CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

SeaBreezes

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The Valentina question is a non issue. It's data pulled from one conspiracy theorist on their personal blog. Nobody else is talking about it because it's nonsense.

Ahhhhh now I understand.

You didn't read Valentia, you read VALENTINA. And you thought that was a person Gaoith was quoting. Hence the reference to a conspiracy theorist blog.

No you see we were discussing Valentia weather station reading which has been adjusted/homogenised/smoothed to suit the warming narrative.

Oh and knock airport which oddly has readings from the time Monsignor Horgan could barely walk :-)

Miracles do happen!! :-D

Retr0gamer

oriel36 wrote: »

Peer review is there to protect those doing the reviewing like bouncers at the door of a nightclub preventing what they consider riff-raff from entering so unless people are exceptionally naive, those complaining about original research or are opponents of 'climate change' are part of the same empirical umbrella. The 'scientific method' is not only self-promoting but also self-protecting so unlike politicians who have to face the public every 4 years or so, academics have made a cozy and impenetrable environment for themselves behind the walls of universities. Fair play to them but it is not healthy or productive for research in astronomy or Earth sciences.

That there is a complete misunderstanding of what peer review means. You talk of politicians facing the public every 4 years. Well peer review means every piece of work you publish has to stand up to a panel of experts in the field. If the science is found to be lacking then it doesn't get published. The fact that none of these climate denial science stuff gets through peer review is that it does not stand up to scrutiny because the science behind these investigations is bogus. The peer review process is there to protect science from bad science from crazies like flat earthers, anti vaxxers and climate change deniers.

And you can then go off on a tangent about Copernicus and Darwin but they are great examples of how peer review can fail when you let an entity of confirmation bias have a hand in it, in those cases the catholic church.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

You haven't read the thread yet, have you?

You use terms like conspiracy, denier, flat earthers. Akrasia loves those terms too.

Welcome to the weather forum, on boards since 2002 a moderator and First time I've seen you post here.

I love how you BELIEVE. Your trust in the trillion dollar industry is commendable.

I wish I could be like you and BELIEVE without questioning. It would make life much much easier.

I believe in the hard work of the scientific community which I am a part of and not so called trillion dollar industries that would spread misinformation to suit their profit margins. The scientific community is not part of that. I also believe I need to fight against people that would undermine the excellent work done by the scientific community as science denial has been and is very damaging.

There's also no BELIEF in it. I'll leave that up to religious groups with their blind faith. There's no faith or belief in science. I take in the information provided by science and make up my own mind. And going by that climate change denial theories aren't just weak and flimsy, they are utterly baseless and complete nonsense backed up by absolutely no scientific work or scrutiny.

Actual climate change science has to be scrutinized through a scientific process. On the other hand climate denial guff doesn't as it is spouted on internet forums, by boneheaded politicians in the pockets of the likes of exxon mobile and through other forms of media with no filters to stop this bad science getting through.

Think of the peer review process like the filters we often use in science. It's there to filter out the ****e in your solution.

Retr0gamer

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ahhhhh now I understand.

You didn't read Valencia, you read VALENTINA. And you thought that was a person Gaoith was quoting. Hence the reference to a conspiracy theorist blog.

No you see we were discussing Valencia weather station reading which has been adjusted/homogenised/smoothed to suit the warming narrative.

Oh and knock airport which oddly has readings from the time Monsignor Horgan could barely walk :-)

Miracles do happen!! :-D

https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html

See above.

However the problem with conspiracy theorists is they can be too far gone to change their tune even when the correct answer is put in front of them. So feel free to ignore that and live in your little bubble of confirmation bias.

It's a measure of maturity to admit you are wrong when faced with facts. It's also good scientific procedure.

oriel36

Block responses are a reaction signifying weakness rather than it's intended purpose so anyone else imagining otherwise is naive. The only way to deal with it is move on -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGld6wY7LDI

A general election not only signifies the responsibility and accountability all politicians should have in their profession but also the health of the electorate. If a dictatorship exists then it is the fault of the electorate so while peer review may project an air of authority and accountability, in the case of astronomy and Earth sciences, it amounts to indulgences of experimental theorists or more appropriately overgrown schoolboys.

Anything to do with medicine and engineering sciences are a separate issue but idiots are inclined to conflate them with long term and large scale science like astronomy and Earth sciences which permit experimentation and modeling in a severely restricted degree rather than a point of departure as the empiricists would like it.

Because of the dominance of academic modelers inheriting their convictions from late 17th century clockwork solar system modelers, even the connections between the Earth's rotation and the temperature fluctuation each 24 hours is lost. Some people would have this off-topic and that can be so strange -

Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100 Sec
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1040.4 mph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The Earth turns once every 24 hour via the clock and the Lat/Long system therefore its equatorial rotational velocity is 1037.5 mph.

It is perhaps good that the thread becomes overheated every now and again because there are are multiple different protests going on with no clear foundation for discussion much less resolution. If people are willing to sacrifice Earth sciences for the sake of an allegiance to the dictates of Royal Society empiricism then it creates a lot of noise and a counter-productive environment.

Doctor Jimbob

oriel36 wrote: »

Block responses are a reaction signifying weakness rather than it's intended purpose so anyone else imagining otherwise is naive. The only way to deal with it is move on -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGld6wY7LDI

A general election not only signifies the responsibility and accountability all politicians should have in their profession but also the health of the electorate. If a dictatorship exists then it is the fault of the electorate so while peer review may project an air of authority and accountability, in the case of astronomy and Earth sciences, it amounts to indulgences of experimental theorists or more appropriately overgrown schoolboys.

Anything to do with medicine and engineering sciences are a separate issue but idiots are inclined to conflate them with long term and large scale science like astronomy and Earth sciences which permit experimentation and modeling in a severely restricted degree rather than a point of departure as the empiricists would like it.

Because of the dominance of academic modelers inheriting their convictions from late 17th century clockwork solar system modelers, even the connections between the Earth's rotation and the temperature fluctuation each 24 hours is lost. Some people would have this off-topic and that can be so strange -

Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100 Sec
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1040.4 mph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The Earth turns once every 24 hour via the clock and the Lat/Long system therefore its equatorial rotational velocity is 1037.5 mph.

It is perhaps good that the thread becomes overheated every now and again because there are are multiple different protests going on with no clear foundation for discussion much less resolution.

Indeed.

Retr0gamer

Oriel36 you obviously don't have any experience in science otherwise you wouldn't be spoutong stuff that is a total misintrepation of peer review and science. I can assure you earth science and astronomy are held up to the exact same standards as other areas of science and to say otherwise is to show ignorance.

Gaoth Laidir

It's not Valentina, nor is it Valencia...it's Valentia!

Retr0gamer

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's not Valentina, nor is it Valencia...it's Valentia!

Ah. Personal insults. They add nothing to the discussion.

When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Longing

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ah. Personal insults. They add nothing to the discussion.

When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Goath just pointing out the correct name of the place were you have failed to come up with answer to his question. Why does the data need to be altered. Atleast let us not alter the name.

Retr0gamer

Longing wrote: »

Goath just pointing out the correct name of the place were you have failed to come up with answer to his question. Why does the data need to be altered. Atleast let us not alter the name.

I already said it was an autocorrect error. So lets stop stop with that nonsense as it adds nothing.

As for why the data was corrected posidonia provided a link which explains why. I reposted it. It's all there. Read it.

But then in both those cases you've failed to take into account the explanation that was already provided to fit the narrative of your own confirmation bias so doubt this is the last time you'll ask for explanations of both again.

Longing

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I already said it was an autocorrect error. So lets stop stop with that nonsense as it adds nothing.

As for why the data was corrected posidonia provided a link which explains why. I reposted it. It's all there. Read it.

But then in both those cases you've failed to take into account the explanation that was already provided to fit the narrative of your own confirmation bias so doubt this is the last time you'll ask for explanations of both again.

Do you mean this link.
https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html

Longing

Longing wrote: »

Do you mean this link.
https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html

Please provide link to original data.

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ah. Personal insults. They add nothing to the discussion.

When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Personal insult? Seabreezes, are you insulted that I corrected your mistake? :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I already said it was an autocorrect error. So lets stop stop with that nonsense as it adds nothing.

As for why the data was corrected posidonia provided a link which explains why. I reposted it. It's all there. Read it.

