An Arctic 'Report Card' from NOAA

[Crick]

1980 through 1994, zero net loss but what's happened since? If you think you've got enough data to conclude that melting has stopped and the Arctic is expanding again - particularly when Arctic temperature data do NOT support such a conclusion - you're more stupid than I had imagined.

 

[SSDD]

1980 through 1994, zero net loss but what's happened since? If you think you've got enough data to conclude that melting has stopped and the Arctic is expanding again - particularly when Arctic temperature data do NOT support such a conclusion - you're more stupid than I had imagined.

More evidence of how easily it is to fool you guys...You are looking at anomalies rather than actual temperatures...in actual temperatures, the weather is still below freezing...if it is a degree warmer than 18 below zero, you still don't have to worry about the ice melting....climate science uses anomalies to get dim bulbs like you worked up...if they used actual temperatures, this thread would not exist because anyone who said that it is getting so warm in the arctic that the ice is going to melt would be laughed off the board.

 

[Crick]

That the temperature data are anomaly is irrelevant douchebag. BillyBoy claims the PIOMAS volume data - which are NOT anomaly data - shows a massive rebound. The temperature anomaly data clearly show temperatures have been rising, not falling, and thus there is no fucking chance that the Arctic is undergoing a "massive rebound" in ice volume.

Stupid lying asshole.

 

[SSDD]

That the temperature data are anomaly is irrelevant douchebag. BillyBoy claims the PIOMAS volume data - which are NOT anomaly data - shows a massive rebound. The temperature anomaly data clearly show temperatures have been rising, not falling, and thus there is no fucking chance that the Arctic is undergoing a "massive rebound" in ice volume.

Stupid lying asshole.

Of course it isn't....As I said, if they presented their disaster forecasts in terms of actual temperature ...they would be laughed out of their ivory towers...First indication of a scam...using data in a form that most people don't recognize...use it in a form where a very small change can be presented as if it were catastrophic...do that and the dim bulbs will line up to tell everyone they meet that the sky is falling.

 

[Crick]

Explain Fuckface.

Anomaly data is THE most common temperature format used. And anomaly is no more liable to scaling issues than are absolute temperatures. Your complaints are pure bullshit.

You are a stupid, lying troll

 

[SSDD]

Explain Fuckface.

Anomaly data is THE most common temperature format used. And anomaly is no more liable to scaling issues than are absolute temperatures. Your complaints are pure bullshit.

You are a stupid, lying troll

Sure...here is your typical alarmist temperature graph showing the temperature change from 1880 to the present in terms of anomalies....pretty impressive if you have a narrative that you are trying to push.

Here is what that same temperature change looks like in terms of absolute temperarure. Not so impressive if you are trying to push a climate crisis...in fact, anyone who presented this graph in association with a climate crisis would be laughed right off the stage. It is easy to fool dim bulbs with graphs like the one above...the graph below is not intended to fool anyone..it simply shows the temperature changes from 1880 to present and they aren't very impressive...



And once again skidmark...I well and truly own you if the best you can do is follow me around mewling troll...troll...troll...

 

[Crick]

Did we forget something?

And did I not communicate to you that scaling issues are not at all limited to anomaly data?

What a STUPID, lying troll

 

[SSDD]

Did we forget something?

And did I not communicate to you that scaling issues are not at all limited to anomaly data?

What a STUPID, lying troll

I ask again...which of the two graphs above support an alarmist narrative?

 

[Crick]

Are you REALLY that stupid? What the FUCK do you think anomaly versus absolute has to do with the differing appearances of those two graphs? It's the fucking scale you brainless dimwit.

 

[westwall]

Are you REALLY that stupid? What the FUCK do you think anomaly versus absolute has to do with the differing appearances of those two graphs? It's the fucking scale you brainless dimwit.

Ummm, everything. if you weren't a complete utter moron you would actually understand what you were looking at. But you don't, because you are. Corrupt scientists use all manner of flim flam techniques to fool stupid people. Hello stupid person!

 

[SSDD]

Are you REALLY that stupid? What the FUCK do you think anomaly versus absolute has to do with the differing appearances of those two graphs? It's the fucking scale you brainless dimwit.

Are you really so duped, or inherently dishonest that you can't look at those two graphs and tell which one is alarmist in nature and which one is only interested in imparting information?

 

[SSDD]

Are you REALLY that stupid? What the FUCK do you think anomaly versus absolute has to do with the differing appearances of those two graphs? It's the fucking scale you brainless dimwit.

Ummm, everything. if you weren't a complete utter moron you would actually understand what you were looking at. But you don't, because you are. Corrupt scientists use all manner of flim flam techniques to fool stupid people. Hello stupid person!

The sad thing is that idiots like him aren't bright enough to recognize that they are idiots...I do believe that he is so duped that he really can't see that one is alarmist claptrap and the other is simply imparting information...To admit a difference would be to admit that he has been duped...and what are the chances of that happening?

 

[Crick]

1) Your Bob Tisdale graph IS ANOMALY DATA
2) Your graph has ten times the vertical scale as the BEST data I posted.
3) Your Bob Tisdale graph is NOT displaying the same thing my BEST plot contains
4) You are a REALLY STUPID, lying troll.

 

[SSDD]

1) Your Bob Tisdale graph IS ANOMALY DATA

Guess you cant read the big black letters that say NOT ANOMOLIES

2) Your graph has ten times the vertical scale as the BEST data I posted.

That's the difference between alarmist tactics and simply imparting information

3) Your Bob Tisdale graph is NOT displaying the same thing my BEST plot contains

That would be because your BEST plot is a lying piece of shit.

4) You are a REALLY STUPID, lying troll.

I own you lock stock and barrell and have reduced you to going about mewling stupid lying troll...stupid lying troll...as if anything you have to say could possibly hurt my feelings...

 

[Crick]

Now, please explain why you think anomaly data would show different trends or be more alarming (whatever the fuck that means) than absolute temperature data. Because it looks to me as if you opened your yap and stuck your foot a foot deep.

Stupid, lying troll - and your stupid, lying troll buddies.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey guys...…...somebody's head is exploding.

 

[Crick]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why the trend of anomaly data would be different than the trend of absolute data. Anyone?

 

[SSDD]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why the trend of anomaly data would be different than the trend of absolute data. Anyone?

If you are to stupid to see that one of these graphs supports an alarmist narrative and the other simply imparts information...then you are just to stupid...if you can see it but deny it...then you are a denier...if you can see it, but prefer to push your alarmist narrative, then you are a liar. So what is it? Are you stupid, a denier, or a liar?

 

[Wuwei]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why the trend of anomaly data would be different than the trend of absolute data. Anyone?

I find this conversation hard to believe. Is SSDD's actual point that data should be on an absolute scale? If that were the case then the stock market is always alarmist. This graph is for one day trading.

Is this graph supposed to be alarmist? If the graph were referenced to zero, it would just be a straight line at the top of a large blank space, and little information content. Stock holders would be very angry if SSDD would do that to them. It seems he is actually trying to turn accurate graphics representation into an alarmist argument. Go figure.

.

.

 

[Pilot1]

Wasn't NOAA caught changing historical temperature data in order to make their findings turn out the way they wanted.? LOL!