GISS maturity graph from 2008-2015

[IanC]

Someone should do a FOI for GISS yearly (or monthly) records since they started producing a global temp dataset. It would be interesting to see the direction and magnitude of changes over the last few decades.

Someone actually tried a more open-ended FOI on the same subject but it came to nothing when a bill for a quarter of a million dollars was sent before proceedings would commence.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Someone should do a FOI for GISS yearly (or monthly) records since they started producing a global temp dataset. It would be interesting to see the direction and magnitude of changes over the last few decades.

Someone actually tried a more open-ended FOI on the same subject but it came to nothing when a bill for a quarter of a million dollars was sent before proceedings would commence.

Seems to me a quarter million shouldn't be that big a chunk of change for some civic minded fellows or think-tank...heck I'll throw in some pocket change for a kickstarter effort....

 

[flacaltenn]

Someone should do a FOI for GISS yearly (or monthly) records since they started producing a global temp dataset. It would be interesting to see the direction and magnitude of changes over the last few decades.

Someone actually tried a more open-ended FOI on the same subject but it came to nothing when a bill for a quarter of a million dollars was sent before proceedings would commence.

Seems to me a quarter million shouldn't be that big a chunk of change for some civic minded fellows or think-tank...heck I'll throw in some pocket change for a kickstarter effort....

To see exactly what you're up against.. See this quote from James Hansen, the former HEAD of the NASA GISS temperature cooking branch.. Prime example of the political bias and activism that has invaded Govt "science"..

Climate what? Americans score a "D" in science!!! | Page 9 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mamooth]

Fascinating, all the effort that deniers put into evading the issue.

That issue, of course, is that the total adjustments to the global temperature data have made the warming look smaller. And that means the grand denier conspiracy theory is a big steaming pile.

They steadfastly refused to name the source of their data in this case, but given the results, it looks like the usual deliberate cherrypicking, where the ocean data is magically removed. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fascinating, all the effort that deniers put into evading the issue.

That issue, of course, is that the total adjustments to the global temperature data have made the warming look smaller. And that means the grand denier conspiracy theory is a big steaming pile.

They steadfastly refused to name the source of their data in this case, but given the results, it looks like the usual deliberate cherrypicking, where the ocean data is magically removed. Garbage in, garbage out.

You caught CRGraph syndrome from CrickHam. Hope you feel better soon. EVERYONE of the adjustments made are in Hansen's/Obama's favor.. Depress the 30s/40s --- raise the 90s/00s -- the 50 and 60s were the best data ever collected..

The LATEST revisions of OCEAN data are incredibly RAISED. Expect about 0.15degC adjustments to 2000 -- 2015... Do try to keep up...

 

[IanC]

Fascinating, all the effort that deniers put into evading the issue.

That issue, of course, is that the total adjustments to the global temperature data have made the warming look smaller. And that means the grand denier conspiracy theory is a big steaming pile.

They steadfastly refused to name the source of their data in this case, but given the results, it looks like the usual deliberate cherrypicking, where the ocean data is magically removed. Garbage in, garbage out.

Hahahahaha. The pooh flinging monkey is at it again. Hahahahaha.

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

 

[mamooth]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

 

[flacaltenn]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually.. EVEN if what you're asserting IS true -- which it's not --- the INDIVIDUAL adjustments on land and ocean would need to be defended ON THEIR OWN MERIT..

Not so clear thinking since you are an "end justifies the means" kinda of activist and not particularly skilled in logic reason and science..

 

[IanC]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

What an odd little creature you are!

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that climate4you didn't use the global GISS dataset?

Mind you, there is some controversy as to how much the ocean data is weighted by GISS. Apparently they smear land temps up to 1200kms into the oceans depending on the product.

Here is a link to yet another instance of how adjustments and methodologies don't seem to be operating as presented.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

 

[IanC]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually.. EVEN if what you're asserting IS true -- which it's not --- the INDIVIDUAL adjustments on land and ocean would need to be defended ON THEIR OWN MERIT..

Not so clear thinking since you are an "end justifies the means" kinda of activist and not particularly skilled in logic reason and science..

I totally agree. The pooh flinging monkey has latched on to the large ocean adjustments pre-WWII and makes the illogical assumption that one set of corrections in one direction, for one type of condition, means that all other adjustments are correct even if they improbaby all go in the opposite direction.

 

[flacaltenn]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually.. EVEN if what you're asserting IS true -- which it's not --- the INDIVIDUAL adjustments on land and ocean would need to be defended ON THEIR OWN MERIT..

Not so clear thinking since you are an "end justifies the means" kinda of activist and not particularly skilled in logic reason and science..

I totally agree. The pooh flinging monkey has latched on to the large ocean adjustments pre-WWII and makes the illogical assumption that one set of corrections in one direction, for one type of condition, means that all other adjustments are correct even if they improbaby all go in the opposite direction.

If what I read is true -- the newer version of NOAA ocean data, which is the starting point for EVERY Global surface measurement, will juice the past couple decades by a considerable amount. So save all the links and data you have -- history is about to get rewritten again..

 

[Billy_Bob]

First, the graph is clearly marked Climate4you. A simple Google of climate4you maturity graph will take you there. In fact, it has been updated once since I posted it, on Sep15, 2015. You will find info on many of the major global datasets.

Like I suspected, the graph does not include ocean temperatures. It excludes 70% of the data. GIGO.

Second, I have challenged you to discuss the pre-WWII ocean adjustments on several occasions and you declined. Apparently it is easier to make a general statement than to actually the specifics.

You haven't "challenged" anyone. You've babbled about buckets, but nobody can figure out why. Best guess is that it's your attempt at evasion. You've steadfastly refused to address the actual point that if one includes the ocean adjustments, as scientists always do, then the temperature adjustments make the total warming look smaller, which destroys your conspiracy theory.

Look, if some crank rants about how all the data on unicorn migrations is being faked to push a socialist agenda, I know to ignore it, because there are no unicorn migrations. There's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Likewise, if some cranks rants about how temperature data is being adjusted to make warming look bigger, I know to ignore that craziness, being how the temperature adjustments are making the warming look smaller. Again, there's no point spending effort refuting a total fiction.

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually.. EVEN if what you're asserting IS true -- which it's not --- the INDIVIDUAL adjustments on land and ocean would need to be defended ON THEIR OWN MERIT..

Not so clear thinking since you are an "end justifies the means" kinda of activist and not particularly skilled in logic reason and science..

I totally agree. The pooh flinging monkey has latched on to the large ocean adjustments pre-WWII and makes the illogical assumption that one set of corrections in one direction, for one type of condition, means that all other adjustments are correct even if they improbaby all go in the opposite direction.

If what I read is true -- the newer version of NOAA ocean data, which is the starting point for EVERY Global surface measurement, will juice the past couple decades by a considerable amount. So save all the links and data you have -- history is about to get rewritten again..

This would be a monumentally stupid move by NOAA. Given how stupid the Obama administration is lying about everything else, doing this to push their agenda is not unexpected. What it will do is show just how far they are will to go in an effort deprive us of our rights and our lives.. These watermelons need a good old Gallagher mallet.. (aka: Sledge-O-Matic)
you had to say "juiced" didn't ya...

 

[IanC]

climate4you welcome




Here is the link that mamooth wanted. I am actually posting it up for people that want quick access to climate related data and graphs, on most of the subjects like temps and ice. It is automatically updated but it also has archived data and background information, as well as links to pertinent papers and articles. It's run by a Norwegian professor in the climate science field.

Try it, you may find it useful.

 

[mamooth]

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually..

The end result does demolish your conspiracy theory. If scientists have a master plan to make warming look bigger, then why have the scientists spent so many years deliberately making the warming look smaller?

The explanation would be that your conspiracy theory is crap. That's the point all deniers keep running from. And since your conspiracy theory is such obvious crap, there's no point in examining the details of it. Crap is crap, whether your look at the big picture of the crap or the fine details of the crap.

 

[mamooth]

Ian, since you love maturity graphs, here's the maturity graph for RSS. RSS has adjusted the present temperatures down and past temperatures up. That is, it seems to show some very obvious tampering to make the current warming look smaller. Why didn't any of the deniers bring that up?

I await the creative explanations as to why such obvious fudging by RSS wasn't really fudging.

Now, I personally don't think it's fudging. However, I'm using denier conspiracy cult standards, which say that anything that isn't random noise automatically has to be a conspiracy. Therefore, by denier conspiracy cult standards, the RSS data has been faked, fudged and forged in order to hide the warming trend. Deniers got some 'splainin to do about why they've all so joyfully embraced such outright fraud. If they so knowingly push such a fraud, how can we trust a word they say?

 

[IanC]

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually..

The end result does demolish your conspiracy theory. If scientists have a master plan to make warming look bigger, then why have the scientists spent so many years deliberately making the warming look smaller?

The explanation would be that your conspiracy theory is crap. That's the point all deniers keep running from. And since your conspiracy theory is such obvious crap, there's no point in examining the details of it. Crap is crap, whether your look at the big picture of the crap or the fine details of the crap.

Deliberately? Making temps cooler? For years? Hahahahaha, what have you been smoking.


One (general type of) adjustment in the highly uncertain pre-1950 ocean temps does not 'make up' for the last decade of continuing adjustments made under the umbrella term of homogenization.

I would LIKE to discuss adjustments to ocean temps, but not with only me talking and everyone else just taking potshots.

 

[IanC]

Ian, since you love maturity graphs, here's the maturity graph for RSS. RSS has adjusted the present temperatures down and past temperatures up. That is, it seems to show some very obvious tampering to make the current warming look smaller. Why didn't any of the deniers bring that up?

I await the creative explanations as to why such obvious fudging by RSS wasn't really fudging.

Now, I personally don't think it's fudging. However, I'm using denier conspiracy cult standards, which say that anything that isn't random noise automatically has to be a conspiracy. Therefore, by denier conspiracy cult standards, the RSS data has been faked, fudged and forged in order to hide the warming trend. Deniers got some 'splainin to do about why they've all so joyfully embraced such outright fraud. If they so knowingly push such a fraud, how can we trust a word they say?

Hahahahaha, what a good. Point out some specific adjustments, like I have dozens of times. Then we can talk.

 

[Crick]

In other words, you don't want to talk about this because it will reveal your accusations lack validity.

"However, I'm using denier conspiracy cult standards, which say that anything that isn't random noise automatically has to be a conspiracy." --Mamooth

Perfect

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually --- it doesn't make scientific sense.. The END RESULT of the CUMULATIVE adjustments do not justify or prove the adjustments to land and ocean individually..

The end result does demolish your conspiracy theory. If scientists have a master plan to make warming look bigger, then why have the scientists spent so many years deliberately making the warming look smaller?

The explanation would be that your conspiracy theory is crap. That's the point all deniers keep running from. And since your conspiracy theory is such obvious crap, there's no point in examining the details of it. Crap is crap, whether your look at the big picture of the crap or the fine details of the crap.

There you go ignoring logic, reason, and science again. If EITHER piece or BOTH are phoney --- I don't GIVE 2 shits about how the end result looks... Gotten to the point where I've seen NOAA charts on their public outreach pages that don't look even VAGUELY similar to the actual databases. They don't FUNCKING care about their credibility anymore.

 

[mamooth]

Summary:

The reason-based people, being consistent, say nobody is making fraudulent changes.

The deniers, OTOH, are declaring changes are perfectly fine if it makes warming look smaller, while such changes are totally fraudulent if it makes warming look bigger.

So once more, consistency points are awarded to the rational side, and hypocrisy points are awarded to the deniers.