Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

Surface Detail wrote: No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

Surface Detail wrote:As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

IBdaMann wrote:
All data presented on Global Warming is either fudged or completely invalid...

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Thanks for finally clarifying what you mean. You really need to learn to express yourself better rather than abusing others for their inability to decipher your cryptic utterances. Instead of writing the very vague "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency," you could have written "There is no consistent distribution of thermometers around the world," for example, if that's what you meant. Science requires precision of language.

Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this. And yes, they are fully aware that this affects the accuracy of their results. However, it is quite possible to estimate the errors involved using statistical methods and these are expressed as error ranges in their final results. This comes out at about 0.1 C for recent measurements and about 0.2 C for older measurements, so it is perfectly possible to detect the overall trend of about a 1 C rise in temperature over that period.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.


..

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

Surface Detail wrote: Now that's what I call real dogma!

Into the Night wrote: I wouldn't even call lit fudged data. Fudged data is adjusting a reading to comply with a predetermined conclusion. This is simply making data up where there is none measured. This is fabrication of data outright using some 'magick' algorithm.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
All data presented on Global Warming is either fudged or completely invalid...

Now that's what I call real dogma! No reasoning, no evidence, just a flat refusal to consider any actual data relating to the issue. What you might call a religious attitude.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Thanks for finally clarifying what you mean. You really need to learn to express yourself better rather than abusing others for their inability to decipher your cryptic utterances. Instead of writing the very vague "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency," you could have written "There is no consistent distribution of thermometers around the world," for example, if that's what you meant. Science requires precision of language.

Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this. And yes, they are fully aware that this affects the accuracy of their results. However, it is quite possible to estimate the errors involved using statistical methods and these are expressed as error ranges in their final results. This comes out at about 0.1 C for recent measurements and about 0.2 C for older measurements, so it is perfectly possible to detect the overall trend of about a 1 C rise in temperature over that period.

Weighting algorithms is fabrication of data. There is no other word for it.

If you take one measurement (because that's the only thermometer you own), and give it a weight of 100%, that doesn't make the global temperature the same as your thermometer. No thermometer or combination of thermometers is devoid of this problem.

No weighting algorithm can substitute for data. It is fabricating it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: I wouldn't even call lit fudged data. Fudged data is adjusting a reading to comply with a predetermined conclusion. This is simply making data up where there is none measured. This is fabrication of data outright using some 'magick' algorithm.

Yes. I tend to use the term "fudged" to encompass all invalid data but you are correct, there are four categories of invalid datasets: 1) insufficient, 2) fudged, 3) fabricated and 4) inaccurate (unacceptable margin of error).

Good catch. Keep me honest.



.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Weighting algorithms is fabrication of data. There is no other word for it.

If you take one measurement (because that's the only thermometer you own), and give it a weight of 100%, that doesn't make the global temperature the same as your thermometer. No thermometer or combination of thermometers is devoid of this problem.

No weighting algorithm can substitute for data. It is fabricating it.

You really have no clue, do you? Science isn't about black and white, perfectly correct or completely wrong. It's about probabilities and approximations.

Surface Detail wrote:
If I had one thermometer on Earth, and it showed a rise in temperature over a period of time, then I could reasonably conclude that the global temperature is more likely to be rising than falling, though with a low level of confidence. The more thermometers I have, and the better distributed they are, the more confidence I can have in my findings. Of course, I can never be absolutely certain, but science never is certain.

Surface Detail wrote:
Assigning weightings to data in order to compensate for an uneven distribution of data is perfectly normal practice. There's nothing sinister or unscientific about it so long as the inherent errors are quantified. For heavens sake, read a book on the topic and educate yourself a little!

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Surface Detail wrote:Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Surface Detail wrote: You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Ceist wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

There's corroboration from other sources as well

NOAA: An Independent Record: Measuring climate change without thermometers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/independent-evidence-confirms-global-warming-instrument-record

Into the Night wrote:And you truly believe that these sources are accurate to within a 100 years?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

What the hell are you talking about? The GISS global temperature reconstruction is based on surface temperature measurements. GISS do not use satellites to measure temperature! Where did you get that idea from?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

What the hell are you talking about? The GISS global temperature reconstruction is based on surface temperature measurements. GISS do not use satellites to measure temperature! Where did you get that idea from?

GISS.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

Surface Detail wrote:OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Read the reference. Here it is again:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

It is titled "Comparing global land temperature reconstructions", one of which is the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). This analysis is based on data from meteorological stations, not satellites.

Yes, I know what GISS stands for and, no, that doesn't affect the fact that their temperature reconstruction is based on surface data. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for more info.

For heavens' sake, ITN, if you don't actually have the foggiest idea of how institutions like GISS collect their data, what makes you think anyone should take your criticisms of them seriously?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Read the reference. Here it is again:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

It is titled "Comparing global land temperature reconstructions", one of which is the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). This analysis is based on data from meteorological stations, not satellites.

Yes, I know what GISS stands for and, no, that doesn't affect the fact that their temperature reconstruction is based on surface data. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for more info.

For heavens' sake, ITN, if you don't actually have the foggiest idea of how institutions like GISS collect their data, what makes you think anyone should take your criticisms of them seriously?

The GISTEMP data is not valid as a global temperature for the reasons I have explained earlier concerning consistency and reliability of instrumentation. The satellite data that supplements it (and tries to replace it) has the flaws I have already described.

To produce a map of global temperatures as they do using only the surface data, you have to fabricate data. There is no other way.

The GISTEMP dataset is one dataset of the GISS. The rest is based on the satellite data. Since you mentioned GISS and not GISTEMP, I commented on the satellite programs.

Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

Surface Detail wrote:
Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained. The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results. This demonstrates the validity of these results.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

It is perfectly valid if you:

1) first publish all the raw data
2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and
3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well.

If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions.

All three steps are required.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

It is perfectly valid if you:

1) first publish all the raw data
2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and
3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well.

If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions.

All three steps are required

Into the Night wrote:
These techniques have fooled a lot of people, including many scientists. When faced with the difference of datasets between the local stations and what NOAA and NASA produce, many have dropped the central data in favor of their local station to complete their study.

A great bulk of this problem is simply incompetence. Another cause is the influence of a very few number of people in each department who are trying to get the data to agree with the IPCC agenda.

Surface Detail wrote:
1) The raw data are indeed published and available for download for anyone to carry out their own analysis:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
These techniques have fooled a lot of people, including many scientists. When faced with the difference of datasets between the local stations and what NOAA and NASA produce, many have dropped the central data in favor of their local station to complete their study.

A great bulk of this problem is simply incompetence. Another cause is the influence of a very few number of people in each department who are trying to get the data to agree with the IPCC agenda.

Given that you weren't even aware that the NASA/GISS data were from land-based sources until I informed you on this thread, I don't think you're in any position to criticise their methods. You're very transparently making it up as you go along.