On 11/02/2021 11:27, Andy McKenzie wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 09:38:21 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 11/02/2021 05:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Arguably weather is getting less extreme, if anything.
And really it was warmer in the 1930s than it is now, except in airports
and cities, where they have stuck the thermometers
The interesting thing is that remote thermometers that haven't been
changed in 60 years stuck out well away from civilization show no
warming at all....
It's thought to be the unstated reason why 75% (possibly 5000?) of the
GHCN's network of thermometers have been taken off the data supply,
leaving only those that support the narrative of 'global warming'.
This is just a lie on a lie. Numerous studies, including ones with a 'sceptical' origin, have shown that rurally sited thermometers show warming, and it's not as if there isn't considerable effort in siting and bias correction to account for urban heat islands. It is of course easy to find individual thermometers that show you any trend you want by cherry picking localities - but aggregate lots of data and the message is consistent.
"The Global Historical Climatology Network Daily database, GHCN-D,
contains meteorological measurements from over 90,000 stations across
the globe. The *majority* of station records contain *precipitation*
*data* *only*, however other key variables including maximum
temperature, minimum temperature, snowfall, cloudiness, wind speed and
snow depth are available at many locations".
As for 75% (possibly 10,000) GHCN thermometers being offline? Another obvious and simplistic lie. For a start GHCN contains data from over 100k stations, not the 14k that is implied. Active daily readings are received from over 20k stations. The data can be reviewed and inspected so the implication that sites are removed for 'unstated' reasons is rhetoric. And GHCN is just one line of evidence for global warming - we have satellite measurements, observation of melting glaciers, sea level rise, simple physics. In fact one study looked at over 170 diffrent surrogates for temperature - things like coral growth, isotopic composition of water - guess what? Confirmed the trends.
A 46-second animation of the Great Cull, covering 1914 - 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNMgqnUEMGM
This sort of thing makes interesting reading:
"The only conclusion can be that GHCN stations hundreds of miles away,
and outside of the Arctic region, have been used for homogenisation. And
here lies the problem is there any reason why we would expect climate
in, for instance, Britain to follow the same pattern as Iceland or
Greenland?
Certainly not according to the experts, as this paper AN ANALYSIS OF
ICELANDIC CLIMATE SINCE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY by Hanna, Jonsson & Box,
published in 2004 showed.
They had this to say:
The warming was non-uniform in time, occurring in three distinct phases,
approximately from 1880 to 1900, from 1925 to 1940, and from 1983 to
2001. Warming was most rapid in 191933, reaching the maximum
temperatures over the entire record in 1939 and 1941. The northwestern
European records surveyed do not indicate any significant trends over
the 190130 standard period, whereas Icelandic trends are highly
significant , somewhat indicating a decoupling between the Icelandic and
northwestern European climates."
--
Spike