No announcement yet.

"Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated... Well, not *thoroughly* fabricated.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated... Well, not *thoroughly* fabricated.

    If you can set aside the smug, snide remarks of the author, this article does a fairly good job in explaining why the surface station temperature have to be adjusted.

    There is just one huge problem...

    "In the US, a couple systematic changes to weather stations caused a cooling bias—most notably the time of observation bias corrected in the blue line.
    Zeke Hausfather/Berkeley Earth"... I added the the natural variability box and annotation. All of the anomalous warming ince 1960 is the result of the adjustments.

    Without the adjustments and homogenization, the post-1960 US temperatures would be indistinguishable from the early 20th century.

    I'm not saying that I know the adjustments are wrong; however anytime that an anomaly is entirely due to data adjustments, It raises a red flag with me. In my line of work, oil & gas exploration, we often have to homogenize seismic surveys which were shot and processed with different parameters. This was particularly true in the "good old days" before 3d became the norm. The mistie corrections can often be substantial. However, if someone came to me with a prospect and the height of the structural closure wasn't substantially larger than the mistie corrections used to "close the loop," I would pass on that prospect.

    Just for grins, I plotted the UAH and RSS satellite time series on top of the Hausfather graph...

    US raw, TOBs-adjusted and homogenized temperatures plotted along with UAH and RSS global satellite temperatures. Apples and oranges? Sort of... But still very revealing.

    I think can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Originally posted by The Doctor;3161768[url[/url]
    The beauty is that the pre 1970 data "cant' be corrected" because it's not from a satellite, so fudge away...
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi


    • #3
      Can they afford to lose any data? Even being liberal to the fullest extent in accepting data with have about 42 seconds of geological time to base any guesses upon.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.


      • #4
        It is clear that climatology fanatics will use any data in any way they can to fit their group agenda, even to the extent of outright lying.

        The word "science" does not belong in the same post as any of this.

        Science, meanwhile, has become even more politicized than government itself, seeking to force people to bend to their will regardless of consequences.

        I have yet to see anything by a single so-called "scientist" discussing the potential consequences of attempting to interfere in a planetary climate cycle in such a fashion. I suspect the price will be our lives, since our ignorance about such matters is profound while our arrogance is limitless.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?


        Latest Topics