- Banned
- #1,701
A simple one to start with. You don’t publish the figures in a separate document. Makes it very difficult to follow the argument.
Why only adjust for heat sinks? Time of observation seems like it would be very important and would be trivial to add to the analysis. That is a big hole, suspiciously absent.
They compared data from their “class 1 and class 2” stations to the entire homogenised network. That is just straight out fudging.
That's it?? LOL. A rough paraphrase of what Peter Ellis & Sam Yates had to say in the comments section? Pretty lazy. Yates comments were answered shortly afterwards BTW.
It's obvious you prefer NOAA's adjustment methodology. Confirmation bias on top of confirmation bias.
Let's leave Anthony aside for the moment because it's clear you don't have any respect for what he's done in this area at all. Let's get down to brass tacks. Set your sights on me instead.
I posted the following in another thread(Climate Change Arguing) you probably missed it. Maybe you can dissect this and turn me back into a eco fascist like I was originally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 years ago when I last discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective, I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.
You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;
Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.
Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"
Same stuff happens here in Australia. Here in Perth our local BOM is so AGW propagandist it's not funny. Some years ago when they weren't seeing the temperature increases they were hoping for, they moved Perth's official temperature station to a much warmer site, further away from the river. If that wasn't enough, in 2011 they changed the thermometer at the new station to a different type, known for reading on the higher side and bingo, in that year Perth experienced record heat.
Further reading here.
Last edited: