|
|
Post by richard on Jul 15, 2011 19:36:21 GMT
Richard: Dr. Hansen, or more correctly GISS has played fast and loose with past temperature records. This is well established. Where do you come up with such erroneous goop? It is well established that GISS is the most accurate temperature series available. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 15, 2011 19:45:43 GMT
Richard:
Where do I come up with such erroneous goop? WElllll......
1. I am old.
2. I have been looking at their anomoly for quit some time.
3. It will all of a sudden shift when they re-calcuate past temps for CONUS for starters.
4. They have been called on their changes to the temps in the 30's and had to adjust them down again.
5. I really wish they were reliable.
6. The 1200 km2 areas of the poles that they are trying to say are so hot aren't. There are floating temp data points that they could use.....but they don't.
7. DMI uses a re-analysis method, but 100's more actual sensors and the temps are not even close.
8. I am not afraid of anything GISS would show....IF IT WERE ACCURATE.
9. I am ashamed this is a product of the USA.
That sum it up?
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 15, 2011 22:24:39 GMT
Richard: Where do I come up with such erroneous goop? WElllll...... 1. I am old. 2. I have been looking at their anomoly for quit some time. 3. It will all of a sudden shift when they re-calcuate past temps for CONUS for starters. 4. They have been called on their changes to the temps in the 30's and had to adjust them down again. 5. I really wish they were reliable. 6. The 1200 km2 areas of the poles that they are trying to say are so hot aren't. There are floating temp data points that they could use.....but they don't. 7. DMI uses a re-analysis method, but 100's more actual sensors and the temps are not even close. 8. I am not afraid of anything GISS would show....IF IT WERE ACCURATE. 9. I am ashamed this is a product of the USA. That sum it up? I don't remember if it was GISS or not, I think it was, that had Michigan as being between 500 and 600F with one city being over 600F. They sent their temps out that was too knowing this was in error. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 15, 2011 23:27:49 GMT
I don't remember if it was GISS or not, I think it was, that had Michigan as being between 500 and 600F with one city being over 600F. They sent their temps out that was too knowing this was in error. Please translate into English. Are you saying that GISS knowingly sent out such silly data on purpose? That is a silly concept at best. You should check your sources |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 16, 2011 0:01:34 GMT
Richard: Where do I come up with such erroneous goop? WElllll...... 1. I am old. 2. I have been looking at their anomoly for quit some time. 3. It will all of a sudden shift when they re-calcuate past temps for CONUS for starters. 4. They have been called on their changes to the temps in the 30's and had to adjust them down again. 5. I really wish they were reliable. 6. The 1200 km2 areas of the poles that they are trying to say are so hot aren't. There are floating temp data points that they could use.....but they don't. 7. DMI uses a re-analysis method, but 100's more actual sensors and the temps are not even close. 8. I am not afraid of anything GISS would show....IF IT WERE ACCURATE. 9. I am ashamed this is a product of the USA. That sum it up? Yes. About 80% of your post is pure goop. You state you are old and don't like the results. Too bad for you, I suppose. About the only thing with any substance is that you don't like the way GISS handles the Arctic. That's a small but debatable point. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 16, 2011 1:43:57 GMT
I don't remember if it was GISS or not, I think it was, that had Michigan as being between 500 and 600F with one city being over 600F. They sent their temps out that was too knowing this was in error. Please translate into English. Are you saying that GISS knowingly sent out such silly data on purpose? That is a silly concept at best. You should check your sources Yes that's what I'm saying. Don't have to check it is well known and was even posted on this board at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2011 2:25:26 GMT
Richard: Where do I come up with such erroneous goop? WElllll...... 1. I am old. 2. I have been looking at their anomoly for quit some time. 3. It will all of a sudden shift when they re-calcuate past temps for CONUS for starters. 4. They have been called on their changes to the temps in the 30's and had to adjust them down again. 5. I really wish they were reliable. 6. The 1200 km2 areas of the poles that they are trying to say are so hot aren't. There are floating temp data points that they could use.....but they don't. 7. DMI uses a re-analysis method, but 100's more actual sensors and the temps are not even close. 8. I am not afraid of anything GISS would show....IF IT WERE ACCURATE. 9. I am ashamed this is a product of the USA. That sum it up? Yes. About 80% of your post is pure goop. You state you are old and don't like the results. Too bad for you, I suppose. About the only thing with any substance is that you don't like the way GISS handles the Arctic. That's a small but debatable point. No......Richard. I dn't like the way that GISS has changed temp data. And they have numerous times now. And their interpreation of present data is erroneous as well. Where I live has a winter time cooling trend for the past 10 years of 6.7F. Giss says we are warming.....nope. We are not. In fact, the 100 year mean temperature of North Dakota is flat. Remember....with stats you can do all sorts of silly things. Well, GISS is a prime example of being silly. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 16, 2011 3:11:55 GMT
Please translate into English. Are you saying that GISS knowingly sent out such silly data on purpose? That is a silly concept at best. You should check your sources Yes that's what I'm saying. Don't have to check it is well known and was even posted on this board at the time. What is "well known" to denialists is usually just plain wrong. And to not-quote this board is the epitome of outlandishness. Perhaps some data? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2011 3:21:04 GMT
Richard:
I have to hit the sack but I will show you once again.....how GISS has massaged data and comes up with results that do not match local temperature metrics. And how using stats...they are projecting something that is not factual.
I would invite you to look at the thread ocean cooling...and tell us how it is not backed by documentation. Or do you prefer to only read documenation that supports your AGW point of view?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 16, 2011 4:00:03 GMT
Richard: Dr. Hansen, or more correctly GISS has played fast and loose with past temperature records. This is well established. Where do you come up with such erroneous goop? It is well established that GISS is the most accurate temperature series available. E. Michael Smith actually looked at GIStemp treatment of data. He had to resurrect a compatible machine in order to compile and run the antiquated code. It is an interesting (but somewhat lengthy) read. Richard, Find it here: Smith, E. Michael. GIStemp. Analysis. Musings from the Chiefio. chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/1) GIStemp, A “Start Here†pageUPDATE 6: As of November, 2009: "I’ve added a GIStemp high level overview for regular folks (i.e. you don’t need to be a computer geek or weather guy to ‘get it’):" chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/"This is a nice high level view, but has links down into all the detail and tech talk that support it, if desired. Most folks ought to read it first." 2) NOAA / NCDC have Fudged and Corrupted the Input Data Series"A sidebar on data corruption from thermometer deletions: "The GHCN input data to GIStemp “has issues†(they -NOAA/NCDC- deleted 90% or so of the thermometers between about 1990 and 2009…) with those deletions focused on cold places. This is the second set of reports most folks ought to read. We explore that here:" chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/"And find what is most likely the key coordinating factor behind the ‘agreement’ between HadCRUT (UEA / CRU i.e. the “Climategate†folks), NCDC (the GHCN adjusted series and GHCN data fabricators), and GIStemp. They all use GHCN and the GHCN set has been “buggered†with the deletion of cold thermometers from the recent data (but they are left in the baseline periods. Even the Japanese temperature series depends on GHCN). This, IMHO, is the biggest problem and is the most important ‘issue’ in the apparent fraud of AGW." |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 16, 2011 4:22:05 GMT
Yes that's what I'm saying. Don't have to check it is well known and was even posted on this board at the time. What is "well known" to denialists is usually just plain wrong. And to not-quote this board is the epitome of outlandishness. Perhaps some data? Ad hominem does not win arguments. I've done a cursory search and didn't find it and I'm not going to waste my time doing an in depth search. You don't want to believe me, fine. But it won't change the facts. edit: ok you'll note in my original post I said I couldn't remember who had done it, turns out it was NOAA. doesn't change everything else though. Here is the link |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 16, 2011 22:32:45 GMT
What is "well known" to denialists is usually just plain wrong. And to not-quote this board is the epitome of outlandishness. Perhaps some data? Ad hominem does not win arguments. I've done a cursory search and didn't find it and I'm not going to waste my time doing an in depth search. You don't want to believe me, fine. But it won't change the facts. edit: ok you'll note in my original post I said I couldn't remember who had done it, turns out it was NOAA. doesn't change everything else though. Here is the linkGISS uses surface-based measurements. The issue you bring up is in Coastwatch, which is a dumb little system used by fishermen that uses SATELLITE data. The data in clear boxes is generally considered accurate, that in grey boxes is somewhat accurate, and that in black boxes is considered completely unreliable. The data you are trying to pin on GISS is from black boxes. You should check your sources better. It is complete tripe. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2011 23:01:51 GMT
Richard: Ok......GISS says we are hot in North Dakota. You will be able to see this as it appears you are a US citizen and can look at data. Now.....follow these steps. www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/north_dakota_climate.shtmlClick on the link....then submit the mean temperature.....then do 1998-2011. Tell me what the trend is please? Does it look like a cooling trend of -2.11F?.....ahem.....yes it does. So....GISS says we are warming......yet......we are cooling. I know AGW folks like to go both ways......but evidence still does exist to be upfront. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 17, 2011 0:51:03 GMT
So....GISS says we are warming......yet......we are cooling. I know AGW folks like to go both ways......but evidence still does exist to be upfront.
But it depends totally on your start point. If you start in 1975, say, ND is warming.
What do you consider a reasonable period of time to decide upon a trend. Because of ENSO, in particular, we know that 10 years is not enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2011 1:49:29 GMT
Richard: Ok......GISS says we are hot in North Dakota. You will be able to see this as it appears you are a US citizen and can look at data. Now.....follow these steps. www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/north_dakota_climate.shtmlClick on the link....then submit the mean temperature.....then do 1998-2011. Tell me what the trend is please? Does it look like a cooling trend of -2.11F?.....ahem.....yes it does. So....GISS says we are warming......yet......we are cooling. I know AGW folks like to go both ways......but evidence still does exist to be upfront. Sorry, I'm don't do cherry-picking. Your choice of 1998 as a start date when the data goes back over 100 years says bundles -- notably that you have no interest in the truth. I did 1901 to 2011 and came up with a +5F/100yr trend. Definitely a warming trend, just as GISS states. |
|
