GISS temperature record is a fabrication

[PeshakJang]

There is not a single fact in this thread that disproves global warming.

Find me a fact anywhere that disproves there is a God.

Well, I guess the religious folks must be right otherwise, after all, they have all the best evidence.

 

[Amused]

Find me a fact anywhere that disproves there is a God.

Well, I guess the religious folks must be right otherwise, after all, they have all the best evidence.

No shit. It simply amazes me how all the MMGW arguments sound EXACTLY like those made by religionists.

"It's too complicated to understand, just trust us."

"It's safer to believe and act and be wrong, than to not believe and not act, and be wrong."

"Prove it's not happening!!!" or "Prove man's not causing it!!!"

And so on. It seems all logic goes right out the window. MMGW theory requires faith. Period.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is not a single fact in this thread that disproves global warming.

As you well know, the theory of global warming is due to an "unprecedented" rise in global temperatures, where the rise has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius. We’re working with fairly small temperature differences here on which to base such theories.

With that in mind, after accounting for errors in the data, is our warmth these past few decades really unprecedented? The theory depends on accuracy to uphold the claim of unprecedented.

As per the link at the bottom of the OP:

GISS Arctic Trends Disagree with Satellite Data
By Steven Goddard

GISS has explained their steeper temperature slope since 1998 vs. Had-Crut, as being due to the fact that they are willing to extrapolate 1200 km across the Arctic into regions where they may have no data – whereas Had-Crut prefers to work with regions of the Arctic where they actually have thermometers. WUWT reader “Wren” suggested that I compare GISS Arctic trends vs other sources to see how they compare. GISS has been showing Arctic temperatures rising very fast, as seen below.





However, GISS Arctic temperatures have been rising much faster than other data sources. The graph below shows the difference between GISS and RSS (GISS minus RSS) Arctic temperatures.





And the same graph for UAH.





Conclusions: GISS explains their increases vs. Had Crut as being due to their Arctic coverage. Their Arctic coverage is poor, and they rely on extrapolations across large distances with no data. Comparisons with other data sources show that GISS extrapolations across the Arctic are likely too high. In short, GISS trends over the last decade are most likely based on faulty extrapolations in the Arctic, and are probably not reliable indicators of global or Arctic temperature trends during that time period.

 

[monovillage]

Sometimes I think that the Global Warming proponents would get tired of having apologize for the poor science that's obviously policy and politically driven. It's science, you can't spin, lie or twist it to be politically correct, it has to be proven by data, there has to be evidence and it has to be tested. NASA/GISS by sending out press releases about the "hottest year ever" and then gaming the data is an embarrassment to anyone that has any respect for real science.

 

[silverpig]

God dammit, HIRE A FUCKING STATISTICIAN YOU DUMB FUCKS.

 

[Throckmorton]

Jaskalas, go and read the article on Google Docs. I'm guessing this Goddard guy is hoping no one actually reads it.

They go into great detail explaining their statistical methods, including the elimination of urban stations that would cause average temperature to appear much higher than normal, verification of temperatures by comparison to neighboring stations, etc.

 

[NeoV]

hmm... a story on whatsupwiththat, and all the 'man can't impact the climate' morons start their circle jerk

it's actually comical how drastically wrong the entire article is, but it's more comical to see you idiots hop right on - "See, told you!"

 

[Double Trouble]

Jaskalas, go and read the article on Google Docs. I'm guessing this Goddard guy is hoping no one actually reads it.

They go into great detail explaining their statistical methods, including the elimination of urban stations that would cause average temperature to appear much higher than normal, verification of temperatures by comparison to neighboring stations, etc.

That's fine and dandy, but did you miss this part?

Their Arctic coverage is poor, and they rely on extrapolations across large distances with no data.

I'm glad they took out the urban stations from the arctic measurements though

 

[dmcowen674]

Essentially, the Arctic’s current weather is cooler than average.

That's why I've been calling all this melting Global Cooling

 

[Throckmorton]

That's fine and dandy, but did you miss this part?

I'm glad they took out the urban stations from the arctic measurements though

That's what you have to do, because there aren't stations everywhere. Do you and Goddard have any reason to believe the extrapolations from the stations that do exist in the arctic are invalid? No. Read the fucking article and stop lapping up the vomit from the flat earthers. Start on page 1.

