Zuma Deluxe Full Version For PC [Download+Instal]
In a separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
The adjustments to the data were slight, but removed a flattening of the graph this PSNインド無料ゲーム7月2019 that has led climate sceptics to claim the rise in global temperatures had stopped.
The results highlighted the inadequacy of using the global mean surface temperature as the primary yardstick for climate change.
But Stott argued that the term slowdown remained valid because the past 15 years might have been still hotter were it not for natural variations.
Global warming slowdown probably due to natural cycles, study finds Read more In the coming years the world is expected to move out of a period in which the gradient of warming has not slowed even though the temperature has been moderated.
Prof Michael Mann, whose analysis of the global temperature in the 1990s revolutionised the field, said the work underlined the conclusions of his own recent research.
Since scientists began to report a slower than expected rate of warming during the last decade, climate sceptics have latched on to the apparent dip in order to question the validity of climate models.
Contrary to all the theories that — that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPFthe UK thinktank set up by Nigel Lawson to lobby against action on climate change and which hosts a flat-lining temperature graph on the masthead of its website, was dismissive of the study.
Study Finds No Pause in Global Warming More comprehensive temperature measurements suggest previous results were inaccurate A study in the journal Science, using more comprehensive measurements, concludes that the upward trend of global temperatures did not slow this century, contrary to previous analyses.
By GAUTAM NAIK Updated June 4, 2015 4:28 p.
ET 509 COMMENTS A new study concludes that the upward trend of global temperatures didn't slow this century, contrary to previous analyses that suggested the world is in the midst of a global warming hiatus.
Earlier observations showed that global surface temperatures increased by an average of 0.
But puzzlingly, for the period 1998-2014 the warming rate was recorded at a slower 0.
While several studies have tried to explain the plateauing of global temperatures, there is no consensus about the cause.
Explanations have ranged from an increased uptake of heat by the oceans to lower levels of atmospheric water vapor and natural climate variability.
In the new analysis, the researchers tried to account for them and bolstered the earlier measurements with fresh temperature data from around the globe.
The latest research is unlikely to be the last click on whether the global warming pause is real or not.
For example, the notion of a global warming pause can depend on which time period is studied.
A March photo from the Australian government's Antarctic Division shows the Totten Glacier, the most rapidly thinning glacier in East Antarctica.
ENLARGE A March photo from the Australian government's Antarctic Division shows the Totten Glacier, the most rapidly thinning glacier in East Antarctica.
Stott and most other climate scientists believe that the planet has continued to warm since the late 19th century.
They argue that natural climate fluctuations can lead to brief periods lasting a decade or more when the rate of temperature increase can fall, stall or accelerate.
Temperature data, however, remains a crucial barometer, and the new findings could prompt a re-evaluation.
The results are based on land temperature data from about 10,000 stations—more than twice the number used in previous analyses—and on improvements to sea surface temperature data obtained from thousands of commercial ships and ocean buoys.
Measuring temperature is tricky business, especially at sea.
Ships used to mainly collect data by dropping a bucket over the side of the ship, bringing up some water, and measuring the temperature of that water.
But from 1950 onward, more measurements were made via engine intake thermometers.
In recent decades, scientists have also begun to use more buoys rather than ships for ocean observations.
Buoys tend to report a slightly cooler temperature than ships.
Unlike 無料のアラジンゲームオンライン analyses, the latest study accounts for those cooler readings to yield a more reliable set of data.
That is significant because of the increasing number of buoys used in such calculations.
There are still gaps.
Coverage of the Arctic—which is warming twice as fast on average as the rest of the go here poor.
Write to Gautam Naik at gautam.
By Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts, commentary from Dr.
Judith Curry follows There is a new paper published the journal Science about the recent slowdown in global surface warming released from embargo today at 2PM eastern.
The lead author is Tom Karl, Director of NCEI and Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research SGCR of the U.
Global Change Research Program USGCRP.
The paper is Karl et al 2015 Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.
There is a big push by the American Association for the advancement of Science AAAS to promote this paper.
Here is what they sent out to press contacts days in advance: Science Press Package This information どうやってnextbookタブレットでゲームをダウンロードしますか embargoed until: 2:00 PM U.
