Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
So 1971 versus 1885.
Hmmm. I know which one I would go with.
The 1885 observations are one of the few that show change over more than a century and can't be "adjusted".
Because that 1885 to 1930s anomaly really throws a wrench into the narrative.
Kind of makes you wonder whatwas going on prior to 1885. I could speculate but then I would be no better than a beliver.
Land falling major hurricanes is the observation.
I know the belivers can't and wont accept the oldest observations with out adjusting them to fit the predetermined result. Then always always fire back trying to reference stuff that has about 100 less years of observation.
I don't hate anyone.
I do like money. If I was being paid by the global warming establishment I would be singing a whole different tune.
The only answer the political belivers have is to slap billions of dollars worth of taxes on everything and not offer any kind of measurable, attainable time line of how to fix global warming. They are pretty much offering to lower my standard of living for nothing in return.
Yeah that sounds great. Where do I sign up...
The fight to throw out or edit anything that doesn't fit the narrative tells me all I need to know.
|
I've been looking at some papers which address this issue and will have more to add later,but it looks like the breadth of the early data,pales in comparison to more modern recorded measurements.
We've more recently had more terrestrial measurement/telemetry,seagoing reported data/telemetry,full-time meteorological data telemetry,airborne sensing/reporting,space-based sensing/telemetry,higher resolution measurements,greater quantitative measurements,higher frequency of measurements,etc..,more reporting infrastructure than ever before.
As of 1999,people were still 'discovering' forgotten databases of archival weather records,which have been undergoing digitizing, such that the data will allow global access to the data to any interested researcher.
Before 1970,there was less information available at the time,it was patchy,and inspired less confidence in comparisons.
The researchers are just playing a game of catch-up.
If you're looking for conspiracies,then confirmation bias is all you need.