Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Warming?
Cooling?
Until a methodology is devised which provides sampling at an appropriate unit of discretisation - both in terms of position and time - which can subsequently be applied retrospectively over a (statistically) significant period of history - and from which an appropriate historic 'mean surface temperature' be determined - there can be no adequate means of determining 'global surface temperature' and whether it is rising or falling.
Cooling?
Until a methodology is devised which provides sampling at an appropriate unit of discretisation - both in terms of position and time - which can subsequently be applied retrospectively over a (statistically) significant period of history - and from which an appropriate historic 'mean surface temperature' be determined - there can be no adequate means of determining 'global surface temperature' and whether it is rising or falling.
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
(editied to add - nearly 20K comments on the article)!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
(editied to add - nearly 20K comments on the article)!
Edited by Brother D on Monday 9th February 20:01
Brother D said:
In the Science thread? Nah, surely not.Pop over to the politics thread ... mentioned there in passing where it probably belongs these days.
As I recall it has been in here extensively, on and off, since the very early days.
Edited by LongQ on Monday 9th February 20:06
Brother D said:
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet?
As a general rule, most of us who're skeptical have given up posting things like that because the usual suspects come along and refuse to accept anything that's not been pal reviewed in one of their select list of friendly journals.Essentially, the glaciers could start creeping down across the Thames estuary but, if Nature or Science didn't print anything about it, then it wouldn't be happening. And they'd only print anything that found a way to blame it on CO2
Peer review? In the first instance you need something that looks even superficially like serious analysis for peer review to become remotely relevent. The Paul Homewood blog posts that Christohper Booker is basing his 'greatest science scandal ever' on could be knocked up in a lunch-break.
plunker said:
Peer review? In the first instance you need something that looks even superficially like serious analysis for peer review to become remotely relevent. The Paul Homewood blog posts that Christohper Booker is basing his 'greatest science scandal ever' on could be knocked up in a lunch-break.
You could knock up the infamous hockey stick in a lunch break, and it probably was.The hyperbole:
Christopher Booker said:
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
The reality:Your point being?
In case you have trouble actually reading the graphs you post, that shows approximately 0.25 degrees added to overall warming by the adjustments, with a total warming in the raw data of 1 degree - so adjustments amount to 25% of the unadjusted warming.
A 25% increase counts as "much more than" in my book, if not yours!
In case you have trouble actually reading the graphs you post, that shows approximately 0.25 degrees added to overall warming by the adjustments, with a total warming in the raw data of 1 degree - so adjustments amount to 25% of the unadjusted warming.
A 25% increase counts as "much more than" in my book, if not yours!
Variomatic said:
Your point being?
In case you have trouble actually reading the graphs you post, that shows approximately 0.25 degrees added to overall warming by the adjustments, with a total warming in the raw data of 1 degree - so adjustments amount to 25% of the unadjusted warming.
A 25% increase counts as "much more than" in my book, if not yours!
And that 0.25 in the early part of the record is what the 'entire panic ultimately rests' on is it?In case you have trouble actually reading the graphs you post, that shows approximately 0.25 degrees added to overall warming by the adjustments, with a total warming in the raw data of 1 degree - so adjustments amount to 25% of the unadjusted warming.
A 25% increase counts as "much more than" in my book, if not yours!
Again, the reality is that it's the late 20th century warming that is the claimed anthropogenic part and as you can see that part of the record isn't much affected by adjustments.
Another spoiler to the narrative is that the sea surface temp adjustments run the other way, more than cancelling out the land data adjustments:
Edited by plunker on Thursday 12th February 14:45
And the error bars? You are taking the piss if you think those figures are in any way accurate over that timescale. 'Global ocean temperatures' going back to 1880? Up until recently it was an occasional bloke with a bucket on a rope and a thermometer of unknown calibration at a few points on the globe if you were lucky. You are seriously deluded.
Come on, guys, don't let practical things like that worry you.
In Plunker World (©) all the errors in those +/- 2 degree or so readings of thermometets that wete calibrated to within a degree or so when mafe, thrn usually never checked, are absolutely guaranteed to average out to zero, allowing you to obtain precision of 1/100th degree, let alone 1/2!
Of course, anyone with any statistical or engineering training will know that's b
ks, but admitting it spoils the narrative
In Plunker World (©) all the errors in those +/- 2 degree or so readings of thermometets that wete calibrated to within a degree or so when mafe, thrn usually never checked, are absolutely guaranteed to average out to zero, allowing you to obtain precision of 1/100th degree, let alone 1/2!
Of course, anyone with any statistical or engineering training will know that's b
ks, but admitting it spoils the narrative Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff