http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-...
Thes 'corrections' have never been replicated by any anyone else. They are, therefore, not scientific.
Without the 'corrections', all of the warmest years are in the 20s and 30s. The ad nauseam claim of all the warmest years being in the last decade falls apart.
Why are you just looking at just the surface temperatures, Mike? Doesn't global include land, air and water?
Why do you say global warming is just the surface temperatures, Mike? - "Could global warming (surface air temperature) simply be within the margin of error of instrument measurements?" Was this just poorly worded by you?
Why do you seem to give some confidence in what Mae's graphic shows, Mike? What exactly does that graphic show us, Mike? It only shows us the U.S. heat wave index from 1895 to 2012. How is this representative of global climate? Do you know the difference between a heat wave index and the temperature data for the same area and time period? Do you know the difference between U.S. and global?
To directly answer your question - No.
Since you are so concerned about the instrument data let us conduct an experiment. We will have people from all across the globe to take every thermometer they find and place them inside a sub zero freezer. Next we will take a look around the world and see if this has had an influence on the world's ice. I am not a scientist and neither are you. Would you like to guess as to what the observations will be, no matter how many times you repeat this test? I will go out on limb here and say that the experiment will not have any influence at all on the world's ice. .... What would you guess would happen? ... I see that your avatar shows you always holding your head, Mike. Is it because you seem to always forget to include all of the pertinent data one would need to reach an informed opinion?
Actually, Mike, giss and nasa and noaa data are worthless in determining if we are warming over the last 15 decades. Up until the 1980s, station temperature data was compiled. The switch was made to satellite data which breaks the continuity of the temperature record in a somewhat arbitrary way. Comparing 1998 to 1936, for example, is comparing the temperature station record of 1936 to the satellite record of 1998. After much coaxing, 1998 is a few hundredths of a degree warmer but the comparison is really meaningless.
Other methods of temperature comparison between the '30s and the present shows the '30s to have been somewhat warmer than now.
It's well within the range of certainty. I'm certain that temperatures "aren't" unprecedented and rising at catastrophic rates reeking havoc on our Planet.
You're not measuring the upper atmosphere though and that's where the missing heat is. (tic - tongue in cheek for those who don't understand)
Besides, a trace gas like CO2 is like arsenic in the sky. It takes a very little increase to heat in a devastating manner. (tic)
It's always been within natural climate variability. When you throw in continuous PDO activity along with variable sunspot activity and then throw in a few increases or decreases of clouds with a slight tilting of the planet off of its axis. ...................
How many temperature affecting variables are there Mike? AGW advocates act like there is a finite # of variables that affect temperatures. That # = 1 (CO2)
I also found this graph: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/...
By chance did you not link to the original page with the image because you were afraid that we may have seen the link to the one above? There is also this one.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...
Why would you leave these links out? Granted it doesn't go back to the 1930s, probably because there is some large conspiracy afoot where they don't want you to realize that the 1930s was actually warmer and they most likely just forgot about the image you posted. Those damn secret government agents. I believe they are watching me as I type this. Soon it will be time to make myself scarce before they mind meld with me and steal my jelly beans.
The uncertainty will be the same in both directions, so there is some sort of rounding error in what you are using as your premise.
I was just reading a GISS webpage where they stated in a FAQ:
"Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
So by my calculations, this is an error margin of 57.2(+0.8, -1.2)°F, or 14(+0.4, -0.7)°C. Let's look at the GISS anomaly graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Right now we are at about +0.6C above the mean. But margin of error would extend down to -0.1C below the mean. Could global warming (surface air temperature) simply be within the margin of error of instrument measurements?
