|
|
Post by richard on Jul 21, 2011 19:58:06 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. Sure, the trend year selections determine the slope of the trend line, but the base period only determines where the trend line lies, not its slope. I don't believe that GISS picked their base period based on trying to make the single state of North Dakota look like it's warming! No, Sig is complaining about nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 21, 2011 21:06:30 GMT
The trends in the arctic in DMI and GISTEMP are statistically indistinguishable: More decade old news Socold! Fact is its not surprising there is little difference in the trends. DMI is also modeled and in the early days probably used the same data that GISS used. The difference today is DMI is collecting more observations and GISS has a policy of not recognizing new science and observations preferring to rely upon whatever gives them more warming which today means ignoring facts. Here is a look at DMI and GISS since 2005. Its only been in the most recent years that interest in the Arctic has increased and far more thermometers. . . . stuff that GISS wants to ignore and continue to depend upon mathematical extrapolation over facts.  As we can see since 2005 the arctic has been cooling. But GISS has huge motivations to cover up that fact so the ran their calculations with cherry picked facts and were able to invent warming instead of cooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 21, 2011 23:04:08 GMT
As we can see since 2005 the arctic has been cooling.
Of course, it has. You've only got to look at the arctic ice extent since 2005 to realise just how much cooling has been taking place in the arctic..
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 22, 2011 1:30:39 GMT
glc thinks everything should melt or freeze on his time table. GISS never monkeys with data, never.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 22, 2011 1:38:32 GMT
magellan:
Where did you get the graph? I thought GISS had been sued, and had to retract that 1934 got cold all of sudden. Are they truely at it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 22, 2011 2:00:49 GMT
As we can see since 2005 the arctic has been cooling.
Of course, it has. You've only got to look at the arctic ice extent since 2005 to realise just how much cooling has been taking place in the arctic..
GLC you can pick any proxy you want for temperatures in the Arctic but if you are going to eschew thermometers and use a proxy instead you need to validate it.
Ice may be a good indicator of the past 30 years of temperature in the arctic and at the same time be a poor indicator of temperatures since 2005.
Its apparent from thermometers in the arctic that a few percentage points exchange of ice for near freezing water has not been able to override the loss of joules of atmospheric energy from whatever is causing that.
In a simplified world of a sinewave single forcing oscillation that brings periodic ice minimums every 60 years or so one can mathematically demonstrate that the ice extent wave would be 180 degrees out of phase with the temperature variation.
Ice minimums would occur half way between the temperature maximum and the following temperature minimum.
Ice melt clearly is a feedback to temperature it can be expected to trail temperature changes by a substantial period of time.
Picking ice extent as an indicator of recent temperature change is more than a bit like a Dodo bird burying its head in the sand to look for danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 22, 2011 2:32:57 GMT
magellan: Where did you get the graph? I thought GISS had been sued, and had to retract that 1934 got cold all of sudden. Are they truely at it again? They never stopped. You know that. Recall in 2007 when McIntyre found the 'Y2K' error? Within a few weeks Hansen got rid of 1934 again....and he hasn't slowed a bit. climateaudit.org/2010/11/11/y2k-re-visited/I got the graph from someone at Lucia's. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 22, 2011 2:41:22 GMT
magellan:
I had hoped the schenanigans had stopped, but.....now when I think about it....I have to agree. The adjustments just seem to keep coming.
What is not comical, is that they are getting further and further away from the original data. With each change......more changes......and when using the orginal data, which I did a year ago or so.....it just gets downright stupid.
I am about to the point of wanting to cut funding.....how else do you stop this madness?
Some folks from foreign lands may disagree as GISS fits their bill. But as a US citizen, this really is starting to piss me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 22, 2011 10:29:14 GMT
GLC you can pick any proxy you want for temperatures in the Arctic but if you are going to eschew thermometers and use a proxy instead you need to validate it
I'm not using a proxy instead of I'm using it in support of
Ice may be a good indicator of the past 30 years of temperature in the arctic and at the same time be a poor indicator of temperatures since 2005.
Ice is a good indicator of temperature over a few months - never mind 30 years. In the arctic winter when it's very cold (i.e temperatures are very low) there's lots of ice. In summer when it's warmer (i.e. temperatures are higher) there's much less ice.
I can provide you with the data if you have trouble understanding or accepting this fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 22, 2011 10:40:48 GMT
I'm not using a proxy instead of I'm using it in support of
Using it in support of another proxy doesn't change it from instead of GLC.
GISS uses non-arctic stations as a proxy to estimate arctic conditions. . . .thats just another proxy that has not been validated in a changing arctic environment. Its just a proxy circle jerk.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 23, 2011 0:53:19 GMT
The trends in the arctic in DMI and GISTEMP are statistically indistinguishable:More decade old news Socold! Fact is its not surprising there is little difference in the trends. DMI is also modeled and in the early days probably used the same data that GISS used. The difference today is DMI is collecting more observations and GISS has a policy of not recognizing new science and observations preferring to rely upon whatever gives them more warming which today means ignoring facts.[/QUOTE] If it was just about creating warming, why doesn't HadCRUT do the same then? There's more to this than you seem to realize. DMI has used more data than GISTEMP for a long time. It includes satellite and buoy data - that didn't suddenly happen in the last few years. The large jump in arctic temperature around 2005 happens in both GISTEMP and DMI. That graph starts in 2006. You just couldn't help crop out the shared increase in 2005 could you?  The only big disagreement there is right at the end. Long after it's clear that GISTEMP's extrapolation method has worked well tracking DMI for so long. The fact is the GISTEMP analysis has extrapolated the arctic for decades. It isn't something that's been added in recently to create warming. Nor is warming the obvious outcome. It extrapolates, it doesn't create warming it just extrapolates whatever is there, whether it's warming or cooling. And evidentially it works if DMI is the guide stick because, again, the method managed to reproduce the same 2005 rise in temperature DMI observed. If extrapolation didn't work at all - and don't pretend skeptics have argued that - then GISTEMP should look completely different from DMI for a substantial part of the record. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 23, 2011 1:04:17 GMT
magellan: Where did you get the graph? I thought GISS had been sued, and had to retract that 1934 got cold all of sudden. Are they truely at it again? They never stopped. You know that. Recall in 2007 when McIntyre found the 'Y2K' error? Within a few weeks Hansen got rid of 1934 again....and he hasn't slowed a bit. climateaudit.org/2010/11/11/y2k-re-visited/I got the graph from someone at Lucia's. The difference between 1998 and 1934 was statistically insignificant before the Y2K error was found. 1998 was something like 0.01C ahead. After the correction it was about 0.01C behind. So stop pretending the error and correction was anything other than irrelevant and insignificant. We already went through these games at the time. Just to pre-empt false claims that Hansen or NASA once "trumpeted" 1998 as being the warmest year on record - no they didn't. Never did they. Hansen was always clear that 1934 and 1998 were statistically tied. Skeptics did however trumpet 1934 being the warmest year on record after the correction, without pointing out that they were statistically tied. Go figure. In this topsy world the innocent are guilty and the guilty are "skeptics". As for 1998 now being ahead - yeah past months and years in the GISTEMP record change over time as the algorithm is updated or new data comes in. This is entirely legitimate and expected. Just to pre-empt false claims that past temperature data should never change - wrong. It has to if the algorithm is updated or more data comes in. That's science. I didn't see skeptics making argument when past UAH monthly data changed from version 5.3 to 5.4. In fact with UAH we don't even have the source code or raw data. With GISTEMP you have both. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by sunsettommy on Jul 23, 2011 1:48:15 GMT
And if he turns out right, perhaps he will be the Galileo of our time. Of course I don't think any of this discussion of what Hansen may become is constructive. You predict one thing, I'll predict another and reality will find a 3rd way we never saw coming. He is already wrong. His predictions have been wrong. He likes to manipulate with his temperature data. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 23, 2011 3:08:47 GMT
That graph starts in 2006. You just couldn't help crop out the shared increase in 2005 could you?
The only big disagreement there is right at the end. Long after it's clear that GISTEMP's extrapolation method has worked well tracking DMI for so long.
And thats why I started since 2005. 2006 was the first year of the new DMI model T799. Its like switching to ARGO from XBTs. Calibration can be difficult. But starting with the new model in 2006 one captures the increased monitoring investment in Arctic research arising from the big recent ice changes. Yeah indeed Socold when the CHINTZY Arctic monitoring was in place GISS and DMI tracked each other nicely. The fact there is a deviation since the new model was put in place and that is not attributable to the move from CHINTZY Arctic monitoring to ROBUST Arctic monitoring one can say with much more confidence that GISS is just . . . .uh . . . .simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Jul 26, 2011 18:37:49 GMT
|
|
