Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
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 rovermorris999 said:
And how many data points to give a meaningful global average in 1880? Complete and utter nonsense but produce a shiny graph and the media lap it up. Loons.
Terrible isn't it. Check out the so-called sceptics lapping up Booker's ste. All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!
You can only look on in amazement at how easy it is really.
plunker said:
Terrible isn't it. Check out the so-called sceptics lapping up Booker's ste.
All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!
You can only look on in amazement at how easy it is really.
Huh? Again plunks we all have real jobs so can't spend our time spamming blogs - what are you talking about?te. All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!
You can only look on in amazement at how easy it is really.
Hang on a minute, I asked a perfectly relevant question, its not a thread de-rail its a question.
Was measurement back in 1880 as accurate as now ?
Do people make errors in reading and reporting measurements ?
Have the same measurement sites been used since 1880 ?
Has anything changed at the measurement sites since 1880 ?
Was measurement back in 1880 as accurate as now ?
Do people make errors in reading and reporting measurements ?
Have the same measurement sites been used since 1880 ?
Has anything changed at the measurement sites since 1880 ?
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Terrible isn't it. Check out the so-called sceptics lapping up Booker's ste.
All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!
You can only look on in amazement at how easy it is really.
Huh? Again plunks we all have real jobs so can't spend our time spamming blogs - what are you talking about?te. All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!
You can only look on in amazement at how easy it is really.
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
List me some of the "lots of reasons" rather than recoiling in indignation and assuming I wont listen because of an assumption you have made.
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
List me some of the "lots of reasons" rather than recoiling in indignation and assuming I wont listen because of an assumption you have made.
An example is stations get moved, say to higher ground - higher up is cooler so you need to account for that change in altitude. If you don't you've introduced a bias.
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
List me some of the "lots of reasons" rather than recoiling in indignation and assuming I wont listen because of an assumption you have made.
An example is stations get moved, say to higher ground - higher up is cooler so you need to account for that change in altitude. If you don't you've introduced a bias.
My position is that I feel the science is being made to fit the cause, and when we start to manipulate the date it sort of underlines this.
Also, older data can not be as accurate as now, just like in 100 years time our methods might well look primitive.
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
List me some of the "lots of reasons" rather than recoiling in indignation and assuming I wont listen because of an assumption you have made.
An example is stations get moved, say to higher ground - higher up is cooler so you need to account for that change in altitude. If you don't you've introduced a bias.
My position is that I feel the science is being made to fit the cause, and when we start to manipulate the date it sort of underlines this.
Also, older data can not be as accurate as now, just like in 100 years time our methods might well look primitive.
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Getragdogleg said:
plunker said:
Just then, the subject changed to measurement accuracy.
The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
Why adjust it ?The graphs are for comparing raw vs adjusted data - no error bars required for that.
If you are measuring temp then its the number you read that you are interested in not another number that you have obtained by some form of adjustment.
List me some of the "lots of reasons" rather than recoiling in indignation and assuming I wont listen because of an assumption you have made.
An example is stations get moved, say to higher ground - higher up is cooler so you need to account for that change in altitude. If you don't you've introduced a bias.
Getragdogleg said:
My position is that I feel the science is being made to fit the cause, and when we start to manipulate the date it sort of underlines this.
That's called confirmation bias 
To me it's just doing what's required when you got imperfect data with known biases.Getragdogleg said:
Also, older data can not be as accurate as now, just like in 100 years time our methods might well look primitive.
Undoubtedly and if you look for a global temps graph with error bars I'm sure you'll see they're bigger in the past.Edited by plunker on Thursday 12th February 17:36
PRTVR said:
Well that saved me some typing, also who tracks the adjustments and verifies for accuracy, along with is there an audit carried out on all locations to check they have not changed, if not do the numbers represent anything significant ?
Oh, Please, Sir, me Sir, I know this one, Sir!!!Generally there's little historical record of station or equipment changes. If you're lucky there might be a note in the station log (if they remembered) when a thermometer's changed or the Stevenson screen was repainted, but usually not. So they guess the adjustments based on "that jump in that record doesn't look right".
They then basically verify it by comparing the result to the expected warming for that area. If it agrees then it's good, if it doesn't then they re-adjust until it does. Note that if, say, a rural station is warming much slower than the nearest stations that happen to have become more urbanised over time. The rate at the rural location is clearly in error, so will be adjusted to track the towns.
It's such a reliable system that it's now mostly done by automatic algorithms in computers (who can't be wrong - everyone knows that), which will occasionally throw out absurd results that are included in the official record.
When such absurdities come to light, the faithful point out that "it's only one station, doesn't really matter" without addressing the problem that an algorithm that's going very wrong in a few cases is likely to be going more subtly wrong in a lot of others. And, seeing as they're talking hundredths of a degree in many cases, subtly wrong can really, really matter.
Whether the resulting numbers are meaningful or not is a matter of opinion.
Variomatic said:
When such absurdities come to light, the faithful point out that "it's only one station, doesn't really matter" without addressing the problem that an algorithm that's going very wrong in a few cases is likely to be going more subtly wrong in a lot of others. And, seeing as they're talking hundredths of a degree in many cases, subtly wrong can really, really matter.
Whether the resulting numbers are meaningful or not is a matter of opinion.
Unfortunately nobody has shown that it really really matters so you're left with making hand-wavey assumptions.Whether the resulting numbers are meaningful or not is a matter of opinion.
In recent years there's been quite a few independent auditors who have done their own reconstructions, written their own code etc, and they've all come out virtually the same as the series' produced by Nasa/CRU etc. Some will never stop alleging thumbs on scales though of course.
plunker said:
Unfortunately nobody has shown that it really really matters so you're left with making hand-wavey assumptions.
In recent years there's been quite a few independent auditors who have done their own reconstructions, written their own code etc, and they've all come out virtually the same as the series' produced by Nasa/CRU etc. Some will never stop alleging thumbs on scales though of course.
In case it slipped your notice, one of the things that came out of Climategate (I dislike that phrase, but....) was that they no longer have a lot of the raw data - why on earth would a scientist think of keeping their basic measurements? In recent years there's been quite a few independent auditors who have done their own reconstructions, written their own code etc, and they've all come out virtually the same as the series' produced by Nasa/CRU etc. Some will never stop alleging thumbs on scales though of course.
So all of those "independent confirmations" have had to use data already contaminated with unknown adjustments and it's hardly surprising they therefore confirm those adjustments.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff