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.
Has science yet separated out CO2 that’s man-made versus naturally occurring? Environmental science is unreliable!
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!
No one who still reads the slimes could possibly be bright.
It’s only necessary to understand one number: zero.
There is no global warming. It’s a massive hoax invented by scientists looking to milk the system.
It’s a little known fact that newspapers are written for the 13-year old reading level....Hmmm, they must do that for a reason...
Most of their readers ascribe to the Common Core math. So, yeah.
If they fudge the numbers to give the impression that Hillary has a 98% chance of trouncing Trump in the general election, they’re fudging the global warming numbers too. The media lies, global warming is a scam, and that’s all there is to know.
The only number that matters—anyone who believes anything they read in the New York Times has an IQ below room temperature.
You have to be dumb to read the NYT.
FLASHBACK (dead links):
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/08/21/wind.chill/index.html
Wind chill factor gets new formula (”numbers have been warmed up”)
August 21, 2001
EXCERPT
Under the old system, an air temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a 15-mph wind speed would result in a wind chill of 5 degrees below zero, according to the weather service.
Under the same conditions, the new index would show an 11-degree increase in the wind chill factor: 6 degrees above zero.
“We’re trying to ... generate a public education campaign, and we urge our users out there to take this seriously even though the numbers have been warmed up,” said Mark Tew, who heads the weather service project as chairman of the Joint Action Group on Temperature Indices.
//
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml
In the fall of 2000, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) formed a group consisting of several Federal agencies, MSC, the academic community (Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis (IUPUI), University of Delaware and University of Missouri), and the International Society of Biometeorology to evaluate and improve the wind chill formula. The group, chaired by the NWS, is called the Joint Action Group for temperature Indices (JAG/TI). JAG/TI’s goal is to upgrade and standardize the index for temperature extremes internationally (e.g. Windchill Index).