Remember me
▼ Content

Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
28-01-2016 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 02:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?
29-01-2016 04:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-01-2016 04:05
29-01-2016 10:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Thanks for finally clarifying what you mean. You really need to learn to express yourself better rather than abusing others for their inability to decipher your cryptic utterances. Instead of writing the very vague "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency," you could have written "There is no consistent distribution of thermometers around the world," for example, if that's what you meant. Science requires precision of language.

Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this. And yes, they are fully aware that this affects the accuracy of their results. However, it is quite possible to estimate the errors involved using statistical methods and these are expressed as error ranges in their final results. This comes out at about 0.1 C for recent measurements and about 0.2 C for older measurements, so it is perfectly possible to detect the overall trend of about a 1 C rise in temperature over that period.
29-01-2016 13:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.


..


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 13:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.
29-01-2016 14:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote: No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

All data presented on Global Warming is either fudged or completely invalid, making lies out of all the assertions and resulting conclusions.

The fact that you don't understand that presenting fudged or invalid data is lying lends to your overall gullibility that makes you believe whatever you are told to believe.

Why the need for others to be duped like you? Does your misery need company?

Surface Detail wrote:As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:


The completely bogus nature of the data you reference has been explained to you. It is both woefully inadequate in addition to being fudged.

I am not going to tell you that you can't or shouldn't believe every WACKY thing you are told. I can only tell you why I'm not going to be duped by the same scam that sucked you in.

Remember, the mere act of a government agency with a political agenda posting something on the internet does not make the information unbiased and accurate. You are free to believe, and even insist, that it does and I won't try to take that away from you if you do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 14:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
All data presented on Global Warming is either fudged or completely invalid...

Now that's what I call real dogma! No reasoning, no evidence, just a flat refusal to consider any actual data relating to the issue. What you might call a religious attitude.
29-01-2016 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Thanks for finally clarifying what you mean. You really need to learn to express yourself better rather than abusing others for their inability to decipher your cryptic utterances. Instead of writing the very vague "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency," you could have written "There is no consistent distribution of thermometers around the world," for example, if that's what you meant. Science requires precision of language.

Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this. And yes, they are fully aware that this affects the accuracy of their results. However, it is quite possible to estimate the errors involved using statistical methods and these are expressed as error ranges in their final results. This comes out at about 0.1 C for recent measurements and about 0.2 C for older measurements, so it is perfectly possible to detect the overall trend of about a 1 C rise in temperature over that period.


Weighting algorithms is fabrication of data. There is no other word for it.

If you take one measurement (because that's the only thermometer you own), and give it a weight of 100%, that doesn't make the global temperature the same as your thermometer. No thermometer or combination of thermometers is devoid of this problem.

No weighting algorithm can substitute for data. It is fabricating it.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.


..

I wouldn't even call lit fudged data. Fudged data is adjusting a reading to comply with a predetermined conclusion. This is simply making data up where there is none measured. This is fabrication of data outright using some 'magick' algorithm.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote: Now that's what I call real dogma!

This is a good example of your self-delusion in this area. It seems to be par for the course.

I'm not going to be bullied into falling for the same scam that sucked you in.

Go learn what constitutes valid and sufficient data and try only accepting that. It's just a recommendation.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 21:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Into the Night wrote: I wouldn't even call lit fudged data. Fudged data is adjusting a reading to comply with a predetermined conclusion. This is simply making data up where there is none measured. This is fabrication of data outright using some 'magick' algorithm.

Yes. I tend to use the term "fudged" to encompass all invalid data but you are correct, there are four categories of invalid datasets: 1) insufficient, 2) fudged, 3) fabricated and 4) inaccurate (unacceptable margin of error).

Good catch. Keep me honest.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 21:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?
29-01-2016 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
All data presented on Global Warming is either fudged or completely invalid...

Now that's what I call real dogma! No reasoning, no evidence, just a flat refusal to consider any actual data relating to the issue. What you might call a religious attitude.

You are trying to prove too much. IBdaMann has already stated the reasons for coming to this conclusion and those reasons are sound. You are completely ignoring them.

I will add another:
All Global Warming supporters commit this fallacy on a fairly regular basis. It is, after all, the only way they can discard the use of a physical law when convenient to do so, present some claim that violates it, then claim it wasn't broken.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 22:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close

Into the Night wrote:
You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did.

You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

That's simply because you utterly fail to comprehend what is being said to you. I suspect deafness brought on by your Religion.

I'm certainly failing to comprehend what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by: "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency."? Do you think it is impossible to make thermometers that consistently give the same reading for the same temperature?

You really do not comprehend. That's because you are trying to read some absurdity into what I said. Your Religion I suppose.

Consistency in the density of coverage is the problem. There are lots of thermometers, but they are not consistently placed. There are huge sections where there is no thermometer at all. There are others where there are lots of thermometers.

Since you bring up the consistency of thermometer manufacture, that is quite true that consistency in the thermometer itself can be a factor.

Thermometers must be calibrated to some standard outside of the thermometer. That standard is freezing and boiling water under carefully controlled conditions. Most thermometers are calibrated against a such a reference thermometer to varying degrees of precision. Some thermometer manufactures are sloppier than others.

Fortunately for the weather service and for scientists working the lab, thermometers that they use are quite precise. That's also what makes them more expensive.

If you include something other than a meteorological or scientific quality thermometer reading in the composite data, you necessarily reduce the precision of that data.

If the thermometers are not equally spaced around the world at a certain density of coverage, you will be introducing bias in the composite data.

There is no such instrumentation placed or has ever been placed. Neither is it practical on any scale to do so. As a result, any composite data from the readings you do have and summarized as if you had consistent coverage is necessarily manufacturing data.

Thanks for finally clarifying what you mean. You really need to learn to express yourself better rather than abusing others for their inability to decipher your cryptic utterances. Instead of writing the very vague "There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency," you could have written "There is no consistent distribution of thermometers around the world," for example, if that's what you meant. Science requires precision of language.

Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this. And yes, they are fully aware that this affects the accuracy of their results. However, it is quite possible to estimate the errors involved using statistical methods and these are expressed as error ranges in their final results. This comes out at about 0.1 C for recent measurements and about 0.2 C for older measurements, so it is perfectly possible to detect the overall trend of about a 1 C rise in temperature over that period.


Weighting algorithms is fabrication of data. There is no other word for it.

If you take one measurement (because that's the only thermometer you own), and give it a weight of 100%, that doesn't make the global temperature the same as your thermometer. No thermometer or combination of thermometers is devoid of this problem.

No weighting algorithm can substitute for data. It is fabricating it.

You really have no clue, do you? Science isn't about black and white, perfectly correct or completely wrong. It's about probabilities and approximations.

If I had one thermometer on Earth, and it showed a rise in temperature over a period of time, then I could reasonably conclude that the global temperature is more likely to be rising than falling, though with a low level of confidence. The more thermometers I have, and the better distributed they are, the more confidence I can have in my findings. Of course, I can never be absolutely certain, but science never is certain.

Assigning weightings to data in order to compensate for an uneven distribution of data is perfectly normal practice. There's nothing sinister or unscientific about it so long as the inherent errors are quantified. For heavens sake, read a book on the topic and educate yourself a little!
29-01-2016 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I wouldn't even call lit fudged data. Fudged data is adjusting a reading to comply with a predetermined conclusion. This is simply making data up where there is none measured. This is fabrication of data outright using some 'magick' algorithm.

Yes. I tend to use the term "fudged" to encompass all invalid data but you are correct, there are four categories of invalid datasets: 1) insufficient, 2) fudged, 3) fabricated and 4) inaccurate (unacceptable margin of error).

Good catch. Keep me honest.



.


You ARE honest. The intent of the meaning was still clear in this case.



The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Weighting algorithms is fabrication of data. There is no other word for it.

If you take one measurement (because that's the only thermometer you own), and give it a weight of 100%, that doesn't make the global temperature the same as your thermometer. No thermometer or combination of thermometers is devoid of this problem.

No weighting algorithm can substitute for data. It is fabricating it.

You really have no clue, do you? Science isn't about black and white, perfectly correct or completely wrong. It's about probabilities and approximations.

Absolutely wrong. Gambling is about probabilities and approximations. Science is not gambling.
Surface Detail wrote:
If I had one thermometer on Earth, and it showed a rise in temperature over a period of time, then I could reasonably conclude that the global temperature is more likely to be rising than falling, though with a low level of confidence. The more thermometers I have, and the better distributed they are, the more confidence I can have in my findings. Of course, I can never be absolutely certain, but science never is certain.

You could not conclude anything. You have to fabricate data to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
Assigning weightings to data in order to compensate for an uneven distribution of data is perfectly normal practice. There's nothing sinister or unscientific about it so long as the inherent errors are quantified. For heavens sake, read a book on the topic and educate yourself a little!

It is commonly done, I agree. It's also fabrication of data. There is something sinister and agenda oriented behind using fabricated data as 'science'.

How do you quantify an error? What is the formula of it's value?

What book do you suggest? (just the subject will do)


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 22:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.
30-01-2016 10:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.


There's corroboration from other sources as well

NOAA: An Independent Record: Measuring climate change without thermometers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/independent-evidence-confirms-global-warming-instrument-record



Edited on 30-01-2016 10:30
30-01-2016 22:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote: You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.


It has been explained to you numerous times why the Central NOAA data is bogus. It has been explained to you that the local stations provide trusted data that is aggregated and fudged by the Central NOAA facility.

So why don't you just go with the local stations' data? If you are going to claim you don't trust the local stations' data then you can't very well trust the Central NOAA data that processes the local stations' data. If you do trust the local stations' data, and so does Into the Night, then you both should use that and you'll both be singing from the same sheet of music and you won't be talking past each other.

This should be too easy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 23:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2016 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.


There's corroboration from other sources as well

NOAA: An Independent Record: Measuring climate change without thermometers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/independent-evidence-confirms-global-warming-instrument-record

And you truly believe that these sources are accurate to within a 100 years? Well, apparently this idiot at NOAA believes so, and so do you. Sorry dude, but trying to guess the temperature of 100 years ago by making guesses from paleontological data that doesn't exist is Religion.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 01:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Into the Night wrote:And you truly believe that these sources are accurate to within a 100 years?

Well, duh! What is the point of religion if there is no faith?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 02:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

What the hell are you talking about? The GISS global temperature reconstruction is based on surface temperature measurements. GISS do not use satellites to measure temperature! Where did you get that idea from?
31-01-2016 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

What the hell are you talking about? The GISS global temperature reconstruction is based on surface temperature measurements. GISS do not use satellites to measure temperature! Where did you get that idea from?

GISS.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 04:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science requires precision of language.

Science requires lack of ambiguity and the answer is to require falsifiable models that are formally expressed (usually in math).

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, scientists are fully aware that the distribution of thermometers is patchy in places, which is why they use different weighting algorithms to compensate for this.

Not only are scientists fully aware of this, practically everyone on the planet is aware that there just aren't millions upon millions of thermometers at sea, and that land thermometers can be described as paltry at best.

This is no excuse for fudging data in lieu of publishing the raw data.

No-one is "fudging data". Why the need to keep lying about this?

As I've previously pointed out, the raw data are available from the NOAA website for anyone to use as a base for their own global temperature reconstruction, and a number of people have done exactly this:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

Although many of these reconstructions do indeed use the raw (uncorrected) data, I've yet to see such a reconstruction that differs substantially from that published by GISS. If you can find one that does, please do give a link.

The GISS is not measuring temperature. They are unable to. They are measuring deviation from some predetermined moving point. The GISS is not a thermometer in any kind of calibrated sense. Once launched, these satellites can no longer be calibrated.

To call them capable of measuring temperature is to misinterpret what these satellites are really capable of, and to misinterpret the reason they were launched.

WTF are you blathering about now? Who said anything about satellites?

Uh...YOU did.

Uh... no I didn't. The NOAA data used by GISS to create their temperature reconstruction are measurements from thermometers on the Earth's surface. You're really not following this, are you? Just writing the first bit of denialist rhetoric that comes into your head.

Uh...you did. GISS used some surface thermometer data to build their satellite system. They are now using that system to read changes in temperature, which is subject to all the flaws I mentioned.

Are you the sort of golfer that duffs the ball because you didn't follow through?

What the hell are you talking about? The GISS global temperature reconstruction is based on surface temperature measurements. GISS do not use satellites to measure temperature! Where did you get that idea from?

GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.
31-01-2016 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.


You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 02:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.


You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Read the reference. Here it is again:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

It is titled "Comparing global land temperature reconstructions", one of which is the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). This analysis is based on data from meteorological stations, not satellites.

Yes, I know what GISS stands for and, no, that doesn't affect the fact that their temperature reconstruction is based on surface data. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for more info.

For heavens' sake, ITN, if you don't actually have the foggiest idea of how institutions like GISS collect their data, what makes you think anyone should take your criticisms of them seriously?
01-02-2016 05:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote:OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

I'm not taking sides on this, but might you technically be the one in error due to semantics?

I think the point is that a surface reconstruction cannot be accurately performed by satellites. You seem to be saying that a surface reconstruction implies ground measurements and I think that is a false assumption.

Am I mistaken?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 10:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.


You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Read the reference. Here it is again:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

It is titled "Comparing global land temperature reconstructions", one of which is the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). This analysis is based on data from meteorological stations, not satellites.

Yes, I know what GISS stands for and, no, that doesn't affect the fact that their temperature reconstruction is based on surface data. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for more info.

For heavens' sake, ITN, if you don't actually have the foggiest idea of how institutions like GISS collect their data, what makes you think anyone should take your criticisms of them seriously?

The GISTEMP data is not valid as a global temperature for the reasons I have explained earlier concerning consistency and reliability of instrumentation. The satellite data that supplements it (and tries to replace it) has the flaws I have already described.

To produce a map of global temperatures as they do using only the surface data, you have to fabricate data. There is no other way.

The GISTEMP dataset is one dataset of the GISS. The rest is based on the satellite data. Since you mentioned GISS and not GISTEMP, I commented on the satellite programs.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 15:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GISS.

Oh, give it up, ITN (or give a link). You made a stupid mistake. We all do it on occasion. Just admit you were wrong and let's move on.


You made the reference. Look at it yourself. But this time read it. You might even look up what GISS means as an acronym.

OK, so you want to keep digging your hole.

Read the reference. Here it is again:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/

It is titled "Comparing global land temperature reconstructions", one of which is the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). This analysis is based on data from meteorological stations, not satellites.

Yes, I know what GISS stands for and, no, that doesn't affect the fact that their temperature reconstruction is based on surface data. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ for more info.

For heavens' sake, ITN, if you don't actually have the foggiest idea of how institutions like GISS collect their data, what makes you think anyone should take your criticisms of them seriously?

The GISTEMP data is not valid as a global temperature for the reasons I have explained earlier concerning consistency and reliability of instrumentation. The satellite data that supplements it (and tries to replace it) has the flaws I have already described.

To produce a map of global temperatures as they do using only the surface data, you have to fabricate data. There is no other way.

The GISTEMP dataset is one dataset of the GISS. The rest is based on the satellite data. Since you mentioned GISS and not GISTEMP, I commented on the satellite programs.

You're making it up as you go along. For the last time, there is no GISS temperature reconstruction based on satellite data. The GISS global temperature reconstruction (known as GISTEMP) is based on data from surface temperature measurements.

There are satellite measurements of the radiance of the lower troposphere, from which it is possible to derive temperatures for that part of the atmosphere, but this dataset is nothing to do with GISS. Perhaps that's where you're getting confused.

Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained. The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results. This demonstrates the validity of these results.
Edited on 01-02-2016 15:36
01-02-2016 16:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

It is perfectly valid if you:

1) first publish all the raw data
2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and
3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well.

If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions.

All three steps are required.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained. The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results. This demonstrates the validity of these results.


Sorry, it IS a fabrication. It is NOT a perfectly normal part of data analysis. It is a common way of fabricating and fudging data.

The agreement between groups is only showing they are using a similar method of fabrication.

Both compositions are introducing bias into the data this way. Neither agrees with actual raw logs kept at each U.S. station. Because of the voids in the data, they are fabricating data to fill in the holes.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

It is perfectly valid if you:

1) first publish all the raw data
2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and
3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well.

If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions.

All three steps are required.


.

Both NOAA and NASA feel they have complied with steps 1 and 2, but they have not, since the step 1 is vaguely defined, variable in scope, and is often not even raw data. The step 2 they publish is not what is performed. NOAA, for instance will preprocess the data from some stations for various reasons (such as filling in holes from missing stations) before performing anything like step 2. By folding and refolding the data like this, they are introducing a tremendous bias.

NASA is using the NOAA data, combining it with a widely variable set of data from other sources (such as the ocean buoys that weren't even launched until starting 2000, yet being folded into the rest like they've been there since 1880) and a modified version of their own for step 2, which is necessarily projecting data backwards and forwards across missing information.

Both agencies publish a step 2, but it is not the one actually used.
Both agencies publish a step 1, but it has already been processed by a step 2 of unknown and variable applications of different algorithms. The data is no longer raw data to be published.

These techniques have fooled a lot of people, including many scientists. When faced with the difference of datasets between the local stations and what NOAA and NASA produce, many have dropped the central data in favor of their local station to complete their study.

A great bulk of this problem is simply incompetence. Another cause is the influence of a very few number of people in each department who are trying to get the data to agree with the IPCC agenda.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 21:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained.

It is perfectly valid if you:

1) first publish all the raw data
2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and
3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well.

If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging.

Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results.

I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions.

All three steps are required

1) The raw data are indeed published and available for download for anyone to carry out their own analysis:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

2) The source code used by GISS to derive its global temperature reconstruction is available for anyone to download and compile here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

The rationale for the adjustments and weightings applied to temperature data is set out in numerous scientific papers and is summarised here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Frankly, it's hard to imagine how they could be much more transparent.

Notably by their absence are any analyses by sceptic groups that give global temperatures significantly different from those derived by GISS. Even the BEST analysis, performed by scientists with doubts about the methods used by GISS, gave pretty much the same results.

The temperature data tell one, unmistakable story: that the Earth's temperature is rising rapidly.
Edited on 01-02-2016 21:54
01-02-2016 21:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
These techniques have fooled a lot of people, including many scientists. When faced with the difference of datasets between the local stations and what NOAA and NASA produce, many have dropped the central data in favor of their local station to complete their study.

A great bulk of this problem is simply incompetence. Another cause is the influence of a very few number of people in each department who are trying to get the data to agree with the IPCC agenda.

Given that you weren't even aware that the NASA/GISS data were from land-based sources until I informed you on this thread, I don't think you're in any position to criticise their methods. You're very transparently making it up as you go along.
01-02-2016 22:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5035)
Surface Detail wrote:
1) The raw data are indeed published and available for download for anyone to carry out their own analysis:

We need to talk about this. There was no raw data presented.

Please post a direct link (please not a link to a page that has other links that require me to hunt and guess at what you are talking about) to what you claim is the valid, sufficient and accurate raw temperature data so you and I can discuss it.

Thanks.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2016 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
These techniques have fooled a lot of people, including many scientists. When faced with the difference of datasets between the local stations and what NOAA and NASA produce, many have dropped the central data in favor of their local station to complete their study.

A great bulk of this problem is simply incompetence. Another cause is the influence of a very few number of people in each department who are trying to get the data to agree with the IPCC agenda.

Given that you weren't even aware that the NASA/GISS data were from land-based sources until I informed you on this thread, I don't think you're in any position to criticise their methods. You're very transparently making it up as you go along.


The dataset you are using is claimed to be from land based sources. The satellite based sources are discarded for the moment since you seem to be fixated on the land based stuff.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74208-11-2019 19:42
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact