For instance the method by which we determine anomalies, applies an external value for standard deviation.
-
-
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
our global coverage of surface stations grossly insufficient for the claimed precision
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720 @GidMK
our models show generally higher climate sensitivity than calculations from observations do and we present the models.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
Try "Merchants of Doubt". The most well-supported and evidenced book I've encountered on climate change (amongst other things)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
ahhh the opinion piece by oreskes and conway. Yes im aware of it. I prefer to read published papers or do the data analysis myself
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ratman720
It's arguably the best referenced analysis that I've come across, rather more advanced than most published papers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ratman720
But since you prefer to read published papers, I would point you to the >400 that they cite as evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
excellent then read http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html … and tell me your thoughts.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
A 1987 paper that seems fairly accurate.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
the 1987 paper is the current basis for determining anomalies per http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.