Posted on 05/18/2004 7:12:07 AM PDT by presidio9
For years, a discrepancy in global climate data has fuelled debate over global warming.
Temperatures in the troposphere, the first 11km of the atmosphere, have been rising slower than models predict given the rate of increase in temperature on the Earth's surface.
But polar orbiting satellites show that cooling in the stratosphere - the next layer of the atmosphere - explains the inconsistency, according to research published in Nature.
Once the effects of this stratospheric cooling have been taken into account, the scientists found that statistical analyses produced temperature trends consistent with observed surface warming and the predictions of climate change models.
Do I understand this right? They're positive of global warming because they detected some significant cooling?
Once the effects of this stratospheric cooling have been taken into account, the scientists found that statistical analyses produced temperature trends consistent with observed surface warming and the predictions of climate change models.
They search through the millions of variables that affect the earth’s temperture, find the one that allows their model to reflect the actual results, and then add it to their witch’s brew of a couple dozen ingredients.
And in two years, when the data once again fails to reflect their predictions, they’ll find another variable to tweak the models again.
In this way, any real world condition always confirms the prediction.
Science!
Unfortunately, it appears that way.
If you need me, I'll be out in my garage working on my spaceship. I suggest you do the same.
Being as dumb as a rock, I always thougth that God was the one that was going to destroy the earth and not man.
ping
Yeah. Of course.
"Trends consistent with....", that's the key phrase.
You have three, and only three possibilities, trend up, trend down, or no change.
A trend consistent with could be up .0001 degree, or 10 degrees.
The Sky is Still Falling!!!! Come, Chicken Little, we must go and tell King Kerry!!!!!!
Workin' on it, but I'm having a problem getting the warp coils aligned.
environmental modeling: garbage in, garbage out
Got mine done some years back. Except for the engine...........got any ideas that might work there?
"Workin' on it, but I'm having a problem getting the warp coils aligned."
You need to take a BFH to the coil housing.
I am presently working on the fuel injection system. Problem I am having is going to be the burn rate of Kerry/Clinton 2004 placards.
Rolling my eyes in disgust. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. This is data manipulation to produce an assumed result. Certainly if you manipulate variables enough you can come up with the desired result. THIS IS PURE BULL CRAP, being paraded around as science to advance a political agenda. THEY MAKE ME SICK.
Work faster dammit! Global Warming will cause NYC to be covered with 50ft of snow by this weekend! Never mind the inconsistency of that statement!
I see you have the older model.
Correct title should be, Data Manipulation Confirms Global Warming
Isn't there one intellectually honest scientist left on this planet....
Whatever you do, do not use fossil fuels.
I have some spare dilithium crystals if you need them.
There's a local radio host who has the weather man read him the record high and record low temperatures every day. Afterward he always says "More proof of Global Warming." The point being, it doesn't matter what the data says. It is always proof of Global Warming.
I seriously wonder why there aren't more Bjorn Lomborgs on the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.