Nå skjer det noe rundt temperaturjusteringene!

[ebye]

Siste oppslag på WUWT

July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-also-the-329th-consecutive-month-of-positive-upwards-adjustment-to-the-u-s-temperature-record-by-noaancdc/

Dette er da vitterlig et oppgjør med justeringene og hva som ikke sies om justeringene? Kommentarene her er rimelig entydige: hvordan skal dette nå MSM?        

[Bebben]

Det har vært kjent i mange år at klimarørsla pynter på temperaturdataene sine for å få dem til å passe bedre inn i fortellingen sin.

Jeg merket meg følgende innlegg på WUWT-tråden av Richard S Courtney:

richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 1:32 am


Friends:

Let us be clear.

There is no justifiable reason to alter values measured decades in the past.

For example, if temperature measurements were taken at different times of day then that is a cause of uncertainty (i.e. inherent error). Using assumptions to adjust for these times of measurement does not reduce uncertainty: it introduces additional unquantifiable error from the assumptions.

The entire subject of the surface temperature data sets shows that the compilers of these data sets are ignorant of basic measurement theory.

For example, the plotted temperatures are averages (i.e. means) intended to show trends over a region (e.g. the contiguous US, a hemisphere, the globe, etc.). But if such trends are to be meaningful indications of changes over the region then the mean has to be obtained from
(a) a statistically random sample
or
(b) the same population used as the sample for each datum.

However, (a) is not possible because the measurement sites are not randomly distributed. And (b) is not possible because the measurement sites differ from year-to-year (e.g. individual sites 'move' or close).

The adopted solution has been to compensate for the lack of a random sample by adjusting the available data. In principle this can be correct. The lack of randomness is a distortion to what is being measured (this is like viewing an image at an angle: the angle distorts the image). So, a model of the distortion is obtained and the data is adjusted according to the model (this is like determining the wrong viewing angle for an image and adjusting the image by that angle).

However, the distortion created by the lack of a random sample is not known and cannot be determined (this is like not knowing the angle at which an image is viewed). Therefore, any model of the distortion is a guess: and any compensation for the distortion by use of the model is a guess.

So, the 'adjustments' to the data sets are mere guesses. And these guesses have no validity because there is no calibration possible for determination of their validity. Arguments about UHI magnitude – and similar issues – do not change this because the problem is a sampling problem.

Re-adjusting data from decades in the past can only be an alteration to the compensation model: i.e. use of a different guess.

There is no justifiable reason to alter values measured decades in the past.

Richard

(Utheving i blått er min.)

[Bebben]

Ole Humlum har en artikkel i det svenske magasinet Katternö der han tar opp ju(k)steringene av temperaturdata hos NASA og NCDC.

Konsekvensen av detta ar att databaser som NCDC och GISS inte langre kan uppfattas som fullt tillforlitliga. Dessvarre ar det ytterst fa politiker och forskare som ar klara over omfattningen av dessa administrativa temperaturforandringar, trots att de uppenbart ar det klaraste exempel som finns pa en av manniskan skapad "klimatforandring"!

H/t Ingemar i The Climate Scam

På side 42 er det også et intervju med Humlum om polisen.

[seoto]

Takk for linken!

Sakset fra pdf-en:

Varför gör GISS och NCDC så här?
Databaserna förklarar själva att detta bara är
ett försök att uppnå en förbättrad global temperaturserie.
Andra misstänker att justeringarna görs
för att gradvis anpassa globala temperaturdata till
klimatmodellerna, som ju förutsäger accelererande
uppvärmning. Det kan emellertid omöjligt vara i
överensstämmelse med god vetenskaplig tradition
att anpassa data till teorin i stället för tvärtom.

[Min utheving]

Her bekrefter jo Humlum hva som allerede har blitt lagt ut av opplysninger på vårt forum, både den generelle triksingen og triksingen på islandske data.