Both...I assume the massive research and studies done by scientists have confirmed my Tecfidera will keep my MS from progressing into extreme disability. I assume the Louisville Water Company deserves the worldwide recognition they have for innovative and effective water treatment. All of this relied on assumption (hypothesis) before progressing into theory and then reality, this is how science functions. Currently the Climate change hypothesis is evolving into theory as data is accumulated and confirmations observed. That you do not understand the scientific process and wish to ignore the data does not effect these results in the least, all it accomplishes is making you seem ignorant on an internet forum.
and do you think their science was audited before you got meds or do you think they assumed it was ok and just sent it to you?
My medicine went through an extensive review and testing process by the FDA before being brought to market in the United States, just as Temperature readings and climate data goes through extensive review by NOAA. I do assume and trust in these entities partially because I do not have the resources and expertize to confirm this personally and partially because I have done the research to know they are capable.
we have not seen any such proof temperature readings went through extensive review. Also, the checks need to be 3rd party. Who performed the audits on your temp data. Which company?
If you dont know, then you arent in a position to be arguing with someone who does this for a living and has done so since the mid 80s.
Had you actually bothered to review the NOAA link I provided and you claimed you were familiar with you would have noted the data you question. OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB Peer Review Bulletin) directs federal agencies to adopt or adapt the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) policy for evaluating conflicts of interest when selecting peer reviewers who are not federal government employees. ... NOAA has adapted the NAS policy. You claim to be qualified and informed from years if not decades of working in the field...I find this questionable based of your position and replies.
Oh, you do this for a living? So you're pretty familiar with 3DVAR and 4DVAR assimilation? You're pretty familiar with the datasets, how to download them, and how to evaluate them? So tell me specifically...what do you not like about the way it's done. Give me specific examples.
Actually, I am literally an expert at handling large sets of data including ...lol downloading. I can program as well as understand and manage scientific data on large scale projects.....so ya, I can handle downloads. lol
Great. Then point out how all of the following datasets got it all wrong and how much they're all wrong by. This should be easy for you. NASA GISS NOAAGlobalTemp HadCRUT Berkeley Land+Ocean MERRA Reanalysis CERA Reanalysis 20th Century Reanalysis CHOR Reanalysis JRA Reanalysis ERA Reanalysis NARR Reanalysis NCAR Reanalysis DOE Reanalysis CFSR Reanalysis ASR Reanalysis COSMO Reanalysis JCDAS Analysis ECMWF Analysis GDPS Analysis GDAS Analysis RSS UAH Tell me how hundreds of experts screwed up and how you've figure out something they haven't. Then explain how, despite this massive screw up, that all of these datasets still show the same thing. Then show me one dataset that computes a global mean temperature which shows that the Earth isn't warming...just one. And if you're the expert you say you are you'll be able to answer this simple question...what does the 3D or 4D mean in reference to 3DVAR and 4DVAR? Note, I'm looking for the technical meaning. Obviously 3D and 4D are in reference to the dimensionality of something, but what specifically does it mean? In addition what biases must RSS and UAH handle and how did they screw up?
I didnt say they screwed up. I am waiting for the documentation to show they didnt. This is the last time I will explain this. Pick any study on your list and give me the information I asked for for the first data point. Any study at all.
We are talking about 3D fields of data so usually they are in GRIB or NetCDF format so your can check you Boyce-Codd normal form, SQL, and other relational DBMS skills at the door. They won't help you here.
Yes. How can you possibly not know this? Especially considering I've been lacing my posts with technical jargon that you could easily look up yourself. I thought you were an expert?
I'm open to discussing it with you, but I need to know what you mean by "field" and "unique". There are a lot of plausible interpretations one could make in the context of how atmospheric data is handled. Also, I already posted the math that demonstrates that the error of the mean is S/sqrt(N) where N is the number of samples and S is either the standard deviation if using "standard" error (ie. letting the data self describe it's error) or the real RMS error on the individual samples. You can, in fact, get a really accurate mean computation from not very accurate individual samples. Do you take issue with this? How about if we focus on one of the proxy datasets for a moment. Here's a paper describing NASA's GISS dataset. They publish an error of 0.05C on recent data and 0.10C on older data. What issues do you have with the way GISS is formulated? Have you downloaded the software and tried it out for yourself? What happens when you remove all of the code that makes the necessary adjustments? In other words, how is the global mean temperature affected by the removal of the adjustment code? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000345/full Or how about reanalysis. Google for 3dvar or 4dvar and start learning how it works. Let me know if you have any questions Use Google Scholar if you're not familiar with the journals academics are posting in. In addition to 3dvar and 4dvar as search terms I recommend "reanalysis", "adjoint", "kalmin filter", "assimilation", and "minimization" just to get your started. Also, get a good dynamic meteorology and data assimilation book. The dynamic meteorology book will be useful in understanding how temperature relates to the other atmospheric properties. The data assimilation book will be useful in understanding the math behind how all of this works.
Scientist? I specified that all thermometers are ideal and ideally calibrated and verified to all your standards. I gave you a basic textual/arithmetic task to answer how that would make the claim that the Earth warmed 1.51C+-1C even slightly less bogus. <Rule 2/3>
You keep saying that, but you never back it up with any facts or data. By this time, we've concluded that it's simply a religious belief of yours, one you hold purely on blind faith. So, we've got gajillions of satellites in orbit. There's no calibration in space, except by cross-checking, which you say is totally wrong. Thus, your peculiar system says we have to ignore all satellites after a year. That would indicate that your system is really dumb. I suppose that's why you're apparently the only human on earth who believes in it. Given that we understand basic statistics, we're 100% certain that you're clueless about basic statistics. As we correctly see it, you doing the equivalent of telling us that 2+2=5, and raging that everyone who says 2+2=4 is all wrong. You're literally that inept at statistics. Yet, I keep asking, and you can't explain. You're not a good scientist. But then, you're not a scientist at all. You're a lab tech pretending to be a scientist. Can you show us that such things are affecting the thermometers significantly over the span of a year? No? You're just asserting it with no evidence at all to back it up? What a surprise. The massive cross-checking shows the measurements are very reliable and consistent over the span of a year. That's good science, hence you don't understand it.
sorry no longer participating in this thread as my numerous posts were deleted. Thank the two that couldnt deal with fact.
For the record, I played no role in the deletion of your posts and I can't think of anything you posted that I would have thought would be grounds for deletion. Just saying...
Thanks. Appreciate that. Ill give your posts more gravitas based on that from now on. If I believe Im getting trolled Ill reciprocate but apparently you are not in that group.
