New study by Global Warming sceptics, funded by the Koch Brothers, concludes

Started Jul 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 42,798Gear list
In reply to BorisK1, Aug 2, 2012

BorisK1 wrote:


This press release in PDF form: Watts_et_al 2012_PRESS RELEASE (PDF)

I checked your first link. It cites as a source a PDF file. Here is the abstract and link to that PDF file....


An analysis team led by Anthony Watts has shown that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations are ranked in NOAA classification 4 or 5, indicating a temperature uncertainties greater than 2C or 5C, respectively. This uncertainty is large compared to the analyses of global warming, which estimate the warming of 0.64 ± 0.13 C over the period 1956 to 2005. The quality problem suggests that the instruments used to measure the warming may not be sufficiently accurate to yield a meaningful number. We perform two analyses on the USHCN stations ranked by the team. A simple slope analysis shows no statistically significant disparity between stations ranked “OK” (NOAA scale of 1, 2, and 3) and stations ranked as “poor” (NOAA scale of 4 and 5). This method suffers from uneven sampling of the United States land area, but it illustrates important properties of the data. A more detailed temperature reconstruction is then performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method. From this analysis we conclude that the difference in temperature rate of rise between poor stations and OK stations is –0.014 ± 0.028 C per century. The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two sets suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties.

I'm not going to bother with the other links

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow