|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2010 23:30:30 GMT
since US temperatures are arguably the highest quality data we have, and a "small" error of .01 degrees was enough to make 1934 the warmest year, what does that say about the warming over that 64 year period? it would seem to indicate that there has been little actual warming since 1934........ Prior to the analysis, both 1998 and 1934 were within 0.01C of each other in the US. I can't remember which one was said to be warmer, but I the emails suggest they had at least one publication that had 1934 ever so slightly warmer than 1998. Currently, GISSTEMP is running at about 0.5C warmer than 1934. So a 0.01C change won't make much difference to the conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2010 23:37:25 GMT
I just finished watching the Coleman special.. To me it looks like it was not just US temperature stations that were tweaked. Thousands of stations all over the world has been removed from the data set and the historic temps are also calculated using only these stations that are still included. Not only that, but they also removed mainly stations showing cold bias while leaving those with warm bias intact. So i dont see how you can blame watts for this.... But i guess that is just correction?? I think we're blaming Watts for being a prat about 1934 not global temperature, and for believing his surfacestation project will ever show anything of interest when it has been shown that analysis of the 70 best stations *in Watts' view* show the same warming tendency as analysis of them all. And analysis of the sea surface temperatures show the same warming tendency. And analysis of the satellite temperatures show similar trends over a shorter period. And analysis of natural habitats show earlier appearance of spring behaviour and later appearance of winter behaviour. Read between the lines for goodness sake. Some stations have been adjusted up and some adjusted down. Therefore it will be possible to find hundreds of stations with upward adjustments and cleverly display them on a web page to imply fraud. But the fraud is to ignore the hundreds of stations that go in the opposite direction. Analyse the raw data for yourself and you will find you get a similar overall trend. I know that because it is so easy to do that someone would have done it if the results had indicated otherwise. Some Most stations have been adjusted up and some few adjusted down with the result always being a net warming bias in the current decade.
I know that's what you meant
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Jan 16, 2010 2:37:23 GMT
Is this Climategate: Part II?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 16, 2010 3:00:12 GMT
Is this Climategate: Part II? I think this is where the apocalypse choo-choo gets quietly placed on a siding. There is not much likelihood that Obama is going to come out and call for what is needed- a climate science truth commission to compel honest answers from the profiteers and parasites who have engorged themselves off of AGW hype.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 16, 2010 6:46:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Jan 16, 2010 15:14:54 GMT
GISS Data Manipulation? It is alleged that the GISS data set originally had 6000 temperature monitoring points. The base temperature (i.e. The base used for the temperature above average calculation.) used the original 6000 temperature monitoring points. The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1500 data points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude data points and the high latitude points have been removed.) In addition to the dropping of 4500 temperature points an algorithm is applied to the 1500 measured temperature data points that “homogenizes” the measured temperature data. The affect of the “homogenizing algorithm is to raise the temperature. GISS data manipulation might explain why the GISS data does not correlate with satellite measurement of planetary temperature. www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 17, 2010 1:50:52 GMT
|
|
bxs
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 115
|
Post by bxs on Jan 17, 2010 11:29:28 GMT
The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1500 data points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude data points and the high latitude points have been removed.) dropping of 4500 temperature points are they taking microclimates and submicroclimates into consideration? If these have not been considered, the actual temperatures could be much lower. Say all of those 1500 data points are in hotter microclimates which can go up as much as +10F, sometimes even more, from the other temp readings in the area; heh i think i just added a lot more fuel to the fire.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 17, 2010 12:16:06 GMT
The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1500 data points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude data points and the high latitude points have been removed.) dropping of 4500 temperature points are they taking microclimates and submicroclimates into consideration? If these have not been considered, the actual temperatures could be much lower. Say all of those 1500 data points are in hotter microclimates which can go up as much as +10F, sometimes even more, from the other temp readings in the area; heh i think i just added a lot more fuel to the fire. I can't imagine that anyone would go to the lengths of choosing only those sites in microclimates that support their hypothesis. That would be as difficult as finding the only tree in a forest that showed warming .....
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 17, 2010 14:12:27 GMT
are they taking microclimates and submicroclimates into consideration? If these have not been considered, the actual temperatures could be much lower. Say all of those 1500 data points are in hotter microclimates which can go up as much as +10F, sometimes even more, from the other temp readings in the area; heh i think i just added a lot more fuel to the fire. I can't imagine that anyone would go to the lengths of choosing only those sites in microclimates that support their hypothesis. That would be as difficult as finding the only tree in a forest that showed warming ..... Heheh. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 17, 2010 15:13:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 17, 2010 20:51:11 GMT
GISS Data Manipulation? It is alleged that the GISS data set originally had 6000 temperature monitoring points. The base temperature (i.e. The base used for the temperature above average calculation.) used the original 6000 temperature monitoring points. The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1500 data points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude data points and the high latitude points have been removed.) In addition to the dropping of 4500 temperature points an algorithm is applied to the 1500 measured temperature data points that “homogenizes” the measured temperature data. The affect of the “homogenizing algorithm is to raise the temperature. GISS data manipulation might explain why the GISS data does not correlate with satellite measurement of planetary temperature. www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.htmlIf you disproportionately remove sites from a given area, the weight of the neighbouring site rises in proportion. So this claim does not directly have an effect. Lots of analyses show that the method for selecting sites does not affect the trend much. These analyses have been going on for decades. It's not beyond the wit of a sceptic scientist to have done an analysis of his own to prove whether the other analyses are correct or not. The algorithm for dealing with the surface station data is just one method of analysis. When different methods of analysis are used, they show similar results. Could that be because the complaints are unfounded. It seems we'll never know because the sceptics never seem to get around to doing their own analysis. I wonder why? Why is it, that despite the issue being very clearly about *GLOBAL* temperature records, the only illustrations you ever seem to get are about *LOCAL* data and individual statements.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 17, 2010 21:09:47 GMT
Yeah, well, the global temperature record is invented from all the local ones. If all GISS and CRU did was spent their time messing with thousands of local records and gerrymandering which massive areas are represented by the rapidly falling number of weather stations they could have come up with any number they like.
We have the satellites now. They show less warming than the desk jockies' fantasies do. These people should all be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 17, 2010 21:32:30 GMT
GISS Data Manipulation? It is alleged that the GISS data set originally had 6000 temperature monitoring points. The base temperature (i.e. The base used for the temperature above average calculation.) used the original 6000 temperature monitoring points. The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1500 data points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude data points and the high latitude points have been removed.) In addition to the dropping of 4500 temperature points an algorithm is applied to the 1500 measured temperature data points that “homogenizes” the measured temperature data. The affect of the “homogenizing algorithm is to raise the temperature. GISS data manipulation might explain why the GISS data does not correlate with satellite measurement of planetary temperature. www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.htmlIf you disproportionately remove sites from a given area, the weight of the neighbouring site rises in proportion. So this claim does not directly have an effect. Lots of analyses show that the method for selecting sites does not affect the trend much. These analyses have been going on for decades. It's not beyond the wit of a sceptic scientist to have done an analysis of his own to prove whether the other analyses are correct or not. The algorithm for dealing with the surface station data is just one method of analysis. When different methods of analysis are used, they show similar results. Could that be because the complaints are unfounded. It seems we'll never know because the sceptics never seem to get around to doing their own analysis. I wonder why? Why is it, that despite the issue being very clearly about *GLOBAL* temperature records, the only illustrations you ever seem to get are about *LOCAL* data and individual statements. "Lots of analyses show that the method for selecting sites does not affect the trend much. These analyses have been going on for decades. It's not beyond the wit of a sceptic scientist to have done an analysis of his own to prove whether the other analyses are correct or not."Steve, Read Sig's posts - he has done the analysis and it does affect the results in a way that there is more cooling. But he has had a lot of problems finding the original data .
|
|
bxs
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 115
|
Post by bxs on Jan 18, 2010 4:07:15 GMT
Yeah, well, the global temperature record is invented from all the local ones. If all GISS and CRU did was spent their time messing with thousands of local records and gerrymandering which massive areas are represented by the rapidly falling number of weather stations they could have come up with any number they like. A simple explanation for that, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34863600/ns/technology_and_science-space/
|
|