GISS did not defend the practice here. You did.
I’m trusting they know what they are doing. I could have misplaced trust. I read of the overview seems reasonable. If you want more, contact GISS.
I scanned several of the articles linked at the GISS sites. I see adjustments up and I see adjustments down. It is a mess…a nonscientific mess.
Maybe it does not matter. They can only wave their arms so many times before everyone… even you … see their agenda.
What specifically lead you to believe it’s not scientific?
It depends what they were adjusting for, right? Care to link an article and your complaint?
Ask an astrophysicist or astronomer if you want to see the math.
A series of objects on similar orbital paths exerting a force against another will each affect the object. Assuming they are all the same approximate mass and density each one is going to pull equally on that object each pulling it further off it’s original course.
You made that up. Congrats.
If they are on a long period orbit traveling together their own gravity will tend to keep them close to one another. We see this commonly with meteor showers and comets.
They aren’t the ones making the claim that a NEO could pull us off orbit. You are. You must have run the numbers to see if it was feasible. Give us a sense of what size would be needed. What distance. What velocity.
What if one object is on one side of the earth and another object is on the other side?
Meteor shower are debris from the tail of a comet. They’re not held together by their gravity, mostly because the particles in a meteor shower are tiny (like less than a meter) and therefore cannot affect the orbit of the Earth.
Swing and a miss.
Not really. Ever hear of regression to the mean? Still waiting for you to propose a mechanism whereby large asteroids selectively pass by one “side” of the planet more than the other?
No I haven’t run the numbers as the math is beyond me. I have however spent a good bit of time listening to the guys who do it for a living explaining how it works.
It’s already been explained if you’re having trouble with the words perhaps I can help you or loan you a dictionary.
Meteor showers are composed of tiny particles, not anything gravitationally significant.
Swing and a miss.
Some adjustments were made because the new sensors tended to report cooler temperatures. Well of course you people don’t want THAT? So an adjustment is made to bring them in line with older measurements.
Then other adjustments were made because the measurement sites were declared to be non ideal sites. I interpreted that as meaning they were in urban areas and would be adjusted down. But I didnt spend enough time reading.
I did see a note that the selection of such sites was not automated. To me that means people were making judgement. Red flag… but I will read more thoroughly some other time.
“Go fetch and link” is not going to work for me. I read, I judge, I post. Take it or leave it. I don’t care. You people only read posts to refute anyhow… not to understand. If you were really interested, you guys would have performed the due diligence I am performing on these “adjustments”.
Cons don’t worry about the planet. If their asbestos suits don’t protect them they’ll just move to another planet. I mean, they must have access to another planet to be so willing to destroy this one, right?
All temperature measurement systems are not equal. How much cooler? Did they calibrate side by side? How did they identify the difference.
Look, it would be easier for me to follow up on this if you provided a link. I’d be interested in reading about it.
Yep. Calibrating instruments is now a conspiracy.
I had to research. It took 5 minutes to find GISS links to articles and published papers.
You can do it …
Not quite. It reached its present configuration about 3 million years ago, but the gap between north and South America closed sufficiently to cut off ocean circulation 10-20 million years ago.