[uwish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Trying hard to stay out of this, but somebody has to point out the obvious question.

Aren't you two arguing about different datasets for different regions?

Isn't Goddard's main graph that was posted for America? It's not just Goddard who pointed out how Hansen at GISS minimized the older data for America and increased the more recent.

The other graph UWish posted is USHCN ( United States Historical Climatology Network). Isn't that also exclusively American temps?

Doc is showing us Global temps of which there is a generally agreed upon long range warming trend of about 1.5 degrees or so over about a hundred and fifty years.

The Best Graph looks like it's been smoothed or something. Generally when you see that trend represented it happens in steps of 20 to 30 year trends rising, flattening out, or decreasing in shorter bursts but rising overall long range in step levels globally over the last 150 years. I never got the impression 1.5 warming over 150 years was that big a deal though. Especially when you consider it starts at the end of a 400 year cooling trend sometimes called the 'little ice age.'

I know what an anomaly is graphically speaking. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by throwing them away. I assume that's what makes the levels disappear though.

But as I understand it, yeah, there can be warming and cooling trends buried within the long term global trend of warming regionally and over time. I don't think that's in dispute.

Oh and Currie also worked on Best. She and Mueller often disagree on what can be concluded from that review of the data.

On some levels yes, these are different data sets, the real issues I have are, most of the IPCC computer modeling has used almost exclusivity USHNC data until very recently. And lets not forget these are only models, that have not been verified because they can't accurately predict the past. And these are surface temperature models, that do not agree with balloon or satellite data.

The real reason why I really don't trust anyone's interpretation is because they always find reasons to manipulate the dataset. For ground temp readings, you can't just remove data that they claim is faulty, yet leave other ground data that has no other information, so it 'could' be just as faulty as the data they removed. I also, have clearly seen blatant manipulation of temperature data FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION. Who, 15 years ago published temperature data show no real increase in temperature, and all of a sudden, there 'new' data shows a warming trend. Then they come up with all kinds of reasons as to why they manipulated the data. This is not accuracy, nor precision.

So, while I don't claim to be a climatologist, I do understand math, cross plots, data and trend analysis because I do it every day. So I took all the satellite, surface and ocean temperatures from their source, directly from the database(s).

There is no significant warming trends, period. It is all about scale, it takes 30 years to make one single 'climactic' data point, in the past CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. Our climate is always variable and changing but what is happening today is no worse than the Roman warming period where it was 3 C hotter than today with 1/5 the CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Human emissions are resulting in dangerous global warming" is a hypothesis NOT supported by any of the data. Hence it is FALSE.

It's very difficult to have this type of discussion on a forum I do urge you to go and look at the data, videos i post earlier. My graphs I generated myself look remarkably similar to the graphs you will see in the presentations. To me, that is all I need to know, we have governments signing deals that will mean billions of our money going offshore in a wealth redistribution, carbon tax based on faulty, flawed analysis. It is a total FRAUD.