Snap yourselves out of the Alex Jones conspiracy theorist daze and it might occur to you buffoons that if the ice caps have been shrinking for the past century, that means they've been warming for the past century, because that's how ice works. You can't change that by complaining about statistics you don't understand.

 

[Hacp]

That's what you have to do, because there aren't stations everywhere. Do you and Goddard have any reason to believe the extrapolations from the stations that do exist in the arctic are invalid? No. Read the fucking article and stop lapping up the vomit from the flat earthers. Start on page 1.

Snap yourselves out of the Alex Jones conspiracy theorist daze and it might occur to you buffoons that if the ice caps have been shrinking for the past century, that means they've been warming for the past century, because that's how ice works. You can't change that by complaining about statistics you don't understand.

Of course extrapolations are not valid at 1200km. Thats why they're extrapolations! Would you computer the average temperature of Kansas by measuring temperatures in Michigan and extrapolating? No fucking way.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Oh it's Summer time and it's cooler in the Arctic then normal, well there is nothing but the Sun to warm it up and we are still in that cool Sun phaze( two cycles of Sun spot activity hitting bottom at the same time). OP, I am underwhelmed by the topic.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Of course extrapolations are not valid at 1200km. Thats why they're extrapolations! Would you computer the average temperature of Kansas by measuring temperatures in Michigan and extrapolating? No fucking way.

WAY!! Betcha you could average Iowa and south Texas and come pretty close.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's what you have to do, because there aren't stations everywhere. Do you and Goddard have any reason to believe the extrapolations from the stations that do exist in the arctic are invalid? No. Read the fucking article and stop lapping up the vomit from the flat earthers. Start on page 1.

Snap yourselves out of the Alex Jones conspiracy theorist daze and it might occur to you buffoons that if the ice caps have been shrinking for the past century, that means they've been warming for the past century, because that's how ice works. You can't change that by complaining about statistics you don't understand.

The extrapolations have thus been proven wrong. Just how much did they contribute to the claim of unprecedented warming?

 

[monovillage]

WAY!! Betcha you could average Iowa and south Texas and come pretty close.

That's perfectly true, but it isn't good science. DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) takes the time and trouble to actually get accurate temperature readings in the arctic, those readings don't agree with NASA/GISS, neither do the satellite numbers from Hadley/CRU. Guesstimating/estimating/averaging/interpolating/imagining are no substitute for accurate scientific data and NASA/GISS lose credibility when they try to claim that it is.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's what you have to do, because there aren't stations everywhere. Do you and Goddard have any reason to believe the extrapolations from the stations that do exist in the arctic are invalid? No.

Uh, yes. Other measurements (like monovillage mentioned) are not consistent with the "extrapolations". That calls into question the whole methodology of extrapolation and (essentially) guesstimating. It's not good science either, you're adding assumptions to the mix that may prove to be invalid.

Read the fucking article and stop lapping up the vomit from the flat earthers. Start on page 1. Snap yourselves out of the Alex Jones conspiracy theorist daze and it might occur to you buffoons

See, that's why the global warming/climate change idea is starting to lose steam and is losing the PR war, with more and more people doubting. When presented with someone else's view or interpretation, people like you and shira go straight to name-calling and ranting rather than adding anything substantial.

You can't change that by complaining about statistics you don't understand.

Sounds a lot like a religious argument to me "just trust us, you don't understand it, but it's true".

I'm a firm believer that human pollution has an impact on the environment, and I'm open to any scientific perspectives on it. I don't have my mind made up about what is / is not happening to the earth's environment, I look for science to answer those questions. The religious zeal and fervor of the people pushing the global warming angle is enough to drive people away though....... Not to mention of course the left wing political agenda that has conveniently hitched a ride on the MMGW train to further it's goals.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is not a single fact in this thread that disproves global warming.

I said facts that could lead people to lose faith in the global warming religion, and that's exactly what it is. A giant religion with legions of true believers pushing the hoax on everyone else.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is so simple....1200km extrapolations used by GISS are bogus and show greatly exaggerated warming. It appears that the faithful have great difficulty dealing with anything that potentially endangers their beliefs. Lordy me...nevermind that HadCrut, RSS, and UAH temperature data are consistent and the GISS data is way 'out there'.

