Originally posted by avengador1: The truth is [that] we could spend all the money in the world trying to solve this "problem" with very little results to show for it.
Maybe. Someone else started a discussion here along this line, not too long ago:
Further proof you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
You claim an increase of 0.1 since 1983, yet the graph you posted begins at -0.25 and ends at nearly +0.2 - totaling .45°C between start and finish.
Here is the UAH chart again
To compare swings or oscillations in the temperature fluctuation as the valid measurement is simply wrong. One must measure against a constant which is reflected by the 0 line. If measuring against the constant, the 30 year (3 decade) measurement between 1983 and 2013, is from the constant is less than .1 degree. Notice it is still in a falling position having fallen during the year.
In 2007, a year before this thread started, the IPCC predicted in its 4th Assessment report, that the projected rise would be
quote
1.1 to 2.9 °C (2.0 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.
But what actually happened after 2007? While the average temperature was at roughly .4 above the median in 2007 it fell to 1.9 above the median, in 2013.
It is still in a downward trend.
quote
Scientists believe melt water from glaciers is contributing to sea ice expansion in Antarctica: “Our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt” Source.
This is one report of a Dutch scientist and it flies in the face of reality. The temperature at the South Pole is so far below 0 that water cannot form. The temperature along the north shore where the Russian ship is stranded has ice 10' deep. In short the Dutch analysis is nonsense.
This is the CO2 rise charted
Compare it to the Global Temperature chart above. There is no relationship whatever.
In short Chicken Little is still out to lunch
The Antarctic ice field is both robust and unusually healthy, with the exception of the west side peninsula's volcanic activity.
Tuvalu consists of nine low-lying atolls totaling just 26 square kilometers, or 10 square miles, and in the past few years the "king tides" that peak in February have been rising higher than ever. Waves have washed over the island's main roads; coconut trees stand partly submerged; and small patches of cropland have been rendered unusable because of encroaching saltwater.
The government and many experts already assume the worst: Sometime in the next 50 years, if rising sea-level predictions prove accurate, the entire 11,800-strong population will have to be evacuated.
The ocean could swallow Tuvalu whole, making it the first country to be wiped off the map by global warming.
The islands are still there. Check them out on Google Earth
quote
Tuvalu (Listeni/tuːˈvɑːluː/ too-VAH-loo or /ˈtuːvəluː/ TOO-və-loo), formerly known as the Ellice Islands,[2] is a Polynesian island nation located in the Pacific Ocean, midway between Hawaii and Australia. It comprises three reef islands and six true atolls spread out between the latitude of 5° to 10° south and longitude of 176° to 180°, west of the International Date Line.[3] Tuvalu’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covers an oceanic area of approximately 900,000 km2.[4] Its nearest neighbours are Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa and Fiji. Its population of 11,200 makes it the third-least populous sovereign state in the world, with only the Vatican City and Nauru having fewer inhabitants. In terms of physical land size, at just 26 square kilometres (10 sq mi) Tuvalu is the fourth smallest country in the world, larger only than the Vatican City at 0.44 km2 (0.17 sq mi), Monaco at 1.98 km2 (0.76 sq mi), and Nauru at 21 km2 (8.1 sq mi).
The NOAA predicted a 70% chance of a higher than normal hurricane season.
It did not happen with only 13 events and 2 hurricanes.
There is no scientific basis to associate the increased CO2 levels with climate change.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-02-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: There is no scientific basis to associate the increased CO2 levels with climate change.
Arn
Except for the science from most if not all of your links.
FlyingFiero's keeps handing you your ass, backing his claims with reputable sources and you keep coming back for more citing reputable source (most of the time) and then making your own conclusions.
The islands are still there. Check them out on Google Earth
So what? It's not 2057 yet. The exact quote you yourself posted, from an article published in 2007, was:
quote
The government and many experts already assume the worst: Sometime in the next 50 years, if rising sea-level predictions prove accurate, the entire 11,800-strong population will have to be evacuated. [emphasis added]
Once again, Arn, you aggressively proclaim conclusions that are refuted by the very documentation you post to substantiate them. More generally, you seem to have difficulty accurately posting anything that involves numbers. I will also point out that a newspaper article, by itself, does not constitute a scientific document. (Hint: What did the underlying scientific study actually state and conclude?)
