Predictions for the Next decade, and Your Position on AGW

[BethesdaWX]

Well, then, I refuse to use GISS since I've proven some of their extrapolations are wildly incorrect. I am not going to guess the global temperature for a source that isn't actually measuring the global temperature, but is rather measuring what NASA thinks the global temperature should be. And that's a conflict of interest!

For example, how can you show Greenland as >2C above normal for March when both model data and satellites show way below normal anomalies? They must be having some serious station problems up there, or Hansen is tampering with the extrapolations, as I've suspected for a long time.

Skier should use NCDC data, that should fix the issue.

Only then it still wouldn't be as warm as GISS.

Or more simply, just combine all Datasets, UAH, RSS, STAR(just for skier), NCDC, GISS (just for skier), and get your anomaly.

Or, use Proven Datasets, like NCDC, UAH, and RSS, combine, and get your Number.

[skierinvermont]

I'm glad you now understand this.

Took awhile though. Instead of trusting me, you had to wrongly accuse me of lying.

Seriously, Skier? lol

Perhaps he should have voted more carefully in the poll. His answer to the poll question says quite clearly that he expects the 2010s to be .2C cooler than the 2000s. Why would I bother to read the entire thread if his answer to the poll question is so clear? If he weren't carelessly voting one thing and typing another then this problem wouldn't occur.

[skierinvermont]

Well, then, I refuse to use GISS since I've proven some of their extrapolations are wildly incorrect. I am not going to guess the global temperature for a source that isn't actually measuring the global temperature, but is rather measuring what NASA thinks the global temperature should be. And that's a conflict of interest!

For example, how can you show Greenland as >2C above normal for March when both model data and satellites show way below normal anomalies? They must be having some serious station problems up there, or Hansen is tampering with the extrapolations, as I've suspected for a long time.

The extrapolations aren't inaccurate. Replacing the polar extrapolations with UAH changes nothing. The extrapolations are theoretically sound and empirically verified.

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps he should have voted more carefully in the poll. His answer to the poll question says quite clearly that he expects the 2010s to be .2C cooler than the 2000s. Why would I bother to read the entire thread if his answer to the poll question is so clear? If he weren't carelessly voting one thing and typing another then this problem wouldn't occur.

Just read the thread you posted, its only 1 quote down.

Your fault to assume I had "changed".

[skierinvermont]

Just read the thread you posted, its only 1 quote down.

Your fault to assume I had "changed".

Perhaps you shouldn't vote one thing and say another. Unless you are trying confuse people of course.

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps you shouldn't vote one thing and say another. Unless you are trying confuse people of course.

Wait, where did it say I voted -0.2?

It was simple, before you make any accusations, be sure you have the right info. Thats why when you sue someone, you have "supporting evidence for the motive".

You ran the risk by accusing me of intentional Fraud, and you Failed.

[Snow_Miser]

Now you see what I have do deal with on a daily basis.

LOL I also post on another Climate Change forum, and there the AGW proponents like to attack the person that published the peer reviewed paper, instead of adressing the actual paper, or they'll criticize the person for not going through peer review process. I found this nice graph on WUWT that describes the AGW Proponents well.

I also referenced your discrepency with Hansen on that forum.

[BethesdaWX]

LOL I also post on another Climate Change forum, and there the AGW proponents like to attack the person that published the peer reviewed paper, instead of adressing the actual paper, or they'll criticize the person for not going through peer review process. I found this nice graph on WUWT that describes the AGW Proponents well.

I also referenced your discrepency with Hansen on that forum.

This^^ That chart is so perfect.

Although peer review is necessary... yet the IPCC quotes almost 6000 Non-peer reviewed articles in their 2007 report, so whoever is critisizing are Hypocrites.

[skierinvermont]

Wait, where did it say I voted -0.2?

It was simple, before you make any accusations, be sure you have the right info. Thats why when you sue someone, you have "supporting evidence for the motive".

You ran the risk by accusing me of intentional Fraud, and you Failed.

I did make sure. You voted in the poll on Eastern that the 2010s would be .2C cooler than the 2000s. Should I really be assuming that you are too stupid to vote in a poll correctly?

[nzucker]

The extrapolations aren't inaccurate. Replacing the polar extrapolations with UAH changes nothing. The extrapolations are theoretically sound and empirically verified.

This looks like a nice verification over Greenland...RSS shows central Greenland at -4C, GISS has it around +2C. I don't see how I can't reject GISS data for extrapolating half the world with methods that clearly result in erroneous temperature anomalies, while you can reject Hadley because it doesn't try to make bad guesses of data that's not there. To be honest, I think Hadley's method is more reasonable; sure they're going to be cold because of the Arctic, but it's better than just ascribing incorrect temperature anomalies to areas and not even subjecting it to a cross-check with other sources that might have a grip on what's going on. I find the March 2011 maps to be particularly illustrative over Greenland:

GISS:

RSS:

I mean, when the leader of GISS is a self-acknowledged climate skeptic who's been arrested for his demonstrations, and who has botched data before on the warm side, how can you really trust this process? I'd like there to be a thorough investigation from NASA into why GISS is diverging in recent years, whether the extrapolations are too broad, and how to correct for extrapolations that are just totally in disagreement with other data. It just seems ridiculous that a weather observer that follows the models casually can point out that GISS is clearly wrong over Greenland: looking at the GFS, you could see there was a huge trough there for most of March with the PV right over Baffin Island, 850s near -30C...and yet GISS finds huge warmth under a 480dm PV? I mean come on, let's get real here.

[nzucker]

In my opinion, the globe will probably warm on the order of .05-1C this decade, barring a large volcano. But it's really hard to predict ENSO far out, which could make a huge difference if we get a -PDO induced Niña streak like the late 1940s/1950s.

[skierinvermont]

This looks like a nice verification over Greenland...RSS shows central Greenland at -4C, GISS has it around +2C. I don't see how I can't reject GISS data for extrapolating half the world with methods that clearly result in erroneous temperature anomalies, while you can reject Hadley because it doesn't try to make bad guesses of data that's not there. To be honest, I think Hadley's method is more reasonable; sure they're going to be cold because of the Arctic, but it's better than just ascribing incorrect temperature anomalies to areas and not even subjecting it to a cross-check with other sources that might have a grip on what's going on. I find the March 2011 maps to be particularly illustrative over Greenland:

Nobody claims that for any given month the polar extrapolations are spatially accurate. However, the long term polar trend is accurate. Replacing the GISS polar regions with UAH polar regions doesn't change GISS. This is an unambiguous verification of the extrapolations in the long-term. You can point out monthly spatial errors until you are blue in the face but it's not going to change this fact.

[Mallow]

+.12C

[ORH_wxman]

+.12C

I'll say about half that, maybe slightly more.