2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
*****wordz*****. Furthermore, they do not offer justification for those changes, at all.

*****wordz*****
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Updates to Analysis
Note 1: This webpage describes updates to the GISS analysis made in December 2011 and after, starting with the change to use of GHCN v3 data. Updates made before December 2011 are detailed elsewhere.

Note 2: In spring 2015, NOAA's NCDC (mentioned in various entries below) was merged into NOAA's NCEI (National Center for Environmental Information), a new entity combining the three centers: NCDC, NGDC, and NODC (National Climate, Geophysical, and Oceanographic Data Center).

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current data files of NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations) combined as described in our December 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. Here we list updates of the data or procedures that have occurred since our 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010).

July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

July 15, 2015: Starting with today's update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA's website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN's Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.

June 13, 2015: NOAA's NCEI (formerly NCDC) switched from v3.2.2 to the new release v3.3.0 of the adjusted GHCN, which is our basic source. This upgrade included filling some gaps in a few station records and fixing some small bugs in the homogenization procedure. NCEI's description of those changes is available here. One of the impacts was removing some data that the GISS procedure had always eliminated and the list of GISS corrections was correspondingly reduced. Hence the (insignificant) impact on the GISS analysis was slightly different from the impact described in that document. The changes produced a decrease of 0.006°C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003°C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016°C/decade). Impacts on the changes of the annual Land-Ocean temperature index (global surface air temperature) were about 5 to 10 times smaller than the margin of error for those estimates.

Please note that neither the land data nor the ocean data used in this analysis are the ones used in the NCEI paper"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" that appeared on June 4, 2015. For the ocean data, GISS still uses ERSST v3b rather than the newer ERSST v4, but will switch to that file next month, when we add the June 2015 data; the collection of land station data used in that paper includes many more sources than GHCN v3.3.0 and will probably be incorporated into a future GHCN v4.

May 15, 2015: Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis on May 13, 2015. The analysis was repeated today after including those stations.

February 14, 2015: UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCNv2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis. Rather, these differences are dominated by the inclusion of appropriate homogeneity corrections for non-climatic discontinuities made in GHCN v3.2 in 2011/2012. See the earlier notes from December 14, 2011 and September 26, 2012; more details are provided in FAQ.

December 29, 2014: The title on the US temperature graph was corrected by replacing "Continental US" by "Contiguous US". References to the corresponding graphs in the literature were updated.

September 15, 2014: Color maps using the Robinson projection or polar projection are now presented without contour smoothing, since that process occasionally results in skipping some color bands. It seems however to work fine for the equirectangular projection.

July 14, 2014: The missing China May 2014 reports became available and are now part of our analysis. That correction increased the global May 2014 anomaly by a statistically insignificant 0.002°C.

******continues in link******
yeah giss never ever say anything about why they adjust data................


i think your trying too hard heckler
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
If you don't understand the second, you are probably misinterpreting the first.
The 2nd chart is showing how GISS has adjusted the temperature anomaly values for the two particular dates, between May 2008 and Nov 2015.
They make the past appear ever cooler, while making the present ever hotter, such that what was originally a (dubious) difference of 0.45 K now appears wider.
In other words, they are manipulating the data to suit their desires (in this case to show a warming trend with emphasis on the past decade being "the hottest on record"). Furthermore, they do not offer justification for those changes, at all.


For example, here's what Los Angeles looks like when adjustments are applied.


Blue is raw, and Red is adjusted. Do you see a problem? Would the adjusted chart lend itself to a particular political agenda, in your opinion?

However, this is not unique to the NCDC, GISS, and HADCrut.
RSS and UAH do it as well, but not with such overt distortion (and obviously shorter time frame).

This is partly why I have thrown away the idea of global average temperature. It is utter nonsense, both empirically and from the perspective of Stat Mech. People who believe this stuff deserve to have their money separated from their wallets (and given to me!!!) :lol:
Thank you for the great explanation, I suspected it had to do with their restated data. The NOAA adjustments to buoy ocean sensor temps also makes zero sense. Pretty clearly biased to show greater recent warming that is unsupported by HadSST3 data set.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Ah. So Heckler is a conspiracy theorist...

Great. Just great
Very much so. He's just better than most at hiding it. Notice how he very rarely (if at all) links to where he gets his data from. Also how he posts without any explanation of data posted, just so he can do an "a ha, gotcha" moment as if he's the holder of hidden information..

When you get to root of it all it becomes clear that he's just as full of shit as any of the other inbred denialists on here
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Very much so. He's just better than most at hiding it. Notice how he very rarely (if at all) links to where he gets his data from. Also how he posts without any explanation of data posted, just so he can do an "a ha, gotcha" moment as if he's the holder of hidden information..

When you get to root of it all it becomes clear that he's just as full of shit as any of the other inbred denialists on here
Thanks for opening my eyes. I was fooled by heckler
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Muyloco has been justifiably on my ignore list for a long time. He's been there for lack of value
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
You've been fooled by muyloco too.

He's really smart! :lol:

:mrgreen:
Ah, garsh. It's so nice to be in your thoughts.

And I'm only smart compared to most. I'll freely admit there are at least 20 or 30 people scampering around on the planet who have more going on in their noggins than I do. However, I've yet to meet any on this site from your side of the aisle.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
***linkz***

yeah giss never ever say anything about why they adjust data................
***vacuous cognition***
i think your[sic] trying too hard heckler
Thank you so very much for pointing that out. That just completely undoes everything I've stated.
/sarcasm()=0; :roll:


You should try reading what you linked before declaring victory. None of that explains why they adjusted the anomalies so wildly, at all. Details, bub, details...where they do provide detail it is incongruent with the observed adjustments. For example (because I know you won't let me get away without one of those), see if you can figure out why the Jan 2000 data was bumped up--and Jan 1910 bumped down--so much around March 2013.


That aside, it still doesn't explain the discrepancy in raw and adjusted temperature records.
But they don't deal with that, now do they. o_O

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCEI's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCEI's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v3b data.

(link provided in your own post)

That's probably one reason why NOAA was subpoenaed to give up the details, eh? The last I checked, they have yet to provide the info. What are they so worried about?

As for your remark about links, the sources are generally noted right on the graphs. I did not believe that was "too hard" for people to decipher. :-?

Your comment about "hiding" is amusing considering who is really doing the hiding here.
I'll presume you won't reply with anything substantial (with medium confidence ala IPCC) and go back to your hole in the wall. So, be sure to collect your "noble prise" on the way out, clown. :lol:



Thanks for opening my eyes. I was fooled by heckler
Ehhhh...don't be too quick in making any judgment against my character, although you were fooled. After all, who is doing the real fooling here? Me or the turds fudging the data?

I understand the cognitive dissonance caused by the answers can be somewhat unsettling. It was like that for me when I first started noticing these things and it did take me quite a while to come to grips with the (lack of) facts. I don't expect anything less from those encountering these issues for the first time.

To be honest, I am still surprised every time I go digging; the web of BS is rather thick and multi-layered (as demonstrated above). Furthermore, this isn't limited to just some stupid temperature records, it goes well into the supposed "science" itself. However, that subject matter seems to be too complicated to be practically discussed in here, as I found out multiple times in the past. I also don't possess the pedagogical skill to explain some issues in a simplistic manner. Best to hit the low-hanging fruit and leave it at that.

Nevertheless, if you have honest questions, I will make an effort to answer them to your satisfaction. But I do ask you to be patient because--unlike some others on here--I prefer to research an issue from a few angles before collating the info into a concise response, if possible, rather than offering some glib opinion in haste.

At the same time, if you want to be an asshole, you'll get what you give. :mrgreen:
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
It has been cold and rainy here for weeks. Could we get back to the global warming please??
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
This thread melted into pretty dumb. No global warming, no evolution.

Abandon science! Abandon science!

I'll just unsubscribe so as not to pester y'all
 
Top