Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Alternative > Paranet Skeptic > Re: The Real Ju...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 49 of 115 Topic 148 of 215
Post > Topic >>

Re: The Real Junk Science

by swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Swanson) May 23, 2005 at 04:32 PM

In article <0upv819pc1dvacngmdndaukns6qvvq6a8c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>
>On Fri, 20 May 05 13:55:10 GMT, lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>And http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

[cut]

>>>>You are lying.  This is out of date.
>>>
>>>It's a direct quote from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>Look it up and stop making a fool of yourself.

[cut]

Note that at the bottom of the page is the data:

     "Last Updated: June 14, 2000 "

It's very out of date.

>>NASA does not say there is no warming trend over the entire earth.
>
>NASA's data doesn't show it. 
>
>BTW, did you read that link?  That IS NASA and this is a direct quote
>copied and pasted:
>"The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against
>global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming
>trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric
>data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone
>depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large tem****ary warming
>perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic
>eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991."
>
>What part of "they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when
>averaged over the entire Earth" and "The lower stratospheric data show
>a significant cooling trend" and "In addition to the recent cooling"
>is too complicated for you to read and comprehend?


The latest data from Spencer and Christy's analysis is found at:

     http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

The trend data is at the bottom of the page.
Note that their result shows a global trend of 0.09 C/dec.  Also take note

of the fact that the Northern Hemisphere data shows much greater warming 
than the global value.

Other research groups, including NASA groups, have found greater warming
in the same raw data.  The difference between the various analytical
approaches has been discussed many times and a new re****t on the question
is due out shortly.  Stay tuned.

-- 
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com   :-) 
--------------------------------------------------------------
 




 115 Posts in Topic:
The Real Junk Science
Dan Clore <clore@[EMAI  2005-05-15 01:55:06 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"James" <kin  2005-05-15 11:01:39 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Bob Casanova <nospam@[  2005-05-15 16:35:26 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"James" <kin  2005-05-15 20:10:40 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Bob Casanova <nospam@[  2005-05-17 18:00:38 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-15 20:55:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-16 02:22:49 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-16 10:29:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-16 11:54:45 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-17 09:06:19 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-18 14:20:36 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-20 08:24:39 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-20 14:03:21 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-21 10:23:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-23 11:33:53 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-25 07:30:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Ghod" <ghod  2005-05-25 15:15:31 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-26 10:18:29 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-25 13:17:35 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-26 10:19:14 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-21 20:57:53 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-23 11:36:46 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:04:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-20 20:29:42 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-21 10:28:55 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:05:01 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-16 17:06:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-16 20:15:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-17 17:07:57 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-17 21:25:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-18 14:30:19 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-19 21:14:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-20 13:55:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-21 21:15:12 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-23 11:37:46 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:16:07 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-26 21:49:09 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-28 21:18:09 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-29 06:03:06 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Ian St. John"   2005-05-29 10:34:28 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-29 22:25:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-29 22:21:01 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-30 12:24:27 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-30 23:35:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-31 15:56:47 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-06-01 17:42:08 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-31 11:43:50 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-06-01 17:25:07 
Re: The Real Junk Science
swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-23 16:32:41 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:20:07 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-26 13:35:24 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-28 21:25:06 
Re: The Real Junk Science
swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-29 14:07:45 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-29 22:40:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-30 15:47:06 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 13:15:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-30 12:38:32 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 13:03:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-30 18:01:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 13:32:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-31 19:05:35 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-06-01 17:58:07 
Re: The Real Junk Science
swanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-06-02 00:10:35 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-06-04 20:33:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-30 12:26:21 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 13:36:01 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-26 21:59:35 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-28 21:40:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-29 06:03:01 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-29 22:18:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-30 12:27:37 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 11:46:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-18 19:32:43 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-19 22:05:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-20 16:26:57 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-21 22:10:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-22 19:10:49 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:57:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-20 14:00:43 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-21 21:36:04 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-23 11:42:18 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-26 00:23:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-26 13:36:42 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-28 21:42:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-26 22:02:38 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-28 21:44:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Ghod" <ghod  2005-05-25 17:05:20 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-25 23:07:06 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-16 11:52:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-16 19:58:01 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Stan de SD" &l  2005-06-07 01:49:20 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Werner Hetzner <whetzn  2005-05-15 15:30:42 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Dan Clore <clore@[EMAI  2005-05-15 08:59:42 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"James" <kin  2005-05-15 20:13:25 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-15 16:30:42 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Werner Hetzner <whetzn  2005-05-15 22:26:09 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-16 00:36:36 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Werner Hetzner <whetzn  2005-05-16 03:25:15 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wally Anglesea™ <wangl  2005-05-16 03:45:41 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-31 13:44:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-16 09:06:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-05-16 11:59:00 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Werner Hetzner <whetzn  2005-05-17 00:14:55 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Ghod" <ghod  2005-05-25 17:36:10 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-16 20:23:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-17 16:44:49 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-17 20:49:03 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-18 17:56:08 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-19 21:07:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-20 02:18:36 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Wm James <wrjames.remo  2005-05-21 22:29:02 
Re: The Real Junk Science
"Coby Beck" <  2005-05-16 17:13:44 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-16 10:31:26 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Bob Casanova <nospam@[  2005-05-15 16:33:17 
Re: The Real Junk Science
Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAI  2005-05-16 10:10:53 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Oct 12 17:23:35 CDT 2008.