But then in both those cases you've failed to take into account the explanation that was already provided to fit the narrative of your own confirmation bias so doubt this is the last time you'll ask for explanations of both again.

The explanation provided was a general description of the methods used, which is all very helpful, except it doesn't answer the question of which exact corrections were made to this particular station's data. This is the question that nobody is able to answer. I can't click on any station and see the actual adjustments made to just it. What parts of its history were taken into account and deemed worthy of adjustment. This is what you're not getting.

Here are the adjusted and unadjusted GHCN v3 curves for Valentia. Open each link in a separate tab and flick back and forth to see the timeslices of data that were adjusted downwards (in the earlier period, pre-1880 and 1940-85) and upwards (particularly the most recent 5 years). Even better would be to make an animated gif. Here are the two anomaly charts involved.

Unadjusted "All"




Adjusted

Retr0gamer

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

There's a link in there to the actual published peer reviewed paper about the adjustments. Explains everything.

But then again that's totally at odds with crazy lunatics like Peter O'Neill spouting unresearched nonsense.

Retr0gamer

Actually. Crazy idea. Has anyone that really wants to know the answer contacted them and asked them. Being a public body they'd probably tell you how and why.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

There's a link in there to the actual published peer reviewed paper about the adjustments. Explains everything.

But then again that's totally at odds with crazy lunatics like Peter O'Neill spouting unresearched nonsense.

NOTHING in there explains why VALENTIA was adjusted. Valentia would be a "pristine" station for reasons anyone on here would know. It's this country's flagship station.

Now, instead of giving us a link to a newspaper report about an American issue, please link to why our flagship station was adjusted.

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

NOTHING in there explains why VALENTIA was adjusted. Valentia would be a "pristine" station for reasons anyone on here would know. It's this country's flagship station.

Now, instead of giving us a link to a newspaper report about an American issue, please link to why our flagship station was adjusted.

Have you read anything in the links? Because one of the big ones that stood out to me was that data collected differed by time of day which would need to be corrected for.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, an easy formula, but there are different rounding points between The two scales. If something converts as 14. 4 Fahrenheit that rounds down to 14, if it records as 14.7 Celsius, it rounds up to 15

Why the need to round to the nearest whole degree? 14.7c is 14.7c.

It’s obvious that you’ve never worked with big datasets if you think this is a non trivial difference.

Working with big datasets one should know that poor data (altered) in = poor data out.

Let’s look at some other theoretical list of biases that need to be accounted for, when using ‘European’ vs ‘American’ as a short hand for any kind of potential variation

If you're looking for trends in climate change you should treat the data equally, but separate. As long as both systems were internally consistent and calibrated then you will get an outcome over a climate period. Then you look at the trends of what each "region" is saying

Would converting Fahrenheit to Celsius be counted as adjusting the data?

It shouldn't but if your taking rounding 0.1c points to whole degrees (as you said above) then yes, that would be a massive adjustment of the data.

How about converting feet to meters? If a European Stephenson screen is 1.5 meters off the ground, how high is an American screen off the ground measured in feet and inches.

Separate systems again. Treat them separate.

If Europe has daylight saving time on a different date to US daylight saving time,

I answered this last night - this is a woeful, woeful thing to suggest.

if European thermometers calibrate to the melting point of ice (or freezing point of water) but the Americans calibrate to the boiling point of water,

again - separate systems, treat them as such.

if the Europeans orient their screens facing north,

Seriously, have you ever been near a screen? We face them south with the access door on the north. Reverse this, obviously for the southern hemisphere.

if Europeans take their measurements at 9am and 9pm but the Americans measure at midday and midnight...
do they use max and min daily temps?

Separate systems, again. We (Irish and UK) take measurements at 9UTC, not 9am, and most climate stations are only once a day.

Do they use alcohol, mercury or digital thermometers...
what happens when they try to standardize these measurements, do they adopt the ‘EU standard’ or the ‘US standard’
What happens if one station gets upgraded to digital thermometers 10 years before its neighbor does? Should the data pretend that there are no differences or should it adjust for known biases?

