PART 10/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data

delphi skrev:
United States Senate Report „Consensus‟ Exposed: The CRU Controversy https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Consensus%20Exposed%20The%20CRU%20Controversy.pdf

Her omtalte mails fra side 54 i Senatets gennemgang:

From: Tom Wigley [University Corporation of Atmospheric Research]
To: Phil Jones [CRU]
Cc: Ben Santer [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]
September 27, 2009
Subject: 1940s
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures] to partly explain
the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the
1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean – but we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to
have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or
ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips
are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My
0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. .

Eller præcis som Tony Heller gengiver den.

Og i øvrigt Senatets konklusion fra 2010 fra side 34 i rapporten:

Conclusion
The scientists involved in the CRU
controversy violated fundamental ethical
principles governing taxpayer-funded
research and, in some cases, may have
violated federal laws. The next phase of the
Minority's investigation will explore
whether any such violations occurred.
An independent inquiry conducted
by the UK's Information Commissioner has
already concluded that the scientists
employed by the University of East Anglia,
and who were at the center of the
controversy, violated the UK's Freedom of
Information Act.100
Another independent
inquiry, headed by Sir Muir Russell, is
investigating allegations that the scientists in
the CRU scandal manipulated climate
change data.101
In addition to these findings, we
believe the emails and accompanying
documents seriously compromise the IPCCbacked ―consensus‖ and its central
conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are
inexorably leading to environmental
catastrophes. Because the EPA's
endangerment finding for greenhouse gases
rests in large part on the IPCC's science, the
endangerment finding should be thrown out.
EPA should issue notice and comment on
what the mistakes mean and how they affect
EPA's conclusion that GHGs endanger
public health and welfare.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Det er da meget påfaldende, at temperaturfaldet fra 1940'erne til 1970'erne på mystisk vis er forsvundet.

Google translate af omtalte mails:

Peter Villadsen skrev:

Google translate af omtalte mails:

hvad sker der med en løgn, der oversættes af google translate?

Other powerful support was provided by physicists at University of California, Berkeley, who decided to test if deniers had been right to question Jones's temperature charts. Led by Professor Richard Muller and backed by funds that included a $150,000 grant from noted climate-crisis denial supporters, the Charles Koch Foundation – the team re-analysed more than 1.6bn land temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s – and came to exactly the same conclusions as Jones: the fairly level temperatures that had continued through the past few centuries began to spike sharply a few decades ago as atmosphere carbon levels rose.


"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with warming values published previously," said Muller. "This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

Such powerful endorsements might have been expected to end deniers' claims about Climategate. However, they have continued since 2009 to accuse Jones and others of collusion and fraud.

Under ledelse af professor Richard Muller og bakket op af midler

Peter Villadsen skrev:
https://youtu.be/yP6N9nbmS54

Peter Villadsen skrev:
Delphi, gå tilbage og læs dine egne bragte konstruerede e-mails.
Du har ingen troværdighed tilbage.

Klimavidenskaben bygger på så mange lag af løgn og manipulationer at der er ikke nogen reelt saglig sammenhæng i det som foregår og de lalleglade idioter som støtter op om den relgiøse forening har ingen evner til at gennemskue løgnene.

I forhold til Tony Heller så kan man jo bare se på IPCC' egen graf fra år 2000 og holde den op mod temperaturgrafen i dag, så er det åbenlys at der er lavet svindel

Peter Villadsen skrev:

Klimavidenskaben bygger på så mange lag af løgn og manipulationer at der er ikke nogen reelt saglig sammenhæng i det som foregår og de lalleglade idioter som støtter op om den relgiøse forening har ingen evner til at gennemskue løgnene.

I forhold til Tony Heller så kan man jo bare se på IPCC' egen graf fra år 2000 og holde den op mod temperaturgrafen i dag, så er det åbenlys at der er lavet svindel

Du er jo bare en stakkels spambot, der ikke har lært noget om dokumentation, men bare griber enhver konspirationsteori og tror konspirationsteorier er et bevis.
Du har absolut intet i dine fordummende påstande.

Intet.

Har også lidt svært ved at forstå Delphi.

delphi skrev:
Se 24 min inde i før omtalte video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&t=728s hvor Richard Müller klæder klimavidenskaben og IPCC af til skindet, vedr. deres svindel og bedrag.

Peter Villadsen skrev:

delphi skrev:
Se 24 min inde i før omtalte video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&t=728s hvor Richard Müller klæder klimavidenskaben og IPCC af til skindet, vedr. deres svindel og bedrag.

Hold da op, hvor klimavidenskaben "klædes af"

Se her, hvorfor det er meget sjovt, når benægtere kører helt af sporet uden at holde sig opdateret om, at verdens billedet ændres år for år.

Richard Müller, nogle år efter Delphis indlæg ovenfor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&feature=youtu.be

John Niclasen skrev:
Nogle siger, indlandsisen smelter.
Det er løgn!

Richard Müller' kritik af Mann er sønderlemmende

In an October 2004 Technology Review article, Muller discussed blog postings by McIntyre and McKitrick alleging that Mann, Bradley and Hughes did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA). In the article, Richard Muller stated:

McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?

How could it happen?

delphi skrev:
Her Richard Müllers hjemmeside vedr. hans og datterens bearbejdning af rådata som skulle munde ud i deres temperatur anomaly for jordens temperaturudvikling siden 1880

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Har nogen et bud på hvor de endelige data så findes for professorens arbejde, som en kontrol af GISS og de andre institutters temperaturer.

Måske denne http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

Dog med denne tekst: This file contains a detailed summary of the changes in Earth's global average surface temperature estimated by combining the Berkeley Earth land-surface temperature field with a reinterpolated version of the HadSST ocean temperature field.

Udbredelsen af havis i Antarktis ligger pænt over gennemsnittet for årene 1981-2010. Den ligger over sidste års udbredelse, ligesom den ligger over 33 af de sidste 42 år.

Nogle siger, isen smelter ved polerne.
Det er løgn!