the vuitton outlet
write’s unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go

those
sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by

friends.Personally
“

the vuitton outlet
write’s unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go

those
sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by

friends.Personally
“

faD3St1 | test …

GHCN adjustments are not made for specific causes but in response to a change detection algorithm. So there’s no reason to record.

If you want to see all this in reverse, I’ve analysed the case of Coonabarabran on my . Big, jumpy adjustments, but heading down, not up.

They are in the computer, right?

I am a mathematical physicist, I read the papers on corrections. They indicate reasons for corrections but there is no standardized algorithm; the magnitude of the correction is left to the adjuster, and based on metadata.

Why is all this carefully hidden by GISS?

Just saying TRUST US, WE KNOW HOW MUCH TO ADJUST THE DATA AND WHY makes it all unverifiable from the outside and certainly NOT SCIENTIFIC DATA (to put it poetically, it gives a mirror into the soul of the adjuster, rather than a prosaic mirror of reality….)

If I had this metadata and correction I could have, e.g. my Australian student who is from Darwin check what was going on with temperature records there, and all would be for the better – that is if GISS doesn’t have anything to hide.

Mr. Stokes, do you realize that until you release case by case the magnitude and reason of the adjustment your data IS UNVERIFIABLE thus NOT SCIENCE. People who do not handle their data the way scientists are supposed to do – i.e. make it available and verifiable in full – do not qualify as scientists, no matter what degree they have – I think the term is ‘hack’?

Please don’t take it personally, but please just post the data, and feel good about it! I am sure that the fellow from CRU who leaked the emails feels much better now…

I have not seen anything in climatology where the homogeneity
adjustments are analysed from a generic perspective, their pros and
cons relative to statistical abstractions assessed, freedom from bias
proven etc. Because the use some documented method in some part of
their process does not mean they are not ad hoc – I read the
documentation. Look at how many times they apply it, choices of number
of breaks, termination conditions — all non-standard.