By Steve Goddard
GISS tells us that it was the hottest May on record. Just looking at that map makes me perspire. It must be wicked hot at the North Pole!
But wait a minute! The DMI record doesn’t look so hot in the Arctic.
What could be wrong? Could it be the fact that GISS has almost no coverage in the Arctic? We often hear the question”what if CO2 were pink?” Answer : it would still be almost invisible at 0.0004 concentration.
Now, let’s turn that around and see what GISS coverage holes would like if they were pink.
Shocking pink, that is. GISS is claiming a global temperature record based largely on the Arctic – in which they have less than 10% coverage. Hansen explains the growing gap between GISS and Had-Crut as being due to the fact that GISS has better Arctic coverage.
Judge for yourself.
GISS has 2010 at #1. Had-Crut has 2010 at #4. Thanks to GISS’ extensive Arctic coverage.
.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not in Connecticut.
The pink panther stole the climate jewels of integrity and sense (as in sensors in the right places so that data isn’t invented in a process of fabrication).
By any standard, fabrication of data in science = fraud, especially when public policy is based upon such fabricated data and it’s subsequent faulty fabricated conclusions.
GISS clearly fabricates data. What are the consequences?
Surely it makes sense to cast a sensor network at a much higher grid resolution? Say every 10km? or heck even every 100km across all land and water surfaces? Surely increased sensor resolution would help improve the data sets? Or would it?
If GISS holes in the snow
Were so pink they had a glow
Then Jimmy James would blush
His data pure as smeared out slush
So the GISS tells us it was very hot in areas they took no readings. The old term for this was cheating.
Code Pink: Dr. Hansen, STAT!
================
Don’t ask, don’t tell…
I’m guessing some others will also point out that in the Antarctic, there is a transition from a -4 anomaly to a +4 anomaly. Has anyone checked to see if someone slipped a decimal in (what is almost certainly) one of the two stations used to generate the coverage?
Funny to see such a great correlation between no data and warming.
Maybe the best way to fight against global warming is by addind thermometers ? 🙂
O/T We won!:
“The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, says he welcomes “the development of a vigorous debate” on climate science.
In an article for the BBC’s Green Room series, he says those on the side of “consensus” must remember that debate drives the evolution of knowledge. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10316910.stm
Has anyone told Al Gore that the debate is not over after all?
And surely IF there is a debate within the scientific community, as acknowledged and welcomed by the IPCC., then there cannot possibly be consensus. To claim that there is only consensus on one side of any argument utterly invalidates the consensus of the whole. There is either consensus, OR there is debate, there cannot be both!
If there is still vigorous and open debate, then the science is NOT settled and the idea that spending trillions of dollars over the next 20 years on solutions to a debatable idea is utterly ridiculous.
The winner in this is real sceptical science.
It might be really neat looking if the “pink” were set to “transparent”. Then the rotating globe would look like a patchy meshwork.
CO2 “at 0.0004 concentration”? Units?
But temps are irrelevant now, ‘cos all that oil in the Gulf means we must have Cap’n Trade so as to force you oil guzzlers off your daily fix of fossil fuel (& make carbon exchange founders and traders VERY RICH). I’ll have some windmills on the side too, please. (Sarc/off).
Maybe continuing cold winters will take the edge off Washington’s enthusiasm. Little real sign of it affecting 10 Downing St (UK PM’s residence) unfortunately. Still, we continue to rubbish the surface Temp. sets – well, point out the difficulties & huge error margins – whenever we can!
Keep up the good work tho’. Posterity will want to know exactly when the next Ice Age began….
No one would dare to spend such a lot of color inkjet. Those guys do because it is not their money.☺
Lee Klinger
Concentration is a dimensionless number. It has no units.
David L.
Here is what the holes look like as transparent
…and that funny hockey stick shows a whopping 0.3 °K increase !!!!!. Only detectable by my greatgreat gradmother´s left knee.
These guys, as the only one who carries an alien tenant in his belly , the imcomparable Al baby(a.k.a.” El Gordo”-the fat one-), have become walking-talking jokes. Nobody can believe such extreme and foolish lies.
Thank you Charles for posting this timely reminder of the paucity of measured evidence to support this fabricated emergency that is AGW.
Imagine how pink it would get if we were able to knock out those stations that are affected by UHI? One day, perhaps. It would certainly be sobering to see how many stations world-wide are affected by UHU “noise”.
Anyhow, thanks again.
Doh. UHU should read UHI.
Dumb question:
If there are no/few stations in the Arctic/South America/etc, how are they measuring the surface temp over the oceans? Strictly by satellite?
Still 2-4 Celsius cooler than average and raining last night in the mid Island region of Vancouver Island despite promises of a dry week. Warmer my [snip].
Although given the non temperature monitored areas on the globe, I’m not surprised the forecasters get it wrong. But enough about mere weather.
Klinger, at 0729 asks, “Units?” This is a molecular fraction: for every gas molecule in the atmosphere, there are nearly .ooo4 molecules of CO2. Or 4 per 10,000 or 400 per million (400ppm). 400ppm=.ooo4. And according to the ideal gas law, molecular fractions are very similar to volumetric fractions, if the gases were to be separated out. –AGF
These GISS anomaly maps drive me nuts. This is certainly a case where the absolute value of the measurement IS MORE SIGNIFICANT than the anomaly.
First, GISS uses corrupted/cherry-picked data around the Arctic, then they extrapolate hundreds of km beyond data points (or beyond ignored/excluded data points), and then they display the results in florid colors intended to imply blazing heat.
Even if an anomaly value of (e.g.) +4C were correct (doubtful), it has little physical significance if it is the difference (e.g.) between 260K and 264K. Both values are below freezing and dang cold.
Color is the smoothest tool of propaganda because we are conditioned to respond emotionally to color
Double-ditto for images of brown-eyed critters.
Put ’em together and you’ve got a WWF fundraiser poster. Or a contribution to IPCC AR4.
Does the GISS use a gridding technique (such as Kreiging) to extrapolate across regions without data? If so, how well do they deal with boundaries in their model Earth?
My experience (based on GIS and other data processing applications) of such processes is that the standard processes tend to lead to extreme values (both high and low) around the margins because of a tendency to extrapolate as similar rates of change. Based on this, I wonder if the extremely hot area in eastern Russia and the Arctic is an artefact of the cold spots in Russia/China and NW Canada and a normal or slightly warm reading to the north of these.
Burning embers!
As inspired by the New York Times:
http://www.artistascitizen.org/#/burning_embers_competition/
And others:
“In the IPCC third assessment report, Smith et al. (8) first presented the now famous “burning embers diagram,” a graphic, easily digested representation of the level of threat or risk associated with future projected anthropogenic climate change”