SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (71349)8/6/2016 1:45:46 AM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Thomas A Watson

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86355
 
Haha, that's hilarious Sunny. "I will place a bet that it will be warmer in ten years as determined by NOAA code, because I wrote the code that tells us how much warmer it is". No wonder temperature is rising.

"When we report the NOAA results, leave out any temperatures that are too low as they are obviously aberrant and not representative of the averages". Such thinking by 97% of Climate "scientists" would make me think that maybe the NOAA results are not worth much more than the computer models which have code saying "The output temperature will be higher on average and ignore clouds, solar output, cosmic rays, plant cover, snow cover, the Gulf Stream."

Sure enough, the predicted temperatures by various computer models have soared way higher than the actual measured temperatures which are now out the bottom of the low end of the ranges given by the computer models.

Laughable.

Mqurice



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (71349)8/6/2016 11:32:04 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 86355
 
There are statement that are what I call true indicators or idiot identification. If the sensors or placed stupidly then the fudging code will not correct the stupidity. Or are you claiming there are several thousand calibration fudges, one for each GHCN reporting station.