Nov 27 2009
Smoking Gun Update Below
The real scientific process is to present a hypotheses (along with experimental data and algorithms and codes) to the community (doesn’t have to be hand picked by a science journal) for scrutiny and debate. The community will give the hypothesis a determination if it is feasible (but not fact, that takes another step). Missing from the Global Warming discussions has been the real scientific process.
In its place we have seen a corrupted process where those promoting the hypothesis have rigged the review with allies and squelched dissenting views with persecution and threat.
But now, with the CRU data exposed to the world we can get back to a real process, and it seems it will begin in New Zealand (sorry, can’t copy the text). The Parliament there is not standing for the one station excuse to let stand the questionable conclusions of massive global warming in New Zealand, when the raw data does not show any such phenomena.
My guess is this will be the tipping point. I feel comfortable that the assumption used to massage the raw data into a picture of runaway warming cannot stand up to scrutiny. As I have stated many times, each step in the massage process increases the error in the result. When you use trend lines and averages you lose accuracy, the result contains large increases in uncertainty.
I expect to see this review process identify the unproven assumptions, and establish uncertainty levels in the conclusions which show that there is as likely a cooling as warming, given all the error prone steps required to turn a flat temperature profile into runaway global warming.
The math is fairly brutal here, which is why we never see detailed and defendable error budgets.
Smoking Gun Update: And all those clinging to the claims the New Zealand alarmists will be able to prove their adjustments are reasonable – forget it. The NIWA (creators of Kiwi AGW) came out and drove their own nail into their argument, by showing how they adjusted the example site. Before:
See the obvious mistake here? The pre 1930 record (which will be much more sparse than the modern record) was dropped a full degree. Thus we get that push downward in the early part of the record. The dropping of the modern site does very little since it overlapped the other site and would have been ‘averaged’ in with it.
This is just wrong. Mathematically wrong. Instead of thinking temperature just view these as average heights. The average height of the first series is much different from the second. The first series is reality as measured for years in many places. The second series is statistical fiction. And I bet you this kind of sloppy reasoning permeates the record. For a real laugh go read their lame excuses for smearing over reality like this.