C'mon focus focus focus. You did not quote the premise of my statement. Did you do that on purpose or did you forget to take your daily dose of Rivastigmine? Here is the premise again:
But you chose to overlook that premise and went back to my pool example and started ranting to yourself.
I will restate it in terms you might be able to understand:
You, palerider, brilliantly found out a plan to measure pool shell leakage with no need for knowing the absolute amount of water in the pool, and you brilliantly came up with an evaporation correction that wasn't fraudulent tampering!!!
So, you elegantly proved that measuring the level increments was all you needed, and the absolute amount of water was not necessary to know!
If I mischaracterized your belief, please tell me where any pool expert says you do need to know the absolute amount of water. But, I'm game. Explain your statement Please tell me exactly how I should have utilized the absolute amount of water. Please be as quantitative as possible.
Here is some of the verbiage in the remainder of your post.
My my, you are dripping with bitter vitriol. Forget the Rivastigmine. You need Nupafeed. You are arguing from your gut. It might be fun for you to look up Colbert's definition of "truthiness"
You say that the spread in mean temperatures is at least 2 deg. C. The spread in several papers that I found is only 1 deg. C. Considering that the range of temperatures over all global spatial and temporal locations has a span of about 140 deg. C, I think that is a remarkable agreement. What are the extrema sources you found that lead you to believe the temperature spread is "at least 2 deg. C"?
I read the paper you suggested at the link http://www.surfacestations.org/ The preprint was titled,
"An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" by Anthony Watts, et. al. This was not directly at the site you mentioned, but was referenced at that site as the major (52 page) paper he is publishing.
His paper is replete with data "tampering" that you seem to be so dead set against. Here are my impressions:
1. He throws out many urban readings because they create too much warming. Hey, that's part of global warming. He is deliberately tampering.
2. He addresses only the U.S. That's only 2.7% of the entire globe. That's hardly a valid study on global warming. What about the oceans, and other vast continents?
3. Despite his tampering and his ambition, he still verifies a net continental warming in the US, and proves diddly squat about global warming.
