GISS doesn’t have many thermometers in Africa, and many of them show cooling or no warming over the past decade.
Nevertheless, GISS does know that there is a hot spot in the middle of Africa, which covers Chad, the Central African Republic, and parts of The Congo. Three countries where GISS has little or no thermometers.
GISS also knows the global temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree. We are lucky to have such clever scientists.
Everybody knows that if there isn’t thermometers there it’s because it’s too hot to bother with them.
I looks like the adjustment may be extrapolated from a handfull of stations? Do you have the actual stations used to make the adjustments? It would be interesting to check the station settings, etc.
As usual, the adjustments only go in one direction. This seems to be a repeated pattern with GISS – making the world hotter wherever they don’t have data.
Tarzan couldn’t take this kind of hot….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IUDNMlKW1U
How to describe the work GISS is doing and the results they are promoting… S²D²
I’m not sure what else you expect GISS to do if the data isn’t available. Extrapolate from other nearby points is about all you can do.
Would be interesting to compare the estimated temps to satellite based measurements over recent decades.
Normal procedure is to not use areas without data.
Wouldn’t that depend on how finely you requested the data to be gridded?
I also see there is some data for that area.
Brendon,
Did you look at the data in the link you provided? All data that has two sets (ie. Alindao) shows the present (or recent past depending on the record) cooler than the 1940-1960 temps.
Thanks for helping prove Steve’s point.
I love GISS science. Here is a revealing piece of “global averaging science”,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
It is entitled “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)”
Exerpt:
“Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.”
AT COMMENT: So, we have a system that “may lead to drastically different results” if you change a method of measuring. Very nice, nothing related to reality, just an arbitrary method.
“To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.”
AT COMMENT: So, since there are no grid of 3000 stations that have vertical averaging over 50 ft high and it is practical impossibility, we have no idea what the “true regional SAT” is. Therefore, we stick our finger in open air at our discretion, even if we know that it may lead to “drastically different result”. How nice!
“Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models.”
Even more wonderful!!!
“Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need”
So, you tell me what I need. Wonderful! And if find that I don’t need this BS and need real data, what do I do?
Interestingly, when I loaded their zonal averages, I tired to check if corresponding baselines (1951-1980) add up to zero, as they should by definition. They did not.
So, what a wonderful baloney all this “science” is. What has escaped the attention of those scientists is that the basic reason why they cannot agree on “universally correct answer” because there is no correct answer, because the parameter they choose, the “global average temperature”, has no physical meaning. Very clever approach!