>>I asked multiple times for one case where corrections led to a decrease in warming. None of the warmers gave even one case..<<
And, I’ve asked multiple times for one example of an adjustment that was: unjustified, unnecessary, done incorrectly, used improper methods or techniques, was not fully documented and explained, or was inconsistent with any well-understood and widely-accepted scientific principle or analytical procedure.
I have also asked for Deniers to name just a single, original, raw temperature measurement - from any temperature record – from any climate station – from anywhere in the world – that has ever been used - by any climate scientist - that is missing or has been altered in any way that prevents the original measurement from being recovered.
I asked multiple times for one case where corrections led to a decrease in warming. None of the warmers gave even one case. In fact one warmer suggested that if a correction showed less warming, it would not be a correction.
I provided multiple opportunities for you all to find an error in what I have been stating. You are now being kind enough to provide yourselves another opportunity. It will doubtless come to the same insults, but no examples.
Edit:
LOL, you are acting like a fool now. Just as your previous questions show. If you want to become some idiot that whines about people actually answering your questions because it shows "they are not working", then have at it. Personnally I think your stupidity today can be readily ignored as the rantings of a fool, BUT I know you are intelligent and need not always act like a fool.
The corrections I am referring to are the year to year corrections that always seem to show more warming even over the same periods of time. NOT the normal standardization of the data.
Edit:
CR consider this.
You are in the middle of the woods. There is a parking lot in the woods and you are holding a thermometer. At the same time at the same elevation and at the same latitude, your evil twin brother is in the middle of the city over some grass holding a thermometer. Which one is warmer?
According to your corrections your thermometer is much warmer than your evil twin's thermometer. I don't buy it. Neither do I buy the corrections to the past that presume knowledge on the amount of asphalt in the location and that the thermometer was always in the same placement. They are correcting for location of the thermometer in the past, thereby SAYING that the asphalt causes warming, but THEN pretending no dispersion of that heat and saying heat island effect is miniscule.
I'd rather they not correct at all, because I don't know whether your's our your evil twin's thermometer is going to read higher. BUT I acknowledge not knowing and not being able to know tghe placement of thermometers and the urbanization across the entire 100 year stretches.
And to Gary F's comments... Well that is just great. Everything has corrections. I just made a correction to my dataset that dropped the current temps by 1 degree because of the Raisin effect, and thus there is no warming according to my records. So I demand you stop talking about warming or be labeled an anti-raisinite.
Here is some data from NOAA.
Which way do the corrections look to you?
@CR: You seem to be saying that NOAA would hide something if they needed to. Welcome to the dark side. That is just what we thought.
Also, I am not sure how relevant the parking lots comment is. 70% of the planet does not have a parking lot because it is ocean. Large areas of the rest are deserts. Parking lots for camels and penguins are not common. Anyway, you can see which way the corrections go.
Australia has been caught creating warming that they subsequently can't explain very well.
So has New Zealand. They were prosecuted for corrupting the official record. What do you think their defence was? "We did not corrupt the data", perhaps? No, they went for the: "There is no official record" response. Convincing? Not to me.
Adjusting temperature records is called homogenisation, they say due to Urban Heat Island Effect and other effects, they need to adjust temperatures, but how come they usually lower past historical temps instead of raising them to match artificially higher modern temps, it is a disgusting situation, purposedly fraudulent, not only NOAA NCDC but also in other countries such as the Australian BOM.
Not only do they adjust temperatures the wrong way, but those places that show cooling or or no warming, they come up with some excuse to say they are not reliable, and then fill in with adjacent temps that show warming, there is currently a hue and cry about the BOM measurements and a investigation is required, but of course the normal whitewash will happen.
Regarding GCs graph
If they were moving thermometers into parking lots, rather than out of parking lots, I would expect the trend of the Difference Between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets to be downward rather than upward.
Note that the graph is from NOAA's web site. If they had anything to hide, they would be hiding it.
No, they cool past temperatures quite often.
Raisin Caine says, or implies that "every "correction" lead(s) to more warming".
Could there be a reason that most climate change temperature corrections indicate a warmer temperature?
Consider, as air rises, it expands and cools. As it descends, it compresses and warms. To have an honest temperature comparison, one needs to have uniform data. Part of that process would be to express it as if all of the readings were taken at the same altitude. The most universal altitude is sea level. So, the 'normalization' process would be to use the temperature as if it was taken at sea level. Temperatures taken at the bottom of Death Valley would be lower. Most would be warmer. There are similar density calculations, and humidity calculations.
Is it appropriate to 'normalize' the data so it doesn't matter where the readings were taken?
Does it make the readings wrong to 'normalize' them?
Does the 'normalization' process mean that the data is being changed to make it look like the world is warmer?
If you didn't do the normalization process, would models be more, or less accurate?
Do you think that the models have been written such that predicting climate can be done even for locations that are not at sea level?
