bascule

Aaaand we're back to FUD...

Rumor has it Obama intends to push through this task force via executive order... and the Republicans jeer, shortly after whining about the deficit and run away government spending http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60J5RU20100120 Keep it classy, Republicans

Why are the Democratic and Republican Parties more real than Obama? I think Republicans need to get real...

Oh please, as if you're in any position to dispute the quality of my source material after linking completely unsourced climate science denial drivel... Oh wait, my bad, I thought you were arguing about a temporal incongruity. Oh wait, you were: Get shot down on one argument and you just worm your way into another one, don't you? But you like to pretend that's what you were originally arguing all along... The notes I liked are rather helpful in explaining the offsets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes Specifically: Different baselines Why 'in theory'? Well, the problem arises because the four series use three different baseline periods (UAH and RSS use the same). Here are the baseline periods as reported by each source: Source Baseline period HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years) GISTEMP Jan 1951 - Dec 1980 (30 years) UAH Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years) RSS Jan 1979 - Dec 1998 (20 years) Now take a look at all four series from 1979 (the period in common), unadjusted, but slightly smoothed: Four temperature series from 1979, smoothed, unadjusted Clearly they are very similar, but there is an offset between UAH/RSS (which are roughly the same) to HADCRUT3, and again to GISTEMP. If you think about the different baseline periods, the reason for this is obvious. GISTEMP has the earliest baseline period, when temperatures were cooler, so its anomalies from this baseline are always higher. HADCRUT is somewhere in the middle, and UAH/RSS have the most recent, warmest baselines, so their anomalies are lowest now. The offsets aren't being selected out of some arbitrary desire to see the graphs line up, but rather to account for the varying baselines so we can see the various anomalies relative to each other. So sorry, wrong again, jryan (twice in the same post, at that).

What? No http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

Wow, so why exactly did it take a few dozen posts to get to this revelation. Your original post makes no mention of the fact you were talking about US records. I already have, but sure, I'll do it again. Steve McIntyre found a bug in the GISTEMP code for application of corrections for USHCN data. To reiterate, that bug was fixed, and the GISS web site updated with details of the correction. You can read more about it on my previous post on the issue at the beginning of the thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=541076

Except his corrected analysis still shows 9 out of the 10 hottest years took place in 2000-2009 so that does not substantiate your claim: Furthermore, you have not demonstrated any issues with Hansen's corrected analysis beyond the fact that it contained a data processing error at one point in the past. No, I just want you to either defend or retract one of the multitude of incorrect statements you've made in this thread. Instead every time I ask you just jump out there with red herrings. So what's the deal jryan? Are you willing to admit you were patently wrong yet, or are you just going to keep dragging this out? Or perhaps you have some interesting evidence that supports your position which you haven't shared with us yet.

Any other William Gibson fans here? I'm presently reading Idoru, the second book in the Bridge Trilogy. For some reason every time I've cracked open a new William Gibson book I've managed to read 100 pages of it in a day.

Haha, that's an awesome analogy

Ok Pangloss, clearly you're skeptical. This is quite a character reversal, are you in favor of the government doing this over private industry? Amazing! Kind of like you favoring gun control like a patchouli-scented hippie

jryan, I give up... I'm reporting your post. I've tried... really really hard... to get you to actually defend even just one of the things you say, and you won't. "I have!" (substantiated my claim) is not a response. If you truly have please link to where you did or quote the relevant text. Otherwise simply making the claim you've defended a claim is no better than not defending it at all. I will reiterate: your claim is wrong, and not supported by evidence. Either provide the requisite support for your claim or stop making it. You are disseminating scientifically inaccurate information. Stop it.

So I'm still confused. The UN ruled it's a war crime. Israel admitted the attack was a mistake and rebuked the commanders involved. What exactly am I saying that's so controversial and deserves claims that I'm an anti-semite? I feel like the backlash I'm getting here is completely undeserved.

You're not wrong because you find Hansen suspicious? No, sorry, that's not how it works. You made a claim: only 2 years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest. Please defend that claim. Support it with evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If by "evidence" you mean correlation, sure (although those temperature figures look funny). Here's another graph showing a correlation: Clearly the emergence of Somali pirates is what lead to the unexpected cooling in 2008. And yet funny, GISS didn't change substantially versus other GMST reconstructions:

*facepalm* Hey, if you think weapons that can burn human flesh are "relatively harmless things" that's your prerogative. Absurd metaphors are great too... nuclear weapons just release a few relatively harmless free neutrons, what's the problem there? Clearly this conversation is no longer productive.

They're bombing people with fire. I don't give two shits whether or not it technically meets the definition of an "incendiary bomb." In my book when you bomb people with fire it's firebombing.

Looks like I called it again...

The X-Prize was created in 1996 and claimed in 2004. That's 8 years to accomplish a tangible goal for a fixed size prize. But you also said... So it's not as if the commercial program couldn't ramp up in time... What? The Ansari X Prize was only $10,000,000, and look at what it accomplished as far as motivating the private spaceflight industry. The amount that's "trivial" in a NASA-less context: I think that's certainly enough to kickstart the industry. And apparently Obama intends to pump "billions" into the project over the next decade. And with that much money at stake, I can certainly imagine the likes of Boeing and Lockheed getting involved.

More like it's been shown you disagree with Goldstone report which said it was a war crime, but I digress... Uhh, perhaps there's another alternative you haven't considered: I'm anti-white phosphorus? Nice calling me a racist there though... I'm not a big fan of firebombing. Now proceed with another few rounds of definition mincing about why white phosphorus isn't firebombing. Sure looks like firebombing to me... Believe me I was just as mad about America's use of white phosphorus during Iraq as I was about this. I'm also not a fan of depleted uranium.

...that burns through human flesh Whatever the "rules" may be, it doesn't change the fact that these weapons burn through human flesh (warning: graphic) and Israel fired them into urban areas where civilians were present.

Which is sad, considering the losses in tax revenue can be largely attributed to the previous two-term president... and Republicans oppose efforts to curb the deficit And social programs are being strained by the weak economy. Now's exactly the sort of conditions where we'd anticipate deficit spending... too bad we've been running in the red for the past 10 years.

One more reason: http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/apple_finally_unveils_ipad To ensure that its users receive the constant public attention they crave, the iPad will emit the phrase "Hey, does that guy have an iPad?" every eight minutes

So do you admit you were wrong yet about how many years of the previous decade were in the top 10 warmest?

Bwahahaha: To ensure that its users receive the constant public attention they crave, the iPad will emit the phrase "Hey, does that guy have an iPad?" every eight minutes Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason to be an early adopter on a device like this

Le sigh... Even with the Y2K errors accounted for 2005, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2004, 2001, and 2008 are 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record (in that order)

Are you still standing by this statement? Sorry, it's just wrong. None of the links you're giving to defend it are even remotely relevant. No? They were not specifically requesting the GISTEMP source code, nor would they have to as it was already available at that time by anyone who wanted to download it off NASA's web site: http://web.archive.org/web/20070911181959/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ Sources Source code and documentation for GISTEMP software is available here. The programs are intended for installation and use on a computer with a Unix-like operating system. * Download GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz. This archive is approximately 2.2 MB. It was last updated Sep. 10, 2007, to clarify the procedures of some steps.