Quote:

---

This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

---

Quote:

---

What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.

---

Quote:

---

It can ENTIRELY be explained by solar activity

---

Quote:

---

There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN

---

Quote:

---

There is no doubt that this is quite small and can be explained entirely by factors other than CO2 concentration

---

Quote:

---

It may well have already reversed itself in the absence of a similar CO2 reversal.

---

What are you trying to say? Are you just making shit up?


zappaisgod, look at the last few pages of this thread. I don't need to elaborate on why you're wrong.

Quote:

---

supernovasky said:
Here is a much more detailed essay on the error:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

Here is a direct quote from it:

Quote:

---

What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.

---

---

Quote:

---

joker_man said:

Quote:

---

It can ENTIRELY be explained by solar activity

---

No.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN

---

No.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is no doubt that this is quite small and can be explained entirely by factors other than CO2 concentration

---

No.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It may well have already reversed itself in the absence of a similar CO2 reversal.

---

What are you trying to say? Are you just making shit up?

---

Quote:

---

TheCow said:
straaaaaaaawwwwwww man

---

Quote:

---

supernovasky said:
I can care less about Hansen.

I care about demonizing good science and the substitution of junk science for it. I care when the general public, who cannot use their limited amount of time to properly research the issue and gain the training necessary to understand the complexities, are mislead by people who deceive and push junk science.

In your case, you attempted to post outright erroneous data in the form of saying that 1930s were the hottest. This has been disproven (not just by Hansen, but the entire GISS dataset and the body of research in climatology). Your only rationale for saying that 1930 was hotter was a temperature record of the 48 contiguous states. You were wrong.

The earth is still heating. Anyone can view the data.

---

Quote:

---

The data of Hansen et al in the US have been corrected downward.

---

Quote:

---

The data from the US stations are more reliable than from elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Hansen has been shown to be unreliable ( http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50 ).

---

Quote:

---

Even if it IS currently warmer now than in the, say, eighties there is NOTHING UNIQUE about it or even, in many scientist's opinions, particularly remarkable. It has been warmer in the past.

---

Quote:

---

It can ENTIRELY be explained by solar activity, if you should be so inclined, although that probably isn't the only cause.

---

Quote:

---

There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 concentration CAUSES an increase in global temperature, it is a miniscule portion of the atmosphere, the ocean is a huge CO2 sink, and the absorption value of CO2 maxes out rather rapidly. There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN, which you seem to poopoo.

---

Quote:

---

There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN, which you seem to poopoo.

---

Quote:

---

Well yes, Phred (I think it was Phred) posted it and your graphs show a peak in 1998. It is now 10 years later. The temperature has gone down since.

---

No, he did not. He posted hadCrut, but hadCrut is only one of the models of temperature that is used in climatology, that does not extrapolate over the poles.

I direct you to Climate change (Communication arising): Recent temperature trends in the Antarctic. John Turner1, John C. King1, Tom A. Lachlan-Cope1 & Phil D. Jones. Nature 418, 291-292 (18 July 2002).

"We argue that this result has arisen because of an inappropriate extrapolation of station data across large, data-sparse areas of the Antarctic." -- (speaking of the hadcrut data).

GISS is much more efficient and does not use said extrapolation. HadCrut is good for mid-latitude bands, but for global trends, it simply does not work.


Furthermore, from our own graphs:



See a peak in 1998 and then cooling for 10 years? I see the opposite. I see a peak in 1998 caused by el-nino, and then warming, especially with 5 year averages.



Yup.. still increasing, using both of these charts.

But you would rather use this one, that only uses 2% of the data on the surface of the earth:



Funny thing is, even that one has a positive correlation.

But most respectable climatologists use global data.

Quote:

---

0.6C is very small. Since you have utterly failed to provide a causal connection, as has everyone else, there probably are some other causes. Like solar, ocean currents, urbanization.

---

Quote:

---

Nope. CO2 has gone up almost 5% since 1998 (see my link) but temperature has declined slightly. Neither of those are made up.

---

Temperature has not declined slightly. That second part IS made up. Its a flat out lie. Global temperatures have gone up since 1998:

Check this one out, another one using only meteorological stations:




Further more, I demand to know why you tried to represent the data for the US as the data for the globe.

It is flat-out lying when you do that.

Quote:

---

Your own data show a decline over the last ten years. CO2 still rising. Causality falling.
Now, who wrote that piece?

---

Quote:

---

In a test of 22 different computer modeling programs, not a single one of them was able retroactively to even roughly predict the climate change we know occurred. By this I mean the programs were fed all the appropriate data from 1980, 1985, 1990, then told to extrapolate. None of them cut the mustard. So much for computer modeling.

---

Source? Show me a peer reviewed source where this is the case, I want to see the data itself. Direct me to the journal article that tested 22 different computer modeling systems, and which systems were tested. I can show you one case where it has been acurate:



This is the GISS.

Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

Here is a study on the evaluation of the models.

Look for yourself how the models hold up here

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm



Source: As published, reviewed, and verified in the IPCC

Quote:

---

The earth has gone through far greater temperature swings in far shorter periods of time long before man started burning any significant amount of fossil fuels.

---

Quote:

---

There are many, MANY scientists of every bit as noble stature as the Warmenist scientists who insist that CO2 increases follow warming periods, not precede them.

---

Quote:

---

There are more and more scientists every year who are becoming convinced solar variance is far more likely the main driver than greenhouse gases.

---

Quote:

---

In the last decade, the annual average global temperature has decreased. We've already seen the HadCRUT graph, but you for some reason reject it. Climatologists don't, but you do. Okay then, let's look at three other graphs from three other organizations and see if they support or undercut the HadCRUT data.

---

Hadcrut is useful for mid-latitudes, not for global temperature changes. NASA uses GISS, I think I'll trust NASA on this one.

But, if you would like to see the year averages (because those graphs are dominated by noise), take a look at the following:




This places the top 3 models on the same graph, and uses year averages.
All of them show warming after 1998. Hadcrut shows 1998 was the warmest year, but 2002-2007, on average, was warmer than 2001. There is warming going on after 1998, 1998 was just a year dominated by a strong el-nino.

Now lets look at the long term trends for hadCrut, as well as the other two modes:



It’s obvious that the HadCRU numbers are consistently lower than GISS and NCDC. If fact they’re all three on different scales. This is because they all use a different reference period. GISS anomaly is the difference between a given month’s average and the average for that month during the reference period 1951 to 1980; NCDC anomaly uses the reference period 1901 to 2000; HadCRU uses the reference period 1961 to 1990.

During the HadCRU reference period (1961 to 1990) the planet was about 0.1 deg.C warmer. Hence all the HadCRU anomaly numbers are about 0.1 deg.C lower, because they’re being compared to a “higher standard.”

But as it is, let’s use our approximate alignment, and show the same graph but with the HadCRU numbers shifted upward by 0.1 deg.C. We can accomplish this by plotting them on a different axis. We’ll use the left-hand axis for GISS and NCDC, the right-hand axis for HadCRU, and align that axis so that it’s 0.1 deg.C higher:



Clearly the three records are in very good agreement. But there are differences, notably the extreme high temperature reported by HadCRU in 1998 (but not quite so high in GISS or NCDC). We also see that for last year (2007), GISS was highest, NCDC in the middle, and HadCRU lowest. The GISS/HadCRU difference seems to be because HadCRU omits the arctic while GISS estimates it by interpolation. In that case, the noted result is what we would expect: if it’s true that the arctic is the fastest-warming part of the planet, and HadCRU omits that fastest-warming region, we would expect their estimate to be low.

Here is 1975-present of the 3 most accepted global models:



You'd be an idiot to say that it does not show a warming trend in the past 10 years.

Now lets look at your graphs

Graph 1) You are using the MSU - Microwave Sounder Unit -

Now lets look at your graphs

---------------