How Many Cheats Can Gavin Pack Into One Map?


ScreenHunter_5205 Dec. 14 18.55

Fine work by Gavin again this month.

  • Created a huge fake area of 2-11C anomaly in the Arctic ocean
  • Turned Greenland hot with almost no data
  • Eliminated a large region of -4 to -5C in Canada and the Midwest.
  • Extrapolated hot land temperatures way out into the ocean

Some fine cheating again this month by the team.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to How Many Cheats Can Gavin Pack Into One Map?

  1. wayne says:

    Ahh, the old 1200 km homogenized cheap trick. And look at that bright red Greenland, per ren it hit -59°C today. Right, real red. Gavin’s algorithms must really suck.

    • nielszoo says:

      Yes they do… they’re sucking my tax money into the corrupted pockets of the climate alchemists. They continue to turn lead in to gold with their tricks. They’re replacing the lead by sneaking OUR gold into the ashes of science and accountability.

  2. John Finn says:

    Give it a rest. I’m no fan of Schmidt but to attach any importance to a monthly anomaly map relative to 1951-80 without looking closer at the numbers is a bit silly. First, lets look at global anomalies for November. If you compare GISS with UAH using the same base period (1981-2010) we have

    GISS +0.29
    UAH +0.33

    Now look at the polar regions. While GISS does show some warm regions, the maximum mean zonal anomaly recorded is about 1.4 degrees which seems to be at around 70 deg N. UAH records a NoPol anomaly of 1.21. There’s nothing suspicious about the presentation of GISS data for the month of November. Though they could do with better resolution on their anomaly maps.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      John, I agree.
      But then this map should never have been produced. Yet it was.
      Many other similar abominations illustrated in Blowing Smoke.

    • I see.
      So the huge region of fake +8 temperatures doesn’t affect the global anomaly, because he colored some other regions with a -0.5 anomaly. You are a real genius, John.

      This has nothing to do with UAH. During ENSO positive periods, satellite temperatures should be higher than surface temperatures.

      • John Finn says:

        I’ve checked out a couple of stations e.g. Barrow which which has anomalies of +4.7 (1951-80) and +4.2 (1981-2010). Another station I’ve never heard of ( Kotzebue, Ral) but appears to be in the relevant part of the world has anomalies of +6.3 and +5.8 respectively while Nome has an anomaly of +6.1 for 1981-2010 (I couldn’t be bothered doing 1951-80 because of missing vales in the 1970s).

        All these anomalies are consistent with the colours on the map (dark red/brown indicates anomalies of 4+). If you think the data are wrong can you say why.

        • stpaulchuck says:

          those are UHIE values unadjusted properly

        • The temperatures at two locations are not the issue, John (though it has been scientifically proven that Barrow is heavily affected by UHI).

          There is no evidence though that temperatures there reflect what is happening through thousands of sq miles of the rest of the Arctic.

          Weather events can have a big influence on high latitude stations – just a puff of wind from the south can push up temps several degrees. But such events would have no effect at all on the Arctic as a whole.

    • davidswuk says:

      I hope you remembered to bow towards your “Great Shaker-Maker” before offering your words of support..
      But why not just paint the globe a various shade of puce and be done with it…………………

    • Frank K. says:

      John Finn – can you tell us how GISS extrapolates their data to regions where there are no data? And is that extrapolation procedure physically valid? What sorts of error bars would you attach to their integrated values? +/- X (X=?). Thanks!

      (Also note the perverted temperature contour scale GISS uses…)

  3. Ron says:

    Didn’t the oceans in the arctic freeze a bit ahead of schedule?

  4. Eliza says:

    BBC “Scientist arctic ice may be more “resilient” than previously thought.The beginning of the big backdown on Arctic sea ice and AGW as they now realize how complete stupid they are beginning to look re Arctic ice melt.. What a bunch of s####

  5. Werner Kohl says:

    An indication that extrapolating temperatures to a smoothing radius of 1200 km is bullshit is the total anomaly of 0.65°C wheras the anomaly according to a smoothing radius of 250 km is 0.59°C.
    What a huge difference!

  6. QV says:

    I wondered how there was so much ocean covered in what is supposed to be a land only map.
    Also, where did all the -4/-5 anomalies go to that are on the 250km map in the USA?
    Smoothed away?

    • nielszoo says:

      He’s homogenizing those “remote” areas for UHI by adding +3/+4 to them which evens out all those “unnatural” anomalies that just “don’t look right.” It’s peer reviewed best practice after all to base everything on “well sited” urban stations.</sarc>

      Un F’ing Believable!

  7. ren says:

    Please see the polar vortex forecast at an altitude of 27 km. Strong inhibition You can see over Alaska. Warm air will reach Alaska, cold into the interior North America.,41.76,454

  8. Frank K. says:

    I have a couple of additional points to make about the GISS “anomaly” map (likely very obvious to anyone who has seen these for a while):

    * Besides the perverted temperature contours map scale, the areas displayed in the map are distorted and in no way represent the actual areas of the Earth affected by high anomalies. This is a trick I see GISS play when they want to get the maximum propaganda mileage out of their monthly temperature index.

    * Always remember that anomalies have little value in and of themselves. They are supposed to represent the difference between a local long term average (the “climatology”) for a given month and the latest temperatures for the present month. What you never, ever see is the climatology map – what are local absolute temperatures supposed to be for a given month? How accurate are those averages (given the amount of “homoginization” that is applied to the data)? And if we don’t include any other meteorological variables like humidity and wind speeds, does an anomaly map say anything about actual “warming” (i.e. thermal energy accumulation in the atmosphere)?

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    and yet if you wander over to Yahoo! News (sic) you’ll still be bombarded by smug, self described ‘smarter than you’ folks spewing the debunked LSM tripe that 2014 was the warmest year EVER, and other bunkum like electric cars must be mandated even though the electricity will still come from coal fired plants because windmills are now taking over the load. It’s a load alright.

  10. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    So you look outside and wonder how this can be the hottest year? Perhaps this will be helpful…

  11. soulsurfer says:

    so looks like most of the Arctic on that map is >4+ degree warmer then normal, however going back to 2003, (JAXA data) there’s now more ice in the arctic compared to last year, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007 and 2006. So how’s that possible!?!? if it’s record warm there must be less ice.

    btw, averages are the most stupid number you can use as they don’t exist in reality.
    let’s check: Bill has $2B, John has $100. On average bill and john are Billionairs. Please tell john that, he’ll be delighted!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s