General Weather/Earth Sciences Topics > Long-Range U.S. Forecasts

La Nina - Climate Change

<< < (3/3)

sky_watcher:

--- Quote from: Mattk on October 31, 2020, 06:00:41 AM ---I think many many people lost interest in this so called global warming thing when just about every agency worldwide admitted they had been fiddling the temperature records in order to achieve a "desired" outcome which was quite different from the actual original raw data.

This is where Global Warming totally lost credibility and they came up with the holy grail of climate change, yes behold climate has been changing since the dawn of time, nothing new in that but to have to fiddle raw actual temperature records to achieve a pre conceived agenda is simply a global deception, to dispute the deception is simply ignoring reality.   

--- End quote ---
Hmm. The only thing that changes that I have had experience with are "calibration" and "harmonisation".

Calibration is pretty obvious to most people where the readings from an individual device are adjusted to more closely reflect the readings from a higher standard device. There are plenty of articles on this board about calibration

"Harmonisation" is where a reading is adjusted because of a change in equipment or location. For example, the change to the Stevenson screen reduced errors induced by the previous screen design. So to compare the old readings to the new readings a "factor" must be applied to compensate for the measurement differences.

In the case of the variation between the original screen type (Greenwich) and the current (Stevenson) is well documented with over 50 years of direct comparison between two locally installed screens and it is clearly demonstrated that the Greenwich (or Glaisher) screen results in higher temperatures due to its open bottom and side allowing more direct and reflected solar radiation to hit the thermometers. Clearly to make a sensible comparison between a early reading in one screen and a later reading using the other cannot be done without taking that difference into account.

Another case is where the sensor is moved - for example from a location in an urban area to a park (example, shifting the Adelaide station from Kent Town (restricted urban area) to West Terrace (open parkland). The adjustment factor is determined by keeping both sites for at least 2 years to see how the readings vary between sites. Another old-new adjustment that makes perfect sense, as the parkland is cooler due to its environment.

So if it is not these perfectly valid comparison factors, what are you claiming these "criminal meteorologists" all around the world are doing, and how did they get the meteorologists from all the countries that hate each other to all sing from the same song page?

After all, if they aren't all in it, we would see the "fiddled" records producing heat walls around the borders of the countries were the meteorologists are all in on it, but not where they weren't. That is, the "unfiddled records" would be higher, but all the "fiddled records" would be lower - to meet the claim that they are fiddled to make it look like temperatures are rising.

Since I have seen no evidence of this, it seems that you are claiming that the VAST majority of meteorologists around the world are engaged in this criminal behavior and governments that hate the USA are not making propaganda points from exposing this fraud to the world.

Is that what you are really saying?

galfert:
Watching this thread. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, thoughts and beliefs. Respect each other, but you don't have to agree with each other. Stick to the topic, as so far most posts have not been on topic. This thread will be locked if it doesn't get back on topic.

waiukuweather:

--- Quote ---What a rubbish statement that is

You need to expand that, otherwise nobody has any real clue what you mean or trying to say, vagueness is the failure of such pretences
--- End quote ---
what a rubbish statement that is, again
instead
if you don't have anything usefull to say then don't say it
sky_watcher is on point with his post

Mattk:
What I am saying most can not support the comments or assumptions that they make and if comments and assumptions are made then these do need to be questioned otherwise the subject of any post becomes flawed very quickly and rather useless.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page