After 8 years of what you believe to have been clearly explaining and providing evidence for whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate on this topic, have you persuaded anyone here of it?
Have you considered that the problem might not be me?
Quote from: BenTheBiased on February 16, 2018, 11:13:18 AMAfter 8 years of what you believe to have been clearly explaining and providing evidence for whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate on this topic, have you persuaded anyone here of it?I see your confusion. You think I have a goal of persuading you. Now that is funny.
Quote from: BenTheBiased on February 16, 2018, 11:13:18 AMHave you considered that the problem might not be me?I don't consider you a problem to be solved.
I assume you have the goal of communicating something in your posts.
But according to a scientific study published this month, the Southeast's colder winter weather is part of an isolated trend, linked to a more wavy pattern in the jet stream that crosses North America. That dipping jet stream allows artic air to plunge into the Southeast. Scientists call this colder weather a "hole" in overall global warming, or a "warming hole.""What we are looking at is an anomaly," said Jonathan M. Winter, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth College and the principle investigator in the study. "The Southeast is the exception to the rule."
We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively. The annual warming hole consists of two distinct seasonal modes, one located in the southeastern U.S. during winter and spring and the other in the midwestern U.S. during summer and autumn.
Although the Deep South has a reputation for hot, steamy weather, part of the Southeastern United States actually experienced cooler-than-normal temperatures in the years between 1991 and 2012.
Has anyone here ever given you acknowledgement that you successfully communicated whatever it was you were trying to communicate?
<FX>See? I told you it wouldn't make a difference!</FX>
We could do a long running thread all about surface temperature data *adjustments* but none of it would make any difference to an indoctrinate.
I've done many threads about the adjustments, on many forums, and it certainly doesn't matter at all.
It's a level of fuckhead behavior that is predictable and entertaining as well.
Well, it's certainly hard for anything to matter when you abandon these threads because you're such a baby
Lets take a look at the difference in temperature trends between MMTS and LiG/CRS stations. To calculate this, we will be assigning all USHCN stations to a 2.5×3.5 lat/lon gridcell, and identifying all gridcells that have at least one MMTS and one LiG/CRS station reporting each month for the past 40 years. By limiting our analysis to these gridcells, we will ensure that the spatial coverage of both sets remains the same. Its worth noting that the sensor identification we are using is from 2009, and all stations currently MMTS will have made the transition to MMTS sensors at a different time over the past 26 years. This means that any bias to the temperature trends introduced by sensor switching should show up in the difference between current MMTS and CRS stations.
Quote from: BenTheBiased on February 19, 2018, 04:57:18 AMWell, it's certainly hard for anything to matter when you abandon these threads because you're such a baby There you go again, making shit up, hen acting like what you made up is real. It's very much the opposite of scientific.
Looking at hundred years of data tells us a lot about climate.
Quote from: F X on February 19, 2018, 06:52:42 AMLooking at hundred years of data tells us a lot about climate.Not from just two stations.
Quote from: F X on February 19, 2018, 06:44:18 AMYou can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.Isn't that what they're doing though?
You can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.
They're doing it on a large scale, and you're complaining that it doesn't work at the level of individual stations.
But that's not the point.
Since the last time we discussed this, Hausfather actually wrote what I think is the clearest explanation of the adjustments that I've read yet...https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-recordsIs there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on this...QuoteWhile much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point....because that is what it appears you are doing in this discussion.
While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point.
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
Raw data shows more global warming
Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time.
All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a "raw" global temperature record.
The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line).
The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.