Here we are once again observing the troll in his natural habitat. Note how he rejects any form of reality even after being repeatedly informed just what and how and why the adjustments are made. This marks the 786th straight day of this behavior. What curious benefits arise from this level of self delusion biologists have yet to confirm, but apparently there must be some as the repeated ignorance is quite astounding.
I have a feeling that if they had reported the translation from Luther the quotations would have been quite a bit more forceful.
You do realize that it is the government that created, enabled, and permits the situation as is, right?
Delicious cold, you almost manage to describe a world where corporate interests stand silently on the sidelines while those wacky government types run roughshod over the public
It's what his kind honestly believe.
You twit. The main reason defense spending went down as a % of GDP over time was because of the growth of our economy, not because of a reduction in defense spending.
Using the amount as a % of GDP is just a mask.
All this is is another case of how to lie with statistics.
Start with the relation A/B.
You're claiming the A shrunk because the relation A/B shrunk.
But the reason A/B shrunk isn't because A shrunk, but because B grew, and continues to grow.
The 2016 campaign season is going to be a doozy.
the only comedians not lining up for this party are those that have already did their time and gotten burnt out from the last several cycles.
No, its actually very right, unlike basically anything you wiull find on WUWT.
Some adjustments are upwards.
But most are downwards.
Particularly those in the arctic which are are some of the largest magnitude adjustments.
The over all effect IS to reduce the apparent warming.
That is not a debatable statement, but it is easily verifiable by looking at the data yourself.
The primary source of adjustments upwards is the United States, when we switched from taking readings in the afternoon to doing it in the morning it introduces a very large bias. And in order to correct that bias in order to achieve the same base reference point so that our data is comparable to and can be combined with the rest of the world's data, it requires adjusting upwards:
It is clear that the shift from afternoon to morning observations in the United States introduced a large cooling bias of about 0.3 C in raw U.S. temperatures. As contiguous U.S. temperatures have risen about 0.9 C over the last century, not correcting for this bias would give us a significant underestimate of actual U.S. warming. While some commenters have hyperbolically referred to temperature adjustments as “the biggest science scandal ever”, the reality is far more mundane.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Thing is....the US isn't the world. If you recall.
And the majority of the rest of the world's adjustments are downward.
And the overall effect is to, just as I said, reduce the amount of apparent warming.
Attn mods: stating a fact is not trolling.
The data, THE RAW DATA you jerkwads are always asking for, because you dont trust scientists, because you think you can independently check them, IF TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS makes the Earth appear 20% warmer than it actually is.
It makes the state of global warming look WORSE than climatologists say it actually is.
In other words...the adjustments help you idiots who would rather say its not happening.
BTW, it also shows that the scientists dont have an agenda, and don't give a shit about any predetermined outcome, and truly do simply want to find out the factual truth of it all. Because if they truly had any sort of agenda, if it trully was solely about being an alarmist and scaring the shit out of people, why the fuck would they intentionally reduce the apparent magnitude of the warming if that was their goal?!
Besides being bullshit due to a misunderstand on your part, none of that changes, nor is it relative, to what I said, nor to what the GP said.
No, they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included,
and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations.
And guess what? The result was the same; nearly unchanged.
In short, the idea that somehow its all due "heat islands", and that scientists are too stupid to think of this on their own, is bullshit .
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.
But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground.
Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
Ah yes. Newsbusters understands neither science nor probability, and misrepresented the statements of scientists in order to imply that the scientists are most likely wrong...news at 11:30.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?
The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.
The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005.
According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available.
The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted:
Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.
Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record.
In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be.
If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know.
A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record.
Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes:
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04C, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02C. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing).
So taking all of this into account, I can only conclude that once you dig into what NOAA’s and NASA’s scientists actually did, and why they did it, you realize that their conclusion is perfectly reasonable.
2014 was the hottest year on record. Not with absolute certainty — just with enough of it for an imperfect world.
And what makes you think that isn't just EXACTLY what they do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
Very first result: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any uniformed suggestions?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
First link on page: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any other uninformed questions?
he doesn't hate all nations.
just the global poor who, for some reason never logically explained, will all die if we don't keep burning fossil fuels.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
