Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Alice Springs Automatic Weather Station Inflated Temperature By 4.5 C Producing False Record High NoTricksZone
A spurious 4.5C reading leads to another 'hottest evahhhh' claim. At least this time it was recinded. How many others just get accepted into the record book? Eg. will the Heathrow record stand? A minute long spike not found in the surrounding stations. Real, jet exhaust, or what?
I'm telling you --- GISS and East Anglia are hacking into the reporting systems on nights, weekends and holidays..
From Karl et al 2015
First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************
I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.
Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?
Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?
You'll never get any answers to thatFrom Karl et al 2015
First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************
I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.
Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?
Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?
Lipstick on a pig.
Have you ever noticed when someone is trying to sell you something it sounds a lot better when described by the salesman than it does after some time for reflection?
Oh,and crick, if they didn't want to go back and adjust all that historical data why do they continuously readjust land station data? Even the hundreds of years long CET is constantly being changed. What is the explanation for changing a 200 year old measurement every few months?
From Karl et al 2015
First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13)
********************************************************************************************************
I don't wonder that you wonder. I'd guess that the buoy data was made to match the engine intake data in order to eliminate the "time-dependent bias" without having to alter data going back to the invention of the thermometer. But that's just a guess.
Do you agree that starting an analysis - as you folks love to do, with an enormous el Nino like 1998's will affect the observed trends?
Do you agree that coverage has been poor at the poles and that increased coverage there will show increased warming?
Lipstick on a pig.
Have you ever noticed when someone is trying to sell you something it sounds a lot better when described by the salesman than it does after some time for reflection?
Oh,and crick, if they didn't want to go back and adjust all that historical data why do they continuously readjust land station data? Even the hundreds of years long CET is constantly being changed. What is the explanation for changing a 200 year old measurement every few months?
Money. That's simpleCan you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.
Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.
Can you suggest why there are no objections from climate scientists; from the people who work with these data daily and whose life's work depends on its accuracy? Why aren't THEY screaming and yelling with the same objections you make? This will be the fifth or sixth time I've asked this very question of various deniers. No one responds to it. The only possible answer is, of course, the vast global conspiracy.
So, we're back to the grand, global conspiracy fantasy once again.
It's amazing the way every denier route leads straight back here.
Crick simply believes that the general statements of methodologies from the various agencies are not only true but comprehensive. The forum on Australia's BOM let it out that there is a level of executive decision making that would prevent recreating the final dataset. BEST algorithms for defining 'reliable' stations and the number of iterations of processing needed for final inclusion also appear to hinge on 'expert decision'. GISS has removed the intermediary steps from public access. Etc etc.
Perhaps everything is kosher. But making things inaccessible and impossible to replicate at the very time that more and more questions are being asked just doesn't seem to be the smartest plan if you have nothing to hide.
Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buriedLast one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.
It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.
Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buriedLast one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.
It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.
Most likely deleted by now.Yes the coffin is out your side is officially buriedLast one out turn out the lights, as the denier party is over.
It was fun while it lasted. But given their answer to everything is "It's a conspiracy!", it's time to be honest and admit that the cult is dead. So just walk away.
I can't even tell what you hoped that would say.
And while we're here, where's the quote you claim to have seen of me admitting I get paid to post here?
