You would think that a three hundred year old temperature reading would stay the same. right?
Wrong. The CET is a temperature data set that goes back to the 1600's. Comparison of the May2013 version to the Jan2015 version shows a temp rise of 0.03C, the equivalent of 0.18C/decade.
Unlike most ongoing adjustments like GISS, these CET changes seem to affect the whole range evenly, instead of cooling the past and warming the present.
There would not seem to be any benefit to just raise the avg without changing the trend. I think the rising temps are caused by some part of the homogenization code. Any change to recent temps causes a domino like cascade that changes most of the readings behind it.
I think shows that written records are often changed, almost always upward, and worst if all, automatically. No one set out to jack up the Central England Temperature dataset, it just happened.
The fabricated 0.18C per decade is more than the satellites show, less than the models predict, and is a close match to the surface station datasets.
Any warmers out there want to give some plausible explanations for yet another irregularity on the books?
Wrong. The CET is a temperature data set that goes back to the 1600's. Comparison of the May2013 version to the Jan2015 version shows a temp rise of 0.03C, the equivalent of 0.18C/decade.
Unlike most ongoing adjustments like GISS, these CET changes seem to affect the whole range evenly, instead of cooling the past and warming the present.
There would not seem to be any benefit to just raise the avg without changing the trend. I think the rising temps are caused by some part of the homogenization code. Any change to recent temps causes a domino like cascade that changes most of the readings behind it.
I think shows that written records are often changed, almost always upward, and worst if all, automatically. No one set out to jack up the Central England Temperature dataset, it just happened.
The fabricated 0.18C per decade is more than the satellites show, less than the models predict, and is a close match to the surface station datasets.
Any warmers out there want to give some plausible explanations for yet another irregularity on the books?
