|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 16:43:18 GMT
Steve:
I kind of get a kick out of this yet am bothered by it. When using the 1998 258K period, the map still shows red for my area. It was NOT red by any wild stretch of the imagination.
This is what is driving my state climatologist crazy. He has been in contact with NOAA about the glaring discrepencies in their maps, and he has yet to get a satisfactory answer as to why it is so wrong.
This is an important reason as to why I don't put much stock in GISS. I have not had the time, nor really the inclination, to study other termp metrics. I just know that there is something very wrong with how GISS is currently doing their analysis. The state climatologist is a PHD.....he agrees.
Someone with time and money that can delve into this will at some point.
I will state again that the errors that are apparant do NOT make me happy as I am a taxpayer and expect credible reports/results etc.
I want climate science to work, to be credible because I look at it as a long term planning tool. Right now, it is not even close to being able to be used for such. It is like the headlines of last year that ND had warmed 1.4C in the past 100 years. Sorry, but we haven't. Or at least no temp metrics within the state show this happening.
Ya see, I have a rabbit to hunt in this. That is why I have studied it for 30+ years. And remember, I used to be a strong advocate of AGW. Real life over the past 30 years has shown me that what someone in an office tells me is happening is not agreeing with what I observe in daily life. When I say this, I am talking about more than regional. I will say that regionally, the models don't have a handle at all in my area. Which raises issues for globally.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 26, 2011 16:52:48 GMT
Sigurdur,
The first plot compares March 2011 with March 1998. The second plot shows the anomaly for March 1998 compared with 1961-1990. The cold band down the middle of the second plot (and that crosses ND - I think) shows that despite the whole of 1998 being globally warm on average, this band was 3F *below* the 1961-1990 mean.
Therefore the first plot merely shows that ND was perhaps warmer than that cold month of 1998 - not that it was warm.
As far as I can tell, the various someones include statisticians over at Lucia's site and, more recently, Richard Muller at Berkley. Much to the chagrin of the WUWT crowd the answers are more supportive of the GISS side than of the sceptic UHI/poor station/poor station adjustment side.
I agree the models have a tough time regionally. Unfortunately the most powerful computers can only run global models at roughly 60km resolution which is no good for details of changes in local climate or weather.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 17:12:41 GMT
Steve:
According to the state climatologist, ND was colder than 1998. In fact, if memory serves me, Jan/Feb/March are near the bottom 3 coldest periods.
There is some merit to WUWT, but not nearly the merit that they originally thought.
I know that I may seem nitpicky when it comes to GISS, but this is a USA product and I expect and demand excellence.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 26, 2011 19:11:31 GMT
If you can't see the disparity between those 4 stations and the GISS map...well......I know a good optomitrist.
1. The anomaly map is irrelevant if the correct data is used.
2. There were only 3 stations - you gave me the Bismarck link twice.
3. I checked GISS for stations which correponded to the links you gave and could not find a significant discrepancy. These are the GISS March readings for the 3 locations:
Bismarck -5.9 (21.4 deg F)
Fargo -6.3 (20.7 deg F)
Grand Forks -6.6 (20.1 deg F)
If you check the monthly averages in your links you should find them very similar to the GISS numbers. Your criticism of GISS appears to be unjustified.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 20:44:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 26, 2011 21:28:59 GMT
The numbers I gave are the absolute figures, i.e they are actual temperatures they are not anomalies. If you take the average of COL 4 in your Bismarck link it comes out at 21.35 deg F. The GISS mean March temperature for Bismarck is 21.38 deg F. The 2 sources of data are totally in agreement. You need to think about what you're doing rather than tossing 'knee-jerk' comments around. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 21:46:43 GMT
The numbers I gave are the absolute figures, i.e they are actual temperatures they are not anomalies. If you take the average of COL 4 in your Bismarck link it comes out at 21.35 deg F. The GISS mean March temperature for Bismarck is 21.38 deg F. The 2 sources of data are totally in agreement. You need to think about what you're doing rather than tossing 'knee-jerk' comments around. GLC: Actually, the average for Bismarck for March is 21.2F. It is posted on the link I provided. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 26, 2011 22:07:13 GMT
GLC:
Actually, the average for Bismarck for March is 21.2F. It is posted on the link I provided.
The difference between "my" calculation and the published figure is probably due to the fact that they have taken the average of the daily MAX average (29.4 deg F) and the daily MIN average (12.9 deg F) which gives ~21.2 deg F. I used the Daily AVG average which possibly contains some rounding errors.
Whatever - the main point remains. The GISS figure is in close agreement with the NOAA figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 22:39:32 GMT
Ok....the GISS is in close agreement with the NOAA figure. The next question is.......how in the hell did they get so far off in the anomoly?  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 22:40:05 GMT
This is what is driving my state climatologist nuts. He can't replicate it using state data.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 26, 2011 23:13:18 GMT
Ok....the GISS is in close agreement with the NOAA figure. The next question is.......how in the hell did they get so far off in the anomoly? If the past is cooled, the present looks warmer  That's the neat thing about anomalies. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2011 23:29:14 GMT
Ok....the GISS is in close agreement with the NOAA figure. The next question is.......how in the hell did they get so far off in the anomoly? If the past is cooled, the present looks warmer That's the neat thing about anomalies. Ok......we all understand how anomolies work.......and it just hit me. According to GISS, ND has warmed over 1.0C in the past 100 years. GLC may remember my questioning that data last winter or the winter before. I could not replicate that warming at all from raw temp records. IF GISS has us so much colder in the past than we are presently......yep.....the anomoly trick would work. But even the anomoly, I will use Bismarck as an exmaple.....the -8.5 on an anomoly of past colder time is stillllllllll deep DEEP blue. GISS knows this, as GLC has so gracously pointed out. Yet in the original graph, we look neutral. Well believe me....-8.5F is FAR from neutral. The bad thing is this is going to take me months to get to the bottom off.......but I will do this alllllll over again. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 27, 2011 0:12:42 GMT
If the past is cooled, the present looks warmer That's the neat thing about anomalies. Ok......we all understand how anomolies work.......and it just hit me. According to GISS, ND has warmed over 1.0C in the past 100 years. GLC may remember my questioning that data last winter or the winter before. I could not replicate that warming at all from raw temp records. IF GISS has us so much colder in the past than we are presently......yep.....the anomoly trick would work. But even the anomoly, I will use Bismarck as an exmaple.....the -8.5 on an anomoly of past colder time is stillllllllll deep DEEP blue. GISS knows this, as GLC has so gracously pointed out. Yet in the original graph, we look neutral. Well believe me....-8.5F is FAR from neutral. The bad thing is this is going to take me months to get to the bottom off.......but I will do this alllllll over again. Similar issues exist for Michigan. Using the identical baseline for GISS and NCDC, 1901-2000, GISS has Michigan for March as WARM. We're talking a 2-4 deg discrepancy! There can't be many reasons why; one or the other is fooling around with (cooling) historical temperatures which inflates the present, or GISS is inflating the present directly. What other explanation is there? Computer glitch for the graphics? Joe Bastardi nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 27, 2011 1:10:09 GMT
I will research this to find out what the reason is behind the discrepency.
There is something wrong....that is all that I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Apr 27, 2011 5:30:10 GMT
"There is something wrong....that is all that I know. "
Sigurdur, sometime during your research, may I suggest you check "anomoly" against your dictionary. It seems to be a recurring point in your writing. And please don't forget hunting and keeping down the evasive sources!
|
|
That's the neat thing about anomalies. 