/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8583560
>>8593449
>and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that.
I completely agree that we must openly display uncertainty and variability in the climate data. And that includes the uncertainty/variability from alterations to the raw data. See pic for an example.

So let me resort to warmist "logic." Since you're claiming that the data depicted here >>8583533 doesn't count because of processing and "corrections." Then you are a conspiracy theorist. Obviously they are conspiring against United Nations IPCC.

>>7745370
>>7745055
>Direct measurement
>Known laws of physics

>>7480321
>NASA says NASA is doing everything correctly.
Then why is the distant past cooled so much even thought the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is weak back then, but recent temperatures are cooled little, or even warmed, event though the UHI is much stronger. The corrections are the exact opposite of what they should be.

>>7425442

And here is a graph the US Historical Climate Network temps raw vs. "corrected." Notice how way
back in the past, the "corrections" are the largest, even though that is when the UHI is the weakest.
On the other hand, in the recent past where the UHI is the strongest, the corrections are small.

In short, the "corrections" do the exact opposite of what actual UHI corrections should do.