|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 29, 2009 8:53:13 GMT
Rather interesting manipulations by GISS. It seems to me that surface stations are needed. I will note that the compilation of the data should not be in the hands of an agenda driven, political action oriented government agency. Add, drop, position as they will, typically where no one will possible look except...... chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/ghcn-china-the-dragon-ate-my-thermometers/Apart from interested bloggers is there any public audit of the data and its processing? Normally in scientific papers and research, based heavily on input data, anomalies like sudden changes in number of samples that appear to link to sudden changes in averaged output values, have to be pointed out and explained in detail. Do these larger agencies feel they have no need to do this? If so why?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 29, 2009 14:02:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 10, 2009 2:41:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Dec 10, 2009 4:46:04 GMT
Gosh, what will the IPCC say?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 10, 2009 4:54:26 GMT
Magellan, do you know of any "official" figures on that comparison, Cities Vs. Rural? (not from UEA thanks).
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 14, 2009 3:39:06 GMT
Those clever folks at GHCN at work in Antarctica. If you had only a continent to measure the temperature how would you do it? Well to conserve energy one might pick a thermometer. That is right but then which one? "So as we can see, of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years (red circle). But it’s not just any station, it’s a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data." wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/#more-14107
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 16, 2009 1:24:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Dec 16, 2009 8:20:05 GMT
Another example of data "homogenization" Few days ago, I read an article about Alpine glaciers melting even faster in 40ties than today, while "temperatures were lower then" and less cloudy sky was blamed. www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/091214_gletscherschwund_su/index_ENI made a chart showing ratio of melting, stationary and advancing Swiss glaciers vs AMO already some time ago: Yesterday I asked the Swiss glacier Institute for precipitation and temperature data and they linked me to Swiss meteo web. I downloaded temp history of their main stations, which contained raw and homogenized temperature charts. www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/de/klima/klima_heute/homogene_reihen.Par.0054.DownloadFile.tmp/vergleichoriginalhomogen.pdfStriking was, that all stations after homogenization showed steeper trend than raw data. Average difference between raw and homogenized trend was 2.09 times higher for the latter data. More, the flatter was the raw trend, the bigger was the homogenization upward adjustment, in one example rising the trend seven fold. I downloaded collated Swiss homogenized annual temperatures, showing 1.13 deg C/century warming trend. Then I back-calculated raw trend by adding a linear decrease to the homogenized data to get 0,53 deg C/century trend (1.13/2.09) and compared it with two truly rural stations - Irish Armagh Observatory and Slovak Lomnicky peak Observatory. Swiss raw data and both rural records are in very good agreement, hinting that raw data are showing real climatic trend, while Swiss "homogenized" data are climbing twice the rate. The story is exactly the same as in New Zealand: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/If I was a Swiss citizen, I would flood their MetOffice with FOIA requests like Kiwis did.
|
|