Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming.

[ptif219]

It doesn't make sense because you seem to exist in some alternate reality where NASA announced it as the hottest month.
They didn't. The data showed it. It was found and fixed. The Russian stations somehow reported temperatures from the previous month. Probably some intern copy/pasted the wrong file, I don't know how they go about transferring these things. It's a crapload of numbers. 30 days worth of temperature reports for thousands of stations. It takes some time to check it over for mistakes, and guess what? The mistake was caught.

It only "appears" to be "cherry picking" because you're a conspiracy theorist.

So the data from the rest of the world did not matter we will use the russian data because it shows warming.

This is what it appears happened but they got caught. You do not explain why this was not caught when other countries stations should have revealed the false readings. This shows the truth is not important but showing warming is

 

[iangb]

So the data from the rest of the world did not matter we will use the russian data because it shows warming.

This is what it appears happened but they got caught. You do not explain why this was not caught when other countries stations should have revealed the false readings. This shows the truth is not important but showing warming is

Can you show where the data was used, anywhere but the sceptics website you linked to? Oh; and you do know that it can be two different temperatures in two different places, yes? Furthermore, the article you linked to shows that once the mistake was discovered (by whatever methods were used), the error was corrected.

You're running out of bluster; and this thread is rapidly belonging in the Conspiracy Theories section.

 

[ptif219]

Can you show where the data was used, anywhere but the sceptics website you linked to? Oh; and you do know that it can be two different temperatures in two different places, yes? Furthermore, the article you linked to shows that once the mistake was discovered (by whatever methods were used), the error was corrected.

You're running out of bluster; and this thread is rapidly belonging in the Conspiracy Theories section.

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data | Watts Up With That?

Read the article the GISS a NASA orginization used Russian figures. Why is it they did not use their own? The russians showed warming so they used the russian's false readings

 

[iangb]

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data | Watts Up With That?

Read the article the GISS a NASA orginization used Russian figures. Why is it they did not use their own? The russians showed warming so they used the russian's false readings

No, I said 'anywhere the data was used', not 'anywhere the data was released'.

There's a major, serious blunder in your argument. If you actually look at GISS, you'll see that the report is composed of a compilation of three main datasets: "the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. " If you then go over and look at one of those datasets; the GHCN, you will find that it get's it's data from a massive range of sources.

When there was an error in one of those sources, if mucked up the whole thing. There was no 'chosing to use someone elses data because it showed warming' - all the data showed warming, and the Russian source doesn't do this particularly more than any other. In fact, it would be daft to just use data from a single source to define the global mean temperature; that's simply not what the GISS does.

As I said above - you've run out of argument. Care to try again?

 

[ptif219]

No, I said 'anywhere the data was used', not 'anywhere the data was released'.

There's a major, serious blunder in your argument. If you actually look at GISS, you'll see that the report is composed of a compilation of three main datasets: "the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. " If you then go over and look at one of those datasets; the GHCN, you will find that it get's it's data from a massive range of sources.

When there was an error in one of those sources, if mucked up the whole thing. There was no 'chosing to use someone elses data because it showed warming' - all the data showed warming, and the Russian source doesn't do this particularly more than any other. In fact, it would be daft to just use data from a single source to define the global mean temperature; that's simply not what the GISS does.

As I said above - you've run out of argument. Care to try again?

You are not saying why the GISS used russian figures instead of their own. You are trying to explain it away put can not say why they quote russian figures instead of their own.

Sounds like cherry picking instead of using their own stations.

 

[iangb]

You are not saying why the GISS used russian figures instead of their own. You are trying to explain it away put can not say why they quote russian figures instead of their own.

Sounds like cherry picking instead of using their own stations.

Try reading my post again.

