



I. Climate Chief: Don't Worry, We're Still Doomed





Surface temperatures
[Image Source: GISS]






NOAA map





Sources: NASA, NOAA, Jame Hansen [note]

Comments     Threshold


By Mint on 1/16/2013 9:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your excuse for satellite data?

It almost perfectly matches the surface data that you insist has been manipulated by "greedy quacks".

By JediJeb on 1/16/2013 10:05:13 PM , Rating: 4
Can you compare satellite data from today to satellite data from 1900? The big problem is that without using a lot of massaging of data with statistics you can't compare the total history of temperatures. Satellite data from the same area that is now asphalt paved compared to the ground data from that same location today will compare quite well if both are methods are correctly calibrated, but that still doesn't correct for the fact that temperatures at that spot will be warmer today than they were 50 years ago simply because the landscape has changed and that skews the data for determining rise of temperatures over history.

Sound science would reject the data from those sample points across the entire time because the measuring conditions are not consistent. In my work as a chemist data is not considered reliable unless the measurements are taken under the same conditions(unless you are quantifying the effect of the changing conditions). The only thing that data proves is that if you pave the area around a monitoring station the average temperature will increase.

By Mint on 1/17/2013 7:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
We're never going to be able to truly verify historical measurements. The best we can do is look at natural proxies, and so far the limited sources correlate well. Moreover, there has been plenty of changing landscape and economic growth in the last few decades, so if there was some sort of flaw in this correction methodology, it would have shown notable deviations from the 34 years of satellite data we have.

But this article is talking about "flatlining" in the last five years. The accuracy of data from 1900 isn't a factor here.

