Giss says HOTTEST NOV in record history and hottest Fall!!!!!

[9aces]

The world began in 1880....I'm shocked. I had thought it was older than that.

That is how far the record goes back for global surface data. Not that the world started in 1880.

Goddamn, lol.


Most surface proxies when put together at the global level support the idea of the last decade being the warmest in at least a thousand years. Is that good enough for you?

No it isn't. 1000 years is an improvement in you stretching your mind to start realizing the climate history of this planet has never worked the way you suppose based off a micro fraction of the data.

The climate history of this planet is measured in eras comprising millions of years. Heck RECENT history of the planet is defined in the Cenozoic Era an eyeblink in history only 66 million years long.

Heck I'll even be kind and break it down to the Quaternary period which is a mere 2 1/2 million years. Around that time this species called Homo Habilis arose and the temperature was considerably warmer than now. Just an illustration of how inadequate the data you're using to project forward is.

 

[IanC]

When the world as a whole is getting warmer than it has in over ten thousand years and is doing so at a rate not seen in millions of years, it's something worthy of your concern. When the logical and the only possible cause is increased greenhouse gases, it's worth looking further. When virtually the sole source of all that increased greenhouse gas is human activity, it's time to do something about it.

What?????????

I have a far less cartoonish and far less cherry picked graph Frank. It looks like this:

Even without Karl, a better look at global climate trends looks like this:

View attachment 58854

Its Alarmists who are totally oblivious to the SINE wave of normal cyclical variation. And yet there it is...

Are you sure you want to finish the job the warmers have done to get rid of the warming of the 30's and 40's?

Most of that warmth was caused by regional short term climate patterns that effected mostly north America. The same thing occurred over a much longer period which we call the little ice age.

hey I missed this Matt. usually you avoid me like the plague.

it is difficult to find long running stations outside of Europe and North america.

here is one from South Africa.

kinda looks like they had warming in the 30s and 40s.

oh....and for those people who tell me that the GISS figures have only changed by a few hundredths of a degree C.

here is the most recent graph for Capetown Safr

 

[IanC]

how about Reykjavic? hahahahaha

old version

new version

still warm in the 30s and 40s

still an unexplained 3C 'correction' at 1940 in the new version.

 

[IanC]

it is easy to plot up any station you want. simply go to...

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

for the new version, do nothing

for the old version, click on version 2 data, in this paragraph

We also provide access to the last release that was based on GHCN version 2 data. It is an archive of the GISTEMP station record from Nov 2011 when we discontinued the use of NCDCs GHCNv2 dataset and is provided only as a historical facility. The differences between this station data set and our current station dataset are due to the switch from GHCN v2 to GHCN v3.2, and the reliance on NCDC homogenizations of station data instead of our own original methodology

 

[Crick]

The world began in 1880....I'm shocked. I had thought it was older than that.

That is how far the record goes back for global surface data. Not that the world started in 1880.

Goddamn, lol.


Most surface proxies when put together at the global level support the idea of the last decade being the warmest in at least a thousand years. Is that good enough for you?

No it isn't. 1000 years is an improvement in you stretching your mind to start realizing the climate history of this planet has never worked the way you suppose based off a micro fraction of the data.

The climate history of this planet is measured in eras comprising millions of years. Heck RECENT history of the planet is defined in the Cenozoic Era an eyeblink in history only 66 million years long.

Heck I'll even be kind and break it down to the Quaternary period which is a mere 2 1/2 million years. Around that time this species called Homo Habilis arose and the temperature was considerably warmer than now. Just an illustration of how inadequate the data you're using to project forward is.

That the Earth's history extends back 3.5 billion years or that climatic periods of millions of years exist does NOT give ANY indication how much data are required to make predictions for the next few centuries.

 

[Crick]

how about Reykjavic? hahahahaha

old version

new version

still warm in the 30s and 40s

still an unexplained 3C 'correction' at 1940 in the new version.

1) How do you justify your presumption that adjustments are made for purposes of deception? There are hundreds of instances in which data have been adjusted with clear and irrefutable justification.
2) Can you identify temperature record adjustments for which (real) climate scientists believe the justification inadequate?
3) How much change do you believe exists in the GLOBAL record as a result of those changes?

 

[IanC]

1) How do you justify your presumption that adjustments are made for purposes of deception? There are hundreds of instances in which data have been adjusted with clear and irrefutable justification.

2) Can you identify temperature record adjustments for which (real) climate scientists believe the justification inadequate?

3) How much change do you believe exists in the GLOBAL record as a result of those changes?

here we go again. do you have a quote of mine where I said that adjustments were made to deceive? of course not, because I havent said that. do you remember my answer from the last half dozen times you have asked this or similar questions?

every time I say that it is foolish to blame something on dishonesty or evil when simple groupthink and incompetence will suffice for the reason.

there are indeed many instances where there is clear and irrefutable justification for adjustments. that does not mean that the adjustments themselves as carried out are clear or irrefutably justified. there is a big distinction between those two statements.

groupthink- what do I mean by this? certain outcomes are more favoured than others. there is a AGW CO2 based theory about how the Earth should be warming. every increase in the trend of warming is helpful to support that theory, the opposite just means more critical questions from skeptics or agnostics. Feynman has a story he told his students about the mistake Millikan made when measuring the size of electrical charge on an electron. it should have been caught the first time someone replicated the experiment yet it took many replications, all moving a little closer to the correct value. Why? Millikan was a revered scientist and no one could believe he was wrong, so they searched for reasons to fudge their answers towards his. not for purposes of deception, but because they thought Millikan was right.

incompetence- I have pointed out many instances of blatant mistakes found by others, and one that I found myself with respect to identifying a station location. some eventually get corrected but many others just stay on the books. I, and many others have brought up Reykjavik as a prime example of how the blackbox algorithms sometimes spit out ridiculous results. anyone who has tried to write code knows that bugs are almost inevitable. but when you find an erroneous result, you go back and fix the problem. you yourself investigated and found that nearby stations were only being adjusted ~1C, yet Reykjavik is being adjusted 3C!!!. when GISS was questioned about this and asked for a detailed list of partial adjustments to explain this discrepancy they initially said they would and then they decided to stonewall and ignore the requests. they lost an opportunity to fix an obvious problem, and to allay suspicions.

