• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just spotted this....Hot topic

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed

9 / 18

Associated Press

Get the app
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer6 hrs ago
SHARE
SHARE
TWEET
SHARE
EMAIL

DeGeneres and Williams discuss Kim Burrell's cancelled 'Ellen' appearance

BBxUPbY.img
© AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko In this Jan. 22, 2015 photo, a zodiac carrying a team of international scientists heads to Bernardo O'Higgins, Antarctica.
WASHINGTON — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.
The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency's scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn't answering its requests quickly enough.
The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.
"Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right," Hausfather said. "They were not in any way cooking the books."
NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don't have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.
In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.
Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren't part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.
"This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas," Trenberth said in an email.
Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Hausfather's study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .
___
Online:
Science Advances: Science Advances
___
Follow Seth Borenstein at seth borenstein (@borenbears) | Twitter and his work can be found at SETH BORENSTEIN .
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
Global warming is real.
Why today in normally cold for this time of year N.E. Ohio it's
already a balmy 18 degrees and snowing.
Oh! That IS normal for frozen N.E. Ohio for this time of mid winter ain't it?
Heck man, I'm dressing in shorts and T shirt and going fishing.
I need chop a really big hole in the thick ice to launch my boat first.
Not to worry it's a small boat.:rolleyes:

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, forget the boat. I'll chop a small hole to drop a line
into.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, forget the fishing. Baits all frozen.
I'm sure glad that global warming thing is true.:D
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
so you lump ALL of the study work under that one guy's name?

Lumping nothing. This guy is known for his misinformation. If he has a valid point over something as important as this, then show us the money..just sayin'.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I can't tell if there are some deniers in this thread. If so, I'd ask you to look at what's happening in places like the Kiribati islands and the Solomon Islands. They are being submerged!
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I can't tell if there are some deniers in this thread. If so, I'd ask you to look at what's happening in places like the Kiribati islands and the Solomon Islands. They are being submerged!

But even if this were totally factual you cannot show one shred of evidence that ties it to any climatic change whatsoever.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
But even if this were totally factual you cannot show one shred of evidence that ties it to any climatic change whatsoever.

We can (and have), calculated how the volume of above-sea-level-ice that melts impacts sea level. Lots of such ice is melting, and islands are getting submerged. Seems like pretty basic physics, no?

Perhaps you're confusing the question of "why ice is melting?" with "is ice melting?" ?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So what's everyone doing to eliminate their contribution to global climate change?

Awesome question! I've virtually eliminated my plane travel. I've seriously reduced my annual driving miles. And I'm almost entirely a vegetarian. From an ecological perspective, the difference between being a meat eater and not, is HUGE! (Eating meat puts a HUGE strain on the environment and it takes a lot of energy to make meat.)
 
Last edited:

BSM1

What? Me worry?
We can (and have), calculated how the volume of above-sea-level-ice that melts impacts sea level. Lots of such ice is melting, and islands are getting submerged. Seems like pretty basic physics, no?

Perhaps you're confusing the question of "why ice is melting?" with "is ice melting?" ?


You're equivocating. There is absolutely zero-that's zero with a "z"-proof that any harm on this earth has been caused by any form of "climate change" or "global warming". If there were, we would not be having this conversation. BTW, the only "melting ice" that could possibly effect the sea levels would have to be ice on a land mass. Ice in the Arctic, for the most part is already in the water. Every bit of this ice could melt and it would not raise the sea level at all.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe if you actually read serious news or science reports instead of right-wing trash you'd understand what the "hysteria" is really about. I went through a fair number of article at that site you linked us to and it is so obviously slanted that no one should take it seriously. Maybe it's best to read actual science links instead of that which is only good for lining the birdcage.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Maybe if you actually read serious news or science reports instead of right-wing trash you'd understand what the "hysteria" is really about. I went through a fair number of article at that site you linked us to and it is so obviously slanted that no one should take it seriously. Maybe it's best to read actual science links instead of that which is only good for lining the birdcage.

Please read my post above yours. If you can disprove this, go for it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
But even if this were totally factual you cannot show one shred of evidence that ties it to any climatic change whatsoever.
Here's a source that can link you to numerous scientific studies: Global warming - Wikipedia

If that's not good enough for ya, maybe check out the websites as NOAA, the NSA, NASA, etc. for confirmation.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please read my post above yours. If you can disprove this, go for it.
And look at my last post.

Again, your posts simply are politically motivated and you really should be using scientific sources and not right-wing junk-news sites. Anyone who's done the research well knows what these sites are up to.

I've been in science for 50 years now, and I've run across so many of these sites on various topics, including anti-evolutionary garbage. And they tend to trap those whom are heavy into what psychologists call "confirmation bias", and these people by & large have no interest in objective truths that may go against their blind faith in whatever.
 
Top