Posted by: genezeien | December 13, 2009

Nothing to see here, move along

I am going to

  1. track down raw, unadjusted climate data.
  2. Apply straight-forward analysis methods.
  3. Present results, code, and data sources.


  1. I can’t comment on the analysis itself. My own view is that the warming in the last 200 years is mostly natural but there may be a portion, perhaps 20%, forced by man. Measuring and proving that is the trick.

    But you are getting a (self) education about the methods and problems that so confuse climatology based upon station data.

    And that is good in itself.

    The authors and agencies won’t be able to withhold data much longer. And as more raw data becomes available amateurs will chew it up. Plenty of them have the talent.

    Gradually, if the professional results simply can’t be duplicated by impeccable methods, great unhappiness will arise.

    Virtually the whole blame for warming has been placed upon man-made CO2. Yet we are not quite sure how much warming has occurred.

    If our future findings seem to absolve CO2 then another culprit will be blamed and another emergency declared. Count on that.

    • Since the phenomenon was commonly referred to as “global” warming, I would expect to see something of a warming trend in every latitude band. Instead, there is a strong trend in one band that is under-represented by very few stations with a less than reliable history. On the flip side of the planet, the Antarctic, there is no such trend.

  2. 1) “Data” is the plural form of “datum”. The correct usage is: “The data are normally distributed”.

    2) Am I reading correctly: You assign a monthly temperature to a 1×1 degree area if there is only one daily reading for the entire month, from one station? That seems untenable. How can that single data point possibly be representative of such a large area for a period of 28-31 days?

    • 1) Fixed, thx.

      2) Yes, this is a weakness in the code. Feel free to tweak the script & generate a dataset you’re more comfortable with.
      Using a measurement that was actually taken within the grid makes more sense than the peer-approved procedure. (wish I had a reference handy for this) Standard procedure: if a single day’s temperature record is missing for a station, the entire month’s record for that station is discarded. Then the month’s temperature is for that station is filled in by some mystical formula from stations within 2500 km. I think this is described in one of Dr. Hansen’s papers… or was it Jones?

  3. I’m happy to see yet another person who wants to know what is happening in global warming. As long as people don’t make the effort to find things out for themselves issues like ‘global warming’ can fool people.

    Good on ya mate!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: