Suppose someone believed that 95% of The Earth’s surface was at a 0.1 temperature anomaly, and that the other 5% was at an (extrapolated) 5.0 anomaly. What would the global anomaly be?
(.95 * 0.1) + (.05 * 5.0) = 0.35
Try that same problem again, excluding the imaginary 5%
1.0 * 0.1 = 0.1
The fabricated data caused the global anomaly to more than triple.
Extra credit : Go claim that the first calculation set a world record by 0.01 degrees.
It’s even worse than you think, Steve……
Check out Werner Brozek’s 1:47pm post on this thread :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/more-stupid-environmentalist-tricks/
lol, Well, isn’t that nice? Steve’s giving JH extra credit! Maybe the Hansen supporters will give him his own props for this nod of appreciation for Hansen’s expertise?
🙂
Averaging when most of the world has no warming and the Arctic has warming produces a lot of lies used by the alarmists.
Remember: A CRU email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others, Mar 11, 2003, stated: “Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.”
See: http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SeekingWarming.htm
And Hansen said the 1930s-1940s warming was natural – ” the observed maximum is due almost entirely to temporary warmth in the Arctic. Such Arctic warmth could be a natural oscillation”
See: http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/HansenModel.htm