A very interesting read on how temperature data transcription can generate errors, all of them generally leading to recording warmer temperatures, and the effects becoming more pronounced the closer the temperatures are recorded to the poles. Fascinating.
The article is an in depth discussion looking at how the errors occur, and pretty much nails it. The only question now is were those errors frequent enough, and regular enough to doubt Climate Models relying on this data? It's looking that way.
However, one of the amusing stand out quotes in the comments became the title for this post. I was familiar with the original GIGO acronym, but hadn't caught "version 2". I like it. It's also AGW's worst nightmare, and apparently, modus operandi: Garbage In, Gospel Out.
Watts Up With That: Missing Minus Signs in Temperature Records Create False Positives
The article is an in depth discussion looking at how the errors occur, and pretty much nails it. The only question now is were those errors frequent enough, and regular enough to doubt Climate Models relying on this data? It's looking that way.
However, one of the amusing stand out quotes in the comments became the title for this post. I was familiar with the original GIGO acronym, but hadn't caught "version 2". I like it. It's also AGW's worst nightmare, and apparently, modus operandi: Garbage In, Gospel Out.
Watts Up With That: Missing Minus Signs in Temperature Records Create False Positives
That's a beautiful item by Watts--thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteSounds like most things coming from the left Zen.
ReplyDeleteAnd in some instances, forget garbage in, nothing goes in, just bullsh!t coming out.