“Thats twice GISS.”
Uuuuuhhhh. And that’s important why?
Steven: “WRT polar stations, you best understand kridging before you spout off.”
Why do I need to understand kriging? It is a mathematical method. How is a mathematical method going to deal with going from water warmed shore stations to ice bound areas away from shore. They still have no thermometers across the ice. And in order for the method to work they would still have to consider transitions from melted shore stations to ice covered arctic. I doubt that they can do that, since the ice line information isn’t even available before the satellite era. But the question remains, are the “kriging” across the arctic. Maybe we should get the answer to that question that I asked before you spout off.
“To show that there is a problem with the pole you have to show that. not merely assert it.”
Wrong again Mosher. If they are going to use a statistical form of extrapolation then it is their job to show that it works in every place where they use it – not just assert it.
“at less than 2% of the total surface area you wont find much effect from treating it differently”
Wrong again Mosher. Hansen did a HadCrut mask of the GISS data and showed that there was no divergence when the poles were left out. Whereas there was significant divergence when they were included.
Mosher: “You are welcome to download any data and prove that. not assert, prove. with your code and data made available”
There you go blathering on again about code and data. Just because you found a new love that you think makes you a magician you now want to impose that on the rest of us. But it is the methods that matter, and they can be described in simple English. And if the methods are inadequate, then the code and data are also going to be inadequate. It’s the old GIGO rule that every programmer knows.