|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2011 1:54:03 GMT
In fact, the 100 year mean temperature of North Dakota is flat. Are you blind? I used YOUR site and it says that there is a +5F/100 yr trend for North Dakota. You really should look at your own data sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 2:50:50 GMT
In fact, the 100 year mean temperature of North Dakota is flat. Are you blind? I used YOUR site and it says that there is a +5F/100 yr trend for North Dakota. You really should look at your own data sometime. Where do you see =5F/100 yr trend? The long term trend is .27F per decade. Ok.......now, and this is where it gets interesting.....look at when the warming actually occured to establish that trend. I know you are smart so I won't hold your hand. (hint: Look prior to 1935). And now.....look at anomoly....which GLC knows.....of GISS. Plot that against the mean average temp of ND and tell me again that we are 1.4C warmer? (That is what GISS came out with a few years ago. Made it the laughingstock of ND) |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2011 3:52:52 GMT
Are you blind? I used YOUR site and it says that there is a +5F/100 yr trend for North Dakota. You really should look at your own data sometime. Where do you see =5F/100 yr trend? The long term trend is .27F per decade. Ok.......now, and this is where it gets interesting.....look at when the warming actually occured to establish that trend. I know you are smart so I won't hold your hand. (hint: Look prior to 1935). And now.....look at anomoly....which GLC knows.....of GISS. Plot that against the mean average temp of ND and tell me again that we are 1.4C warmer? (That is what GISS came out with a few years ago. Made it the laughingstock of ND) Nope, the trend line for ND is not .27F/decade, it is .5F/decade. I got it from your website by running the program from 1901 to 2010 and looking at the resulting trend line. (HINT: It's the green line). Besides, ND is a small place. Even your ~90% error isn't enough to make a difference in global average temperatures. Now, the chart only applies to January weather, but let's look at the data. You say GISS came out with a 1.4C warmer than mean a few years ago. I'm looking at the chart and a few years ago January temps in ND were a full 20F warmer than the mean, so the 1.4C quote seems incredibly reasonable. So it seems that GISS is 100% correct. Got any evidence that it isn't? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 5:37:54 GMT
Richard:
IF you are using only the Jan month, then do the last 10 years.
There is a line that states the annual temp.....that is what I use to chart.
In fact, the last 10 years of winter months temps show a -6.7F trend. But that is not the whole season, the annuam mean temperature.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 17, 2011 7:17:49 GMT
Richard: IF you are using only the Jan month, then do the last 10 years. There is a line that states the annual temp.....that is what I use to chart. In fact, the last 10 years of winter months temps show a -6.7F trend. But that is not the whole season, the annuam mean temperature. OK, now I see the annual numbers. I wonder why they defaulted to January? Seems like a really bad decision. Has the data been adjusted? How does it differ from GISS and why? |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 17, 2011 13:27:40 GMT
Richard: IF you are using only the Jan month, then do the last 10 years. There is a line that states the annual temp.....that is what I use to chart. In fact, the last 10 years of winter months temps show a -6.7F trend. But that is not the whole season, the annuam mean temperature. OK, now I see the annual numbers. I wonder why they defaulted to January? Seems like a really bad decision. Has the data been adjusted? How does it differ from GISS and why? I guess sig was not so blind. Sig depends on those numbers to plant his fields. One need not speculate as to why this thread is titled Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 14:32:54 GMT
Richard: IF you are using only the Jan month, then do the last 10 years. There is a line that states the annual temp.....that is what I use to chart. In fact, the last 10 years of winter months temps show a -6.7F trend. But that is not the whole season, the annuam mean temperature. OK, now I see the annual numbers. I wonder why they defaulted to January? Seems like a really bad decision. Has the data been adjusted? How does it differ from GISS and why? Richard: Here is the main reason for the divergence. 1. GISS uses a short term basis for the anomoly. What they are projecting is weather and not climate based temperature anomolies. 2. It is really as GLC has pointed out, a matter of statistical analysis. 3. Using a long term mean, which should be the norm in climate discussions, is not done with GISS, hence they miss the early warming in the early 20th century when ND was actually warm. 4. Using the 1200km radius, they have missed what is really going on in a large geographical area. Their anomolies during the winter will show us barely cool, yet on long term mean we are damn cold. And we are deff on a cooling winter month phase. What this shows is that if they can't get ND correct, how much of the other data is wrong? Or is it biased worldwide to show something that may be true on a short term anomoly basis, but untrue on a long term anomoly basis. When examining what GISS presents, as compared to reality on a climatic length, that raises red flags all over the place. When someone like myself can find something so obvious, it raises the question as to why it is done the way it has been. One thing sorely lacking in most published GISS or any temp metrics data is the error bars. Most people dn't care, but I do as I want to examine the range of errors and see if wht was reported is within reality. Another thing they did, which is USA specific, is reduced the temps from the 30's. The USA was very warm during the dust bowl in most areas. Our state records have not even been close to being broken from that era. Kansas is the same way, Nebraska, etc. Yet in a conus reconstruction of late, that warmth has somehow mostly evaporated. Because of that tinkering, GISS has lost credence, at least with me. |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jul 17, 2011 14:36:04 GMT
The real take away from this is that the modern Lysenkos are, as Lysenko did in his day, cooking up data to support a pre-determined outcome.The entire area of global average is one that is subject to abuse and misuse. It is in reality meaningless.
