If you had done any of the reading I had posted, then you'd know that even though the study I posted was from 1987, it's methodology
You lost it right there. You tried to use a 1987 study to refute something that HAD NOT HAPPENED. So clearly I am reading your links, you are not reading mine. How can a 1987 study talk about the 75% reduction in temperature readings that would not occur for another 4-5 years? And how could it explain the elimination of all temperature readings north of the 65th parallel when that did not occur until 4-5 years later? Please enlighten us on this "Karnac the magnificent" houdini of a study?
But I will let the others know so they dont waste their time on your irrelevant links. The study does not address any of the issues raised. Happy now?
n 1999 which explains the further drop-off of station use through the 1990's): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Well, at least that is the right time frame. Now, are they talking about this James Hansen (the one who supports the following) :
“Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”
The four key rules of sabotage
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
But let us take the "method" they use: "The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes."
Ok, so what they are claiming is that every point on the globe north of the 65th parallel is within 1200 km of the one that still exists, is that right? And that the termperature for all of california can be "derived" by the 4 stations remaining in california, right?
Let's assume for a moment that they can do that. What would that tell us? That all of california's trends would have to be maintained by those 4 station's readings. So that all of california would look homogenous on a temperature change map, right? They have nothing anywhere else that could indicate that perhaps the Mohave was having a different temperature change than say laguna Beach. There is no data to support a difference, just a derived temperature that rises and falls with the laguna beach thermometer.
So how does that explain the Bolivian anomoly?
How can Bolivia be undergoing a heat wave when the rest of the area is not, and there are no stations in the country?
Bolivia, a country that is mountainous and non-coastal, that is being derived by non-mountain and costal stations? How are they deriving warming with no data to support it? What part of cooked data do you not understand?
when you linked to 3 articles that are refering to the methodologies used in that exact study that I linked to.
Uh, no. As most people know, 1987 is not 1999.
And now you are going on and on about the credibility of your sources after I just debunked 3 of yours.
Excuse me? Show me where you debunked anything! You CLAIM some fiction that has been shown to be a lie, but you debunked nothing. Even hansen has not tried to debunk them, instead just hiding with his terrorist buddies!
If you read the study you'd understand why even if you added in 10000 meteorological stations in the Arctic circle it won't skew the global temperature average to colder temperatures.
of course not! I have not even gotten to the part where they have a galloping adjustment to raw data. I was saving that for another post. But would you care to explain the galloping adjustments? Or should I reveal more fraud with the "adjusted" data that NASA, CRU, the Met are using?
Please, I have wasted enough of my time on a religious zealot. If you cant read, dont bother responding.