13 years of no Global Warming confirmed,by Bearkley Earth Surface Temperature scientists
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
One is left to wonder just why GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT data have a 13 year long positive error in them...
Because they are each derived from much the same data set, while the BEST (red) plot is derived from (a selection of) stations not present in the GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT data. (A more up-to-date SST Anomaly: Mid-October 2011 SST Anomaly Update[^]. Going down.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
Because they are each derived from much the same data set, while the BEST (red) plot is derived from (a selection of) stations not present in the GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT data.
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect... :) SST seems to me to be a pretty good way of measuring temps. It automatically smooths, having a far bigger specific heat capacity than air, and avoids issues like where they sre sited, provided its not near the outlet pipe of a nuclear reactor. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
ict558 wrote:
Because they are each derived from much the same data set, while the BEST (red) plot is derived from (a selection of) stations not present in the GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT data.
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect... :) SST seems to me to be a pretty good way of measuring temps. It automatically smooths, having a far bigger specific heat capacity than air, and avoids issues like where they sre sited, provided its not near the outlet pipe of a nuclear reactor. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect... :)
So, you have all references to where all the GW data has been deliberatly tampered with to show GW then? ;P
If you vote me down, my score will only get lower
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect... :)
So, you have all references to where all the GW data has been deliberatly tampered with to show GW then? ;P
If you vote me down, my score will only get lower
-
ict558 wrote:
Because they are each derived from much the same data set, while the BEST (red) plot is derived from (a selection of) stations not present in the GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT data.
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect... :) SST seems to me to be a pretty good way of measuring temps. It automatically smooths, having a far bigger specific heat capacity than air, and avoids issues like where they sre sited, provided its not near the outlet pipe of a nuclear reactor. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect
Ho hum. I'm afraid that the skeptic and lukewarmer statisticians have confirmed that such adjustments do not take place. The fact that "Outside of the USA ~60% of the GHCN Version 3 average temperature trends are larger following homogenization" - Matt Meene, International Surface Temperature Initiative - is acknowledged, not yet understood, and is being addressed by the said ISTI.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
'Watts up with that' is a good place to start. :) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Watts up with that' is a good place to start
But not this article. Nordic prof. reads IPCC AR4. Sees the NEU graph in Figure 9.12, and assumes that it relates to Nordic countries. (Well, they are 'in the box'. That could confuse a simple person.) So, Nordic prof. tries to replicate the observed temperature plot from Nordic data, NORDKLIM and NASA North of 65°N. Willis identifies NEU as North Europe, but is so obsessed with proving CRU to be liars that he fails to register that North Europe is 10W to 40E, 48N to 75N - and so includes not only the Nordic Nations but UK, Germany, N. France, Poland. Unlikely to match NORDKLIM, then. Willis is a fun guy to read and, when calm and collected, often provides a good analysis. But this was the Climategate era, and the pursuit of CRU must have over-excited him. [Edit: Spelling]
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Watts up with that' is a good place to start
But not this article. Nordic prof. reads IPCC AR4. Sees the NEU graph in Figure 9.12, and assumes that it relates to Nordic countries. (Well, they are 'in the box'. That could confuse a simple person.) So, Nordic prof. tries to replicate the observed temperature plot from Nordic data, NORDKLIM and NASA North of 65°N. Willis identifies NEU as North Europe, but is so obsessed with proving CRU to be liars that he fails to register that North Europe is 10W to 40E, 48N to 75N - and so includes not only the Nordic Nations but UK, Germany, N. France, Poland. Unlikely to match NORDKLIM, then. Willis is a fun guy to read and, when calm and collected, often provides a good analysis. But this was the Climategate era, and the pursuit of CRU must have over-excited him. [Edit: Spelling]
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Yes, clearly the coverage of the GRU graph was far larger than just Scandanavia (minus Denmark). What this article does show though is the recalcitrance of Jones, their superority, their sense of ownership of 'their product' and unwillingness to share it. This WUWT link shows GISS manipulating data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/[^] Anyway, here are some interesting links 1 GISS data for the arctic circle[^] Along with Scandanavia, Greenland, the US and Canada, it shows temps to day the same as in the 1930s. 2 Antarctic sea ice record[^] 3 Jones of the CRU, previous recent warming periods the same as the last one, but with no CO2 present[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
And not adjusted to show added warming I expect
Ho hum. I'm afraid that the skeptic and lukewarmer statisticians have confirmed that such adjustments do not take place. The fact that "Outside of the USA ~60% of the GHCN Version 3 average temperature trends are larger following homogenization" - Matt Meene, International Surface Temperature Initiative - is acknowledged, not yet understood, and is being addressed by the said ISTI.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Yes, clearly the coverage of the GRU graph was far larger than just Scandanavia (minus Denmark). What this article does show though is the recalcitrance of Jones, their superority, their sense of ownership of 'their product' and unwillingness to share it. This WUWT link shows GISS manipulating data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/[^] Anyway, here are some interesting links 1 GISS data for the arctic circle[^] Along with Scandanavia, Greenland, the US and Canada, it shows temps to day the same as in the 1930s. 2 Antarctic sea ice record[^] 3 Jones of the CRU, previous recent warming periods the same as the last one, but with no CO2 present[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
What this article does show though is the recalcitrance of Jones ...
Jones? Trenbeth, surely? If recalcitrance is stubbornly resisting the 'authority and opinion' of someone too dim find their way around a report, I'm with him.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
... their sense of ownership of 'their product' and unwillingness to share it.
"Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I’m back next week, I’ll be able to calculate the boxes that encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this region. As you’re aware Anders did lots of the update work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian data if you want – either the sites used or their data as well." Oh, look! They're sharing! How sweet!
Erudite__Eric wrote:
... their superority ...
Do me a favour. The Professor's questions were on a par with someone with 'O' Level Maths asking "Could you show me how to calculate the percentage profit on a sale, please? I can't remember the formula."
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This WUWT link shows GISS manipulating data
No it doesn't. It's an opinion piece. The GISS data and processing are accessible and transparent. There is no 'manipulation' designed to increase warming. The homogenisation processes (which have been examined by skeptic and lukewarm statisticians) have this effect.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Anyway, here are some interesting links
Where? What is interesting in old news? (Other than the fact that they are using 'manipulated' GISS and HadCRUT data, that is.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
What this article does show though is the recalcitrance of Jones ...
Jones? Trenbeth, surely? If recalcitrance is stubbornly resisting the 'authority and opinion' of someone too dim find their way around a report, I'm with him.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
... their sense of ownership of 'their product' and unwillingness to share it.
"Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I’m back next week, I’ll be able to calculate the boxes that encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this region. As you’re aware Anders did lots of the update work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian data if you want – either the sites used or their data as well." Oh, look! They're sharing! How sweet!
Erudite__Eric wrote:
... their superority ...
Do me a favour. The Professor's questions were on a par with someone with 'O' Level Maths asking "Could you show me how to calculate the percentage profit on a sale, please? I can't remember the formula."
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This WUWT link shows GISS manipulating data
No it doesn't. It's an opinion piece. The GISS data and processing are accessible and transparent. There is no 'manipulation' designed to increase warming. The homogenisation processes (which have been examined by skeptic and lukewarm statisticians) have this effect.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Anyway, here are some interesting links
Where? What is interesting in old news? (Other than the fact that they are using 'manipulated' GISS and HadCRUT data, that is.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
I am being objective, like a real scientist. :) I want to earn the respect of WristiSlaps. :laugh:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
I am being objective, like a real scientist. :) I want to earn the respect of WristiSlaps. :laugh:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Hey, you wanted some stuff in Hansen fiddling data, here you go: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/#more-50527[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Hey, you wanted some stuff in Hansen fiddling data, here you go: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/#more-50527[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Hey, you wanted some stuff in Hansen fiddling data
No I didn't, there isn't any.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
here you go
Oh, come on! "Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in 1999 than it is now. ... In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism." As for As Steve McIntyre often says: “You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys”. Yeah. Because NCDC spring these changes on you with only 2 years notification of their intention. (And in Anthony's case, with a full awareness of their work on poorly sited stations.)
As I posted above:
The GISS data and processing are accessible and transparent. There is no 'manipulation' designed to increase warming.
To which I will add: The NCDC data and processing are also accessible and transparent. Here's a link to their 'revisionism'[^]. If Hansen is 'fiddling' data, then BEST is 'fiddling' it too. The Berkeley (Global) Land Only Average (Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process - Robert Rohde, et al 2011) shows less cooling since 2000 than does GISS.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Hey, you wanted some stuff in Hansen fiddling data
No I didn't, there isn't any.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
here you go
Oh, come on! "Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in 1999 than it is now. ... In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism." As for As Steve McIntyre often says: “You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys”. Yeah. Because NCDC spring these changes on you with only 2 years notification of their intention. (And in Anthony's case, with a full awareness of their work on poorly sited stations.)
As I posted above:
The GISS data and processing are accessible and transparent. There is no 'manipulation' designed to increase warming.
To which I will add: The NCDC data and processing are also accessible and transparent. Here's a link to their 'revisionism'[^]. If Hansen is 'fiddling' data, then BEST is 'fiddling' it too. The Berkeley (Global) Land Only Average (Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process - Robert Rohde, et al 2011) shows less cooling since 2000 than does GISS.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Here is some more on Hansen fudging data: http://www.real-science.com/paper-trail-mikes-nature-trick#more-46673[^] As you can see, its total baloney. How he gets away with it is anyones guess. There must be such collusion in the scientific world that he is protected. If an accountant did this to a companies books he would be locked up for fraud.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Here is some more on Hansen fudging data: http://www.real-science.com/paper-trail-mikes-nature-trick#more-46673[^] As you can see, its total baloney. How he gets away with it is anyones guess. There must be such collusion in the scientific world that he is protected. If an accountant did this to a companies books he would be locked up for fraud.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Here is some more on Hansen fudging data
No, it's exactly the same data as the Watts post, same bloody graphs! I shall say this once more only, as I have a feeling that I am being wound up: The GISS data and processing are accessible and transparent. The NCDC data and processing are accessible and transparent. There is no 'manipulation' designed to increase warming.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
If an accountant did this to a companies books he would be locked up for fraud.
Twaddle. The data and processing are constantly being 'audited' by skeptics and lukewarmers alike - people inside and outside the climate science community. While there is always disagreement as to how various biases and discontinuaties should be handled statistically, no-one has yet found 'manipulation' with fraudulent intent. BTW: Mann's 'Hockey Stick' was derived from Northern Hemisphere temperatures, which already showed a strong upward trend from 1970 to 1999. So the claim that "As of 1999, temperatures were going the wrong direction for 70 years, and something had to be done about it." is false. The US Temperatures to 1999 had little impact.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
