• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge dismisses climate-change lawsuit against 5 oil giants

Mithrae said:
No, to the trained eye it really doesn't. But inasmuch as they would be essentially indistinguishable without the trendlines and not shown right beside each other, all you are highlighting is the fact that these GISS adjustments you (and especially Code) are trying with all your might to hype up into some big scare story are actually entirely trivial, and therefore it is essentially impossible that there is any kind of agenda beyond their pedantic drive for precision.
Click to expand...

Well it's true that your graph doesn't say what GISS time series is shown,
mine says it's the GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index. Your graph doesn't
document where the data that produced it can be found, mine does, and
on my earlier post I provided the links, you haven't. On both graphs the
2018 trend is steeper than the older trend line. So I don't know what you
are talking about, and you probably don't either.



I'm out of here in an hour or so. Have fun (-:

 
Steve Case said:
Your graph doesn't
document where the data that produced it can be found, mine does, and
on my earlier post I provided the links, you haven't.
Click to expand...

Yes I did provide the links in my earlier post, genius. The attachments didn't display properly in post #122, so I reposted the graph, under the apparently mistaken impression that I was dealing with someone bright enough to grasp such a basic concept as context.

I should've known better. You must have been keen to ignore post #122, since I showed that earlier in this very thread I had mentioned the major 2001 GISS update; and your own archive link had data back to December 2000, showing that the 2001 update had a major cooling effect on the record; and yet you seemingly cherry-picked only the data from 2002 instead because it better fit the 'pattern' you wanted to portray. Keep those blinkers on buddy, it's probably the best you can manage ;)
 
Mithrae said:
Yes I did provide the links in my earlier post, genius. The attachments didn't display properly in post #122, so I reposted the graph, under the apparently mistaken impression that I was dealing with someone bright enough to grasp such a basic concept as context.

I should've known better. You must have been keen to ignore post #122, since I showed that earlier in this very thread I had mentioned the major 2001 GISS update; and your own archive link had data back to December 2000, showing that the 2001 update had a major cooling effect on the record; and yet you seemingly cherry-picked only the data from 2002 instead because it better fit the 'pattern' you wanted to portray. Keep those blinkers on buddy, it's probably the best you can manage ;)
Click to expand...

Your post #122 has everything to do with UAH data and not much to do with GISSTEMP data.
You apparently think that I am interested in UAH data changes. I am not. Why I am not is
because the public doesn't get UAH graphs fed to them. Our wonderful news media uses
GISSTEMP graphs to feed to the public. And as such how many and to what effect and to
what degree GISSTEMP changes their data is of interest. And so once again, do you agree
that GISSTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) has reported around 350,000 monthly
entries and that around 25% of them which comes to about 85,000 have been changed
since 2002 ?

I use 2002 because that is the earliest publication of the current format:

Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]             GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C      base period: 1951-1980

                  sources: GHCN 1701-06/2002 + SST:   1880-11/1981 HadISST1
                                                   12/1982-06/2002 Reynolds v2
                    using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
                    Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ;  ***** = missing

                                                                     AnnMean
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year
1880   -20  -16  -21  -24  -27  -37  -22  -18  -20  -23  -27  -19    -23 -27    -35  -24  -26  -24  1880
1881   -26  -20    2   -4   -3  -27  -11  -13  -28  -27  -31  -21    -17 -17    -22   -2  -17  -29  1881

...

Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year
2001    37   34   52   39   43   42   45   51   43   42   61   41     44  42     29   45   46   49  2001
2002    64   69   72   44   43   44******************************     56****     58   53**********  2002
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Centigrade.
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit.

...

[/FONT]

Earlier editions of the LOTI only go back to 1950:

Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]             GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C      base period: 1951-1980

              sources: GHCN 1701-05/2001 + ocean temperatures 1950-05/2001(Reynolds)
                    using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
                    Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ;  ***** = missing

                                                                     AnnMean
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year
1950   -29  -27   -5  -18  -15   -9   -7  -26   -8  -13  -31  -12    -17 -17    -23  -12  -14  -17  1950
1951   -26  -37  -14   -2    3   -2   -2   12    3   11   -1   15     -3  -6    -25   -4    3    4  1951

...

Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year
2001    47   38   55   35   54***********************************  *********     36   48**********  2001
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec    J-D D-N    DJF  MAM  JJA  SON  Year

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Centigrade.
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit.

...
[/FONT]

That's an extra 70 years of data and 85,000 changes, so far, that GISS has made since 2002.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom