“There is a TOA (top of atmosphere) imbalance of 6.4 W m-2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85±0.15 W m-2 by Hansen et al. (2005)[...].”

Brilliant! The computer model is used to estimate the global energy budget numbers that are used as a basis for estimating the CO2 warming affect.

Report this

00

Report this

00

Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work’

And other hoary chestnuts…..

Report this

10

Is THAT your best shot?

Rather feeble. Where is your denial of its validity? Where is your charge that the files are all made up? Where is your claim that nothing in the files can be trusted? Clearly, the files have not been peer reviewed so they cannot constitute scientific evidence, can they?

I looked at just three emails at random/haphazardly and found very damming evidence in one. Statistically that means there is likely that roughly half of the emails will also contain damming evidence. Evidence that AGW is a total fraud and that data has been “corrected” to tell a story that has little to nothing to do with actual climate. If the files are found to be genuine, they are clear evidence of scientific malpractice. I would not be surprised if they are also found to be evidence of a monumental crime of fraud and theft by deception in process.

Report this

20

Report this

02

Hadley CRU Hacked!</em> Hundreds of Files Released!

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1249.last

Report this

10

In the case of being changed before publishing, I am led to believe by some posts on this site that “peer review” catches such chicanery, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence. (Rant off.)

And while we are at it, we need to clarify just what raw date might be changed at collection/aggregation sites.

Since I was in that “business” from about 1962 to 1971, I think few can imagine how expensive and labor intensive it was. Yes, we used computers even in the early 60′s and the amount of software to do the job was very large and considerably more complex that most folks would imagine.

Let me explain a valid reason to change raw data after collection and before aggregation. During much of the cold war, all data from the Soviet Union violated WMO time coding standards by encoding all time as Moscow Standard Time, but not identified as such in the transmission. This was confusing.

Many (most) sources were various WMO and non-WMO relay sites. Some were collected by our CW intercept, and we found out that Moscow didn’t know a number of those reporting sites even existed. My sources were selected to ensure that ALL the Soviet data was received and processed; I had considerable overlap and duplication of coverage.

Some of the the input centers corrected the MST data time to Zulu time as specified by WMO, and logically so to accommodate the processing of synoptic data. Others did not. As I remember a Scandinavian source (Oslo maybe?) always made that change while Delhi didn’t. (This has been a long time ago, so don’t be surprised if someone says I’ve got those site mixed up.)

My editors (ever heard of weather editors?) routinely made the changes before distribution it to standardize it for all our users.

You may be aware of the synoptic code problem in those days that confused the encoding of temperatures below -50C. I won’t get into that problem, or the dew points from Mexico. Still I’ve seen reports of positive temperature when it was obvious that a negative indicator had been dropped. We fixed those before relay too. I think some real time QC is important. For example an outlier temperature is sometimes easy to spot — remember the below zero temperature reading from South Florida very recently? Who would perform QC on all these ad-hoc weather reports in real or near real-time?

Oh, and finally, we were processing reports for operations that had strong safety implications. Public safety is usually not involved in a temperature reported from the shore of Lake Lunker! But we used highly trained and experienced people for the job, around the clock, every day of the year, and I would argue we did the right thing on changing some raw data. It was not an easy job.

Frankly, I think encrypting weather observations is a very bad idea. Rather, we need to demand and ensure honest handling by government of all records, and not just those in weather/climate reports.

Report this

00

Isn’t that a bit like the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because the light is better even though he lost them in a dark ally two blocks east?

Especially if the “only comparison we have” is used to justify the UN taking over the worlds economies and running every one’s life down to the most minute detail. As in we must use on one sheet of toilet paper, use only “renewable” energy, have the transfer of our capital wealth by force and fraud to the non-productive, and stop the industrial revolution for everyone – especially for the formerly free USA?

It seems that no matter what the question, the answer is always more government control and more redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-producers. So why not use the price of postage stamps for an index? That at least has a physical significance and is more related to the ultimate goal of destruction of the worlds economy in that it is part of that economy.

Freedom, the free market, and capitalism is the only answer that works. However, what works depends upon your goal. A surviving and thriving global technological civilization is not the UN’s goal. Hence they choose a different path to achieve the universal enslavement of all to all with them in the dictator’s seat. If you destroy science, you destroy applied reason. If you destroy high energy production, you destroy freedom. If you destroy freedom, you destroy the ability to apply reason.

Report this

00

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/about-stats.shtml

Mean values

The mean value, also known as the average, is one of the most common statistics used to provide an estimate of what is most likely to happen. It is not necessarily equal to the most commonly occurring value, which is known as the mode, but for most elements it will be close. By itself, the mean does not provide any information about how the observations are scattered around the mean; whether they are tightly grouped or broadly scattered.

Median is also explained.

They did a major reprocess of statistics in 2007 with the intent of improving their data quality. Some of the classification methods changed.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/temperature/index.jsp

Average annual temperatures (maximum, minimum or mean) are calculated by adding daily temperature values each year, dividing by the number of days in that year to get an average for that particular year. The average values for each year in a specified period (1961 to 1990) are added together and the final value is calculated by dividing by the number of years in the period (30 years in this case).

Report this

10

Report this

10