Quote:

---

It was in regard to the unreliability of the data, GISS data in particular, as I have said before. They had to restate after they got caught out. By ankle biters.



Now, who wrote that defense of Hansen? Whose data you seem to be strangely restricted to. Such flagrant hatred of corporations of all kinds and an impressive love for Native American folklore (!?). I wonder what dispassionate and uninterested person could have felt so stirred to defend Mr Hansen, the censored scientist with a giant megaphone. Please, please tell us who wrote that?

---

I am not going to stop asking you. Why did you and Phred lie and say that 1934 was warmer than 2005-2006-2007? Or even warmer than 1998? Why did you push the lie that a temperare revision of .15 deg C in the 48 contiguous states, and a temperature revision of .003 degrees C in the world, meant that 1934 was the hottest on record? Why did you act like a change to US-based observation stations was actually a change to global observation stations?

Certainly, your beloved hadCrut graph doesn't even support that:



source: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/ (the Hadley center itself)

Conclusion:

1934 was NOT the warmest year on record by a long shot.


Update:

Also, in response to Phred and you, even according to hadCrut, the trend has been positive, even since 1998.

What you are seeing in 1998 is an anomolous year caused by a spike in an El-nino event.

Quote:

---

First of all, Phred, you were in on this whole "the data was wrong, new data shows 1934 was the hottest on record" so I demand an explanation from you as well on why you misrepresented charts and data, knowing that the data only applied to US contiguous states, kind of like you are doing right now. I mean, if you are willing to outright lie to get your viewpoint across, what else are you willing to do?

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.

---

Quote:

---

Phred:
I merely pointed out, correctly, that Hansen's original data was wrong, and that you were linking to the pre-corrected data.

I didn't "misrepresent" charts and data, I posted four charts -- one of them from your beloved GISS -- and invited the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions from them.

---

Quote:

---

Temperature HAS been increasing according to NASA and all major records since 1998. In fact, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 2005 was. You can use graphs and charts that are meant for general month-by-month climate prediction and inefficient extrapolation if you want, but if you look at any major institution of science, such as NASA, the NOAA, and the journal of climatology, GISS is the way that the temperature of the Earth is measured. Even Hadcrut shows an increase in the averages (not montly, yearly and 5-year), with a spike in 1998 due to the El-nino warming of the century.

Look at my previous post though for independent verification. What is striking is that solar irradiance has gone down while temperature has gone up.

---

Quote:

---

Phred: Wrong.

I'm on a borrowed computer, so don't have access to my bookmarks, but maybe zappisgod will reprint the corrected GISS numbers. You are still linking to the faulty ones.

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.



Phred

---

Quote:

---

Zappa:

Yes, I've mentioned this in other threads most notably about the bullshit artist Hansen who got caught with his thumb on the scale. A quick Google search of "Nasa restates temperature data 1930 hottest" turns up lots of hits but the most succinct is this Washington Times article.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004

Quote:
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




I can't remember who it was who caught Hansen's error. I'll look through my bookmarks. This will do for now.

---

Quote:

---

Zappa: In reference to the global record: it was not as extensively challenged nor does it have the reliability of the US only data due to the questionable nature of the stations.

The charts you posted show an unreadable overlay of dots. I went to the actual site and was still unable to make a reading on the overlay of lines and points when I blew it up as big as it would allow. What is a fact is that we are not currently experiencing any particular temperature anomaly (see other hot years in 30s and 20s) and there is not one fucking thing I have seen presented that establishes the causality arrow. There is NOTHING at all unique about the current global temperature to elicit this panicked nonsense. Unless you like panic. Then, bash away.

---

I highlighted all of the bullshit for those who don't want to read through their entire posts. Here is a summation and repudiation of the logical fallacies, misquotes, lies, and misunderstandings of the data by Phred and Zappa:

1) Nasa did not "Shamefacedly have to repudiate their own facts" or anything of that matter. They did a routine adjustment that affected temperatures in the contiguous US by .15 degrees C, and temperatures globally by .003 degrees C. This is what you call an "Adjustment." In fact, it didnt even affect any data before the year 2000. I posted the graphs and charts showing exactly how much a difference this "error" (that you say they "shamefacedly had to admit") actually made:




Source: NASA




2) 1934 was NOT the hottest year, as Zappa seems to think. Not by ANY of the models, not even his beloved hadCrut model, not by the GISS, not by NASA scientists. Not only can you look at the global temperature anomaly chart up there, but go directly to NASA's website:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Quote:

---

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

---

3) 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as both Zappa and Phred seem to think, according to the average of surface-station models. If you average the GISS, hadCrut, and the NCDC, which all measure temperature at the SURFACE, then, as Nasa says, 2005 was the warmest year on record.

