When characterised this way, both adjusted and
unadjusted data show virtually identical warming over this latter period.
It's
unadjusted data shows Canadian retail e-commerce increased almost 47 per cent in May from a year earlier.
But
the unadjusted data shows a much higher rate of rise for 1910 - 1945, before there was enough extra CO2 to make much difference.
@AK: But
the unadjusted data shows a much higher rate of rise for 1910 - 1945, before there was enough extra CO2 to make much difference.
Not exact matches
In the end, while the authors of this chapter do not disclose the actual correlations between their two measures and value - added, specifically (although from the appendix one can infer that the correlation between value - added and Tripod output is around r = 0.45 as based on an
unadjusted r - squared), and I should mention this is a HUGE shortcoming of this chapter (one that would not have passed peer review should this chapter have been submitted to a journal for publication), the authors do mention that «the conceptual overlap between the frameworks is substantial and that empirical patterns in the
data show similarities.»
The figure below
shows these linear trends for the GISS
data for each calendar month, for two
data versions provided by GISS:
unadjusted and «homogenised».
A comparison of HadSST2 with the NCDC temperature
data, and of the
unadjusted HadSST3 (i.e. without the new bias corrections) with NCDC using only common coverage ocean cells is
shown in right panel of Figure 2.
However, the
unadjusted data represented by the UKMO EN3
data shows cooling for depths of 0 - 750 meters through March 2012: LINK
While I used adjusted global mean
data for the plot above,
unadjusted global mean
data shows essentially the same thing — an increasing trend, contrary to your claim above.
Since urban stations
show a higher temperature (on average) compared to rural stations (on average), having more urban stations in the mix will increase the overall average temperature of even an
unadjusted data set.
A plot of land - only
unadjusted and UHI - adjusted GISTemp
data would
show a more discernible difference (but still not huge).
This indicates that the observed warming can not be an artifact of the adjustment process as the
unadjusted GHCN version
shows similar amounts of warming and the adjustments applied to raw ocean
data decrease the amount of indicated warming.
As Figure 2
shows, the
unadjusted data (pink) have tended to fall towards the lower end of IPCC projections in recent years, primarily due to the preponderance of La Niña events and an extended solar cycle minimum, which have short - term cooling influences on global surface temperatures.
Indeed, this is also what the
unadjusted raw temperature
data for many places in Australia
shows.
Mi Cro August 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm Clive, that's all fine and dandy, except those warming trends did not take place globally, they were regional trends.............................. We are finalising an analysis for Australia that
shows of the claimed 1 deg C or so of warming since 1900, the maximum temperature change based on
unadjusted data is half that or less, so 0.45 degrees for the century in the USA would fall neatly in the range we estimate for Australia.