CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

Such as?

You say that Valentia is run by very well trained scientists, professionals - so why the need to alter the history of their recordings?

Oneiric 3

Anyways, I'm off to bed. I'll part with a song, because as Bruce Springsteen once proclaimed: ""We learned more from a 3 minute record than we ever did at school".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7X8KQoIRNk

And you don't feel the power of nations;
It's just a world lit from behind;
And you don't need to grow;
That's evolution;
There's always someone else to know...

PokeHerKing

Akrasia wrote: »

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

In God scientists we trust?

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Looking at some of those charts on that GISS website, and here is the Valentia one:



'Unadjusted date (yellow line) vs 'homogenized' data (black)

Explanation of what the homogenized data is below the graph:

"GHCN-adj-homogenized: adjusted, cleaned data, homogenized by GISS to account for urban effects".

Since when did Valentia become a sprawling metropolis?
And why is the difference between the unadjusted and homogenized data greater in the far past than near present?

I think maybe the lads thought they were dealing with Valencia, Spain. :pac:

In any case, the Valentia and "Connaught" examples show that we really can't be so cocky about the temperature record as some like to be, quoting exact rises to the nearest tenth of a degree.

I took your GISS graph for Valentia and raised you, comparing it to Met Éireann's own mean monthly record for the exact same station (albeit from only 1939). Their data show an overall trend of just +0.072 °C/decade (5-year running mean also shown). Which dataset is right?

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Such as?

You say that Valentia is run by very well trained scientists, professionals - so why the need to alter the history of their recordings?

They’re not altering any history, Valentina is taking the measurements and NASA are analyzing the data using the best available techniques
And they are doing it openly and making their data available for anyone to verify it
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/

There are 4 other global temperature datasets run independently and using different methods and they are all painting the same picture. This is why I keep mentioning the word conspiracy. Either they’re all incompetent, corrupt or there is a conspiracy amongst them all to fake the records

Which one is it?

And why aren’t there other papers being published all the time showing that the data does not fit the findings?? Oh yeah, because the conspiracy also includes all the best journals (but not the crappy pay for play journals or the fake ones set up by the Connollys)

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

They’re not altering any history, Valentina is taking the measurements and NASA are analyzing the data using the best available techniques
And they are doing it openly and making their data available for anyone to verify it
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/

There are 4 other global temperature datasets run independently and using different methods and they are all painting the same picture. This is why I keep mentioning the word conspiracy. Either they’re all incompetent, corrupt or there is a conspiracy amongst them all to fake the records

Which one is it?

And why aren’t there other papers being published all the time showing that the data does not fit the findings?? Oh yeah, because the conspiracy also includes all the best journals (but not the crappy pay for play journals or the fake ones set up by the Connollys)

Why is Met Eireann's historic, quality-controlled record so different then? The station moved from Valentia island to its current location near Cahirciveen in 1892.

EDIT: Just checked their overall trend for monthly minimum and maximum temperatures and they're +0.144 /decade and +0.024 /decade, respectively. (their mean temperature trend I quoted above is +0.072 /decade).

M.T. Cranium

Could be all those tour busses.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Which one is it?

Very interesting question. Either the NASA and the four other "techniques" are wrong, or the "professionals" in Valentia are, to use your own words. There are CLEARLY two different outputs.

Which one is it?

M.T. Cranium

Data assumptions mean a lot ... I am wrestling with this question trying to pin down values for the urban heat island for my Toronto data set. All I can say with certainty is there was no heat island before 1880 and there's a fairly large one now. But depending on the rate of increase as the city rapidly grew and surrounded the site, look at how the top ten July averages change based on two different assumptions (my final one will likely be between these extremes):

(I have also added in the mean daily maxima to show how all of the recent warming is nocturnal.)

