| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 23236 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:43 - Nov 22 with 1185 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:15 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
So, metadata? Can you justify why the data shouldn't have been changed? |
How can you justify changing the RAW data and then changing it again with "adjustments"?
Are you kidding, do you have any scientific and statistical ethical standards whatsoever?
So let me ask you the question, what kind of error would justify blanket changing every single old record Downwards as much as 2 degrees C, twice the supposed warming since that period and later Records Upwards by as much as 0.5 degrees C?
Do you honestly believe that those people back in the 1900s did not know how to read a Max/Min thermometer?
Do you also believe all tyhe anecdotal evidence is also wrong about how hot thsoe periods were?
We all know that they had less accuracy in some respects as current electronic equipment, so why are they trying compare them to 0.01 of degree?
But new electronic equipment also has problems, especially when they are incorrectly sited.
You still refuse to answer how they are supposed to handle those errors, it is almost as if you don't actually know. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:05 - Nov 22 with 1173 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:43 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can you justify changing the RAW data and then changing it again with "adjustments"?
Are you kidding, do you have any scientific and statistical ethical standards whatsoever?
So let me ask you the question, what kind of error would justify blanket changing every single old record Downwards as much as 2 degrees C, twice the supposed warming since that period and later Records Upwards by as much as 0.5 degrees C?
Do you honestly believe that those people back in the 1900s did not know how to read a Max/Min thermometer?
Do you also believe all tyhe anecdotal evidence is also wrong about how hot thsoe periods were?
We all know that they had less accuracy in some respects as current electronic equipment, so why are they trying compare them to 0.01 of degree?
But new electronic equipment also has problems, especially when they are incorrectly sited.
You still refuse to answer how they are supposed to handle those errors, it is almost as if you don't actually know. |
Can you justify not adjusting it?
Sorry, this is a bit of a tap in but it's an important point. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:05 - Nov 22 with 1163 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:05 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
Can you justify not adjusting it?
Sorry, this is a bit of a tap in but it's an important point. |
Of course I can, it is to do with question that I keep asking and you keep avoiding, it is what a scientist or statistician is supposed to do if the think the data has errors and it is NOT adjust the data.
Can you really be suggesting that every single station is in need of those adjustments and all in the same direction?
I haven't heard even one excuse from you of what the reasoning could be. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:44 - Nov 22 with 1156 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:05 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
Of course I can, it is to do with question that I keep asking and you keep avoiding, it is what a scientist or statistician is supposed to do if the think the data has errors and it is NOT adjust the data.
Can you really be suggesting that every single station is in need of those adjustments and all in the same direction?
I haven't heard even one excuse from you of what the reasoning could be. |
Justify away then. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:58 - Nov 22 with 1151 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:44 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
Justify away then. |
Not going to happen, I have already proved the point.
Cox was wrong.
I have also shown that you have no clue about what should be done with data errors, that you had no idea how outrageous the adjustments are and can't find a justification for changing the RAW data before adjustment and making multiple adjustments to the same data points.
I rest my case.
Whereas you have proved nothing at all, other than you are clueless about what they actually do with the data from your weather stations or even why they do it.
End of. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:12 - Nov 22 with 1147 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:58 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
Not going to happen, I have already proved the point.
Cox was wrong.
I have also shown that you have no clue about what should be done with data errors, that you had no idea how outrageous the adjustments are and can't find a justification for changing the RAW data before adjustment and making multiple adjustments to the same data points.
I rest my case.
Whereas you have proved nothing at all, other than you are clueless about what they actually do with the data from your weather stations or even why they do it.
End of. |
I haven't set out to prove anything. I know met data is adjusted. I've spent the early part of my career doing just that.
That doesn't mean its fabricated.
I was just interested to know what you have discovered in your 15 years of climate research. I think you'd have learnt more sitting in Victoria Park. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:19 - Nov 22 with 1146 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:12 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
I haven't set out to prove anything. I know met data is adjusted. I've spent the early part of my career doing just that.
That doesn't mean its fabricated.
I was just interested to know what you have discovered in your 15 years of climate research. I think you'd have learnt more sitting in Victoria Park. |
End off. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:48 - Nov 22 with 1141 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:12 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
I haven't set out to prove anything. I know met data is adjusted. I've spent the early part of my career doing just that.
That doesn't mean its fabricated.
I was just interested to know what you have discovered in your 15 years of climate research. I think you'd have learnt more sitting in Victoria Park. |
Actually now, I am interested. Why is the data adjusted? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:57 - Nov 22 with 1140 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:48 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
Actually now, I am interested. Why is the data adjusted? |
More to the point, why after scotia has adjusted them do NASA & GISS adjust them again?
I know the official reason, I have even mentioned on this forum before now, but the actual adjustments do not match the official expected and sanctioned amounts. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:14 - Nov 22 with 1137 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:57 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
More to the point, why after scotia has adjusted them do NASA & GISS adjust them again?
I know the official reason, I have even mentioned on this forum before now, but the actual adjustments do not match the official expected and sanctioned amounts. |
You've mentioned it before? Like I said, I don't trawl through threads, I'm a last page jockey unless it's a thread I haven't seen before. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:24 - Nov 22 with 1135 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:14 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
You've mentioned it before? Like I said, I don't trawl through threads, I'm a last page jockey unless it's a thread I haven't seen before. |
Yes, I even pointed out the paper to one of the adjustments, there are 3 types of adjustment that they use, sometimes regardless of what the originating Met Office has already done.
Which really pissed off the head of the Icelandic met office. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:26 - Nov 22 with 1135 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:48 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
Actually now, I am interested. Why is the data adjusted? |
I think "adjusted" is the wrong word, it almost implies it has been falsified. Which isn't the case. Validation is a more accurate description.
Because the equipment is field based usually in pretty remote places the raw data needs to be checked for accuracy. There are lots of things that can interfere with it I've seen a chicken nesting in a rain gauge and measured one unusually high total which when emptied the "rain" was a strange yellow colour.
Over the years there has been a lot of variation in how observations were made and equipment used so adjustments are necessary to improve accuracy. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:36 - Nov 22 with 1133 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:26 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
I think "adjusted" is the wrong word, it almost implies it has been falsified. Which isn't the case. Validation is a more accurate description.
Because the equipment is field based usually in pretty remote places the raw data needs to be checked for accuracy. There are lots of things that can interfere with it I've seen a chicken nesting in a rain gauge and measured one unusually high total which when emptied the "rain" was a strange yellow colour.
Over the years there has been a lot of variation in how observations were made and equipment used so adjustments are necessary to improve accuracy. |
How do you guess what the value should have been?
By the way that is nothing like the second and third adjustments made by NASA/GISS/HADCRUT and of course the Australian & New Zealand BOMs. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:47 - Nov 22 with 1125 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:14 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
You've mentioned it before? Like I said, I don't trawl through threads, I'm a last page jockey unless it's a thread I haven't seen before. |
cat, if you look at the chats that I linked to it actually tells you what the adjustments are, it appears the scotia couldn't even figure that out.  | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:48 - Nov 22 with 1125 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:36 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
How do you guess what the value should have been?
By the way that is nothing like the second and third adjustments made by NASA/GISS/HADCRUT and of course the Australian & New Zealand BOMs. |
It's not guess work, it's through a process called statistical homogenisation. Which is basically a comparison to neighbouring sites.
Historical data is corrected because we know how inaccurate past methods were. If we hadn't corrected the data and still used the same methods today, nothing would have changed, the long term trends would be the same. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:09 - Nov 22 with 1120 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:48 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
It's not guess work, it's through a process called statistical homogenisation. Which is basically a comparison to neighbouring sites.
Historical data is corrected because we know how inaccurate past methods were. If we hadn't corrected the data and still used the same methods today, nothing would have changed, the long term trends would be the same. |
So, you are using that as the justification for the data to be always adjusted in the same direction and over years of AVERAGED data up to 2 degrees C?
I have a quote for you from someone involved in this scientific/statistical process "if you want to know what the actual temperature was look at the Raw data, if you want to know what the models say it should have been look at our final product". That was after being challenged over changing the data from the Antarctica Science Stations, get that being run by Climate Scientists.
For goodness sake give us a break will you. You are bloody clueless as to what NASA/GISS & HADCRUT are actually doing with the data.
Like I said End Of, it is not even worth the bother of talking to you.
ps I think I owe you an apology, because it occurs to me that you are an honest scientist, trying to do a decent job and probably can't rationalise scientists with an Agenda that aren't. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 19:19]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:22 - Nov 22 with 1112 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:09 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
So, you are using that as the justification for the data to be always adjusted in the same direction and over years of AVERAGED data up to 2 degrees C?
I have a quote for you from someone involved in this scientific/statistical process "if you want to know what the actual temperature was look at the Raw data, if you want to know what the models say it should have been look at our final product". That was after being challenged over changing the data from the Antarctica Science Stations, get that being run by Climate Scientists.
For goodness sake give us a break will you. You are bloody clueless as to what NASA/GISS & HADCRUT are actually doing with the data.
Like I said End Of, it is not even worth the bother of talking to you.
ps I think I owe you an apology, because it occurs to me that you are an honest scientist, trying to do a decent job and probably can't rationalise scientists with an Agenda that aren't. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 19:19]
|
That's just not true. In fact adjustments to ocean temperature records by NOAA actually reduce the amount of warming.
Well whoever said that is wrong. Completely wrong. Met sites, observers and methods change hence the need for validation.
Historical records are more accurate than ever. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:34 - Nov 22 with 1106 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:22 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
That's just not true. In fact adjustments to ocean temperature records by NOAA actually reduce the amount of warming.
Well whoever said that is wrong. Completely wrong. Met sites, observers and methods change hence the need for validation.
Historical records are more accurate than ever. |
Only the Raw data can be made more accurate during the 1st Adjustment phase, which is the quality check used to throw out obviously spurious results from the original transcription to paper and the later digitisation.
Which is the type of adjustments you were making.
The hubris of Climate scientists that think they know better than the people actually taking the temperatures a 100 years ago is an utter disgrace.
So I don't owe you an apology after all.
ps just so you know the correct statistical method for dealing with data of suspect quality is to use Error Bars, not change it to what you think it should be. Because then everyone can see that quality may not be adequate. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 19:49]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:57 - Nov 22 with 1100 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:34 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
Only the Raw data can be made more accurate during the 1st Adjustment phase, which is the quality check used to throw out obviously spurious results from the original transcription to paper and the later digitisation.
Which is the type of adjustments you were making.
The hubris of Climate scientists that think they know better than the people actually taking the temperatures a 100 years ago is an utter disgrace.
So I don't owe you an apology after all.
ps just so you know the correct statistical method for dealing with data of suspect quality is to use Error Bars, not change it to what you think it should be. Because then everyone can see that quality may not be adequate. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 19:49]
|
Not necessarily.
It's not hubris to know where errors were made. They were made in good faith.
Error bars wouldn't work for met data, they relate to uncertainty. Met data needs a value not a range of possibilities. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:55 - Nov 22 with 1087 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:26 - Nov 22 by Scotia |
I think "adjusted" is the wrong word, it almost implies it has been falsified. Which isn't the case. Validation is a more accurate description.
Because the equipment is field based usually in pretty remote places the raw data needs to be checked for accuracy. There are lots of things that can interfere with it I've seen a chicken nesting in a rain gauge and measured one unusually high total which when emptied the "rain" was a strange yellow colour.
Over the years there has been a lot of variation in how observations were made and equipment used so adjustments are necessary to improve accuracy. |
So an adjustment could even mean leaving one set of datum out completely if the (lets call it) outside interference is such that figuring out the numbers is impossible?
I'm still not keen on the idea of adjusted data because it increases the opportunity for error, in either irection.
We don't have a clue how much any predictions or outcomes are wrong because of adjustments. To me, if any data is corrupted it should be ignored. But then I'm no expert, it's a purely personal opinion based on scant information. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:13 - Nov 22 with 1085 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:55 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
So an adjustment could even mean leaving one set of datum out completely if the (lets call it) outside interference is such that figuring out the numbers is impossible?
I'm still not keen on the idea of adjusted data because it increases the opportunity for error, in either irection.
We don't have a clue how much any predictions or outcomes are wrong because of adjustments. To me, if any data is corrupted it should be ignored. But then I'm no expert, it's a purely personal opinion based on scant information. |
If it was impossible to accurately estimate the data it would be left out. That tends not to be the case though most errors are quite clear and easily corrected.
Adjusting data isn't ideal, I'm not going to pretend it is, but with this kind of data there isn't really an option, there are far too many variables especially over the long term. Nature, equipment failure and human error all play a part. I wasn't taking the mick when I suggested AFD took a look at the site in Victoria Park, the raw data is only a starting point really.
I worked more with rainfall and we had some excellent observers and some terrible ones and very few sites are perfect. One of them was a monk on Caldey Island who was hugely dedicated but the site was very over sheltered, so probably underecorded, that data wasn't then used by the Met Office at all.
We could ignore corrupted data it's only really validated to ensure a complete record. The long term trend, which is important when considering change, would be the same, even from limited sites. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 23:00 - Nov 22 with 1075 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:55 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
So an adjustment could even mean leaving one set of datum out completely if the (lets call it) outside interference is such that figuring out the numbers is impossible?
I'm still not keen on the idea of adjusted data because it increases the opportunity for error, in either irection.
We don't have a clue how much any predictions or outcomes are wrong because of adjustments. To me, if any data is corrupted it should be ignored. But then I'm no expert, it's a purely personal opinion based on scant information. |
Unfortunately Scotia doesn't know what he is talking about regarding NASA/GISS adjustments.
They carry out those corrective adjustments, but then they adjust every single record for TIme of Observation errors, whether there was an actual error or not.
This is the adjustment that lowers the past readings, but it is only supposed to do so by a half a degree F, not half a degree or a degree or two degrees C.
Then they can adjust them yet again, yes every single one by using pairwise homogenation.
In the case of GISS they compare them to other sites up to 1200km away, ie from here to Scotland.
They also replace perfectly good data with "Estimated" data, sometimes over many years, they use estimated data where there is no data.
As you noted, an open book for corruption, which those charts I linked to clearly show. I another dozen or so showing the same and even worse changes of modern station data.
Always the adjustments steepen the trend upwards to now or change a descending trend to anascending trend.
Cox either lied or is clueless, either way it is a disgrace.
PS sorry I think the gridding may use the 1200km for the final global calculation, but I can't remember. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 10:37]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:18 - Nov 23 with 1038 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 23:00 - Nov 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
Unfortunately Scotia doesn't know what he is talking about regarding NASA/GISS adjustments.
They carry out those corrective adjustments, but then they adjust every single record for TIme of Observation errors, whether there was an actual error or not.
This is the adjustment that lowers the past readings, but it is only supposed to do so by a half a degree F, not half a degree or a degree or two degrees C.
Then they can adjust them yet again, yes every single one by using pairwise homogenation.
In the case of GISS they compare them to other sites up to 1200km away, ie from here to Scotland.
They also replace perfectly good data with "Estimated" data, sometimes over many years, they use estimated data where there is no data.
As you noted, an open book for corruption, which those charts I linked to clearly show. I another dozen or so showing the same and even worse changes of modern station data.
Always the adjustments steepen the trend upwards to now or change a descending trend to anascending trend.
Cox either lied or is clueless, either way it is a disgrace.
PS sorry I think the gridding may use the 1200km for the final global calculation, but I can't remember. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 10:37]
|
That is all in relation to climate change which is not something I know enough about besides the laymans arguments about there being more wet weather compared to when I was a kid or we used to have better summers in the 70's.
I've said before, I tend to worry more about ecological damage, environment destruction, what we are physically doing to our world that can be seen very easily, such as the destruction of rainforests in the Amazon.
I think we are having an effect on climate but not as big an effect as some scientists say but again, it's purely a laymans opinion.
Having taken part in thos with both of you, my opinion hasn't changed but I have learned some stuff so thank you. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:22 - Nov 23 with 1037 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Cat, one thing that the holders of temperature data do for the puposes of trend comparison is to try and remove the affects of local weather (micoclimate).
The fact that people actually experienced the weather is immaterial, because they say that it is weather and not "climate" they try and remove it using Homogenisation. This however should work in both directions, ie warm periods for areas prone to Fone winds should be removed, but I very much doubt that they are.
There is one adjustment that is necessary if you want to compare current temperatures to the past that is not adequately accounted for.
It is for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) affect.
Increased building and population affects temperatures a lot, it also degrades station sites so that they no longer meet the strict quality guidelines.
An average large town will increase the local temperature by around 2 degrees C, for a large city like London it can be by as much as 5 or 6 degrees, it is easy to see this when they give TV weather forecasts.
So to compare the current 10 million population London with the 5 million one of 1900 the current temperature should be lowered or the old temperatures raised. If I remember correctly those that do make an adjustment use 0.2 degrees C.
The other major problem today is the use of Airport weather stations in the global calculations, they also suffer major UHI, particularly when the went from Grass to concrete or black Asphalt Runways, taxi ways and hard standings.
Added to that was the progress from propeller driven aircraft to jet engined aircraft and of course the sheer volume of traffic.
A citizen study called surfacestation.org organised by Anthony Watts of WUWT fame to check every site in the USA found by 2012 that the vast majority of sites were not fit to be used for Climate statistics without the use of error bars.
Based on NASA's own strict quality guidelines 81% had an accuracy of less than 2 degrees C.
The results were eventually accepted by NASA.
The current Reference network CRN which requires no adjustments shows no warming trend in the USA since it's inception between 2000 & 2008.
A similar study of site quality in Australia is ongoing, with very similar results.
My question therefore, taking in to consideration UHI, how can the world be Globally Warming when many countries show no warming and even cooling trends based on their quality controlled but unadjusted data? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:52 - Nov 23 with 1034 views | Scotia |
I'm not going to quote AFD's two most recent posts.
But they are both pretty much completely wrong. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
