Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Cow Poke]

it really isn't. But it IS amazingly easy to twist people's arms and well....

In the sense that they use it to serve their needs. So, yeah, it IS!

[Teallaura]

Another science denier, I see. No seer, the science shows that we are the cause, and that only we can stop it.

See? THIS is why we can't have nice things!

I SPECIFICALLY STATED that I am convinced that science as a methodology is a sound means of making determinations. I DO NOT subscribe to the idea that any human being is SO trustworthy and SO wise that they will ALWAYS be correct. This means that NO, I don't take every pronouncement from <insert Dolby record here> SCIENCE! </Dolby record> as Gospel. Show your (science) work!

Denier = 'doesn't have a real case so making an ad hominem fallacy'.

[Teallaura]

In the sense that they use it to serve their needs. So, yeah, it IS!

Using duress =/= 'loyal' servant.

[Mountain Man]

As I like to say, science doesn't lie, but scientists do!

[firstfloor]

And in case you're wondering, we're not talking about minor adjustments ...

[Cow Poke]

Using duress =/= 'loyal' servant.

Nobody SAID "loyal" servant. Sparko, is this YOU!?!?!?!

[Teallaura]

Ah yes - the old 'but they changed the data'.

Let me try to help unveil the 'mystery of the changed data' which gives rise to so many of the pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories related to climate science.

The four major adjustments to the US temperature data are:

1) Quality control on the Raw data itself

2) Time of observation bias

3) Pairwise homogenization

4) infilling of missing station months

Time of observation Bias and Homogenization are the chief offenders in the global conspiracy/fake science crowd. Why? Because together they account for about .45 degree C of the almost 2 degree C rise from 1960 to the present seen in the US data.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38737[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38738[/ATTACH]

** see explanation below

(This is US data, not global data. It is helpful to understand that - relative to GLOBAL temperature rise - over the period around 1955 to 1975 and affecting the eastern continental US, there was a change in the Atlantic circulation that contributed somewhere between .25 and .5 degree C of COOLING in the US average during that period, thus the restoration to normal circulation accounts for another < .5 degree of the 2 degree rise. It and other factors account for the somewhat flat period of temperature growth we see in and around that time)

The most significant of the adjustments is Time of Observation Bias (TOBS). It contributes about .25 C to that same rise. With homogenization adding in another .2C

Where do these come from? Time of Observation Bias comes from a change over time in WHEN the high and low readings for the day were taken - with the previous method producing slightly WARMER*** average temperatures than the current measurements. This means that adjusting for TOBS makes older temperatures look warmer than they were relative to current methods. the second is the homogenization which includes a large number of algorithms designed to remove detectable biases (urban heat island, site changes from inner cities/towns to isolated areas like airports etc) One of the large of these was due to changeover in the types of housing of the instruments and the type of thermometer used. These changes almost universally introduced positive biases into the older data. And thus make modern termperatures look cooler than they would be if taken using older equipent or at the same sites as the older measurements.

IOW, changes in measurement methods and equipment have revealed that our older temperature data is biased slightly warmer relative to what would have been recorded by modern equipment and siting practices. And so, in order to understand what is happening to the climate, those net positive biases need to be removed from the older data.

None of this is arbitrary, and it is all supported by sound research. We can look directly at what happens to temperature data taken with the equipment and practices used at the historical time of measurement and compare that to what happens using the current standards. That is, we can look at what data is recorded by older equipment using older siting practices and compare that directly to readings taken at the same site using modern equipment and practices. This defines the bias. And these sources are the primary contributors to the downward adjustment of older data which reveal a hidden 25% of the actual warming in the US*.

And the less scientifically minded need to understand it that if we could go back in time and use modern equipment and siting methods, we would see the same temperature delta over time as is shown by the adjusted data. IOW, after adjustment, the data is much closer to the REAL temperature change seen in the continental US than the raw data itself. And that is born out by looking at other independent indicators of temperature rise - such as the extent of the frost free season, rises in CO2 over time, arctic sea ice extent, sea level rise and so on.

For more thorough treatment of the issues see:

https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...l-etal1986.pdf

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...e-etal2003.pdf


Jim

*it is critical that we also understand this is US data, not necessarily global data - that distinction also often gets lost by those less well versed in the actual data and science

** these deltas are based on order of application. RCed, TOBS, HOM, infilled So the deltas are QCED-RAW, then TOBS-QCED, then HOM-TOBS, then infilled - HOM. The cumulative total is primarily in TOBS and HOM, and together they contribute about .45C to the observed 2C rise from 1960 to present in the US temperature data.

*** Sanity check: siting changes, temperature housing construction and paint, etc almost universally are aimed at removing artificial HEATING sources that increase the recorded AIR temperature. So yes it makes sense that modern readings would appear cooler than older ones.

Er, yeah - so basically, it's weighted data. And the raw data doesn't show the same trend. That's... problematic at the very least. And part of the weighting is to correct long standing issues...



I come from the social science side - we deal with weighted data constantly. Polling in the modern form is impossible without it - and it has a very big, very bad weakness. Remember 2016? Polls showing Clinton with a good lead? A large part of that were old expectations not being played out because the electorate had shifted. Granted, climate doesn't deliberately muck up your study the way humans do (why anyone thinks 'hard' science is tougher when nothing they study tries to 'help', I'll never know! ) but you (general) can't stick your thumb on the scale without risking entering your own bias into what you're trying to make into good data. Doing this repeatedly - well, statistics aren't on your side....

[Teallaura]

'Science' is their loyal servant.

*emphasis mine

Nobody SAID "loyal" servant. Sparko, is this YOU!?!?!?!

[Teallaura]

Is this Fallacy Day and no one told me?

[Sparko]

Nobody SAID "loyal" servant. Sparko, is this YOU!?!?!?!

Nope. It was that crazy cat lady again.

[Teallaura]

'Science' is their loyal servant.

Nope. It was that crazy cat lady again.

Stupid pirate...


C'mere!

[Sparko]

Stupid pirate...


C'mere!

You still haven't taken down your Christmas Tree avatar!

[Teallaura]

You still haven't taken down your Christmas Tree avatar!

Christmas is coming - so I'm told...

[Sparko]

Christmas is coming - so I'm told...

I hear you can always put your Christmas Avatar back up then.

[Teallaura]

I hear you can always put your Christmas Avatar back up then.

What? And risk being late?