Thread: Would you Trust NASA ?

Clippo asked a question the other day that made me think. So I asked google another question and found the following ...

Will the Real USHCN Data Set Please Stand Up? « Climate Audit

So where does the GISS raw version come from? At this stage, I think that we can declare that it doesn’t come from any of the USHCN version 2 (raw, TOBS, adjsted). If it did, then the versions would match as exactly as the GHCN raw and GISS raw after 2000. So where does it come from? Another stupid climate science guessing game, although hopefully it will solved in a shorter time than the unsolved MBH99 confidence intervals.

How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures « NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

The red line reflects the actual temperature records provided by the Iceland Met Office and shows quite clearly a period around 1940, followed by another 20 years later, which were much warmer than the 1970’s. GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees.
Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.

Clippo asked a question the other day that made me think.

Blimey !!!! – can you?, did it hurt?

I should point out that you haven’t answered that question, or the associated question of whether you ‘trust’ our own Royal Society. But, true to usual form, you try to slide away from the first one, aka this title thread, by posting long debunked rubbish criticism of a tiny part of NASA’s work.

Fact,
- there are, I think, 4 long term surface temperature measurement groups active in the world at the moment. They each have measuring stations in different parts of the world. Sometimes they overlap, other times they don’t. All recognise that their basic readings have to be ‘corrected’ to normalise their results because of particular geographical factors. These ‘corrections’ have long been in the public literature and not questioned except by the FF industry funded ‘doubt’ campaign. This ‘doubting’ group has long tried to question the reality or usefulness of an average world temperature – indeed I recall MBP posting links to these fallacies some time ago. Their logic is that if they can ‘doubt’ these measurements, then somehow, in their fantasy dreams, the whole AGW theory/hypothesis will come tumbling down

The absolute accuracy of the ‘average’ world temperature at a point in time ISN’T THE POINT. The continued measurements at the same places at the same times of day, week, month, year and decade assume, with statistical reasoning of normal random error in those sites, that a TREND can be reliably deduced.

It can – and to the satisfaction of practically everybody apart from a few wingnut websites and acolytes, the world HAS been, and IS, continuing to warm.

A few weeks ago, I published links to senior US Republican thinking, (who ultimately fund the doubters), that also supports AGW. And furthermore, this little wingnut band of ‘heroic rebels’ also choose to ignore amore recent truth i.e. BEST

For those who don’t know, a group was set up to study the reliability of the various temperature recording teams. To the delight of the ‘contrarians’ the BEST group was to be lead by Prof. Richard Muller and who was judged to have uttered ‘skeptical’ arguments about AGW some time ago – one of our boys’ will make the alarmists look fools they thought.

But, what happened? Dear old dicky actually confirmed that the various temperature measurements were indeed reliable, and Global warming was real and related to mankind’s activities. Of course, typically the contrarians, particularly Watts, turned all brown and smelly.

But I need to cut this short despite enjoying so much – I want to watch “The Staffordshire hoard”.

So, back to you MBP –

Do you trust Nasa?
Do you trust our Royal Society?
If not, Who do you trust?

Sleep well

But, what happened? Dear old dicky actually confirmed that the various temperature measurements were indeed reliable, and Global warming was real and related to mankind’s activities.

You diverge, but has the BEST paper passed peer review yet ?

re:-

You diverge, but has the BEST paper passed peer review yet ?

Firstly, as I understand, it wasn't ever meant to lead to a scientific ' paper' - so it never was intended to be peer-reviewed. So, your weak attempt at sarcasm has rebounded back in your face. Initially, BEST was a study to clearly be an attempt by AGW deniers to 'doubt' the otherwise universally accepted Earth temperature measurements - but, like your weak humour, it rebounded on the deniers big-time and all were clearly humiliated by the fan blowing youknowwhat back in their faces. They, (you) will never recover from that

Get over it MBP - you're a lost cause with no chance of redemption.

Now, again, answer the questions please!

Now, again, answer the questions please!

You are pushing in here Clippo ..

Please answer my questions first.

As for a lost cause, I am making another post about Hansen et al Climate Model

Biggest lost cause since The Hockey Stick

I agree with you wholeheartedly Ron. The reason he doesn't answer our questions is because he hasn't any EVIDENCE, empirical or theoretical, to undermine the massive consensus agreement on AGW.

Every post of his is an attempted corruption of data and analyses of others that has stood the real test oif independent scientific peer-review and validation.

Perhaps then Ron you can point me to the calculations I asked for.

Please show me evidence that man is causing global warming and the calculation for how much CO2 will raise the temperature by 1 degC ..
Considering now that man causes >100 percent of global warming - according to Clippo, I would love to see the calculation for this

Considering now that IPCC draft states that Man is not as big an influence as before
BBC News - Mixed messages on climate 'vulnerability'

In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the
uncertainties continue.

But now are the IPCC back pedalling like mad ?

Another IPCC Demand for Secrecy « Climate Audit

They now look determined to wipe this document from the face of the earth. Nice open lot at IPCC arent they