Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ⢠The Register
Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.
NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)
And the scientific journal that this article was in is..............
Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ⢠The Register
Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.
NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)
And the scientific journal that this article was in is..............
Always happy to help you out....
straight from the article
A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015.
Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ⢠The Register
Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.
NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)
And the scientific journal that this article was in is..............
Man, I don't like posting this. I would much prefer being able to trust NASA. Has this thing become that politicized?
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ⢠The Register
Further examination of the NASA site might give us a clue as to what is happening.
NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down - thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend - but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen - one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40.)
And the scientific journal that this article was in is..............
Always happy to help you out....
straight from the article
A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015.
I guess I better post this one here since it's the glacier thread.
Volcano Monitor
Volcanic eruptions reshaped Arctic ocean floor -- study
June 26, 2008 09:30:00
Agence France-Presse
PARIS -- Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
.
.
.
The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometers (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.
I guess I better post this one here since it's the glacier thread.
Volcano Monitor
Volcanic eruptions reshaped Arctic ocean floor -- study
June 26, 2008 09:30:00
Agence France-Presse
PARIS -- Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
.
.
.
The mid-ocean ridge runs 84,000 kilometers (52,000 miles) beneath all the world's major seas except the Southern Ocean, and marks the boundary between many of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the Earth.
When continental plates collide into each other, they can thrust up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
But along most of the mid-ocean ridge -- including the Gakkal Ridge -- the plates are pulling apart, allowing molten magna and gases trapped beneath the crust to escape.
It is called plate tectonics, hardly new. And the people who took the pictures stated that the amount of heat was not enough to make any differance in what we are seeing in the Arctic. Not only that, but it has been doing this for millions of years.
Interesting but hardly revelant to the disapearing of the ice caps.
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
Your map shows none in the arctic. Besdies what do seismic monitors have to do with volcanoes. You're really stretching now.
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
Your map shows none in the arctic. Besdies what do seismic monitors have to do with volcanoes. You're really stretching now.
Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
Your map shows none in the arctic. Besdies what do seismic monitors have to do with volcanoes. You're really stretching now.
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
Your map shows none in the arctic. Besdies what do seismic monitors have to do with volcanoes. You're really stretching now.
Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
There is a worldwide system of seismic monitors. Were there really major activity anywhere, we would know about it in minutes.
IRIS Seismic Monitor
Your map shows none in the arctic. Besdies what do seismic monitors have to do with volcanoes. You're really stretching now.
Large volcanic eruptions have large, identifiable seismic signatures.
