NOAA's corrections of temperatures over the ocean — done to compensate for changes in methods of observing the temperature of water at the surface of the ocean — reduced the warming trend in global temperature. For more details, visit https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
Neither Minus nor Qtard understands. Or they do, but pretend not to. Because it doesn't fit the narrative they like.
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine. The adjustments are scientifically necessary. Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken. Those are the adjustments under attack from [climate change deniers]. They're important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
Nobody SANE and smart enough to understand Scientific Method(s) can understand HOW second-hand mangled unsupervised data, can be proof of anything.
ONLY RAW DATA can!
\\Because it doesn't fit the narrative they like.
Yep.
Narrative WE like is scientific method based on FACTS and gluing em together logic.
Not mumbo-jumbo of some "believe US, WE are experts". ;-P
\\No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine. The adjustments are scientifically necessary.
BS.
Or... imbecile can EXPLAIN that part -- "scientifically necessary".
Naaah.
It can not.
Because IT is imbecile, which believes just into any mumbo-jumbo "expert" spewage. :-))))))))
Especially if label "DEMN approved" slapped on it. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once.
And? HOW it can influence statistics?
And even MORE important -- from what can be extracted needed "corrections" -- if, as you (well, not you, you just parroting UTTER anti-scientifical malarkey here) claim here, that change of position of stations influenced results???
\\They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning.
AGAIN.
From WHAT data can be extracted that "needed" corrections???
\\All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
Yep.
But.
That was NOT the question here -- question was -- FROM WHAT DATA could be extracted that "needed corrections"?
\\To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken.
BS.
Or... that is exactly ARE admission that numbers was tampered... at will. ;-P
\\Those are the adjustments under attack from [climate change deniers]. They're important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
That is exactly ARE claims of Pseudo-Scientific Crackpots of ALL time.
"How DARE you to criticize and doubt our words", they cry.
While ONLY reason why SCIENCE exist -- it's BECAUSE of inherent criticizing and ever-doubting attitude built-in inside it.
Just that moment that attitude disappears -- it ceases to be Science.
But... I know... that such an EXPLANATION is wasted on utter imbecile -- which can not get it, what scientific method is -- because, he can not get it even what FACT IS.
Maybe NOAA/NASA doesn't calibrate their thermometers and weather equipment to NIST standards like everyone else in the rest of the ENTIRE world has to.
Scientists to World: Each of the three analyses uses slightly different methods to do things like fill in areas of the globe where records are sparse, and uses a different baseline. Berkeley Earth was the only team to do a comparison with pre-industrial temperatures, using a baseline of the 1850–1900 temperatures. Its analysis suggests that this is the first year to finish over 1.5° C above preindustrial temperatures.
Most countries have committed to an attempt to keep temperatures from consistently coming in above that point. So, at one year, we're far from consistently failing our goals. But there's every reason to expect that we're going to see several more years exceeding this point before the decade is out. And that clearly means we have a very short timeframe before we get carbon emissions to drop, or we'll commit to facing a difficult struggle to get temperatures back under this threshold by the end of the century.
"We've all been FUDGING the numbers differently..."
So they be unemployed if they said global warming isn't a problem? They are unable to do any other work? Also unethical to the extreme and therefore willing to lie to keep their jobs?
\\ Maybe NOAA/NASA doesn't calibrate their thermometers and weather equipment to NIST standards like everyone else in the rest of the ENTIRE world has to.
Even more than that -- water/ice melting temperature 0 C AND water/vapor temperatures 100 C on which that thermometers set... they DO change TOO... and need to be "adjusted" oftenly. %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Yeah... Stories. Qtard just told one about temperature data being tampered with. Well, maybe the imbecile dunno the definition of "tampered"?
\\ Tampered, definition: interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.
YOU... gotcha.
See... how important -- to consult with with dictionaries? ;-P
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Qtard: Narrative WE like is scientific method based on FACTS and gluing em together logic.
\\ No. You hate that narrative. Passionately.
