Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務,而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務,或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜,以及了解如何下載你的資料。
Does this graph answer any questions about "adjusted' global temperature data?
But the RAW data shows even MORE warming than the "adjusted data".
This is mainly due to th eoceans, wherer adjustments to a slower rise overshadow the small increase of rise over land.
See figure 4 of http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_...
Or see http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/ho...
Here is the link to the paper again. I just looked at it.
I just looked at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_... fig 4. Try this link.
I'll try to post the figure here.
Sorry, Here is the link again: If it still does not work, click on Gringo's version.
Sorry about the link typo. Here is it again, I hope:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadss...
http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/...
The last link below shows the graph that I posted, which does not show here.
My point is that, no matter how we quibble over the details, or question the motives, the bottom line, that is the adjusted GLOBAL temperature, has LESS warming than the RAW data.
11 個解答
- ?Lv 66 年前最愛解答
It would if those questions were genuine.
But 99% of them aren't. Deniers will eagerly claim that any previous warmer data has been deliberately adjusted downward to make current warming look more pronounced. And if that argument doesn't work they hint at some other adjustment (without ever specifying exactly what) which changes the data.
PS Neither of your links work because you've included a period (.) in each URL. Here's the correct URLs:
- MaxxLv 76 年前
The chart shown in the article linked below visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). The chart shows that NOAA has cooled the past and warmed the present. Data tampering has become routine within the so called climate community.
Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959
Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months
---a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised
---b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees
Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale.
NOAA Takes Faux Climate Science To An Extreme By Fabricating Temperatures http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/global-warming-...
- 匿名6 年前
Science has the ability to get their temperature measurements "in sync". When they finally figure it out, then we might get some ACTUAL Global average temperature readings. Right now, they are still random measurements that are averaged and then averaged again to form an anomaly.
The Global average temperature anomalies do not depict ACTUAL measurements to start with. When are you brain-dead alarmists ever going to figure that out?
Global atmospheric change (a climate change factor) is still only 0.012% over a 350+ year period. Just because your narrow-minded pillars of information (Climate Clown Government scientists) claim to think they know a 0.012% change is causing catastrophic changes in our atmosphere and are going to raise temperatures by over 1% by the end of the century, doesn't mean they know how the Earth responds to any human forcing.
They are still guessing!
- Gary FLv 76 年前
There are no significant (legitimate) questions about the data.
============
Mike --
>>No, they have adjusted the data from buoys to homogenize with ship intake data from decades ago, when they should have done the reverse.<<
You get them same result regardless of which way you make the adjustment. The difference between the buoy and ship data is about 0.12 C. So, if you add 0.12 to the buoy values or subtract 0.12 from the ship data, the shape of the curve and the anomalies remain the same.
======
Maxx –
That is all very nice -- but, it is not evidence of improper data adjustments.
>>That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale.<<
Of course it is not random – because the causes that make the adjustments necessary are not random. They are predominantly physical in orgin; for example: (1) when stations are moved to a new location; when measurement instrumentation is changed because of improved technology; (2) when collection methods change (e.g., when the time of day that observations are made and data are collected are changed); and when the environment surrounding collecting stations change.
Can you identify – and explain - a single instance where one of these adjustments that should not have been made or was improperly made?
Of course you cannot. You are just parroting stuff you know nothing about because you do not know what to do about the fact that the observational data in the reality-based world is not cooperating with your paranoid conspiracy beliefs.
- Ottawa MikeLv 66 年前
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
- ?Lv 56 年前
It doesn't matter which way round you do it, either way, you get the same trend. And the trend is the important factor here.
However, it's a great pity deniers don't understand trends.
- MikeLv 76 年前
No, they have adjusted the data from buoys to homogenize with ship intake data from decades ago, when they should have done the reverse.
- SatanLv 76 年前
Figure 4 - 404 not found
or see: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
The conspiracy thickens!
- TomcatLv 56 年前
No it does not, there is insufficient data available to know what global temperatures were 100 years ago.
- 匿名6 年前
Holy crap. Not one of the links you gave works.