Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (830686)	1/18/2015 1:32:35 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573430

How Gavin Cheated To Create The Required Talking Point [ Who is Gavin Schmidt? He's the modeler who runs NASA GISS now that James Hansen is retired. Hansen, another modeler, ran GISS from 1981-2014 - yes, 33 years. Before Hansen, GISS had been run from it's founding in 1961, by Robert Jastrow as a "space studies institute" named after Robert Goddard, a rocket scientist), Schmidt job during Hansen's reign was to run the Realclimate propaganda blog. (Wikipedia below): NASA named Schmidt to head GISS in June 2014. He stepped into the position left vacant after the retirement of long-time director James E. Hansen, becoming the third person to hold the post. [5] In an interview with Science News, Schmidt said that he wanted to continue the institute's work on climate modeling and to expand its work on climate impacts and astrobiology. [6] .......... Schmidt is a founding member and contributor to RealClimate, a blog that provides commentary on climate science for the public and journalists. [10] [11] Participants on the website (aka the hockey team) state that all posts on the site are internally peer reviewed. Many are written by other members, with frequent guest posts from non-member leading scientists. Schmidt's articles and comments on the blog have presented scientific defense against accusations raised in controversies over the hockey stick graph. [12] During the 2009-2010 Climatic Research Unit email controversy he strongly defended the scientists involved, including Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones. ......... Note: After his retirement from NASA, Jastrow cofounded the George Marshall Institute in order to counter the work of the Union of Concerned Scientists and similar leftist perverters of science. Among other things, Jastrow and the GMI was skeptical of catastrophic manmade global warming. ] Posted on January 18, 2015 by stevengoddard Gavin quietly says that there is a 62% chance that 2014 was not the warmest year on record, but he had to give his boss a talking point for the State of the Union address this week. So Gavin simply fabricated warm temperatures across huge areas like Greenland, where he had no actual thermometer data in December. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Gavin showed much of western Greenland 1-2C above normal, when it was actually 2C below normal. It doesn’t take a lot of that sort of cheating to get temperatures up 0.02 globally. ch_tlt_2014_12_anom_v03_3.png (730×450) There is only one chance in 27 million that there is a smidgen of truth to the hottest year ever claim.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (830686)	1/18/2015 3:22:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573430

"no more than four-hundredths of a degree" Considering temps are supposed to go up 0.15 degrees/ decade, it's a lot, especially without El Nino.. . "But that's based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable." They are. His aren't. Major UAH AdjustmentsAs shown in Figure 2, there have been a number of major adjustments to the UAH temperature record over the years. There is of course nothing wrong with adjusting a temperature record to remove biases - science progresses, after all. There is, however, a problem when the authors of that record continually insist that there are no problems with the record, and overstating the accuracy and robustness of their data, as Spencer and Christy have a history of doing ( as documented by Albatross). Further, in his follow-up post on Spencer's blog, Christy made a very incorrect statement about the causes behind the UAH corrections: "The largest effect one sees [in the UAH corrections] is due to the spike in warming from the super El Nino of 1998 that tilted the trend to be much more positive after that date." Figure 2 clearly shows this statement is false. The two adjustments in red (which correct for errors identified by scientists outside of UAH) alone account for 0.135 of the 0.138°C per decade UAH TLT trend - 98%! As Tom Curtis notes, the 1998 El Niño only accounts for approximately 0.008°C per decade (5.8%). Overall, the adjustments made to UAH (which resulted in both trend increases and decreases) account for half of the current UAH trend (0.069 of 0.138°C per decade). skepticalscience.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (830686)

1/19/2015 12:28:38 AM

From: Wharf Rat

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573430

Did you know that RATPAC is more accurate than Spencer and Christie?

Table 1: Lower (TLT) and mid-troposphere temperature (TMT) estimates from various groups

Group	TMT Trend (°C/decade)	TLT Trend (°C/decade)
UAH	0.05	0.14
RSS	0.09	0.14
Fu et al.	0.13	--
V & G	--	0.20
Zou et al.	0.13	--
RATPAC	--	0.18

Note that the RATPAC radiosonde (weather balloon) data are in close agreement with the higher tropospheric temperature estimates, as are the HadAT2 radiosonde data (Figure 3).

Figure 3: HadAT2 radiosonde data (black) vs. UAH (blue) and RSS (red) lower troposphere temperatures, and HadCRUT3 surface temperatures (green)

This provides yet another reason why it is unwise to assume that UAH is correct and the models/physics or surface temperature data are wrong. It is the UAH data that is the outlier.

skepticalscience.com