Wednesday, April 21, 2010

More unreliable “global warming” temperature readings

by Mark Landsbaum
You could write a book (in fact, people have) on the unreliability of the “settled science” behind the theoretical (certainly not proven) global warming. Here’s a good chapter:

“Look for yourself following these directions using the window into the NOAA, GHCN data provided by NASA GISS here,” write Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts on page 22 of their “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?”
“… You will see that the stations have a highly variable range of years with data,” they report. “Try to find a few stations where the data extends to 2009. If you find some, you may see gaps in the graphs. To see how incomplete the dataset is for that station, click in the bottom left of the graph Download monthly data as text.
For many, many stations you will see the dataset in a monthly tabular form has many missing data months mostly after 1990.”
“These facts suggest that the golden age of observations was in the 1950s to 1980s. Data sites before then were more scattered and did not take data at standardized times of day. After the 1980s the network suffered from loss of stations and missing monthly data. To fill in these large holes, data was extrapolated from greater distances away.”
Ah, that probably didn’t distort things. After all, the alleged increase was a whopping FRACTION of a degree. Do you think THAT might be within the margin of error? But ya gotta love this:
Remember when ClimateGate pulled back the wizards’ curtain and the Russians yelled foul?
“A prominent Russian climate sceptic and free-market economist says that the British HadCRUT global temperature database – much of which has now been released to the public following the “climategate” email scandal – has been manipulated to show greater warming in Russia than is actually the case.” – U.K. Register

Read more.

No comments:

Post a Comment