Richard Muller og BEST

The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."

The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.

Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.

The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.

The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.

kfl skrev:
Det er utvivlsomt korrekt hvad du skriver, men sagen kerne er, at dette ikke slå nævneværdigt igennem i den global middel tempertur. Hidtil er byernes areal for små til at have en betydning i denne henseende.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
Kommer det ikke helt an på, hvor målingerne bliver foretaget?

Hvis hovedparten af temperaturmålingerne foretage i eller tæt på byer med en højere temperatur, vil dette uden den nødvendige korrektion slå kraftig igennem på "den globale middel temperatur".

Urban areas are heavily overrepresented in the siting of temperature stations: less than 1% of the globe is urban but 27% of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly (GHCN-M) stations are located in cities with a population greater than 50,000.

the fraction of the Earth's land area denoted as urban by the MOD500 analysis is only 0.5%. Even if all these urban areas had a heat island effect as large as that of Tokyo, roughly 3 C per century, the contribution to the world average once properly weighted for land area would be only 0.5% of that, or 0.015 C per century.
[...]We note that our averaging procedure uses only land temperature records. Inclusion of ocean temperatures will further decrease the influence of urban heating since it is not an ocean phenomenon.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
Kommer det ikke helt an på, hvor målingerne bliver foretaget?

Hvis hovedparten af temperaturmålingerne foretage i eller tæt på byer med en højere temperatur, vil dette uden den nødvendige korrektion slå kraftig igennem på "den globale middel temperatur".

Eksakt videnskab betegner et videnskabeligt fagområde, der anvender klart formulerede og almengyldige lovmæssigheder og kvantitative metoder i sin forskning. Gennem rigoristiske tests af hypoteser søger den eksakte videnskab at komme med præcise forudsigelser. Forskningen skal være replicerbar.

Det kan undre mig at hvis man ikke mener at UHI er vældig vigtig, hvorfor masakrerer man så systematisk rural stations rundt omkring?

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be 'statistically significant', although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cFDhmbKw

Hvordan dette skulle få klimaskeptikerne til at takke af, begriber jeg ikke

BREAKING: Steven McIntyre reports that "649 Berkeley stations lack information on latitude and longitude, including 145 BOGUS stations. 453 stations lack not only latitude and longitude, but even a name. Many such stations are located in the country "[Missing]", but a large fraction are located in "United States". Steve says: "I'm pondering how one goes about calculating spatial autocorrelation between two BOGUS stations with unknown locations."

I never said, you shouldn´t be a sceptic

Climategate was a scandal, it was terrible what they did, it was shameful the way they hid the data

Most of "An Inconvenient Truth" is either absolutely wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.

You know, he'll talk about polar bears dying even though we know they're not dying. And, and I feel scientists unfortunately too many of them have abandoned the scientific method precisely because the problem is so important. And I feel exactly the opposite: when the problem is really important, then we have to hunker down, and really use the best methods of science.

The rising tempeture is small 1,6 degrees (Fahrenheit), but it´s real. We are not sure how much are due to humans