2) Can you identify temperature record adjustments for which (real) climate scientists believe the justification inadequate?

I think a better question would be, are there climate scientists who think the adjustments are inadequate to the justifications? a German climate scientist continued to run in parallel the old technology thermometer set up with the new technology thermometer that replaced it. the difference he found, even after applying the official 'adjustments' was significant, to the point of accounting for all the upwards trend in the period studied. I could find the links but it has been discussed here before and you were present.

I am also sure that many scientists and climate scientists, especially in private conversation, look askance at the claim that the Urban Heat Island Effect has no overall effect on temperature datasets. (Berkeley BEST actually states that the past needs to be cooled to compensate ??!!??)

3) How much change do you believe exists in the GLOBAL record as a result of those changes?

here we go again. do you actually think mistakes should be ignored because they dont individually make a big impact overall?

in 2007 Steve McIntyre found a mistake that had been sitting on the books since Y2K, the turn of the millennium. Hansen had to make a correction of -0.15C to US temps for those 8 years. the Warmists said it didnt matter!!!! you see it only effects global temps less than 0.01 because the US is only a small percentage of the globe. it affected the temps by more than the amount of these 'warmest year evahhhh' records being set. they seem to be important to some.



next time you want to make a strawman accusation against me like 'How do you justify your presumption that adjustments are made for purposes of deception', please include a quote of mine. if you cannot find the quote, dont make the accusation.

 

[Crick]

1) How do you justify your presumption that adjustments are made for purposes of deception? There are hundreds of instances in which data have been adjusted with clear and irrefutable justification.

2) Can you identify temperature record adjustments for which (real) climate scientists believe the justification inadequate?

3) How much change do you believe exists in the GLOBAL record as a result of those changes?

here we go again. do you have a quote of mine where I said that adjustments were made to deceive? of course not, because I havent said that. do you remember my answer from the last half dozen times you have asked this or similar questions?

every time I say that it is foolish to blame something on dishonesty or evil when simple groupthink and incompetence will suffice for the reason.

there are indeed many instances where there is clear and irrefutable justification for adjustments. that does not mean that the adjustments themselves as carried out are clear or irrefutably justified. there is a big distinction between those two statements.

groupthink- what do I mean by this? certain outcomes are more favoured than others. there is a AGW CO2 based theory about how the Earth should be warming. every increase in the trend of warming is helpful to support that theory, the opposite just means more critical questions from skeptics or agnostics. Feynman has a story he told his students about the mistake Millikan made when measuring the size of electrical charge on an electron. it should have been caught the first time someone replicated the experiment yet it took many replications, all moving a little closer to the correct value. Why? Millikan was a revered scientist and no one could believe he was wrong, so they searched for reasons to fudge their answers towards his. not for purposes of deception, but because they thought Millikan was right.

incompetence- I have pointed out many instances of blatant mistakes found by others, and one that I found myself with respect to identifying a station location. some eventually get corrected but many others just stay on the books. I, and many others have brought up Reykjavik as a prime example of how the blackbox algorithms sometimes spit out ridiculous results. anyone who has tried to write code knows that bugs are almost inevitable. but when you find an erroneous result, you go back and fix the problem. you yourself investigated and found that nearby stations were only being adjusted ~1C, yet Reykjavik is being adjusted 3C!!!. when GISS was questioned about this and asked for a detailed list of partial adjustments to explain this discrepancy they initially said they would and then they decided to stonewall and ignore the requests. they lost an opportunity to fix an obvious problem, and to allay suspicions.

2) Can you identify temperature record adjustments for which (real) climate scientists believe the justification inadequate?

I think a better question would be, are there climate scientists who think the adjustments are inadequate to the justifications? a German climate scientist continued to run in parallel the old technology thermometer set up with the new technology thermometer that replaced it. the difference he found, even after applying the official 'adjustments' was significant, to the point of accounting for all the upwards trend in the period studied. I could find the links but it has been discussed here before and you were present.

I am also sure that many scientists and climate scientists, especially in private conversation, look askance at the claim that the Urban Heat Island Effect has no overall effect on temperature datasets. (Berkeley BEST actually states that the past needs to be cooled to compensate ??!!??)

3) How much change do you believe exists in the GLOBAL record as a result of those changes?

here we go again. do you actually think mistakes should be ignored because they dont individually make a big impact overall?

in 2007 Steve McIntyre found a mistake that had been sitting on the books since Y2K, the turn of the millennium. Hansen had to make a correction of -0.15C to US temps for those 8 years. the Warmists said it didnt matter!!!! you see it only effects global temps less than 0.01 because the US is only a small percentage of the globe. it affected the temps by more than the amount of these 'warmest year evahhhh' records being set. they seem to be important to some.



next time you want to make a strawman accusation against me like 'How do you justify your presumption that adjustments are made for purposes of deception', please include a quote of mine. if you cannot find the quote, dont make the accusation.

I've sent a copy of this to my office. I'll work on this in my spare time today.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is 3 degrees outside with 4" of snow.