GISS use Russian figures because they want a worldwide reading - and GISS don't have any stations in Russia, just as they don't have any stations in Pakistan, or Australia (two other countries on the 'list of sources' linked to above).
Furthermore, nothing is being used 'instead of' something else - all datasets are being used in combination; it was just that the Russian dataset was corrupted, which threw off the global average. The Russian figures are not directly quoted - it's just that they threw off the accuracy of the combined data, which was quoted.

Even further furthermore, GISS would have had nothing to gain from knowingly using the incorrect figures. All the error in the data did was make one month in the year anomalous; a warming trend is still shown with the corrected data, and that anomaly would not have impacted upon the overall trend.

 

[ptif219]

Try reading my post again.

GISS use Russian figures because they want a worldwide reading - and GISS don't have any stations in Russia, just as they don't have any stations in Pakistan, or Australia (two other countries on the 'list of sources' linked to above).
Furthermore, nothing is being used 'instead of' something else - all datasets are being used in combination; it was just that the Russian dataset was corrupted, which threw off the global average. The Russian figures are not directly quoted - it's just that they threw off the accuracy of the combined data, which was quoted.

Even further furthermore, GISS would have had nothing to gain from knowingly using the incorrect figures. All the error in the data did was make one month in the year anomalous; a warming trend is still shown with the corrected data, and that anomaly would not have impacted upon the overall trend.

So the Russian figures differ from everyone else so use those figures and then try to save yourself when you get caught. It still sounds like cherry picking since the Russian figures were so much higher than any other figures

 

[iangb]

So the Russian figures differ from everyone else so use those figures and then try to save yourself when you get caught. It still sounds like cherry picking since the Russian figures were so much higher than any other figures

All that the GISS does is compile the data; regardless of what it might say. It has to do this because omitting figures for no reason other than 'they don't look right' is horrible scientific practice - you need a reason why you shouldn't trust data before you discard it. That was the reason why the whole 'hide the decline' misinterpretation was such an attack.

There was no 'getting caught'; GISS hadn't done anything wrong. It has to trust the data that is given to it; it's the people who produce that data in the first place who should be checking it for errors. That has also clearly happened; the data has since been rectified. It's possible even that the data error was found because someone from GISS told the Russians about the odd result; though this is total speculation on my part.

 

[Middleground]

All that the GISS does is compile the data; regardless of what it might say. It has to do this because omitting figures for no reason other than 'they don't look right' is horrible scientific practice - you need a reason why you shouldn't trust data before you discard it. That was the reason why the whole 'hide the decline' misinterpretation was such an attack.

There was no 'getting caught'; GISS hadn't done anything wrong. It has to trust the data that is given to it; it's the people who produce that data in the first place who should be checking it for errors. That has also clearly happened; the data has since been rectified. It's possible even that the data error was found because someone from GISS told the Russians about the odd result; though this is total speculation on my part.

But, but, but... iangb, conspiracy theories are so much more fun!

 

[Manc Skipper]

Ok, I skimmed. Why is Giss data being linked to to support an argument against present day warming, when the link is to a two years old study?

 

[Deuce]

Ok, I skimmed. Why is Giss data being linked to to support an argument against present day warming, when the link is to a two years old study?

Because Ptif219 does not understand the things he reads.

 

[iangb]

Because Ptif219 does not understand the things he reads.

Basically, this.

More precisely; I challenged him to find a single example where 'The GW Community' (his words) lied about data, then propogated the lie (knowing that it was false) using 'scaremongering doom and gloom tactics'. At which point, I would imagine he jumped onto Google and linked to the first thing he found from a recognisable website; probably before he even read it in detail. In fact, I'm still not sure he's read it in detail.

 

[ptif219]

All that the GISS does is compile the data; regardless of what it might say. It has to do this because omitting figures for no reason other than 'they don't look right' is horrible scientific practice - you need a reason why you shouldn't trust data before you discard it. That was the reason why the whole 'hide the decline' misinterpretation was such an attack.

There was no 'getting caught'; GISS hadn't done anything wrong. It has to trust the data that is given to it; it's the people who produce that data in the first place who should be checking it for errors. That has also clearly happened; the data has since been rectified. It's possible even that the data error was found because someone from GISS told the Russians about the odd result; though this is total speculation on my part.

Nice spin but they cherry picked Russia because it showed the highest temps. Why did they not use US stations?

 

[iangb]

Nice spin but they cherry picked Russia because it showed the highest temps. Why did they not use US stations?

This is pure spam, ptif. You really aren't reading a word, are you?

They did not cherry pick russian data. They did use US stations. The GISS report is an averaged value of global temperatare based on many, many datasets - including Russia, America, Australia, Pakistan and so on. All datasets were used in making the report - no particular dataset was given artificial importance.

Except for in your eyes, that is.

 

[ptif219]

This is pure spam, ptif. You really aren't reading a word, are you?

They did not cherry pick russian data. They did use US stations. The GISS report is an averaged value of global temperatare based on many, many datasets - including Russia, America, Australia, Pakistan and so on. All datasets were used in making the report - no particular dataset was given artificial importance.

Except for in your eyes, that is.

No it was based on Russian stations they claimed repeated the month before readings. You can spin and justify the corruption here seems to be evident to me.

You will never admit any wrong doing about the GW propagandist even when it is proven

 

[iangb]

No it was based on Russian stations they claimed repeated the month before readings.

It was based on readings from a very large number of datasets; the russian dataset is just one of those. I said that already - it doesn't show that the Russian data was specifically 'cherrypicked'; quite the opposite.

 

[ptif219]

It was based on readings from a very large number of datasets; the russian dataset is just one of those. I said that already - it doesn't show that the Russian data was specifically 'cherrypicked'; quite the opposite.

The Russian one is the one that showed the false readings allowing the GISS to claim hottest october on record. The other readings did not support this so were not used.

Nice try but these GW propagandist do what ever it takes to promote their fraud of man made GW

 

[Deuce]

The Russian one is the one that showed the false readings allowing the GISS to claim hottest october on record. The other readings did not support this so were not used.

Nice try but these GW propagandist do what ever it takes to promote their fraud of man made GW

Prove that NASA claimed it was the hottest October. Find me an announcment from them.
Also prove that US temperatures were left out.

 

[ptif219]

Prove that NASA claimed it was the hottest October. Find me an announcment from them.

Update: Thanks to an email from John S. – a patron of climateaudit.org – we have learned that the Russian data in NOAA’s GHCN v2.mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS.

 

[Deuce]

Update: Thanks to an email from John S. – a patron of climateaudit.org – we have learned that the Russian data in NOAA’s GHCN v2.mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS.

That's not even a link nor is it proof of anything. Prove that NASA announced it was the hottest October.
It also doesn't say that US temperatures were left out. Prove that US temperatures were left out.

 

[ptif219]

That's not even a link nor is it proof of anything. Prove that NASA announced it was the hottest October.
It also doesn't say that US temperatures were left out. Prove that US temperatures were left out.

It is from my article and proves that Nasa lied and used bad info when they have their own readings. That means they threw out good readings for bad readings to show warming. more corruption and lies from the GW propagandaists

 

[iangb]

It is from my article and proves that Nasa lied and used bad info when they have their own readings. That means they threw out good readings for bad readings to show warming. more corruption and lies from the GW propagandaists

In no way does it prove that they threw out US readings.

 

[Deuce]

It is from my article and proves that Nasa lied and used bad info when they have their own readings. That means they threw out good readings for bad readings to show warming. more corruption and lies from the GW propagandaists

It doesn't say they threw out US readings. Prove that US readings were thrown out and that NASA announced the month was the warmest.

 

[ptif219]

In no way does it prove that they threw out US readings.

So the US readings were not a sign of the false readdings? It shows the russian readings were given preference to claim a hot October

 

[iangb]

So the US readings were not a sign of the false readdings? It shows the russian readings were given preference to claim a hot October

Do you know what a 'mean' is?