THIS THREAD IS ALREADY CLOSED.
According to Larry Fields: I really like the Open Thread. I don’t have the energy to keep up with the long articles at WUWT and elsewhere. Commenters who provide links in the Open Thread help me prioritize my reading.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Well it’s about time sceptics stopped lying on temperature trends – no warming for umpty ump years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1996/offset:-0.4/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/offset:-0.29/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/offset:-0.4/mean:12/trend/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12/trend
Fancy picking RSS with even Roy Spencer thinks has issues http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
Luke,
I agree with you, in that we should not have total confidence in Roy Spencer’s satellite record.
Can you agree with me, we should have even less confidence in the Hadcrut and GISS series?
I’m not sure if you read my address to the Sydney Institute… http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Marohasy_Abbot_Stewart_Jensen_2014_06_25_Final.pdf
It would suggest that the GISS dataset you quote above, and in fact all the global data sets, are more than suspect, because of the algorithms they have been applying.
Perhaps Steve Goddard illustrates the problem a bit more clearly here… http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/nasa-hacking-australia/
Can we get some agreement that the GISS and HadCRUT temperatures series have been compromised?
Another body blow for the tree thermometer crew.
Size and age of plants impact their productivity more than climate, study shows
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-size-age-impact-productivity-climate.html#jCp
I’m thinking I tweet this over to Michael Mann. Heh.
Err was the opposite – the lack of confidence was in RSS and more in UAH?
UAH lines up with other data sets – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend
Jen – I have some confidence in the power of big numbers. It would be unsurprising not to find some issues with some stations – it’s a question of extent. Compromised? or imperfect.
What one can also do is line up a range of data sets – including SST and NMAT. Change in species behaviour. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html
Do they tell a similar story?
Jeez – a productive exchange with Jen – I feel sorta weird.
Luke,
For this to be productive:
1. I would like you to articulate my problems with the GISS and HadCrut temperature series.
Please.
Jen I’m not sure I can exactly articulate your problems?
– despite accusations I hardly ever quote SkS however in this case they have a handy summary of the many people that have been through this, the very many often quoted problems, alternative reconstructions and even using raw data. Answers are all much the same.
You may have found a few anomalies in adjusted analyses but does it alter the big global picture? e.g. Figure 5. Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 data, 1880–2010 (analysis by Zeke Hausfather).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255
Helliker and Richter showed that tree leaves maintain their own temperature. Now Michaletz and Enquist extend that to include the pulp of the tree.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-size-age-impact-productivity-climate.html#jCp
Treerings do not make thermometers. Mounting evidence shows.
@ Luke; Well it’s about time sceptics stopped lying on temperature trends – no warming for umpty ump years.
Who’s lying Luke? Using SkS’s own trend calculator, there has been ZERO warming so far this century (Jan 1st, 2001). As of this post, that is 14 years, 6 months and 21 days.
GISTEMP – Trend: 0.022 ±0.157 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA – Trend: -0.003 ±0.145 °C/decade (2σ)
HADCRUT4 – Trend: -0.009 ±0.141 °C/decade (2σ)
BEST – Trend: 0.064 ±0.384 °C/decade (2σ)
NOAA (land only) – Trend: 0.063 ±0.264 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS – Trend: -0.060 ±0.252 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH – Trend: 0.054 ±0.252 °C/decade (2σ)
The long term temperature trends for most of the continent of Australia show a consistent pattern. Cooling trends from pre-1900 to around 1960, followed by a warming trend from 1960 to present. Plot out the data for yourself if you know how to use Excel, its not difficult. A ten year old Cuban school pupil could do it. Not so great at mathematics here, unfortunately.
The net effect – not much. So we have cooling with increasing carbon dioxide, followed by warming with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Poor Mr Gore and Mr Flannery. They will have to think up another culprit.
But doncha luv the Raw v Acorn:
https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/bris-raw-v-acorn.jpg
Is that ‘raw’ compared to ‘cooked,’ sd?
pre-1900 data are highly suspect. Thermometers 101.
P.S. Don’t mention the minima – shhhhhh
I think its all suspect – its the drink.
Luke: “pre-1900 data are highly suspect. Thermometers 101”
The data starts at 1950 – reading and compreension 101 Luke.
https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/bris-raw-v-acorn.jpg
Sp – July 21, 2014 at 5:11 pm – do try to keep up !
Luke,
The detail matters, the integrity of the data matters.
Nothing is more basic to science than the integrity of the received evidence.
As someone with apparently no concept of right and wrong you are not welcome here any longer.
Please desist from posting at this blog.
You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just the first step. Be gone with scoundrels from this blog.
****
This thread is now closed.