Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears...

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper

Another opinion piece from another contributor to skepticalscience.com? Seriously?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html

ExxonMobile is in favor of a carbon tax. Their CEO has publicly said so more than once. ExxonMobile is the largest producer of natural gas (the fossil fuel with the least carbon) in the USA. Carbon taxes will curb competition from coal and increase ExxonMobile's profits.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Try reading your own link. I did. Are you too lazy to do the same?

Of course I've read it. Nowhere does it say they took results from one collection method and applied it to a different collection method. That doesn't even make sense, if you think about it. So, I'm asking you to clarify what gave you that idea.

Originally posted by C Hess
That doesn't even make sense, if you think about it. , .

I believe that "if" above is the operational word here. He chooses not to think about it because, if he did think, he would know he doesn't make sense. That's assuming he doesn't know that he is not making any sense -I am choosing to give give him the benefit of the doubt by assume him to be much more delusional and stupid than stupidly and ineffectively trying to be deceitful. I think that really is the best I can do for him under the circumstances.

Originally posted by C Hess
Of course I've read it. Nowhere does it say they took results from one collection method and applied it to a different collection method. That doesn't even make sense, if you think about it. So, I'm asking you to clarify what gave you that idea.

"Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4."

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4."

What you've got there is an attempt to correlate data between two different collection methods, not applying the results of one collection method on a different collection method.

When you have two different methods of collecting data, where one was predominantly used in the past, and the other is predominantly used in the present, and you realise that there's a consistent difference in their relative accuracy, you will want to take that difference into account, or you're going to get skewed overall results during the transition from one method to the next.

How would you suggest they fix the problem instead?

Originally posted by C Hess
What you've got there is an attempt to correlate data between two different collection methods, not applying the results of one collection method on a different collection method.

When you have two different methods of collecting data, where one was predominantly used in the past, and the other is predominantly used in the pres ...[text shortened]... e transition from one method to the next.

How would you suggest they fix the problem instead?

"and you realise that there's a consistent difference in their relative accuracy"

If it was consistent they would not have to calculate the average difference.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"and you realise that there's a consistent difference in their relative accuracy"

If it was consistent they would not have to calculate the average difference.

LOL! True. I mean to say that buoys consistently gave lower temperature readings.

Originally posted by C Hess
LOL! True. I mean to say that buoys consistently gave lower temperature readings.

If it was consistent they would not have to calculate the average difference.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If it was consistent they would not have to calculate the average difference.

Really? I have to explain this to you?

Let's say you're always late for work. That would be a consistent pattern that I can observe. It doesn't mean that you're always exactly X minutes late. But if I need X for some other calculation, I can calculate your average, and that will be a good enough approximation to use in calculations.

Now, do you understand?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If it was consistent they would not have to calculate the average difference.

Given the current context, there is something not quite right with that statement. I was editing here an explanation of what but, you wouldn't get it.

Originally posted by C Hess
Really? I have to explain this to you?

Let's say you're always late for work. That would be a consistent pattern that I can observe. It doesn't mean that you're always exactly X minutes late. But if I need X for some other calculation, I can calculate your average, and that will be a good enough approximation to use in calculations.

Now, do you understand?

Show me the actual differences so nobody has to explain anything. At that point it will be clear what they are calling "consistent".

I can claim I have been consistent in debunking global warming alarmists, but would you agree? People on this forum cannot even admit they are alarmists, even after making past statements admitting it. Sonhouse did just that.

What you consider consistent is not what others consider consistent. Prove it is consistent.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Show me the actual differences so nobody has to explain anything. At that point it will be clear what they are calling "consistent".

I can claim I have been consistent in debunking global warming alarmists, but would you agree? People on this forum cannot even admit they are alarmists, even after making past statements admitting it. Sonhouse did just ...[text shortened]...

What you consider consistent is not what others consider consistent. Prove it is consistent.

And you have some kind of problem googling stuff? Why can't you look up the data yourself since you are the one questioning it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you have some kind of problem googling stuff? Why can't you look up the data yourself since you are the one questioning it.

Oh, so you are making the claim that global warming is a serious problem that we must throw money at and I have to prove a negative? Seriously????

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Oh, so you are making the claim that global warming is a serious problem that ...

basic SCIENCE, not to mention basic reasoning, says it's a problem.
And it isn't just him claiming this but most climate scientists; because it is pretty obvious really.

Originally posted by humy
basic SCIENCE, not to mention basic reasoning, says it's a problem.
And it isn't just him claiming this but most climate scientists; because it is pretty obvious really.

You are dead wrong. Most climate scientists do not think it is a problem. Repeating that myth will not make it true no matter how many times you say it.