Nov 25 2009

Global Temperature Reality Is Inside The Error Bars

I see the internet’s brain cells are in high gear assessing the damage done to Global Warming theories with the publication of CRU code. I claimed in my first post on Climategate that there was too much uncertainty (error) in the global temperature index to detect a global warming of less than a degree C in the last 100 years (let alone prove it was man-made).

Someone well versed in statistics and modeling has come to similar conclusions, a Mr. William Briggs. He lists many sources of uncertainty on the long range temperature modeling (beyond the 1880’s temp record). One area he and I agree on completely is the effect of ‘smoothing’ on real data:

Source: Groups of proxies are sometimes smoothed before input to models. Accounted: No. Effect: a potentially huge source of error; smoothing always increases “signal”, even when those signals aren’t truly there. Boost uncertainty by a lot.

Emphasis mine. As I noted in my second post, the smoothing process has created a statistical phantom. In that post I noted that much of the CRU record shows no significant changes outside the normal variability shown in the record. The temperature records dumped from CRU show no significant warming, even when the seasonal (3 month) data is smoothed across the last century (not to mention the smoothing of the monthly data to make an seasonal value and the smoothing of daily measurements to make a monthly value).

The fact this smoothing is a huge sources of error or uncertainty confirms my first post. The exposed CRU files demonstrate there is no way the current global indexes can detect the claimed warming to the claimed accuracy. QED the whole premise that the Earth as warmed dramatically in the last century is an unfounded, unproven, statistical mirage.

(H/T Reason Magazine)

Update: Air Vent notes how the recent inconvenient temperature data has been deleted from many ‘scientific’ papers and conclusions, further proving “hide the decline” is the modern day mantra of the IPCC and its allies. What floors me is how one of the CRU gang (Gavin) is now claiming that they warned people NOT to believe the last half century of data (you know, where all that dramatic warming occurred due to CO2).

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Global Temperature Reality Is Inside The Error Bars”

  1. crosspatch says:

    One thing that must be kept in mind:

    While Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and Keith Briffa go around deriding “skeptics” for not being published in peer-reviewed journals, both groups (GISS and CRU) have both actively taken steps to ensure that their product (GISSTemp and HADCRUT, respectively) have avoided any peer review.

    Neither temperature database has undergone any peer review whatsoever and they have actively blocked any attempt at review of it by anyone.

    There is nothing “peer reviewed” about GISSTemp or HADCRUT.

  2. daniel ortega says:

    I see that Obama is going to go to the climate change fest

    and propose a CO2 reduction of 83%

    That’s 3% worse than the Bilderberg nation aka as the EU

    plans to impose.

    These people have no idea.

    They can inspire revolution but not in the way they think.

    Our worthless European infosources, Sky, BBC, etc

    are in reverential mode about “Obama”. They are not

    explaining the supermajority (67 votes) it would

    take in the Senate to ratify this dead thing.

  3. crosspatch says:

    They should change the name to HadCRUFT

  4. crosspatch says:

    Cruft is computing jargon for “code, data, or software of poor quality”. The term may also refer to debris that accumulates on computer equipment.

    crufty – Relating to or containing cruft; poorly built and over-complex, and unpleasant