Här kommer e mycket intressant jämförelse mellan GISS och UAH monthly average anomaly temperature data.
Och SURPRISE! SURPRISE! GISS (NASA och Mr Gloom and Doom Hansen) LIGGER KONSTANT ÖVER TILL MYCKET ÖVER UAH DATAT.
”This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980.”
”As you can see below, the discrepancy has increased over time.”
”The fact that GISS shows 2008 temperatures much higher than 1980, and UAH shows 2008 temperatures lower than 1980, is also a clear indicator that the two data sets are divergent.”
Det är på sådan här lösan grund och ovetenskapliga metoder som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger. Läs och begrunda – det är på sådana här ”fakta” som som våra intälägänta politiker vill offra vanligt folks välfärd och våra länders ekonomi.
Se även mina inlägg: Minus 60 C or not?, More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have, The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data, Annual North American temperature is FALLING at a rate of 0.78C/decade, The fight to get the temperature data that Global Warming Hysterics don’t want you to see, Temperature data – What it really means. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D, Documenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period, 20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data, An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China
How we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lying, The editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data, Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!, NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses, 50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???, 422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis, Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,
Divergence Between GISS and UAH since 1980
Guest post by Steven Goddard
The GISS website shows the graph (below, which indicates a steady, steep warming trend over the last 30 years. The monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.44) is 0.26 degrees warmer than the monthly average anomaly for 1980 (0.18.) Data obtained from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
By contrast, the UAH monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.05) is 0.04 degrees cooler than the UAH monthly average anomaly for 1980 (0.09.) Again, data obtained from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1980
This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980.
Taking this one step further, I made a graph of the difference between the GISS and UAH monthly anomalies since 1980.
As you can see below, the discrepancy has increased over time. Using Google’s linest() function, the divergence between GISS and UAH is increasing at a rate of 0.32C/century. (GISS uses a different baseline than UAH, but the slope of the difference should be zero, if the data sets correlated properly.) The slope is not zero, which indicates an inconsistency between the data sets.
Raw data from here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
Calculations done here. http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pj0h2MODqj3gD6evaxHq_bw
Factoring in the baseline
Some readers will undoubtedly again point out that the GISS baseline (”normal”) temperature is lower than the UAH baseline. This is true, but as I said above does not affect the slope calculation. The difference between the GISS and UAH monthly baselines is a constant, which affects the relative position along the y-axis – but it does not affect the slope. Subtracting a monthly constant from each point in a graph does not alter the slope over a large set of years. It only alters the y-offset.
The equation of a line is y = mx + b, where m is the slope and b is the y-offset. m and b are completely independent. The different baselines affect only b, not m. If the UAH and GISS data were closely tracking each other, the slope (m) would be close to zero. The fact that GISS shows 2008 temperatures much higher than 1980, and UAH shows 2008 temperatures lower than 1980, is also a clear indicator that the two data sets are divergent.
Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852), and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century.
This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH.
Clearly, problems exist with both datasets.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>