sunshine hours

October 10, 2012

HADCRUT4 – The Scammers Are Getting Shameless

Filed under: HADCRUT,HADCRUT4,Mockery — sunshinehours1 @ 8:57 AM
Tags: ,

HADCRUT4 is the new Met Office dataset designed to replaced HADCRUT3. Why do they need to replace HADCRUT3?

Because the trend for the last 15 years in HADCRUT3 is negative and therefore it must be exterminated – like the Medieval Warming Period.

The following graph compares HADCRUT4 to HADCRUT3. (Click for a larger version)

Take note of the following:

1) HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 overlaps until about 2002 with minor differences.

2) For some reason, after 2002, there appears to be corrections of .1 to .2C. Why was the data ok in 1997-2002 and suddenly it was so bad it had to be “corrected”.

3) What justifies a .2C adjustment up in 2007? Thats 40% higher!

4) Every place a red line is well above the blue they have adjusted up to make the the “new dataset”  hotter.

5) HADCRUT3 trend (the dashed line) was negative (-.016C/Decade). HADCRUT4 is positive (.033C/Decade).

About these ads

8 Comments »

  1. It is pathetic . The AGW theory is trash , and will be proven to be, although I would say the verdict is already in since the models have forecasted everything wrong, from stratospheric cooling, to a more +ao, to less olr ,to ohc failing to continue rise, the missing hotspot due to the positive feedbacks between water vapor and co2, clouds being a positive feedback, the reality is they are negative etc etc etc. The temp. trend not going up as predicted. What more is needed to prove they are full of BS!

    Then add to that the incomplete, inaccurate data ,and lack of compreheensive data the models have to work with in the first place and you get the expected result. A completly ridiculous projection on what the climate is going to do going forward.

    I will use past history as a guide to what the climate may or may not be doing going forward over what the models say anytime,

    anyday of the week.

    Past history is saying colder times lie ahead not warmer.

    Comment by Salvatore Del Prete — October 10, 2012 @ 11:05 AM | Reply

  2. Even people on our side are full of it. Roger Pielke is saying 30 years is not enough to get a temp. trend. Has he ever heard of abrupt climate change?? I don’t think so. What fools.

    Comment by Salvatore Del Prete — October 10, 2012 @ 11:33 AM | Reply

  3. Correction he said climate analysis . No we need 500 years ,give me a break. This field is the blind leading the blind ,leading the blind. From corruption of data, to inaccurate data, to spinning everything every which way etc. etc. etc.

    I think the ice cores with their past history data are giving more reliable data then what we are getting from current equipment.

    In the end the truth wil come out and the climate by this decade end is gooing to be enough colder where the fudge factor and spin is not going to be able to overcome it.

    Comment by Salvatore Del Prete — October 10, 2012 @ 11:40 AM | Reply

  4. More on HADCRUT4 here. They claim to have increased coverage in the Arctic, but admit there is no extra coverage in the Antarctic, which has been getting colder.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/

    Comment by Paul Homewood — October 10, 2012 @ 1:10 PM | Reply

  5. nothing can justofy what they did. It is ridiculous. I think I am going to put a thermometer outside of my house and use that for global temperatures. Just kidding,but I think you all know what I mean.
    Not to worry ,that theory is wrong and has been proven to be wrong just by the data. Data does not support anything the models predicted, nothing.

    Comment by Salvatore De;l Prete — October 10, 2012 @ 2:27 PM | Reply

  6. It goes on and on: the warming is getting more frightening every time we review it! and this trend doesn’t bother any one but the bad guys, the skeptics.

    The adjusted temperature data keeps getting further from the raw data. Won’t any of the warmists find this odd?

    Comment by Doug Proctor — October 10, 2012 @ 4:56 PM | Reply

  7. This change would have Ibn al-Haytham, commonly known as the inventor of the scientific method, rolling over in his grave.

    Comment by John — October 12, 2012 @ 8:22 AM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers

%d bloggers like this: