Skip to comments.New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization
Posted on 07/17/2012 10:46:23 PM PDT by Rocky
From the told ya so department, comes this recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting.
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].
Heres the part I really like: of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:
increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive, whereas the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).
homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
When you are trying to detect a “signal” that’s buried in a “noise” background that’s on the order of 100 times larger amplitude - and you’re only looking at a hundred cycles of reference oscillator - you can pretty much call it any way you want. .92 degree, .46 degree, negative .23 degree, who knows?
Well, when you put it like that, the whole thing seems kind of silly.
Real Science did a post where he asked for your conversion moment to being a skeptic, if you had one: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/2006-my-year-of-enlightenment/#comment-101862. My comment:
Here is the video the three and half minutes of video that converted me into a skeptic (disbeliever actually). In ~ June of 2007, by a chance click of a link, I watched the hour long Great Global Warming Swindle. But it was just the short Al Gore segment on CO2 that really really got my attention. I watched in astonishment as I realized, then and there, if this was true, that I had been had by the warmists. After I had done extensive googling looking for an effective rebuttal from the warmists, and found none, I was an anti-warmist. Realize that what this video shows is algor repeating the ipccs deception on CO2. This is a deception that pretty much still holds with the public at large, thats why its important to try to share and promote this video:
Well by the Weak Climatetological Principle*, only one kind of call will get published.
* (joke allusion to weak anthropic principle)
It was the ice core lag that turned me to skeptic as well...although I had gotten suspicious a bit before that when the Mann hockey stick graph got exposed as using faulty statistics.
Now, now Tom. Don’t use technical jargon when you are speaking to scientific illiterates (who also happen to be converts to the Church of Global Warming).
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors
Damn homos strike again...
As I understand it one (of many) “adjustments” made to the raw data is for things like changing land use patterns around the data collection station. Farms are warmer than forest, towns warmer than farms,etc. Problem is, many of the adjustments made to the data are bigger than the trends the so-called “scientists” purport to have found in the data. All they’re really finding are second or third order effects in their adjustments.
You also have to take into account the inclination of people to log a nice-sounding number rather than actually going out in crappy weather to take a reading.
Plus, land temperature readings do not really give a good measure of whether the Earth is warming up or not. For that, ocean measurements are better. Unfortunately, ocean measurements do not support the global warming hypothesis.
Nobody gets grant money from saying "we just don't have accurate enough data to draw any valid conclusions from it".
So much for scientific and intellectual honesty. Climate "science" to real science is what a used car lot is to retail sales.
WUWT has a followup on this.
Will post it if not yet up!
No serious person still believes the global warming hoax.
Ban weather stations immediately! ;^)
The solution to Glowbull Warming is so easy! If we could lock up Algore and put a ball gag on him that would eliminate the other half. lol
I always ask global warming folks why they think they know, within 1 degree even, the average world temperature in 1850. How many stations were there in the Yukon in 1850? How many in the Amazon? How many reading taken from the middle of the Pacific in 1850? How accurate were the gauges, and who thinks some guy in Alaska in the winter of 1850 was getting readings accurate to 1 degree, let alone 0.01 degree?
They just reply, “Science has proved...”
Exactly. More to the point, the whole idea of "average world temperature" is useless. What's useful, from a human point of view, is measuring the degree to which temperatures diverge from what is optimal for humans, and where.
The assumption here is that (1) there is warming, and (2) warming is always bad. If winters become less harsh in the Yukon and Siberia, and temps stay much the same elsewhere, then that would be considered "global warming", but it would be a GOOD thing.
As George Carlin said in one of his routines, “it’s 82 degrees at the airport. Which is stupid, because no one lives at the airport.”
Tell GISS Hansen that. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.