InB4 the Eco-Loons

[abandonconflict]

First NOAA link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/12

1)Hiatus never mentioned.
2)135 year period used to generate monthly temperature averages.
3)No mention of a 38% or 40% chance of (see item 4).
4) 2014 clearly confirmed as hottest year on record.

You fail, but you get a morsel credit for mention of 135 year period even though it wasn't quite like you put it in the original post.

2nd NOAA link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

1) Hiatus never mentioned.
2) No mention of 135 year period or of exclusion of data regarding temperatures prior to 135 years ago.
3) No mention of 38% or 40% chance of (see item 4).
4) 2014 clearly confirmed hottest year on record.

You failed miserably.

 

[ginwilly]

You need to also provide a link or your citation is worthless. I need to find where on the NOAA site this tiny snippet is located so that I can see it in context, otherwise it can't support your argument.

Don't waste your time. All they are saying is that it's near impossible to call it definitively the hottest of the year because the measurements were .01C hotter than the two other hottest. It falls within the margin of error to say it was the hottest or to say it wasn't the hottest. That's all that's about. It was pretty damn hot.

So if you want to argue on technicalities, this one is a non-starter. It was probably the hottest, definitely one of the hottest, but we can't for SURE say it was the hottest. Hope that helps.

 

[abandonconflict]

Don't waste your time. All they are saying

Thanks, but I don't consider citations a waste of time.

 

[ginwilly]

Thanks, but I don't consider citations a waste of time.

OK then, would you like a citation that claims it was the hottest year on record or one that claims that it wasn't, I can provide both if you like and let you choose the one that fits your argument.

Or you could realize that a scientist will operate within a margin for error and call it like that "within the margin of error".

 

[abandonconflict]

citation...claims..claims...argument... scientist

*Citation required.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Now we're getting somewhere. A news article which has the NASA and NOAA studies linked.

NASA link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

1)Hiatus never mentioned.
2)No mention of excluding data prior to 135 years ago.
3)No mention of 38% chance of (see item 4)
4)2014 clearly confirmed as hottest year on record

You fail.

Stay tuned for explication of NOAA links.

So, you asked for a link to an article backing up my snippet, which I provided, and it does. Failure #1.

I clearly claimed the LINKED ARTICLE addressed the "hiatus" debate, which it clearly does. Failure #2.

No one said anything about the NASA PRESS RELEASE addressing the "hiatus". Failure #3.

No one said anything about NOAA PRESS RELEASE or the NASA PRESS RELEASE addressing any of the items on your little lists. Endless Failure.

You are now the king of the straw man.

Holy fuck, you really are this stupid?

 

[abandonconflict]

So, you asked for a link to an article backing up my snippet, which I provided, and it does. Failure #1.

No it doesn't. The article you linked did not reflect the findings of the studies it cited. Your argument falls apart from there and I'm not going down the slippery slope in the rest of this rant.

 

[UncleBuck]

So, you asked for a link to an article backing up my snippet, which I provided, and it does. Failure #1.

I clearly claimed the LINKED ARTICLE addressed the "hiatus" debate, which it clearly does. Failure #2.

No one said anything about the NASA PRESS RELEASE addressing the "hiatus". Failure #3.

No one said anything about NOAA PRESS RELEASE or the NASA PRESS RELEASE addressing any of the items on your little lists. Endless Failure.

You are now the king of the straw man.

Holy fuck, you really are this stupid?

look who's up at 1:30 am screaming "NASA!!!!" after spending years stating that they are part of an orchestrated conpiracy to take everyone's money in the name of global warming, which is a hoax.

talk about a meltdown.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, I'd bail now that you've made yourself the fool.

It's not even debatable, the NASA scientist has already publicly admitted the 38% likelihood. ON RECORD. That article and about 1000 more I could cite or you could Google have the admission on record. Put on your blinders, doesn't change shit.

You're an idiot of the highest order. Your liberal two step was better than I could have hoped for. You lost, you repeated something that is 62% unlikely as fact. The best thing is now that you know it, you stuff your fat sausage fingers in your ears and claim victory.

Priceless. I wallow in your grief.

complete meltdown.

 

[abandonconflict]

It's not even debatable, the NASA scientist has already publicly admitted the 38% likelihood. ON RECORD.

Not according to your citations. Unless you have more citations.

 

[abandonconflict]

complete meltdown.

hiatus

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Not according to your citations. Unless you have more citations.

Really, did you miss this paragraph.

NASA and NOAA announced last week that 2014 was the warmest year recorded since measurements began but the fact is that the margin is so small as to be statistically meaningless. NASA itself ranks the probability that 2014 was the warmest year at 38 per cent while NOAA is slightly more confident putting the probability at 48 per cent.

Weird huh? That's my citation and there it is.

Here's another.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

You see that paragraph that seems to match the above quote?

Want 50 more? It's a matter of record. They've already admitted the percentage of likelihood.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Oops.

Gavin Schmidt, poster boy of the MMGW agenda confirms "pause", explains why "pause" is happening, predicts end of "pause", but really "pause" doesn't exist to zealots.

He also PUBLICLY admits 38% likelihood, but that didn't happen either, says zealots.

 

[UncleBuck]

Really, did you miss this paragraph.



Weird huh? That's my citation and there it is.

Here's another.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

You see that paragraph that seems to match the above quote?

Want 50 more? It's a matter of record. They've already admitted the percentage of likelihood.

2 am and you continue to post links from organizations which you have stated repeatedly are part of a worldwide climate change hoax.

meltdown.

 

[abandonconflict]

Really, did you miss this paragraph.



Weird huh? That's my citation and there it is.

Here's another.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

You see that paragraph that seems to match the above quote?

Want 50 more? It's a matter of record. They've already admitted the percentage of likelihood.

I have to catch my breath from laughing so hard. The snippet is not from the NASA study it is from the dailymail.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Why is it so cold this year? Freaking cold since the first day of January. Oh yeah.

#hiatus

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I have to catch my breath from laughing so hard. The snippet is not from the NASA study it is from the dailymail.

Show me where I claimed the source of the snippet to be from NASA.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You're getting confused by your own straw men.

 

[abandonconflict]

Show me where I claimed the source of the snippet to be from NASA.

So you think thedailymail is a good source on climate science. Got it.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

So you think thedailymail is a good source on climate science. Got it.

You think the daily mail can't report on a scientist going on record with an admission? Public record. Not debatable.