If a digital thermometer has a known bias, it's data should not be allowed into the regional dataset. Dirty data in = dirty data out

I’d like a detailed answer to how you can reconcile these potential differences within a diverse global temperature dataset to be accurate within a single coherent dataset without ever adjusting or homogenizing the data please

First of all, stop looking for a global dataset from this data. It's useless for that purpose. If you want a global dataset, setup a global monitoring network that could even be independent of existing country specific or regional network. What you're trying to achieve is akin to ramming a square plug into a round hole.

Or you could just scoff.
Or you could just declare that measuring it is too hard do we should go with your intuition instead

My answers in bold.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have you read anything in the links? Because one of the big ones that stood out to me was that data collected differed by time of day which would need to be corrected for.

In Valentia, what set of data collected differed by time of day which did need for it to be corrected?

Longing

No link says or shows why data is measured when there is no data in the first place. Fortune telling stuff.

SeaBreezes

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's not Valentina, nor is it Valencia...it's Valentia!

Thanks Gaoth I went back and corrected it. Incorrect data!! Tsck :-)

Retr0gamer

Your answers are just basically it could have been done better in hindsight. But it wasn't. There were different standards back then in different countries and stations. SSI unit adoption only really started in 1955. But that's the historical data we have so we have to homogenise it so that it's comparable between all global data. This has been carried out as accurately as possible.

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

In Valentia, what set of data collected differed by time of day which did need for it to be corrected?

It was corrected to meet the global standard time of day. Modern data was taken at this time. Historical data before the standardisation had to be adjusted to be comparable to data taken around the world, which also had to be standardised.

If your data isn't standardised you can't compare it. It's converting apples and oranges into apples and apples.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It was corrected to meet the global standard time of day. Modern data was taken at this time. Historical data before the standardisation had to be adjusted to be comparable to data taken around the world, which also had to be standardised.

If your data isn't standardised you can't compare it. It's converting apples and oranges into apples and apples.

What section of Valentia data was incompatible with "global standard of the day". What changes were made?

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

What section of Valentia data was incompatible with "global standard of the day". What changes were made?

Ask them. But that's the reason why. It's the reason all those global adjustments were made.

It's basically having measurements in feet and metres. You standardised the measurements so they are comparable.

Pretty sure they'll have the details documented. If you really want to know then ask. They'll have that all documented.

They have a climate enquiries telephone number. Nothing stopping you.

But if that won't gel with any bias or preconceptions then don't.

Oneiric 3

"Historical negationism,[1][2] also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely or intentionally incorrectly referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views.[3]

In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism

Oneiric 3

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It was corrected to meet the global standard time of day. Modern data was taken at this time. Historical data before the standardisation had to be adjusted to be comparable to data taken around the world, which also had to be standardised.

If your data isn't standardised you can't compare it. It's converting apples and oranges into apples and apples.

Any of this has nothing to do with explaining the 'adjustment' of the historical record at Valentia. It is specifically stated on the graph why these adjustments were made.

"GHCN-adj-homogenized: adjusted, cleaned data, homogenized by GISS to account for urban effects"

Retr0gamer

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"Historical negationism,[1][2] also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely or intentionally incorrectly referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views.[3]

In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism

Thanks. That sums up climate change denial perfectly.

Oneiric 3

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thanks. That sums up climate change denial perfectly.

Except it doesn't, does it?

Nabber

Retr0gamer wrote: »

That there is a complete misunderstanding of what peer review means. You talk of politicians facing the public every 4 years. Well peer review means every piece of work you publish has to stand up to a panel of experts in the field. If the science is found to be lacking then it doesn't get published.

Note: I'm a supporter of the peer review.

That's not quite what a peer review is in the context of this thread.
There is no one for all peer review process given that there are multitudes of journals.
The word 'Expert' is ambiguous, typically papers are opened to people within the field, but the journal can select the members for a panel, for the majority of Journals there is no guideline with definitive qualities of an expert.

Peer review also open to human error and social pressures.
+3,000 scientists responded to a survey relating to peer review.



This were the argument lies with skeptics within any field of science. The peer review process is biased and prone to human error. Earth sciences are influenced politically and socially more than any other field. The argument that skeptics are funded by Big Oil works the same for AGW. Taxation on carbon is billions dollar, science funding also in the billions. How could money not influence publications, where else has a self regulated billion dollar field not failed the human race?