RANK ___ YEAR ___ Mean (max) ____Mean (A) _ Mean (B) _ Ranks for A, B

_ 01 ____ 1921 ___ 25.5 _ (31.2) ___ 25.1 ____ 24.9 _____ 1, 1

_ 02 ____ 2011 ___ 24.9 _ (29.8) ___ 23.9 ____ 23.4 _____ 4, 6

_ 03 ____ 1999 ___ 24.7 _ (29.6) ___ 23.7 ____ 23.2 _____ t5, t7

_ 03t____ 2012 ___ 24.7 _ (29.4) ___ 23.7 ____ 23.2 _____t5, t7

_ 05 ____ 1955 ___ 24.6 _ (29.9) ___ 23.7 ____ 23.6 _____t5, 5

_ 06 ____ 1916 ___ 24.5 _ (30.3) ___ 24.1 ____ 23.9 _____ 3, 3

_ 07 ____ 2002 ___ 24.5 _ (29.4) ___ 23.5 ____ 23.0 _____ 8, 9

_ 08 ____ 1868 ___ 24.5 _ (29.7) ___ 24.5 ____ 24.5 _____ 2, 2

_ 09 ____ 2005 ___ 24.3 _ (29.0) ___ 23.3 ____ 22.8 _____ 9, 13

_ 10 ____ 1988 ___ 24.2 _ (29.2) ___ 23.2 ____ 22.7 _____10, t14

_______________________________________

The assumptions for (A) are 1.0 C overall, 0.4 C realized by 1921, decade by decade increases of 0.1 to 1980, full urban heat island since then. It appears to show little daytime urban heat island (0.3) and so about 1.7 at night on average.

The assumptions for (B) are 1.5 C overall, 0.6 realized by 1921, roughly seven year increases of 0.1 to 1980, full urban heat island since then. This one would show average increases of 0.4 and 2.6 day and night.

I think I will be going with either (A) or something closer to A than B. However, not all months will experience the same changes from urban heat island. A cloudy and cool, rainy July would probably not warm much more than 0.8 overall (0.3, 1.3). These hot months all tended to be dry as well with a lot more sunshine than average. A cool but dry July might have a bigger nocturnal increase as you can get larger urban-rural differences in that kind of weather as opposed to sweltering nights in mT air masses (but there still is a rather obvious increase in these sorts of night temperatures, as can be seen from comparing numbers of record high max and min set in the past 40 years, about a 2:1 advantage for higher mins which dominate the summer now, more so than record high max.

The ranks of some recent Julys drop below 10th but not very far because a lot of the 11-25 ranked months are also recent so they don't gain an advantage. Some months that would move up into or closer to the top ten would be 1887, 1901 and 1919 (22.9 and currently tied 26th, under assumption B, 1887 would be t10th and 1901 12th, 1919 13th). July 1952 (23.5) would move into t10th under B. July 1931 and 1935 would both move up by several ranks and going way back to 1854, that month ranks t55 in the raw data but would be closer to 20th under B and 25th under A. (mean max was 29.3 but evidently a very clear month, nights averaged 14.7, the modern hot months that average near 29 have 17-18 at least for their mean min).

But even with modest urban heat island assumptions, 1868 and 1916 move up considerably, and 1921 gains a further advantage over recent competition. Oddly both 1911 and 1936 with their massive heat waves finished down in the 20s for ranking and would not move up past 15th (some cooler days offset the 100+ heat).

The heat island becomes increasingly difficult to estimate because the city has spread out so far now that rural sites are of necessity a long way inland and usually about 100 metres higher in elevation. If we go a long way east to some rural site near Lake Ontario, the problem becomes one of regional climate variation, as some hot air masses tend to stall out before reaching that far east and also Lake Ontario is wider there and has more of a local cooling effect.

Applying the correction at the other end (cold months) makes the recent lack of top ten cold finishes a bit less of an issue. These are the revised ranks of recent cold months ... some are pretty impressive even before you give them the urban heat island adjustment.

Jan 1994 goes from t5 to t4 coldest. Feb 2015 goes from 4th to 3rd. March 1960 goes from 12th to 9th.

Apr 2018 goes from t20 to t6. May 1967 goes from t16 to t5th. June 1980 goes from t20th to t7th coldest.

July 1992 goes from t13 to 3rd. Aug 1964 goes from t21 to t5th. Sept 1956 goes from t31 to t14th coldest.

Oct 1981 goes from 38th to 24th coldest. The autumn seems to be undergoing more warming, probably because of the recent shift back in arctic winter onset. Nov 2019 (t27) and slightly colder Nov 1951 (t21) would end up tied with 1842 and 1917 (also making a slight move) at t11th coldest. Nov 1933 was 4th coldest and would end up 3rd coldest. Then Dec 1989 was already a very cold 3rd place and would be the only recent month to achieve coldest by easily moving past 1872 and 1876. Dec 1963 and 1976 would also end up in the top seven from current positions around 20th coldest.

In terms of annual means, there are several years around 50th coldest now that would drop to 30th or so, we just don't see the sustained seasonal cold that used to come fairly frequently. Toronto's colder months nowadays seem to be one against the trend, two below normal months in a row have only happened about six times since 1990.

Lyan

I just want to say good job M.T. Cranium. You've made this little forum a small bastion of rationality on the internet.

M.T. Cranium

Akrasia wrote: »

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

One issue that arises with some older data sets is that the climatological day has been redefined. I don't know if this affects Valentia or not. It does affect some North American stations and skeptics have noticed these data set adjustments without always understanding why the changes were made.

If you have data that are taken 0600h to 0600h local times, you tend to get slightly lower means than midnight to midnight. The reason for that (mostly in winter months) is that if it begins to cool down later in the afternoon and evening compared to the previous overnight period, then the 0600h to 0600h data sets will contain some lower mins than the midnight to midnight sets would capture. For example recently it was down around -5 or -6 C in Ireland on Sunday morning so that min would have shown up twice in the 0600-0600 data sets, only perhaps -3 and -6 for the midnight to midnight. I've seen some colder months where this might impact the averages by 0.1 or 0.2 C. If you have a month with a lot of mild weather it won't make much if any difference. There can be days with milder temperatures in that interval too, but the frequency of them is not as great to compensate.

Possibly it was an issue like this causing the adjustment upwards of some older data for Valentia. The same thing has been done to data sets in North America for that reason. I have discounted it for Toronto because it appeared to me from studying the data that they were always on 0100 to midnight (local) hourly readings at any point during their long period of record. This can create a gap between one day's min and the next day's max, if it is cooling rapidly between midnight and 0100h. But you see those gaps in old, medium and recent data in similar situations (cold advection overnight). I figured that the adjustments required would be minimal and similar all along anyway.

When I ran my own weather station, I would try to go strictly midnight to midnight and make the midnight lows and highs match up in these situations of steady cooling (and it happens maybe 3-4 times a month in a colder type of winter month, almost never in summer, and in between those frequencies for spring and autumn). One example that I recall from Jan 1965 matches up well with the official Toronto data which has a gap at midnight Jan 15-16 (a higher min on 15th than max on 16th). It was basically getting much colder at that time and if you wanted to be precise, the midnight reading would have been the minimum for the 15th and the maximum for the 16th.

M.T. Cranium

Lyan wrote: »

I just want to say good job M.T. Cranium. You've made this little forum a small bastion of rationality on the internet.

I can only hope this trends spreads then. But I am not wildly optimistic about that.

M.T. Cranium

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

You make up a value, assume it comes from experts, and then proceed to dismiss it because it doesn't feel right.

There is no IPCC theory. You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

That's not how it works at all. Once more, you are making stuff up based on your feelings and intuition.

Back to the socialist/commie scare stories. Woooh.

Let's deal with these one at a time then ...

(a) I did not make up a value (of 0.1 for natural variability in IPCC report), they show this as one of their assumptions in the report we were asked by another poster to critique. I find the value much too small. But I didn't make it up. It's right there in their report.

