re: #488 Thanos

The video did strongly and directly refute the book. Did you miss all of the other facts mentioned? Bird migrations, crop ranges, etc. etc. That’s directly observable empirical data. There’s also other as measured by man data such as the wordlwide temp readings from weather stations, satellite temperature measures, ocean buoy measures, and you also have the subset of Watt’s own hand picked stations matching the graph.
So if Watt’s trying to say “things aren’t warming” he’s wrong, if he’s trying to say “things aren’t warming as much as NOAA says they are, he’s wrong.

The book is addressing the issues with the accuracy of the data stations. It does not discuss bird migrations, crop ranges, etc. etc. To sum it up, the book is claiming they found 89 percent of the stations fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements. Therefore, he claims the U.S. temperature record is unreliable, and it is supposedly the best data in the world. The only part of the video addressing this is around NOAA’s plotting of those 70 stations, and I addressed why that was not a meaningful exercise. You can see the difference between the raw measured data and NOAA’s normalization adjustments to the ground data over time here.

Regarding your point about other points of measurement, such as satellite measurements, what you find is the satellite data shows much cooler temperatures. The data divergence between satellite and ground stations started in the late 70’s and has been increasing up to the present where the satellite data is averaging 0.5C data is averaging 0.5C cooler than NOAA’s adjusted ground data. Rather than question the accuracy of the ground data, the NCDC adjusts and normalizes the satellite data upward to match the ground readings. So, we have two sources of raw data, ground and satellite, that get adjusted upward by NOAA by approximately 0.5C. What do you think that means?