Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Temperature data adjustments

Looking at the ORNL data (RAW) below, it appears that I don’t need to move to higher land just yet.  The ‘debate’ over settled science is more like chasing scandals than science.



But wait, there’s more…

The next two graphs show how the data was altered.  Maybe the real story is in the Raw data and the last graph…

Both raw and adjusted data from the NCDC has been examined for a selected Contiguous U. S. set of rural and urban stations, 48 each or one per State. The raw data provides 0.13 and 0.79 oC/century temperature increase for the rural and urban environments. The adjusted data provides 0.64 and 0.77 oC/century respectively. The rates for the raw data appear to correspond to the historical change of rural and urban U. S. populations and indicate warming is due to urban warming. Comparison of the adjusted data for the rural set to that of the raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the rural adjusted set’s temperature rate of increase to be 5-fold more than that of the raw data. The adjusted urban data set’s and raw urban data set’s rates of temperature increase are the same. This suggests the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to cause historical data to take on the time-line characteristics of urban data. The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the Contiguous U. S.

Read the report here: Contiguous U.S. Temperature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets





1 comment:

  1. Ummmm.... why did they adjust the Rural UP... shouldn't they have adjusted the Urban DOWN?

    Hard to find good help these days.


You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

Harlan Ellison