suyts space

 

File:Autumn 012.jpg

Yes, I called it a saga, because that’s what it is going to be.  Other than grammatical errors, the first criticism to Watts et al is that they didn’t account or even really address the TOB (Time of OBservation) biases. 

It isn’t that it was necessary for the work to be valid, the work is valid.  It’s just that there’s much more to the story than sighting.  In my travels throughout the internets, I’ve found criticisms such as this to be fairly typical…… (stealing a comment from WUWT)  Bold mine.

vvenema says:

July 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm

In the Fall, Watts, Nielsen‐Gammon, Jones, Niyogi, Christy, and Pielke Sr paper (2011), in Figure 4, the trend in the raw data is about 0.2°C per decade. The trend in the data corrected for differences in the time of observation is 0.3°C per decade. (The rest of the homogenization does not…

View original post 1,088 more words

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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 )

Connecting to %s