It's really pathetic that something so simple and obvious, is so hard for the true believers to understand. It's pointless to discuss anything with irrational people who could really care less about good science.

 

[Thebobo]

Sometimes I think that the Global Warming proponents would get tired of having apologize for the poor science that's obviously policy and politically driven.

I just don't see the motivation in what you are claiming. A great conspiracy of scientist to continue to get grants? What benefit is there for it to be politically driven?

There is way more to gained by denying global warming by those who regulations and policy that might be effected no?

 

[Gunslinger08]

snip

 

[Genx87]

I just don't see the motivation in what you are claiming. A great conspiracy of scientist to continue to get grants? What benefit is there for it to be politically driven?

There is way more to gained by denying global warming by those who regulations and policy that might be effected no?

I dont think it is a conspiracy. But I can definately see a system that is setup to reward MMGW. A lot of these grants are issued by govts, govts run by politicians who have an interest in MMGW being real so they can exert more control over the populace. How long will grants be issued if MMGW is proven false? While these scientists might have set out on a noble mission. They have to put food on the table like anybody else.

 

[DrPizza]

I dont think it is a conspiracy. But I can definately see a system that is setup to reward MMGW. A lot of these grants are issued by govts, govts run by politicians who have an interest in MMGW being real so they can exert more control over the populace. How long will grants be issued if MMGW is proven false? While these scientists might have set out on a noble mission. They have to put food on the table like anybody else.

Things like the OP in this thread are commonly reported on. I'm not sure how reliable the OP's information is, considering the source. But, ignoring that for a moment, for the sake of argument, let's say they DID make a mistake in the Arctic (which I'm not sure is very credible.)

So, out of the 1000's of conclusions that there is MMGW, the deniers are up to what? Showing that 7 or 8 of them have errors in them? That's reported on, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of data and conclusions in favor of MMGW.

 

[Lemon law]

Arctic temperatures, however inaccurate they are or are not, is just one of many ways to monitor global warming.

And this whole thread is just one more example of global warming deniers seizing on any straw, to say, see, this disproves global warming.

The point is that we have many other independent ways to measure arctic temperatures, not only at the poles, but at lower latitudes also. One such measure is
simply visual, the amount of arctic ice, and when its vanishing at an alarming rate, and opening up a Northwest passage that never really existed before, it very hard for a denier to deny undeniable evidence.

But that seemingly never deters a true denier, as they search and cherry pick at every little anomaly they can find, as they sound as credible as the Iraqi information minister, motor mouthing onward, until they finally realize they have been FOS all along.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Things like the OP in this thread are commonly reported on. I'm not sure how reliable the OP's information is, considering the source. But, ignoring that for a moment, for the sake of argument, let's say they DID make a mistake in the Arctic (which I'm not sure is very credible.)

So, out of the 1000's of conclusions that there is MMGW, the deniers are up to what? Showing that 7 or 8 of them have errors in them? That's reported on, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of data and conclusions in favor of MMGW.

"Considering the source"...why don't you check out the reliability of the information for yourself? Shouldn't be too difficult as all this information is readily available and in plain sight.

This is your chance to catch those pesky 'deniers' in a bold face lie or, at least, a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Godspeed!

 

[monovillage]

Things like the OP in this thread are commonly reported on. I'm not sure how reliable the OP's information is, considering the source. But, ignoring that for a moment, for the sake of argument, let's say they DID make a mistake in the Arctic (which I'm not sure is very credible.)

So, out of the 1000's of conclusions that there is MMGW, the deniers are up to what? Showing that 7 or 8 of them have errors in them? That's reported on, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of data and conclusions in favor of MMGW.

Just considering that you use the term "denier" in an attempt to equate people that disagree or have doubts about MMGW to Holocaust deniers pretty much says it all about your point of view. I don't disagree with the fact that the world has been slightly warming over the last 130+ years, or do I disagree that CO2 has an impact on it. I just despise the agenda driven advocacy that so many climate scientists like Hansen and others have turned to.