After watching some tooth gnashing about the heat in some places in the United States, I started wondering how the data from places that never had the temperature measured in the past affects the overall data. I can see where urban islands corrupt averages, and how analog measurements from the past may be arbitrarily rounded, or misread, which leads to inaccurate averages. Maybe some expert reads my blog, knows a little about how added data sets affect averages, and end my pondering.
Who needs to be an expert to opine on the weather these days?
ReplyDeleteIt didn't stop Al Gore. (Has he died yet?)
I think he's holding his breath, and waiting for his predictions to happen.
DeleteI am just a retired Wx Guesser, but here is a very good blog that has a LOT of the data and reasons for the current state of insanity we call the Reign of the Climate Change Cultist...
ReplyDeleteIf you ever want to have the Data to show just how corrupt the Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change/Climate EMERGENCY Cultists are, he has all the ammo you need.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
MSG Grumpy
Thanks for the link. The variances in the temperature in my own yard can vary a few degrees either way. Of course, the location of the thermometers are the reason, but in my opinion, the difference in the way temperatures are recorded, and collected can't be accurate enough to predict any change in climate over a few short years. There are too many variants, including changes in solar output.
DeleteThe data is junk, and has been massaged several times over the years to show warming.
ReplyDeleteThe junk data fits the junk scientists.
Delete