|
From the NASA/GISS Gistemp website -
|
|
09-07-2009, 07:19 AM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the NASA/GISS Gistemp website -
The following two graphs are from NASA GISS Gistemp website:
![]() and ![]() (Larger versions available on the website) I'm having a little trouble getting them to match up. Regarding the Land-Ocean temp index -The first shows a steep rise in temps over the same time period that the second graph shows a much less, and somewhat more level, temp change over that same time period. I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! |
|||
|
09-07-2009, 07:23 AM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: From the NASA/GISS Gistemp website -
The charts do not match up because they have different temperature and yearly scaling levels.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies. –William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952 |
|||
|
09-07-2009, 01:36 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: From the NASA/GISS Gistemp website -
I understand that.
The deceptiveness seems clear - the first shows a virtaully continuous rise in L-O temps since 1996 which matches up with Hansen's view. But, the second one, on his own website, isn't showing such a clear picture regarding continued warming. I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! |
|||
|
09-08-2009, 08:15 AM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: From the NASA/GISS Gistemp website -
It is the smoothing Al Goreithim used in each of the charts and the end padding used. For longer periods of time they use a longer smooth that tends to trend the endpoint and would not show a change in trend until X number of years had passed but then would continue on that line even after the next change. That is what happened to MET temperature records in January, I believe it was then. They admitted a problem as it showed excessive cooling so they corrected the temperatures. When it showed excessive warming they ignored the results. NASA and NOAA are both guilty of playing that game. Also there is evidence that the historic records have been shifted cooler. I think ICIH may be more familiar with this issue at WUWT or CA.
|
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| 2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model | Sunsettommy | 0 | 918 |
06-16-2011 05:53 PM Last Post: Sunsettommy |
|
| Derek - Sub project GISS. | Derek | 9 | 4,389 |
03-06-2011 02:09 PM Last Post: Derek |
|
| Stunning: NASA GISS Admits No Evidence of AGW In The US, Won’t Be For Decades! | Sunsettommy | 0 | 877 |
01-23-2010 03:09 PM Last Post: Sunsettommy |
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



![[Image: Fig.A2.gif]](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif)
![[Image: Fig.C.gif]](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif)