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-02-2014).]
The IPCC made it's outlandish claims after watching the upward progression from 2000 to 2007. You can see it clearly. Since 2007 there has been no upward trend. Equally visible in the data
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-02-2014).]
Look at the temperature chart again. ... Since 2007 there has been no upward trend.
Even if I agreed with your assertion that "there has been no upward trend," which I do not, you persist in two serious errors:
1) Cherry picking the data range which best appears to support your conclusion.
2) Concluding that regional and/or short-term trends (i.e. weather) somehow invalidate decades (or much longer) of global climate data. In particular, you assert that the most recent 6 years of data invalidates the full 35-year data sample. Even an untrained eye can infer a long-term trend in the full data set:
If you were somehow to come up with a graph in which the rate of the long-term trend exceeds the short-term variability, then it might be worth further consideration.
Since you brought it up, I will also observe here that you seem not even to understand the meaning of the '0' line in the temperature plot you presented. It appears to be simply the normalized mean of the individual data values, for reference only; it has no inherent meaning of its own.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-02-2014).]
they exist but have been suppressed. Go and search to find the data that established the "0" line and you will likely not find it. The median is established by taking all the figures over the available time and dividing it down the middle.
If the numbers had been escalating, the median line would have gone up too.
By chance, is there one of those graphs that goes back to when they first started being able to measure the temp portayed?
I presume, but do not know for sure, that particular satellite-based temperature measurement system may only have been operational since 1979. Also note that the temperature data is for the "Global Lower Atmosphere," which is likely to extend from the surface to at least the 500 mb (~18,000 foot) level, rather than the historic temperature measurements taken at (or very near) the surface. "Global Lower Atmosphere" temperatures are likely not to be directly comparable with older surface data, which would be reason enough to keep the data sets separate.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
they exist but have been suppressed.
Truly bizarre.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Go and search to find the data that established the "0" line and you will likely not find it.
Hint: It's right there in front of you.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
The median is established by taking all the figures over the available time and dividing it down the middle.
If the numbers had been escalating, the median line would have gone up too.
There's no way to be polite about it ... you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The plot is clearly labeled "T Departure from '81 - '10 Avg. (deg. C.)" It does not specify what statistical average (mean, median, or mode) was used, but in this case it doesn't really matter, although the mean is usually assumed unless explicitly stated otherwise. The process itself is called "normalization." The reference line is horizontal, by definition, since it represents a single value: the "average" of the entire data set.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-02-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: They exist but have been suppressed. Go and search to find the data that established the "0" line and you will likely not find it.
The median is established by taking all the figures over the available time and dividing it down the middle.
If the numbers had been escalating, the median line would have gone up too.
So the data that supports your conclusion(s) has been suppressed. Really.. that's a howler.
That plot only goes back as far as 1979, because it is a plot of temperature measurements that are derived from sensors aboard orbiting satellites. Orbiting satellites: a relatively recent invention. The data is from a standard satellite dataset that only goes back as far as 1979.
Of course there are plots of temperature data from ground-based weather stations that go back to some decades before 1900, and anyone can find them (as close at hand as on the other pages of this thread), but in the presentation of that plot, they didn't want to get into the comparing apples with oranges kind of issues: Comparing recent satellite data with old data from the earliest ground-based weather stations.
That zero or median line is defined on the plot itself (label along the vertical axis) as the average of all of the satellite-derived temperature measurements over the period from 1981 to 2010. So no, that median line should not be going anywhere up or down. It's a perfectly flat line, by definition.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-02-2014).]
It is astounding that reasonable people can be horn-swoggled by the Obama administration's political agenda being supported by scientists willing to fraudulently present facts to support the notion that CO2 is driving climate. I have posted the information which shows clearly that CO2 levels have no relationship to climate change.
I hope my American friends wake up to the fact that they have a President and administration seeking to destroy their economy and make millions in the process.
Remember that these NASA scientists depend on their paychecks from the Administration.
Remember that the false stories and prognostications will come back to haunt them because the prognostications are false.
Arn of Arns85GT still thinks that he can marshal enough scientific evidence to disprove the central conclusion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, from as recently as September, 2013, which says "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings [added] together."
If Arn had actually read the first report that he cited from start to finish (and if he had comprehended all of what was written), he would have appreciated why there is no conflict between the latest findings of the IPCC, and the high temperatures that were recorded in the continental United States in 1921, 1931, 1934 and 1953.
Hint: It has to do with something called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which imposes a shorter duration (decadal time scale) cycle that causes temperatures across the United States to swing upwards and downwards, but does not override the long duration trend of global warming that the IPCC attributes (by a factor of at least more than half) to anthropogenic causes.
But he didn't.
The most astounding thing to me is that Arn has a particular (and immovable) opinion about the validity of the IPCC's Climate Change 2014, The Scientific Basis--one way or the other.
Some of us just don't know how much we don't know.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-04-2014).]
Low years prior to 1934 have been raised. Look at 1910. Look at other years. The whole graph has been reworked to bring out an alternate conclusion. This is WHOLESALE FRAUD. Look at it.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-04-2014).]
If Arn had actually read the first report that he cited from start to finish (and if he had comprehended all of what was written), he would have appreciated why there is no conflict between the latest findings of the IPCC, and the high temperatures that were recorded in the continental United States in 1921, 1931, 1934 and 1953.
Hint: It has to do with something called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which imposes a shorter duration (decadal time scale) cycle that causes temperatures across the United States to swing upwards and downwards, but does not override the long duration trend of global warming that the IPCC attributes (by a factor of at least more than half) to anthropogenic causes.
I really do appreciate that you believe everything the IPCC/NASA puts into print, but let's look at the Global Temperature data, not just continental USA. If the 1999 graph of the US was out of whack it would have been out of whack consistently over all the data points. If it was out by 1.5 degrees, then all points would have to be adjusted equally. The problem is that they are not. One cannot go back to 1934 and remeasure the data. One can only theoretically adjust. The second chart is not consistently adjusted across all data points. It is cherry picked and maniputated inconsistently. It isn't just the 4 years named, it is a whole bunch of others that are changed too.
I know that IPCC is trying to say that Global Warming is man made. That is the whole point. THEY ARE LYING AND FABRICATING
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-04-2014).]
The first graph is US temperatures, from GISS. The second graph is US temperatures relative to the 1951-1980 average, from GISS. "In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980" Source. The comparison to the 1951-1980 average is the reason the graphs are different. It states on the graph itself it's making this comparison. If you had a clue at all you would have noticed it. But you're clueless and jumped to unsubstantiated 'fraud'.
The third graph is the heat wave index, from the EPA. The fourth graph is US temperatures, from NOAA. NOAA crunches numbers differently than GISS.
Your comparison of the four is quite literally an apples to oranges-to bananas-to mangos comparison.
I find it interesting you would cite heat waves during the 1930's as evidence to support your side when the source of the graph claims a anthropogenic contribution: "Poor land use practices ... contributed to these heat waves..."
I hoped someone else would call out this obvious nonsense as it is a New Years resolution to not argue with people with less mental capacity than a pine tree, but you know...
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-05-2014).]
Very droll.. avengador1's latest cartoon. On a more serious note, however, people in Australia might not be laughing so hard at the plight of the ships that are stuck in the Antarctic sea ice. How so?
Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2013, officials have said.
Temperatures were 1.2C above the long term average, the warmest since records began in 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its annual report.
According to the bureau, all but one of the last 10 years have had warmer-than-average temperatures in Australia. . . .
