Again, assuming you’re not trolling.
2 Likes
Actually a lot of the cyanobacteria and flagellates really are toxic as hell.
1 Like
Oh, I know. I just was trying to structure the post in such a way that I wouldn’t immediately be assailed with, “But doesn’t algae naturally occur somewhere?” Obviously it does, but in ecology, it’s the balance of factors that proves important.
This man, Alka-Seltzer, and Vernier GoTemp probes are obviously part of the vast conspiracy to enrich the global cabal of money-grubbing scientists with their carbon credits scheme.
1 Like
Yup, you can tell by the pixels.
Nuh uh.
Nope. It most likely wasn’t. NASA now admit they were only 38% sure they were right about 2014 being the hottest year. When the amount they are talking about (one two-hundredths of a degree) is within the margin of error, I doubt there is any certainty.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.
So, either it was the hottest year on record, or it was less than 0.08 degC cooler than the last hottest year on record, set waaaaaay back in 2010.
Because of course a tiny difference in a single data point totally invalidates the general point.
And this bit:
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent
Is just deliberately misleading, as a result of typically fucking awful Daily Fail journalism, trying to imply that 1880 was a warm year, rather than just the first one we have records for.
7 Likes
Yep, I did see in the original press release from NASA. I was quite interested in the sentence -
Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius)
I have to ask, so what? The Earth has been warmer even, in the past (the Medieval Warm Period etc).
One of the FACTS are, that the Earth has not warmed in 18 years - the so-called “pause”.
3 Likes
Does humanity’s role (or lack thereof) matter? From my perspective, this continues to be the focus of the issue, rather than how (or if) humans are going to cope with the warming (altered growing seasons, rising sea levels etc.). It seems more energy goes into arguing over the cause rather than what we’re going to do about the effects.
Along the lines of Gyrofrog said. We are still going to experience these changes and if we begin to plan, and take realistic actions to cope with the situation in the future things will be much more pleasant for future generations.
Additionally there is absolutely no good reason to doubt the cause. Go up and watch the video with the pop bottles and the C02, there’s nothing at all controversial or even difficult about the science. It’s simply a matter of people buying into this idea there’s some reasonable ‘doubt’ about the issue. Money talks, and the oil companies and other energy producers fear the changes to the global economy that will inevitably result from whatever adjustments have to be made in the future.
Somehow the deniers have managed to tie the science off this issue with politics, and accepting this basic, and obvious scientific fact is apparently thought to reduce one’s manhood in size. Or affirm one’s liberal politics.
The worst, dumbest part of this plan is that it means when action is finally taken by the USA it will almost certainly be whatever action the left has been clamoring for over the decades leading up to the day we do finally take action. The right is missing the boat entirely on trying to shape that future policy by denying the facts of the situation.
Maybe there is not ]tipping point’ and things will just continue to gradually get worse, but it’s entirely possible there is one, a big scary one, and we’re going to run on by it before we realize that we’ve passed that tipping point. We’re gambling with the well being of future generations for very little real gain. In a reduced emissions economy the rich will still be rich, and the oil companies will still make a fortune, possibly more of one somehow, they are quite clever after all. All that’s to be gained by this delay is the protection of a few very short sighted folks revenue streams as is for the next dozen years or so, that’s all they care about.
1 Like
It’s not the thermometers that have changed but the triple point of water that has moved, we just haven’t noticed! Its the neutrinos, they’ve mutated!
3 Likes
And there’s nothing we can do about it, thanks to Big Oil.
Dr. Fahrenheit’s scale was designed to be easily calibrated against empirical reality outside the lab. You can use a healthy cow or brine or any of a number of other methods. From a Fahrenheit thermometer you can calibrate a Centigrade one (and if you have a laboratory capable of creating nanopure water, which is not beyond 1880s technology, you can calibrate your celsius thermometer directly from reality.)
And I’m pretty sure we have thermometers that were made in the 1880s and earlier. I might even have one in my barn.
But who cares? As usual we’re arguing about etiolated metrics when the real issue is pollution. The acolytes of Reagan and Rand want to make all commons extinct, and they are purposely working to make the air unbreathable and the water undrinkable, and they’ve managed to convince everyone to argue about “global warming” - which is merely symptomatic of their ongoing efforts - while they continue to pump poison into every natural commons.
And of course the anti-religion crowd has to stick their favorite oar in, too. God forbid we should actually do something about pollution when we’ve got invisible sky men to sneer at.
Meaning no insult to you, just sharing my point of view and some scientific and historical knowledge.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
