I am familiar with both Curry's and Bstes' posts. I don't think Ze'ev read
those that I suggested. I strongly suggest that he read Victor Venema's
post and examine the third graph, that comparing ERSSTvd, ERSSTv3b, Buoy,
and CCI data over the previous twenty years.
Victor Venema wrote "In the mean time a recent article in Science Advances by
Zeke Hausfather and colleagues
<http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207> (2016) now shows
evidence that the updated dataset (ERSSTv4) is indeed better than the
previous version (ERSSTv3b). They do so by comparing the ERSST dataset,
which comes from a large number of data sources, with data that comes only
from only one source (buoys, satellites (CCl) or ARGO). These single-source
datasets are shorter, but without trend uncertainties due to the
combination of sources. The plot below shows that the ERSSTv4 update
improves the fit with the other datasets."
I want to emphasize that this fit with other data sets is for a time
interval with more precise data (as opposed to the pre-satellite era data,
for example), so the significant reduction in incongruities between these
data sets is, in my opinion, compelling evidence for accepting the proposed
homogenization technique.
Read for yourself.
And I stand by my criticisms of those relying on the Daily Mail for science
reporting or commentary. And I don't think my position on the Daily Mail,
taken with the numerous additional posts that I suggested, can be
characterized as smearing the source rather than the substance. The
substance is there for the reading.