Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 50649
Except it doesn't, does it?
No it actually does. Completely ignoring data and science to fit your own narrative.
It can be hard to grasp for some people but the weather data hasn't changed. It's still the same data. It's just that all weather data across the globe was altered to meet a standard to make all this data comparable. It's similar to changing feet to metres. It would actually be incredibly wrong to use the unadjusted data as a comparison as it would give you a total false result, like comparing meters with feet. This is not just isolated to Valentia, it was a global standardization and homogenization of data so that the data can be compared.
It's also frankly ridiculous to think there is some sort of global cabal of environmental scientists all conspiring to fudge the data. Research groups are all quite independent.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 50649
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?
True, there is some human error which accounts for such discrepancies such as Andrew Wakefield. However usually these are scrutinized further by the scientific community and found that they don't hold up. I've been involved in work like this before where published work was bogus and it doesn't take long to get weeded out.
As for funding, researchers do need to apply for funding from various outlets, mostly governmental. However most governments of big research countries (US, Australia, Russia, China etc.) are actively pulling funding from the research into climate change as it does not suit their love affair with big business. Also the money given to research funding is miniscule compared to the investments that big polluters have to lose as well as governments if they had to act on the environmental solutions being proposed. Environmental research out side a few places like the EU is not a good place to be as funding is being pulled to try and hide the actual figures.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50649
It's the environmental science equivalent of ditching imperial and moving everything to ssi units. That's all. You've still got that old data in imperial. You just have to adjust it to be able to compare it to ssi data. It's explain very well why it's done and how it's done. Just because the valentia data adjustments aren't published doesn't mean it wasnt above board. As I've said contact them. They will tell the how and why if you are that interested. But if you are only interested in data that supports your biased narrative I guess you won't.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50649
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »I at a loss here. I can't believe that someone who claims to work in scientific research thinks that converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius (or vice versa) actually changes the temperature. Old readings in F are not any different to new readings in C if the conversion is done properly. The trend should remain the same. Convert everything to Kelvin or Rankine and the trend will still not change.
That's kind of the point I'm making. The conversion doesn't change the actual data of the historic data doesn't change the actual data. It brings in more in line with the standard. In the case of conversion of F to C it brings it in line with the standard C.
The problem with the historic data is that each independent monitor station or group was a rogue element that took measurements according to their own rules and time lines. Different instruments, different environments, different times of day. The data had to be adjusted to bring it in line with a standard way of measurement which is now used to avoid these kinds of issues. Of course there may be some error in the correction factors, environmental monitoring has a lot more variables than a tests in a controlled environment, but it should be mitigated with the correct use of statistical analysis.
It's also very naïve to think that the upward trend seen in the adjusted temperatures wasn't just accepted as fact. A significant amount of research and analysis would need to be carried to verify the accuracy of the data. This wouldn't just be a Valentia thing, it would be a global effort by different research groups seeing the same thing. This data would not be published unless it was backed up and could hold up to peer scrutiny.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50649
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »"A rogue element". Those pesky scientists down in Valentia, sure all they did was make poitín and arse around all day. Hadn't a clue how to take an observation, sure.
Unbelievable nonsense.
They took true observations. Just the equipment and measurement procedures weren't standardised to a global standard. It was like this across the globe. They all did what they thought was best but none of them were working together to makes sure they did everything the same as each other. It's was like this is every other science which is why you got initiatives like standardising all scientific measurements to SI units.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
If the perceived problem is widespread it should be easy to provide, say, ten similar examples from relatively nearby?
Rutherglen
Some background: Near Rutherglen, a small town in a wine-growing region of NE Victoria, temperatures have been measured at a research station since November 1912. There are no documented site moves. An automatic weather station was installed on 29th January 1998.
The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.
The remarkable change of the Rutherglen record as it got homogenized. This long running rural record that looks ideal apparently had “unrecorded” station moves found by thermometers miles away. Already we have found Bill Johnston who did some work at Rutherglen who confirmed that the station did not move.0 -
-
-
-
-
Even if you just focus on the 'unadjusted' data from Valentia via the that GISS website, it is clear that warming has taken place since the late 80s or there about, which is more to do with the increased infrequency of cooler years than it is with the strength of anomalous warmer years, (which have increased in frequency) which are on par with warmer annual means in the past rather than being greater than them.
This is data for Armagh from the same website. 'Adjustments' don't seem to be as as severe, but are there nonetheless, and seem to be particularly pronounced over the 40s to 70s period.
New Moon
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement