Posted on 01/27/2017 7:21:02 PM PST by markomalley
I recently wrote about the wretched reporting on the claim that 2016 was the “hottest year on record,” using as my main example a New York Times article by Justin Gillis that gave his readers none of the relevant numbers they could use to evaluate that claim. None of them. If you search for the actual numbers, you will eventually find that the effect they are claiming, the actual amount by which this year was hotter than previous years, is smaller than the margin of error in the data.
Shortly afterward, I got a revealing response from Gillis. I’ll fill in all the details for you, because the whole thing is an important case study in why you can’t trust mainstream reporting on global warming. But let’s just cut to the chase. When I asked him why he didn’t include the basic numbers we need to understand his story, he gave me this reply:
So if I understand this correctly, a reporter from the New York Times is telling me that his readers are too dumb to understand numbers.
I
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Well, they’re probably right. Most of their readers are math-impaired libs, after all.
He's probably right.
What’s the temperature supposed to be?
And he would be right his readers are.
Wonder if the writer understands numbers? Like the NYT is bankrupt
Has science yet separated out CO2 that’s man-made versus naturally occurring? Environmental science is unreliable!
They can always sell the Boston Globe to raise cash, /S.
Global warming, AKA climate change is a religion
it needs no proof, it is accepted on faith.
For those with lives, and things to do other than read the full article:
The supposed difference in the average 2016 temperature relative to that in 2015 (a number the NY Times refused to report) was 0.01 degree.
The most optimistic value for the margin of error in these values was at best 0.1 degree. The actual margin of error was most likely at least twice that, perhaps much higher (I have relatives in the enviro testing business, and they don’t trust their numbers - obtained under highly controlled conditions - to better than +/- one degree).
So in other words the average global temperature in 2016 was essentially the same as that in 2015.
And it’s the global warming skeptics who are anti-science.
Their readers will believe everything they are told.
Well, something is going on here, and for the life of me it appears the NYT staff thinks everyone but them is stupid.
I wonder, could it be them? Naaaah...
LOL
Here’s the only number they need to know- and it aint hard to now how meaningless this number is compared to the grand total= 0.00136%
That number is how much atmosphere Man’s CO2 takes up in the atmosphere- and that number is nowhere near enough to blanket the earth and trap heat enough to warm a planet- period-
How do we get that number?
TOTAL CO2 AND greenhouse gases make up 0.04% of the atmosphere
Man’s contribution of just CO2 to that TOTAL CO2 Amount is just 3.4%
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%
0.00136% of the atmosphere that has CO2 in it as a direct result of mankind-
Perhaps the NYT would like to explain to it’s readers how just 0.00136% of the atmosphere could possibly capture hold and back radiate enough heat to warm the globe? No? Didn’t think so!
and Robert Tracinski should note that it doesn’t matter how hot it gets- we’ve ALWAYS had cyclical warming that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2- infact- ice core samples prove that warming always happens first- then 800 years or so later, CO2 rises- proving that CO2 is not the cause of the warming
IF increasing CO2 were the cause of warming- then the last 20 years would have shown steady warming as CO2 levels steadily rose- that is NOT what the satellite data showed BEFORE they fudged the results by inventing new numbers claiming ‘one of the satellites moved out of position during those decades’ Really? ‘moved out of position’? Yeah ok- we were all born yesterday!
CO2 levels in the past were over 800 ppm=- today they are around 400 ppm- life survived at 800 parts per million-
Come-on NYT- we demand to know- how much heat does just 0.00136% of the atmosphere actually capture and release relative to the total weight of the atmosphere? We want hard facts- what is the actual volume of air that is hesated- and what prevents it from beign cooled as it is back radiate towards earth?
Of that total volume of heated air- what % actually makes it back to earth? (Only a fraction of it is back radiated in the ‘right direction’- meaning only a tiny tiny fraction of the small amount of heat produced even makes it’s way back to earth- the rest is shot in the ‘wrong direction’ where it is quickly overwhelmed by the massive amount of atmosphere where it nearly instantly reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere’s temperature as a result-
We’re waiting NYT!
[[So in other words the average global temperature in 2016 was essentially the same as that in 2015.]]
Even despite more CO2 produced by man- weird- I thought CO2 caused warming- so the NYT actually just provedCO2 doesn’t drive temperatures because nothing changed despite a rise in CO2 (I’m sure they will have some lame excuse why it didn’t rise a large amount)
No one who still reads the slimes could possibly be bright.
Later in the article the author points out that, according to a real weather expert, Roy Spencer, 2016 was statistically indistinguishable from 1998 (according to average world temperature). This means that there has now been no "global warming" in 18 years, making obvious the BIG LIE.
Most reporters don’t understand numbers either.
For later.
L
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.