Nairobi Airport turns out to be an aberrant CRUT4 station – possible source for the exaggerated warming claim in David Attenborough BBC TV show “Africa”
February 19th, 2013 by Warwick HughesFollowing my articles of a few days ago – BBC exaggerated warming trend in David Attenborough’s TV show “Africa” and – CRUT4 surface temperature grid box anomalies trend over Kenya compared to NASA satellites lower troposphere – the source of the David Attenborough 3.5° warming claim explained. I have dug into station data for the 5 degree grid box over Kenya and it looks clear after comparing anomalies with Garissa, that the Nairobi Airport data carries non-climatic warming from the late 1990′s. Although Garissa is almost 300km away in the NE of the grid box and both stations have many data gaps – the difference points to Nairobi Airport data being faulty.
Nairobi Airport temperature anomalies
Garissa temperature anomalies
Difference Nairobi Airport minus Garissa
It is a puzzle how Jones et al data can carry such obvious standout mistakes after years of polishing through how many versions? – plus years of input from the UKMO? IPCC science must surely be in a very shoddy state.
Posted in IPCC, Jones et al, Surface Record | 3 Comments »
February 21st, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Another scary story surfaces, but really, ‘scorched fish’? pindanpost.com/2013/02/21/propaganda-heating-up-now-its-scorched-fish/ you may want to have a look, it could be related to the scary sharks off WA.
February 22nd, 2013 at 2:50 pm
It is indeed puzzling that after more than a quarter of a century of generous grants from the US Department of Energy, and with trillion-dollar greenhouse “abatement” measures riding on the evidence, Jones still hasn’t introduced any systematic quality control on station data.
It would be child’s play these days to introduce routines that would catch anomolous pairs like Nairobi and Garissa. Even easier to spot that the records of both are so patchy that each is suspect to start with. And dead easy too to spot the warming at Nairobi of one degree in just 6 years (1994 to 2000) that could not possibly be climatic.
Yet he gets away with it, still. Why? There could be all sorts of explanations, but I suppose the most likely line of defence is that the surface and satellites line up anyway, so they both must be right. Jones has got that trick down pat. He might be hopeless at Excel, but he can get some slavey to massage his continental aggregates with the subtlety of an all-in wrestler. Warwick, where is that post of yours where you showed he had fudged the continental USA aggregate to agree with the satellite number to about six significant figures? I looked but it eludes me.
February 22nd, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Here it is Dave –
Satellites vs surface, amazing agreement over the USA.
August 17th, 2006