Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This shows just how bad he really is; completely delusional as well as vindictively prejudiced against woman.

Statistics show it is men that cause most of the crimes and atrocities in the world, not woman. Obviously, I said I am a man not because I delusionally think (like he does ) there is something wrong with woman but rather because I want to state the truth despite the fact that means admitting I am a man and thus am of the sex that is responsible for most of the atrocities and crimes in this world. If I was perfectly willing to lie through my teeth, despite the prejudice against woman that I know is out there and I have seen, I might say I am a woman -unless I was talking to you face to face in which case that would be stupid because I look nothing like a woman.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Don't count on it, don't give up your day job. Why did you say you were another Einstein?

I never said anything of the sort. I challenge you to prove otherwise. You are just another alarmist I made look stupid so you resort to lies like humy.

Originally posted by humy
This shows just how bad he really is; completely delusional as well as vindictively prejudiced against woman.

Statistics show it is men that cause most of the crimes and atrocities in the world, not woman. Obviously, I said I am a man not because I delusionally think (like he does ) there is something wrong with woman but rather because I want to state the t ...[text shortened]... king to you face to face in which case that would be stupid because I look nothing like a woman.

You are a pathological liar. It would be insane to believe anything you say. You are also a sore loser. Prove I said the things you claim I did you pathetic liar!

If:

quote http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic.

("Probably go up", is not good enough in science.)

quote http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Then:
0.116°C per decade does not equal 0.21°C per decade and climate-change and the forces that are driving it are not yet, well understood. This while not even questioning the buoy loss of 0.17°C or more lol.

Buoy loss should be questioned because: Buoys compared to ships is and are exactly equivalent to buoys and ships used to correct buoys compared to ships? Buoys compared to ships is completely understood and is? Buoys compared to ships wasn't realized when ships became buoys? Yes they said they did and then didn't. And the big one lol: Buoys compared to ships is NOT the reverse of ships to buckets, oh I hope not? And what about those buckets? Big ships and little buckets? Big buckets and little ships? All the same ship and bucket? Why not oceans and thermometers?

Better ifs make better thens. If you have better ifs, please then them 🙂

Originally posted by JerryH

("Probably go up", is not good enough in science.)

You simply couldn't be more wrong. Excluding pure mathematics, Much of science IS probabilistic including climate science. It is often, as in this case, STATISTICAL and therefore we CAN scientifically say "Probably go up", and thus that IS " good enough in science".

Is,'t the study of statistics a science?
What do you think the science of statistics all about?
How many sciences don't do any probabilistic/statistical analysis of data? Aren't they dealing with probabilities?

Originally posted by humy
You simply couldn't be more wrong. Excluding pure mathematics, Much of science IS probabilistic including climate science. It is often, as in this case, STATISTICAL and therefore we CAN scientifically say "Probably go up", and thus that IS " good enough in science".

Is,'t the study of statistics a science?
What do you think the science of statistics all ab ...[text shortened]... don't do any probabilistic/statistical analysis of data? Aren't they dealing with probabilities?

Statistical? The direct quote is: "And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic." Where is the statistical in "probably go up once his team calculates"?

Originally posted by JerryH
Statistical? The direct quote is: "And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic." Where is the statistical in "probably go up once his team calculates"?

In this particular case, they presumably used old fashioned deduction rather than statistical analysis. Their deduction must have used their expert specialized knowledge of the physics specifically relevant to climate which, despite my physics credentials, not even I would have because my knowledge of physics is too basic and generic in nature for that.

But, more generally, the word "probably" in science generally implies it was worked out statistically even if they don't state specifically how so.