Sattelite Data Show 2015 Was NOT EVEN CLOSE to Being Hottest on Record.

[jon_berzerk]

Liberal math class.

Today we learn counting

55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 58

(common core) apparently --LOL

 

[Crick]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

Funny;

The logical fallacy of "we changed the numbers, so today's are now correct' ... your entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own set of FACTS. You guys seem to think the FACTS can be changed to suit your agenda.. SO you ignore the facts so you can claim 2015 the hottest ev'a!.. That's rich!

 

[jc456]

Frank, Weatherman and Billy are making the rookie bonehead error of comparing different baselines. But it's not like they could have known any better, since WUWT misinformed them, and none of them is permitted to look at non-cult sources. They all ignored this part. NOAA even tried to explain it to them, but cultists always ignore information that contradicts the religion of the cult.

---
Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.'
---

Jones 1999 changed everything. Post-Jones, the baseline got much cooler. The difference is about 2.4C (4.3F).

Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years - Jones - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

Hence, making direct comparisons between pre- and post- Jones baselines, as WUWT tries to do, is stupid and dishonest. To be honest, Frank and Weatherman and Billy would have to subtract 4.3F from the 1997 data, which destroys their whole conspiracy theory. Hence, they will absolutely refuse to do so, or to admit error in any way. The cult demands that cultists never admit error under any circumstances, so they'll keep defending their initial mistake, no matter how ridiculous and dishonest it makes them look.

Frank, Weatherman, Billy, learn from this. Never believe anything from WUWT, because WUWT always gets everything wrong. A screwup of this magnitude requires staggering incompetence to get the basics wrong, and staggering narcissism to assume that you're one of the select few elite who have spotted an error that the whole planet missed.

So you're saying 58> 62.

Interesting. And then you wonder why a skeptic sees manipulation as a bad thing. I like my math to tell me 62>58.

I'm just saying!

 

[jc456]

Frank, Weatherman and Billy are making the rookie bonehead error of comparing different baselines. But it's not like they could have known any better, since WUWT misinformed them, and none of them is permitted to look at non-cult sources. They all ignored this part. NOAA even tried to explain it to them, but cultists always ignore information that contradicts the religion of the cult.

---
Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.'
---

Jones 1999 changed everything. Post-Jones, the baseline got much cooler. The difference is about 2.4C (4.3F).

Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years - Jones - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

Hence, making direct comparisons between pre- and post- Jones baselines, as WUWT tries to do, is stupid and dishonest. To be honest, Frank and Weatherman and Billy would have to subtract 4.3F from the 1997 data, which destroys their whole conspiracy theory. Hence, they will absolutely refuse to do so, or to admit error in any way. The cult demands that cultists never admit error under any circumstances, so they'll keep defending their initial mistake, no matter how ridiculous and dishonest it makes them look.

Frank, Weatherman, Billy, learn from this. Never believe anything from WUWT, because WUWT always gets everything wrong. A screwup of this magnitude requires staggering incompetence to get the basics wrong, and staggering narcissism to assume that you're one of the select few elite who have spotted an error that the whole planet missed.

2+2=5

WUWT posted data from the fucking NOAA, dipshit

Maybe he/she hasn't heard of the NOAA?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

Lol!!!

They can't measure temperature????

It was "superseded"

Lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

Fucking hilarious!!

Can you imagine Bernie Madoff being able to backdate and supersede information like that??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Caught with their thumb on the scale again

 

[jc456]

It really is that obvious that all the deniers here are now simply proudly lying on behalf of their cult, and that they don't care who knows it. With them, it's entirely about scoring brownie points with fellow cultists. There isn't a more dishonest group of cult pissdrinkers on the planet, and that would be why nobody pays attention to denier liars.

Fortunately for the denier cultists, they can still all have these group weeping sessions here on message boards, where they work on dreaming up even crazier and more dishonest conspiracy theories. Good thing for them, too, given how that's literally all they're capable of.

And yet you think 58>62. I'm sorry, but that's fk'd up . Can you explain that to me at least? Can you show me how that math works?

 

[jc456]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

I'm sorry, but that made no fking sense.

Can you say that again in English?

 

[jc456]

Can you tell us in your own words how 58 is warmer than 62?

I already did. You used a baseline that was 4.3F colder. If you were honest, you'd admit that 58 + 4.3 = 62.3 is warmer than 62, but you won't admit it, being that you're pathologically dishonest.

And every denier here weighing in on the topic has joined in with circling the wagons and backing your open dishonesty. Not one of them has the courage and integrity to contradict the official cult line. The denier cult said "lie", hence all the cultists are complying.

I'm not being dishonest, 58 is cooler than 62.

You need another drink cause you crossed over to stupid land. And one should be inebriated there.

 

[Billy_Bob]

2015 < 30% Confidence Level that it was the hottest...

Now this is funny as hell... The big two meteorological agencies in the world and NASA have very little confidence that 2015 was actually the hottest. So little in fact that each of them have temperature rises within their respective margins of error...

Nasa says that 2015 was 0.13°C+/-0.10°C above 2014. The UK Met Office said that 2015 was 0.18°C +/- 0.10°C above 2014. Noaa says 2015 was 0.16°C+/-0.09°C warmer than the previous record which was 2014.

A +/- 0.10 is a range of 0.20 deg C..

I guess they didn't adjust their data far enough to give them a high confidence level... Were talking hundredths of a degree with measuring devices that are only capable of +/- 0.2 deg C accuracy...

Source 1

Source 2

Here we go again.... more crap promoted as "were gonna burn".. Can you Imagine what would be occurring if El Niño had not pumped some heat into the atmosphere to keep it from cooling rapidly? That scenario is coming rapidly however..

 

[9aces]

I'm sure this report will be superseded by another when necessary.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Silly Billy, seeing that 2014 was the previous warmest year, the lower figure is significant by itself. The upper bound is a major jump. But then, one would not expect you to be able to understand such complex matters.

 

[saveliberty]

Data should not need confidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well now, Silly Billy, seeing that 2014 was the previous warmest year, the lower figure is significant by itself. The upper bound is a major jump. But then, one would not expect you to be able to understand such complex matters.

Poor Old fraud... He just cant bear to have his precious AGW cult shown a fraud.. I know all about how you like to make up shit in an effort to make yourself seem relevant..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Data should not need confidence.

IF they didn't change it daily it would not be...

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly Billy, you poor little uneducated dumb fuck, nowhere in either article does it say that the confidence level for 2015 being the warmest year is less than 30%. Another lie you pulled out of your ass.

 

[saveliberty]

El Nino was here

 

[konradv]

Data should not need confidence.

It's a statistical term. Would you prefer data they weren't confident in?