface weather stations are frequently subject to minor relocations throughout their history of operation and may also undergo changes in instrumentation as measurement technology evolves. Furthermore, observing practices may vary through time, and the land use/land cover in the vicinity of an observing site can be altered by either natural or man-made causes. Any such modifications to the circumstances behind temperature measurements have the potential to alter a thermometer’s microclimate exposure characteristics or otherwise change the bias of measurements relative to those taken under previous circumstances. The manifestation of such changes is often an abrupt shift in the mean level of temperature readings that is unrelated to true climate variations and trends.
(i.e. we adjust the numbers to get the result we want...just ignore the historical slope in the data corrections. Amazingly enough they wrote over the original data with the "corrected" data in v3...I'll let you decide why...)
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
Except the two sides mean different things when they say "climate change". Yes, when the one side defines it down into nothing everyone would agree with it. It's literally impossible for the climate not to change. But that is not what the other side means.
The question remains - how much do humans effect the change and what cost will bring what result?
The first question hasn't been answered and we're blindly passing taxes and legislation with no answer to the second question.
By pointing this out I am a "climate denier". Sounds really ominous doesn't it? Welcome to another non big issues for the campaign.
The EPA has done a great job with our air and water and American industry is the world leader in innovation. That's all good and let's not stop. But for fucks sake most of the climate change shit is just another excuse for the gubmint or stupid fucking liberals to tell us how to live our lives.
But not theirs
The first question hasn't been answered and we're blindly passing taxes and legislation with no answer to the second question.
By pointing this out I am a "climate denier". Sounds really ominous doesn't it? Welcome to another non big issues for the campaign.
The EPA has done a great job with our air and water and American industry is the world leader in innovation. That's all good and let's not stop. But for fucks sake most of the climate change shit is just another excuse for the gubmint or stupid fucking liberals to tell us how to live our lives.
But not theirs