Eastern Time, Thursday, 4 June 2015 Check timezone conversions here.
Please cite the journal Science and the publisher, AAAS, the science society, as the source of this information.
Please hyperlink to www.
Summaries of Articles in the 5 June Science Evidence Against a Global Warming Hiatus?
An analysis using updated global surface temperature data disputes the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown described in studies including the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC assessment.
Here, Karl and colleagues focused on aspects of the hiatus influenced by biases from temperature observation networks, which are always changing.
Using updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea, the researchers show that temperatures in the 21st century did not plateau, as thought.
Instead, the rate of warming during the first fifteen years of the 21st century is at least as great as that in the last half of the 20th century, suggesting warming is continuing apace.
According to these and other results, the authors suggest the warming slowdown was an illusion, an artifact of earlier analyses.
Zhang at National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA in Asheville, NC; J.
McMahon at LMI in McLean, VA.
Karl et al expand on that highlighted discussion in the text of the paper our boldface : It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.
In contrast, IPCC 1which also utilized the approach in 25re-ported no statistically significant trends for 1998-2012 in any of the three primary global surface temperature datasets.
Moreover, for 1998—2014, our new global trend is 0.
This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century Fig.
A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.
THE MISDIRECTION As shown in their Figure 1 also our Figure 1Karl et al.
Figure 1 Figure 1 Yet the climate model-based projections of a disaster-filled future global surface warming better align with the warming rate of the recent warming period, which began in the mid-1970s, not 1950.
See Figure 2, which uses the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data, because the new NCDC data have not yet been released.
Keep in mind there was an earlier hiatus that lasted from the early-to-mid 1940s to the mid-1970s.
Figure 2 Figure 2 If NOAA would like to revise their estimates of future global warming to reflect the more benign warming rate of 0.
We illustrate the ever-growing differences between models and data in the monthly global surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature update posts.
Figure 3 is the model-data comparison from the April 2015 update.
Figure 3 Figure 3 NEW DATA USED In many respects, the paper is an introduction to a revised global surface temperature dataset from NOAA.
For the oceans, it includes their new ERSST.
We discussed that new NOAA sea surface temperature data in the post Has NOAA Once Again Tried to Adjust Data to Match Climate Models?
The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.
For windows 7用zuma deluxe game無料ダウンロードフルバージョン land portion, Karl et al.
The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative ISTI databank 14, 19which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis.
The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network GHCN —Daily dataset 20 with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available.
please click for source MAKE MOST OF THE WARMING NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time.
Fortunately, it is very easy to divine such adjustments by comparing the raw data and click final adjusted data, as shown in the graph below.
Note how the past gets cooler, centered around 1915 and the present gets warmer.
The net result of the adjustments made are becoming substantial, and adjustments since May 2006 occasionally exceeds 0.
Before 1945 global temperatures are generally changed toward lower values, and toward higher values after 1945, resulting in a more pronounced 20th century warming about 0.
Arrows indicate two months where the adjustments over time are illustrated in the figure below.
Last diagram update: 19 May 2015.
Source: Professor Ole Humlum Figure 4 On May 2, 2011, NCDC transitioned to GHCN-M version 3 as the official land component of its global temperature monitoring efforts.
In November 2011, the GHCN-M version 3.
The overall net effect of the transition from GHCN-M version 2 to version 3 is to increase global temperatures before 1900, to decrease them between 1900 and 1950, and to increase temperatures after 1950.
The diagram below exemplify adjustments made by NCDC since May 2008 for two single months see arrows in diagram above ; January 1915 and January 2000.
Last diagram update 19 May 2015.
Source: Professor Ole Humlum Figure 5 Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data.
Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose?
Those adjustments are supposed to be justified by ship-buoy biases.
See the quotes in the post Quick Look at the DATA for the New NOAA Sea Surface Temperature Dataset, under the heading of SHIP-BUOY BIAS CORRECTIONS IN ERSST.
Note 1: the buoys being discussed are NOT ARGO floats.
The buoys used for sea surface temperature measurements are Surface Drifting Buoys and fixed buoys like the TAO Project buoys.
Note 2: the latitudes of 60S-60N were used for the following graphs to avoid any differences in how sea ice is accounted for between the datasets and to be consistent with the two papers that introduced the new ERSST.
