|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 17, 2009 7:35:22 GMT
Anyone hear about Darfur lately?
Me neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 18, 2009 12:44:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 19, 2009 20:45:19 GMT
Classic line:
"Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century.
This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH.
Clearly, problems exist with both datasets."
So the GISS and NOAA datasets disagree with UAH.
Clearly GISS and NOAA are wrong. We must not entertain the possibility that it's UAH that is wrong. Must not even mention that possibility...
Edit: I am not implying this even matters. It's yet another case of WUWT blowing something trivial out of proportion (or letting their readers run away with that impression). In this case the difference between the records is quite easily within the error margin of both records anyway. RSS afterall has a greater post 1980 warming trend than both GISS and UAH.
|
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 20, 2009 9:42:26 GMT
Classic line: "Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century. This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH. Clearly, problems exist with both datasets." So the GISS and NOAA datasets disagree with UAH. Clearly GISS and NOAA are wrong. We must not entertain the possibility that it's UAH that is wrong. Must not even mention that possibility... Edit: I am not implying this even matters. It's yet another case of WUWT blowing something trivial out of proportion (or letting their readers run away with that impression). In this case the difference between the records is quite easily within the error margin of both records anyway. RSS afterall has a greater post 1980 warming trend than both GISS and UAH. I'm not implying you can't read but sometimes what we believe to be true covers over what is actually being said. It's quite clear that what is being said is that GISS disagrees with UAH and that NOAA is even more offside with UAH than is GISS. Now I KNOW you have been reading the posts here about what is being done with GISS data - I've seen your posts on those threads. And I also know you've been on the threads about NOAA data. So it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that somehow there's even a 3 way split of data here. The facts are that the data from places with a predisposiition to agw keeps getting modified - yes they have all kinds of excuses but the basic behind it all is they can't get their models to even post-dict reality let alone predict it so they make up BS reasons for modifying measurements. One of the ones I saw is to alter satellite date selectively because at the start of the scan the scanner looks east towards the sunrise & at the end of the scan it looks to the west. So lets just toally ignore that an average orbit is like 90 MINUTES & on the other side of the planet the bias is reversed & we'll just pretend that one side shows a cooler sky & therefore needs to be adjusted. Oh, and we might like also to ignore that scans are being done on a less than orbital time scale - that's right, the satellite actually scans multiple times per orbit. Now, perhaps you can unblinker long enough to point out somewhere (almost anywhere will do) where any of the data corrections have shown the past being warmer & the alterations to the present have made recent temperatures cooler? No, go on, you can do it... Seriously... I'm sure you can find one can't you? C'mon... there's got to be somewhere where the 'errors' didn't actually confirm the published belief of the corrector? Isn't there...? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 20, 2009 11:40:06 GMT
I've read some decent posts on CA and WUWT, but this obsession with GISS v UAH is getting ridiculous. For a start, I'm not even sure the IPCC use GISS. It's certainly not their primary source. Even if the dispute could be settled, it's not going to make or break the AGW case. All 4 main data sets show warming over the past 30 years and given the error bars, there is no significant difference in the trends. Considering surface and satellites are measuring different things this is not a bad result.
WUWT suggests that there has been a GISS/satellite divergence since 2003. In fact there has been a GISS/Hadley divergence as well. This could be Arctic-related in that GISS extrapolates across the Arctic and in the last few years the Arctic has been particularly warm. But, if as everyone on this blog seems to think, we are now on a cooling trend, then this should affect the Arctic more than anywhere else which will, in turn, affect the GISS record more than the others. GISS shows a steep decline in Arctic temps between 1945-1975.
