- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:27 am to LSU2a
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:27 am to LSU2a
quote:
It's convenient that only the studies that agree with your particular preconception are correct and the other studies are disregarded. This reeks of confirmation bias.
Of course. They can't process information without first filtering it through their worldview.
2
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
They won't ask any actual people that are in the field. It's why you don't see actual climate scientists debating people like "tuck tuck". He gets bill nye and asks him impossible to answer questions and they bicker back and forth and never get anywhere.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 7:55 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They can't process information without first filtering it through their worldview.
This is very uncommon for humans.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 8:03 am to the808bass
It's obviously a common trait in many people.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be ridiculed at every opportunity.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be ridiculed at every opportunity.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 8:05 am to olddawg26
It's two opposing sides that largely don't have a clue what the hell they're talking about and have fallen back to absolutist views. Pointing and laughing at them all is easily the most productive use of time on this topic.
This isn't unique, either.
This isn't unique, either.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 8:36 am to RobbBobb
quote:What the actual frick do you mean "200 miles away"? Away from what? The "little red area labeled record heat" is easily half a million square miles. It's covering over half of the DRC for Christ's sake!
See that little red area labeled 'record heat'? Wanna know something? Every data point in there is guesswork. Some of the closest measuring devices are 200 miles away.
Also:
(If you think about it carefully, this image also explains why the second map you're about to post doesn't prove what you think it proves. But you won't, so you will.)
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 8:38 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 10:48 am to Iosh
quote:
(If you think about it carefully, this image also explains why the second map you're about to post doesn't prove what you think it proves. But you won't, so you will.)
Maybe youre just not bright enough to understand? The adjustments were made TO THE HISTORICAL record. They have no recorded temps in that area from 100 years ago
You cant just show me a map of where the stations are today and claim there is no bias. Because the numbers they plugged in were for that area prior to stations existing. And guess what? They plugged in cooler numbers way back when. So now we have Record Heat. What a Surprise!!
Yet right next door, where monitoring devices have been for 100 years, its much cooler than normal? And its not like they are at a different latitude. It's like Alabama to Texas. No one is gonna believe that Alabama is having record heat, while Texas is showing a cooling trend
Its a rigged system. And you keep falling for it
You simply cannot find an area that has Record Warming, without that data having been adjusted. Its just not happening
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:16 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be ridiculed at every opportunity.
You are spectacularly ignorant
When Algore and others started this mess, they claimed within a decade
a) Sea levels were rising at alarming rate. A 20 foot increase was expected
b) Hurricanes will increase and be more powerful
c) The Sahel, south of the Sahara desert, is drying up.
, No. In fact, with the increased CO2, the region gained more fauna (using satellite data) than any other area d) The Himalayan glaciers would be gone before 2035.
Yeah, the IPCC has already said that one is unfounded e) The hockey stick temp rise.
Every computer model on the planet got that one wrong. We actually pausing f) My personal favorite tho, is that gas will be over $9 a gallon today.
g) 100 million people per year will be starving to death.
h) And in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.
The believers are the ones that should be ridiculed. They are exactly like the DIMS on election night. They just cant wrap their head around what they thought would happen, Didn't happen. And that now most of the country doesn't agree with them
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:16 am to RobbBobb
quote:Where's your evidence they "plugged in" any numbers? The entire point is "look, they claimed record heat here but in this other graph it's blank!" But the other graph is anomalies, meaning if there isn't enough data during the baseline period (for instance, if the weather station is very young) it won't validate.
You cant just show me a map of where the stations are today and claim there is no bias. Because the numbers they plugged in were for that area prior to stations existing.
That doesn't mean the first map's showing of "record heat" is wrong or fake or whatever, that just means it's not as significant as it would be in a place like the US because the data only goes back a few decades.
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 11:18 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:19 am to RobbBobb
quote:
You are spectacularly ignorant
When Algore
Stopped reading right there. I don't know what an Algore is, but I care less about their opinions on this than yours.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:22 am to Iosh
I think this speaks for itself
Notice how much hotter the 1930s were without the adjustments?
Notice how much hotter the 1930s were without the adjustments?
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:28 am to RobbBobb
quote:Why are we switching to the US now? I thought we were talking about Central Africa? If you want to talk about the US there's some pretty well-documented historical reasons for adjusting the US temperature record. Most significant being our Weather Service changed the time of observation LINK (Trigger warning: this is a blog post, but from a skeptic website, and written by an actual scientist)
Notice how much hotter the 1930s were without the adjustments?
quote:Obviously if your dataset starts with predominantly afternoon observations and ends with predominantly morning observations then the past is going to look warmer than it really was. This is why adjustments are made. Treating all adjustments as inherently illegitimate is the refuge of people too lazy / stupid / politically biased to read the literature explaining why this is done and laying out their algorithms for others to replicate and criticize. But no one actually does this they just superimpose graphs and go "hah! fraud proven!"
