/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7908835
How convenient of you to ignore his followup:

"... I ... also discovered a larger and troublesome problem; many NOAA climate stations seemed to be next to heat sources, heat sinks, and have been surrounded by urbanization during the decades of their operation."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/clarification-on-best-submitted-to-the-house/

They don't mention this updates over at SimpletonPseudoScience, do they? Pic related, heavily tampered data, embraced by Muller.

>>7746610
> If the data doesn't fit the narrative, so much the worse for the data.
Love those facts.

And the dirty secrets revealed by warmists' emails:

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has..." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, that's nothing but direct measurements.
>nb4 panels of warmists reviewed warmists' emails and decided warmists were OK.
Not a single skeptic on any of the panels. Pal review == nothing.

>>7177819
>You should read the explanations. That would allow you to at least form a strong argument instead of "I assume."

They are purposefully vague and devoid of substantive content. Nor do they actually correspond to the real changes. They talk about "homogenizing outliers." In the distant past, Urban Heat Island tainted data would be an outlier. So that would be corrected downward. So far so good. But there are much more Urban Heat Island tainted data now. So the outliers are now rural stations. They get corrected upward. Thus, old data is pushed down and new data is "corrected" up.

This is a grave mistake. All Urban data should have the Urban Heat Island effect subtracted from it period, end of story. Or better yet, don't use it. Instead of conveniently spreading it to rural data. Clean, non-urban temp data (NOT putrefied by homogenization) is about 0.5 degrees colder. That's right. About half of climate change is nothing but the Urban Heat Island effect!

>nb4 They compared Urban to rural data and they're the same.
They compare AFTER homogenization which means that the Urban Heat Island effect has been spread to the rural data. So of course its now the same. Doesn't change the fact that its now bad data.

>>7167293
Sorry about your brain damage buddy. Facts are a hard thing to bear.

>>7134771
No it DOESN'T!!!!

Show me the exact quote where it says that the UHI is SUBTRACTED from urban temperatures. Give Me The Quote. Retard. Its not there.

Notice homogenize =/= subtract UHI effect. Homogenize = spread UHI to rural temps and then (circularly) say "look no difference between rural and urban temps."

Here is a simple example of homogenization. Look at the temps here:
>>7133006
Notice that the center of the city is 86 degrees, outside of the city is 74 degrees. That 12 degree difference has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Its just humans with their asphalt and concrete etc. So what is the correct temperature? 74 degrees! What does homogenization do? Basically it averages things. So the average of 74 degrees and 86 degrees is 80 degrees. So after homogenization the "correct" temperature is 80 degrees. But that is FLAT OUR WRONG. The correct temperature is 74 degrees. The UHI has now tainted all the data, both rural and urban; it has given a fake 6 degrees increase which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/circular-reasoning-in-temperature-adjustments/

>>7091648
Confirmed for idiocy. NASA always makes the warming rate higher! But that's OK, because they assure us that is OK. Your link is a non-explanation. No substance, just hand waving. Nothing to actually check.

Question? Who will lose significant funding if temperatures don't continue to go up significantly?

Why Do All Adjustments Make the Rate of Warming Higher?