minarchist wrote on Sep 10
th, 2018 at 9:24pm:
NASA GISS.
If their data is unacceptable, which temperature data set would you consider acceptable?
two points.
1. Gavin Schmidt is Director of NASA GISS. He is the one saying that temperature estimations are +/- 0.5C. He then does some fantastically wonderful statistical stuff and voila it becomes +/-0.05C.
"But think about what happens when we try and estimate the absolute global mean temperature for, say, 2016. The climatology for 1981-2010 is 287.4±0.5K, and the anomaly for 2016 is (from GISTEMP w.r.t. that baseline) 0.56±0.05șC. So our estimate for the absolute value is (using the first rule shown above) is 287.96±0.502K, and then using the second, that reduces to 288.0±0.5K. The same approach for 2015 gives 287.8±0.5K, and for 2014 it is 287.7±0.5K. All of which appear to be the same within the uncertainty. Thus we lose the ability to judge which year was the warmest if we only look at the absolute numbers."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/observations-reanalyses-an...2. You don't see any error bars in that graph; do you?
Seeing as the temperatures are estimations from completely different sources; None.
The land temperature estimation has large areas where there are no weather stations. So they guestimate the result.
The ocean temperature has also large areas where they don't have measurements. That is also a guestimate.
And then they merge their guestimates.
Gavin guesses his results are within +/-0.5C. NOAA guess their results are within +/-0.01C.
And then of course they magically guesstimate the temperature for the two mediums, somehow, back to 1880; when there is a paucity of data.
Sorry. It is just unbelievable. But I'll let you believe whatever you want.
Forum
Pages: 
