Explain why it's not correct. You're asking why I didn't bet on the LT trends; because the surface station record is inaccurate. The graph shows that the trends and peaks and valleys are virtually identical. I look at the graph in post 64, and though an overlain comparison isn't possible, the same features are evident. So whysit so bad?
Regarding the RomanM adjustments, he's banging heads with another blogger, gg (for Giorgio Gilestro):
Lots of smoke, hardly any gun. Do climatologists falsify data?
I don't think this has reached anywhere close to a resolution yet, but I am impressed with the sophistication level of some of these analyses (and the speed that they're being done). Are all these guys on "The Big Bang Theory"?
Bottom line: I don't see sufficient discrepancies with either the event correlations (i.e., El Ninos, La Ninas, and volcanic eruptons) or the LT record to question the validity of the surface station records with regard to their determination of a new surface temperature record. I note again that you brought up the land data, and as I noted, the global land+ocean record is 70% (or so) ocean.
You are off by one bang. The graph I posted above was a reply to Giorgio's post. Here's the RomanM thread with Giorgio's misleading Gaussian graph and how it was derived http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/ If you find a reply to RomanM's post, I would like to read it.
If the surface station record is inaccurate over LT (at least I think that's what you said), then why are you using it to bet on 1998 versus 201X El Nino peaks? Isn't that going to be affected by the adjustments also? As you can see from the graph I posted from RomanM, recent adjustments are all over the map and are presumably responsible for the 2005 "record" in the surface temp exceeding 1998.
Do you really believe that from 2004 to 2005 the surface record contained enough discontinuities, etc that it needed to be adjusted upwards by 0.1C?
You are off by one bang. The graph I posted above was a reply to Giorgio's post. Here's the RomanM thread with Giorgio's misleading Gaussian graph and how it was derived http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/ If you find a reply to RomanM's post, I would like to read it.
If the surface station record is inaccurate over LT (at least I think that's what you said), then why are you using it to bet on 1998 versus 201X El Nino peaks? Isn't that going to be affected by the adjustments also? As you can see from the graph I posted from RomanM, recent adjustments are all over the map and are presumably responsible for the 2005 "record" in the surface temp exceeding 1998.
Do you really believe that from 2004 to 2005 the surface record contained enough discontinuities, etc that it needed to be adjusted upwards by 0.1C?