|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2009 19:34:28 GMT
Right I guess you are suggesting that in the past month millions of AC units got installed next to temperature sensors, or something equally ridiculous. A more likely explanation is a custodian of data who advocates civil disobedience on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 12, 2009 19:46:04 GMT
Right I guess you are suggesting that in the past month millions of AC units got installed next to temperature sensors, or something equally ridiculous. At least think about your arguments before you make them. That way you won't make silly arguments. We are talking about a divergance in one single month between GISTEMP and UAH. The obvious answer for this is that SST have increased significantly in the past 3 months and this hasn't yet affected UAH due to lag time, but immediately affects GISTEMP. Yes we can expect UAH and RSS to jump up significantly in the next few months. "We are talking" ? Ahhh, you are talking.... GISS is like a watershed for highly polluted data. So whenever GISS takes a flight from reality I find it interesting and of note. Approximately how many hours have you studied the Global Historical Climatology Network, socold? Zero hours? Then you have something very important in common with Mr. Hansen.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 12, 2009 20:00:47 GMT
"We are talking" ?
Ahhh, you are talking....
GISS is like a watershed for highly polluted data. So whenever GISS takes a flight from reality I find it interesting and of note.
I predicted we'd get this divergence nonsense a month or so back. It was only a few months ago that GISS was falling and UAH rising. In fact when we compared the datasets over the same period (1979-1998), GISS was about 0.2 deg below UAH.
Now UAH is falling relative to GISS. There is actually a good reason for this. The surface records appear to respond much quicker to ENSO fluctuations probably because they take a current 'snapshot' of SST, while the satellites are measuring the atmosphere which takes a longer time to adjust to SST changes. Trends since 1992 are virtually identical for all 4 main data sets.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 12, 2009 20:42:51 GMT
It was only a few months ago that GISS was falling and UAH rising. Yea but remember in order to promote the GISS conspiracy they must ignore that kind of conflicting fact. It's all about cherrypicking and selectively ignoring data - like how they ignore the most significant error correction made to any of the records was done to UAH and was a warming correction, as are most of UAH's corrections (but you'll never hear them say that even though they are plenty happy to harp on about GISTEMP corrections all being positive) All I have to do is say GISTEMP and they are immediately roused into a rabble of conspiracy theorizing. Nevermind that what I said was correct and has nothing to do with station data, someone has to drag in the conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 12, 2009 22:23:25 GMT
Yo soclod,
You haven't whined about WUWT for about twenty minutes. What's up with that?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 13, 2009 0:52:33 GMT
All I have to do is say GISTEMP and they are immediately roused into a rabble of conspiracy theorizing. Nevermind that what I said was correct and has nothing to do with station data, someone has to drag in the conspiracy theories. I belong to a profession where independence is paramount. Its bad enough to be an advocate and be a custodian of data. But supporting violence and civil disobedience most definitely goes beyond the pale. No conspiracy theory here. . . .nothing more than putting somebody into a job that ethically they should not have.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 13, 2009 1:06:50 GMT
No conspiracy theory from me, either. The fact is that the United States Historical Climatology Network is horrific and the Global Historical Climatology Network is worse. Between former Soviet republics, Third World countries, and bad temperature station siting even within stable industrialized nations, GHCN is a catastrophe. Please feel free to provide any contrary evidence you may have found.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2009 9:14:58 GMT
No conspiracy theory from me, either.
The fact is that the United States Historical Climatology Network is horrific and the Global Historical Climatology Network is worse.
Between former Soviet republics, Third World countries, and bad temperature station siting even within stable industrialized nations, GHCN is a catastrophe.
Please feel free to provide any contrary evidence you may have found.
Do you mean apart from the fact there is hardly any difference between the surface and satellite trends over the past 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 13, 2009 11:25:21 GMT
I belong to a profession where independence is paramount. Its bad enough to be an advocate and be a custodian of data. You mean like Roy Spencer? Thank God Roy Spencer is the custodian of the UAH data. If a warmist was in charge of it, no doubt the satellite records would have fallen under the gossip-smear attempts by the denialist blogs too.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 13, 2009 11:29:13 GMT
No conspiracy theory from me, either.
The fact is that the United States Historical Climatology Network is horrific and the Global Historical Climatology Network is worse.
Between former Soviet republics, Third World countries, and bad temperature station siting even within stable industrialized nations, GHCN is a catastrophe.
Please feel free to provide any contrary evidence you may have found. Do you mean apart from the fact there is hardly any difference between the surface and satellite trends over the past 20 years. Also sea surface temperature record. Must be all those floating and flying cities causing all the warming.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 13, 2009 11:59:01 GMT
glc writes "Do you mean apart from the fact there is hardly any difference between the surface and satellite trends over the past 20 years. "
I sort of view this as a yes and no. Overall, this seems to be correct. However, in the middle, it was not quite like this. Somewhere around the start of the 21st century, GISS values started to tend significantly higher that the other data sets. This enabled people on RealClimate to be able to claim that there was still a trend towards higher temperatures. In 2008, this trend was reversed, and now GISS temperatures are back to roughly the same as the other sets. However, this now makes it appear the the trend towards lower temperatures is more pronounced in the GISS data set. I speculated, to myself,whether the initial bias towards higher temperatures was "cooking the books", or because of a genuine difference in methodologies; e.g. "extrapolating to the poles". My guess is that the later was correct.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2009 12:30:14 GMT
JimC
Somewhere around the start of the 21st century, GISS values started to tend significantly higher that the other data sets.
Yes but this could be related to the GISS extrapolation of the arctic. You can argue about whether the extrapolation is a good enough approximation or not, but they do appear, to have been consistent, at least. In the early months of this year, arctic temperatures dropped from their recent highs and this was reflected in the GISS anomalies.
It's worth noting that summer arctic ice extent since ~2002 provides strong support for the GISS version of events.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2009 12:39:32 GMT
Socold wrote:
Also sea surface temperature record. Must be all those floating and flying cities causing all the warming.
Since 1979, the UAH trend for the US is actually higher than the GISS trend (not by much admittedly). I like WUWT and I reckon AW is a decent, generally fair-minded sort, but I really believe his station survey project is a lot of hard work for very little return. You'd think he would have just checked some of these trends before deciding on what he was hoping to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 13, 2009 12:48:35 GMT
The failure of gistemp to deal with urban heat islands with a proper adjustment that it makes public, poor temperature station siting, adjusting of some rural stations as though they were urban, adjusting of some urban station data upwards, the extrapolation toward the poles, and some archaic and badly written code, have led to a situation in which James Hansen et al. are able to say, with straight faces, that "every year of the past thirteen has been among the ten warmest ever" and other such drivel. The words "warmest ever" are suspect, by definition. They are designed to invoke panic among the climate-ignorant, and they hit their mark year after year. Those who have studied paleoclimatology seriously agree that it has been warmer than now, without the benefit of human-produced co2, many times, including during the Medieval Warm Period. Sea levels have, in the aggregate, been slowly falling since the Holocene Optimum. The news headlines regarding rising waters today, just as with "warmest ever temperature," are based on statistical noise. "Present sea level was attained between 7900 and 7700 cal. yr BP, approximately 700—900 years earlier than previously proposed. Sea level continued to rise to between +1 and +1.5 m between 7700 and 7400 cal. yr BP, followed by a sea-level highstand that lasted until about 2000 cal. yr BP followed by a gradual fall to present." from Holocene sea-level change on the southeast coast of Australia: a review By Craig R. Sloss hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/7/999So, yes, it does bother me that gistemp is consistently just enough of an outlier to generate global headlines, that its data quality is demonstrably poor, and that its leadership regards this as a non-problem (Schmidt calls the idea that GISS staff would be personally responsible for data quality "laughable").
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 13, 2009 13:19:31 GMT
glc writes "Yes but this could be related to the GISS extrapolation of the arctic."
I wish people would read what others write. That is EXACTLY what I said. "e.g. extrapolating to the poles ".
|
|