Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

[westwall]

Then why do the climate faithful only start their Arctic ice record in 1979 instead of 1970 when it was being well documented?

Erm, the arctic record goes back further than 1970. You didn't know this? Huh.

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is when systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

This makes the goofy assumption that ships in the area prior to 1970 did not have accurate thermometers or scientists on them who knew how to read and record one. That really is a stupid assumption not based on reality. Try again.

No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent. There was no linear record at all. It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, the arctic record goes back further than 1970. You didn't know this? Huh.

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is when systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

This makes the goofy assumption that ships in the area prior to 1970 did not have accurate thermometers or scientists on them who knew how to read and record one. That really is a stupid assumption not based on reality. Try again.

No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent. There was no linear record at all. It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

 

[westwall]

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is when systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

This makes the goofy assumption that ships in the area prior to 1970 did not have accurate thermometers or scientists on them who knew how to read and record one. That really is a stupid assumption not based on reality. Try again.

No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent. There was no linear record at all. It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

 

[orogenicman]

This makes the goofy assumption that ships in the area prior to 1970 did not have accurate thermometers or scientists on them who knew how to read and record one. That really is a stupid assumption not based on reality. Try again.

No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent. There was no linear record at all. It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

 

[westwall]

No, this makes the very accurate assumption that what records there were were limited and inconsistent. There was no linear record at all. It was limited measurements taken at random times, and varied locations.

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random. The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken. They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny. You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying. Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.

 

[orogenicman]

The fact is that ship measurements at various locations around the world have been used for years. A measurement taken at a location in the middle of the Atlantic at a certain time of day is just as relevant as any other measurement. and your claim that they were taken at random times is not supported by the facts. And even if they were, so what? You've never created scientific graphs, have you? Of course not. You just pretend that you have.

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random. The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken. They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny. You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying. Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.

You said that records before 1970 were inaccurate and not used. Further, you said that they were random in time and location. I demonstrated that they not only were accurate, but were being used. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were mistaken?

 

[westwall]

Random temperature measurements are just that....random. They provide nothing useful in terms of continuity. Continuity is what matters when you are measuring something.

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random. The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken. They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny. You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying. Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.

You said that records before 1970 were inaccurate and not used. Further, you said that they were random in time and location. I demonstrated that they not only were accurate, but were being used. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were mistaken?

That is correct, the ARCTIC records were random. The RN records are along specific sea routes and in specific anchorages around the world. Nothing in the Arctic though. Which is the area we're talking about. Do try and keep up.

 

[orogenicman]

Proving yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.

Using naval logbooks to reconstruct past weather and predict future climate Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random. The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken. They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny. You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying. Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.

You said that records before 1970 were inaccurate and not used. Further, you said that they were random in time and location. I demonstrated that they not only were accurate, but were being used. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were mistaken?

That is correct, the ARCTIC records were random. The RN records are along specific sea routes and in specific anchorages around the world. Nothing in the Arctic though. Which is the area we're talking about. Do try and keep up.

And yet:

Arctic ship logs help scientists reconstruct climatic history Through a porthole darkly High Country News

Do try to keep up.

 

[westwall]

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

You are the one who claimed they were random, and now you are claiming that they weren't. I've said all along that they weren't, hence why I challenged your stupid claim and posted the link above. And even if they are random in location and time, they can certainly still be used. You just have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know how.

No, I am saying the Royal Navy records of the 1700's and 1800's were anything but random. The Admiralty recognized the importance of good data collection and there were naval regulations that codified how, and when they were to be taken. They also had the best instruments of the time to do it with.

You're funny. You plop these little vignettes on here thinking they are "gotcha" moments and they all just show how poorly versed you are in what they are saying. Anybody who is well versed in science knows how rigorous RN data collection was.

You said that records before 1970 were inaccurate and not used. Further, you said that they were random in time and location. I demonstrated that they not only were accurate, but were being used. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were mistaken?

That is correct, the ARCTIC records were random. The RN records are along specific sea routes and in specific anchorages around the world. Nothing in the Arctic though. Which is the area we're talking about. Do try and keep up.

And yet:

Arctic ship logs help scientists reconstruct climatic history Through a porthole darkly High Country News

Do try to keep up.

Yes, those are the random records I was talking about. The article references a single US ship the Yukon, what's really funny is the lat long they reference is in the middle of BC Canada (Prince George to be exact), along the Fraser river. They also talk about the RN records (which don't mention Arctic conditions) they also point out that the Yukon sailed along the Alaska coast (which was unknown at the time) and while she did indeed make it into the Bering Sea, and surveyed the western Aleutian Islands, she never crossed the Arctic Circle.

Which, yet again, is the area we are talking about.

Do try and keep up.

You DO know where the Arctic Circle is...right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Feel free to point out any of these so called fake scandals. I would love to see one.

This thread is entirely about one such denier fake scandal. And every denier here fell hard for it. Like they always do.

If you're claiming it's not a fake scandal, present your evidence. That is, since the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_, explain why the scientists making global warming look less severe with the adjustments is somehow a scandal.

You are the one claiming it's a fake scandal. So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

The answer is quite simple. They are not doing science. They are being political whores. Its rather funny that the hairball used GHCN VERSION 3 in its graphs because the data has been altered. The RAW data it used has been homogenized and corrected. Only Version 2 still gives the unaltered data.

 

[edthecynic]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

 

[westwall]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. The
Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Lets see just what it is that software does....

Yep, working as desired...

 

[edthecynic]

The "reason" is merely an opinion piece. It gives zero specifics of why it was necessary. I'm a scientist. Scientists are supposed to question EVERYTHING. That's why when I hear a glib answer that truly says nothing, I get curious.

The fact you don't merely shows that your cranium is filled with rock.

That is YOUR perverted opinion.

All revisions are FULLY documented, the fact that you falsely claim that there are no specifics for each version update is merely a testament to your laziness, not any deceit on the part of the honest scientists who made and documented the revisions.

 

[edthecynic]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. The
Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Lets see just what it is that software does....

Yep, working as desired...

Again there are two different ID numbers on your fake blink graph.

 

[edthecynic]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. Deniers just make that shit up with no proof at all! The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Show us a measurement then.

That which you asserted without proof, I can dismiss without.

Giss REPORTS that the adjustments are BOTH up and down in their documentation of the revisions, so the burden is on YOU to back up your undocumented opinion, especially since you were too lazy to even research the documentation the real scientists provide.

NCDC Technical Report No. GHCNM‐12‐02 provides a detailed summary of each software modification and the resulting impacts to global temperatures. This report is available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical Report NCDC No12‐02‐ Distribution.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

Temperature Adjustments Around The World

The adjustments and homogenization are changing the climate record. There is no justification for the changes that is credible. The problem lies in homogenization which is used to in-fill grid squares in Global Climate Models known as General Circulation Models. If a temperature seems out of sync with the surrounding sites, it is adjusted upward. This aberrant change in the record simply destroys it. It also in-fills inappropriate temperatures into grid squares that are much cooler. This is the reason the Arctic is shown to be warming when in fact as the satellite record shows there has been no warming..

The adjustments being made today are crap. Pure and simple!

 

[Billy_Bob]

So far we have as a rebuttal an admission that yes the records have been altered but then opinion is rendered as to why. Further, whenever we look at the data alterations they are ALWAYS cooler. Never has a "adjustment" gone the opposite direction.

A thinking person would ask themselves why that is. A thinking person would also ask to see the raw data, the siting information, the calibration data, the maintenance records etc. You fraudsters never do. Why is that?

That is a complete and total lie no thinking person would be stupid enough to believe. The
Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) makes adjustments upwards and downward.

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

The Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment algorithm software is available online at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/ .

Lets see just what it is that software does....

Yep, working as desired...

Again there are two different ID numbers on your fake blink graph.

Both are the same site. One is for the pre-adjustment data identifier and the second is for the post adjustment data identifier. Funny, I placed the latitude and longitude on these graphs simply to keep fools from making that incorrect assumption.

 

[Old Rocks]

Post 107, Westwall

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is whenY systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

Post 123, Westwall

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

Looks a major shifting of gears here. Notice Westwall hasn't posted his usual, "There is a major cooling trend in progress" nonsense lately, also.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Post 107, Westwall

Yes, but it is inconsistent, thus it is not reliable, thus it is relegated to hearsay evidence. 1970 is whenY systematic, ACCURATE measurements began. What is science? MEASUREMENT. That is what science is about. You didn't know this? Huh.

Post 123, Westwall

Proving that it's you who has no clue what you're talking about, the RN sailed on set routes due to prevailing winds and currents. Those routes are well documented and known. Further, they took the temp records at the same times each day when at all possible. Were very rigorous with navigational data so we know exactly where they were, when they were, what time they were there, etc. In other words, NOT RANDOM.

It was also common for the naturalists to travel on the RN ships to conduct their studies. Those records are kept in various places including the PRO in London.

"Centuries later, that rigorously acquired information is being put to good use, providing a trove of archival data to scientists who are trying to fill in the details of our knowledge about the atmosphere and the changing climate."

Looks a major shifting of gears here. Notice Westwall hasn't posted his usual, "There is a major cooling trend in progress" nonsense lately, also.

Thanks for reminding me...

Still cooling....

Satellite Data shows the CAGW fraud really well...