So FC when are you going to admit you are completely wrong.
Nevermind - your article is from the Onion.
Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
So FC when are you going to admit you are completely wrong.
Nevermind - your article is from the Onion.
When are you going to complete your homework and plot the HadCRUT data? You keep making assertions but have no proof -- demonstrates a complete lack of integrity on your part.
Don't let me keep you.
Now I'm not sure if you are just crazy or a troll. Or a crazy troll. This is beyond mere ignorance and delusion now.
Prove your assertions. Download the HadCRUT data and plot it. Upload the results to ET... prove your point. It's very simple.
Absurd.
I HAD CRUT once. I didn't NOAA what to do. I took a GISS that the BEST thing to do was use some ointment. That cleared everything up.
About those data sets......
Each year GISS, HadCRU and NCDC each announce a change in the average global temperature. Each organisation uses subtly different methodologies to analyse data, which means this announced statistic can differ. For example, GISS ranks 2005 and 2010 as the joint hottest years but HadCRU classifies 1998 as the warmest. The three datasets record an increase in temperatures over the past century of between about 0.6 and 0.8 degrees celsius.
...........
However, stations are not evenly distributed around the world. The Arctic, the Antarctic and the African interior have very few stations and many grid boxes in these regions have no stations at all. The different datasets deal with the lack of data from these remote regions differently. GISS assumes that regions with no stations have the same temperatures as the areas closest by that do have stations. HadCRU classifies remote areas with no stations as missing data. The NCDC extrapolates data, but not to areas in the Arctic with sea ice.
The differences in GISS and HadCRU's published datasets as a consequence of their extrapolation techniques is illustrated below:
GISS on the left, HadCRU on the right. Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The GISS methodology is more sensitive to unusual conditions in areas with few temperature stations. Because HadCRU does not extrapolate data to areas where there are no stations it can underestimate the warming effect of climate change in the Arctic, for example.
The rate of Arctic sea ice loss suggests temperatures are higher then currently stated in the HadCRU data. Because temperatures were cool in the Arctic during 1998 the GISS value was lower than that given by HadCRU. During 2005 and 2010 the Arctic experienced warmer conditions and thus GISS gave a higher global temperature than HadCRU. This probably explains why HadCRU states that 1998 is the warmest year on record while GISS states 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-temperatures/
Each year GISS, HadCRU and NCDC each announce a change in the average global temperature. Each organisation uses subtly different methodologies to analyse data, which means this announced statistic can differ. For example, GISS ranks 2005 and 2010 as the joint hottest years but HadCRU classifies 1998 as the warmest. The three datasets record an increase in temperatures over the past century of between about 0.6 and 0.8 degrees celsius.
...........
However, stations are not evenly distributed around the world. The Arctic, the Antarctic and the African interior have very few stations and many grid boxes in these regions have no stations at all. The different datasets deal with the lack of data from these remote regions differently. GISS assumes that regions with no stations have the same temperatures as the areas closest by that do have stations. HadCRU classifies remote areas with no stations as missing data. The NCDC extrapolates data, but not to areas in the Arctic with sea ice.
The differences in GISS and HadCRU's published datasets as a consequence of their extrapolation techniques is illustrated below:
GISS on the left, HadCRU on the right. Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The GISS methodology is more sensitive to unusual conditions in areas with few temperature stations. Because HadCRU does not extrapolate data to areas where there are no stations it can underestimate the warming effect of climate change in the Arctic, for example.
The rate of Arctic sea ice loss suggests temperatures are higher then currently stated in the HadCRU data. Because temperatures were cool in the Arctic during 1998 the GISS value was lower than that given by HadCRU. During 2005 and 2010 the Arctic experienced warmer conditions and thus GISS gave a higher global temperature than HadCRU. This probably explains why HadCRU states that 1998 is the warmest year on record while GISS states 2005 and 2010 are the warmest years.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-temperatures/
Next time, try IPeCaC.