Until the late 1950s the majority of stations in the U.S. record recorded temperatures in the late afternoon, generally between 5 and 7 PM. However, volunteer temperature observers were also asked to take precipitation measurements from rain gauges, and starting around 1960 the U.S. Weather Service requested that observers start taking their measurements in the morning (between 7 and 9 AM), as that would minimize the amount of evaporation from rain gauges and result in more accurate precipitation measurements. Between 1960 and today, the majority of stations switched from a late afternoon to an early morning observation time, resulting a systemic change (and resulting bias) in temperature observations.
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 11:29 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:28 am to Iosh
quote:Thanks. And I won't shite on you for not even reading the Sailer post I linked, because it's pretty clear from your terse dismissal of the concerns you didn't.
I'm not gonna shite on you too hard for not reading it since it's not like I just linked some four-paragraph article but you should at least skim it.
BTW, those graphs you didn't look at weren't generated from "Camp of the Saints bullshite", they were representations of the most recent UN population projections, which factored in all of the wishful thinking about industrialization and its hypothetical reduced birthrates (which seems to work great everywhere but in Africa, but hey, here's hoping).
In the meantime, let's not abandon our belief that every person in the world should be allowed, or better still encouraged, to move wherever else in the world they want to, because muh libertarianism.
Or as the UN itself puts it:
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:32 am to Iosh
quote:
Where's your evidence they "plugged in" any numbers?
Here is Forbes and Accuweather making the exact same charges
LINK
quote:
Smith and D'Aleo revealed there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database. National Data Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it evolved to a system of global grid boxes.
quote:
NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of miles away.
Hello Africa?
LINK
quote:
If you believe that this is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
quote:
These corrections are not just one-time affairs, either. As time goes by, older temperature readings are systematically and repeatedly made cooler, and then cooler still, and then cooler still, while more recent temperature readings are made warmer, and then warmer still, and then warmer still.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:33 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I don't know what an Algore is
Why am I not surprised
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:36 am to RobbBobb
quote:The Accuweather story contains excerpts from a blog post that no longer exists; the link is dead so I can't evaluate the veracity of the "evidence" being discussed. And the Heartland shill is committing the same fallacy you are, assuming that any adjustments to the temperature record are inherently wrong without bothering to examine or evaluate whether there are good reasons for them (there are).
Here is Forbes and Accuweather making the exact same charges
If you want to make the case that temperature records should never be adjusted for any reason, go right ahead. But you should keep in mind my graph from the first page. Earth's surface is 70% ocean so swapping homogenized data for raw data would not be a great trade for a global warming skeptic.
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 11:39 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:37 am to Iosh
quote:
Obviously if your dataset starts with predominantly afternoon observations and ends with predominantly morning observations then the past is going to look warmer than it really was.
Oh come on!
If you don't like your results, you just change the control group, right?
What the hell stopped them from just continuing the afternoon practice? Oh that's right, there would be no reason to adjust their data
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:38 am to RobbBobb
quote:Because they wanted more accurate readings from rain gauges. The reasoning is literally in the paragraph I quoted.
What the hell stopped them from just continuing the afternoon practice?
Posted on 7/7/17 at 11:44 am to RobbBobb
Here's a very simple graph from another actual climate scientist showing what adjustments do to the global temperature record. None of this land-only, US-only, look-at-this-specific-place-in-Zambia bullshite cherry picking that you and your links are engaging in. LINK
The land temperatures tend to be adjusted upward, but the ocean temperatures are adjusted downward. Ocean wins. Insisting that raw data trumps adjusted data means you add two tenths of a degree to the century-scale warming trend.
Now me personally, I think this would be a terrible idea. Obviously we need to adjust the ocean temperatures because measuring the temperature of water from a bucket and the temperature of water in a ship's engine room introduces a huge warming bias that needs to be corrected! But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you adjust for warm biases, you also have to adjust for cool biases like the change in observation time.
The land temperatures tend to be adjusted upward, but the ocean temperatures are adjusted downward. Ocean wins. Insisting that raw data trumps adjusted data means you add two tenths of a degree to the century-scale warming trend.
Now me personally, I think this would be a terrible idea. Obviously we need to adjust the ocean temperatures because measuring the temperature of water from a bucket and the temperature of water in a ship's engine room introduces a huge warming bias that needs to be corrected! But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you adjust for warm biases, you also have to adjust for cool biases like the change in observation time.
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 12:11 pm
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News