It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TrueAmerican
An open mind would carry some skepticism and look at all available data and interpretations before coming to a conclusion.
let me drive it for the weekend and i'll let you know.
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: network dude
Agreed. So ok, who's gonna do the vettin? I have a 93 vette I can lend out to anyone wanting to drive hard and fast to get there.
NOAA with fake data? Oh, you mean like fake news?
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct.* [See Editor's note, below] Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer.
* Editor's note: Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect. We reproduce Walt Meier's response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:
The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.
Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy. "it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."
Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesn’t really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that don’t necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so I’d suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow.
His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed.