You might be able to sell anything using hugh advertising. Including incorrect temperature data from measurings around the world in older days.
Of course there may be reason to take account of cities growth, such as Stockholm. But it is more important to present facts of exact reading place, biotope situation, temperature observations made over the years than presenting corrected values. Especially without proofs of relevance and evidence that the corrected temperature(-s) have a real scientific value!
Scary 1984-model changes are seen in the Climate Threat debate. As example Stockholm’s weather history. Corrected values presented in the climate threat name as if they readings in question were accurate and the whole truth.
Anything to promote the unproven hypothesis, well hypothesis is too strong word assumption is better, that CO2 has changed as an impact of human activities. This assumption has been used, as it been proved true to prove the extension: that the average temperature on Earth is rising. In Sweden as well as elsewhere.
Please read and notice the low quality in form of the input values underlying used to support the unproven hypothesis:
”Our reconstruction of the winter and spring variations over half a millennium is shown in Figure 1. Measured temperatures from 1860 are corrected due to the artificial heating caused by the city of Stockholm, so that the curve shows the more natural change. ”Forskning och Framsteg, maj 2008 [Forskning och Framsteg is a scientific journal here in Sweden]
Think about the above lines and try to explain the evidence for the correction been made properly in light of biotope situation and the observation spot / spots changing through the years:
”Red bars indicate that the years been warmer than average, blue bars colder. The black curve shows more variation in capped 10-årsskalan. Stockholm temperature series have been corrected taking into account that the city has grown, and thus become hotter. This is reproduced in as fair a manner as possible the actual variations in climate. The mean value of 5.75 ° refers to the original, more rural environment. ” http://www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/faktablad_stockholm.pdf
Nice isn’t it? Alike falsification of measured data occurs around the entire globe: Read first start of the blog post ‘Something hinky this way comes ncdc data start diverging from Wattsupwith that.com go down to the signature evanmjones Posts:
”But what is the difference between G, HadCRUT and NCDC? Do they use data from different monitoring stations? Do they have differnt methods of making up their data …. Oops, I mean different methods for analyzing their data? What `s the difference?
I would have thought there is only the need for one group Thursday monitor the worlds surface stations? I `m sure there’s a good reason?
Well, believe it or not, it’s like this: NCDC takes its data and adjust it (much Controversy there). G takes the fully adjusted NCDC data and ”unadjusts it” through some strange algorithm and then applies its own adjustments to the mangled results. Why they do not simply start off with NCDC raw data is a mystery for the ages. ”
So everything in regards to falsified facts been sold and swallowed by politicians and other when climate enthusiasts use circle proofs to present their case, ie unproven assumptions presented as facts to prove that the climate threat is present and, by extension, use the ‘corrected values’ whose correctness not been shown true and certainly without the known fact that the temperatures can vary even in two very closely related sites on the biotope taken into consideration.
Towns closeby? Well in the Stockholm case all considerations of science been forgotten and Uppsala’s temperatures have been used. Stockholm is located at the entrance to Lake Mälaren ie coastal, and Uppsala is located in the hinterland. Then there are all other geological variables whose impact on temperatures the so-called scholars not taken into account. 😉