Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thirty-year moving average mean for NYC from July 10 to August 10, roughly, was 77° in the 1960's (covering the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's). The thirty-year moving average mean for NYC from July 10 to August 10, roughly, is 77° in the current decade (covering the 1980's, 1990's and the "double-oughts" or 2000-2009).
The thirty-year moving average mean for NYC for most of January, was 32 or 33° in the 1960's (covering the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's). The thirty-year moving average mean for NYC for most of January, roughly, is 32° or 33° in the current decade (covering the 1980's, 1990's and the "double-oughts" or 2000-2009).
Not much change. And actual temperatures are a reality check for a so-called "global" trend.
That's called 'weather". Measured in hundreds of years. Climate is measured in thousands of years.
Think of weather as a hurricane predictive model and the "cone", but in hundred of years. The further your predictive model encompasses time... the greater the error possibility.
Think of climate as the actual path afterwards. It's accurate and our best geographic location for climate study is Greenland. Ice captures lots of data.
The average temperature has already increased almost 2 deg F since the industrial revolution.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Thanks for hijacking this election related thread for non-elec5ion related discussion. Appreciate it.
The Democrats did that already with their "Town Hall" on climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
That's called 'weather". Measured in hundreds of years. Climate is measured in thousands of years.
Think of weather as a hurricane predictive model and the "cone", but in hundred of years. The further your predictive model encompasses time... the greater the error possibility.
Think of climate as the actual path afterwards. It's accurate and our best geographic location for climate study is Greenland. Ice captures lots of data.
The Interglacial Period started millennias ago.Think of Greenland as an ice cube in a glass of soda. It melts but not immediately. That temperature rise is history and predates industrial-era humans.
The Interglacial Period started millennias ago.Think of Greenland as an ice cube in a glass of soda. It melts but not immediately. That temperature rise is history and predates industrial-era humans.
Not quite the ice in soda thing , that would be the Arctic Ocean... but you kinda get it.
That has all the sense of the schemes floated about in the early 1970's to dump carbon black all over the ice packs in the Arctic to combat the then-prevailing cooling trend. They are indeed a parody of themselves.
The "Ice Age is coming" theme in the 1970's was a media fad. It was not endorsed by a consensus of scientists.
The "Ice Age is coming" theme in the 1970's was a media fad. It was not endorsed by a consensus of scientists.
It was taught in college (CUNY), specifically in my Oceanographic Geology class text books. That was in the 70's. However what you say may have been true, but it was presented as science and the case was made.
Writing the essays and stating it was a media fad would have resulted in a "F"... so there's that.
It was taught in college (CUNY), specifically in my Oceanographic Geology class text books. That was in the 70's. However what you say may have been true, but it was presented as science and the case was made.
Writing the essays and stating it was a media fad would have resulted in a "F"... so there's that.
Thank you. I was in High School then and skipped Earth Science, where that would have been taught.
Iowa is showing Biden leading Sanders in a statistical dead heat. New Hampshire has a three way statistical dead heat, with Pocahontas in the lead and then Biden and Sanders trailing very close behind. In Nevada, Sanders leads Biden in what is again a statistical dead heat.
If these contests actually play out this way, then someone needs to bring a good supply of body bags. This is going to be a long and very competitive contest.
Tulsi Gabbard says that the impeachment of Donald Trump would "Tear our country apart". But isn't that what the TDS afflicted Democrat left wants? Either they get their way, or tear the country apart? It sure does look like those are the choices as they see it.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said in a new interview that she opposes an effort by dozens of House Democrats for an impeachment inquiry into the president, saying it would cause further divisions within the U.S. In an interview on "Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren," the 2020 candidate for president took a firm stance against impeachment, putting her at odds with other Democratic candidates for president including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I don’t [support impeachment,]" Gabbard said. "You know, I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart."
"Make no bones about it: We need to defeat Donald Trump. But I think it’s important for our country’s sake and our future that the voters in this country are the ones who do that, and I believe that we will," Gabbard added.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