Just in case anyone forgot, this is where Australia is located, relative to Antarctica:
As far as Arns85GT and his plot which highlights the heat waves that struck the U.S. in the 1930s (here's a recently updated version of that plot), it's worth reviewing all of the commentary in the sidebar that is presented next to the plot. It's apparent from the dates on the plots that are referenced that this sidebar commentary is at least as recent as 2009:
Heat waves were frequent and widespread in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record.... Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought (the "Dust Bowl") contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
Unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common over the last few decades.... The occurrence of unusually hot summer nights (lows) has increased at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less "cooling off" at night.
The 20th century saw many winters with widespread patterns of unusually low temperatures, including a particularly large spike in the late 1970s... . Since the 1980s, though, unusually cold winter temperatures have become less common—particularly very cold nights (lows).
If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. However, since the 1970s, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States... . The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-06-2014).]
Very droll.. avengador1's latest cartoon. On a more serious note, however, people in Australia might not be laughing so hard at the plight of the ships that are stuck in the Antarctic sea ice. How so?
Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2013, officials have said.
Temperatures were 1.2C above the long term average, the warmest since records began in 1910, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its annual report.
According to the bureau, all but one of the last 10 years have had warmer-than-average temperatures in Australia. . . .
Just in case anyone forgot, this is where Australia is located, relative to Antarctica:
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The first graph is US temperatures, from GISS. The second graph is US temperatures relative to the 1951-1980 average, from GISS. "In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980" Source. The comparison to the 1951-1980 average is the reason the graphs are different. It states on the graph itself it's making this comparison. If you had a clue at all you would have noticed it. But you're clueless and jumped to unsubstantiated 'fraud'.
As far as this "graph-gate" controversy which Arn has raised, I am not sure that FlyinFieros explanation is on the mark. It does seem to me that there could be some small, inconsequential discrepancy between this plot of U.S Temperature and an updated version of it that appeared on NASA webpages. These plots are not fully documented or explained--not the earlier version of it. But Arn (as usual) is cherry picking, using only small, out-of-context excerpts from his own (larger) sources to manufacture specious arguments for his extravagant claims that NASA and the IPCC are either wildly incompetent or involved in some massive global warming "conspiracy".
Annual and 5-year mean surface temperature for (a) the contiguous 48 United States and (b) the globe, relative to 1951-80, based on measurements at meteorological stations. The data covers the years from 1880 to 1999.
The report explains some of the reasons that the warming trend all the way up to 1999 is more pronounced in the global dataset (on the right side) than in the smaller dataset for the continental U.S. (on the left side).
This report--from 1999--does not represent the most complete and up-to-date climate data and climate science.
And these few plots, which Arn has singled out to present as his "graph-gate" scandal, are only about mean surface temperatures.
NASA and the various research contributors to the IPCC have other temperature-based datasets (like the proportion of record high temperatures vs. record low temperatures, compared decade by decade: plot), all of which are considered in relation to each other, before drawing their conclusions. Here's another example:
This chart of July average temperatures in the United States shows the old norm in green and the new norms in blue, gray and red. Note that the quantity of extremely hot days has increased many times over.
I have never said that I could personally marshal enough scientific information to validate all--or even any one--of the findings from NASA or the IPCC. But I try not to be deceived by half-baked arguments in the opposite direction.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-06-2014).]
As far as Arns85GT and his plot which highlights the heat waves that struck the U.S. in the 1930s (here's a recently updated version of that plot), it's worth reviewing all of the commentary in the sidebar that is presented next to the plot. It's apparent from the dates on the plots that are referenced that this sidebar commentary is at least as recent as 2009:
Heat waves were frequent and widespread in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record.... Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought (the "Dust Bowl") contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
Unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common over the last few decades.... The occurrence of unusually hot summer nights (lows) has increased at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less "cooling off" at night.
The 20th century saw many winters with widespread patterns of unusually low temperatures, including a particularly large spike in the late 1970s... . Since the 1980s, though, unusually cold winter temperatures have become less common—particularly very cold nights (lows).
If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. However, since the 1970s, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States... . The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.
I never said that the climate is stable. In fact, I've said that it changes all the time. What I disagree with is the notion that CO2 drives climate. The charted CO2 levels continue to go up with the world's increased population and industry, but, the climate models do not reflect a reaction to CO2.
