Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Mountain Man]

"Weather is not climate! Weather is not climate! Weather is not cli-- wait, what do you mean it's really hot today? Well then, that totally proves global warming!"

[Teallaura]

"Weather is not climate! Weather is not climate! Weather is not cli-- wait, what do you mean it's really hot today? Well then, that totally proves global warming!"

[Cow Poke]

*emphasis mine

Ya know, you can be a REAL pain in the butt!

[Teallaura]

Ya know, you can be a REAL pain in the butt!

Yes, I am aware...

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I am aware...

How devious and unfair to trap me with my very own words!

[Teallaura]

How devious and unfair to trap me with my very own words!

Well, what else is a rope for? Shouldn't leave it sitting around like that...

[firstfloor]

‘Science’ is more reliable, more trustworthy, and more valuable than God. It asks for nothing in return. It has no feelings, nor ambition. It does not care whether you use it or not, value it or not. It is a door to many wonders and as many curses. Happily, fools fear the power of science and shun the knowledge it bestows on the righteous.

[rogue06]

Science is a thing - it's a concept more than anything else. It CAN'T make or keep promises - so no, there's nothing to 'believe in'.

That is pretty much what I try to explain when someone asks if I "believe" in evolution. I don't believe in it but rather accept the evidence for it.

[Teallaura]

‘Science’ is more reliable, more trustworthy, and more valuable than God. It asks for nothing in return. It has no feelings, nor ambition. It does not care whether you use it or not, value it or not. It is a door to many wonders and as many curses. Happily, fools fear the power of science and shun the knowledge it bestows on the righteous.

And it gives nothing - it's worthless without human beings who are never anywhere near as reliable, trustworthy, let alone as valuable as God!

[rogue06]

Well, what else is a rope for? Shouldn't leave it sitting around like that...

A Cow Poke without a rope is like a politician without a bucketful of lies. They're tools of the trade.

[Cow Poke]

A Cow Poke without a rope is like a politician without a bucketful of lies. They're tools of the trade.

[Mountain Man]

‘Science’ is more reliable, more trustworthy, and more valuable than God. It asks for nothing in return. It has no feelings, nor ambition. It does not care whether you use it or not, value it or not. It is a door to many wonders and as many curses. Happily, fools fear the power of science and shun the knowledge it bestows on the righteous.

When you're trolling, it's advisable not to vigorously splash the water, or you'll scare the fish away.

[Sparko]

‘Science’ is more reliable, more trustworthy, and more valuable than God. It asks for nothing in return. It has no feelings, nor ambition. It does not care whether you use it or not, value it or not. It is a door to many wonders and as many curses. Happily, fools fear the power of science and shun the knowledge it bestows on the righteous.

Like the Nazi science experiments on Jews and the disabled.

[oxmixmudd]

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...

No, it is corrected data. There is a big difference. And the raw data does show the same trend, but not the same magnitude.

When an instrument has a bias, we apply a correction. For example, if a CCD imager has a certain residual image due to variance in current flow through the device, we take a dark image (an image with no light on the CCD) and we SUBTRACT that image from any image we take with the CCD. This gives us a more accurate image by compensating for known defects in the imager. Likewise, if a speedometer reads +4% over the range 0 to 90mph, we multiply the value given by the speedometer by .96153 to get the actual speed.

Notice that the corrections are allowing us to see what was actually happening at the time. They are not making the data be what we want. That is a difference between valid science and pseudo-science. The procedures, instrumentation, sites etc have been studied and systemic biases uncovered. The biases are then corrected for to give a value much closer to what the actual conditions were at the time of measurement.

Weighted data is something very different. But I don't need to explain that to explain your error. There are known biases in the old temperature data. Those biases tend to make them read a higher temperature than would be read by modern equipment (read that as equipment without the associated bias). So to compare readings from the two sets of data, one must subtract out the known bias from the data containing the bias. When one does that, the older temperatures measured the old way reflect values that are much closer to the actual values they were trying to measure and which can be reliably compared to the modern data.

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....

But you clearly don't understand the difference between weighted data and corrected data. For example, the TOBS adjustment I am talking about is not a weight, it is a correction. Likewise, if a thermometer was moved from a site that due to urban heat island trended 2 degrees warmer than the sight is was moved to, the data itself is also corrected for that shift over time. Homogenization is also a bias removal technique, were sites that tend to give biased readings are adjusted based on readings from areas around it (this has to be done carefully, a thermometer in a valley legitimately gives warmer readings that the 10 thermometers around it that are located in the hills above the valley).

But again, in summary, the majority (I can't guarantee all) of what we are talking about, and certainly the most significant contributors to the adjustments made, are not weights. They are know bias corrections.

Jim

[rogue06]

Like the Nazi science experiments on Jews and the disabled.

Or those conducted by Unit 731.

Or the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment (which, bad as it was, was minor compared to the Guatemala syphilis experiment) and Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study.