I understand what you are trying to say in this post. It seems highly suspicious to even the casual observer though, that every time a bias is corrected, it corrects to showing amplification of the present temps and dampening of previous temps. The team on the field is also in charge of keeping score so to speak.
Not that any of this matters, of course. As stated earlier, media coverage of climate crises is down 50% from a year ago and people are jumping off the bandwagon. It is going to be an uphill battle for you to convince the increasingly skeptical population that current temps are "hotter" than the 1930's when the overall mortality reduction from climate and weather related disasters have fallen by about 98% when comparing the two time periods.
Why don't you look at mortality rates between the 1930's and 2020's and compare them? Just curious how the bias correct on that would be.
Do you have actual arguments about the adjustments. They are well documented. If you want to criticize the adjustments, please give me a coherent argument about the adjustment (i.e., "this adjustment, described in this paper, is wrong."). If all you have is brain-dead climate denial, your days of posting here will end.
There is an important bias in counting the number of record high temperature readings as an indicator of climate trends. It is a biased statistic because, in a stable climate, the probability of setting a temperature record in the Nth year of measurement at a particular location is 1/N. If the rate of record high temperature measurements were constant, that would indicate a warming climate.
This is looking at a different problem, however. If you take the 125 year record and plot the years where a record occurred, it should be flat for a stationary climate.
I understand what you are trying to say in this post. It seems highly suspicious to even the casual observer though, that every time a bias is corrected, it corrects to showing amplification of the present temps and dampening of previous temps. The team on the field is also in charge of keeping score so to speak.
Not that any of this matters, of course. As stated earlier, media coverage of climate crises is down 50% from a year ago and people are jumping off the bandwagon. It is going to be an uphill battle for you to convince the increasingly skeptical population that current temps are "hotter" than the 1930's when the overall mortality reduction from climate and weather related disasters have fallen by about 98% when comparing the two time periods.
Why don't you look at mortality rates between the 1930's and 2020's and compare them? Just curious how the bias correct on that would be.
Do you have actual arguments about the adjustments. They are well documented. If you want to criticize the adjustments, please give me a coherent argument about the adjustment (i.e., "this adjustment, described in this paper, is wrong."). If all you have is brain-dead climate denial, your days of posting here will end.
The Climate Brink have looked at mortality rates and temperature https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/unraveling-the-debate-does-heat-or?utm_source=publication-search
There is an important bias in counting the number of record high temperature readings as an indicator of climate trends. It is a biased statistic because, in a stable climate, the probability of setting a temperature record in the Nth year of measurement at a particular location is 1/N. If the rate of record high temperature measurements were constant, that would indicate a warming climate.
Yes, you're exactly right, as I wrote here: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/why-are-there-more-high-temperature?utm_source=publication-search
This is looking at a different problem, however. If you take the 125 year record and plot the years where a record occurred, it should be flat for a stationary climate.
Zeke, this was my comment on your last post. I'm going to assume you didn't see it.
"Thanks, Zeke. Chris Martz has responded over at X
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/2079991468815491540
I'd be interested in your comments on his response.
w."
I'm still interested. Are you?
w.
I'm using John Christy's data set, which he used in his publication. Do you know who he is? Is he a climate alarmist?
You're on the edge of being banned for brain-dead climate denial, so proceed carefully.
Show me actual evidence that it's a problem in this data set. Last chance.