LOL.....so Republicans dont understand science??!!!!

[Wyatt earp]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

From the met , lmfao ..


Thanks for the laughter of the day


Your link




After gridding the anomalies, bias corrections are applied to remove spurious trends caused by changes in SST measuring practices before 1942. The uncertainties due to under-sampling have been calculated for the gridded monthly data as have the uncertainties on the bias corrections following the procedures described in the paper.

For a detailed description of the dataset and its production process, see the paper cited in the references section.



1850s owes much to the Brussels Maritime Conference of 1853 when representatives from several seafaring na-tions agreed the standardization of meteorological and oceanographic observations from ships at sea (Maury
1858, 1859). The useable data from before this time are few for SST and are generally less coherent. However,
not every detail of the method of taking measurements was standardized in 1853, which led to different coun-
tries using, for example, different types of buckets to collect seawater samples. In time, new standards were
adopted by individual countries, and this led to a chang-ing mixture of water-collection methods. The types of
ships providing measurements and hence their speedshave also diversified in time. Both sets of changes have
affected the measurements, introducing temporally and
geographically varying relative biases into the data.

the analyses presented here are based, is assembledfrom “decks” of observations. These decks were origi-
nally decks of punched cards on which the digitized ships’ records were exchanged and stored. The intro-
duction of a new deck into the database can cause sudden changes from one data source, with a certain ob-
servational practice, to another, with some slightly or significantly different practice. If data from different
sources are mixed together, then these relative biasesmay partly cancel out. However, if one data source
dominates, perhaps in a particularly data-sparse time,or a new source floods into the record, the change in
relative bias can be systematic.
From the 1950s onward, ICOADS contains datafrom the World Ocean database (Levitus et al. 1994;
2000), specifically from subsurface ocean profilers and ocean stations. From the late 1970s onward moored and drifting buoys are also included. Latterly these have made up a very large proportion of the total number of
observations in the database due, in part, to their much greater frequency of reporting relative to ships and also
to the often delayed reporting of ships’ data and the general decline in the numbers of reporting ships.
In addition, ships’ routes have changed over time for socioeconomic reasons, for example, the opening of the
Suez (1869) and Panama (1914) Canals. Also, despite recent efforts at digitization of previously unavailable
historical data, there remain large data gaps at times of large-scale conflict, for example, 1914–18 and 1939–45.

All we know for certain is that atmospheric CO2 warmed the ocean by .2C since 1850

Yup all these yank my chain miniscule temperature records from the 1800s produced only .2C warming in the oceans

Who are they and mamooth trying to fool?


Propaganda tools

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares if the Republicans don't understand science..................


ARCTIC BLAST: POWER GRID STRAIN...

SNOW IN FLORIDA...

SUB-ZERO CHILLS DEEP SOUTH...

LIVE MAP...
City threatens to condemn man's home -- for sheltering homeless during cold!

Dog chained outside house found frozen to death...



Top stories on DRUDGE right now.............. btw...............

 

[Old Rocks]

Bull shit. All 5 of those are typical of you and every single AGW cultist.

Little fascist, I still don't hear you condemning the Republicans for their attempts to jail climate scientists.

And you won't, ever.

First, you adore the idea of jailing or killing anyone opposed to your Stalinist utopia.

And second, contradicting the official dogma of your party/cult would require courage and ethics, which means almost no denier will ever do so.

They aren’t jailing anyonenor are we trying to jail anyone. You are a liar.

And you are exactly all 5 of those traits.

No, you cocksucks failed to get Mann jailed.

