If you remember, the goal of this project was to rank these stations according to new CRN siting guidelines, and then re-plot the historical temperature graphs with information from those stations that did not come up to snuff removed from the dataset. His hypothesis was that, once this was done, the temperature rise noted in the GISSTEMP data would largely disappear, an artifact of warming caused by microsite issues at the poorly sited stations.
Well, 50% of existing stations is a more than large enough sample to crunch numbers from. Why hasn't Anthony made an attempt, or farmed it out to his cohorts at Climate Audit?
Well, here's one hypothesis: Anthony already knows the answer that such an analysis would produce, and he doesn't like it.
And he knows the answer because such an analysis was already attempted back when about 400 stations were listed in the Surface Stations database. It was performed by one JohnV, a Climate Audit regular. His conclusion:
I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions:- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)- On the 20yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years.
To be honest, this is starting to look like a great validation of GISTEMP.
And here's another hypothesis: once the GISSTEMP data is analysed and, once again, validated, the jig will be up for Anthony. "Denier Confirms Global Warming!" is not a headline he is prepared to see.
Hence the endless delay, the tut-tutting over "poorly sited stations". Anthony is ragging the puck while all the time denying the existence of the hockey stick.
6 comments:
Will Alexander, Professor Emeritus of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria, SA trashes the warmers:
“Neither African floods nor droughts have increased in the period that climate change is alleged to have happened.
Prof. Alexander’s research team has found wet and dry years correlate much better to movements in the solar system and activity on the sun itself rather than and man-made climate change hypothesis.
One of the greatest weaknesses in the arguments put forward by the man-made global warming lobby is that the projections of extreme weather events and the effects on agriculture are not firmly linked to projections of temperature change. Prof. Alexander tested the alleged consequences of climate change on the environment, and he has found that the hypothesis just does not pan out.”
“The climate alarmists are making extravagant and easily refutable claims. They are antagonizing those of us in the engineering and applied sciences whose concern for the environment is no less than those who are in the natural sciences. We are systematically vilified in the press and recently in scientific publications.”
“Acting under political pressure of their own making, northern hemisphere scientists have allowed themselves to be forced into a claustrophobic position from which there is no escape. They are desperately trying to persuade the rest of the world of the devastating terrestrial consequences of global warming. In the absence of believable evidence of the claimed consequences, they are engaging in the dangerous practice of attempting to suppress all research that questions human causality.”
If GISTEMP is so accurate, why does Hansen & his merry band of data torturers, working in secret, refusing to release their methods, admit that they need to "adjust" every actual .1C reading up by .5C.
Why ( and how) do they do a 500% upward temperature adjustment.
Might have something to do with keeping the panic alive and keeping their funding flowing.
And the real question, why does Hansen, who works at NASA SPACE center use ground station data ?
Why doesn't he use the RSS data - he gets it for free at his work site.
Now that's a Green Shaft for ya.
I've noticed that wingnut lying has become more exaggerated and shrill lately.
Did someone remove all the Hentai from the web?
Thank you for your commentary Professor Bumwipe. We await your report on your recent out-of-country excursion. Tour of the brothels of Rangoon was it?
Thank you for your commentary Professor Bumwipe.
Yeah, I wish I could copy and paste as robustly as you do.
Tongue me, wingnut.
If climate scientists had a high degree of confidence in the current surface site network, there would be no need to start from scratch and build the seperate Climate Reference Network.
Post a Comment