I still do not understand, after reading the suggested links, why a scientist would go back in records decades old and change the data. He or she might well analyze the reasons behind the data, or even compare data, but, scientists and meteorologists in years gone by went out to their thermometers and took readings. They did so honestly and with integrity and recorded the data for posterity.
Now, some nimrods in the IPCC and NASA take it upon themselves to change the thermometer readings to try to prop up their failing theory known to many of us as the "hockey stick" graph, or "anthropogenic global warming" aka ""climate change""
There is no scientific reason to change data previously recorded except for (1) one reason alone. Political interference.
I investigated people who changed numbers for their own profit, for over 30 years. They are called fraudsters, embezzlers, and thieves.
The people who changed the data and now post the falsified data to support Obumbles and his UN friends, are no better.
So here is a thought. How did the last North American Ice age start? Maybe just like this
Of course none of us knows if this Arctic vortex is the start of an ice age or just an anomaly. It will, however, impact the yearly temperature average.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-06-2014).]
So we are talking about a plot from 1999 and the same plot, updated with new data in 2007. Arn's question is why are there differences between the two plots (excluding the new data from 2000 to 2007, of course). In other words, looking at the data that is plotted for the years from 1880 to 1999, why is it that some years are higher on the 2007 plot than the 1999 plot, and other years are lower on the 2007 plot than the 1999 plot?
I think it may well have something to do with this:
Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however—and could spell more public relations woes for NASA. . . .
That's the first paragraph. I am not going to duplicate any of the rest of it. Please use the GEOTIMES link (just above), if anyone wants to delve into this further. I do want to paraphrase something else from the report. According to the scientist who was directly responsible for the NASA GISS database (James E. Hansen), the difference between 1934 and 1998 is smaller than the error bar or uncertainty that is inherent in the data. Smaller before the dataset was corrected, and smaller, after the dataset was corrected.
We know that the first plot (1999) was before these dataset error corrections. What about the second plot (2007)..? I don't know. I'm not clear about where (what Internet page) that more recent plot came from.
I still cannot reconcile these two plots with the report from 2007, about the error corrections. According to the first paragraph (which I duplicated, above) NASA said in 2007 that 1934 was hotter than 1998, in terms of mean temperature, normalized to the mean computed from the years 1951 to 1980 (a standard GISS data normalization). According to that description, 1998 should be the hottest year on the first plot (1999) and 1934, the hottest year on the second plot (2007). But the plots are the other way around.
There's not a reason in the world to think that the difference between these two plots is of any current significance to the latest climate science or global warming findings by either NASA, the IPCC, or any other reporting organization. The changes are too small to effect even the CONUS (continental U.S.) trends, much less the global trends. And the GISS datasets are only one of the global temperature datasets that are used by researchers that contribute to the IPCC's periodic assessment reports. And even beyond that, "the whole [GISS] analysis is redone every month" as standard procedure, according to the GEOTIMES report.
Finally, the GEOTIMES report quotes NASA on their transparency policies, which means (as NASA was quoted in that report), that the raw GISS temperature datasets, the corrected datasets, and the computer programs that perform the dataset correction calculations are all freely available to independent researchers.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-07-2014).]
It is all well and good for Hansen to apologize for a "mistake". But it isn't just a mistake. It is an organized fraud.
Here are the two data sets overlapped to see the difference. Look at the two red lines.
(image updated with a better merge)
As you can see the data was manipulated to create the impression that past years were cooler than they actually were.
This creates the illusion that there is a dramatic warming trend.
As I have said before, since the last ice age there has been a gradual warming trend. It is not dramatic, and it is not catastrophic. It has nothing to do with CO2
If you want to believe the IPCC and NASA you now have the information that they are LIARS. You can disregard it, discount it, or try to explain it away, but it remains a FRAUD.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-07-2014).]
It is all well and good for Hansen to apologize for a "mistake". But it isn't just a mistake. It is an organized fraud.
Here are the two data sets overlapped to see the difference. Look at the two red lines.
