Re: Artic Ice Hits Lowest Ebb Ever

Blogger finds Y2K bug in NASA climate data

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) My earlier column

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8347


http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article83...


this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org

http://www.climateaudit.org/

While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/

08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

The first lesson: "scientists" who use secret and proprietary algorithms are not acting properly. Hansen's secret algorithm was suspect to begin with. As with Mann and the busted hockey stick, when the data, methods and algorythms were forced into the open, they did not stand up to scientific enquiry.

copied & pasted from another source

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/bravo22c/august_2007/global_warming.htm


other related Links of interest

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/bravo22c/july_2007/eco_fascist_politics_be_afraid_.htm


Re: co2 as a pollutant

"Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans.

Add to this that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infra-red radiation in only a limited number of wavelengths, and that these wavelengths are already mostly saturated - and so any increased 'greenhouse effect' from increasing the density of CO2 in the atmospher would be irreducably subject to the law of diminishing returns. AGW theory is unadulterated inumerate nonsense. Shall we talk about the IPCC? I have more numbers :-) Numerate criticism of this post is positively welcomed. Next post, politics.

And I have just seen this. It says something about the state of Science generally, and about peer reviewed articles, that such arrant nonsense can be taken seriously. We are stealing sunlight from plants! Golly gosh, does human greed have no end. Let's see: the average insolation at ground level over an entire year (including nights and periods of cloudy weather) lies somewhere between 125 and 375 W/m (3 to 9 kWh/m/day). Earth's biomass: 75 billion tons. Of this: --humans comprise about 250 million tons (0.33%) --krill, about 500 million tons (0.67%) --farm animals, 700 million tons (almost 1%) --crops, 2 billion tons (2.7%) etc, etc. Note that all of this is composed of carbon-based life forms and we all seem to be getting our share, don't we? Of course, most people don't make the elementary mistake of thinking that solar radiation is a wasting resource and that use of solar energy is a zero sum game.


from:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/bravo22c/july_2007/carbon_dioxide_the_numbers.htm

 

... or ...

Tweet

All of my messges on this board     All of my messges anywhere

 

Advertisement
Wormwood Capsules, Clove Tincture
Hulda Clark Parasite Cleanse

More