Global Mean Temperature

[Lagboltz]

C'mon focus focus focus. You did not quote the premise of my statement. Did you do that on purpose or did you forget to take your daily dose of Rivastigmine? Here is the premise again:

Forget my pool example and lets use the pool authority's method that you cite instead.

But you chose to overlook that premise and went back to my pool example and started ranting to yourself.

Actually we are not. You have altered my original statements as badly as hansen et al have altered the surface temperature database. If you were going to perform a linear regression study of your pool, which was your original statement, then as I pointed out, you would need to know how much water you began with in order to have a data set that was worth the time it took you to do it.

Then you asked me how I would do it and as I said, it is just as bad to overcomplicate a simple system as it is to oversimplify a complicated system. Your method was overcomplicated and wouldn't produce anything like actual useable information. My method was simple and would tell you whether or not you had a leak in 24 hours and

Again, you are mischaracterizing my statements and taking them out of context. I said that if you were going to use your system, and get anything like useful data, you would need to know how much water you had in your pool. As in the house example, a data set that wasn't accurate or injected a bias would be useless in determining whether or not the house was warming or cooling, a data set that doesn't involve the absolute amount of water in the pool at any given time would produce results that would be of no value in determining whether or not you had a leak. A linear regression study on useless data is going to produce nothing but useless output. Of course, you could certainly act on that data and maybe be right or maybe be wrong, but your actions would not be accurately directed by the output of your study.

You acknowledge that you couldn't rely on temperature data in the home if accurate temperatures were not taken. By the same token, you couldn't rely on the data gathered from your swimming pool unless you could be reasonably sure that you know how much water is in the pool. You chose a complicated method and as such, gathering meaningful data is going to be complicated.

I will restate it in terms you might be able to understand:
You, palerider, brilliantly found out a plan to measure pool shell leakage with no need for knowing the absolute amount of water in the pool, and you brilliantly came up with an evaporation correction that wasn't fraudulent tampering!!!

So, you elegantly proved that measuring the level increments was all you needed, and the absolute amount of water was not necessary to know!

If I mischaracterized your belief, please tell me where any pool expert says you do need to know the absolute amount of water. But, I'm game. Explain your statement

But knowing the absolute amount of water in your pool was an important factor if you actually wanted to know what was happening.

Please tell me exactly how I should have utilized the absolute amount of water. Please be as quantitative as possible.

Here is some of the verbiage in the remainder of your post.

... the data have been so corrupted that any output from them is meaningless ... the gathered data is injecting a signifigant bias, or early data has been deliberately altered to give a false impression of later data.... we are talking about inept data gathering, and subsequent alteration of the ineptly gathered data ... the data set is so flawed ... fraudulent as there is at least a two degree margin of error for the global mean ... deliberately altered surface temperature data set ... flawed, biased, altered data.

My my, you are dripping with bitter vitriol. Forget the Rivastigmine. You need Nupafeed. You are arguing from your gut. It might be fun for you to look up Colbert's definition of "truthiness"

You say that the spread in mean temperatures is at least 2 deg. C. The spread in several papers that I found is only 1 deg. C. Considering that the range of temperatures over all global spatial and temporal locations has a span of about 140 deg. C, I think that is a remarkable agreement. What are the extrema sources you found that lead you to believe the temperature spread is "at least 2 deg. C"?

I read the paper you suggested at the link http://www.surfacestations.org/ The preprint was titled,
"An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" by Anthony Watts, et. al. This was not directly at the site you mentioned, but was referenced at that site as the major (52 page) paper he is publishing.

His paper is replete with data "tampering" that you seem to be so dead set against. Here are my impressions:

1. He throws out many urban readings because they create too much warming. Hey, that's part of global warming. He is deliberately tampering.

2. He addresses only the U.S. That's only 2.7% of the entire globe. That's hardly a valid study on global warming. What about the oceans, and other vast continents?

3. Despite his tampering and his ambition, he still verifies a net continental warming in the US, and proves diddly squat about global warming.

 

[palerider]

You, palerider, brilliantly found out a plan to measure pool shell leakage with no need for knowing the absolute amount of water in the pool, and you brilliantly came up with an evaporation correction that wasn't fraudulent tampering!!!

As I said, using the method that YOU described, YOU would have had to know the actual amount of water you had in your pool if you wanted anything like useable data with which to make your decision.

So, you elegantly proved that measuring the level increments was all you needed, and the absolute amount of water was not necessary to know!

Again, I wasn't doing a linear regression study of the flucuations of the total volume of water in your pool. If I were, I would have had to know how much water was actually in the pool for my linear regression study to yield any useful results.

If I mischaracterized your belief, please tell me where any pool expert says you do need to know the absolute amount of water. But, I'm game. Explain your statement Please tell me exactly how I should have utilized the absolute amount of water. Please be as quantitative as possible. [/quote}

I have explained it as simply as I can but for you, I will do it again. None of the pool experts described doing a liner regression study of the volume of water in the pool as you decided to do. They understood that a leaking pool is a simple system and therefore need not require a complex method to determine if, in fact there was a leak. Had any of them suggested doing a linear regression study on the pool, and wanted useful data, they would have begun by telling you how to determine the actual amount of water in the pool at the time you began to gather data. Not knowing that critical bit of information would render your linear regression study useless.

My my, you are dripping with bitter vitriol. Forget the Rivastigmine. You need Nupafeed. You are arguing from your gut. It might be fun for you to look up Colbert's definition of "truthiness"

Actually, it is just anger at a hoax of such magnitude being perpetrated on the entire world. It wouldn't bother me much except for the fact that it costs me money because fraudulent science is being used to advance socialist policies that are not in my, or anyone else's interest. And I never argue from my gut. If you can't look at obvious examples of malicious data tampering and see them for what they are, then that is your problem.

1. He throws out many urban readings because they create too much warming. Hey, that's part of global warming. He is deliberately tampering.

So you would keep the temperature readings taken behind the refrigerator, near lighting fixtures, near heater vents, and on south facing windosills? Would you then expect anything like a meaningful set of data to determine if the house was warming?

2. He addresses only the U.S. That's only 2.7% of the entire globe. That's hardly a valid study on global warming. What about the oceans, and other vast continents? [/quote[

The US system is supposedly the gold standard and everyone wishes theirs was as good as ours. Work is underway aimed at looking at the worldwide system. As for the oceans, they are cooling even though hansen claims that the oceans are where his lost heat is going. He claims that warm water is sinking to the depths of the oceans and the heat is hiding there. And some people take him seriously.

 

[dogtowner]

all this pool stuff is fascinating and all but it has nothing to do with the topic. any chance we can get this back on topic or do I need to change the thread title ?

I was kidding when I said it was fascinating.

 

[palerider]

all this pool stuff is fascinating and all but it has nothing to do with the topic. any chance we can get this back on topic or do I need to change the thread title ?

I was kidding when I said it was fascinating.

Maybe you could change the title to straw man or topic change. It is clear by now, however, that as I suspected, there isn't much to say regarding the global mean claimed by climate science because the margin of error is multiple times larger than the claims of accuracy to a tenth of a degree.

You didn't really expect anything like actual debate on the topic did you?

One interesting tidbit did come out of it when lagboltz said that he believed the deliberate reduction of past temperatures in order to make present temperatures appear warmer was climate science's way of making the data "clearer" and improving the accuracy of the surface temperature database.

I have shown lots of people those examples of data tampering and have heard lots of excuses and apologies for them but he is the first to ever claim that the reason past temperatures have been lowered is to make the database more accurate.

 

[dogtowner]

Maybe you could change the title to straw man or topic change. It is clear by now, however, that as I suspected, there isn't much to say regarding the global mean claimed by climate science because the margin of error is multiple times larger than the claims of accuracy to a tenth of a degree.

You didn't really expect anything like actual debate on the topic did you?

One interesting tidbit did come out of it when lagboltz said that he believed the deliberate reduction of past temperatures in order to make present temperatures appear warmer was climate science's way of making the data "clearer" and improving the accuracy of the surface temperature database.

I have shown lots of people those examples of data tampering and have heard lots of excuses and apologies for them but he is the first to ever claim that the reason past temperatures have been lowered is to make the database more accurate.

expect ? no.
a little interesting to go for a tangent that early. better than Bob just ranting and repeating nonsense.

 

[Lagboltz]

As I said, using the method that YOU described, YOU would have had to know the actual amount of water you had in your pool if you wanted anything like useable data with which to make your decision.

Again, I wasn't doing a linear regression study of the flucuations of the total volume of water in your pool. If I were, I would have had to know how much water was actually in the pool for my linear regression study to yield any useful results.

I have explained it as simply as I can but for you, I will do it again. None of the pool experts described doing a liner regression study of the volume of water in the pool as you decided to do. They understood that a leaking pool is a simple system and therefore need not require a complex method to determine if, in fact there was a leak. Had any of them suggested doing a linear regression study on the pool, and wanted useful data, they would have begun by telling you how to determine the actual amount of water in the pool at the time you began to gather data. Not knowing that critical bit of information would render your linear regression study useless.

Just as I thought; you have no quantitative analytic answer. You can't understand the example I gave. That's OK. I understand. Don't worry about it.

The basic reason for that example was to illustrate that the change in levels of a variable is all that is important in assessing change over time, and your example works to that very same end. I am satisfied that I proved my point using your example. QED.

Actually, it is just anger at a hoax of such magnitude being perpetrated on the entire world. It wouldn't bother me much except for the fact that it costs me money because fraudulent science is being used to advance socialist policies that are not in my, or anyone else's interest. And I never argue from my gut. If you can't look at obvious examples of malicious data tampering and see them for what they are, then that is your problem.

You can always go to wikipedia and change their analysis.

So you would keep the temperature readings taken behind the refrigerator, near lighting fixtures, near heater vents, and on south facing windosills? Would you then expect anything like a meaningful set of data to determine if the house was warming?

If I want a handle on the base line temperature so I can measure change in my living conditions, I would put the thermometers in the areas I generally occupy. (I generally don't spend much time behind the refrigerator)

However if I were interested in the thermal energy rise in the house, then I must also include a representative sampling near all heat sources, or heat sinks (in the winter.) That's not important to a resident, but it is important for the average temperature of the earth

The US system is supposedly the gold standard and everyone wishes theirs was as good as ours. Work is underway aimed at looking at the worldwide system. As for the oceans, they are cooling even though hansen claims that the oceans are where his lost heat is going. He claims that warm water is sinking to the depths of the oceans and the heat is hiding there. And some people take him seriously.

NASA also says the sea levels are rising even though the ocean cooled.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
One reason could be that glacial ice is raising the sea level. Also melting ice releases the heat of fusion which is 344 Joules/gram. There are .24 calories/Joule. That means each gram of ice will require 82 calories of heat from the surrounding water. That is significant cooling considering the fact that 1 calorie of energy will raise 1 gram of water by 1 deg. C.

You forgot to answer my question. You say that the spread in mean temperatures is at least 2 deg. C. The spread in several papers that I found is only 1 deg. C. Can you cite the sources you found that lead you to believe the temperature spread is "at least 2 deg. C"?

 

[Lagboltz]

all this pool stuff is fascinating and all but it has nothing to do with the topic. any chance we can get this back on topic or do I need to change the thread title ?

I was kidding when I said it was fascinating.

I would let it go, but Pale keeps posting misunderstandings. I will let it go when he does. Sorry; I know it must be dreary hearing him say the same thing, an me trying to spoon feed him simpler explanations.

 

[palerider]

I would let it go, but Pale keeps posting misunderstandings. I will let it go when he does. Sorry; I know it must be dreary hearing him say the same thing, an me trying to spoon feed him simpler explanations.

You are a funny guy. Mischaracterizing my statments, unable to prove your own and then claiming victory. Just like the man made global warming superstars. Do they provide you guys free seminars on that technique?

