The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100%

Watts Up With That?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%.

View original post 1,181 more words

This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100%

  1. Ron C. says:

    Scottish Sceptic

    I have developed something that could be of interest. It’s a way of doing temperature trend analysis that neatly avoids all the data manipulations so much discussed recently. I have built an Excel workbook for this method, and have done a study of Kansas US in order to prove the concept and the tool.

    At this point I need someone with a skeptical mind to critique what I have done. If you are willing I can email you the Kansas workbook and you can see if it stands up to scrutiny.

    I have started building a Canada workbook with this template, but there are many stations, and it will take time. I also want to verify that I am on the right track before making the full effort.

    I can also send a text document explaining the rationale for temperature trend analysis.

    Please let me know what you think..

  2. markstoval says:

    I wonder if there could be an open source, crowd sourced data set. One used mainly for the trend of temperature going up or down over the years.

    You would not need complete coverage of the whole planet for this sort of thing. You might use 10 stations from the US/NorthAmerica and a similar number from Europe, Asia, Africa, and so on. The stations would be selected such that they are long term stations (say 1900 to now) that are not subject to urban heat island (UHI) effects.

    Looking at 100 stations or less would allow for anyone to double check the numbers easily and being totally open and transparent would give people confidence in the data set as far as a trend is concerned. Perfect? Well, nothing in this life is perfect but it would beat hell out of what we have now.

    Thoughts?

    • Ron C. says:

      Mosher has famously said that 50 stations properly selected would give you the global results, no different from that obtained from the full dataset. That being said, no 2 stations are alike, and error is introduced when you adjust one station to another (here I depart from Mosher).

      The workbook I have developed should serve any set of selected stations, and is not compromised by including some with missing datapoints and stations with differing lifetimes. Of course, the longer the records the better, in case that climates are in fact cycle over some decades.

      At this point, I need people to check the tool and see if it is fit for purpose

      • catweazle666 says:

        “Mosher has famously said…”

        “Famously”?

        I think “notoriously” is the word you’re looking for.

        Or possibly ‘hilariously”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s