|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2009 5:05:04 GMT
From the GISS site: So the hard data is only used for models, which then create the real data. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.htmlQ. If SATs [surface air temperatures] cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ? A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.Well, we hope that our improved data is good. Hope is certainly the foundation of science. Or was that faith? BINGO: That is why the maps of the June data are so scewed if you happen to live in an area that is KNOWN to be, according to everyone who believes in AGW, wayyyyy below the "average". I mean....if someone posted an anamoly of 2.6....or even 5.6.....the AGW crowd would be up in arms that the fires were going to start anytime soon. But to post a negative anomaly of NEGATIVE 2.6 or 5.6....why that is just blasphmy! I have lost all faith in maps created by NOAA or NASA from GISS temps. They are just flat out screwed up totally. I went back quit a few years to see how accurate they are.......and......BINGO.......man were they off BIG TIME. So when someone posts temps of the earth.......I look at the map and laugh. Who in the hell would believe this sudo science?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 17, 2009 5:11:23 GMT
What I and others see, meanwhile, is this: Subtract El Ninos from the ocean-atmosphere system and you're left with close to no atmospheric warming. Certainly not enough warming to warrant spending hours a week on a site like this. Who are these "others" and where are your numbers? I've done this myself and didn't find "close to no warming" after removing ENSO impact, in fact I found it made very little difference. I have to side with you on that one. There's warming with or without the ENSO.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 17, 2009 5:43:49 GMT
GLC. the joke you see is that as temperatures get colder, the "corrections" get bigger! Wiggle wiggle... PROBABLY the joke he's referring to is that he predicted a return to El Nino conditions and temperatures close to the 1998 levels. Now he was quite clear (to all that let their defenses down to see what he was saying) that he simply meant it was likely to happen with or without a cooling trend...and that everyone was shooting themselves in the foot with the blind assertion that it would continue to cool no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 11:25:08 GMT
BINGO: That is why the maps of the June data are so scewed if you happen to live in an area that is KNOWN to be, according to everyone who believes in AGW, wayyyyy below the "average". I mean....if someone posted an anamoly of 2.6....or even 5.6.....the AGW crowd would be up in arms that the fires were going to start anytime soon. But to post a negative anomaly of NEGATIVE 2.6 or 5.6....why that is just blasphmy! I have lost all faith in maps created by NOAA or NASA from GISS temps. They are just flat out screwed up totally. Be aware that even if there are two days at negative 5.6 anomoly, if the rest of the days of the month average positive 0.4, that would mean the overall monthly anomaly would be about average. Do you have any example of monthly temperature data for a region that contradicts GISTEMP?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 17, 2009 11:40:13 GMT
BINGO: That is why the maps of the June data are so scewed if you happen to live in an area that is KNOWN to be, according to everyone who believes in AGW, wayyyyy below the "average". I mean....if someone posted an anamoly of 2.6....or even 5.6.....the AGW crowd would be up in arms that the fires were going to start anytime soon. But to post a negative anomaly of NEGATIVE 2.6 or 5.6....why that is just blasphmy! I have lost all faith in maps created by NOAA or NASA from GISS temps. They are just flat out screwed up totally. Be aware that even if there are two days at negative 5.6 anomoly, if the rest of the days of the month average positive 0.4, that would mean the overall monthly anomaly would be about average. Do you have any example of monthly temperature data for a region that contradicts GISTEMP? Begin here: bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 12:12:59 GMT
Did you notice that UAH shows more warming over the US than GISTEMP? Is that the kind of contradiction you mean? I was of course talking about station data. I wanted an example of station data showing a negative anomoly in a region (eg state) for a month in which GISTEMP has marked that state as having a positive anomoly. It's no good to simply tell me that "everyone knows" it was cold in XYZ last month and therefore a positive anomoly there in GISTEMP is wrong. To accept anything of the kind I would need to see the numbers to demonstrate how cold it actually was, not simply be told how cold people think it was.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jul 17, 2009 14:44:21 GMT
My point is that if the "Physics of AGW" stands on its own, then there would not be a need to perpetually revise the numbers. If we don't know how to measure the temperature, how can we model it and predict it 50 years into the future?
Ironically, GISS is telling us that the only way to "measure" the temperature is to model it! Then plug those modeled numbers into the climate model.
In addition, if the correction is for UHI, why would temperatures of the past 40-50 years ago be adjusted down while temps past 1970 be adjusted up?
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Jul 17, 2009 17:18:48 GMT
I was watching the weather channel last night and this really hyper guy with dark hair and thin just reported This June was the second hottest on record. He also had this map of the world with read dots all over it. The only cool areas were over the great lakes and parts of Canada. The rest of the world including the oceans are all hot. Man this global warming is really bad. We can believe them right?
Any one ells catch that report too.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 17:41:29 GMT
was it this map:
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 17:43:28 GMT
Ironically, GISS is telling us that the only way to "measure" the temperature is to model it! Then plug those modeled numbers into the climate model. They are simply calculating areas that are not covered using areas that are. The temperature record does not get plugged into climate models. The corrections are not just for UHI, also for time of observation bias and other stuff. Magellan raised an interesting point that the satellite records show more warming in the US than GISTEMP anyway.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2009 18:03:15 GMT
was it this map: Maybe you could explain that map. How does one tell the temperature in Los Angeles. Do you use San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Yuma, or 300 miles out in the Pacific?
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jul 17, 2009 18:38:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 19:08:08 GMT
GISTEMP might not have data from interior of Africa, but NCDC do seem to:
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 19:08:41 GMT
was it this map: Maybe you could explain that map. How does one tell the temperature in Los Angeles. Do you use San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Yuma, or 300 miles out in the Pacific? There is a special national US map from NCDC from which you can get a rough idea of that:
|
|
|
Post by atra on Jul 17, 2009 19:27:49 GMT
NOAAs ocean data is crap. Red dots all over where the SSTs show blue throughout the month of June. Ex. Between southern Africa and South America, off the Pacific coast of Russia, the entire Indian Ocean red dots, what? www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html
|
|