All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 273

 AUGUST 8TH 2011

By Vincent Gray.


ACCURACY OF TEMPERATURE TRENDS and  THE CARBON CYCLE REVOLUTION.

I have frequently argued that the claimed temperature "trends" from the "Mean Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly Record" greatly exceed the values claimed. It is difficult, however, to obtain a reliable figure from all the operations that are carried out to obtain the final global figures.

Lubos Motl has now made an analysis of  58,579 monthly "trends" from the  5113 ""raw data" files which have recently been released by Hadley/CRU, at

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html

He gives the following Gaussian curve arising from this analysis:-



This has  an average of 0.76 ºC per century with a standard deviation of ±2.36ºC .  For 95% Confidence limits (one chance in 20 that the true value is in  the range) is therefore ±4.72ºC, 6.2 times the average  which means that it has almost zero statistical significance. Indeed it means that 30% of the stations showed a cooling trend, far more than have been identified previously

 Motl has done a similar job on the data since 1979 at

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html

where he gets the following distribution curve:-



This is skewed because the temperature has fluctuated. The mean is 2.24ºC ± 14.08ºC,  almost zero statistical significance and 31% of the stations show cooling this time.

This analysis is only the beginning, because it does not take into account the unrepresentative samples, which change frequently, and involve taking the mean of a maximum and a minimum, or the averaging to get a monthly figure.

Why should anybody believe these "trends"?

Then we have the Carbon Cycle Revolution launched by Murry Selby of Macquarie University at

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#more-4382

with a podcast of his lecture at

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

He presents very convincing arguments to show that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are unrelated to human emissions from fossil fuel combustion and  extremely convincing evidencve that they are related to global temperature fluctuations. They are therefore predominantly natural, not  man-made,

He is yet to publish a full paper on the subject, but some of his graphs can be obtained by saving the web page of the first reference.

Cheers

Vincent Gray.


"To kill an error is as good a service

as, and sometimes better than, the

establishing of a new truth or fact"

Charles Darwin


No comments:

Post a Comment





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!