"Global Warming is rubbish"

[akphidelt]

Here's an example of what you find in scientific journals. Of course not a single one of you has a fucking clue what they are talking about. But, some .com site says global warming isn't real so that's all the proof you need, lol.

[h=3]2 The Ocean Reanalysis[/h][6] ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded maps of SST from NOAA are used to adjust the heat fluxes via strong relaxation, and altimeter global mean sea-levels are used to constrain the global average of the fresh-water flux. The ocean model horizontal resolution is approximately 1°, refined meridionally down to 1/3° at the equator. There are 42 vertical levels with separations varying smoothly from 10 m at the surface to 300 m at the bottom, with partial cell topography.

[7] A model bias correction [BMW13] is used to reduce potential spurious variability resulting from changes in the observing system. The bias correction first guess—a seasonal cycle of 3-D model error—is estimated from the data-rich Argo period, and applied to ORAS4 from the beginning of the record. This is updated as the analysis progresses via an adaptive scheme (see BMW13 for details; see also Figure S3 of the auxiliary material). The five ensemble members of ORAS4 sample plausible uncertainties in the wind forcing, observation coverage, and the deep ocean. The uncertainty is probably underestimated in ORAS4, because the uncertainty in observations and their quality control [Lyman et al., 2010] is not sampled. Quality improvements in ORAS4 relative to earlier ocean reanalyses stem from the use of improved atmospheric surface fluxes, improved data assimilation, and more comprehensive quality-control of the observation data set, with important corrections to the ocean observations.

[8] The methods section S01 in the auxiliary material provides more specific information on the model, surface forcing, observation data sets, bias correction and ensemble generation. A detailed description and evaluation of ORAS4 is given in BMW13, and a discussion of the sensitivity of the reanalysis to several aspects not included in the ensemble generation.

 

[Acebb]

Largest survey conducted of climate scientists. You don't even understand statistics. You are really dumb. Lol

Keep in mind you are trumpeting this:

That idea that you understand "statistics" is laughable and preposterous.

 

[akphidelt]

Right, you just repeat talking points. You have no idea if they are true or interest if they are true.

Life is easier that way because you're little thinker with a tiny mind.

You have no idea if they are true or not either, but you think you do. That's the funniest part.

 

[SheriffJoe]

fratfraud believes 100 people out of 20,000 is "scientific consensus" or something.

 

[akphidelt]

Keep in mind you are trumpeting this:

That idea that you understand "statistics" is laughable and preposterous.

The idea that you think that graph would show someones understanding of "statistics" is even more laughable and preposterous, lmao. That's a greater sample size of climate scientists than most polls from gallup, rasmussen, etc. Very statistically relevant. But you wouldn't know that because you are very dumb.

 

[Acebb]

Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth's average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923

Loser!@#0

 

[Acebb]

The idea that you think that graph would show someones understanding of "statistics" is even more laughable and preposterous, lmao. That's a greater sample size of climate scientists than most polls from gallup, rasmussen, etc. Very statistically relevant. But you wouldn't know that because you are very dumb.

No it isn't, you idiot.

79 total.

You're embarrassing.

 

[Acebb]

fratfraud believes 100 people out of 20,000 is "scientific consensus" or something.

These guys wish they even had 100!

79 climate scientists respond to a Web based survey in 2008.

What a joke.

 

[Acebb]

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed.

The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.
The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1

 

[akphidelt]

No it isn't, you idiot.

79 total.

You're embarrassing.

79 climatologists who produce over 50% of their peer reviewed research papers on climate change, lol. The fact you don't realize that is statistically significant is hilarious!! How many climatologists out there produce over 50% of their peer reviewed research papers on climate change do you think there are?

Talking to you is very enjoyable. You are such a weirdo, lol.

 

[scottcarter]

You have no idea if they are true or not either, but you think you do. That's the funniest part.

lol oh man how ironic that is. All anyone on the opposite side of you has made the argument all along. Showing you facts that casts a huge doubt that man made global warming exists. Yet, you keep on regurgitating the 97% bs and refusing to admit there too many questions your leaders are telling you is fact. ya, Manzel went 22nd overall and the Ducks won 3-2 last night. 100% agree that is fact. Not 97%.

 

[Acebb]

79 climatologists who produce over 50% of their peer reviewed research papers on climate change, lol. The fact you don't realize that is statistically significant is hilarious!! .

Notice you went from claiming: "that's a greater sample size of climate scientists than most polls from gallup, rasmussen, etc."

To incoherently bringing up "statistically significant"

You're a rank imbecile.

 

[akphidelt]

These guys wish they even had 100!

79 climate scientists respond to a Web based survey in 2008.

What a joke.

Lol, the fact you think this is a joke is hilarious. You have no clue how math works. Comedy gold!

 

[Acebb]

79 climatologists who produce over 50% of their peer reviewed research papers on climate change, lol. The fact you don't realize that is statistically significant is hilarious!! .

Actually, it was 79 who have produced 50% of their papers in the last 5 years.

Which is different than what you said.

The suggestion that 79 people is "statistically significant" is laughable and you're a moron.

 

[akphidelt]

Notice you went from claiming: "that's a greater sample size of climate scientists than most polls from gallup, rasmussen, etc."

To incoherently bringing up "statistically significant"

You're a rank imbecile.

What are you even talking about? Lmao! Whenever you get caught in a corner you just start making up random shit. What I meant was when you see Gallup say 60% of people disapprove of Obama, they are using a smaller sample size in comparison than this survey of climatologists. It really should not be that hard, but you make things very hard, lol.

 

[akphidelt]

Actually, it was 79 who have produced 50% of their papers in the last 5 years.

Which is different than what you said.

The suggestion that 79 people is "statistically significant" is laughable and you're a moron.

Oh I'm sorry I left out the last 5 years, that changes everything. Lol

 

[Acebb]

Apparently now 79 is a greater sample size than gallup polls

Except:

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 24-30, 2014, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,336 registered voters, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168929/three-voters-say-vote-oppose-obama.aspx

"statistically significant"

Hilarious

 

[Acebb]

Oh I'm sorry I left out the last 5 years, that changes everything. Lol

It is a different statement entirely.

Idiot.

 

[akphidelt]

lol oh man how ironic that is. All anyone on the opposite side of you has made the argument all along. Showing you facts that casts a huge doubt that man made global warming exists. Yet, you keep on regurgitating the 97% bs and refusing to admit there too many questions your leaders are telling you is fact. ya, Manzel went 22nd overall and the Ducks won 3-2 last night. 100% agree that is fact. Not 97%.

You have not cast any doubts. You're opinion is purely conspiratorial. Not a single person on this site can read a scientifically reviewed research paper on climate change and understand it. Your case that 3% disagree therefore it's not real is hilarious. Real life nut jobs on this site.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Yes Acebb, 100 scientists out of 20,000 is "statistically significant"

And the clown show continues...