YET MORE imbecilic babbling. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Especially if label "DEMN approved" slapped on it.
\\No. I look for the "peer reviewed science" label.
That's exactly what written on the back of that stamp. ;-P
\\ Joe Conservative said...
\\ I look for the "skin in the game" label. And Big Science has big research $$$$ skin in the "warming" narrative.
Well... there only ONE question needed -- where's RAW DATA????
No RAW DATA -- No Science. ;-P
\\"We've all been FUDGING the numbers differently..."
THAT'S IT!
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ So they be unemployed if they said global warming isn't a problem? They are unable to do any other work? Also unethical to the extreme and therefore willing to lie to keep their jobs?
WITH... Climate Change -- they are Knights in Shining Armor Order... ONLY ONES who protecting WHOLE WORLD from Imminent Death.
WITHOUT... just a bunch of deluded punks and imbeciles. ;-P
So, what they'll choose??? M-m-m??? What would they PREFER???
What a hard question... NOT. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Especially as we have so close, so definite example -- you.
Who still do not like to admit being I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E...
thought from all accounts -- you definitely ARE one, ;-)
Minus: Their job is to remain "employed". The customer that pays them determines how they do that.
The customer wants the truth about climate change. Minus contends that the customer wants lies. If asked why, he would (no doubt), spin a tinfoil hat conspiracy.
And climate change scientists go along with these (alleged) lies for money. Because they have no integrity. This is easy for Minus to imagine because he has no integrity.
Qtard: Imbecile do not understand concept of "job" -- work payed for.
Qtard also has no integrity and no morals. Why it is easy for it to imagine that people lie for money all the time. People the imbecile calls "listen to me experts". These people (in Qtard's delusions) lie constantly to further "political goals".
Qtard: And what is their job? To tamper data to accommodate to some political goal?
Saving lives and mitigating financial damages from climate change are "political goals"?
Well, only because maximizing death is the "political goal" of the right. We saw this in regards to covid. We all should have wanted to use all the tools we could to minimize death. That should have been the nonpartisan goal. But NO. The right opposed using these tools. Because their goal was (and still is) maximizing death.
The right 's agenda re climate change is similar. Protect the profits of big oil. Sacrifice as many lives as needed.
Human life means very little to the right. Unless we're talking about embryos. Actual children -- they're willing to sacrifice them for profits for the gun industry.
\\Saving lives and mitigating financial damages from climate change are "political goals"?
So??? They ARE... Knights in Shining Armor... who'd knew. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Well, only because maximizing death is the "political goal" of the right. We saw this in regards to covid. We all should have wanted to use all the tools we could to minimize death.
Yep.
Like playing "don't be evil! here's candy" with Hitlers of nowadays -- Xi and Putin...
for it all to grow to became full fledged Third World War...
\\Protect the profits of big oil. Sacrifice as many lives as needed.
Yeah.
And that is NOT Holy Biden's policy... "Let's Pump Like Crazy"... who'd knew. %)))))))))))))))))))))
\\Human life means very little to the right. Unless we're talking about embryos. Actual children -- they're willing to sacrifice them for profits for the gun industry.
Yeah.
DEMN-rats... who are just a closet repugliturds. %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard also has no integrity and no morals. Why it is easy for it to imagine that people lie for money all the time. People the imbecile calls "listen to me experts". These people (in Qtard's delusions) lie constantly to further "political goals".
Yeah.
You are right. And you phatomed it. At last.
That is have NO integrity what-so-ever... no integrity to be *integral* part of DEMN-rats cult of NewSpeak liars and imbeciles. ;-P
Qtard: Well... there only ONE question needed -- where's RAW DATA???? No RAW DATA -- No Science.
It seems Tony Heller is able to look at the raw data. Isn't that what he based his "debunkings" on? Yet the imbecile persists with its false narrative that raw data is being hidden.
Qtard: Imbecile not reacted? Because DUNNO word "statistics"?
You dunno the meaning of the word "statistics"? That is unsurprising. You dunno the meaning of many words. I am surprised you would admit it, however.
