CDZ "Climate Science" is no longer any such thing.

Nobody outside of the conspiracy cult still bitterly clings to that crazy myth, being how it's contradicted by the data.
So the UK MET is now part of the vast rightwing conspiracy?

Maybe someone should let them know that.


When many measurements are averaged, the average has a precision much lower than that of the individual statistics.

That is utter nonsense. If I measure the length of a microbe with a yard stick that has as its smallest unit of measure a single millimeter, taking a million measurements does not change the significant digits of accuracry to allow for measurements the instrument is incapable of.

If you dont have a link to support this nonsense then all you have is unsupported claims.
 
Ummm, the global temps have remained static for 18 years

Nobody outside of the conspiracy cult still bitterly clings to that crazy myth, being how it's contradicted by the data.

The claim that this was the warmest year "on record" is based on falsified data

If conspiracy theories are all a movement has left, that's a sure sign the movement is in its death throes.

supposedly from a instrument that is not capable of the precision claimed in the report.

When many measurements are averaged, the average has a precision much lower than that of the individual statistics.

Nice try but that's a fail.

That's Statistics 101 level stuff that you failed at there. And you think you can lecture the real scientists?







Really? Why it says right here in the IPCC AR 5 report that there is indeed a "pause". See? Right there where I highlighted it. So, I guess the IPCC is made up of a bunch of "conspiracy cultists" according to you.

Good to know!

"After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”

In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”

IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
 
Really? Why it says right here in the IPCC AR 5 report that there is indeed a "pause". See? Right there where I highlighted it. So, I guess the IPCC is made up of a bunch of "conspiracy cultists" according to you.

They put the word "pause" in quotes to indicate it wasn't actually a pause, and that they were debunking it.

And, right in the text you copied there, the IPCC specifically stated the warming had continued at a lower rate.

So, you're misrepresenting what the IPCC said.

You're eventually going to have to give that crazy "no warming" claim. The last 2 record-setting years have pounded in the last coffin nails on that myth's coffin, and it's just going to keep warming more.
 
That is utter nonsense. If I measure the length of a microbe with a yard stick that has as its smallest unit of measure a single millimeter, taking a million measurements does not change the significant digits of accuracry to allow for measurements the instrument is incapable of.

You're also failing statistics 101.

Error of an average goes down proportionally to the square root of the number of measurements.

Standard error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bb234d9a63401082dbd197c430fd35c9.png


1 measurement, say error of 1.0C

100 measurements, error of the average will be 0.1C

10,000 measurements, error of the average will be 0.01C
 
That is utter nonsense. If I measure the length of a microbe with a yard stick that has as its smallest unit of measure a single millimeter, taking a million measurements does not change the significant digits of accuracry to allow for measurements the instrument is incapable of.

You're also failing statistics 101.

Error of an average goes down proportionally to the square root of the number of measurements.

Standard error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bb234d9a63401082dbd197c430fd35c9.png


1 measurement, say error of 1.0C

100 measurements, error of the average will be 0.1C

10,000 measurements, error of the average will be 0.01C

Lol, you are talking about statistic aples for establishing means and averages, not the significant digits of measurements, a totally different topic, roflmao.

This is from the article you linked to:

"The standard error (SE) is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of a statistic,[1] most commonly of the mean. The term may also be used to refer to an estimate of that standard deviation, derived from a particular sample used to compute the estimate."

You really dont get the difference, I'll bet because you dont want to.
 
They put the word "pause" in quotes to indicate it wasn't actually a pause, and that they were debunking it.

And, right in the text you copied there, the IPCC specifically stated the warming had continued at a lower rate.

So, you're misrepresenting what the IPCC said.

You're eventually going to have to give that crazy "no warming" claim. The last 2 record-setting years have pounded in the last coffin nails on that myth's coffin, and it's just going to keep warming more.

There has been a pause and even the Warmistas admitted it until NOAA revised their data yet again to raise average temperatures fractions of a degree to get back into the new world record narrative.

It is all blather when their instruments do not go to that level of accuracy and the results are consistently lower than projected.
 
Lol, you are talking about statistic aples for establishing means and averages, not the significant digits of measurements, a totally different topic, roflmao.

You just don't seem to grasp the significant digits of an average are a totally different topic from the significant digits of the measurements. If you can't get such basics, I don't know how to help you.

There has been a pause

The data says the opposite.

and even the Warmistas admitted it until NOAA revised their data yet again to raise average temperatures fractions of a degree to get back into the new world record narrative.

And more conspiracies. It always comes back to that.

The adjustments to the global data have made the global warming look _smaller_, yet the deniers spout a conspiracy theory that states the exact opposite of reality. Real scientists know the actual story, so they know with 100% certainty that the denier conspiracy theory is pure fiction. There's no socialist plot. You're just completely wrong.

It is all blather when their instruments do not go to that level of accuracy and the results are consistently lower than projected.

Real scientists don't fail at the statistics like you do, hence the real scientists know with 100% certainty that your story there is nonsense. Again, there's no conspiracy, you're just completely wrong.
 
Really? Why it says right here in the IPCC AR 5 report that there is indeed a "pause". See? Right there where I highlighted it. So, I guess the IPCC is made up of a bunch of "conspiracy cultists" according to you.

They put the word "pause" in quotes to indicate it wasn't actually a pause, and that they were debunking it.

And, right in the text you copied there, the IPCC specifically stated the warming had continued at a lower rate.

So, you're misrepresenting what the IPCC said.

You're eventually going to have to give that crazy "no warming" claim. The last 2 record-setting years have pounded in the last coffin nails on that myth's coffin, and it's just going to keep warming more.







:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wow. Talk about a "denier"! You're actually denying the English language now. So, we now know that you are a religious fanatic, anti science AND anti English language DENIER!

Good job mammy! It's hard to be as oblivious to reality as you are but man, you're a master at it!
 
You're using insults to run from the issue again, same as you do every time you get caught fudging.

Here's what the IPCC said, from your quote:

"After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade."

See? They say directly say the world was warming, just not as fast. So why did you pretend the IPCC said the opposite, given that your own source contradicts you?

We need not go into you pretending how you don't understand that putting a word in quotes means using it sarcastically. That's just pathetic. If you're going to stoop to that level, there's no point in engaging you.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top