>>11269499>How is 0.1 degree a huge difference when the warming shown by both is several times larger than that?What matters is not just the trend but the size of the trend. The precise value is always the most critical information. A discrepancy of over 0.1 K within 4 decades could mean more than 0.35 K when going back to 1880.
>pic related>So your argument is that there is a global conspiracy to make warming slightly larger than it actually is?Wrong. Strawman.
>NOAA's adjustments You obviously do not understand the reason behind any adjustments. Adjustments are made because different data is compared. This is why I believe that using only satellite data is most credible, although some people disagree with this because they say satellites do not measure the actual temperature of the planet, only that of the atmosphere.
So why do we need adjustments? The measurement stations change, new ones are built or old ones are shut down, their environment changes, or their location changes. Already using the data of the same station only can be flawed. But combining all data into one global temperature is extremely flawed and depends on how you combine them. An unethical scientist could obtain any result they want with their adjustment but an ethical scientist would try to combine stations in the most plausible way. For example, you can't just take their average because measurement station density changes over time. 1000 new stations built in the arctic would drastically lower the average temperature. A station that used to be near cold forest may now be near cities or wind turbines, both store heat.
The truth is the latter happens much more often and station density has increased disproportionately in warmer regions. Thus, such an adjustment is made.
>Who said it did?this data that shows the same thing
>when are you going to present evidence of false data or distortion?See
>>11269388 
