Archief - Global Warming Hoax: The men behind the curtains

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

Klik om te vergroten...

Bacon zei:

En Antarctica groeide als ik me niet vergis.

Klik om te vergroten...

Bacon zei:

"Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data"



http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

Klik om te vergroten...

1934 and all that

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. Indeed in the 2001 paper describing the GISTEMP methodology (which was prior to this particularly error being introduced), it says:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This lead to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Klik om te vergroten...

Peephole zei:

Nee.

Klik om te vergroten...

WASHINGTON (AP) — New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

Klik om te vergroten...

Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades
By SPACE.com Staff

Klik om te vergroten...

So what is happening in Antarctica? The cooling is due to a strengthening of the circular winds around the continent, which prevent warmer air reaching its interior. The increased wind speeds seem to be a result of cooling in the upper atmosphere, caused by the hole in the ozone layer above the pole, which is of course the result of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution.

Confusingly, it appears that one human impact on the climate – the Antarctic ozone hole – is currently compensating for another, global warming. If the ozone layer recovers over the decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.

This raises the question of what is happening to Antarctica's ice sheets, which hold enough water to raise sea level by a catastrophic 61 metres, should it all melt. Contrary to what you might expect, the third IPPC report predicted that global warming would most likely lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the next century, with increased snowfall compensating for any melting cause by warming.

Klik om te vergroten...

taLa. zei:

Niet zo naïef zijn zegt ge, maar gij loopt hier ook maar te roepen dat wij er niet voor verantwoordelijk zijn zonder ook maar enige argumentatie of bewijs. Wel ok, ik ben niet naïef: bewijs het mij. En op het einde besluit ge ook nog eens dat "zoveel aandacht voor iets dat niet waar is zielig lijkt" - moogt gij mij ne keer vertellen waar gij vandaan haalt da't niet waar is ? Ik neem aan dat ge "An Inconvenient Truth" hebt gezien ?

Klik om te vergroten...

preske zei:

geef dan eens een argementatie of bewijs dat we er WEL voor verantwoordelijk zijn?
(en kom ni af met "al gore heeft het gezegd" want dan trek ik u persoonlijk langs de kabel door m'n scherm)

Klik om te vergroten...

Peephole zei:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_png

--->

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

--->

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/IPCC/forcings.gif

--->

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

Zoiets.

Klik om te vergroten...

Grayfox zei:

Misschien kan de natuurlijke global warming gewoon toevallig optreden terwijl we als mensen starten veel uitlaatgassen te produceren, dusja dat zegt dus niets.. het kan ook allemaal gewoon toeval zijn, dus als wij nu verantwoordelijk zijn of niet kunnen we niet weten..

Klik om te vergroten...

preske zei:

een hoop nietszeggende statistieken, waarmee je alles kunt bewijzen zolang je er maar de belangrijkste dingen uithaalt, noem ik geen bewijs.

Klik om te vergroten...

Peephole zei:

Tenzij jij een betere verklaring weet gaat dat moeten voldoen hoor.

Klik om te vergroten...

Vindicator zei:

Verhoogde zonne-activiteit?

Klik om te vergroten...

Vindicator zei:

Verhoogde zonne-activiteit?

Klik om te vergroten...

Vindicator zei:

Een recente studie heeft aangetoond dat het aantal zonnevlekken wel degelijk een invloed heeft op ons klimaat.

Klik om te vergroten...

Vindicator zei:

Een recente studie heeft aangetoond dat het aantal zonnevlekken wel degelijk een invloed heeft op ons klimaat.

Klik om te vergroten...