/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8656863
>The blending, of course is for the purpose of calculating percentiles and/or other relevant statistics.. Not "blending" temperatures in the middle of Africa with the sea's temperatures.
Did you read the NCEI page? I mean, you included the relevant part in the excerpt from the post you're responding to, but I don't think you ACTUALLY READ IT, because it kinda directly contradicts you. Here, I'll quote it again directly for you:
>We produce various high-level datasets and products that are generated by blending together observations from various platforms and instruments, as well as by merging data over different geographic domains, for example, over both land and ocean surfaces for globally covered products.
How pathetic is it to make a claim, and then in the same post to quote a source that proves your claim wrong? Wew.

>That's called using global (or whatever is being looked at) temps as a mean value (or something similar) for calculating percentiles or other relevant statistics.
Nice word salad, but that's not actually true (or really relevant). NCEI is pretty clear that they integrate various datasets, differing in geographic locality and in measurement techniques. That's not JUST global averages; that's also for interpolating across a poorly sampled area.

>>8656866
>And exactly how would 80 years worth of data make it impossible to calculate an anomaly (from a 30 year reference value covered by said 80 years)? In reality, it would make it perfectly possible.
That's referring to the combined data set drawing on both GHCN AND ERSST. I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but please bear with me here: IF YOU HAVE MORE DATA, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DRAW MORE CONCLUSIONS

>>8634980
dude, you claimed that he didn't write a paper in exchange for a generous donation to his favorite money laundering fund. and when I showed unequivocally that he did, your response was "yeah well so what?"
nice attempt to distract from how you got caught in a lie. again.

>>8634982
>actual upper troposphere temperatures haven't gone up
oops
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007

>Both arctic and Antarctic sea ice were predicted to melt
that's not in EITHER paper.

>One of these papers says right in the abstract that there's supposed to be polar warming!
What both papers say is that warming is supposed to be STRONGER at the poles than at the tropics (as would be expected of warming caused by an intensified greenhouse effect rather than by increased insolation or lowered albedo). that doesn't mean that the ice caps will necessarily melt; it just means that they'll warm more than the earth as a whole does. and this is indeed the case:
>https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

(hey, I notice you ran away from your bullshit claims about supervolcanoes pretty quickly once I got after you about it >>8630271. any comeback to THAT?)