- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You have never supported that accusation, and nor has anyone that I've seen in four years on the forum.
Raw data is collected from all around the world with varying consistency and methods in different times and different places. Tossing that unadjusted raw data into a final product would be absurd; instead known biases are corrected for and obviously-flawed data is left out of the analysis. Separate analyses of the raw surface temperature data and correction methods have been undertaken by (at least) the UK Met Office Hadley/CRU partnership (HadCRUT), NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISStemp), NOAA's National Climatic Data Centre (now NCEI) and as of recently the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) - and these are just the English-language records. Different methodologies obviously produce slightly different results, but broadly speaking they all reach similar conclusions.
Temperature reconstructions based on satellite data don't measure surface temperatures - depending on the source and version, the 'lower troposphere' products may have their heaviest weighting as high as 4km above the surface - but even these reconstructions (independently from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems) provide useful comparisons.
Below - 10-year mean comparison for HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean (pre-2012), HadCRUT4 global mean and GISStemp; and from 1979 the RSS (the site still uses v3, I believe) atmospheric record and UAH v5 (which has a lower atmospheric profile and more surface weighting; the major v6 revision brought it more in line with RSS3): [Edit: Also added in the preliminary land-only analysis from BEST compared against the CRUtem4 land analysis]:
Your assertion that data is simply "discarded and replaced" by any of these organizations is utterly unsubstantiated; it is contrary to the openly published (and often peer-reviewed) explanations for their bias corrections and adjustments; it is, in other words, slanderous; and it is conspiracy theory thinking at its finest and a prime example of the ignorant dismissal of science which the OP finds so troubling.
We've had this discussion before. Here is the substantiation I presented to you previously.
The data posted on the NASA web site changed after about 1999.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/