https://web.archive.org/web/20230115002156/https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-Average-Temperature-Adjustments-Final-Minus-Raw-vs.-Atmospheric-CO2-1.png

Actual substantive replies please. If I want ad hominem attacks or smears about the author I can go to reddit. And I know the reasoning for adjusting raw data, I'm not trying to claim it's fake just because it's adjusted.

For me, the second graph, if true, would just blow the ass out of AGW. It shows a preposterous 0.99 correlation between the magnitude of adjustments for a given year and atmospheric CO2 levels. So if you tell me the CO2 levels for this year, I can tell you with precision the adjustments that will be made to the raw temperature data.

And here's the same graph, but with raw data, no adjustments. It shows basically no correlation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230106114045/https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Unadjusted-USHCN-Average-Temperature-Vs.-Atmospheric-CO2.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476178)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476220)

Your first link is to temp change over *time, and shows something like a 2C increase over 120 years.

Your second link purports to be graphing temperature "adjustments" against CO2 concentration (without any time axis, of course), but doesn't explain what the word "adjustment" means beyond the paren "final minus raw" which doesn't mean anything by itself.

Your third link seems to graph temperature against CO2 concentration (also without a time axis), and shows a positive correlation between the two -- i.e., temperature is higher when CO2 is higher -- which is the fundamental premise of AGW.

Does the realclimatescience redditor also include a graph of CO2 concentrations over the last 120 years?

ISHTH. Anything else I can do to help explain the science?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476434)

Seems to correlate with your temp graph.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476452)

It's not "temp change," it's simply the final (adjusted) data minus the raw, which shows the magnitude of adjustment. So your statement about showing a 2C increase over 120 years seems irrelevant, other than to show that they've generally gone from adjusting the temp down to adjusting it up.

"Your second link purports to be graphing temperature "adjustments" against CO2 concentration (without any time axis, of course), but doesn't explain what the word "adjustment" means beyond the paren "final minus raw" which doesn't mean anything by itself."

Ok at this point I'm assuming I didn't explain what the graphs purport to show well enough. It is not in dispute that NOAA adjusts the raw USHCN data, and they've done it multiple times, which makes sense because of more accurate measurement and statistical methods using new data as it comes. But for a given station's location, there will be a raw temp avg number, and the final (adjusted) number. The final number minus the raw shows the magnitude of the adjustment. Time is irrelevant here (unless you can explain why it is) because it is simply showing that two things have an almost 1:1 correlation, when scientifically and statistically, that should be almost impossible.

"Your third link seems to graph temperature against CO2 concentration (also without a time axis), and shows a positive correlation between the two -- i.e., temperature is higher when CO2 is higher -- which is the fundamental premise of AGW."

I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure a correlation of .023 is either extremely weak or insignificant. But the significance of this graph is that even though you would expect significant adjustments to older data, you wouldn't expect raw or adjusted temperature data to have a weaker correlation to atmospheric CO2 than the magnitude of adjustments. The implication, obviously, is that the adjustments are made to create the correlation.

But again, I haven't dug into the datasets these graphs come from, and I'm not a scientist or statistician

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476665)

One thing im realizing on the CO2 versus adjustment graph is that the X-axis essentially *is over time, since I’m sure even the whackos agree that CO2 has steadily increased. So it seems like we would want to know if there are valid reasons why the adjustments were larger for older data, and then (oddly) crossed over from positive to negative at some point. I’m guessing that article explains it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48483580)

EPaH gave the only real effort and it was disappointing. The problem with climate science is the amount of unknowns, and the fact that it span multiple fields of science like physics, chemistry, biology and statistics. I'm a skeptic, so I'm not fully convinced it's a hoax, but there are many respected scientists who acknowledge that the data and studies used in climate science would be ridiculed in the hard sciences.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48476966)

Also, it's not like I'm asking for a discussion of physics or climatology. This would be more about statistics

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48483814)