Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (114344)	11/18/2015 10:20:14 PM
From: bart13	Respond to of 218954

I'd come way closer to believing that about the satellite data if NOAA hadn't been adjusting their historical datasets upwards over the last decade plus. It wouldn't at all surprise me that NOAA sponsored that study too, too much money and political power is on the line, same with the large biases built into NOAA-9 terget factors noted in that study. But amen on selecting one's own preferences!

To: Snowshoe who wrote (114344)	11/19/2015 1:33:57 AM
From: bruiser98	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218954

One satellite data set is underestimating global warming theguardian.com >>>So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979–2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.<<< 0.029 and 0.114 round to 0.