On May 25, 7:20*am, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On May 19, 12:18*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:

Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. ...


It's pretty convenient for you to arbitrarily divide the data sets
into small enough pieces so that you don't perceive a trend, and then
declare that a trend can't be measured! *

Small enough pieces? If your specific method of temperature
determination can not even clearly detect a temperature increase of a
factor 2 or so, you've got to ask yourself some serious questions, but
first and foremost the question, why you would want to bother the
scientific community with this.

These papers have 'We've tried but we failed' written all over them,
and I don't know why you keep on plugging them as evidence if not
proof for the (1+z) temperature increase..

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to say in this
respect.

Thomas