It seems odd that the values are so high in the recent period of this series and could conceivably be instrumental data , but would have to check. The scaling of the data we used to produce the Crowley curve that formed one of the lines in our spaghetti diagram (that we put on the web site under my name and made available to NGDC), was based on taking the unscaled composite he sent and re-calibrating against April - Sept. average for land North of 20 degrees Lat., and repeating his somewhat bazaar calibration procedure (which deliberately omitted the data between 1900-1920 that did not fit with the instrumental data (remember his data are also decadal smoothed values). In fact , as we were using summer data we calibrated over 1881-1900 (avoiding the high early decades that I still believe are biased in summer) and 1920 - 1960 , whereas he used 1856-1880 and 1920-1965. Of the precise details might differ - but the crux of the matter is that I suspect one of the Figures you show may have instrumental data in the recent period - but not ours. If you say exactly where these series came from I can ask Tim (who will have done the calibrations) to check.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Yipes: In ClimateGate email 4022, Briffa talks about "avoiding the high early decades"; "deliberately omitting the data between 1900-1920", and conceivably uisng instrumental data in the recent period
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
(This blogger comment interface sucks...]
I once read that archeologists and anthropologists throw out an average of about 85% of the Carbon 14 lab results. The accusation was that they simply didn't accept lab results that didn't fit with the acceptable time frame. The reason given for discarding the lab results? "The sample must have been contaminated."
Here we have The Team cavalierly picking and choosing which empirically acquired data wasn't contaminated. It is one thing to discard what doesn't fit. To then insert data of your own choosing makes the fraud that much worse. The term "cherry picking" isn't accusation enough. Here The Team is readily sharing with each other admissions of such machinations, like they were discussing what they had for breakfast. They sound PROUD of being on the inside so that they can pull off such shenanigans.
After reading such a clear statement of fraud, who could ever believe ONE iota of what these guys put out as science?
The dim bulb Muller had it right in his video when he said that he wouldn't trust any science from these guys. Then a few months later he plays Jack of Beanstalk fame and accepts their data, then tells the world, "You, they are honest and accurate!"
Woe is us who have to try to convince some of the world that it is a scam and has always BEEN a scam.
Post a Comment