Why would they do that? What does your tinfoil hat tell you?
ReplyDeleteThe climate record revisions are a matter of record. Is that what your tinfoil hat is keeping from you?
ReplyDeleteOnly Very Last Update from Ministry of Truth... is Truth. ;-P
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The oficialistas last word...
ReplyDeleteNOAA's corrections of temperatures over the ocean — done to compensate for changes in methods of observing the temperature of water at the surface of the ocean — reduced the warming trend in global temperature. For more details, visit https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
ReplyDeleteNeither Minus nor Qtard understands. Or they do, but pretend not to. Because it doesn't fit the narrative they like.
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine. The adjustments are scientifically necessary. Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
ReplyDeleteTo find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken. Those are the adjustments under attack from [climate change deniers]. They're important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
\\Neither Minus nor Qtard understands.
ReplyDeleteYep.
Nobody SANE and smart enough to understand Scientific Method(s) can understand HOW second-hand mangled unsupervised data, can be proof of anything.
ONLY RAW DATA can!
\\Because it doesn't fit the narrative they like.
Yep.
Narrative WE like is scientific method based on FACTS and gluing em together logic.
Not mumbo-jumbo of some "believe US, WE are experts". ;-P
\\No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine. The adjustments are scientifically necessary.
BS.
Or... imbecile can EXPLAIN that part -- "scientifically necessary".
Naaah.
It can not.
Because IT is imbecile, which believes just into any mumbo-jumbo "expert" spewage. :-))))))))
Especially if label "DEMN approved" slapped on it. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once.
And? HOW it can influence statistics?
And even MORE important -- from what can be extracted needed "corrections" -- if, as you (well, not you, you just parroting UTTER anti-scientifical malarkey here) claim here, that change of position of stations influenced results???
\\They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning.
AGAIN.
From WHAT data can be extracted that "needed" corrections???
\\All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
Yep.
But.
That was NOT the question here -- question was -- FROM WHAT DATA could be extracted that "needed corrections"?
\\To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken.
BS.
Or... that is exactly ARE admission that numbers was tampered... at will. ;-P
\\Those are the adjustments under attack from [climate change deniers]. They're important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
That is exactly ARE claims of Pseudo-Scientific Crackpots of ALL time.
"How DARE you to criticize and doubt our words", they cry.
While ONLY reason why SCIENCE exist -- it's BECAUSE of inherent criticizing and ever-doubting attitude built-in inside it.
Just that moment that attitude disappears -- it ceases to be Science.
But... I know... that such an EXPLANATION is wasted on utter imbecile -- which can not get it, what scientific method is -- because, he can not get it even what FACT IS.
Yawn.
Well. I'll provide dictionary definition... which imbecile will habitually ignore anyway.
ReplyDeleteWill try to babble that they are untrue? Doesn't matter? Because he know "better Truth"??? :-))))
detective
noun [ C ]
a police officer whose job is to discover information about crimes and find out who is responsible for them
detective story
meanings of detective and story
detective
noun [ C ]
someone whose job is to discover information about crimes and find out who is responsible ...
See more at detective
story
noun [ C ]
a description, either true or imagined, of a connected serie
Maybe NOAA/NASA doesn't calibrate their thermometers and weather equipment to NIST standards like everyone else in the rest of the ENTIRE world has to.
ReplyDeleteI once worked with NIST scientists to build an artificial sun-like instrument to calibrate satellite data. They must have de-orbited it.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile...
ReplyDeleteYeah... Stories. Qtard just told one about temperature data being tampered with. Well, maybe the imbecile dunno the definition of "tampered"?
ReplyDeleteTampered, definition: interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.
What part of "to cause damage" isn't true? $25t in damage.
ReplyDeleteOooops. $131t...
ReplyDeleteQtard: Narrative WE like is scientific method based on FACTS and gluing em together logic.
ReplyDeleteNo. You hate that narrative. Passionately.
Qtard: Especially if label "DEMN approved" slapped on it.
No. I look for the "peer reviewed science" label.
lol!
ReplyDeleteI look for the "skin in the game" label. And Big Science has big research $$$$ skin in the "warming" narrative.
Scientists to World: Each of the three analyses uses slightly different methods to do things like fill in areas of the globe where records are sparse, and uses a different baseline. Berkeley Earth was the only team to do a comparison with pre-industrial temperatures, using a baseline of the 1850–1900 temperatures. Its analysis suggests that this is the first year to finish over 1.5° C above preindustrial temperatures.
ReplyDeleteMost countries have committed to an attempt to keep temperatures from consistently coming in above that point. So, at one year, we're far from consistently failing our goals. But there's every reason to expect that we're going to see several more years exceeding this point before the decade is out. And that clearly means we have a very short timeframe before we get carbon emissions to drop, or we'll commit to facing a difficult struggle to get temperatures back under this threshold by the end of the century.
"We've all been FUDGING the numbers differently..."
So they be unemployed if they said global warming isn't a problem? They are unable to do any other work? Also unethical to the extreme and therefore willing to lie to keep their jobs?
ReplyDeleteMinus figured it out!
\\ Joe Conservative said...
ReplyDelete\\ Maybe NOAA/NASA doesn't calibrate their thermometers and weather equipment to NIST standards like everyone else in the rest of the ENTIRE world has to.
Even more than that -- water/ice melting temperature 0 C AND water/vapor temperatures 100 C
on which that thermometers set... they DO change TOO... and need to be "adjusted"
oftenly. %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Yeah... Stories. Qtard just told one about temperature data being tampered with. Well, maybe the imbecile dunno the definition of "tampered"?
\\ Tampered, definition: interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.
YOU... gotcha.
See... how important -- to consult with with dictionaries? ;-P
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ Qtard: Narrative WE like is scientific method based on FACTS and gluing em together logic.
\\ No. You hate that narrative. Passionately.
YET MORE imbecilic babbling. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Especially if label "DEMN approved" slapped on it.
\\No. I look for the "peer reviewed science" label.
That's exactly what written on the back of that stamp. ;-P
\\ Joe Conservative said...
\\ I look for the "skin in the game" label. And Big Science has big research $$$$ skin in the "warming" narrative.
Well... there only ONE question needed -- where's RAW DATA????
No RAW DATA -- No Science. ;-P
\\"We've all been FUDGING the numbers differently..."
THAT'S IT!
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ So they be unemployed if they said global warming isn't a problem? They are unable to do any other work? Also unethical to the extreme and therefore willing to lie to keep their jobs?
WITH... Climate Change -- they are Knights in Shining Armor Order... ONLY ONES who protecting WHOLE WORLD from Imminent Death.
WITHOUT... just a bunch of deluded punks and imbeciles. ;-P
So, what they'll choose??? M-m-m??? What would they PREFER???
What a hard question... NOT. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Especially as we have so close, so definite example -- you.
Who still do not like to admit being I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E...
thought from all accounts -- you definitely ARE one, ;-)
Qtard: YOU... gotcha. See... how important -- to consult with with dictionaries?
ReplyDeleteSo you're retracting your lie about NOAA tampering with temperature data?
Qtard: ONLY ONES who protecting WHOLE WORLD from Imminent Death.
What bullop. These are scientists just doing their jobs. While imbeciles like you call them liars.
Qtard: - they are Knights in Shining Armor Order...
Total moronity. Clearly it is desperate to convince me of its imbecility. When I'm already convinced. Was completely convinced a long time ago.
\\What bullop. These are scientists just doing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is their job? To tamper data to accommodate to some political goal? ;-p
Their job is to remain "employed". The customer that pays them determines how they do that.
ReplyDeleteImbecile do not understand concept of "job" -- work payed for. ;-)
ReplyDeleteMinus: Their job is to remain "employed". The customer that pays them determines how they do that.
ReplyDeleteThe customer wants the truth about climate change. Minus contends that the customer wants lies. If asked why, he would (no doubt), spin a tinfoil hat conspiracy.
And climate change scientists go along with these (alleged) lies for money. Because they have no integrity. This is easy for Minus to imagine because he has no integrity.
Qtard: Imbecile do not understand concept of "job" -- work payed for.
Qtard also has no integrity and no morals. Why it is easy for it to imagine that people lie for money all the time. People the imbecile calls "listen to me experts". These people (in Qtard's delusions) lie constantly to further "political goals".
Qtard: And what is their job? To tamper data to accommodate to some political goal?
ReplyDeleteSaving lives and mitigating financial damages from climate change are "political goals"?
Well, only because maximizing death is the "political goal" of the right. We saw this in regards to covid. We all should have wanted to use all the tools we could to minimize death. That should have been the nonpartisan goal. But NO. The right opposed using these tools. Because their goal was (and still is) maximizing death.
The right 's agenda re climate change is similar. Protect the profits of big oil. Sacrifice as many lives as needed.
Human life means very little to the right. Unless we're talking about embryos. Actual children -- they're willing to sacrifice them for profits for the gun industry.
The truth will keep the climate liars employed? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteLet's do another $1b mission to confirm "no warming"!
ReplyDeleteCui bono?
ReplyDelete\\Saving lives and mitigating financial damages from climate change are "political goals"?
ReplyDeleteSo??? They ARE... Knights in Shining Armor... who'd knew. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Well, only because maximizing death is the "political goal" of the right. We saw this in regards to covid. We all should have wanted to use all the tools we could to minimize death.
Yep.
Like playing "don't be evil! here's candy" with Hitlers of nowadays -- Xi and Putin...
for it all to grow to became full fledged Third World War...
because, that'll "minimize death"... who'd knew. %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Protect the profits of big oil. Sacrifice as many lives as needed.
Yeah.
And that is NOT Holy Biden's policy... "Let's Pump Like Crazy"... who'd knew. %)))))))))))))))))))))
\\Human life means very little to the right. Unless we're talking about embryos. Actual children -- they're willing to sacrifice them for profits for the gun industry.
Yeah.
DEMN-rats... who are just a closet repugliturds. %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard also has no integrity and no morals. Why it is easy for it to imagine that people lie for money all the time. People the imbecile calls "listen to me experts". These people (in Qtard's delusions) lie constantly to further "political goals".
Yeah.
You are right. And you phatomed it. At last.
That is have NO integrity what-so-ever... no integrity to be *integral* part of DEMN-rats cult of NewSpeak liars and imbeciles. ;-P
\\These people (in Qtard's delusions) lie constantly to further "political goals".
ReplyDeleteYeah.
There is THREE types of nasty lie EXCTLY.
Lie.
Horrible lie.
And... statistics. ;-P
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
ReplyDelete\\ Let's do another $1b mission to confirm "no warming"!
;-P
Minus: The truth will keep the climate liars employed?
ReplyDeleteOf course. Many people prefer lies to the truth. Jimmy Dore and Matt Taibi are doing very well selling lies.
Minus: Who knew?
Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Myron Ebell, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer and Ian Plimer. To name a few. Are any of these people unemployed?
Minus: Cui bono?
Hmmm... So the people I named above should be arrested? I think you'd protest that bigly.
Imbecile not reacted? Because DUNNO word "statistics"? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteAnd reading it definition cannot help it -- cause, imbecile! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0000
Qtard: Well... there only ONE question needed -- where's RAW DATA???? No RAW DATA -- No Science.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Tony Heller is able to look at the raw data. Isn't that what he based his "debunkings" on? Yet the imbecile persists with its false narrative that raw data is being hidden.
Qtard: Imbecile not reacted? Because DUNNO word "statistics"?
You dunno the meaning of the word "statistics"? That is unsurprising. You dunno the meaning of many words. I am surprised you would admit it, however.
:)
ReplyDeleteMinus is a member of the Flat Earth Society? Figures.
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteBut.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard is also a member of the Flat Earth Society?
ReplyDelete:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteBut.
Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Flat Earth Society "official"?
ReplyDelete