Climate manifests as weather, not as global averages.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 14:39:04 GMT
Another example I will use regarding GISS is the Arctic Temperature. DMI, which uses re-analysis, shows a much cooler Arctic than GISS does. DMI uses many more data points in their re-analysis, so for my buck, it is a more reliable metric of current temperature.
GISS uses land based temps and tries to smooth them further onto the ice pack. I think they are wrong in doing this.
Even on a regional scale, 1200km, I think they are wrong in doing this. I know Dr. Hansen has written papers trying to justify this method, but I will just say it is shakey at best.
What is disappointing to me as a US citizen is that the adherance to an idea seems to be over riding common sense. When you have DMI using more data points, even if it goes against your grain, that should be taken into consideration. It isn't.
I want the best temp data available. GISS at this time is not providing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2011 15:16:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 15:54:12 GMT
SoCold:
Yes, what you have posted is correct. However, when they do their anomoly for winter temps it will show something that is not correct.
Last winter was a prime example. We were from -4F to -7.9F colder than average, yet giss showed about 1/2 of that in the published data.
They also came out a few years ago saying that ND had warmed more than any state in the nation. Actually, that article is what started my interest in them as living here, I knew that report was not correct.
It boils down to base periods of anomoly and what you want to show.
Thank you for the graph showing the error bars. Where in the world did you find this? AT least it adds some credibility to what you posted. There is quit a bit of divergence within the anomolies of GISS and DMI, but as you have observed the trend is much the same. I will have to re-examine this again it appears.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2011 16:01:00 GMT
Socold:
Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that on your 1st link CONUS is the only land mass that shows a cooling trend? And it is virtually the entire CONUS with a small exception in SW CONUS.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Jul 20, 2011 17:58:05 GMT
Apparently not even all his coworkers at GISS believe Trofim Denisovich's numbers. blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/'Dr. Ruedy of GISS confessed in an email that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct”' |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 20, 2011 18:24:20 GMT
Last winter was a prime example. We were from -4F to -7.9F colder than average, yet giss showed about 1/2 of that in the published data. They also came out a few years ago saying that ND had warmed more than any state in the nation. Actually, that article is what started my interest in them as living here, I knew that report was not correct. It boils down to base periods of anomoly and what you want to show. Hmm. I looked at the winter data from your site. Last winter was a tad below 3F below normal. so GISS's claim of, as you say, 1/2 of -4 to -7.9 seems entirely correct. Your point that you don't like the base period for GISS's anomaly seems silly. Why should GISS use a base period to suit your desires? There is nothing wrong with GISS's period, after all trends don't change because of the base period. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 20, 2011 23:22:25 GMT
There is nothing wrong with GISS's period, after all trends don't change because of the base period. yes actually it does. Example: The year they cut the water off to the Klamath farmers. They started their trend with an abnormally wet year. Is it any wonder the resulting trend was down? Interesting side notes. The water was lapping up on the highway that year. The "gentleman" who decided the fish needed more water and the farmers and bird sanctuary could do without was the commodore of the local yacht club. That was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats from the water. |
|
