Tom Karl wrote some papers identifying issues which can affect temperature readings.
Therefore, USHCN can adjust temperatures any way they want.
Quiet. Scientists at work.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
Recent Comments
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Mike Peinsipp on The Clock Is Ticking
Yes, they can idenitfy issues, as the long as the issues show warming. You should send them issues identifying cooling and see how many of those they incorporate.
They do account for UHI with a massive 0.1 degree adjustment
That is simply indefensible. I don’t care how good the hand waving is.
/sarcon
That is of course based on actual, site specific, measurements published in peer-reviewed papers, and rechecked at intervals to ensure accuracy.
Or just finger in the air ‘estimates’? /sarcoff
;-0
This is where imbeciles such as ‘physicist’ get themselves into trouble. Dozens of papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature on techniques for adjusting/correcting temperature measurements, and many of these might be characterised as ‘sceptical’. What USHCN is doing has not been published in the literature. Of course this doesn’t stop ‘physicist’ from complaining that sceptics should publish in the literature before they criticise USHCN. It is possible for him to do this because (a) he is clueless and (b) he is an idiot.