Note 3: the trends shown are for sea surface temperatures.
They are not directly comparable to the trends discussed by Karl et al.
THE UKMO HASST3 data have also been adjusted for ship-buoy biases.
For the two slowdown periods presented by Karl et al.
During both periods, the bias-adjusted HADSST3 data have a much lower trend than the bias-adjusted NOAA ERSST.
In fact, the bias-corrected HADSST3 data in both cases is more in line with the older NOAA data than the new.
Figure 4 Figure 6 Figure 5 Figure 7 Some might think that NOAA under the direction of Tom Karl designed their ship-buoy bias adjustments with the sole intent of minimizing the impacts of natural slowdown in surface warming.
Those would be some interesting emails and meeting minutes to read.
Figure 6 Figure 8 Figure 7 Figure 9 As noted in the heading, with their new adjustments, NOAA has created an outlier in their new sea surface temperature dataset.
Neither of the NOAA sea surface temperature reconstructions new or old utilize the satellite-enhanced data.
The original version of the NOAA ERSST.
The revised dataset was renamed ERSST.
Figure 8 Figure 10 The warming rates are article source same.
Figure 9 Figure 11 Remember the adjusted data from figures 4 and 5 above?
SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA SOURCE The sea surface temperature data presented in this post are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Comments from Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr.
Judith Curry: The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998.
Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.
In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3.
A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy Note, the UK group has 無料ゲーム島族 with the same issues raised by the NOAA team.
I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere 駐車ゲームクールな数学 as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.
I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends.
Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84.
Relevant text: Gap filling in the Arctic 京カジノ complicated by the presence of land, open water and temporally varying sea ice extent, because each surface type has a distinctly different amplitude and phasing of the annual cycle of surface temperature.
Notably, the surface temperature of sea ice remains flat go here the sea ice melt period roughly between June and September, whereas land surface warming peaks around July 1.
Hence using land temperatures to infer ocean or sea ice temperatures can incur significant biases.
The adjustments to the global average surface temperature anomaly is within the error margin, but the large magnitude of the adjustments further support a larger error margin.
But they now cite a substantially greater trend for the period 1998-2014, that is now statistically greater than zero at the 90% confidence level.
My bottom line assessment is this.
I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.
The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth.
This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set.
The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target.
About these ads 34 Votes GoogleTwitter121Facebook250RedditEmail June 4, 2015 in Bad science, Karl et al.
They published the expected nonsense about the embargoed paper an hour early: Reply george e.
The report raises questions about the way scientists calculate global warming and the interpretation of their data.
Tom Karl is lead author of NOAA report on climate change.
Then we presumably had a hiatus and suddenly the pressure seemed to be off for a while.
I am totally perplexed by their whole approach, and I believe their analysis is very misleading.
For 1998 to 2012, Nick had 0.
However you may recall the interview with Phil Jones where he was asked about the slope see more 1975 to 1998.
It turns out that for NOAA, this is 0.
But it does not end here.
In the end, a highly adjusted value for 2000 to 2014 is compared with a somewhat adjusted value for 1950 to 1999 to come to a conclusion that no hiatus occurred.
But what slope would you expect from a 50 year period where there was virtually no read article for half of the time?
The above statement perplexes me.
They appear to be satisfied that they have proven to themselves and hopefully others that no hiatus occurred.
But in doing so, they have, in my mind, proven that there is no catastrophic warming occurring either.
A warming rate of 1.
Reply ferd berple June 4, 2015 at 12:01 pm significant anthropogenic global warming 1is 0.
Anything less than 2°C is agreed to be beneficial.
So, for the next 100 years at least we would be much, much better off to do nothing about CO2 emission.
Reply Robert of Ottawa June 4, 2015 at 1:59 pm I believe their analysis is very misleading Dishonest is the word, not misleading.
Yet again, after much adumbration, lo, we find that temperatures were all wrong in the past and we need to adjust them all downwards … again.
Reply average joe June 4, 2015 at 5:32 pm Who goes into a career in climate science?
No one else in their right mind finds any value in the field as opposed to meteorology.
Right there is the root cause of the extreme bias in the field.
Reply Bryan A June 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm Must be data from the Wholly Optimistic Readjusted Satellite Temperature DATASET Reply TinyCO2 June 4, 2015 at 11:21 am What a crunch of books they are.
Reply The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley June 4, 2015 at 11:42 am They already are.
Reply Rex Forcer June 4, 2015 at 11:24 am The scale of deceit is simply breathtaking.
Reply Rex Forcer June 4, 2015 at 11:46 am Are they saying the satellite data is simply wrong?
RSS shows a cooling trend from 2000-2014: Whereas this paper as produced in the grauniad shows a warming.
Reply Rex Forcer June 4, 2015 at 11:47 am Sorry, fat finger.
Grauniad graph here: Pat Frank June 4, 2015 at 11:28 am They report decadal air temperature trends of accuracy ±0.
These people are thoroughly incompetent, at best.
Reply ELCore OneLaneHwy June 4, 2015 at 11:44 am The temperature record is replete with arbitrary accuracy and pretend precision.
Reply Ric Werme June 4, 2015 at 12:14 pm Not really 0.
Read the text, not the silly Grauniad bar graph.
Reply old44 June 4, 2015 at 12:41 pm When people read an article they look at the graph not the figures, that is why they show graphs.
Hugh June 4, 2015 at 1:28 pm The graph says 0.
Pat Frank June 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm Rick, your https://games-casinos.site/3/6546.html are represented as accurate to ±0.
Accuracy is generally read as ±1 in the last reported decimal place.
Menicholas June 4, 2015 at 6:26 pm I think perhaps we need to revisit the discussion of precision vs accuracy.
click to see more B June 5, 2015 at 1:01 am more like ±0.
All other figures are irrelevant if the number preceding them are uncertain exception made for errors where the first sig fig is 1.
DD More June 4, 2015 at 3:13 pm I went looking for accuracy and just what they are able to measure after one of Bob posts back in December and had a real awakening.
Oh and did I mention one of the satellites was doing reasonable until they had to boost the altitude, then had problems with pitch, yaw and just had no idea the height it was flying.
The number of adjustments to correct is staggering.
A correction is suggested for AMSR-E SSTs that will remove the vapor dependency.
For MODIS, once the cloud contaminated data were excluded, errors were reduced but not eliminated.
Biases were found to be 20.
Using a three-way error analysis, individual standard deviations were determined to be 0.
To put that in perspective, the error bars would be the white shaded areas on all the graphed figures above.
Reply Tim June 4, 2015 at 11:29 am And the AGW crooks continue to manufacture their facts and then change them as they see fit.
How long will it be before we are getting the same treatment about reality as the chinese give their people concerning Tiananmen square?
The public needs to wake up before it is too late.
Reply Merovign June 4, 2015 at 11:34 am If climate change continues at this pace, by 2050, 1935 will be completely frozen.
ペストincゲームオンライン無料 Rick Question パラダイスのセミノールカジノ豚 have June 4, 2015 at 11:50 am +1 Reply Michael Wassil June 4, 2015 at 11:51 am Not only 1935, but every year through and including 2015!
Reply fossilsage June 4, 2015 at 1:41 pm Just emerging from the ice age in 1937 Reply TinyCO2 June 4, 2015 at 11:39 am Well done guys.
Frankly the level of desperation shown by NCEI is staggering.
This sleight of hand provides cover for their political masters.
They will all get awards for their services to science — given by their political masters.
This paper demonstrates how little we actually know.
Reply Jquip June 4, 2015 at 1:08 pm Indeed.
Rather specifically, any that tout this new paper as valid are stating that we have not — in fact — known the temperature at all.
Neither absolute, relative, or trending.
Expect a George Monbiot column and a Geoffery Lean article on the subject very soon… Reply Barbara June 4, 2015 at 4:21 pm About getting ready for COP 21 in Paris and supporting nonsense like cap-and-trade.
Reply Harold June 4, 2015 at 11:54 am Is new analysis on old data anything like old wine in new bottles?
Reply Joseph Murphy June 4, 2015 at 11:59 am Wait, what?
What happened to catastrophic warming?
Are the warmist now arguing against it?
Reply Jim Watson June 4, 2015 at 12:01 windows 7用zuma deluxe game無料ダウンロードフルバージョン PARIS OR BUST!
Reply Manfred June 4, 2015 山火事のカジノ車線 12:34 pm Paris will be a spectacle to behold.
Where to go after this https://games-casinos.site/3/7677.html of promotional extravaganza?
https://games-casinos.site/3/6938.html are crossing the line between satire and parody…think rock and hard place.
Reply ckb June 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm If you told me in 1979 that 35+ years into having satellite temperature data we would still be arguing over and making adjustments to historical surface measurements, I would have been highly amused.
The intellectual dishonesty of all these supposed scientists who choose to use the surface measured data for medium to long term climate modeling is staggering.
Reply Menicholas June 4, 2015 at 6:42 pm Anyone who sees no problem with this is showing their colors.
It is like the Warmista motorcycle jacket.
James Harlock June 4, 2015 at 12:08 pm So, Winston Smith is alive and well, with a job in the NCDC historical documents department.
Reply Ric Werme June 4, 2015 at 12:10 pm From Karl et al: Moreover, for 1998—2014, our new global trend is 0.
This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century Fig.
Reply TonyL June 4, 2015 at 12:11 pm If it were not because of where this paper came from, it would not be worth a comment at all.
Not all of the desired effect was obtained by simply adjusting the temperatures.
In this way the two are not significantly different.
Everything is allowed to promote the green agenda of the west.
Our MSM produce only widespread green information, fraud about temperature adjestments is legal because the authority tells us.
Sea level rise is caused by global warming, natural rise is already 80 meters and only natural variability is able to lower the sea level.
And as far as science goes, that is JUNK.
Reply richard verney June 4, 2015 at 2:13 pm +1 although I usually qualify that statement, eg.
If the error bands are large and I suspect that if one is honest they arethen there is still scope for CO2 to be a driver of temperature, but if the error bands are small as the warmists claimthen CO2 is not s ignificant driver and at best it is merely a bit player swamped by natural variability.
Reply Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 3:01 pm Thanks, Mr.
And thank you for the more careful statement of my gist of the matter.
Oh, yes, yes, indeed.
A very important message….
I thought the science was settled.
Reply Henry Galt June 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm Good dog.
It is currently 14:35 Central Standard time, and I have spent close to half an hour looking for this article on their website.
If anyone has a link, please share.
Reply Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm I tried.
There is no possible justification for such linkage unless NOAA has no idea what the absolute values of each are.
With absolute values, any adjustment has it own unique provenance — opposing adjustments spanning an 85 year data gap is inconceivable.
This kind of graph i.
Keep up the great work!
Reply Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm Furthermore, the BIG PICTURE needs to and the city無料でオンライン視聴 sex kept in mind.
Some context: It has been cooling for thousands of years.
Warming is the exception.
Cooling is the norm.
That warming is coming out of the COLDEST period for the last 10,000 years!!
Reply richard verney June 4, 2015 at 2:19 pm Yes With every peak being somewhat lower than the preceding peak, ie.
As you note, the Earth is cooling but this cooling trend is interupted from time to time with short intervals of warmth, but overall it is a downward tragetory.
In fact most if not all of the posited explanations look very much like arbitrary efforts to explain away the difficulties by filling in certain gaps with ad hoc, retrospectively derived, models.
Rather, they usually devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory continue reading order to eliminate any apparent conflict.
Some, unable to tolerate click to see more crisis, leave the profession.
As a rule, persistent and recognised anomaly does not induce crisis.
Failure to achieve the expected solution to a puzzle discredits only the scientist and not the theory To evoke a crisis, an anomaly must usually be more than just an anomaly.
Scientists who paused and examined every anomaly would not get much accomplished.
An anomaly must come to be seen as more than just another puzzle of normal science.
What a math country!
Reply David S June 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm I wish I could use their methodology in my past share market investments.
I could then prove to my wife that all the money she thought we had lost is still there.
In fact just thinking about it makes me feel a lit bit wealthier.
Reply Sophie June 4, 2015 at 1:00 pm Judith Curry said the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3.
So it cannot be verified, can it?
Reply Admad June 4, 2015 at 1:02 source Post script.
Who is wrong, the pause-excusers or the pause-refusers?
A miracle just in time for Paris.
