Posted on 09/15/2013 9:20:46 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
My genius never ceases to amaze me.....I was saying this ten years ago!!! applause....applause....that guy over there’s not applauding!!!!!!
Unicorns are coming to destroy the world... only the NRA knows the best way to fight unicorns... therefore all countries in the world MUST support the NRA...
Yep, it doesn't matter if it gets very cold, the new scam is global warming is just paused or Global Warming is hiding, but when it comes back, oh boy we are going to be in more trouble then ever!
This (and ocean acidification) will allow them to keep the scam going for years if not decades
Actually, it completes Global Warming movement from science to religion, just as Christians wait the return of Jesus Christ, Global Warming cultist will be waiting for the return of Global Warming.
expressing skepticism of global warming gets you looked at like you are a product of inbreeding who ordered raw roadkill for dinner. Thankfully, some intellectuals are working to change this:
His response after this was, “why would anyone risk their career on something that wasn’t true?”
I walked away shaking my head.
They're just trying to cover their asses for what's ahead of us in the years to come.
Meanwhile AlGore laughingly counts his money.
IPCC predicted 1.3 degrees warming, now predict .12 degrees per decade. That be about 100% off in my book. They consider warming caused by natural causes and less on CO2 (AGW).There will be many socialist democrats cringing with that news. They predict any warming to be more beneficial than harmful.Ditto above., If you see a socialist democratic fraud still clinging to this big government radical democratic AGW scam you should walk up and B Slap them silly.
“This (and ocean acidification) will allow them to keep the scam going for years if not decades”
They are making a giant Alka-Seltzer to address this.
Just need more money for further research.
So they were off by a factor of 10 even with all the biased data observations they have produced.
Then why doesn't the article say that? ? ?
“IPCC predicted 1.3 degrees warming, now predict .12 degrees per decade.
Then why doesn’t the article say that? ? ?
“
Please read post 8:
The article says .13 instead of .12.
So... again I ask, why does the summary above say 1.3 when the article itself says 0.13 ? That's all I'm asking.
it says.
“warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007. “
I saw that, too. 1.3 deg C sounded a little large, even for these doom-mongers.
Coal Industry Braces for EPA Emissions Crackdown
Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013
Global Warming on Free Republic
Uhhm, no; you can't. You can get a calculated value in hundredths of a degree, but you can not get a greater resolution than you started with.
Least significant figures, and all that still applies, so your average is only resolved to as few figures as your least precise measurements allow for, no matter how many places you can divide out to.
I believe the issue is resolved by a simple explanation. The Telegraph botched the story, and still has it botched. I think when they originally posted the article, there was a typo in it. They had 1.3C when the writer had intended it to be 0.13C. They have since corrected it online.
However, the article is based on another article from the Daily Mail, which was posted separately on FreeRepublic at:
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit...
This article was referenced by Izzy Dunne in a previous post on this thread. Note that in the Daily Mail article, it says the prediction by the IPCC was 0.2C, not 0.13C. I guess the only way to find out what AR-4 actually said is to wade through that report.
I found the following in IPCC AR-4. Maybe a more careful read will find other mitigating claims, but this is apparently where the Daily Mail got their number:
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, 3. Projected climate change and its impacts
Bumper sticker material..
Bah! All these paid-off National Science Foundation so-called “researchers” will be just as shaughty and act as smugly superior as ever. Ditto for acedemia, the MSM & lib bloggers, Dim pols, the UN self-proclaimed poobahs, all Weather Channel on-air people, Hollywierd, etc....
These “scientists” and “researchers” are an embarrassment to science. They should be fired and beaten with their dissertations. It’s all about stealing money from you and about control. The irresponsible twits should be imprisoned for what they have done(are doing) to societies.
Of course you can. If I measure a 0-10V pulse that has a 59% duty cycle with a voltmeter that measures to the nearest volt, and I measure it a hundred times at random intervals, then my average comes out to 5.9 Volts. THat's a resolution of 0.1V.
It's not the same thing as accuracy, which is why I didn't use the word "accuracy".
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.