|
Post by hunter on Jan 22, 2010 13:55:07 GMT
www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html"WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record." Now, global warming has not slowed, it has not even paused. How many do overs does Hansen get? How many 're-adjustments' do they get and still earn credibility? I think this would be a great place to post links showing Hansen and other AGW promoters explaining away the lack of warming, etc. A review of GISS's habit of 'adjusting' the record to enhance current temps is also called for.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 22, 2010 15:27:16 GMT
"January 22, 2010 Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg" "WUWT’s editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias to be 0.5°F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. Add Smith’s selection bias to the mix and poof – actual warming completely disappears!" www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2010 15:48:02 GMT
To increase accuracy in random sampling, you increase sample size, rather than decrease it.
Basic stats.
The adjustments, lack of samples, etc are getting to the point of the data basically being totally useless.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 22, 2010 16:10:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 22, 2010 17:09:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 22, 2010 18:52:10 GMT
Sour grapes from all those who cried 'global cool down!' or temperature stagnation......seems like the past decade was shown to be the hottest ever. Doesn't fit with the 'quiet sun', cold phase pdo etc blurb does it? And 2010? Big Nino' and called to be a tie with the hottest year yet or hotter. We'll wait for the data but i have to wonder what the next big thing will be to disprove AGW once folk see the folly in holding onto ideas that patently are in error...... Ho Hum
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Jan 22, 2010 19:26:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 22, 2010 20:23:05 GMT
Not sour grapes. Quite the opposite. The AGW promotion community just a year ago was talking about how the non-warming was expected. Now the warming never stopped, and was completely expected. I admire their flexibility and dedication. I would, however. ike to understand that when serious people look at how the temperature/AGW promotion orgs play with data, the results show what they claim are increases. Now sourgrapes, that is when someone keeps fabricating new resons to pretend that ice extent is diong anything dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 22, 2010 21:26:27 GMT
Bob Tisdale did not predict GISS would "manipulate" the record. He said GISS would announce it, but would not say or know why 2000-2009 was the warmest decade. GISS do not need to manipulate any record. They can point to the UAH record which also shows 2000-2009 to be the warmest decade by some distance. The same goes for Hadley and RSS.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 22, 2010 21:36:47 GMT
Not sour grapes. Quite the opposite. The AGW promotion community just a year ago was talking about how the non-warming was expected. Now the warming never stopped, and was completely expected. You need to think about this a bit more. It's perfectly possible to have non-warming (or even cooling) yet still have the warmest decade. The average temperatures of 2000-2009 (2000s) are significantly higher than the average temperatures of the 1990s (1990-1999) as this table from Bob's article (your link) shows: i38.tinypic.com/2ptz5gp.pngNote: UAH is 0.16 deg warmer; GISS is 0.19 deg warmer; RSS, Hadley & NCDC are all 0.17 deg warmer.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jan 22, 2010 22:12:22 GMT
glc, "You need to think about this a bit more. It's perfectly possible to have non-warming (or even cooling) yet still have the warmest decade." Not in any meaningful sense.
I would point out, however, that to call 0.16o, 0.19o, or 0.17o 'significant' is an abuse of the term 'signficant'.
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Jan 22, 2010 22:41:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 22, 2010 22:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 23, 2010 0:13:43 GMT
glc, "You need to think about this a bit more. It's perfectly possible to have non-warming (or even cooling) yet still have the warmest decade." Not in any meaningful sense. I would point out, however, that to call 0.16o, 0.19o, or 0.17o 'significant' is an abuse of the term 'signficant'. A global wide increase of nearly 0.2 deg is highly significant.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 23, 2010 1:22:52 GMT
glc, "You need to think about this a bit more. It's perfectly possible to have non-warming (or even cooling) yet still have the warmest decade." Not in any meaningful sense. I would point out, however, that to call 0.16o, 0.19o, or 0.17o 'significant' is an abuse of the term 'signficant'. A global wide increase of nearly 0.2 deg is highly significant. GLC: 0.2 is not significant in the grand scheme of things as during this period that small temp fluxuation has happened oh so many times. It only shows that the climate is not static, which I think is one thing we can all agree on.
|
|