Looking at the current AMSU temperatures, you might be glad of the GISS/Hadley data come the end of January.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 20, 2009 16:15:42 GMT
The climate has been warming since the LIA. What we don't believe is that is has all happened in the last 60 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 22:36:12 GMT
Now I KNOW you have been reading the posts here about what is being done with GISS data - I've seen your posts on those threads. And I also know you've been on the threads about NOAA data. So it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that somehow there's even a 3 way split of data here. The facts are that the data from places with a predisposiition to agw keeps getting modified - yes they have all kinds of excuses but the basic behind it all is they can't get their models to even post-dict reality let alone predict it so they make up BS reasons for modifying measurements. Woaa hang on. GISS shows about the same amount of warming as RSS since 1980. Considering "from 1980" was the whole point of that article I find your attempts to divert attention from that too obvious to ignore. Did they miss the fact that UAH is the outlier over the 1980-present period? Or did they simply choose to ignore it? |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 20, 2009 22:53:04 GMT
1980 was in the middle of a cold period of several years. Unfortunately, accurate satellite data doesn't predate that last cool period. Everything should be showing a recovery towards normal - 1998 was a peak, and we are on our way down again. I'll throw this in as a "pure" weather station record - a rural coastal location in the Southern hemisphere (the SH is acknowledged to have temperatures less effected by the various Northern Oscillations. Note the cool period approx 1975 -1985.  BTW, the steadily rising day time temperature over time is indicative of a reduction in Global dimming - consistent with lower aerosols from pollution and volcanic eruptions. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 23:03:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 20, 2009 23:25:06 GMT
Classic line: "Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century. This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH. Clearly, problems exist with both datasets." So the GISS and NOAA datasets disagree with UAH. Clearly GISS and NOAA are wrong. We must not entertain the possibility that it's UAH that is wrong. Must not even mention that possibility... Edit: I am not implying this even matters. It's yet another case of WUWT blowing something trivial out of proportion (or letting their readers run away with that impression). In this case the difference between the records is quite easily within the error margin of both records anyway. RSS afterall has a greater post 1980 warming trend than both GISS and UAH. GISS/NOAA use the same basic dataset, so if one is wrong, the other is likely wrong for similar reasons. On the other hand, UAH, RSS, and Hadley do not all have the same data source, and they all disagree with the GISS/NOAA trends. Therefore, logically, odds favor something being wrong with GISS/NOAA over something being wrong with all of the other datasets. |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 20, 2009 23:26:53 GMT
Now I KNOW you have been reading the posts here about what is being done with GISS data - I've seen your posts on those threads. And I also know you've been on the threads about NOAA data. So it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that somehow there's even a 3 way split of data here. The facts are that the data from places with a predisposiition to agw keeps getting modified - yes they have all kinds of excuses but the basic behind it all is they can't get their models to even post-dict reality let alone predict it so they make up BS reasons for modifying measurements. Woaa hang on. GISS shows about the same amount of warming as RSS since 1980. Considering "from 1980" was the whole point of that article I find your attempts to divert attention from that too obvious to ignore. Did they miss the fact that UAH is the outlier over the 1980-present period? Or did they simply choose to ignore it?We have covered this point before, socold, yet you still like to come back to it. The only reason UAH is an "outlier" is because of their starting point. Overall trend-wise, they match very well with the other temp metrics. |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 20, 2009 23:28:54 GMT
Those who seriously argue about the flat/cooling trend since 1998 are talking about yearly trends, not monthly. Significant difference between that and what you are trying to mock. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 23:29:58 GMT
Classic line: "Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century. This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH. Clearly, problems exist with both datasets." So the GISS and NOAA datasets disagree with UAH. Clearly GISS and NOAA are wrong. We must not entertain the possibility that it's UAH that is wrong. Must not even mention that possibility... Edit: I am not implying this even matters. It's yet another case of WUWT blowing something trivial out of proportion (or letting their readers run away with that impression). In this case the difference between the records is quite easily within the error margin of both records anyway. RSS afterall has a greater post 1980 warming trend than both GISS and UAH. GISS/NOAA use the same basic dataset, so if one is wrong, the other is likely wrong for similar reasons. On the other hand, UAH, RSS, and Hadley do not all have the same data source, and they all disagree with the GISS/NOAA trends. Therefore, logically, odds favor something being wrong with GISS/NOAA over something being wrong with all of the other datasets. The 1980-present period it's UAH which is the outsider. HadCrut, GISS and RSS show about the same amount of warming over that period. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 23:32:05 GMT
We have covered this point before, socold, yet you still like to come back to it. The only reason UAH is an "outlier" is because of their starting point. Overall trend-wise, they match very well with the other temp metrics. Watt's article compared the linear trend of GISS 1980-present with the linear trend of UAH 1980-present and concluded (or snidely implied) that GISS was wrong. The flaw with his argument is that over that period all the other records agree with GISS, not UAH. So if anything Watt's argument should be that UAH has been "suspiciously" adjusted. |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jan 20, 2009 23:33:03 GMT
GISS/NOAA use the same basic dataset, so if one is wrong, the other is likely wrong for similar reasons. On the other hand, UAH, RSS, and Hadley do not all have the same data source, and they all disagree with the GISS/NOAA trends. Therefore, logically, odds favor something being wrong with GISS/NOAA over something being wrong with all of the other datasets. The 1980-present period it's UAH which is the outsider. HadCrut, GISS and RSS show about the same amount of warming over that period.  See above...again. UAH simply had a higher starting point in 1980, but overall trends are a very good match to the others. |
|
