“The temp anomaly calculated in 1987 by GISS for the year 1950 was 0.5 C.”
No, it wasn’t. In the 1987 figure the anomaly in 1950 was almost exactly 0°C. The line and “+0.5°C” are later additions by someone else. The 0.5°C isn’t an anomaly value, nor is it the result of any statistical analysis - it’s just the difference between two arbitrarily chosen points.![]()
In the newer figure below, it’s the same deal. The thick black curve, the straight lines and the temperature diiferences aren’t from NASA - they’re from some incompetent hack with an axe to grind. Nobody - repeat nobody - with even the tiniest experience in statistics would calculate a “trend” by drawing a line between two end points, nor would they compare two trends by overlapping them at a single point. The trend should be calculated by least-squares fit to all data points in the range, and the overlap should be chosen by a least-squares fit between the two sets of data over some sensible range (e.g. the full range of the black curve in this case). The whole point is to minimize the artificial differences so you can see the real ones.
In this case, I think you’d be surprised how similar the least-squares trend would be for these two datasets. It’s easy to see why: if you ignore the misleading lines drawn in by our incompetent hack and instead mentally shift the black curve down to overlap the red, you’ll see they’re nearly identical from 1900-1950. Repeating myself, it’s only the 1880-1900 values that have changed, and in the absence of any evidence provided to the contrary I’m going to go with Ockham’s razor and say that this is probably the result of finding more historical records to give better global coverage.
![]()
- Forums
- Science & Medicine
- How Giss and their Alarmists Lie for Warming Scam
“The temp anomaly calculated in 1987 by GISS for the year 1950...
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
VMM
VIRIDIS MINING AND MINERALS LIMITED
Rafael Moreno, CEO
Rafael Moreno
CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online