4) The temperature trend, using 5 year averages, has been increasing. There is noise in the data if you just look at a "temperature by month" chart(which will show SEVERAL fluctuations, due to significantly hot or significantly cold months), that they seem to be happy to give you. However, when the noise is smoothed out and you take 5 year averages, which are the best way to determine LONG TERM TRENDS, here is what their own graphs show... (the hadCrut, NCDC, and the GISS):



5) They tried to say that the corrections to a single set of stations covering only 2% of the world (the United States) somehow applies to temperature records globally, by more than .003 degrees C.

6) I will end by repeating this lie... Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.. Zappa posted an article and quoted this, a gross misrepresentation of the truth, because even as per NASA, 1934 was NOT the hottest year on earth. Not by a long shot.

Quote:

---

I still don't see how you see a downward trend from 1998 to 2008 unless you are directly comparing data from the year 1998 to the year 2008.

---

Quote:

---

It's the overall trend we care about. Instead, you have a desired conclusion so you prefer to choose 1998 and 2008 and compare the two years directly to get the result that you want. You are constructing your own effect to "disprove" a cause.

---

Quote:

---

It's laughable that you act like you don't have your own agenda. Here you are, polarizing the debate using terms like "global warmenists" when we are only talking about specific issues related to global temperature and C02 levels.

---

Quote:

---

You obviously harbor a deep hatred towards everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do.

---

Quote:

---

I gotta hand it to ya, though. You really know how to pick apart an argument and reword it to sound weak. You really know how to piss people off. I guess this is the kind of thing that you learn from posting on the shroomery for eight years.

---

Quote:

---

It is clear to anyone with an objective set of eyeballs that the trendline on all four charts over the last decade is downward. For some reason I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the evidence your own eyes show you.

---

Quote:

---

Phred:
Now, it may be that 1998 was an exceptionally high spike, and that looking at Jan 1997 to Jan 2007 would give a different trendline. And it may be that a year from now, looking at Jan 1999 to Jan 2009 will give yet another trendline. But that's not what Fireworks dude asked. He asked what had happened in the last decade -- since 1998. He specifically mentioned 1998. So I correctly informed him that the trend from Jan 1998 to Jan 2008 is downwards. And it is. No objective person can look at those four graphs and say the trendline is upwards, because it isn't. I find it astonishing you can write with a straight face that this data shows anything other than a downward trend, but hey... if you want to tell the readers "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" be my guest. The readers will draw their own conclusions about your credibility.

---

If you do as you say you are doing, measuring Jan 1998 and comparing it to Jan 2008, that does not mean that the average temperature has cooled over the last decade. That means that the average temperature of 1998 is higher than the average temperature of 2008. That does not mean that the earth was not heating up on average from 1998 to 2008. The trendline is clearly positive, even according to hadCrut, whose website I posted. When you post monthly raw hadcrut readings, you do not inform people that there is a measure of uncertainty in each of the monthly readings, and that true results are best obtained (according to hadCrut, NASA, and the GISS) by 5 year averages.

5 year averages prevent things like the "el-nino of the century" in 1998 from contaminating the data. El-nino was a global weather event, not representative of the climate trend. So sure, you can measure temp during the el-nino of the cenutry and compare it to today, but even on two of three surface observation records, the GISS an NCDC, you'd STILL be wrong, because they both show warming.

So sometimes the simplicity of "eyeball it and tell me what you think" quite honestly is VERY misleading. Here are the actual trends from hadCrut and GISS, which are from their DIRECT sites, not from any blog or anything like that. I ask readers to eyeball these trends and tell me what they think is happening... has the AVERAGE temperature of the earth heated up since the climate situation in 1998 (not the weather situation, referring to el-nino, but the CLIMATE situation), or has it cooled down?



Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov



Source: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3

How about you invite users to look at THESE charts, which are more accepted as representative of the surface temperature record of the earth, instead of the temperature of various swaths of the troposphere (which correct much faster)? (by the way, if you'd like an explanation of this, it's because the atmospheric CO2 does not allow IR to escape the atmosphere, and directs it back to the ground, causing most warming to happen in the lowest layer of the air.

Quote:

---

Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.

---

Quote:

---

Phil:

The Royal Meteorological Society publishes a peer-reviewed journal called the International Journal of Climatology.
In their October 2007 issue we find an article titled

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer

Read it and weep.

---

You are very emotionally involved in this, huh? With words like warmenist, warmist, however you like to call us. And then you say "read it and weep" as if you just discovered the equivalent of Luther's theses.

Anyhow, a plethora of scientists quickly posted a rebuttal, directly after it was submitted to the international journal of climatology put out by the British Royal Society.

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang 2006. Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE. Climate Dynam., 29, 661-696, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0255-8.


Here is what they found:

Quote:

---

Look at the lines luvdemshrooms drew. And note that he was being VERY generous -- his lines didn't even take into consideration the low point in 2008.

It's obvious all four graphs show a strong peak in 1998, then a dip for a couple-three years, then a short rise to a lengthy plateau which neither rises nor falls by much at all until the radical drop at the end. The overall trend is of course a decrease. It certainly isn't an increase.

---

Quote:

---

No, I just know how to read graphs. And please note again, for the umpteenth time, that I was not the one who wanted to know what the trend has been from early 1998 to early 2008. That was Fireworks dude. I wasn't going to say another damn thing in that thread -- since Global Warmening has nothing to do with politics -- until I saw his question and realized I had just a day earlier seen the four graphs which would answer his question perfectly. Like it or not, the very most recent data we have stretching back over 120 months shows a downward trend. That can't be disputed. We can argue till the cows come home about how significant the downward trend might be, or about the likelihood that it will be less or more when we compare from February of 1998 to February of 2008, or if we should be using a 108 month or 132 month moving window instead of a 120 month moving window. What we can't argue about is the direction of the trend for the last 120 months. Our own eyes tell us it's downward.

What I find so hilarious is the warmenists in this thread doing everything they can to get the rest of us to ignore the 1998 peak and instead choose some other starting point. Yet when the 1998 peak was reported, it was (according to the warmenists) the worst possible news the Earth could receive. Apocalyptic, even -- the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Temperature spiking even more radically than ever! When more rational folks pointed out it was just a brief and anomalous spike, they were labeled "deniers" and accused of being in the pockets of oil companies. Now these same folks are crying that it's not fair to include this brief and anomalous spike in a review and analysis of recent temperature trends, because it's a brief and anomalous spike. Can't have it both ways, yo.

---

GOOD JOB! You know how to read graphs. Too bad that does NOT cut you out to be a climatologist. You need to understand what the graph is in the first place. You posting monthly, NOISY graphs, and comparing the most anomolous month in one year to the most anomolous month in another year is disingenuous. It's pretty much disingenuous to compare one YEARLY average temperature to another YEARLY average temperature, when you are talking about long term trends. By the way, lets look at hadCrut's graph itself, from the hadley center itself, which COMPUTES the averages based off of a method different from "pick one month in one year, compare it to another month in another year 10 years later, and get a trend"



Look at the long term trends. A minor dip at the very end of the graph, has happened before other times, but the general trend is still increasing temperatures. As you can see, the AVERAGE temperatures have gone up.

You can check the source out for yourself:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3

You can also look at the GISS, which you seem to be ignoring:



Furthermore, as I posted in the last post, hadCrut is the only surface temperature model of the 3 surface temperature models that shows 1998 was hotter. NCDC and GISS both show that 2005 was hotter. If you average all the models
together, 2005 was indeed hotter.

I would also like to direct everybody to this post here where I show how not only are Phred and Zappa being disingenuous, but they have outright lied about the data and misrepresented scientific conclusions.

Oh, by the way, here is the third model I keep talking about, the NCDC (which uses the worlds largest collection of weather and temperature stations):



source:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

Here is what ANOTHER (besides NASA) institution, using ANOTHER graph says are the hottest years (the NCDC):

Quote:

---

For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.

Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.

The greatest warming has taken place in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Anomalous warmth in 2007 contributed to the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979, surpassing the previous record low set in 2005 by a remarkable 23 percent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, this is part of a continuing trend in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent reductions of approximately 10 percent per decade since 1979.

---

Quote:

---

Poster: joker_man
Subject: Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Quote:

Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.



I still don't see how you see a downward trend from 1998 to 2008 unless you are directly comparing data from the year 1998 to the year 2008. That's not how you do it. That's called comparing the year 1998 to the year 2008. It means nothing.

So, using your methodology, comparing 1997 to 2007 produces an upward trend. Just about any other recent decade gives us the same results. Big fucking whoop. Doesn't mean anything either. It's the overall trend we care about. Instead, you have a desired conclusion so you prefer to choose 1998 and 2008 and compare the two years directly to get the result that you want. You are constructing your own effect to "disprove" a cause.

It's laughable that you act like you don't have your own agenda. Here you are, polarizing the debate using terms like "global warmenists" when we are only talking about specific issues related to global temperature and C02 levels. You obviously harbor a deep hatred towards everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do.

I gotta hand it to ya, though. You really know how to pick apart an argument and reword it to sound weak. You really know how to piss people off. I guess this is the kind of thing that you learn from posting on the shroomery for eight years.

---

Quote:

---

They know how to take graphs and charts out of context and make it SEEM like they can pick apart an argument.

---

Cherry-picking is all they have.

If they made a presentation before a scientifically literate audience using their snipped and clipped charts and fingerpaintings they would be laughed out of the auditorium.

And now back to your pwnage..

Quote:

---

Cherry-picking is all they have.

If they made a presentation before a scientifically literate audience using their snipped and clipped charts and fingerpaintings they would be laughed out of the auditorium.

---