Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Smoking gun at Darwin?

Here is another skeptic, Willis Eschenbach, apparently one of the first people to have demanded FOI access to the CRU data.

He now has re-examined the historical record for one station in Australia and claims to have found something important:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
at

6 comments:

  1. StanDecember 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM

    There are examples of this all over. ChiefIO (a software professional unlike the scientists who are code amateurs) has painstakingly examined a lot of the GISS code. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/

    He has dozens of posts about it. This one is particularly interesting. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/

    "What if I just took the top 10% of stable thermometers? The best of the best? Those thermometers that have been tended for a hundred years plus by dedicated folks of great passion (or it would not have been done for the last 100+ years…)?

    [chart]
    ...
    Remarkably devoid of trend. Within a few tenths C decade to decade in all months columns and in the average for each year. If you told me that the average thermometer reading for a given month for the planet would not change by more than a couple of 1/10 C over 150 years I would not have believed it possible."

    The oldest continuous stations around the world show very little warming. The warming comes from the code.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Viv EvansDecember 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM

    Willis Eschenbach's analysis is outstanding work.

    The increasing upwards adjustments for the data collected at Darwin are simply mind-boggling.
    Is there any scientific reason for that?

    I ask, because this is not something we were taught when I was a student ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousDecember 8, 2009 at 7:12 PM

    "...Is there any scientific reason for that?"

    Or is there any conversion standard that is followed when switching from one equipment type to another?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousDecember 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    "Is there any scientific reason for that"

    Yeah there is.... scientific funds...

    ReplyDelete
  5. GeorgDecember 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM

    Outstanding work, scientific fraud, corrupted scientists.

    I guess there is no way that this http:science.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
    will equally prominent posted here?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousDecember 11, 2009 at 8:08 AM

    Well Georg, since your link doesnt exist I can't really see the point in posting it here?

    ReplyDelete