@Axel_Bojanowski @mpoessel @p_humm @uebermedien Der letzte Satz überrascht mich jetzt - ich dachte, das war dann mit https://t.co/FarVsN7i9S erledigt
@ProudUSNavy @NobodyCynic @3ggShen @BroughtToBook @CNN 1/Stop flattering yourself long enough to get a clue. I've read most of the IPCC's Assessment Reports. AR5 (2014) is noteworthy for focusing on the "hiatus." That hiatus further adding to the uncertain
@Bkw1122 @SaraCarterDC @BernieSanders "First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data.." (https://t.co/Qm8sVRbz14
@Hakasays @MarkBoslough @ravinaproject @tan123 Re: "Do you understand Chaos Theory and how it applies to statistical sciences?" I'm familiar with your evidence-free talking points about "chaos", and how u use that to illegitimately dodge accurate model-ba
RT @david_hanselman: What can you do when an AGW denier thinks he sharing one thing but the article actually proves there was no "hiatus" i…
RT @david_hanselman: @GeraldKutney This isn't the first time, but it is the most recent when an AGW denier claims a research paper says som…
RT @david_hanselman: @GeraldKutney This isn't the first time, but it is the most recent when an AGW denier claims a research paper says som…
RT @david_hanselman: @GeraldKutney This isn't the first time, but it is the most recent when an AGW denier claims a research paper says som…
@GeraldKutney This isn't the first time, but it is the most recent when an AGW denier claims a research paper says something when it actually (and clearly) says the exact opposite. https://t.co/xlvn5CuQDn https://t.co/FR7teWikkA
What can you do when an AGW denier thinks he sharing one thing but the article actually proves there was no "hiatus" in warming. Self-owned deniers are such peculiar animals...
@ClimateKermit @Cypress_NL @weermanreinier Nogmaals: uit welke wetenschappelijke peer-reviewed publicatie komt jouw fantasie-grafiekje? Lees gewoon: https://t.co/DaVAfKsT6t
@ClimateKermit @Cypress_NL @weermanreinier Je grafiek klopt niet - uit welke wetenschappelijke publicatie zou die komen? Onderstaande grafiek betreft mondiaal + is peer-reviewed in het wetenschappelijke tijdschrift Science, zie: https://t.co/DaVAfKsT6t h
More reading: Time of observation: https://t.co/I34HgIc301 Raw vs Corrected global trends: https://t.co/uhGMBhkdD9 (Fig 2) How scientists know corrections work correctly: https://t.co/j3HO4ZKyos (5/n)
@SteveSGoddard @ScottAdamsSays @mfgengr @TedDeplorable @NOAA @NASA Huang et al. 2014 was then used as a major plank by Karl et al. 2015 to ‘disprove’ the pause. Since SSTs = 2/3 globe area, it affected the global surface temp trend significantly enough to
@Chris19748 @AcohenDaan @GerritHiemstra Homogenisatie van temperatuurdata een goed beschreven wetenschappelijke methode. Mondiaal heeft homogenisatie geleid tot een lagere trend vanaf 1880. Zie figuur uit: https://t.co/l5GC0erLUe Meer info over homogenisa
@xxxeerh “Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century” https://t.co/
RT @AtomsksSanakan: 4C/z Re: "heterogeneities/uncertainty due to changes in measurement practices during WWII" Other examples: https://t…
4C/z Re: "heterogeneities/uncertainty due to changes in measurement practices during WWII" Other examples: https://t.co/gpLUYtnIkE https://t.co/RX3cyCzXAk https://t.co/12a77zYlSo https://t.co/7XYGcqqzeY https://t.co/LEN6heUyF4 https://t.co/NasXApC6P9 h
Re: "recent surface warming" More examples of studies on no hiatus: Effects of coverage bias: https://t.co/7pI3YzxwdZ https://t.co/d9SgWrkmir https://t.co/dInZfr1vEF https://t.co/gDSl8NNFdB https://t.co/uXBs6AwXeK https://t.co/xegiYxk8Yh https://t.co/S
@dan613 Re: "Well, I know where all the charts showing no warming are going to feature." Denialists are pretty good at cherry-picking. I also forgot to list Karl et al.'s paper, which was later vindicated: https://t.co/St9qCoeDPl https://t.co/xegiYxk8Yh
@FabiusMaximus01 @DTVaWeatherman @RogerAPielkeSr @RyanMaue @DrShepherd2013 @CatoMichaels Re: "Temperatures are stated in the best climate science literature with a margin of error. Usually around ±0.1°C/year" The margin of error for 1 value (ex: a year) i
@JMagliano_ @Cardoso @nature @sciencemagazine E fora os casos de fraudes da ONU, dando crédito a estudos sobre aquecimento à cientista que são contra o aquecimento. Eu só acho que muita gente como o Al Gore e empresas de carbono, ganharam muito dinheiro co
@ScottAdamsSays @JSegor @GregoryMakles @AltUS_ARC Re: "The strong parts of Heller's argument (if true) are that the measuring devices that were NOT adjusted show no warming" Which is a lie that only the gullible or deceitful would defend. https://t.co/Hv
@Lunatic__Fringe @climateyogi @tan123 Re: "do you mean the chart of land temps that used to look like the attached one but now looks like it does today due to countless "adjustments"? Did NOAA go back in time and redo all the temperature readings?" U cite
A cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear night. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG's contribute 15%. Since H2O is 50 X the amount of CO2 the CO2 contributes 0.315% of the DWIR. 0.00315 of 11C = 0.03465 C. https://t.co/fgPv3OZ
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus https://t.co/s3lHxB90wf
@jolivetand @Yaugui @TheRealRolfster @hegemonetics @CarbonBrief @GreatDismal @hausfath Re: "raw data." Raw data shows warming, so stop pretending otherwise. https://t.co/0ldmLVrsTs https://t.co/ccDc93YMKU
@jolivetand @Yaugui @TheRealRolfster @hegemonetics @CarbonBrief @GreatDismal @hausfath Re: " it is not possible to extract a reliable mean variation of 0.5 over 40 cycles with 30C variation of very partial data." Stop being silly. It's quite easy to do t
@wlbeeton @mitchellvii @plettkeman https://t.co/zxVbyYQZtW “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scient
@tan123 Hansen blamed the hiatus on c) Blame fossil fuels https://t.co/tSuyYdZOmB Tom Karl blamed the hiatus on b) Claim it's still warming https://t.co/92Cp3sYR6i The scientific community readily accepted Karl's revision of temperature.
@Metenisweten2 @slijkderaarde @TinusPulles @DilanYesilgoz @dijkhoff @sybrandbuma @RobJetten @GerritHiemstra @PKuipersMunneke @gjvu De NL temp. homogenisatie is een zorgvuldig proces van jaren, daarnaast is homogenisatie van temp.-data een goed beschreven w
@erwinmulders @gjvu @GreenOlivine @Raphque @jackklok @RikHJHarmsen @rolf_bruijn @jnvtr @vibweb @TipvortexNils @TegenwindAlblas @ryhertzberger Dat grafiekje van Van Ulzen betreft zo te zien alleen VS data. De bron van de grafiek geeft hij niet, dus het is n
@WeiZhangAtmos Re: "Evidence is all over the place" Your evidence turned out to be just you making stuff up, because u don't honestly care about the evidence, and u just believe what u see on Tony Heller's denialist blog. https://t.co/9lF9isFAuY https://
@WeiZhangAtmos Re: "ALWAYS in the warmist direction." Why do you make up false claims? Is it because you don't value honesty, as with many denialists like you? https://t.co/B4IziZRBkh https://t.co/80aE6lU4lx
@JudStailey Hi there. It's out there in various forms. This particular one is Fig. 2 from Karl et al (2015). https://t.co/uhGMBhkdD9
@SUgayos @GeoparcBalears Pues aquí tengo un artículo académico que lo rebate. Sin contar el retroceso de glaciares y el deshielo del Ártico año a año. https://t.co/CsHUs6AXq2
@LobTelStudios Re: "the accusation that NASA/NOAA have modifies they’re temperature numbers overtime?" Yes, the evil NOAA who adjust in a way that reduces the overall warming. https://t.co/oMd2b6B2lS https://t.co/Xt7DH0un0l
5/X Re: "has not increased significantly since 2000" Karl et al. showed otherwise, using ERSSTv4, with [triangles] or without [squares] interpolation for polar regions. A portion of figure 1: https://t.co/oMd2b6jqXi https://t.co/HkEFKnXhDR https://t.co/
@FabiusMaximus01 @DTVaWeatherman @RogerAPielkeSr @RyanMaue @DrShepherd2013 @CatoMichaels Re: ""Not significant" in a lay sense, probably smaller than the instrument network's margin of error" And your claim was nonsense, based on you not reading the scie
@FabiusMaximus01 @NickCowern @RogerAPielkeSr @RyanMaue @DrShepherd2013 @CatoMichaels Re: "NOAA disagrees with you. Trend of 2000 - 2014 was 0.12C/decade, statistically insignificant" Please actually read the scientific literature before making stuff up.
@cdrusnret @PoeBrianL @Zero_Gov Re: "The satellite termperture data that diverge as NASA “corrects” the surface readings year after year." You realize the NOAA reduces the overall warming trend in their corrections, right? How does fit into your baseless
@SteveSGoddard @NOAA Re: "@NOAA doesn't publish unadjusted temperature graphs" You're lying. Figure 2: https://t.co/oMd2b6jqXi https://t.co/1gaYbYnO7M
@IowaClimate Read carefully now: There. Was. No. Pause. https://t.co/xHBnyzf2nQ
@MergatroidSkit3 Re: "Without those adjustments, no warming exists." You're simply making up lies for which you have no evidence, and willfully ignoring evidence that shows you're wrong. Sad. https://t.co/IIQYTSaten
@MergatroidSkit3 Re: "Funny how all the "adjustments" always cool the past and warm the future" You're fabricating. For instance, plenty of adjustments warm the past or have little net effect. Figure 2B: https://t.co/oMd2b6B2lS Figure 10: https://t.co/x6
@EuphoniusNuts @geoffmprice @chaamjamal @ramspacek Re: "In the instrumental record, we see unjustifiable retroactive cooling of the past and warming of the present" OK, so you're simply lying at this point, or you're willfully ignoring evidence debunking
Global warming 'pause' didn't happen, study finds https://t.co/nmUXKQ6fSF “Reassessment of historical data and methodology by US research body debunks ‘hiatus’ hypothesis used by sceptics to undermine climate science” https://t.co/iRfuFkm32I https://t.c