NASA also says the sea levels are rising even though the ocean cooled.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

NASA says? I have already shown you hard evidence that nasa isn't a reliable source. At this point, saying nasa says is about like saying wiki says. You do know about wiki and the global warming hoax don't you?

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/143215.html

Here are a few recent papers regarding so called sea level rise.

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/575k5821r2w23t73
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618210000224
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

You forgot to answer my question. You say that the spread in mean temperatures is at least 2 deg. C. The spread in several papers that I found is only 1 deg. C. Can you cite the sources you found that lead you to believe the temperature spread is "at least 2 deg. C"?

I didn't forget. I already gave you a few that covered the spread I claimed. In typical warmer fashion, you complained about them on the grounds that they might not have been from the same year. Irrelavent. The sources I gave you cover a few years. A few years in which the claimed global termperature rise was on the order of a fraction of a tenth of a degree. The claimed change during the time frame covered is no where near the disparity between the various global means claimed.

The fact is that claimed warming being due to anthropogenic causes has no basis in fact. When observed temperatures don't cooperate with those being predicted by climate models which simply assume that CO2 is a prime driver of climate, then a linear study is done to obscure the fact that the models are failing and that there is nothing going on in the present climate that even begins to approach the borders of natural variability.

 

[dogtowner]

I would let it go, but Pale keeps posting misunderstandings. I will let it go when he does. Sorry; I know it must be dreary hearing him say the same thing, an me trying to spoon feed him simpler explanations.

who keeps repeating ?

 

[Lagboltz]

You are a funny guy. Mischaracterizing my statments, unable to prove your own and then claiming victory. Just like the man made global warming superstars. Do they provide you guys free seminars on that technique?

That's an odd thing to say. In the end, I took your own statements and agreed with them. I then made a valid conclusion from your own statements and you came up with no disagreement nor counter-argument to my conclusion. So it follows from your above comment that you are mischaracterizing your own statements. Very odd indeed.

NASA says? I have already shown you hard evidence that nasa isn't a reliable source. At this point, saying nasa says is about like saying wiki says. You do know about wiki and the global warming hoax don't you?
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/143215.html

Yeah, those wiki wars happen a lot. The Wiki entries for Evolution and G W Bush had been changed so furiously that they had to protect those entries too.
Just a curious unrelated question: Are you one of the guys that believe the NASA moon landings were a hoax? I promise not to make any derogatory comment if you do.

Here are a few recent papers regarding so called sea level rise.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/575k5821r2w23t73
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618210000224
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Yes, the sea is a complex entity, and it seems that most of the sea is never quite at "sea-level", so to speak.

I didn't forget. I already gave you a few that covered the spread I claimed. In typical warmer fashion, you complained about them on the grounds that they might not have been from the same year. Irrelavent. The sources I gave you cover a few years. A few years in which the claimed global termperature rise was on the order of a fraction of a tenth of a degree. The claimed change during the time frame covered is no where near the disparity between the various global means claimed.

I looked at several sites, including your cites, and the biggest spread for the current temperature is 1 deg. C. Your previous post below cites a spread of only 1 deg C.

On German public TV in 2009, Hans Schellnhuber stated that the global mean was 15.3 degrees.
Stefan Rahmstorf states that it is 15.5 degrees.
The IPCC 2007 4AR says 14.5 degrees.

I could find no other cites from you or from the internet giving the current temperature outside that range. So, unless you come up with references, your statement about the current temperature measurements having a 2 deg spread is ... shall we say, fraudulent?

The fact is that claimed warming being due to anthropogenic causes has no basis in fact. When observed temperatures don't cooperate with those being predicted by climate models which simply assume that CO2 is a prime driver of climate, then a linear study is done to obscure the fact that the models are failing and that there is nothing going on in the present climate that even begins to approach the borders of natural variability.

All the graphs using the latest data analysis techniques you gave on Wednesday at 5:53 show global warming. You seem stuck on the fact that if new climate science revises the old science, it is fraudulent. You confessed to anger. That can certainly be a driving force in belief. But in the end, if you don't trust advances in science, you will be living in the dark ages of intelligent thought.

 

[palerider]

Yeah, those wiki wars happen a lot. The Wiki entries for Evolution and G W Bush had been changed so furiously that they had to protect those entries too.
Just a curious unrelated question: Are you one of the guys that believe the NASA moon landings were a hoax? I promise not to make any derogatory comment if you do.

No, I'm not. I see that you beleive that bit of nonsense as well. Are you aware that the author of that bit of idiocy asked about sketics on warmist blogs and built his paper based on that feedback? He didn't post his survey at a single skeptical site. He claimed to have tried to get it posted on multiple skeptical sites although no skeptical blog administrator could be found who was approached and when asked which skeptical blogs turned him down, he refused to answer. Every aspect of the man made climate change business is rife with fraud and data manipulation. If any actual evidence existed in support of the claims that man is responsible for the changing climate, don't you think it would be posted all over the internet.

Perhaps you could provide a bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that confirms the claim that a trace gas with no capacity to absorb and retain energy within an open atmosphere can cause global warming.

I am just a guy who grasps the science and can see the foundational problems with the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The scientific underpinnings of the field are so terribly flawed, that if there weren't such huge political and financial benefits to admiring the emperor's new clothes, the whole pseudoscientific trash heap would be sitting on the same shelf as phrenology.

Yes, the sea is a complex entity, and it seems that most of the sea is never quite at "sea-level", so to speak.[/quote[

Here is what 140 years of dangerous sea level rise looks like.

All the graphs using the latest data analysis techniques you gave on Wednesday at 5:53 show global warming. You seem stuck on the fact that if new climate science revises the old science, it is fraudulent. You confessed to anger. That can certainly be a driving force in belief. But in the end, if you don't trust advances in science, you will be living in the dark ages of intelligent thought.

The graphs I provided only show evidence of data tampering. To conclude warming from that sort of data is to be hoaxed.

Tell me, exactly how does "new science" change absolute temperature measurements taken decades ago?

And I am a DMD and eagerly anticipate new advances in science and make a business of incorporating the new technologies into my practice. I am, however, able to recognize the difference between advances in science and scam and the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is a scam with no basis in actual science.

Here, have a look at two charts, both found on nasa's web site.

That graph can be found here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

That chart can be found here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ second graph from the bottom of the page.

Note the obvious differences between the late 1930's and the late 1990's between the two graphs. One need not be angry to see obvious signs of data manipulation with the intent of making the present appear warmer when contrasted with the past.

Tell me, by what sort of mechanism do you believe that CO2 causes warming?

 

[Lagboltz]

No, I'm not. I see that you beleive that bit of nonsense as well. Are you aware that the author of that bit of idiocy asked about sketics on warmist blogs and built his paper based on that feedback? He didn't post his survey at a single skeptical site. He claimed to have tried to get it posted on multiple skeptical sites although no skeptical blog administrator could be found who was approached and when asked which skeptical blogs turned him down, he refused to answer. Every aspect of the man made climate change business is rife with fraud and data manipulation. If any actual evidence existed in support of the claims that man is responsible for the changing climate, don't you think it would be posted all over the internet.

Sounds like they were doing a good job keeping the crazies out, like they did with Bush and Evolution, etc.

I am just a guy who grasps the science and can see the foundational problems with the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The scientific underpinnings of the field are so terribly flawed, that if there weren't such huge political and financial benefits to admiring the emperor's new clothes, the whole pseudoscientific trash heap would be sitting on the same shelf as phrenology.

I really don't think you have a good grasp on the scientific underpinnings at all. You reject simple linear regression in analyzing data. You need a good education in mathematics and physics to understand the principles of climate change, not just the ability to tediously shout fraud.

Here is what 140 years of dangerous sea level rise looks like.

That "movie" segment is fraudulent and just a series of morphing from the first frame to the last. It would be of value if the tidal data were also given for the first and last frames. Wiki says: "The world's largest tidal range of 11.7 metres (38.4 feet) occurs at Burntcoat Head in the Bay of Fundy. Your "movie" could entail a huge tidal difference taken at a time only when the tidal levels matched the fradulent intent of the second photograph. Where was your "movie" done? What is the tidal range there? My gosh Pale, you shouldn't fall for these hoaxes. Anyone should know better if they are really are a "guy who grasps the science."

The graphs I provided only show evidence of data tampering. To conclude warming from that sort of data is to be hoaxed.

I'm sure that was your intent, but the later graphs also illustrate that global warming is real.

Here, have a look at two charts, both found on nasa's web site.
That graph can be found here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Those graphs were published in 1999! That's 13 years ago.

That chart can be found here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ second graph from the bottom of the page.

Note the obvious differences between the late 1930's and the late 1990's between the two graphs. One need not be angry to see obvious signs of data manipulation with the intent of making the present appear warmer when contrasted with the past.

It looks like the older chart at the upper left is identical to the lower chart, at least to the .1 deg C level. When you say "Note the obvious differences between ... the two graphs" You don't seem to be referring to those two. If you are comparing the two upper graphs they are of course quite different because the U.S. temperature on the left is compared to global temperature on the right. The U.S. is only 2.7% of the globe. Apples and oranges. What is your point?

Getting back to the OP... For the third time I ask you where did you get the data that says there is a 2 deg C spread in the current global average temperature computations. I have only seen a 1 degree spread. What are your sources. I'm hammering on this because you have been emphatic that the temperature spread is an important factor in accepting the yearly historical data.

 

[dogtowner]

Getting back to the OP... For the third time I ask you where did you get the data that says there is a 2 deg C spread in the current global average temperature computations. I have only seen a 1 degree spread. What are your sources. I'm hammering on this because you have been emphatic that the temperature spread is an important factor in accepting the yearly historical data.

Perhaps you could provide a bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that confirms the claim that a trace gas with no capacity to absorb and retain energy within an open atmosphere can cause global warming.
.

seems like a fair trade to me. you boys up for it ?

 

[palerider]

Sounds like they were doing a good job keeping the crazies out, like they did with Bush and Evolution, etc.

Sounds like bogus, fabricated data to me but then altering past temps and injecting bias into present temps sounds like flawed methodology to me but you believe it represents improvements and more accuracy. Clearly, I am a student of the scientific method whereas you are a student of post modern science where observation is not nearly so important as the output of computer models regardless of how poorly they perform.

I really don't think you have a good grasp on the scientific underpinnings at all. You reject simple linear regression in analyzing data. You need a good education in mathematics and physics to understand the principles of climate change, not just the ability to tediously shout fraud.

Obviously, it is you who doesn't have a good grasp of the science since it is you who has fallen victim to the hoax. How about you describe how you believe CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere without violating a fundamental law of physics.

And I reject a liner regression study on flawed data, not linear regression itself. Again, you mishcaracterize my statments.

I'm sure that was your intent, but the later graphs also illustrate that global warming is real.

How does altered data show anything?

Those graphs were published in 1999! That's 13 years ago.

One of the graphs was publised in 1999. You can tell the other was published in 2011 because the data go out to 2011. Complicated, I know, but its a science thing. The fact that they are supposedly showing temperature anomolies for the same periods should clue you in to the fraud, but alas, it doesn't.

It looks like the older chart at the upper left is identical to the lower chart, at least to the .1 deg C level.

Really? Now that's interesting. Perhaps part of your problem is that you can't read a graph. Let me help you out. Look at the top graph...1938, then compare to 1998. 1938 was about .6 degrees warmer. Now look at the graph published in 2011 (that's the bottom graph). Again, compare 1938 19978. The graph produced in 2011 shows 1998 as being several tenths of a degree warmer than 1938. Then take a look at the 5 year mean (red line in case you were wondering) In the first graph the 5 year mean indicates that 1938 was about half a degree warmer than 1998. In the second graph, the 5 year mean line in 1998 is about two tenths warmer than in 1939. You are a math wiz, how is it that you can't see that? Both those graphs represent a data set of actual temperatures over that period of time. Clearly, the temperature data set have been altered to produce two charts of anomolies that are so different. Tell me, of what value is a linear regression study when done on untrustworthy data?

When you say "Note the obvious differences between ... the two graphs" You don't seem to be referring to those two. If you are comparing the two upper graphs they are of course quite different because the U.S. temperature on the left is compared to global temperature on the right. The U.S. is only 2.7% of the globe. Apples and oranges. What is your point?{/quote]

When I say note the obvious differences, I am afraid that I was assuming that you could, in fact, read a graph. The fact that you can't see that in the first graph 1938 was considerably warmer than 1998 and in the second graph 1998 has become a little more than slightly warmer than 1938 tells me that you simply can't read a graph.

Getting back to the OP... For the third time I ask you where did you get the data that says there is a 2 deg C spread in the current global average temperature computations. I have only seen a 1 degree spread. What are your sources. I'm hammering on this because you have been emphatic that the temperature spread is an important factor in accepting the yearly historical data.

At this point, I am afraid that I can't provide the data. At one point, NCDC had the global mean listed as 13.9 and an official swiss or maybe it was a norway site had the global mean listed as 15.6 but alas, neither has that information online anymore. I have tried the way back machine but am still unable to find the sources. None the less, even a 1 degree spread makes claims of accuracy to .1 degree laughable.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sounds like bogus, fabricated data to me but then altering past temps and injecting bias into present temps sounds like flawed methodology to me but you believe it represents improvements and more accuracy. Clearly, I am a student of the scientific method whereas you are a student of post modern science where observation is not nearly so important as the output of computer models regardless of how poorly they perform.

You are right. I didn't look at the graphs closely enough. I was distracted by the two top graphs, and wondered what was the relevance. I was also distracted by the fact that you were already taken in by a "movie" hoax, etc. and probably weren't thinking clearly. As it turned out you didn't have a new perspective on anything; you were just reiterating your claim of fraudulent data altering.

How does altered data show anything?

So one basic point you keep making is that the data analysis of temperature history has changed from what it was a decade or so ago. Yes. I already know the published temperature history is different than what it was a decade ago. You make that claim in most of your posts, and I agree totally. It has changed.

In many types of scientific analysis there is considerable correction of raw data. For example in x-ray computed aided tomography (CAT) the raw data is incomprehensible and must use a straightforward inverse transform to construct the image. But the constructed image from the raw data has many artifacts due to beam hardening, streaking near bones, motion artifacts, etc. Fortunately, the raw data can be corrected with newer ever more complicated modeling and algorithm techniques. There are hundreds of patents on these "data tampering" techniques, and they continually improve the science.

In a similar vein, all research groups including those decades ago recognize that the raw temperature measurements around the globe must have local corrections for a number of reasons in order for the data to be useful. That is analogous to the need for CAT scans corrections. However the algorithms the various groups use are different from each other - in both CAT scan and climate science..

Suppose you went to a hospital and a CAT scan of your head showed no brain tumor. A week later the hospital calls you back and says they bought a new algorithm that shows you actually do have a brain tumor after all and it was previously masked by an artifact.

Would you call the hospital and say that they were tampering with the data just so they could get your insurance money for an operation?

Yes, I am exaggerating, but it does illustrate how emotion and new science is affecting you.

The second point you keep harping on, and the nature of your OP is the absolute temperature differences of various temperature modeling techniques.

You didn't understand previously, but I will try again.

Suppose you wanted a second and third opinion on whether the brain tumor was growing so you went to three different hospitals. The three hospitals used different CAT algorithms and did not agree on absolute size and respectively said your tumor was 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 cm in diameter. This is a spread of 1 cm. You went back to the three hospitals six months later and they still didn't agree on size and respectively said your tumor was 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 cm. The spread is still 1 cm.

In each case, the growth was .5 cm, but the spread of the measurements is 1 cm.
I would say that it seems your tumor grew by .5 cm. Would you reply, "How can you say it's .5 cm when the spread is 1 cm?" You may include words like fraudulent and tampering, but I'm just being sarcastic.

At this point, I am afraid that I can't provide the data.

Fine, we will leave it at 1 deg C.