BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7423527.stm
Global temperatures did not dip sharply in the 1940s as the
conventional graph shows, scientists believe.
They say an abrupt dip of 0.3C in 1945 actually reflects a change in
how temperatures were measured at sea.
Until 1945, most readings were taken by US ****ps; but after the war,
UK vessels resumed measurements, and they took the sea's temperature
differently.
Writing in the journal Nature, the researchers say this does not
affect estimates of long-term global warming.
In the 1940s, there was no universally accepted way of measuring sea
temperature.
British vessels typically lowered a bucket over the side of the ****p,
pulled it up full of seawater, and put a thermometer in.
US vessels, on the other hand, usually had thermometers in place near
the pipe where water was pumped in to cool the engines.
The bucket method is known to produce readings slightly lower than the
actual temperature, because a fraction of the water will eva****ate as
it is hoisted on board.
The conventional temperature history shows a sharp fall around 1940
But engine intake measurements can produce higher temperatures than
are actually there.
In the war-ravaged seas of the early 1940s, about 80% of the readings
put into supposedly global datasets came from US ****ps. But after the
war, the British research effort ramped up sharply, and soon half of
the readings were coming from British vessels.
- - - - -
Consider this a warning as to the accuracy of weather
records ... you know, the stuff Al Gore uses to prove
'global warming' is out to get us.
Actually, I find it extremely difficult to believe that
either military or merchant ****ps were taking measurements
accurate enough to resolve 0.3 degreesC at all. Takes one
hell of a sensitive, and well-calibrated, thermometer to
be consistently accurate with such small differences. Be
it a glass thermometer or thermocouples, there are LOTS
of ways they can be "off".
It also takes incredibly diligent and consistent HUMANS
to take the readings as well ... especially until the
age of electronic recording arrived. If you're on the
deck of a pitching war****p, keeping one eye out for
torpedo tracks coming your way, how often are you gonna
read your thermometer correctly to a tenth a degree C
or better every single day ?
Assuming this 'corrected' data is now accurate, it largely
erases the post-WW2 temperature "spike" blamed on SUVs and
such ... unbends the "hockey-stick" graph somewhat. Instead
we see a relatively smooth increase in temperatures over
the past 150 years or so.
The uncorrected 150 year graph looks like this :
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44696000/gif/_44696363_global_temp226.gif
... and will now have to be smoothed-out. The other sharp
rise and dip between 1860 and 1925 may also be the result
of inconsistent, inaccurate or insufficient measurements.
What we'd get is a steady rise of about 1-degreeC per 200
years ... irrespective of changes in anthropogenic CO2
volume, which has NOT been so nicely linear.
Does this disprove "GW" ? Nope ... but it calls a lot of
the computer models into question. This new data must be
crunched ... and pre-WW2 data, recording methods and
equipment accuracy need the once-over as well to see if
there were problems there as well.
A numeric model is only as good as the numbers you put
into it. New numbers = totally new prognostications.
HUMAN-caused "GW" *could* disappear, replaced by a
more general natural warming trend. We'd still have
some of those GW problems in the future ... but a
different timeline and perhaps different fixes.
|
