They do this for a living. Do you?

Post #402,348 by Another Scott 6/5/15 7:50:53 AM Reply	They do this for a living. Do you? Every measurement has error bars of two types: random and systematic. If you don't correct for systematic errors, you'll draw incorrect inferences. "First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17)." Systematic error bars can change over time (as they get more information) even if random error bars don't. It's not a conspiracy. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,350 by boxley 6/5/15 9:52:50 AM Reply	They do this for a living, why yes they do if you read the actual paper the rational for changing the numbers in that fashion do not grok unless they are trying to erase the hiatus, then it makes perfect sense. Why is noaa turning down many of the arctic sensors when that is an area of most concern? Why fluff the buoy numbers when their accuracy is much better than the ship collection numbers? There is no conspiracy, just folks who use the evidence to approve their prejudices. See creationist science for similarities. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,351 by Another Scott 6/5/15 10:36:32 AM Reply	You're grasping at straws again. Why is noaa turning down many of the arctic sensors when that is an area of most concern? The supplementary data from the paper is here. It says: Therefore, our estimate of the additional warming over recent decades in the arctic, not included in our primary global analysis, is likely to be an underestimate of the actual warming. However, because our data date back to 1880, further investigation (beyond the scope of this analysis) is required to demonstrate the optimum interpolation approach for both short and long periods in data-sparse, high-latitude regions. Similarly with your other questions. Happy hunting. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,352 by boxley 6/5/15 10:53:23 AM Reply	keep on keeping on. any "scientist" who ignores data selectively to their bias needs to have questions asked. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,353 by Another Scott 6/5/15 11:12:11 AM Reply	Asked and answered. :-) That warming has been fastest in the northern latitudes isn't in dispute. E.g. They didn't "ignore data to suit their bias" or whatever. The climate datasets are public and freely available. You're welcome to do your own analysis if you think they're wrong. http://gosic.org/ HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,546 by Ashton 6/15/15 7:20:41 AM Reply	Imagining conspiracy/thus perfect secrecy ... across such masses of the quite demonstrably 'numerate' (or the idea of confirmation bias and other memes-du-jour) is the stuff of a mindset, not of: a rational awareness of ... the irrationality of many folks' jelloware. Especially since: much of the average jelloware remains innumerate by any measure. All you need do is Look Around/while evading your own confirmation-bias. Can ya manage that?
Post #402,559 by boxley 6/15/15 11:22:32 AM 6/15/15 11:23:00 AM Reply	what secrecy? They stated exactly what numbers they wanted to changed to get their prefered results? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep Edited by boxley June 15, 2015, 11:23:00 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!