What’s on with Climate Data and AGW?
For those of you (if there is somebody reading these posts) who have been surrounded (as me) by some skepticism regarding climate change numbers shown by the MetOffice, the CRU, WMO, GHCN, GISS, among others; and for those who have heard or read about the Climategate suspicious emails. I just want to add a couple of words to all the very interesting information posted by other bloggers over the world.
1. Yes- there is no doubt that increased carbon dioxide does actually cause global warming as it retains the incoming solar radiation. The question is: “are anthropogenic emissions big enough to cause such an alteration in the atmosphere?“… I do not have the answer, as I do not have the numbers, and even if I had the numbers, numbers are sometimes tricky, so how would one trust the future of humanity in a single number?. The important thing is to keep focused on scientific discussions, and to not get lost under all those skeptics arguing without any evidence. Evidence will guide us to the solution of any misunderstanding.
2. Statistical methods to adjust climatological data are clear and precise, but sometimes they could become tricky… You just need to feed a method with thrash and you will get thrash, I was told once upon a time. These kind of things could happen especially if methods are applied automatically and not cross-verified at least once, say, each five years. I would say, there could be errors in measurements, in data processing, and in data analysis as well. But we all are humans, aren’t we? this all is worth of taking a look to raw data and transparently re-analyze everything. I hope there’s somebody doing this great work.