On what basis do you 'know' that the data adjustments in the 'fudge factor' array reflect Briffa's post-1960 divergence problem? Or are you just making an assumption? If this is the case as you assert, then why is data prior to 1960 being 'adjusted' all the way back to 1924?
Also, why don't the adjustment factors more accurately follow Briffa's divergence curve? The divergence in 1984 was about 50% of the 1994 divergence...yet 2.6 divergence adjustments (x.75) were used for all data from 1969 to 1994. Please explain. Thanks.
Let's back up a bit, shall we:
Our latest series of exchanges began when you wrote (in part):
You've seen first hand how lack of transparency in this field has corrupted CRU in many ways....especially their intentional and fraudulent manipulation of data to exaggerate warming in recent years.
I challeged you on the bolded assertion, and wrote:
I hold you to the same burden of proof that you demand of climatologists. Lacking such proof, I insist that you stop posting as factual what amounts to personal conclusions based on exactly 0 objective evidence.
You, in response, presented me with a temperature modification expresssion used by CRU and asked me to explain it. Presumably, that was your "objective evidence" of fraud. Frankly, I should have stopped you right there. Your asking me questions does not constitute "objective evidence." It's not up to me to do the digging to determine if what CRU did was justified or not. "Objective evidence" means just that. All you have are subjective questions, and the answers to those question may or may not nail CRU. That's not "objective evidence." It's a hope and a prayer.
But I was weak, and my response to your question was intended to provide the context for the temperature modification, thus showing that the modification appeared to be benign, not "objective evidence" of fraud.
Now you've come back with additional questions about the correction. But note that these are again YOUR questions, not mine, and it's your job to run them to ground if you want to make "factual assertions" about fraud.
As to "what I know" - I don't, and I'm not making assumptions about any of this. I haven't dug into those specific questions yet and I don't propose to. I have the luxury of sitting back and letting you do the digging. I infer that your new questions are based on some blog from an ACC-skeptics site, to which I would ask you:
Have you back-searched the emails to determine why adjustments back to 1924 are being made? I'm sure there's an explanation somewhere. (I have my own theory: If Divergence is a consequence of continually-increasing CO2 levels, then it would be wrong to suddenly begin the adjustments at the point where the Divergence becomes evident, since smaller and shrinking effects undoubtedly go back many, many years. By way of analogy: Special Relativity is "true" even at non-relativistic velocities; so for maximal accuracy, relativistic computations should be performed even at non-relativistic velocities, even though the relativistic effects will be extremely small.)
How do you know that the adjustments are inaccurate? Just because someone on a blog says they're innaccurate doesn't mean they are.
Where are you coming up with the fact that the same adjustments were used for the entire 1969 to 1994 period? Again, just because an assertion to that effect is made doesn't mean it's true.
Are you sure you understand the entire algorithm used? It could be that additional corrections are made, and the combination is extremely accurate.
More generally: You're viewing scattered pieces of a much larger jigsaw puzzle. You're drawing conclusions from very limited information.
Facebook
Twitter