(b) If there is no IPCC theory, then what are we dealing with when they say they think all recent warming is AGW and none can be from any other cause? A set of proven facts I suppose? But I don't accept them as proven facts, only as theory. That's not to say the theory is invalid, but at the present time I don't accept it as proven fact.

(c) Making stuff up on intuition (feelings are intuition) is how science has always worked, first you make it up then you test it. I think that's how climate science works. Prove me wrong. They have made up all sorts of things in the recent thirty years, everyone knows that, and most people know what things they made up incorrectly because those things have not happened (end of winter being spectacularly wrong in some cases).

(d) I am not fond of communism or unfiltered socialism, they tend to wreck economies and lead to massive unemployment and/or poverty. Would you rather live in Colombia or Venezuela? Cuba or Jamaica? Vietnam or Thailand? So you must believe either (1) socialism isn't all that bad, or (2) climate change as a political program contains no elements of socialism. Good luck convincing anyone of these theories, you can certainly avoid unnecessary work by counting me out.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

. Making stuff up on intuition (feelings are intuition) is how science has always worked, first you make it up then you test it. I think that's how climate science works. Prove me wrong.

Like all the higher faculties in humanity like love and kindness, the perceptive/intuitive qualities cannot be nailed down in words but easy to identify those who don't have it yet disgrace themselves in diminishing the effects of those qualities. Music composition, to a high degree, requires the perceptive qualities to put a symphony or musical narrative together that can be appreciated by anyone with research of our terrestrial and celestial surroundings being no exception.

In astronomical and Earth science research, the idea of 'making stuff up' to suit a made up conclusion to test looks silly and why this meteorologist will insist scientists don't believe the Earth turns once each 24 hour day until shown that they do with a conjured up 'solar vs sidereal' notion to suit their conclusion. It is zombie science as he returns without the slightest sense of discipline but nothing I haven't seen before in 30 years experience.

"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal

Pascal had more mathematical qualities than intuitive qualities but such is the tension between mathematical and perceptive qualities in some people more and others less. He wrote at a time when mathematicians were not dominant so when he describes mathematicians he would not have considered them in terms familiar with mathematicians today. The mathematical community via Royal Society empiricism tried to define the perceptive qualities as experimental hypotheses (guesswork) and the rest is a dull and gloomy history where generations inherited a system badly out of kilter and passed through the education system from generation to generation.

People are trying to make themselves look big while making a positive Earth science topic like climate look small or make the Earth science dance to their abysmal tune of 'climate change'. Much like the opposition to Darwin's empire building notion isn't creationism but rather the works of Steno, Smith and Wegener, the opposition to empirical modeling doesn't really exist and certainly not from those who suffer self-importance and pretense.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'll ask you...

Why ask me? I'm not NASA.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I have noted that a number of questions I have posed on here since the opening of this tread have gone unanswered or duly detracted from.

And the answer to my latest one was?
'ask them'.
I recall about a year ago I wrote to NOAA asking them if I could obtain from them some historic daily data regarding the 'AO' and 'NAO' as per this dataset:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/daily.index.ascii


As of yet, I am still awaiting a reply... Really helpful people.

I've always found them to be so.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This thread has been an eye opener for me, in more ways than one.

On the climate change issue, I like to keep an open mind, and I do try to be balanced.. not that I have to try too hard as that is my nature anyway.

But something isn't smacking quite right here. I am not a smart man, but nor am I stoopid.

When you see responses like this to genuine questions:



it becomes obvious that this is a automated response tactic used to belittle the questioner than that address the question itself. I'm afraid that this tactic no longer washes with people at this stage.

I am not a smart or stupid man either. But I still don't understand why people wont ask NASA questions rather than lazily assuming they're not trustworthy.


Sometimes a letter can get missed, keep trying!

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

Such as?

You say that Valentia is run by very well trained scientists, professionals - so why the need to alter the history of their recordings?

Sigh.


Ask them....

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

I am not a smart or stupid man either. But I still don't understand why people wont ask NASA questions rather than lazily assuming they're not trustworthy.


Sometimes letter get missed, keep trying!

Don't need to ask, Global Program manager for NOAA Dr. Rex Fleming. PhD Atmospheric Science, NOAA whistle blower explains:

Gaoth Laidir

Posidonia, you're just a spoofer. Your only contribution here is not scientific contribution but mere smart-alec one-sentence offensive replies that show you're way in above your head. At least Akrasia tries to debate by using what he sees as valid scientific arguments, but your contribution to date has been zero.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Don't need to ask, Global Program manager for NOAA Dr. Rex Fleming. PhD Atmospheric Science, NOAA whistle blower explains

You’ve posted and quoted the same YouTube video 3 or 4 times now, yet you cannot find the time to answer why it is your friend Ronan Connolly lies about the weather balloon radiosonde data?

What are you afraid of?

Danno

posidonia wrote: »

Sigh.


Ask them....

I am asking you why you accept their "need" to alter climate data, such as Valentia, without explanation.

You're the one saying that humans must drastically change based on the data you believe to be infallible.

I and many others on here are highlighting that the data is indeed shaky at best.

The onus is on you to justify why.

Danno

posidonia wrote: »

Akrasia makes a good point about lead in petrol. Also catalytic converters added a cost to cars. If you are true to what you say (and we'll see if you are...) you wouldn't have added them as they would cost working families a lot of money. I remember cities before cars with catalytic converters - they stank of car exhaust fumes.

Actually, most safety measures (seat belts, brakes, light) added a cost to cars - perhaps they too imposed too high a cost on working families?

What say you, oh wise one??? I suspect you'll deflect or dodge...

You've answered your own question there. Catalytic converters were added and the exhaust fumes greatly reduced. The result justified the action - thats how this works! You solve a known problem with an undeniable result.

Now, Ireland and many other countries have been heaping misery on their citizens (on top of austerity) for the best part of the last decade and a half via carbon taxes. How come we don't see any measurable effects in recent climate change results.

Let me guess, we're "not doing enough". Just like dear leader Eamon "do as I say,not as I do" Ryan in his recent Indo interview.

It's like a political system at this point, socialism failed in a particular country because "they weren't really socialist enough", or they needed "more socialism".

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Why ask me? I'm not NASA.

Just your roundabout way of saying that you haven't a clue, while still maintaining that you are right.

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

It's like a political system at this point, socialism failed in a particular country because "they weren't really socialist enough", or they needed "more socialism".

Fairly good explainer on what 'socialism' is and is not Danno. Don't want to drag this thread off topic but there is a lot of misconceptions about what it stands for, and misconceptions that propagated in no small part by (particularly, but not exclusively) the US soft right and libertarian commentariat. Worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79wCaFgU40

Thargor

Akrasia wrote: »

You’ve posted and quoted the same YouTube video 3 or 4 times now, yet you cannot find the time to answer why it is your friend Ronan Connolly lies about the weather balloon radiosonde data?

What are you afraid of?

Hmmm, so he was just lying about the content of all the YouTube spam and podcast links he keeps posting in order to waste peoples time? Who could have predicted this?

MiNdGaM3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Let's deal with these one at a time then ...

(a) I did not make up a value (of 0.1 for natural variability in IPCC report), they show this as one of their assumptions in the report we were asked by another poster to critique. I find the value much too small. But I didn't make it up. It's right there in their report.

(b) If there is no IPCC theory, then what are we dealing with when they say they think all recent warming is AGW and none can be from any other cause? A set of proven facts I suppose? But I don't accept them as proven facts, only as theory. That's not to say the theory is invalid, but at the present time I don't accept it as proven fact.

(c) Making stuff up on intuition (feelings are intuition) is how science has always worked, first you make it up then you test it. I think that's how climate science works. Prove me wrong. They have made up all sorts of things in the recent thirty years, everyone knows that, and most people know what things they made up incorrectly because those things have not happened (end of winter being spectacularly wrong in some cases).

(d) I am not fond of communism or unfiltered socialism, they tend to wreck economies and lead to massive unemployment and/or poverty. Would you rather live in Colombia or Venezuela? Cuba or Jamaica? Vietnam or Thailand? So you must believe either (1) socialism isn't all that bad, or (2) climate change as a political program contains no elements of socialism. Good luck convincing anyone of these theories, you can certainly avoid unnecessary work by counting me out.

a) Still no proof, no reasoning, no justification - you made it up.

b) The IPCC represents the latest data in scientific research on the climate. It doesn't govern or make up theories, it's just an amalgamation of the recent research. So once more, you do not know what you are talking about

C)"Making stuff up on intuition (feelings are intuition) is how science has always worked, first you make it up then you test it. Prove me wrong." For a long time people thought that human activity couldn't possibly alter the climate. But then through observations, analysis and 10s of thousands of research papers, that assumption was shown to be false. But here we are, in a thread where dismissing the worlds experts because it doesn't suit your feelings is considered science.

D) I would ask you to stick to the science, but seeing as you don't understand it, I kind of get that you want to use scare and distraction tactics by bringing up the communist bogeyman, brainwashing of children and taking digs at a teenage girl.


Back during the period leading up to the Montreal Protocol, the industries at risk tried many of the same tactics as the fossil fuel and other industries today. They tried to claim the same things even then - it would ruin economies, hurt the poor, there's no link between CFCs and ozone, the scientists are corrupt commies, it didn't make sense, yadayada. They set up think tanks, published fake reports and paid for articles throughout the mass media.

It's the same trite BS today, just more pervasive and clearly more effective.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3, maybe you can explain the Valentia question?

Retr0gamer

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

(c) Making stuff up on intuition (feelings are intuition) is how science has always worked, first you make it up then you test it. I think that's how climate science works. Prove me wrong. They have made up all sorts of things in the recent thirty years, everyone knows that, and most people know what things they made up incorrectly because those things have not happened (end of winter being spectacularly wrong in some cases).

Well that there just shows your complete and utter ignorance of how scientists actually operate. Scientists would never carry out tests based on 'intuition'. If they did it would call into question their work by other professionals. The reason is if you carry out an experiment and/or analysis like this you introduce bias and there is a danger you will cherry pick data to make it fit the model you are proposing. It's a very dangerous way of carrying out work and is rightfully shunned by the scientific community. You can take that from an actual scientist that deals with this everyday.

Scientists look at data, see trends and then try to make sense of those trends through experimentation and analysis to find the causes of these trends. In this case global temperatures were observed to be rising massively over what was expected to occur naturally (a scientific fact) and through analysis and experimentation the scientific community has narrowed the cause to man made pollution.

The danger with basing theories on intuition is that you end up being biased and cherry picking data and information to fit your story. This is how conspiracy theories work and is how climate change deniers justify their quite frankly ludicrous assumptions. But then again what can you expect from these crazies right? They apparently know better.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

MiNdGaM3, maybe you can explain the Valentia question?

Don't have time for much details, but as has been frequently mentioned, the data for these global temperature series come from a range techniques and tools, many of which have changed overtime. As such, they need to be homogenised for an apples to apples comparison. This results in a change from the raw to the processed data.

All the homogenisation techniques must be tested and justified. As are the interpolation techniques. Everything is described in detail, tested and assessed by independent experts through the peer review process.

The pre and post processed data is made quite easy for anyone to get a hold of, and all the methods used are published for people to check. It certainly isn't underhanded or hidden.

Any valid criticism therefor has to be about the homogenisation methods employed, with some kind of proof that they are faulty and result in a less accurate picture of global temperatures.