Anomaly or Average... it makes a difference on how you view AGW..

[Sunsettommy]

You're trying to build a house on water. I'm just pointing out the stream.

You haven't made any point at all and you are STILL avoiding post one content.

 

[Anomalism]

You are deflecting from post one, the data must be scaring you......

The data was collected by scientists that believe AGW is happening. If you think that's irrelevant you're actually an idiot.

 

[Anomalism]

You haven't made any point at all and you are STILL avoiding post one content.

Maybe not one that you understood anyway.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do scientists from NOAA believe AGW is a hoax?

LOADED QUESTION alert!

 

[Anomalism]

LOADED QUESTION alert!

I bet you won't explain to me why that is a loaded question.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The data was collected by scientists that believe AGW is happening. If you think that's irrelevant you're actually an idiot.

Then you have no counterpoint against post one, thank you for your failure.

Post one is unchallenged.

 

[Anomalism]

Then you have no counterpoint against post one, thank you for your failure.

Post one is unchallenged.

I don't debate climate science. I leave that to the scientists that actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I bet you won't explain to me why that is a loaded question.

Still deflecting the material was too difficult for you to discuss.

 

[Anomalism]

Still deflecting the material was too difficult for you to discuss.

Like I said, I don't debate climate science. I leave it to professionals, like the ones that collected that NOAA data the OP bragged about. You know, the same ones that believe AGW is a thing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I don't debate climate science. I leave that to the scientists that actually know what they're talking about.

It is funny that YOU didn't realize that Billy-Bob and Anthony watts used the GISS data for the article while you deflect to other things which means you have nothing against the article itself

Really you should slow down........................ as you are looking more and more foolish.

Cheers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Like I said, I don't debate climate science. I leave it to professionals, like the ones that collected that NOAA data the OP bragged about. You know, the same ones that believe AGW is a thing.

Then we are done here as you have nothing to say about the CONTENT of the article which was presented correctly and based on GISS data.

 

[Anomalism]

It is funny that YOU didn't realize that Billy-Bob and Anthony watts used the GISS data for the article while you deflect to other things which means you have nothing against the article itself

Really you should slow down........................ as you are looking more and more foolish.

Cheers.

Are GISS scientists also AGW believers?

That's a rhetorical question, obviously.

 

[Crick]

Again, the best comedy writes itself.

It does, doesn't it. But the OP is still the stupidest post I've seen here in ages full of stupid posts. If your wife wants to lose weight, all she has to do is stand further away from you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmists/alarmists are too lazy to read the article or maybe scared instead.....

Here is what they never read because of their prejudice:

"I’m utilizing the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies GISTEMP global dataset. The difference is simply this – I show both the absolute (measured) and the anomaly (statistically magnified) versions of the global temperature. This is accomplished by doing the reverse procedure as outlined in UCAR’s How to Measure Global Average Temperature in Five Easy Steps.

In this calculation, the “normal” temperature of the Earth is assumed to be 57.2°F. and that is simply added to the anomaly temperature reported by NASA GISS to obtain the absolute temperature. The basis of this number comes from NASA GISS itself, from their FAQ page as seen in August 2016 as captured by the Wayback Machine."

He also invited anyone to check his work:

Feel free to check my work – the Excel spreadsheet and the calculations are here:

GISSTEMP-in-absolute-master Download

Still waiting one of the resident warmist/alarmists to challenge the article.

It will be a loooong wait......

 

[Crick]

IF you actually read the article, it links you to the NOAA/NWS data bases from where the information is derived. Discounting the messenger without checking the facts is the mark of an alarmist who is clueless.

I will make it simple for you. The anomaly is marked on a 30-year running mean. This means it changes year to year. The long running average is that of the record and does not change. You tell me which is more accurate in assessing the current state of our globe. Short-term moving isn't it...

You failed to mention the scale difference.

 

[Anomalism]

Warmists/alarmists are too lazy to read the article or maybe scared instead.....

Here is what they never read because of their prejudice:

"I’m utilizing the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies GISTEMP global dataset. The difference is simply this – I show both the absolute (measured) and the anomaly (statistically magnified) versions of the global temperature. This is accomplished by doing the reverse procedure as outlined in UCAR’s How to Measure Global Average Temperature in Five Easy Steps.

In this calculation, the “normal” temperature of the Earth is assumed to be 57.2°F. and that is simply added to the anomaly temperature reported by NASA GISS to obtain the absolute temperature. The basis of this number comes from NASA GISS itself, from their FAQ page as seen in August 2016 as captured by the Wayback Machine."

He also invited anyone to check his work:


Still waiting one of the resident warmist/alarmists to challenge the article.

It will be a loooong wait......

If Watts had something worth saying he would be more than the lead blogger on a politically motivated website. The research team that disproves AGW will go down in history. Watts has work to do if he wants to do that. He'd have to actually produce some of his own research rather than just distorting the work of others.

 

[Crick]

You cant publish your science with the government gate keep on publishing... Censorship has been a problem for over 40 years on this issue.

Where has the government been censoring science publications?

Not one of you alarmists are challenging the data.

Challenging what data? I have some terrible news for you. Even the idiots here aren't stupid enough to think Watts has done ANYTHING here. Why not plot it at +/-1,000 degrees. It's look really steady. Or +/-1,000,000 degrees. Straight as a fucking arrow. How fucking stupid are you?

You are all yelling names and belittling those who see it differently and dare to call you out. And that is the point. You will not dare to enter the realm of real science and debate.. Your go to is calling names and belittlement never once going near the science.

I've been arguing science here for several years and you have done nothing but run from me.

You attack those who dare call you out... that is all you do. You have lost the debate before you even start....

Try me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where has the government been censoring science publications?

Challenging what data? I have some terrible news for you. Even the idiots here aren't stupid enough to think Watts has done ANYTHING here. Why not plot it at +/-1,000 degrees. It's look really steady. Or +/-1,000,000 degrees. Straight as a fucking arrow. How fucking stupid are you?

I've been arguing science here for several years and you have done nothing but run from me.

Try me.

Really... Scale difference?? How about catching a moving goal post of anomalies vs a standard goal post. You want to talk deceptions... A anomaly graph is easily manipulated where the standardized one is not.

I can read the numbers on the graph. Can You? I forgot, you have issues with graphing and what it entails...

 

[Crick]

Warmists/alarmists are too lazy to read the article or maybe scared instead.....

Here is what they never read because of their prejudice:

"I’m utilizing the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies GISTEMP global dataset. The difference is simply this – I show both the absolute (measured) and the anomaly (statistically magnified) versions of the global temperature. This is accomplished by doing the reverse procedure as outlined in UCAR’s How to Measure Global Average Temperature in Five Easy Steps.

In this calculation, the “normal” temperature of the Earth is assumed to be 57.2°F. and that is simply added to the anomaly temperature reported by NASA GISS to obtain the absolute temperature. The basis of this number comes from NASA GISS itself, from their FAQ page as seen in August 2016 as captured by the Wayback Machine."

He also invited anyone to check his work:


Still waiting one of the resident warmist/alarmists to challenge the article.

It will be a loooong wait......

That you actually think it matters wherer that data came from is absolutely PATHETIC. That Billy Boy thinks plotting data on a large enough scale to hide the trend MEANS SOMETHING other than to tell us he's as stupid as a fucking ROCK is astroNOMically PATHETIC.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That you actually think it matters wherer that data came from is absolutely PATHETIC. That Billy Boy thinks plotting data on a large enough scale to hide the trend MEANS SOMETHING other than to tell us he's as stupid as a fucking ROCK is astroNOMically PATHETIC.

WOW.... Your so invested in the fear factor you ignore science...

Here is a larger version for those who are optically challenged, Global Temperature: | Watts Up With That?