This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
The raw data was accessed and graphed. It shows no significant warming.
The graph of temperature started by Dr Salinger when he was at the UAE, shows a distinct warming trend.
The response was robust and explained the need make corrections.
My problem is that if the raw data shows no increase as a whole, but some station data is corrected then it is most logical that the correction should be to align it with the bulk of the data. It is more reasonable to expect the corrected data to show no more warming that any uncorrected data.
However, the corrected data when included with the overall data set, results in a significant growth.
This must mean either that only some data was corrected and at those stations, Death valley isn't in it or that a substantial proportion of the data has been "adjusted".
Now we have a problem, if the raw data shows no growth and the adjusted data shows significant growth we would have to validate that through an indirect measurement that is unadjusted.
For example, if we have two different parameters which are linked, A varies with variations in B and C varies with variations in B and we have to make corrections to the A data set then we would need to use the C data set as a reference.
So, in this case we might consider that rainfall is affected by global warming just as temperature is so if we can demonstrate that unadjusted rainfall data shows a growth over the period in question and rainfall is linked to climate as temperature is then we can adjust our temperature data accordingly.
I don't see any evidence of this kind of justification, or benchmarking of the temperature data with some other robust data set.
On the other hand, There is Global warming triggered by fossil fuel burning which will resulting so many degrees temperature rise over the next 100 years.
Therefore the temperature set should be adjusted in line with that increase.
However, we know that climate change is occurring, the planet is warming, because of the temperature increases.
That makes these two things, temperature and global warming self consistent. That is quite acceptable, non?
Assume that all stations produce constant temperature measurements. A graph of each output is a horizontal line. The effect of moving a station is to create a discontinuity at the time of moving: the result is a step function, with a step equal to the temperature difference. Each movement creates a step up or down at the time of the movement in the appropriate function. If you sum all these functions and average them, you get a step function with small up and down steps at discontinuities. Unless there is something weird going on, these steps mostly cancel each other out. Subtract this averaged step function from the provided graph and you have the corrected result. It won't be visually much different from what you see.
Inspection of the two graphs shows the introduction of a line or other curve with a positive slope of about 20 degrees. That cannot possibly be the step function; it is something else. The NIWS has released an explanation that sounds good but doesn't actually explain.
It's much simpler to delete all your observations and only keep the codged version that supports your theory:
The warmers have countered that it is only a small proportion of all such data that was deleted--less than five percent.
But apparently that is the data for all the stations whose records were adjusted. Is the corollary then that only five percent of station series were adjusted?
Steven Jones is now using the excuse that the adjustments were made to eliminate the urban heat island effect from the temperature record--a phenomenon that the warmers denied existed until it became convenient to acknowledge it. Jones is implying then with this statement that adjustments were all, or mostly, to reduce the warming trend in the raw data.
Jones also claims that all data can be gotten from the American NOAA.
you are right.
I think my mind was going at that point - too many blogs, too many trolls to trash, too many revelations....
I'll have to see if I can make sense of what I have said and amend it.
Then: The Copenhagen Explanation is the first comprehensive statement of quantum mechanics and marks the end of classical physics.
Now: The Copenhagen Conference seeks to make the first comprehensive statement of a new world religion and mark the end of experimental science.
Could be, the Danes have never forgiven us for Nelson's epic battle. Pay back time? After two century's? --- Armed neutrality can have many guises.
"It's much simpler to delete all your observations and only keep the codged version that supports your theory.."
There are a few people who suspect CRU haven't actually thrown the data away, an example being this blogger:
When I first heard the story a couple of months ago about the CRU throwing data away in the 1980s I had some doubts. There was a fashion in UK companies (and this might have applied to universities as well) in the 1980s to reduce clutter in offices and get rid of all the piles of paper documents by storing them in more compact microfilm or microfiche form.