Fup med globale landbaserede temperaturmålinger!

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a former lead author for the IPCC, told The Sunday Times of London.

He and others say weather stations that have been used to amass temperature data over the past 150 years may not be accurate. The stations have been affected by urbanization, changes in land use and in many instances moves to different locations.

Christy's research examines the impact of those factors on three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, agrees.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC�s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," he told The Sunday Times.

A new report by Joseph D�Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded the Weather Channel, and veteran meteorologist Anthony Watts makes much the same points.

"Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systemically and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant global warming in the 20th century," they write.

"All terrestrial surface-temperature data bases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends." Read more here. ]

I was (and am) completely unaware of the "history" of this stuff prior to about 2? years ago max. I was pretty much a 'newby' about then to WUWT and much of my memory of my 'early times' at WUWT is a bit murky as I was still figuring out who was who and what was happening. I didn't know who a "Gavin" or "Jones" were and was only barely aware of Hansen. And didn't know what GIStemp was either...

The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.

Station Set
oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
........................rural (48).............urban (48).............Rural + Urban (96)
Raw Data............0.11.....................0.72..........................0.47......
Adjusted Data.....0.58.....................0.72..........................0.65......

The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.

Station Set
oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
........................rural (48).............urban (48).............Rural + Urban (96)
Raw Data............0.11.....................0.72..........................0.47......
Adjusted Data.....0.58.....................0.72..........................0.65......

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:

* "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
* "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
* "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
* "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
* "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

Palle Miliam skrev:
Som følge af ClimateGate har MET-office tilsyneladende erkendt, at deres temperaturdata-samling er problematisk i sin nuværende form, hvorfor de nu foreslår ændring af dette til et mere gennemsigtigt projekt, som selv kritikere gerne må efterprøve.

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:

* "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
* "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
* "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
* "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
* "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

Vi hører om den ene rekord efter den anden, men virkeligheden er en helt anden, måske!? For dybest set aner vi ikke ret meget, da vores målemetoder er alarmerende dårlige. Ingen fornuftig videnskabsmand ville på noget tidspunkt korrrigere vores målestationer på den måde det er blevet gjort, uden at erkende, at sammenligninger mellem forskellige tidsperioder ville være problematiske

It is difficult to understand the background for the number and magnitude of adjustments introduced in the GISS 'after removing suspicious records' data series, especially as the resulting data series differs significantly from the official Icelandic data series. Hopefully, the details of these (and others) adjustments will later be thoroughly explained by GISS. Such large and uniform adjustments will inevitably make the GISS data series (and NCDC) appear less reliable and useful than previously. In comparison to these two surface temperature series the HadCRUT3 data series until now clearly stands out as being much more stable over time.  
At the moment it is not known how many other station records accessible from the GISS database have undergone similar adjustments as the above Reykjavik data series...

Denne side styres af en fusentaster af format, nemlig Ole Humlum

Kosmos skrev:

Denne side styres af en fusentaster af format, nemlig Ole Humlum

- imponerende skarp 'argumentation', kfl!

Hvis du læste noget af det, der står på Climate4you, er du klar over hvad jeg mener!

humlum curvefitting uden indhold

Jeg vil hellere bruge tiden på andre projekter...