It is always struck me as an amazing irony that the folks at NASA (the GISS is part of NASA) is at the vanguard of defending surface temperature measurement (as embodied in the GISS metric) against measurement by NASA satellites in space.
For decades now, the GISS surface temperature metric has diverged from satellite measurement, showing much more warming than have the satellites. Many have argued that this divergence is in large part due to poor siting of measurement sites, making them subject to urban heat island biases. I also pointed out a while back that much of the divergence occurs in areas like Africa and Antarctica where surface measurement coverage is quite poor compared to satellite coverage.
Anthony Watt had an interesting post where he pointed out that
This means that all of the US temperatures – including those for Alaska and Hawaii – were collected from either an airport (the bulk of the data) or an urban location
I will remind you that my son’s urban heat island project (which got similar results as the “professionals”) showed a 10F heat island over Phoenix, centered approximately on the Phoenix airport. And don’t forget the ability of scientists to create warming through measurement adjustments in the computer, a practice on which Anthony has an update (and here).
“It is always struck me as an amazing irony that the folks at NASA (the GISS is part of NASA) is at the vanguard of defending surface temperature measurement (as embodied in the GISS metric) against measurement by NASA satellites in space.”
It has always struck as amazing that you are unable to take on board even the most basic facts about climate science. In what way are GISS “defending surface temperature measurement…against measurement by NASA satellites in space”? Are you so ignorant that you didn’t know that GISS relies on satellite measurements?
“For decades now, the GISS surface temperature metric has diverged from satellite measurement, showing much more warming than have the satellites”
Lie.
“I will remind you that my son…”
I pity your offspring for being cursed with a mentally deficient ideologue for a parent.
Three decades of divergence
Lie, still.
“Hunter” is maybe some schill involved with GISS?
There are many ways to compare the 4 temperature series, and some ways emphasize the differences while other ways minimize the differences. I believe, we have an example of how offsets can be used to achieve divergent purposes. Joshv uses an offset an offset so that both lines begin at the same starting point, and this dramatizes how much a small difference in growth leads to large gaps through time. “Hunter” has lines crossing in the middle, and visually minimizes the gaps by spreading the difference in opposite directions on the ends. Meanwhile there are ways to present the satellite data as being similar as opposed to the surface-based series. Meanwhile, I do believe that “Hunter” brings us a graph that should spark interest in why UAH is different from the other three (and I have ideas); however, his hate-filled language distracts immensely from any contribution that he might offer.
Hate-filled language? Well, I do hate gross stupidity, scientific illiteracy and bone-headed pseudo-activism, yes.
Tell you what, “An Inquirer”, let’s make all the lines start at the same point, as joshv did, but let’s put all all the major datasets instead of strangely only choosing two, one of which is compiled by creationist climate deniers. Which one’s the outlier, would you say?
I’m not sure why the debate needs to be so nasty over whether GISS is diverging or not. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that GISS not NOT diverging. In that case, you should have no objection to using the other 3 leading measurements ONLY and ignoring GISS.
Agreed?
Certainly not. If you have any scientific training at all you would know that throwing away good data is incredibly stupid.
GISS has become, under Hansen, a political organization. It is no longer credible scientifically.
Its ‘data’ only makes sense as a sales tool for the gullible.
Heck, Hansen is still peddling positive feedbacks and tipping points.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Hansen_1.html
And Hunter is stupid and slow enough as to probably still actually believe him.
Hunter: You say that GISS has not diverged from satellites, then post graphs which show that it does. So is your point that satellites have diverged from GISS, rather than GISS diverging from satellites?
Hunter: Are you not wanting to throw out GISS because it is data? Can you please explain what that data is measuring, and how? We need to know what it is data of. And believe me that you’ll get an entranced audience to an explanation.
AnonyMoose – there are four widely used temperature data sets. Three agree very closely. If you think that GISS is the outlier, you are blind, stupid, or both. If you want to know more about GISS data, I suggest you look at their website. And try not to say “we” when you mean “I”. It makes you look deranged.
“Certainly not. If you have any scientific training at all you would know that throwing away good data is incredibly stupid.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “throwing away” data. I’m simply proposing that we ignore the GISS temperatures for purposes of debate. If GISS agrees with the other temperature measurements, you should have no objection to this as it will not affect the outcome of the debate.
Let me ask you this: I can find an argument or paper by Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen which does not make use of the UAH series (or the RSU series), you will agree that such conduct by Mann or Schmidt or Hansen is “incredibly stupid”?
Hunter/sockpuppet/rude poster,
You are not faring so well by your arrogant, reactionary style.
AnonyMoose is asking a good question on behalf of more than himself. So keep your editorial advice to yourself, and just try for once to not be a compleat troll.
A typical AGW believer argument posits that scientists who are skeptical of AGW, but have at some point taken ‘big oil’ money, are corrupt along with their ideas.
Why should not the same standard be applied to GISS, whose leader has received money from groups that use AGW as a fund raising tool?, or otherwise thrive on promoting belief in it?
The problem with GISS is that it is well documented their US surface record data is not reliable. The reasonable question is why should the other components of their data be considered reliable?
But you are not really reasonable, are you?
But you do help convince people that AGW is just a social mania. Please continue doing everything you do.
brazil84: GISS might be agreeing with other temperature measurements because it uses their results. Similarity is hardly surprising, but it also might not be particularly informative. Claiming that A is like B therefore they both are good is weakened when A is made from B.
Wish I could remember the website where a retired meteorologist/astrophysical dude was keeping a photo log of all the changes over the decades of quite a number of official monitoring stations. The urbanization is simply an utterly undeniable modifier of the data. Makes it useless for tracking climatic trends, like it or not. And this is reinforced to me every evening when I drive home from town through miles of vast agricultural fields in my non air conditioned car. You do not need a thermometer to tell you the difference, although it certainly will confirm the truth of this matter. And the difference is even more stark at night when town continues to retain the heat.