Reply Robert of Ottawa June 4, 2015 at 2:13 pm Refusniks or excusenicks?
Reply ristvan June 4, 2015 at 1:05 pm Very nice post, Bob and Anthony.
Hope it gets the media coverage it deserves.
Reply ristvan June 4, 2015 at 1:43 pm Follow up suggestion.
With some editing SNLthis really should be a submission to the Link adjustments investigation.
IIRC the submission window is still open.
It would broaden their focus from land adjustments in a useful and timely manner.
The only global warming caused by man is the falsification of the data that shows there is none.
Reply Another Ian June 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm Some more on this at Reply blqysmsg June 4, 2015 at 1:26 pm What this paper is saying is that, at no time in the last 65 years have we had warming over 0.
The IPCC estimated that we should have no less than 0.
So, this report essentially says that we are substantially lower in warming than the IPCC claimed we must be.
Will China, India, Australia and Japan believe — no.
They are touting a new adjustment that INCREASES the error of the estimate.
It might be fun though.
Reply RWturner June 4, 2015 at 2:08 pm The alarmists are holding a Jack of clubs high and just went all in.
Reply Gunga Din June windows 7用zuma deluxe game無料ダウンロードフルバージョン, 2015 at 2:13 pm Soooo….
When all the CAGW hype started.
Reply Jtom June 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm Wait, let me see if I have this right.
I have serious doubts about their interpretation of the data, but tend to agree with their take on NASA.
Usually over time, Bayesian updating will home-in and narrow the error bounds of predictions of analysis outputs, e.
I ask the question: can data windows 7用zuma deluxe game無料ダウンロードフルバージョン combination with bayesian analysis of prior data tell you whether a researcher has corrupted current data?
Certainly this is true with dice and card games.
Call it the Bayesian lie detector!
Probably easier said than done; let me know is it even worth thinking about … and your ideas as well.
Janice Reply DanMet'al June 4, 2015 at 3:37 pm Hi Janice — Thanks ….
Dan Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm Hey, Dan — thanks for letting me know I had a good idea!
Reply Earl Wood June 4, 2015 at 3:32 pm Very informative.
Can we see more figures like Figure 5?
Graphs that show the changes over time month-to-month are just devastating to the credibility of their data handling.
Reply James at 48 June 4, 2015 at 3:56 pm This is completely out of control.
Reply Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 4:00 pm Heh.
Reply Alx June 4, 2015 at 5:58 pm The value add is supposed to be that they are the data stewards of our temperature record.
Unfortunately instead of acting with the integrity and objectivity required of data stewards, NOAA leadership is more comfortable in the role of political hacks.
Reply kamikazedave June 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm Has anyone ever asked NOAA what the data would look like if no adjustments had been made?
Reply Andres Valencia June 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm minus Reply Andres Valencia June 4, 2015 at 4:06 pm Thanks, Anthony, Bob.
This is ridiculous, and menacing.
Reply Janice Moore June 4, 2015 at 4:15 pm Andres Valencia, You are always so encouraging to others here on WUWT.
Just wanted you to know you shine — and it shows.
Thanks for being such a good example for the rest of us!
You are too kind.
Reply Jason Calley June 4, 2015 at 7:21 pm Prosecute them for fraud?
It would be difficult… The group of people who are funding the fraud are the same group of people who run the court system.
Reply Bob Koss June 4, 2015 at 5:09 pm Karl et al 2015 say they used the ISTI database for land temperatures.
I found the database is heavily polluted with duplicate data across stations within an individual country.
In some cases more than 10 stations within a single country contain many months of identical data when compared with other in country stations for the same year, though not for all years of their records.
In actuality many of the duplications can go on for decades at a time.
Nowhere on the ISTI site can I find a pared down database with all such duplicates removed or any indication of how they would select which station has the correct data.
I view that dataset as a work in progress with currently no legitimate reason for its use.
I found 73,581 cases of duplicate data of at least 7 months in a year, 26807 of those had 12 months duplicated.
Common missing months across stations were not considered duplicates.
Seems to me it is a fertile ground for finding cherries.
Here is a log.
The distribution is terribly skewed from what should be normal.
Here is a you ハロウィーンスロットマシンハックapk opinion of the matches.