Litigation with University of Virginia[edit]
Main article: Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation
In April 2010, Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents related to Michael E. Mann, a climate researcher now at Penn State who was an assistant professor at UVA from 1999 to 2005.[41][42] Cuccinelli based his demand on the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain the invocation of the law.[43] Following the Climatic Research Unit email controversy numerous accusations about Mann's work on climate reconstructions had been sent to the university, and investigations of these allegations by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Penn State subsequently cleared Mann of any wrongdoing.[44] The Washington Post quotes Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as saying Cuccinelli's request had "echoes of McCarthyism."[45] A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch criticized Cuccinelli for "employing a very expansive reading of Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act."[46]

Among the groups urging the University of Virginia to resist producing the data were: a letter published in Science signed by 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAUP.[42] Also in May 2010, the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council wrote a letter strongly rebuking Cuccinelli for his civil investigative demand of the Mann records, stating that "[Cuccinelli's] action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline."[47] In 2011 in response to the escalating attacks from the Virginia AG's office, the Union of Concerned Scientistspublished a defense of scientific integrity titled "Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann".[48]

On May 27, 2010, the University of Virginia began legal proceedings challenging Cuccinelli's investigative demand. The school's petition states that Virginia's "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" (FATA) cited by Cuccinelli is not applicable in this case, as four of the five grants were federal, and that the fifth was an internal University of Virginia grant originally awarded in 2001. The filing also states that FATA was enacted in 2003 and is not retroactive.[49][50]

On August 20, 2010, Albermarle Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross heard argument on when Cuccinelli should get the requested data.[51] On August 30, 2010, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. said that "the nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute," the judge wrote.[52][53][54]

On September 29, 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia renewing a demand for documents related to the work of Mann. Cuccinelli narrowed his request to documents related to a grant that funded research unrelated to climate reconstructions. The demand also sought emails between Mann and 39 other climate change scientists.[55] Cuccinelli filed a notice of appeal of the case to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[56][57]

Ken Cuccinelli - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bull shit. All 5 of those are typical of you and every single AGW cultist.

Little fascist, I still don't hear you condemning the Republicans for their attempts to jail climate scientists.

And you won't, ever.

First, you adore the idea of jailing or killing anyone opposed to your Stalinist utopia.

And second, contradicting the official dogma of your party/cult would require courage and ethics, which means almost no denier will ever do so.

They aren’t jailing anyonenor are we trying to jail anyone. You are a liar.

And you are exactly all 5 of those traits.

No, you cocksucks failed to get Mann jailed.

Litigation with University of Virginia[edit]
Main article: Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation
In April 2010, Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents related to Michael E. Mann, a climate researcher now at Penn State who was an assistant professor at UVA from 1999 to 2005.[41][42] Cuccinelli based his demand on the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain the invocation of the law.[43] Following the Climatic Research Unit email controversy numerous accusations about Mann's work on climate reconstructions had been sent to the university, and investigations of these allegations by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Penn State subsequently cleared Mann of any wrongdoing.[44] The Washington Post quotes Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as saying Cuccinelli's request had "echoes of McCarthyism."[45] A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch criticized Cuccinelli for "employing a very expansive reading of Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act."[46]

Among the groups urging the University of Virginia to resist producing the data were: a letter published in Science signed by 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAUP.[42] Also in May 2010, the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council wrote a letter strongly rebuking Cuccinelli for his civil investigative demand of the Mann records, stating that "[Cuccinelli's] action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline."[47] In 2011 in response to the escalating attacks from the Virginia AG's office, the Union of Concerned Scientistspublished a defense of scientific integrity titled "Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann".[48]

On May 27, 2010, the University of Virginia began legal proceedings challenging Cuccinelli's investigative demand. The school's petition states that Virginia's "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" (FATA) cited by Cuccinelli is not applicable in this case, as four of the five grants were federal, and that the fifth was an internal University of Virginia grant originally awarded in 2001. The filing also states that FATA was enacted in 2003 and is not retroactive.[49][50]

On August 20, 2010, Albermarle Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross heard argument on when Cuccinelli should get the requested data.[51] On August 30, 2010, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. said that "the nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute," the judge wrote.[52][53][54]

On September 29, 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia renewing a demand for documents related to the work of Mann. Cuccinelli narrowed his request to documents related to a grant that funded research unrelated to climate reconstructions. The demand also sought emails between Mann and 39 other climate change scientists.[55] Cuccinelli filed a notice of appeal of the case to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[56][57]

Ken Cuccinelli - Wikipedia

No one wanted to jail Mann for his beliefs, it was for his fraud.

 

[PredFan]

Bull shit. All 5 of those are typical of you and every single AGW cultist.

Little fascist, I still don't hear you condemning the Republicans for their attempts to jail climate scientists.

And you won't, ever.

First, you adore the idea of jailing or killing anyone opposed to your Stalinist utopia.

And second, contradicting the official dogma of your party/cult would require courage and ethics, which means almost no denier will ever do so.

They aren’t jailing anyonenor are we trying to jail anyone. You are a liar.

And you are exactly all 5 of those traits.

No, you cocksucks failed to get Mann jailed.

Litigation with University of Virginia[edit]
Main article: Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation
In April 2010, Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents related to Michael E. Mann, a climate researcher now at Penn State who was an assistant professor at UVA from 1999 to 2005.[41][42] Cuccinelli based his demand on the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain the invocation of the law.[43] Following the Climatic Research Unit email controversy numerous accusations about Mann's work on climate reconstructions had been sent to the university, and investigations of these allegations by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Penn State subsequently cleared Mann of any wrongdoing.[44] The Washington Post quotes Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as saying Cuccinelli's request had "echoes of McCarthyism."[45] A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch criticized Cuccinelli for "employing a very expansive reading of Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act."[46]

Among the groups urging the University of Virginia to resist producing the data were: a letter published in Science signed by 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAUP.[42] Also in May 2010, the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council wrote a letter strongly rebuking Cuccinelli for his civil investigative demand of the Mann records, stating that "[Cuccinelli's] action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline."[47] In 2011 in response to the escalating attacks from the Virginia AG's office, the Union of Concerned Scientistspublished a defense of scientific integrity titled "Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann".[48]

On May 27, 2010, the University of Virginia began legal proceedings challenging Cuccinelli's investigative demand. The school's petition states that Virginia's "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" (FATA) cited by Cuccinelli is not applicable in this case, as four of the five grants were federal, and that the fifth was an internal University of Virginia grant originally awarded in 2001. The filing also states that FATA was enacted in 2003 and is not retroactive.[49][50]

On August 20, 2010, Albermarle Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross heard argument on when Cuccinelli should get the requested data.[51] On August 30, 2010, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. said that "the nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute," the judge wrote.[52][53][54]

On September 29, 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia renewing a demand for documents related to the work of Mann. Cuccinelli narrowed his request to documents related to a grant that funded research unrelated to climate reconstructions. The demand also sought emails between Mann and 39 other climate change scientists.[55] Cuccinelli filed a notice of appeal of the case to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.[56][57]

Ken Cuccinelli - Wikipedia

Like I said, they aren't jailing anyone. You are all 5 of those traits.

 

[skookerasbil]

How about this?

We take a stroll down 5th Ave of NYC right now and ask them how global warming is going? Or better........tomorrow morning when New Yorkers wake up to 10 below zero wind chill!! Hows that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

adorable. instead of answering a science question, you posted an opinion poll. that's real science right there

I did answer. I pointed out you're lying about "ocean heat being trapped in the deep ocean."

Your masters don't even tell the lies you do. Your lies are totally original. On the bright side, you do get points for creative lying.

Here's a hint, liar. 700m - 2000m is not "deep ocean." You really should learn the basics before you make crap up.

Bwaaaaaahaaaa....

Pot calling the kettle black...

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy........finally came up with my New Years resolution........a little late.........what can I say? I'm committing to using far more aerosols this coming year. Here in the northeast, we are desperate for some global warming at this point.

 

[mamooth]

No one wanted to jail Mann for his beliefs, it was for his fraud.

Yes, yes, Stalinists always fabricated fake crimes to justify their purely political persecutions. Was that the point you were trying to make?

My point, again, is that all deniers are proud Stalinists who want to jail their political opponents on faked charges. Some of them, like Skook, are very open about that, while others, like Predfan, will lie about it.

 

[skookerasbil]

No one wanted to jail Mann for his beliefs, it was for his fraud.

Yes, yes, Stalinists always fabricated fake crimes to justify their purely political persecutions. Was that the point you were trying to make?

My point, again, is that all deniers are proud Stalinists who want to jail their political opponents on faked charges. Some of them, like Skook, are very open about that, while others, like Predfan, will lie about it.

s0n..........all the anger and misery = ghey. Should think about making up a New Years Resolution ( its not too late ) to jettison that bumpy cucumber you've been sporting since the election. Just not worth it..........

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey what's this lie by the met what fucking ocean temperature records in 1850

Thanks for confirming I point I keep making.

Any time a cultist is given data that contradicts their cult's beliefs, they instantly declare the data is faked. It's pure reflex action on the part of the cultist. The cult demands that they reject any facts coming from the outside world, so the cultists obey. Their cult minds are pure, free from any corrupting influences that come from the real world.

From the met , lmfao ..


Thanks for the laughter of the day


Your link




After gridding the anomalies, bias corrections are applied to remove spurious trends caused by changes in SST measuring practices before 1942. The uncertainties due to under-sampling have been calculated for the gridded monthly data as have the uncertainties on the bias corrections following the procedures described in the paper.

For a detailed description of the dataset and its production process, see the paper cited in the references section.



1850s owes much to the Brussels Maritime Conference of 1853 when representatives from several seafaring na-tions agreed the standardization of meteorological and oceanographic observations from ships at sea (Maury
1858, 1859). The useable data from before this time are few for SST and are generally less coherent. However,
not every detail of the method of taking measurements was standardized in 1853, which led to different coun-
tries using, for example, different types of buckets to collect seawater samples. In time, new standards were
adopted by individual countries, and this led to a chang-ing mixture of water-collection methods. The types of
ships providing measurements and hence their speedshave also diversified in time. Both sets of changes have
affected the measurements, introducing temporally and
geographically varying relative biases into the data.

the analyses presented here are based, is assembledfrom “decks” of observations. These decks were origi-
nally decks of punched cards on which the digitized ships’ records were exchanged and stored. The intro-
duction of a new deck into the database can cause sudden changes from one data source, with a certain ob-
servational practice, to another, with some slightly or significantly different practice. If data from different
sources are mixed together, then these relative biasesmay partly cancel out. However, if one data source
dominates, perhaps in a particularly data-sparse time,or a new source floods into the record, the change in
relative bias can be systematic.
From the 1950s onward, ICOADS contains datafrom the World Ocean database (Levitus et al. 1994;
2000), specifically from subsurface ocean profilers and ocean stations. From the late 1970s onward moored and drifting buoys are also included. Latterly these have made up a very large proportion of the total number of
observations in the database due, in part, to their much greater frequency of reporting relative to ships and also
to the often delayed reporting of ships’ data and the general decline in the numbers of reporting ships.
In addition, ships’ routes have changed over time for socioeconomic reasons, for example, the opening of the
Suez (1869) and Panama (1914) Canals. Also, despite recent efforts at digitization of previously unavailable
historical data, there remain large data gaps at times of large-scale conflict, for example, 1914–18 and 1939–45.

All we know for certain is that atmospheric CO2 warmed the ocean by .2C since 1850

LOL

0.2 deg C with a Margin Of Error +/- 1.2 deg C ( an error bar 2.4 deg C wide)

 

[skookerasbil]

Since 2006, the public has gotten far more educated..........obviously!! The trajectory of skeptic thinking has gone steadily up for the past 12 years. So many things espoused by the climate industry no longer pass the smell test and folks have taken note............

The Green Agenda

Frankly, its been an AGW exercise in lack of impulse control which has caused the crash and burn.........knee jerk proclamations by leading activists like Gore has resulted in disaster for these people. People don't like to be bamboozled and when every climate activist is screaming about there soon being no more snow 10 years ago and now saying bitter temperatures and more snow is proof of global warming, well, the radar comes up in people possessing even half a brain. duh