Just to make the point about US temperature corrections, below is a plot of how the US temperature record is adjusted from raw data. The raw data actually has very little trend, however there are problems in the collection method of this data that require significant adjustments for accuracy.
Figure 2. Form of individual corrections applied by NOAA. The black line is the adjustment for time of observation. The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used. The yellow line is for changes in station siting. The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records. The purple line is for UHI effects (this correction is now removed).
Jennifer Marohasy blog.
And so there you have it. The vast conspiracy theorists are correct. About half of the US temperature increase is due to adjustments in the record. These adjustment are correct and necessary as far as I can tell.
Here is a post by Nic Lewis on temperature adjustments as well.
the Air Vent 
Jeff –
Jesus, you never get tired of being wrong, do you?
I never said they aren’t adjusted. I had two points. The first is that the adjustments are not a part of a “conspiracy,” as that conspiratorial lunatic you linked to argued.
The second is that apparently you don’t even know what people like Mosher say about the effects of the adjustments on the warming trend. Here:
and
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
Here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673184
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673386
There’s this, too:
Mosher’s graph is about a different kind of adjustment. I’m quite certain he fully agrees with my post.
Lol. You are sad. Always shifting the goalposts rather than just admitting error. Is your ego really that fragile?
I never said adjustments aren’t made. I said your description of the effect of adjustments (as a whole) doesn’t match what people like Mosher say. I’ll add that conspiratorial rants like the one from the conspiratorial lunatic you linked, are hilarious.
Just acknowledge your error and move on. It will be less painful in the end.
I’m not shifting anything Josh. His post doesn”t address the trends of the adjustments I’m referring to. Just read kid
And another point is this, in case you didn’t get it yet…
Isolating US records, or temperatures over land, or SATs, to assess the effect of adjustments, is inherently misleading.
So why did you do that?
No idea what this means.
Figures. Read the links, or better yet get someone who can understand them to read them for you and then explain it it to you.
I have no idea what you mean in your linkless sentence.
I’ve already provided the links to relevant comments from Mosher. Not my problem if you can’t understand.
What do YOU mean Josh. I have no idea what YOU mean.
Here, I’ll spoon feed you:
Looks like that link may not work. So search for February 9, 2015 at 5:11 pm
Here, I’ll spoonfeed you another link. Not my problem if you can’t understand:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-672953
OK – I’ll spoonfeed you another link, and then I’m done helping you out. I don’t want to further enable you. You know, the soft bigotry of low expectations and all.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-672907
OK – on more link. A comment from some dude who seems to make a lot of sense:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-672938
Again Kid, and for my last time those adjustments in YOUR link are for breakpoints. Not for Time of day or min max changes or thermometer location.
You get the answers you deserve. As usual, you prove to be a know-nothing.
To be crazy clear, the RAW data in the post you keep linking is not RAW.
It is pre-adjusted data for the items in the post here. Berkley came up with a new adjustment on top of all of these adjustments.
Jeff,
ZZZZZZzzzzzz
Your post was based on a flat out dumb misinterpretation of what I said. So your post was dumb. It’s yet another example of where you try to change the subject to hide stupid mistakes.
Go to what I wrote that set you off. The adjustments aren’t a conspiracy. I’m glad that at least for once you aren’t buying a conspiracy theory. And I’ve supplied you with plenty of links so you can see what Mosher (and others) has to say about the effect of adjustments. If you disagree with him, take it up with him, not with me.
LOL, so you finally realize you didn’t know what you were talking about.
What I’ve said has been clear all along.
It’s really not my problem if you don’t understand. I’m used to it and it’s what I expect from you and you never disappoint.
You have been wrong all along Joshua. That is clear for sure.
I was right all along, Jeff. You just don’t have the ego strength to admit it.
You said we had some big conspiracy here to adjust temperatures, you were wrong.
Then when I showed you the adjustments, you got confused and sent us all to Berkeley BEST adjustments and Mosher.
You were wrong again.
Jeff –
You’re wrong yet again. Everything I said in response to your link to that conspiracy lunatic was exactly on point: the adjustments aren’t a conspiracy and you needed to check yourself on what Mosher says about the adjustments.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-672938
“On balance the effect of adjustments is inconsequential.”
Then you come back to put up a post blathering about another issue entirely (“a different kind of adjustment”) I never even discussed and misrepresenting what I said.
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?
What mosher says are inconsequential is regarding different adjustments. The tobs and min max adjustments are over 1/2 the trend. Mosher agrees with me if he still does any climate. He had a medical issue some time ago. If Mosher didn’t agree with me, he would be wrong.
Everyone at BEST agrees with me too, because WE all know what we are talking about.
You are just wrong.
Jeff –
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
My comments were with regard to that lunatic you linked to,
And wwhat he said about adjustments and their effect.
You tried to change the subject.
Sad.
“My comments were with regard to that lunatic you linked to, ”
And that ‘lunatic’ was simply a guy not recognizing the reason for the significant downward corrections in the historic record. He was looking at mostly tobs corrections and some location changes. You however, then linked to Berkely’s form of knitting partial records together and kept pointing out that corrections are insignificant. -NEVER ONCE REALIZING THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
Which is hilarious.
I mean it’s kind of amazing how slow you are on the uptake. I’m beginning to understand now why you couldn’t even perform a simple Google search:
The altered temperatures then form the basis for hockey-stick shaped charts of world temperatures,
I eeven gave you a hint here, to which you said “Huh?” and drooled on yourself:
March 22, 2024 at 11:04 am
Not my fault if you can’t understand.
Here’s what you said:
About half of the US temperature increase is due to adjustments in the record.
Go out on the street and find some 6 year old and ask them to explain to you how the US isn’t the world.
Then come back and we can discuss further.
US isn’t the world.
Nope, it isn’t but I haven’t spent weeks looking at temperature corrections across the globe, only days. They do exist however, they are similar to the US corrections, and they are not insignificant.
Are you familiar with bucket temperature corrections to oceanic temperatures? It’s interesting and incredibly arbitrary. Literally zero science behind the corrections. Guess how much of the globe that covers, and then guess how ‘insignificant’ the correction is.
Of course, a young man such as yourself already knows such things and doesn’t really have to read anything.
Here is a link to my global ‘surface’ temperatures which also contain a correction for partial records (like BEST). I didn’t develop the technique although I was first to apply it. I still believe it is literally the best on on the market.
Jeff –
You keep trying to change the subject. I responded to that lunatic you linked to, who said with total certainty that there’s a conspiracy to alter the global data (across all adjustments) to create a signal of warming where no warming actually exists.
I’m glad that you agree that he’s delusional (which then raises the question of why you linked to him, but whatever).
As for the science itself I don’t have a particular opinion. I’m sure it’s not perfect science. (Brandon Shellenberger raised what seemed like some intersting interesting if ultimately not particularly important questions on one of those Climate Etc. posts where from what I could tell, Mosher gave some typically Mosher bullshit answers). I’m sure there are many measurement issues. That’s life and you have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. Unfortunately some people look at the uncertainty and fill in the blanks with nutty conspiracies.
sea level rise still has not changed in 150 years.
this is not my fault
jeff id
I gave you a real conspiracy post so you can gnash on it.