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.
Absolutely incredible. All of the people giving presentations on the effects and causes of the warming we are seeing at the last two American Geophysical Union conventions are perps that should go to prison. For what, do tell?
Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic by the day. Watching for black helicopters yet?
Now, I suppose that this is vaguely reasonable. At least it is in the right direction, reducing the apparent warming. I say “vaguely reasonable” because this adjustment is supposed to take care of “UHI”, the Urban Heat Island effect. As most everyone has experienced driving into any city, the city is usually warmer than the surrounding countryside. UHI is the result of increasing population, with the accompanying changes around the temperature station. More buildings, more roads, more cars, more parking lots, all of these raise the temperature, forming a heat “island” around the city. The larger the population of the city, the greater the UHI.
But here’s the problem. As Fig. 1 shows, until World War II, Anchorage was a very sleepy village of a few thousand. Since then the population has skyrocketed. But the homogeneity adjustment does not match this in any sense. The homogeneity adjustment is a straight line (albeit one with steps …why steps? … but I digress). The adjustment starts way back in 1926 … why would the 1926 Anchorage temperature need any adjustment at all? And how does this adjust for UHI?
the whole aricle- Fudged Fevers in the Frozen North | Watts Up With That?Say what? What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree? The early part of the record is adjusted to show less warming. Then from 1973 to 1989, Matanuska is adjusted to warm at a feverish rate of 4.4 degrees per century … but Matanuska is a RURAL station. Since GISS says that the homogenization effort is designed to change the ”long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors”, why is Matanuska being adjusted at all?
Since people are asking us to bet billions on this dataset, we need more than a “well, it’s kinda like the other datasets that contain known errors” to justify their calculations. NASA is not doing the job we are paying them to do. Why should citizen scientists like myself have to dig out these oddities? The adjustments for each station should be published and graphed. Every single change in the data should be explained and justified. The computer code should be published and verified.
Absolutely incredible. All of the people giving presentations on the effects and causes of the warming we are seeing at the last two American Geophysical Union conventions are perps that should go to prison. For what, do tell?
Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic by the day. Watching for black helicopters yet?
No, but it shows the depths to which climate science has fallen and how low the threshold is for believability among the "faithful". Show some empirical support for your claims instead of computer models and falsified temperature records and I will happily climb back on board. So sad for you that none of that exists.
Absolutely incredible. All of the people giving presentations on the effects and causes of the warming we are seeing at the last two American Geophysical Union conventions are perps that should go to prison. For what, do tell?
Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic by the day. Watching for black helicopters yet?
No, but it shows the depths to which climate science has fallen and how low the threshold is for believability among the "faithful". Show some empirical support for your claims instead of computer models and falsified temperature records and I will happily climb back on board. So sad for you that none of that exists.
Let's see. We present data sets from peer reviewed scientific journals, from the conventions of the scientific society with the highest number of people investigating climate in it's membership, and your reply is that these people should go to jail.
Your logic puts you in good company with Kookybill and BiPolar.
Absolutely incredible. All of the people giving presentations on the effects and causes of the warming we are seeing at the last two American Geophysical Union conventions are perps that should go to prison. For what, do tell?
Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic by the day. Watching for black helicopters yet?
No, but it shows the depths to which climate science has fallen and how low the threshold is for believability among the "faithful". Show some empirical support for your claims instead of computer models and falsified temperature records and I will happily climb back on board. So sad for you that none of that exists.
Let's see. We present data sets from peer reviewed scientific journals, from the conventions of the scientific society with the highest number of people investigating climate in it's membership, and your reply is that these people should go to jail.
Your logic puts you in good company with Kookybill and BiPolar.
Moncton? why do you bring him up?
check out the last three posts at Climate Audit. Briffa is the source, who else?
