Climate change: Milankovitch cycles, Ice ages, and Greenhouse Gases.

[TheLurch]

I think the articles I posted earlier do a pretty good job of putting a pin in that balloon. :)

As the saying goes, "If global warming continues at this rate, it won't be long before our ancestors freeze to death."

They actually don't. The Daily Caller one is almost completely devoid of scientific arguments, the only one coming from Judith Curry. All she does is question the use of one particular data set - she doesn't call into question the whole process of making adjustments. The Watts article has no scientific-based complaints whatsoever. All it does is complain about the outcome. It never gets into whether the processing or data choice was good or bad.

So, no, i have not seen any complaint with a scientific foundation. Just lots of complaints about what the results were, coming from people who simply don't like the results.

So, i'll reiterate my question: given the details of what was done, what are the scientific flaws with it?

[Littlejoe]

They actually don't. The Daily Caller one is almost completely devoid of scientific arguments, the only one coming from Judith Curry. All she does is question the use of one particular data set - she doesn't call into question the whole process of making adjustments. The Watts article has no scientific-based complaints whatsoever. All it does is complain about the outcome. It never gets into whether the processing or data choice was good or bad.

So, no, i have not seen any complaint with a scientific foundation. Just lots of complaints about what the results were, coming from people who simply don't like the results.

So, i'll reiterate my question: given the details of what was done, what are the scientific flaws with it?

Do you know why if the buoy data averaged 0.12 deg cooler why they shifted the avg temp UP?

Source: arstechnica.com

The researchers also developed an improved correction for systematic differences between buoy measurements and ship measurements by examining measurements made by ships while they were near buoys. The buoy measurements averaged 0.12 degrees Celsius cooler, necessitating an adjustment, but the measurements are also higher quality and come with a smaller margin of error.
Because buoys are becoming more prevalent, the effects of these adjustments were stronger in recent years, bringing average temperatures up a tick compared to years previous.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sea of red]

Like I said, you can prove anything with "adjusted" data, although it's rather like painting a target around an arrow and claiming you got a bullseye.

Look, you guys can run around like Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling if that's what floats your boat. Meanwhile, I'll continue to sleep soundly knowing that the Earth will be perfectly habitable for next few million years.

Like I said before, the fact that you linked to a neoconservative echo chamber with a track record of getting almost all of it's science wrong, speaks pretty well for itself. You obviously get all of your education from far-right rags that agree with what you want to believe, rather than relying on an established scientific body. If you don't know what you're talking about then that's fine - nobody can be an expert in everything. But stay out of serious discussion if that's the case, instead of trying to play the kind of games you play in your discussions on politics.

Otherwise you just come across as an scientifically illiterate ideologue.

[Jichard]

Like I said before, the fact that you linked to a neoconservative echo chamber with a track record of getting almost all of it's science wrong, speaks pretty well for itself. You obviously get all of your education from far-right rags that agree with what you want to believe, rather than relying on an established scientific body. If you don't know what you're talking about then that's fine - nobody can be an expert in everything. But stay out of serious discussion if that's the case, instead of trying to play the kind of games you play in your discussions on politics.

Otherwise you just come across as an scientifically illiterate ideologue.

Well said.

[Jichard]

Those articles were posted two-months ago. Not exactly "old and worn out", unless you're referring to the claim that global warming is "settled science" despite having no real evidence to support it.

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred and that most of the recent global warming has been anthropogenic. Hence the scientific consensus on the topic.

So: Do you accept that global warming has occurred and that most of the recent global warming (say, from the middle of the 20th century to now) has been anthropogenic?

[Littlejoe]

Do you know why if the buoy data averaged 0.12 deg cooler why they shifted the avg temp UP?

Source: arstechnica.com

The researchers also developed an improved correction for systematic differences between buoy measurements and ship measurements by examining measurements made by ships while they were near buoys. The buoy measurements averaged 0.12 degrees Celsius cooler, necessitating an adjustment, but the measurements are also higher quality and come with a smaller margin of error.
Because buoys are becoming more prevalent, the effects of these adjustments were stronger in recent years, bringing average temperatures up a tick compared to years previous.

© Copyright Original Source

Anyone? This looks like a flaw to the casual observer.

[Jichard]

Do you know why if the buoy data averaged 0.12 deg cooler why they shifted the avg temp UP?

Source: arstechnica.com

The researchers also developed an improved correction for systematic differences between buoy measurements and ship measurements by examining measurements made by ships while they were near buoys. The buoy measurements averaged 0.12 degrees Celsius cooler, necessitating an adjustment, but the measurements are also higher quality and come with a smaller margin of error.
Because buoys are becoming more prevalent, the effects of these adjustments were stronger in recent years, bringing average temperatures up a tick compared to years previous.

© Copyright Original Source

The buoy temps were lower than the corresponding ship temperatures. So they adjusted the buoys up to match the temps:

"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full


"Supplementary Material for Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...C1/Karl-SM.pdf

"Sea Surface Temperature

[Littlejoe]

The buoy temps were lower than the corresponding ship temperatures. So they adjusted the buoys up to match the temps:

"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

"Supplementary Material for Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...C1/Karl-SM.pdf

"Sea Surface Temperature

Thanks Jichard. I understand what they did, why they did it makes no sense. If the buoys are more accurate, are more reliable, and with better-known instrumentation characteristics, then changing the buoy data to match the less reliable ship data by adjusting it up, would be the wrong way to go. The adjustment should go to the more accurate data, so then the adjustment should have been to adj the ship data down.

[TheLurch]

Thanks Jichard. I understand what they did, why they did it makes no sense. If the buoys are more accurate, are more reliable, and with better-known instrumentation characteristics, then changing the buoy data to match the less reliable ship data by adjusting it up, would be the wrong way to go. The adjustment should go to the more accurate data, so then the adjustment should have been to adj the ship data down.

The thing is, it really doesn't matter. You could do it either way, and the end result would be the same.

[Littlejoe]

The thing is, it really doesn't matter. You could do it either way, and the end result would be the same.

No, if the avg. buoy data ran 0.12C degrees cooler than the ship data, then the avg. overall temp would go down not up....right?

[TheLurch]

No, if the avg. buoy data ran 0.12C degrees cooler than the ship data, then the avg. overall temp would go down not up....right?

No, you normalize everything. You bring them both into alignment with each other, and then bring the combined record into alignment with the pre-buoy historic record.

[Jichard]

Thanks Jichard. I understand what they did, why they did it makes no sense. If the buoys are more accurate, are more reliable, and with better-known instrumentation characteristics, then changing the buoy data to match the less reliable ship data by adjusting it up, would be the wrong way to go. The adjustment should go to the more accurate data, so then the adjustment should have been to adj the ship data down.

Becuase you're comparing more recent data to past data. The more recent data involves more buoys, while the past data involves more ships than buoys. So if you're going to compare recent temperatures to past temperatures to see if there is some "hiatus", then you need to correct for that discrepancy by matching the buoy data to the ship data. And since there are arent as many buoys in the past data, you're not going to be able to match current ship data to past buoy data. You instead must match current buoy data to past ship data.