It's a graph of the amount of fudging of the climatic data to "justify" global warming. Note the sharp slope after 1940 - the old hockey stick graph,
Blue is the raw data, green is the average raw data, black is some spurious data called "adjustment". And red is the raw data plus the "adjustment", which "proves" global warming.
The black line or "adjustment" is some obscure adjustment these "scientists" used to "fudge" the data (akin to cooking the books in financial terms) to not only "prove" global warming, but "prove" that it is an urgent problem.
Net - there may be some global warming, but this politically and idiology driven "science" where data contrary to your view is "adjusted out" is well, non-science. It is fraudulent.
Simple. They used the post-modern scientific method. Decide what your conclusion is based on your 'feelings'. Adjust the raw data to support your conclusions. There was an inconvenient warm period in the 1930's when the CO2 concentration was nowhere near as high as it is today. Just subtract 2 degrees and that inconvenient warm period disappears. The recent temperature needs to show the agreed upon Hockey stick shape so you simply add degrees and Presto! global warming. You need to ignore the urban heat island effect which would logically require a downward adjustment as a city grows.
I believe that what this is trying to show is that the raw (unaltered) data of temperature readings actually shows a slight cooling since 1941. In contrast, the "homogenized" (read "cooked") data shows dramatic temperature increases.
Because, you know, the raw data can't be trusted and needs to be "massaged" to make it show what it really means.
9 comments:
Explain for us dumb redneck conservatives plox.
Captain,
You lost me on tis one - Please explain whats homoginized?
Well, that does a really good job of calling all the data into question.
Good find. It exemplifies exactly why all the "global warming deniers" have been saying "slow down" and "let's not jump to conclusions."
Homonegized, pausterized, sanitized.
And that, folks is what you call value-added.
For an explanation click on the ht.
It's a graph of the amount of fudging of the climatic data to "justify" global warming. Note the sharp slope after 1940 - the old hockey stick graph,
Blue is the raw data, green is the average raw data, black is some spurious data called "adjustment". And red is the raw data plus the "adjustment", which "proves" global warming.
The black line or "adjustment" is some obscure adjustment these "scientists" used to "fudge" the data (akin to cooking the books in financial terms) to not only "prove" global warming, but "prove" that it is an urgent problem.
Net - there may be some global warming, but this politically and idiology driven "science" where data contrary to your view is "adjusted out" is well, non-science. It is fraudulent.
The explanation is that the "Man Made Warming" in this graph is a unexplained, unsupported adjustment of 6 degrees per century
Blue line is the raw data, red line is the 'homogenised', 'adjusted' data. Black line shows the adjustment made. Hey look! A hockey stick type thing!
Simple. They used the post-modern scientific method. Decide what your conclusion is based on your 'feelings'. Adjust the raw data to support your conclusions. There was an inconvenient warm period in the 1930's when the CO2 concentration was nowhere near as high as it is today. Just subtract 2 degrees and that inconvenient warm period disappears. The recent temperature needs to show the agreed upon Hockey stick shape so you simply add degrees and Presto! global warming. You need to ignore the urban heat island effect which would logically require a downward adjustment as a city grows.
I believe that what this is trying to show is that the raw (unaltered) data of temperature readings actually shows a slight cooling since 1941. In contrast, the "homogenized" (read "cooked") data shows dramatic temperature increases.
Because, you know, the raw data can't be trusted and needs to be "massaged" to make it show what it really means.
Post a Comment