Lidt fakta om klimaet (opfølger)

Diverse — Drokles on January 11, 2010 at 11:31 pm

Sidste år (i december) henviste jeg her på Monokultur til en film på Youtube, der meget grundigt gennemgår og taler for menneskeskabt global opvarmning. Eller det vil sige, jeg endte af en eller anden grund med kun at henvise til de fire første afsnit af de i alt syv afsnit. Her kommer resten

Hmm, den forfalder noget til stråmænd, men har man sagt A….

Tilføjelse: Jeg vil lidt imod et princip jeg i udgangspunktet ville hævde (at lade argumenterne i filmen stå uantastet) alligevel knytte en kommentar til problemet med CRUs emails, som jeg synes filmens fortæller går lettere henover end han gennemgår den forskning, der efter hans udmærkede mening tegner normaliteten af klimavidenskaben. ”Mikes Naturetrick” handler efter alt at dømme om en metode, Michael Mann benyttede til at fortælle en anden historie end den som hans data viste, som American Thinker og Climate Audit gennemgik i december. Og som ordlyden i Jones email fortæller er det ikke blot et enkeltstående tilfælde, men derimod modus operandi for den lille gruppe forskere. At medierne slår ned på den samme sætning i en overfladisk tilgang ændrer jo ikke på indholdet og betydningen.

Dette har man både på Michael Manns eget universitet set med stor alvor på, som man på CRU også har set med stor alvor på indholdet af korrespondancens indhold. Begge steder har man indledt undersøgelser, hvilket altså sker af egen drift og næppe fordi sagen cirkulerer i bloggosfæren. Og betydningen er ikke ligegyldig for forskere bygger på hinandens arbejde, som National Post kan fortælle i en artikel om en en forsker, der knytter opvarmingen fra 70′erne sammen med brugen af cfc gasser, som freon

Dr Lu’s study is now published and the reviews he has received to date have been favourable but he may find himself writing a postscript in three year’s time. Like hundreds of other scientists around the world, Dr. Lu may have unwittingly relied on invalid data for a portion of his study. His real-time satellite and balloon data, which shows CO2 does not cause climate change, is not in dispute. Not so for the historical temperature data, on which he based his estimates of how much global cooling we face as Earth’s temperatures return to their historic pre-CFC levels. “My temperature data comes from the UK – the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University,” he reveals when questioned.

As a result of the Climategate Scandal, this temperature data is now in doubt. Investigations into the Climategate emails are underway at East Anglia and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More significantly, CRU’s data is so suspect that the UK Met Office, which partnered with the Climate Research Unit in producing datasets for researchers, is undertaking a mammoth three-year investigation during which it will re-examine 160 years of original temperature data to determine to what extent, if any, CRU cooked the books.

Because of all this uncertainty, “I cannot say how reliable their data is,” states Professor Lu, who has done his best to reassure himself that all is in order. When the Climategate scandal erupted as his study was being completed, he cross-checked the CRU data to that of NOAA, another prominent organization, and then he cross-checked his data again when CRU’s partner, the UK Met Office, released more data. “All of them look similar,” Professor Lu says.  Professor Lu’s cross-checks provide scant reassurance, however, because all these data-handling agencies had drawn their data from the same tainted pool. Although Professor Lu declines to comment on the Climategate scandal, he cannot be confident that his study will not need to be redone in three year’s time, when the UK Met Office completes its re-examination.

Lødighed er i alles interesse.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress