These two March, 2011 maps from UAH and GISS show it pretty clearly. March was a very cold month in Greenland.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/march/MARCH_2011_map.png
Surface temps from Weather Underground confirmed this. However, Hansen’s magic (below) made most of Greenland hot (anomalies as high as 9.9C.) GISS fabricated Arctic data is worthless, at best.
My God! No wonder its melting so fast! Goodbye Manhattan. Will someone please tell the UAH gang about their catastrophic error and warn the poor folk of Greenland.
I sure hope they link this one to ClimateDepot. A rather dramatic piece of evidence to put it mildly. Love to see Lisa Jackson squirming when confronted with this in some hearing. Or is it racist to point out the different colored maps?
Bizarre
More imaginary warming Arctic nonsense. How do they get away with such huge, obvious errors? Why isn’t “peer review” calling them out on this?
Some news from Australia. Another Carbon Tax project running aground:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/australian-budget-ignores-carbon-tax-issue-2011-05-10
Great photo of poor Ms Gillard on the front page of this right now.
At the same time… “Melburnians can expect more cold, wet weather this afternoon following hailstorms and flash floods in Melbourne’s north west.
Today is the coldest May day in more than a decade, according to Weatherzone, with the temperature a nippy 8.6 degrees at 2pm – which is usually the warmest part of the day.”
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/victoria-shivers-as-snow-blankets-alps-20110511-1ehtb.html
Yes. I know. Its only weather unless it is hot.
Because they are all liars, Andy. Thorough going evil bastards.
You keep wanting to say, “They just made an error. Could happen to anybody.” just to reassure yourself that there isn’t an army of such people, all aiming to eradicate me any you.
But that’s just rationalization.
Don’t want to believe that such as they exist. But they do.
Evil lying bastards with an extermination agenda. And they are closer then we are to ruling the world.
It’s not just that GISS data is worthless, it’s scientific and financial criminal FRAUD. Statistically Fabricated data is NOT observational data. Period. You can NOT just make up data with statistics and then pretend that it’s what is really going on – that is the scientific fraud aspect. Since Hansen’s funding and public policy seems to be being set by these “graphs” it then crosses over into criminal and financial fraud. IMHO. Hansen needs to be investigated for criminal wrongdoing.
If you guys had any hint of scientific training you’d know that you need much more information to conclusively compare these two outputs. They could both be right by measuring over land vs. sea, at different heights, using different time periods as their base etc, etc. You don’t have enough information on these web pages to pronounce one less accurate than the other – let alone cherry pick the one that doesn’t fit your world view as the fraud/lie etc.
Grow up.
Ya think? How about the fact that UAH has actual Arctic data, while GISS makes theirs up?
Gotta get the White House and the Senate back, then punch his ticket, and call a Grand Jury.
Steve
Any chance you could do a proper comparsion rather than the misleading one you’ve presented above.
A number of points
1. GISS baseline is 1951-80 while UAH is 1981-2010.
2. GISS default smoothing radius is 1200km (as used above) which might be ok for a general global view but is meaningless at a regional level. Try using 250km soothing – the option is available in GISS.
3. Show the Weather underground station temperatures then we can compare them with those in the GISS database to see if there is a genuine discrepancy.
Thanks
From GISS:
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
GISS results are Wild A## Guesses loosely based on measurements given them by NOAA. Those measurements have already been subjected to the NCDC Vegomatic with their own blend of secret herbs and spices thrown in.
GISS admits their product is worthless up front!
This is also why past temperatures are not static but rather dynamic and change with each model run. It is mainly obvious over longer time periods such as an output from the 90s and one from a recent report.
The claim of using 1951 to 1980 is a fabrication because their 1951 to 1980 figure is not a fixed figure either.
GISS produces a fairy tale that people believe is somehow real!
Ah, that’s where the missing heat is!
I wonder how many of these scientists are just plain stuck. They are caught in a lie, and the perceived penalty for admitting they screwed up is worse than looking at themselves in the mirror every day?
And of course, every day they get further entrenched in their “miss-truths.”
Just got back from a road trip, listening to public radio in the car, in the same segment of the enviro-type program they where talking about how the arctic was melting way faster than expected (I really want them to explain the observed data). And of course they segway’d into the flooding in the Mississippi delta, where they brushed upon the record snow falls.
It hurts my head.
It is a classic big lie scenario. It is about personal survival now, science and truth no longer mean anything.
You are correct.
There are 3 things at stake for climate scientists: FUNDING, SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY and STATUS. For Al Gore it’s good ol’ money to be made in carbon schemes. The facts no longer matter.