Liar.

I believe rbwphd@msn.com was sprinkling factlessoids, kinda like hemorrhoids only colder.

I didn’t look at any datasets at all, I simply found two differing figures for the same 1997 GAT in an official NOAA/NCEI report and on their website and I don’t think this was an error, misprint or typo. I think that sometime between then and now, NOAA have adjusted the 1997 temperature downwards by nearly 5°F.
I just wanted to know why they would do that within a 26 year timeframe?

No, the downvoters reacted this way because he does this on every article he can find and most us have read the exact same post of his over a dozen times already. Even a bot would vary it a bit.

Maryam Moshiri may well be looking for alternative employment in the New Year…

I’m sure your wife must love these games of yours but I’m not playing. You can keep your ‘demerits’ and your tomfoolery to yourself.

If that was the case, that it was just for the summer of 1997, why was it repeatedly referred to as the ‘annual average temperature’, the ‘1997 annual global average temperature’ and ‘1997 global temperature’. Sorry Richard, you’ve lied one too many times with this.

I never at any point wrote that there was ‘cooling since 1975’ – you made this up; basically you lied about me, made up something I’ve never written and humiliated yourself on a public forum. You stupid, self-serving, lying idjit.

I think it may have been on a twitter feed but not sure. It is, however, representative of some ‘scientists’ that have publicly said that observations may be wrong and a theory or model may be more accurate – check the internet, lots of examples. I think climate enthusiasts don’t like real world observations as they’re messy and don’t fall into neat little boxes like computer models do (I know several computer programmers that think along similar lines).

But as I keep saying this is double book keeping – the variance given by measurement uncertainty should already be part of the variance of the data.

This seems to be where a lot of the (progressively more heated) disagreement comes from.

The variance comes from the recorded values, which don’t appear to be recorded as “stated value +/- measurement uncertainty”.
That’s the dispersion of the underlying phenomenon.

Then there is the measurement uncertainty, which is independent of the data variability.

These need to be combined.

In theory, the data variability and sampling uncertainty overwhelm the measurement uncertainty, but given the small “anomaly” values involved, this may not be the case.

Assuming measurement error is independent of temperature, you should be adding it in quadrature.

A courageous decision, Minister.

One of our calibrations involved multiple measurements for a each test sample, and averaging the results. However, the measurement conditions for each repetition changed, which of course means that calling the uncertainty sigma/root(n) isn’t valid.

Exactly. Only recently did I recognize that this applied to measurements at individual weather stations. Upon this realization, I began connecting the dots, drawing insights from reading your posts and the Gormans’ regarding uncertainty over the past year. So I owe you all thanks. 🙂

“Never said something about CO2, and you are welcome to ask Bil for evidence first.”

Why bother Bil?
That was a mighty desperate red herring trick of yours, demanding proof from Bil who states a rationale opinion and points to an article in the Telegraph.

My background in uncertainty comes from the calibration lab side, which required lab accreditation according to ISO 17025. I had to revise our formal uncertainty analysis documents that the accreditation agency evaluated and approved as part of the accreditation process. These are required to follow the GUM.

One of our calibrations involved multiple measurements for a each test sample, and averaging the results. However, the measurement conditions for each repetition changed, which of course means that calling the uncertainty sigma/root(n) isn’t valid.

It is an honor to be associated with this very important effort that provides a beacon of truth addressing climate science and renewable energy reality that is hidden by the deception and distortion of alarmism advocates.

Please keep up your great leadership of this vital work. Thank you and have a wonderful Christmas and New Year in 2024.

And US Navy has over priced defense systems with limited sustained endurance – terrible weapons evaluation and selection ( for the new drone warfare) Don’t even want to think of our ( US)current ground combat readiness( Israel’s military soldier training discipline really gone down hill) US moral too , I think not good. The intel just keeps coming in even on Christmas Eve and it is not good.

forgot you when I pulled a list out of my @#s. my apologies.

Academic Senate, is a clear example of the university’s shift from

fostering critical thinking to promoting a singular ideological agenda.

________________________________________________________________

You mean promoting propaganda right?

Another idiot.

No, you are just unable to grasp even the simplest of explanations. I’ve been very patient with you, making a genuine effort to help you understand to the best of my ability. You think you possess more knowledge than others here, but in reality, you blindly echo the views of IPCC. You lack the ability to think skeptically. I’m 20 years old, and I’m telling you this – how sad is that? Either that or you are intentionally misleading. Either way, you are a lost cause. Happy holidays.