Slightly alarming, don\’t you think?

That the entire global cooling of the 1940s turns out to have been based on errors in measurement (and yes, this does make me change my mind about that part of the story)?

What other parts of the narrative are down to such errors?

9 thoughts on “Erm”

  1. “and yes, this does make me change my mind about that part of the story”

    Could you tell us what your mindset was concerning which particular part of the story.

    Tim adds: I thought that the dip in temperatures then was due to higher aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere.

  2. This is not about errors in measurement but errors in adjustments. Strangely every skeptic has known about this issue for years.

  3. It’s hard to say what other errors might be in the temperature records because the Hadley Centre are keeping them a secret. Dr Jones, the author of this “recent discovery”, is, of course, one of the chief culprits having even managed to refuse Freedom of Information requests.

  4. Tim



    Presumably Dr Jones only releases information to “scientists” who are his peers within the consensus “community”.

  5. The two main planks in the IPCC’s initial case were, I understand, the ‘hockey stick’ graph of historical temperatures, and a survey of records from 250 odd surface stations.

    The hockey stick reconstruction has been discredited: the computer model used to produce it, produces hockey stick shaped graphs almost regardless of the data entered into it ( it also did so with numbers from a telephone directory, for example).

    Now, there was what is alleged to have been an actual, deliberate fraud in the surface station work. I’m about to blog about this, but the argument is serious enough for the relevant University’s ethics committee to have started an investigation.

    Tim adds: Well, no, it doesn’t really rest only upon those two. It starts with Arrhenius and the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. That greenhouse effect. Now that part of it we know absolutely is true. We can also calculate how much a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would affect tempreature. Again, we know this (the answer is just under 1oC, an amount that no one gives a shit about).

    Where it all gets a little more contentious, and where the hockey stick comes into play, survey records and so on, is about feedback. There obviously are feedbacks in a system as large as global climate. What we don’t know is whether they are in sum (for we know that some are positive, others negative, but we don’t know if we’ve identified all of them even, let alone got all the signs right) positive or negative. What is being done is that tempreatures are being graphed out and then the conclusion being reached that because they are rising more than the pure CO2 concentrations would lead us to believe then overall feedback is positive.

    But if those figures are being fiddled than perhaps it isn’t?

    But whether or not that is true, we still have the original effect of the CO2 on the atmosphere. Which if feedback is anything other than strongly positive, we really don’t give a shit about.

  6. MikeinAppalachia

    IIRC, this was discussed on a ” Climate Audit” blog a few years ago and the “consensus team” ignored it.

    Tim adds: Indeed, and at least some climate scientists (James Annan) have been good enough to link to it. But not Nature, of course.

  7. There’s no dispute about the greenhouse effect of a number of gases, so I didn’t refer to it. If there were no possible physical mechanism underlying the idea of human-induced climate change, we’d hardly be having this discussion.

    The IPCC’s work depends on correlation between CO2 release by humans and temperature change, and so does rest on the two planks I mentioned.

  8. If they weren’t taking the water samples using the same method, then there are no guarrantees that they were sampling from the same depth below the surface. That would potentially have a significant effect on the resulting data.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *