Mistenkelige justeringer

Started by PetterT, 10.07.2017, 23:00:41

Previous topic - Next topic

PetterT

Justeringene til de viktigste landbaserte data over global temperatur viser en tvilsom og mistenkelig trend med stadig brattere temperaturstigning siden Lille Istid og reduksjon av varmeperioden på 1940-tallet før utslipp av CO2 antas å ha hatt noen rolle.

Dersom feil med landbaserte temperaturmÃ¥linger hadde vært tilfeldige, sÃ¥ skulle justeringene vært noenlunde likt fordelt slik at trend i endring ikke skulle endre seg, men trenden er ensidig i klimaalarmistisk retning.  Det er mistenkelig og svært sannsynlig uriktige justeringer, noe som bevises i denne rapporten:

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data  &  The Validity of EPAâ??s CO2 Endangerment Finding - Abridged Research Report

Dr. James P. Wallace III Dr. Joseph S. Dâ??Aleo Dr. Craig D. Idso
June 2017

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Utdrag fra konklusjon:
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever â??despite current claims of record setting warming.   
Det er tanken som teller :-)

Emeritus

#1
Sitat Petter T.

"Dersom feil med landbaserte temperaturmålinger hadde vært tilfeldige, så skulle justeringene vært noenlunde likt fordelt slik at trend i endring ikke skulle endre seg, men trenden er ensidig i klimaalarmistisk retning."

Denne "studien" var presentert på WUWP som en peer-reviewed vitenskapelig artikkel, noe den ikke er og som endog i stor utstrekning henter data fra Climate4You som delvis er en upålitelig kilde og som for øvrig ikke har gått gjennom noen tradisjonell kvalitetskontroll.

Hensikten med den er å utfordre APA's "Endangerment Finding" knyttet til CO2 som en forurensende gass.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Ett tema/påstand Petter T og andre her på forumet stadig trekker frem, er påstanden om at justeringene alltid drar fortiden ned og nåtiden opp. Har dere noe dekning for dette og kan dere presentere en per reviewed artikkel som sier noe systematisk om spørsmålet?

Nick Stokes m.fl. har sett på denne påstanden her;

https://moyhu.blogspot.no/2015/02/homogenisation-makes-little-difference.html

en Robert Rohde i BEST har gjort tilsvarende;

https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/843799201544900608/photo/1

Det siste riktignok på twitter, men det er jo her de fremtidige krigserklæringer sannsynligvis vil komme.

Den artikkel som har vakt mest oppsikt de senere år, Karl et al(2015) gjorde det i hvert fall ikke, den gjorde fortiden (før 1940) varmere og introduserte noen aldeles ubetydelige endringer de siste 20 - 30 år, som riktignok ble utlagt som en "pause buster," men skulle det ikke mer til for å knekke pausen, var den ikke mye å gråte over når den forsvant.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/6/7/1433648291783/394aae6c-6f45-4f69-ae79-a7e7c19887b5-620x520.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=c9ef34eb7048c517d856cf8f854f82e4

Climate4You er en nyttig men til tider farlig kilde. Denne kvalitetsklasse 1 statusen Humlum gir satellittene fremstår jo nå etter siste justering som en dårlig spøk.

Men hans grafer kan også skjule forhold som kun de som leser liten skrift avdekker. Bl.a. hans utlegning av polare temperaturer er sterkt misvisende;

http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif

Dataene er hentet fra Gillet et al. 2008;

http://sci-hub.io/10.1038/ngeo338

Og Humlum føler seg kompetent til å "tilpasse" disse til sin egen virkelighetsforståelse, noe som vitenskapelig sett i beste fall er en tvilsom øvelse siden han ikke har noen kompetanse på området.

Men han greier altså å få temperaturene i dag til å se ut omtrent like høye ut som på 40-tallet, mens originalverket viser at de er ca. 1C varmere i 2008 enn i 1940.

Så at det justeres eller tilpasses er det ikke noen tvil om, men noen begrunner det i form av vitenskapelige artikler, mens andre bare føler at det er på sin plass.

PetterT

Den største unnlatelsessynden til de som justerer global temperatur er:
Uriktig korrigering av UHI:
Urbanization bias II. An assessment of the NASA GISS urbanization adjustment method
http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/climate-science/31/oprj-article-climate-science-31.pdf
Abstract:
«NASA GISS are currently the only group calculating global temperature estimates that explicitly adjust their weather station data for urbanization biases. In this study, their urbanization adjustment procedure was considered. A number of serious problems were found with their urbanization adjustments: 1.) The vast majority of their adjustments involved correcting for â??urban coolingâ?, whereas urbanization bias is predominantly a warming bias. 2.) The net effect of their adjustments on their global temperature estimates was unrealistically low, particularly for recent decades, when urbanization bias is expected to have increased. 3.) When a sample of highly urbanized stations was tested, the adjustments successfully removed warming bias for the 1895-1980 period, but left the 1980s-2000s period effectively unadjusted.
In an attempt to explain these unexpected problems, a critical assessment of their adjustment procedure was carried out. Several serious flaws in their procedure were identified, and recommendations to overcome these flaws were given. Overall, NASA GISSâ?? urbanization adjustments were found to be seriously flawed, unreliable and inadequate. Until their adjustment approach is substantially improved, their global temperature estimates should be treated with considerable caution.»   
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

Scientists Find At Least 75% Of The Earth Has Not Warmed In Recent Decades
By Kenneth Richard on 20. July 2017
The â??Real Proxyâ?? Temperature Record Hints Near-Global Cooling Has Begun
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/20/scientists-find-at-least-75-of-the-earth-has-not-warmed-in-recent-decades/#sthash.PsK0p7FR.dpbs

As a new scientific paper (Turney et al., 2017) indicates, the Southern Ocean encompasses 14% of the Earthâ??s surface.  And according to regional temperature measurements that have apparently not been subjected to warming â??correctionsâ? by data adjusters, the Southern Ocean has been cooling in recent decades.

The Northern Hemisphere embodies the top half (50%) of the worldâ??s surface.  And according to many scientistsâ?? temperature reconstructions using proxy evidence (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) from numerous locations North of the equator, there has been no net warming in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940s.

Antarctica (2.7%) and the Indian Ocean (14.4%) together represent about 17% of the Earthâ??s surface.  Neither Antarctica nor the Indian Ocean have been observed to have warmed since the 1970s, with Antarctica exhibiting a cooling trend.

Just these regions of the globe alone represent more than 75% of the Earthâ??s surface.  A net non-warming (cooling) trend in these regions in recent decades is highly inconsistent with commonly accepted instrumental data sets (such as NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT) which show an abrupt recent warming trend â?? especially since the 1980s.

De viktigste ankepunkt mot justerte overflatemålinger:
Scientists have previously acknowledged that (a) an artificial (urbanization) warming bias of more than 0.1°C per decade existed in the post-1970s instrumental records, (b) 1/3rd of the oceans hadnâ??t even been sampled (temperatures) yet as of the 1990s, and (c) overseers of temperature data sets just â??made upâ? temperatures in places where there was no data.  Therefore, could it be possible that â??real proxyâ? temperature reconstructions are more reliable and authentic than the data from thermometers corrupted by urbanization and bias?
Det er tanken som teller :-)

PetterT

Bare for å følge opp det siste jeg la inn:
QuoteDe viktigste ankepunkt mot justerte overflatemålinger:
Scientists have previously acknowledged that (a) an artificial (urbanization) warming bias of more than 0.1°C per decade existed in the post-1970s instrumental records,

4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias
By Kenneth Richard on 24. July 2017
Scientists: Temperature Data Contamination
Accounts For 33% â?? 75% Of Modern Warming
Urban heat from paved roads, buildings, and machinery can artificially inflate temperatures substantially above measured temperatures from non-urban areas.  This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long-term records.
Heat from an urban (or highly populated) environment can artificially raise temperatures by as much as 3°C to 10°C relative to nearby rural locations.   This is true even for villages in the Arctic.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/24/modern-warming-is-substantially-artificial-traced-to-urbanization-bias/#sthash.AxTwh6Qc.dpbs

UHI blir ikke tilstrekkelig justert i temperaturmÃ¥lingene som er landbaserte.  Resultatet blir en kunstig oppvarmingstrend ettersom bebygde omrÃ¥der sprer seg.
Det er tanken som teller :-)