That is a tough question. I find the radiosondes and the RSS satellite data the highest quality, and free of the errors and adjustments surface stations have. And the lack of coverage the others suffer from. For data before 1936, it’s a crapshoot.
Did you read this link?
Bolding mine.
I answered your question, I trust the NOAA data. If you would please read your link, you’ll see that GISS is in agreement with me. This is a personal choice, based on a far better understanding of the models NOAA uses to obtain their data. I don’t know how the models are programmed, nor what algorithm is used. NOAA does run these models every six hours, interpret the results and publicly publish the results. I have read these results every day for the better part of 20 years now. Thus, I have a better feel to the capabilities and limits of these models, and ascribe my trust based on a minimal of reliance on what the holy priests of science tell me to trust.
GISS takes the model results from NOAA, including the errors inherit in numerical modeling and run their own models on top of that, introducing another set of errors. These error do not cancel each other, they add to each other.
Why should we trust GISS over NOAA?
Some of it, but not all. You asked me where GISS data comes from; I provided an answer. As explained above, it is not relevant to my argument whether GISS is accurate or not.
I’m not sure what your point is here. You asked where GISS data comes from; I answered the question.
So you are abandoning your claim that that NOAA is generally considered best and most accurate?
Anyway, please answer my question: Which temperature indexes do you consider to be reasonably accurate?
I don’t trust either one, I’m just trying to figure out where your goalposts are. You seem to be disputing that generally speaking, climate simulations match history. I’m trying to learn which versions of history you will accept in order for me to provide examples of my claim.
Then you need to read it, as it disputes the argument you seem to think it supports.
For the third time, NOAA data is the best available. One of the choices you offer explicitly states they use NOAA data, I’m sure you’ll find the same for the other three.
You don’t like my answer … too fucking bad … maybe you should stop posting citations that confirm my answer is the best available.
Please name three other sources of raw data besides NOAA.
How is that?
Let’s assume that’s true. Now please answer my questions.
-
Which temperature indexes will you accept as reasonably accurate?
-
On what do you base your assertion that NOAA is generally considered best and most accurate?
-
Are abandoning your claim that that NOAA is generally considered best and most accurate?
I don’t know if I will or I won’t, and it doesn’t really matter. Because I’m simply trying to figure out where your goalposts are.
No clue. And I’m happy to agree for the sake of argument that there are no other sources besides NOAA.
Now please answer my questions. This is the last time I will ask.
Because in your reference:
So, based on the above quote from your citation, I can answer:
1] NOAA
2] That they have the data everyone else uses (or at least the GISS, we assume the reasons are pervasive)
3] No
Yes, please stop asking, the answers will remain the same. Thank you for the citation, you really ought to read it, it would have answered your questions for you.
Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, Liu and colleagues from Rutgers University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, the University of Hawaii, the University of Reading, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Albany describe a consistent global warming trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling before human influence.
The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.
“The question is, ‘Who is right?’” says Liu. “Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year’s study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html#jCp
Thanks for your answer. I did some searches and found this graph which purports to compare GISS, NOAA, Hadcrut, RSS, and UAH.
Do you dispute the graph?
So when you assert that NOAA is “generally considered the best and most accurate,” you mean that (1) YOU consider it to be most accurate; (2) you feel that none of the other leading indices is even reasonably accurate; and (3) you are unable to name any prominent climate researchers who agree with you.
I repeated the questions because you did not answer previously.
Not really. For example, you assert that NOAA is “generally considered the best and most accurate” however there is nothing in the cite which identifies WHO considers NOAA “best and most accurate.”
Also, there is no explanation there for why the other leading temperature indices are not accurate at all. Even though they seem to track NOAA pretty closely.
I await further answers from you.
That’s rich.
No
Not until you read your reference.
My apologies if this has already been posted, I don’t follow this thread very closely. But…
Here is the latest from everyone’s favorite climate scientist, Al Gore.
In that case your position makes zero sense. All of the temperature indices are pretty close to each other over a long time frame in the sense that if a simulation were a pretty good fit with one of them it would be a pretty good fit with the others. And yet you insist that 4 out of 5 are not even reasonably accurate.
You state that the one you like is “generally considered the best and most accurate” and yet you refuse to state who exactly considers it so, besides yourself.
The bottom line is that in providing an example to support my claim, I will NOT restrict myself to the NOAA temperature series. Nor will I restrict myself to simulations which go back to 1880. Because you have not provided a good reason for such restrictions.
If there is something important there which you think I am missing, feel free to quote it.
Does it state who exactly considers NOAA to be the best and most accurate?
Does it state that the other temperature indices are not even reasonably accurate?
If not, then it doesn’t help you.
WOW, Rolling Stone found a replacement for Hunter S. Thompson … I’m getting a subscription today !!!
I respect Al Gore in the same way I respect Einstein, they both made great contributions and they both made not-so-great contributions … relativity and world wide web = good … anti-QM and water always frozen at 32ºF = bad
Bolding mine … you are absolutely clueless as to what this data is … it’s some schmuck reading a thermometer every hour and writing down the temperature. What is being simulated?
I have … GISS … no … you’re the one who needs help [sticks tongue out]
I have no idea why you think every weather station in the whole world has FIVE separate thermometers with FIVE different schmucks taking FIVE different readings and reporting to FIVE different agencies.
Lol, you seem to be clueless about what we are actually discussing.
The climate, and more specifically global surface temperatures. Did you really not know that was what we were discussing?
Let me ask you this:
Given that you accept the graph I linked to, will you agree that if a simulation is a pretty good fit with one of the temperature indices, it will most likely be a pretty good fit with the others?
Please quote me where I stated or implied such a thing. Failing that, please admit that I did no such thing and apologize.
Your choice.
Ghod, I hope you two are gonna kiss soon.
Om my, even the idiot troll is getting bored.
Worst circle jerk ever. Did you two forget we are all supposed to be ignorant fossil fuel shills stroking each other? Now you are arguing over the temperature records. There’s much ignorance about, try to focus.
Wrong. GW means a continuous increase in global temperatures, due to human activities. Mostly CO2. You simply have to understand the basics before you can go about bashing people over the head with your vast understanding and shit like that.
Of course one of the more depressing things is how the last 17 years didn’t actually continue to warm. Each year this continued the stories about it changed, which is actually damn interesting. Especially the point where it switched from being denied, to being explained, to being dismissed as important. The goal posts get moved so often, it can make some people sick.
Why, just back in 2009, NASA was still predicting the drastic warming by 2100.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
Of course that article also says
which could be viewed as possibly an error or something.
That simple little claim there, “the change in the world’s air temperature averaged over all the land and ocean between 1975 and 2008. The warming is obvious – about 0.5° C (0.9° F) during that time.”, that is actually on topic, when discussing the models, the anomaly datasets, and the skepticism that greets both.
No, dear. Not the idiot troll. Merely an idiot troll, one among many.
And really not bored. The sexual tension is so thick you can climb on it. I have two Ken dolls I’ve labeled “Brazzie” and “Wolfie,” and I’ve been making them kiss all week.
Hamlet is going to take awhile.