Incalzire globala

Si tu vii cu wiki, unde poate posta oricine, orice.

**

SUA nu s-au alăturat niciodată Protocolului de la Kyoto,

http://www.agerpres....n-2020-19-05-48

Pentru ca trebuia sa plateasca bani grei pe piata CO2.

https://polifilosofi...seminar-iii.pdf

Cand nu ne convine ceva, nu e buna sursa, nu? Informatia disponibila e vasta, se intelege.

In privinta climategate tot sursa e de vina? Hotie dovedita.

Pe wiky pot posta de exemplu despre proiectul biome 6000? Sigur ca da!
Iarasi iti dai in petec si iei totul in nume personal, in loc sa vii cu argumente stiintifice.


http://www.bridge.br...ses/BIOMES_data

Ei, citeste aici, vezi si referintele. Graficele postate pe aici de mine au legatura cu asta.
Astea sunt aberatii?

http://www.lavoisier...gate-emails.pdf

Abaterea temperaturii medii globale pentru luna noiembrie 2016 fata de perioada de referinta 1951-1980 = +0.97 C, in crestere fata de luna octombrie, care avusese +0.91 C.
amaps.png
Anul 2015 care a fost cel mai cald din istoria masuratorilor meteorologice a avut +0.85 C peste media perioadei 1951-1980.
amaps2.png
Anul 2016 va avea o incalzire substantiala fata de anul 2015, pana acum abaterea pe care am calculat-o fiind de 1.01 C fata de perioada 1951-1980.

Nu aveai timpul fizic sa citesti materialul in intervalul scurs intre postari, plus referintele. Oricum, nu e postat pentru dumneata ci pentru cei ce vor sa citeasca si sa se informeze.
Acolo, in proiectul biome 6000 sunt date stiintifice de prima mana, nu e sustinuta vreo teorie, sunt cercetari, sunt aratate metodele si concluziile. Si cam atat.


Pentru că mai sunt, din păcate, mulţi dintre noi care încă mai cred în basmul cu “încălzirea globală din cauza efectului de seră”, ca urmare a propagandei mass-mediei oficiale, vă prezint traducerea şi adaptarea unui articol apărut pe 30 noiembrie 2015 pe site-ul cnsnews.com. Concluziile vi le trageţi singur!
Un om de știință german a acuzat Institutul de Studii Spațiale Goddard (GISS), ce aparţine de NASA, că a modificat înregistrările de temperaturi, între anii 2010 și 2012, pentru a produce iluzia că Pământul s-ar “încălzi” din anul 1950. Datele GISS sunt folosite de Grupul interguvernamental al ONU privind schimbările climatice (IPCC), pentru a se documenta în problema încălzirii globale.
Într-o prezentare din 2012, de la Conferinţa de schimbări climatice de la Eike (Germania), profesorul Friedrich-Karl Ewert, geolog (acum retras) și expert la Universitatea din Paderborn, a declarat că a examinat înregistrările de temperatură arhivate din 1.153 de staţii meteorologice din întreaga lume, din 1881, şi a găsit dovezi masive că GISS a falsificat temperaturile între 2010 și 2012.
Ewert a observat că datele privind temperaturile de la Reykjavik (Islanda) și Nuuk Nuur (Groenlanda) au fost modificate retroactiv. Datele din 2012 au fost mai mari decât temperaturile înregistrate înainte de 2010. Apoi, omul de știință german a selectat aleator 120 de staţii meteorologice din întreaga lume și le-a comparat cu datele furnizate de GISS. El a ajuns la aceeași concluzie: temperaturile furnizate de GISS începând cu 2012 au arătat o încălzire mai mare decât cele publicate în 2010

Deci, iata sursa ta cea credibila in speta NASA.(GISS, la care ai facut referire)

http://www.cnsnews.c...ion-temperature

Va rog sa va calmati si mai ales sa renuntati la limbajul agresiv. Dilema incalzirii globale nu va fi transata pe acest topic, va asigur eu de asta.

Ai un buton de report pentru orice crezi ca este deplasat. Foloseste-l cu incredere. Nu suntem atotvazatori.

E valabil in cazul unor moderatori impartiali. Asa insa, dumnezeu cu mila.

Masurati individual s-ar putea sa avem surprize.

Q. What is the GISTEMP Analysis (the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis)?
A. The GISTEMP analysis recalculates consistent temperature anomaly series from 1880 to the present for a regularly spaced array of virtual stations covering the whole globe. Those data are used to investigate regional and global patterns and trends.

Q. Why no data from before 1880?
A. The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.

Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.

Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.

Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.
Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.
More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA/NCEI) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.
(Note: The NOAA analysis was formerly performed by the National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC. In spring 2015, NCDC was merged with two other data centers to form NCEI.)

Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCEI's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCEI's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v4 data.

Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.

Q. Does NASA/GISS skew the global temperature trends to better match climate models?
A. No.

Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?
A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates related to homogenization or other factors have been assessed by CRU and the Hadley Centre (among others).

|

Totusi, in teoria dumitale e un defect; la reanaliza ai sansa sa pastrezi intacte datele de care dispui, nu sa le distorsionezi.
Aici era hiba, dar omiti cu buna credinta sa mentionezi asta.

"omul de știință german a selectat aleator 120 de staţii meteorologice din intreaga lume și le-a comparat cu datele furnizate de GISS. "

Despre asta era vorba, de datele de la statii ce au fost distorsionate. Unde este buna credinta? In balarii.

Cred ca cel mai bine lasam cercetatorii de la Goddard Space Institute sa raspunda singuri :

Q- Question ( Intrebare ); A - Answer.


Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No