Giss, 2010 warmest thus far

[Old Rocks]

Comparison of 2010 Temperature to the Two Other Years with the Warmest Annual Means

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

 

[westwall]

Is this the same GISS that acknowledged that their data was inferior to the CRU? Which we then found out had no raw data? That they had "lost" all of their raw data? Is this the
same GISS we're talking about? If it is then they have no credibility at the current time.

 

[gslack]

Comparison of 2010 Temperature to the Two Other Years with the Warmest Annual Means

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

Dude stop making up shit.. Seriously its tiresome busting you on it... from your link...

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Analysis Graphs and Plots

Figures on this page were prepared by Dr. Makiko Sato. Please address questions about the figures to Dr. Sato or to Dr. James Hansen.

Click on any graph to view an enlargement of the image. PDF documents require a special viewer such as the free Adobe Reader.

What's New

Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.

Nov. 14, 2009: USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.

Sep. 11, 2009: NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on Sept. 9 of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning Sept. 11 the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set.

Old News

Comparison of 2010 Temperature to the Two Other Years with the Warmest Annual Means

Figure also available as PDF. See Table for details. (Last modified: 2010-06-10)

notice the bottom of the graph pic there... it says "Base period 1951-1980"

WTH does that mean? Well it means they base what they call "anomalies" on their deviance from the 1951-1980 base temp averages..... So we aren't really talking about 130 years or so of comparison as the claims lead to believe, but rather comparison of modern temps to a 29 year average...

in other words they basically take 130 or so years of collected temp data, and then compare it to modern satellite temp data, and then using the 1951-1980 as reference they say this or that modern temp is anomalous at any given time or place...

So... 30 years as a base, comparing 130 or so years and modern satellite data, and then saying this is a strange deviation from this or that.... ok....

Sure they use 130 years of data, but the compare it to a 29 year period to discern what is and is not an anomalous.. Talk about fucked up....

Look if we cannot get these fuckheads to just knock off the bullshit snow job, why even bother calling them experts any more.... Why don't they just take the temps and compare them across the board to the last 130 years straight up and without all the nonsense? Because the reality is those numbers will not be so scary and they require a fear to sell this horse shit....

Oldsocks this is getting too easy to bust you on... And the fact your claim above is not mentioned on there is even more telling of your character....

 

[Old Rocks]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought the Vostok Ice Cores established an 800 year lag between Temp and CO2? What the ******* ****? Is this some Super Mutant strain of CO2?

 

[Oddball]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

When NASA's own numbers purposefully cherry pick a scant 60-year record of temps to try and "prove" the AGW hoax, and you glom onto it like it's the Sermon on the Mount, it's pretty evident who has the inferior level of intelligence, Old Rocksinthehead.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's even warmer than when the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea and there were no polar ice caps! Dats how Warm it be!

 

[Old Rocks]

It's even warmer than when the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea and there were no polar ice caps! Dats how Warm it be!

How's the hollow moon coming along, Frank?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

When NASA's own numbers purposefully cherry pick a scant 60-year record of temps to try and "prove" the AGW hoax, and you glom onto it like it's the Sermon on the Mount, it's pretty evident who has the inferior level of intelligence, Old Rocksinthehead.

Sure, Dooodeee......sure. Now, any science to back up your yap-yap?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's even warmer than when the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea and there were no polar ice caps! Dats how Warm it be!

How's the hollow moon coming along, Frank?

I'm meltingggggggggggggg meltingggggggggg.

Don't get no Giss upon the sofa, sofa

 

[Oddball]

...magical pig!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's even warmer than when the Western US was under the Great Inland Sea and there were no polar ice caps! Dats how Warm it be!

How's the hollow moon coming along, Frank?

More science supports the possibility of a Hollow Moon than AGW and that's gotta hurt!

 

[westwall]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

For once you're actually correct old fraud. NASA has screwed itself up bigtime by allowing a loon like Hansen to run things into the ground as he did. Furthermore once it was known how bad their data collection systems were...well I would think you could take it from there.

 

[gslack]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

No I just know bullshit when I see it.. And you obviously do not....

 

[ScienceRocks]

I see, ol' Suckee..... NASA just doesn't stand a chance around your superior intelligence.

When NASA's own numbers purposefully cherry pick a scant 60-year record of temps to try and "prove" the AGW hoax, and you glom onto it like it's the Sermon on the Mount, it's pretty evident who has the inferior level of intelligence, Old Rocksinthehead.

I would start with the lowest point of the little ice age to measure temperature trend. Any further back then you have to go back at least 5,000 years to smooth out the up and downs to find a trend.

We're within a warm period much like The med evil warm period. Who's to say that there is not some ghg effect, but I don't believe it's a big deal on top of the natural warm period that we're currently in. Also makes, I believe the cool and warm phases become less so being that they(Limited amount of green house gas) allow for moderation in the climate. We will see of course.