Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Ahhh... Yes. The classic "Yawn" argument. That's always hard to beat. It's almost as awe-inspiring as the argument I used to get from the 4 and 5 year olds I taught where they would respond, "So?"  |
So are you saying you have this affect across the age spectrum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
I'm sorry. I showed where your response to the analogy was flawed, as it would need to apply to EVERY single statistic and temperature reading and demonstrate that they were ALL wrong and ALL adjusted. Where exactly does this link you shared demonstrate that every single temperature measurement we've made is faulty? Your link itself acknowledges the limited scope of the issue. I will quote them here:
in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than [sic] span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted |
My first reaction to the babe ruth analogy was to ignore it as irrelevant. But in the spirit of discussion I responded. Its hard to create a good response to a flawed analogy. But nice guy that I am I decided not to attack the messenger and deal with the available data (analogy).
Now to your alleged response. No one is claiming ALL temp records are incorrect or bad data. But of the (now over 800) USA temp stations that have been observed 69% come in with a poor rating (4 or 5). Based on the very rating system posted on the NOAA site. I didnt include the 20% which are classed by surfacestations.org as a 3 with a >=1 C temp flaw.
Were getting pretty darn close to ALL the stations if I do. So much for science.
But it continues to get stranger. There are 4 different people reporting these kinds of things.
From April 2008:
On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
Raw Data vs Adjusted Data:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...comparison.png
More on the data above:
How not to measure temperature, part 79 - could you, would you, with a boat? Watts Up With That?
So why adjust the temperature upwards from the N.M example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Readers should note the key word "many." That does NOT mean "ALL." Ergo, your response fails to demonstrate that all temperature readings are faulty. Also, how do they quantize many? I'm not seeing that anywhere. Do they mean 2, maybe 6? How about 100? Do they mean 1,000? Gosh... Many is SUCH a descriptive scientific term.  |
They mean hundreds. And the persons who are really interested in the 'science' should be directing these kinds of questions towards the people supplying the data. Oh wait. They have been. Good thing too or we would still believe the October Russian data was science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Not only does your dismissive response fail to address my point, but neither does the reference you shared.
|
And you have not responded to anything but the analogy portion of one post. I wasnt even going to respond to the previous non-response. Should have gone with my first thought. Wont happen again.
