Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Were or are there many teams drilling ice cores for data? who provided the data going back to 1880 and beyond? what is available is all there is so you can model it till the icebergs melt, it's all based on the same numbers and how they were arrived at is open to debate surely? We have seen evidence of differing data collection ranging from the inane to the questionable and nothing to suggest any of it was verified, calibrated or relevant. This is the problem, we are arguing over something totally intangible
Getragdogleg said:
This is where it all could start to get a bit wooly though, in my mind that should be a totally different location not an extension of an old one with a man made adjustment which no matter how clever has the potential to be wrong. The temp at the new station over time will show trends so use it as a new place.
That’s essentially the methodology the BEST project used when accounting for station moves etc. Many of the more vocal ‘skeptics’ loved the idea of their new independent analysis until it came out basically matching the existing results.hairykrishna said:
Getragdogleg said:
This is where it all could start to get a bit wooly though, in my mind that should be a totally different location not an extension of an old one with a man made adjustment which no matter how clever has the potential to be wrong. The temp at the new station over time will show trends so use it as a new place.
That’s essentially the methodology the BEST project used when accounting for station moves etc. Many of the more vocal ‘skeptics’ loved the idea of their new independent analysis until it came out basically matching the existing results.Getragdogleg said:
Before or after the warmists data was "corrected" for political bias ?
Unfortunately for BEST (who did do the best they could in the circumstances) a lot of the data was already "corrected" with no details retained of what the corrections had been. So say, for example, station X had moved to Y at some point. The data for X was then "corrected" as if it had been recorded at Y (you can't do it the other way or you'll have to correct every new measurement every single day).
But often, no reliable records were kept of the corrections applied, or the details of why they were applied or how they were calculated. So, when BEST splits those two records into two locations, they still have unspecified, undocumented, and untraceable "corrections" applied to station X. That makes its data unreliable.
So we've moved on from the allegations of the telegraph article? It's statements were about the raw vs adjusted record and were total nonsense. You are now on to claiming that the raw station data itself is no good.
Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
Come on, Hairy, keep up at the back.
Firstly, in case you hadn't noticed, it's in the nature of internet threads (including this one) to move on from one point to another. They'd make pretty boring reading after 297 pages if they didn't!
Secondly, the recent points aren't about systematic bias in the raw data, they're about how raw is raw. It's an established fact that much of the "raw" station data has been at least lightly par-boiled before use - bit like calling a frozen chip a "raw potato". It may be less cooked than Maccy D fries but it's not exactly what grew in the ground, is it?
Finally, Plunker ("your" side) has already done the "subject change" bit, at a point where the subject hadn't really changed and someone had simply asked about the lack of error bars in the measurements he'd posted. By doing so he effectively forced any subsequent tangent, so not our problem
Firstly, in case you hadn't noticed, it's in the nature of internet threads (including this one) to move on from one point to another. They'd make pretty boring reading after 297 pages if they didn't!
Secondly, the recent points aren't about systematic bias in the raw data, they're about how raw is raw. It's an established fact that much of the "raw" station data has been at least lightly par-boiled before use - bit like calling a frozen chip a "raw potato". It may be less cooked than Maccy D fries but it's not exactly what grew in the ground, is it?
Finally, Plunker ("your" side) has already done the "subject change" bit, at a point where the subject hadn't really changed and someone had simply asked about the lack of error bars in the measurements he'd posted. By doing so he effectively forced any subsequent tangent, so not our problem
hairykrishna said:
So we've moved on from the allegations of the telegraph article? It's statements were about the raw vs adjusted record and were total nonsense. You are now on to claiming that the raw station data itself is no good.
Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
Never mind what he can show - he's in the clear now. The raw data has had some quality control done on it so isn't the raw-est it could possibly be. It's an un-assailable fallback position.Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
Remember when all the whinging was about how not all the data was available? Now it is, they can reconstruct whatever trends they want and somehow the data's broken. Must be - doesn't match what they decided they want it to show. Filthy warmist adjustments must be responsible. Fund another group to run the numbers. They'll get the right answer. Bugger, they agree with those communists at the CRU. Must be secret undocumented changes in the raw data. It's the only logical answer.
plunker said:
hairykrishna said:
So we've moved on from the allegations of the telegraph article? It's statements were about the raw vs adjusted record and were total nonsense. You are now on to claiming that the raw station data itself is no good.
Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
Never mind what he can show - he's in the clear now. The raw data has had some quality control done on it so isn't the raw-est it could possibly be. It's an un-assailable fallback position.Do you have any evidence that the raw station data has a systematic bias?
The article alleged that many weather stations' record in Paraguay and other places had been changed/adjusted/corrected (whatever you wish to call it).
Do you have any evidence to say whether this did or did not happen?
Is there any detailed record as to why all those individual adjustments were made?
What happened to make climate scientists realise/decide that 100-year old records were now not correct?
and
Why do all the individual changes/adjustments/corrections now show that the climate was cooler in the past and warmer now?
The hyperbole v reality post that you made earlier contains a graph of Global Land Temperatures - before and after changes/adjustments/corrections - Although it did show some colder-earlier warmer-now changes to the record, globally this was not as dramatic as the records actually being discussed, perhaps that was when the subject began to change?
Silver Smudger said:
Are you all just scoring points, or do you have a point to make?
The article alleged that many weather stations' record in Paraguay and other places had been changed/adjusted/corrected (whatever you wish to call it).
Do you have any evidence to say whether this did or did not happen?
Is there any detailed record as to why all those individual adjustments were made?
What happened to make climate scientists realise/decide that 100-year old records were now not correct?
and
Why do all the individual changes/adjustments/corrections now show that the climate was cooler in the past and warmer now?
The hyperbole v reality post that you made earlier contains a graph of Global Land Temperatures - before and after changes/adjustments/corrections - Although it did show some colder-earlier warmer-now changes to the record, globally this was not as dramatic as the records actually being discussed, perhaps that was when the subject began to change?
The article alleged fraud. Adjustments used to make the warming trend look worse than it is or create a trend where none exists.The article alleged that many weather stations' record in Paraguay and other places had been changed/adjusted/corrected (whatever you wish to call it).
Do you have any evidence to say whether this did or did not happen?
Is there any detailed record as to why all those individual adjustments were made?
What happened to make climate scientists realise/decide that 100-year old records were now not correct?
and
Why do all the individual changes/adjustments/corrections now show that the climate was cooler in the past and warmer now?
The hyperbole v reality post that you made earlier contains a graph of Global Land Temperatures - before and after changes/adjustments/corrections - Although it did show some colder-earlier warmer-now changes to the record, globally this was not as dramatic as the records actually being discussed, perhaps that was when the subject began to change?
Yes, station data has been adjusted. The methodology of the adjustments and reasoning behind them is published by the people who publish the data. So is their code and the unadjusted data. Not all adjustments go the same way. Anyone who wants to can look.
The overall effect in the land data is a slight amplification of the warming trend. The overall effect in ocean data is a reduction in the warming trend. The net effect overall, given the ratio of land to ocean, is that the adjusted data suggest the earth has warmed less than the raw data makes it appear.
hairykrishna said:
No, the same as previously thought. The adjustments aren't new.
Well that contradicts what ol' mosher says. He is of the opinion/knowledge (when it comes to Best) that the algorithms (emphasis on the Al gore bit) do adjust previous values when more data is added. Something to do with the in-filling and spatial completion routines. sa_20v said:
The clue is in the shape of the craters. Massive 'tree rings' known as Yamal pucks that have imploded due to that newly discovered phenomenon....... 'The Hockey Stick'
sa_20v said:
Having read the article .... it seem not.Yet.
sa_20v said:
At risk of stating the obvious, if I recall correctly there are significant amounts of methane trapped in/under the permafrost in Siberia/the Arctic tundra as a result of peat bog decomposition etc. if the permafrost melts then the gasses can collect/bubble through to the atmosphere, I guess in this instance explosively. The potential issue is that it could cause a positive feedback effect - i.e. if the permafrost melts significantly this may happen more, possibly releasing large amounts methane into the atmosphere leading to increased atmospheric warming.Lotus 50 said:
sa_20v said:
At risk of stating the obvious, if I recall correctly there are significant amounts of methane trapped in/under the permafrost in Siberia/the Arctic tundra as a result of peat bog decomposition etc. if the permafrost melts then the gasses can collect/bubble through to the atmosphere, I guess in this instance explosively. The potential issue is that it could cause a positive feedback effect - i.e. if the permafrost melts significantly this may happen more, possibly releasing large amounts methane into the atmosphere leading to increased atmospheric warming.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff