Global Warming - It's all about Statistics

 

A new UC Berkley study reports (October 2011) that the Earth is getting warmer. The study has not been “peer reviewed” yet but since they are ALL using the same data as other research people it would not be surprising that they all come to the same conclusion!

 

A good scientific blind study requires using the same method but creating different test data and getting to the same conclusion. If every study uses the same test data then that is just not possible.

 

The issue about testing for global warming is that the data gathered is based on location AND the type of equipment used then "normalized" by some statistical (often proprietary) method to account for local and equipment variances and THEN is used to create a conclusion.

 

A weather "station" from 1830 records temperature by a person using "local" time by using a glass thermometer (and no way to know  how accurate it was) is now at the "same" location of an automated station that is now inside a city which states that it is now 6 degrees warmer than the same date and time in 1830.

 

Heat islands, extra heat put into the air by loss of heat by buildings and extra absorbed heat by the buildings and which in turn heats up the surrounding air, is "calculated out" of what they EXPECT the actual temperature to be if there were no heat islands. They cannot actually use the recorded temperature because of this fact – it would knowingly show every city getting warmer and the surrounding countryside staying the same – because of humans being there!

 

The math used to calculate and then subtract the "extra" heat often is a problem.

 

You can see this easily on the east coast around DC. West of DC temp is 50, over DC 55 to 57, then along the Chesapeake Bay it is again around 50. The island affect is local - but may cover a 40 mile diameter.

 

However, there were NO remote temp reporting stations in the middle of the US, Europe - anywhere in the world till around WW I when it become important enough to create stations to help in military operations. Of course in WW II due to air operations reporting stations were created around the whole world as well as aircraft reporting weather data. This is why cold and warm air masses are reported as "fronts" – it is derived from military combat terms.

 

Now you become suspect when they report as "fact" the temperatures back in 1700s, 1300s etc - they are guessing based on MODERN observation and projecting it onto past events (growth rings in trees for example).

 

And when they state they have never seen a glacier this small "since 1806" then HOW did it get that small in 1806?

 

The problem comes in that each person uses a different set of statistical methods, but the SAME sets of reporting stations, applies these to "normalize" them all to a standard, THEN comes a graph to show trends and makes a conclusion.

 

The problem is that NO ONE agrees on how to do any of those things.

 

If there were just 100 stations that reported temp all at the same TRUE time of day over 200 years - they all would be in cities by now and then you still would have the heat island effect to account for by people burning wood / coal in each house then and now gas heated / electric heated houses now (with some wood still).

 

No matter what is done the method they use to wipe out reporting errors, heat islands, time of day reporting etc this statistical problem will always exist as to definitively state that compared to year 0 (A.D.) the Earth is now 1 degree warmer than it was then.

 

Oh wait, the Earth is actually 1 degree colder than it was then – they still cannot grow grapes in Scotland.