When is a “Global Temperature” not global? When it only covers maybe 15-20% of the earth’s surface with actual thermometers.
Stooopid me, I assumed that when Hansen published the graph above in 1999, that it actually was a global temperature graph. So I wrote a really stoopid post based on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/
I will try to not be so stoopid in the future.
It’s not Hansen’s fault you’re stoopid. It’s the fact that you are promoting the idea that these scientists are in fact frauds. You look for conspiracy where there is none — that’s what makes you stoopid.
The first sentence in the paper would have been a HUGE CLUE. if you actaully read anything. A paper that says we estimate the global temperature FROM the land stations ( if you read papers you would understand) could hardly label that estimate as ANYTHING ELSE. further this whole issue of legacy GISS work was discussed recently at WUWT.
You will do better if you stop and read papers. Beats counting pixels
[Reply : The bookmark I was working with was to the image, not the paper you refer to. There is no html explicitly associated with an image file. I never saw the text you refer to. Some people carelessly assume that everyone else has taken the same journey through life as themself. Please tell me what text is associated with this picture : http://i1.treklens.com/photos/11399/doggy.jpg%5D
Learn to check your sources. if you have no source dont assume you understand the chart. you never read any of hansens papers? ever? who is david barber?
You are sloppy. I thought Mann was bad. Start by reading all of hansens papers. Then read the code. then run it. Then think twice before you post
It’s generally not a good idea to base conclusions on unsourced images. If you don’t know what the image is of, how can you say anything sensible about it?
Or should we assume that everything you say is based on context-less gossip and randomness? (This would explain an awful lot.)
[Reply : Would you trust an image from this site? LOL
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif%5D
Pingback: Goddard: misGISStimation « The Whiteboard
I have this uncanny ability to put images into context. By, for example, reading http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ where we learn that the image is of “Annual and 5-year mean surface temperature for (a) the contiguous 48 United States and (b) the globe, relative to 1951-80, based on measurements at meteorological stations.”
And armed with this information, and other contextual information, such as the date on the article, I can see that the image, while useful, is wildly outdated. I can then use my amazing reading skills to find the updated images (again with context, here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Mr. Goddard, I read your post on WUWT, and then this ridiculous apology. You do realize that you libeled the GISS scientists in your post there, don’t you? And your conclusion and statements were completely false and unfounded? And you recognize in fact, that the statistically small adjustment in the GISS record ran completely opposite of what you published in your analysis? At the very least, there should be a prominent mea culpa CORRECTION published at the top of the WUWT post.
If you succeed in escaping punishment for this kind of criminal behavior, that is a shame. In my view, you have tarnished the reputations of real climate scientists without cause, and by using fabrications and distortions. And you seem completely without any scruples that your illegal behavior could cause any damage or harm.
This is a sad and pathetic summary of your actions in this matter.
Placing a bag over your head is standard treatment for hyperventilation.
I don’t have any control over what is published on WUWT and I have issued a retraction and explanation right here. If Hansen publishes a graph of land only temperatures, he should label it appropriately. Otherwise, people will misinterpret it.
I don’t have any control over what is published on WUWT and I have issued a retraction and explanation right here.
That’s a great argument, Steven. Why issue a retraction here? Why not send a postcard to your neighbour with a retraction on it for him to read?
How do the WUWT readership know that you were wrong to implicitly accuse Hansen and GISS of fraud and manipulation if they are not reading it over at WUWT? Many people have been and will be misinformed.
I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.
GISS does show a significant divergence with HadCrut, RSS and UAH since 1998. I offered up an explanation for the divergence, which was incorrect.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/normalise/to:2009/trend
Had GISS not modified their historic data, they would still be consistent with other data sets and would not show warming post-1998. I’ll leave it to the readers to interpret further.
Implicitly…
not if they read the paper.
Funny you wont apologize for your comments but you write me and demand that I apologize for pointing out your errors.
Perhaps Dr. Hansen should issue a prominent correction to his overstated A/B/C scenarios? How many world leaders are making key decisions on the basis of those incorrect predictions?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
none
Neven, please read what Mr. Goddard suggests… He wants to put a bag over everyone’s head to prevent them from seeing, hearing, or smelling the truth about the information that Mr. Goddard publishes. But even with a bag over my head, we can still think…
Try as he might, he can’t control our minds.
No, I am just trying to introduce disruptive ideas into the Borg. Resistance is futile.
Ah, “Just kidding!” The last refuge of a caught-out internet crank?
Hmm, after reading your inane defense of using a graph you admit you nothing about — I guess you are stoopid.