As you can see the data was manipulated to create the impression that past years were cooler than they actually were.
This creates the illusion that there is a dramatic warming trend.
As I have said before, since the last ice age there has been a gradual warming trend. It is not dramatic, and it is not catastrophic. It has nothing to do with CO2
If you want to believe the IPCC and NASA you now have the information that they are LIARS. You can disregard it, discount it, or try to explain it away, but it remains a FRAUD.
Arn
Looks like you've got those cheatin scientists dead to rights Arn. Instead of just exposing this "fraud" here why not write the source of the graphs and let us know your results.
webmaster@giss.nasa.gov
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-07-2014).]
Over 31,000 scientists and doctors have told them. I'm not about to tilt at the windmill myself. However, I have informed my Member of Parliament. Everyone should do the same.
Over 31,000 scientists and doctors have told them. I'm not about to tilt at the windmill myself. However, I have informed my Member of Parliament. Everyone should do the same.
Arn
I think we can see the real fraud Arn.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-07-2014).]
As you can see the data was manipulated to create the impression that past years were cooler than they actually were.
No Arn, the difference is one graph uses 1951-1980 base period and the other doesn't.
Apples to oranges comparison.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I investigated people who changed numbers for their own profit, for over 30 years. They are called fraudsters, embezzlers, and thieves.
Based on your delusional performance here, I would bet a lot of innocent people suffered at your incompetent hands.
My $0.02: The Earth has been a lot warmer, the Earth has been a lot cooler. Human activity may play a role but in the end, the planet doesn't care much. If we're involved in making the environment inhospitable to our species then that's tragic - for us! The planet will just move on and evolution will quickly fill the void created by our demise. It has happened before, it will happen again. Where's the problem? Are we that important?
We're certainly not the pinnacle of evolution (or is that hopefully)?
Originally posted by yellowstone: Interesting thread and discussion.
My $0.02: The Earth has been a lot warmer, the Earth has been a lot cooler. Human activity may play a role but in the end, the planet doesn't care much. If we're involved in making the environment inhospitable to our species then that's tragic - for us! The planet will just move on and evolution will quickly fill the void created by our demise.
Can't argue with that. True on all counts.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone: It has happened before, it will happen again. Where's the problem? Are we that important?
This logic is short lived for me. Here's why: Why is it illegal for me to murder you? You'll die anyway, right?
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: No Arn, the difference is one graph uses 1951-1980 base period and the other doesn't.
Here's my take. Each plot, the one from 1999 and the one from 2007, both derive their base--the number that defines zero on the vertical axis of temperature anomaly--as the mean (average) temperature over the years 1951 to 1980, which is NASA's standard method for normalizing the GISS data. But the raw dataset was corrected in 2007, apparently earlier in 2007, before the second plot was produced. Since this changed the temperatures for the years from 1951 to 1980, it also changed where the zero point falls on the vertical temperature anomaly axis. Put that together with the inescapable fact that all the previous data (from 1880 to 1999) was corrected in 2007, before the second plot, and the curves on the two plots would have to be somewhat different from each other.
As far as Arn's "fraud" charges, that is beyond ridiculous. If you comprehend my previous post, and if that doesn't satisfy anyone, delve into it further with this GEOTIMES report from 2007 about NASA's error corrections to the GISS dataset, anyone can see that the differences in the two plots has zero, nada, zilch in the way of swinging any of NASA's or the IPCC's latest findings about global warming in one direction or the other.
Anyone could go further and literally beat their brains out trying to reconcile the differences in the two plots with the GISS dataset correction of 2007 (as described in the GEOTIMES report). An impossible task, without actually having the raw GISS temperature data and the NASA error correction programs, for a scientific audit, and for independently duplicating the numerical calculations (easily within Arn's capabilities, no doubt..) The numerical datasets and software programs are freely available from NASA. Whaddya say Arn--go for it? Get the "stuff" and audit it for yourself and all the rest of us on whatever platform you use for your forum posts? I can't wait..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-07-2014).]
