Do I ever admire those who have the quantitative chops, and the persistence, to dig through the data and draw conclusions from the results.
Blogger "Chiefio" has dug into the GHCN thermometer records to see just how credible the aggregated data could be.
His conclusion forms the title of this post.
When you average temperatures from available thermometers, and then plot them year to year, it is reasonable for a reader to assume that the population of thermometers is more or less the same year to year.
But clearly the chart shows that the gross numbers of measures are changing. What Chiefio demonstrates is that the location of thermometers is changing too, as is the nature of the thermometers themselves. In his words "For Canada, the thermometers have been leaving the Rockies and running to the shore where it is much warmer"
All the warming that we read about comes from GHCN thermometers, and the trends in temperature are easy to pick up when we use GHCN data. But who at GHCN stands up and says "use only the data from long-term stations with continuous records, well-managed surroundings and unmodified thermometers." Who in the professional climate science community stands up and says that the averages are misleading, and cools the rhetoric?
Not the guys who have been garnering all the headlines. Climatologists are about to join journalists, celebrities, politicians and used car salesmen in the list of least trusted professions.
It turns out that there is no warming at the long term stable sites. Not in Antarctica, not in Australia, not in Africa, not in Asia, not in Europe, not in South America and not in North America. Nor the Caribbean, and not in the South Pacific. Not many sites qualify, but their data should have weight far beyond their numbers. Climate change is basically thermometer change. When someone tells you that this is the warmest decade on record, they aren't lying, but they most definitely are wrong.
Anybody feel grumpy yet?