Using that for comparison would more than double the matches found.
Here is another link.
Reply Pamela Gray June 4, 2015 at 5:22 pm Let me get this straight.
I think I just click for source this.
How easy it now is to lead the sheeple by the nose.
Reply harrytwinotter June 4, 2015 at 5:30 pm Dr Curry would be taken more seriously if she avoids implying a political conspiracy.
Reply harrytwinotter June 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm dbstealey, Back in your box.
I see this as giving the counter view for new readers to consider.
If you want to be BFF, just admit what everyone here knows: global warming stopped a long time ago.
The alarmist crowd was wrong.
Terry Oldberg June 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm I move for investigation by the U.
Department of Justice of and possible prosecution for fraud.
Terry Oldberg June 4, 2015 at 9:12 pm harrytwinotter: We place dbstealy in his box at our peril.
Obama and the media would dutifully report the new figures without batting an eye, so why not go for it!
Reply Alx June 4, 2015 at 5:55 pm Since it defies credulity that only temperature records before 1950 required downward adjustment and after 1950 only upward adjustments requires explanation.
Not an explanation of missing stations, duplicate stations, changes in equipment or recording methodology, moving stations, etc.
Those are all generic and click not address the issue.
A date specific explanation is required that addresses one specific point; why data before ~1950 are all adjusted downwards and after ~1950 all adjustments upwards.
Klipstein June 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm The cause of the pause seems to be a natural cycle that has held through two cycles with a period around 64 years, and that shows up in all of the global surface temperature datasets, but more strongly in HadCRUT3 than in any of the others.
As I analyzed with a simple attempt at Fourier from an old peak to a modern peak, the latest peak was, to the nearest year, in 2005.
The corner between a fast warming trend and a lack thereof, where linear trend lines meet, seems to be anywhere from late 2003 to early 2005, depending on the dataset and how I https://games-casinos.site/3/7986.html it.
Since HadCRUT3 has had a flat trend since sometime in 2001, the ~2004 corner may be the beginning of a very slight cooling trend.
I wish HadCRUT3 was still being determined.
Reply Truthseeker June 4, 2015 at 9:36 pm Good to see that WUWT has finally click the following article up to where Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller has been for years … Reply Ric Werme June 4, 2015 at 10:57 pm You might want to check up on WUWT history.
Interpretation is what it is.
Analysis is also interpretation and the public needs to understand this.
This quote is from comments below: Harold June 4, thanks. マーベル対カプコンゲームプレイ valuable at 11:54 am Is new analysis on old data anything like old wine in new bottles?
I ytstorlek är det mer än 60 kvadratkilometer större än Andorras yta…… :P Minns ni påståendet om att Golfströmmen saktar fart.
Påstående som kommit gång på gång senaste 10 åren….
Reply Andrew June 5, 2015 at 1:51 am Might be all that UHI affecting the SSTs Reply waterside4 June 5, 2015 at 1:55 am Nothing surprises any more as to the extent so called scientists can succumb to noble cause corruption.
Some wonderful comments on here and other blogs about this piece of malfeasance.
Seeing as the FBI are investigation FIFA at the moment, is there any chance they could include these charlatans of the IPCC in the remit.
Thank God for people Anthony,Bob, Judith, and all the other realists.
Do you remember global cooling Before icebergs melted away Climate fraudsters were not fooling They made the pause go away, made it go away.
[PC] Zuma Deluxe
Cara Burning CD-DVD tanpa Software di Windows 7. 無料の Microsoft Mahjong を入手する.. Internet Explorerのバージョンを新しいものに更新し. ListViewでリストを表示する（静的） ListViewを使ってリストを表示するには以下のように記述します。 activity_main.xml.. free. download farm frenzy. download zuma games free; Free Download Game Insaniquarium 18.104.22.168 Full Vers Download Rise.
I think, that you are not right. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.
I think, that you are not right. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM.
I congratulate, it seems remarkable idea to me is
And I have faced it.
Certainly. I join told all above. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.
It is simply excellent idea
And you so tried?
Yes, really. I join told all above. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.
Completely I share your opinion. In it something is also I think, what is it excellent idea.
Your idea is useful
You are definitely right
I am sorry, that has interfered... I understand this question. Write here or in PM.