Josh writes:
There has been much discussion recently about the adjustments made to past temperatures: see Paul Homewood’s excellent posts on Paraguay, Bolivia and around the world; also from Shub; Brandon at WUWT and on his own blog; and a very readable summary by James Delingpole. All very interesting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As noted above, readers may wish to see McIntyre’s website CA for his series of seven or eight threads on BEST, including a “Data Quality” review that is an excellent complement to what was and is being written here. Most recent in the series, is a very well-reasoned summary “Closing Thoughts” on Muller’s reconstructions, written in 2011.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/qoeesn.jpg
This graph shows that gistemp has been adjusted down after for the years from 2000. The present being made cooler,,,
Show this to those who claim that the present is always made warmer.
I don’t think so rooter. Unless I’ve mistaken the point of the graph, none of the adjustments after 2000 have been adjusted down. They are all positive numbers. Hence, why they are in the red.
Don’t you see the adjustments up 1990-2005 is higher than the adjustments after that? The up-adjustments before 2005 is bigger.
rooter wrote:
Yes, I do see that. But that’s not what you were arguing.
[my bold above]
Once again, no. If the present was made cooler (“adjusted down”), then the recent years would be in the negative, in blue.
Adam B has trouble with seeing that the bars 1990 – 2005 are higher than after 2005.
Higher is higher than lower Adam B.
Btw: Change because of added data and change of sea surface dataset is not the same as adjustment. Would be very strange if adding data did not change the result.
Rooter
Ok, you lost me with your comment.
I
‘m looking Steve Case’s graph (I think that’s what you’re referring to), and I don’t see downward adjustments (i.e. blue bars) for any year after 2000.
What am I missing?
chip, Rooter is explaining that he can’t read/interpret a graph, that’s what you are missing.
Rooter seems suggesting that the amount by which the temps were adjusted upwards prior to 2000, (eg between say 1990 and 2000) are more than the amount by which the temps as from 2000 have been adjusted upwards. Just eyeballing prior to 2000 they were addjusting the tmps up by about 0.15 degC, whereas after 2000 they adjusted the temps up by only about 0.1degC.
Rooter seems to be implying that less of an upwards adjustment is in effect the same as a downward adjustment. Less of more, is less!
Of course, it is not a negative adjustment since it is not in blue, and Rooter appears to be incapable of correctly interpreting a plot.
When the so called adjustments are higher 1990 – 2005 are higher than after 2005, what will that do to the trend? Will it make the trend higher or lower?
It will make the overall trend higher, because you continue to add to it. You’re just adding at a slower rate.
If you put ten dollars in a jar every day for a month, and for then next months put 5 dollars in the jar, you aren’t taking away from the total in the jar, you are just adding less than you were before.
The adjustments are still being made upwards, they are simply being made upwards at a lesser amount.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Back to the Global Warming Conspiracy – If you read this post and its links you will either start questioning your faith in the official CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming), or “Climate Change” scenario, OR, please contribute a sensible argument against the claims being made here.
No emotional rhetoric please, just factual evidence that disputes the claims.
To me, the situation is clear-cut!
There is no irrefutable evidence that global surface or atmospheric temperatures are warming as a result of man-made carbon pollution. Not even validated evidence of any significant human related global warming, other than human population and urban heat effects, if it comes to that!
What is shown here is clear evidence of “cooking the temperature record books”. Clearly there is some deliberate dishonesty involved, by some scientists and many associated people.
If, as is claimed here, there is/are deliberate selection of temperature recording sites and corrections/manipulation of data, it follows that a political agenda drives the whole movement.
If the reader wishes to economize on spent time, the Delingpole link suffices. Only if you mistrust his work or motives need you verify the claims by reading the other papers.
So, please refrain from branding clear-thinking serious people as “deniers” and learn about the facts that we rely on for our conclusions.