What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

AGW Cult Explains it all: Baseline

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
Screen%20Shot%202016-01-21%20at%203.19.31%20PM.png


The screen shot is from NOAA where they said the "global average temperature was 62.45F for 1997" They presented a temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree. Yet, like someone falling out of favor with a Progressive, this 62F reading has since disappeared.

stalin.jpg


The stated reason is confusing to me and involves a "baseline" I'm confused as to how they can both accurately report temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree but now say it's all subject to adjustment per some "baseline"

Can anyone explain?
 
Last edited:

jon_berzerk

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
7,352
Points
1,130
Screen%20Shot%202016-01-21%20at%203.19.31%20PM.png


The screen shot is from NOAA where they said the "global average temperature was 62.45F for 1997" They presented a temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree. Yet, like someone falling out of favor with a Progressive, this 62F reading has since disappeared.

stalin.jpg


The stated reason is confusing to me and involves a "baseline" I'm confused as to how they can both accurately report temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree but now say it's all subject to adjustment per some "baseline"

Can anyone explain?

that set of pictures explains so much
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
97,937
Reaction score
12,245
Points
2,180
Screen%20Shot%202016-01-21%20at%203.19.31%20PM.png


The screen shot is from NOAA where they said the "global average temperature was 62.45F for 1997" They presented a temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree. Yet, like someone falling out of favor with a Progressive, this 62F reading has since disappeared.

stalin.jpg


The stated reason is confusing to me and involves a "baseline" I'm confused as to how they can both accurately report temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree but now say it's all subject to adjustment per some "baseline"

Can anyone explain?
well again, why was the baseline supposedly changed? Is it changed every year? Seems like a very statistical nightmare to try and control.

Oh, and if the baseline is indeed the reason for a difference, why remove the past information? What is it they are afraid of, if their actual explanation is a baseline thingy.

That seems odd, and is again suspicious.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,908
Points
280
I have a few thermometers from that era still hanging up inside and around my barn...I looked at them and compared them to more modern thermometers and I'll be danged if I can see any difference...freezing is still located in the same place whether you are looking at F or C...the baseline looks the same...I guess the baseline that warmer wackos are talking about is some moveable goalpost to be employed when the collected data shows signs of being a denier...
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
I have a few thermometers from that era still hanging up inside and around my barn...I looked at them and compared them to more modern thermometers and I'll be danged if I can see any difference...freezing is still located in the same place whether you are looking at F or C...the baseline looks the same...I guess the baseline that warmer wackos are talking about is some moveable goalpost to be employed when the collected data shows signs of being a denier...

You think it reads freezing only because you failed to adjust the baseline. Forget the drink, just snort it straight from the package like the rest of the AGWCult

592px-Kool-aid-Intro.jpg
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

They since discovered that a far better way to hide the decline was to adjust the actual readings
 

I amso IR

"Well Yea, Duh"!
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
166
Points
140
Screen%20Shot%202016-01-21%20at%203.19.31%20PM.png


The screen shot is from NOAA where they said the "global average temperature was 62.45F for 1997" They presented a temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree. Yet, like someone falling out of favor with a Progressive, this 62F reading has since disappeared.

stalin.jpg


The stated reason is confusing to me and involves a "baseline" I'm confused as to how they can both accurately report temperature accurate to a hundredth of a degree but now say it's all subject to adjustment per some "baseline"

Can anyone explain?

that set of pictures explains so much

Here one minute, gone the next. Not to worry as he was a one striper.
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
They can't even explain the baseline.

ISKCON7.PNG


Global Warming
Warming global

Science settled
Settled science

Baseline
baseline
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
I know most people are not mathematically inclined. It is hard to see how scraping a few hundredths of a degree here and padding a few hundredths there can add up to a change in trend of a few tenths of a degree.

But it is not that hard to do. Especially when no one is even keeping track of the overall absolute temperature, and instead just uses anomalies to different baselines.

Karl2015 was a political paper that used 'unusual' methodologies to produce a rebuttal to The Pause.

Because there was a backlash from legitimate scientists there is now a campaign to discredit satellite temperature measurements.

Even with the boost from a super El Nino the warmists are losing ground in the public opinion. Expect more desperate tactics.

Typically there is a La Nina after an El Nino. The repercussions will be significant. The warmers should have downplayed the recent naturally occurring warming to leave room for what could be a very embarrassing few years after this El Nino's effects are done and cooling appears.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
eln-5-pg-CLIP.gif


Big dips after the large El Ninos in 98 and 10. The warmers better hope for no La Nina in 17.

Even this recent super El Nino didn't push the temps up to what the models are predicting.
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
eln-5-pg-CLIP.gif


Big dips after the large El Ninos in 98 and 10. The warmers better hope for no La Nina in 17.

Even this recent super El Nino didn't push the temps up to what the models are predicting.

But that's pre-baseline adjustment.

"Give me an eraser and I care not what the thermometer reads!" -- AGW Cult Science
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
image002.jpg


The baseline makes its first appearance!

 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
97,937
Reaction score
12,245
Points
2,180
eln-5-pg-CLIP.gif


Big dips after the large El Ninos in 98 and 10. The warmers better hope for no La Nina in 17.

Even this recent super El Nino didn't push the temps up to what the models are predicting.

But that's pre-baseline adjustment.

"Give me an eraser and I care not what the thermometer reads!" -- AGW Cult Science
but the reading from the NOAA was temperature not an anomaly. There is no baseline, that's been my point. It wasn't an anomaly.............It was an average temperature reading.
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
Day 2: waiting for the AGW cult to explain what a baseline is and it had to be adjusted for 1997
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
97,937
Reaction score
12,245
Points
2,180
Day 2: waiting for the AGW cult to explain what a baseline is and it had to be adjusted for 1997
so basically he saying there was a 4 degree f difference with every one of the 2000 stations in 1997. Holy shit sherlock, thems some pretty dependable thermops there. hey libturds, please explain where there is a baseline on a thermometer?
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,592
Reaction score
36,793
Points
2,290
Day 2: waiting for the AGW cult to explain what a baseline is and it had to be adjusted for 1997
so basically he saying there was a 4 degree f difference with every one of the 2000 stations in 1997. Holy shit sherlock, thems some pretty dependable thermops there. hey libturds, please explain where there is a baseline on a thermometer?

and that's of an average temperature that was accurately computed to a hundredth of a degree
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top