US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The trouble with anomalies

This is a discussion on The trouble with anomalies within the Environment forums, part of the US Discussion category; Verity Jones has two nice articles on how inclusion or exclusion of temperature anomalies can make a difference in constructing global data sets The trouble ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2012, 06:26 PM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,060
Thanks: 873
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,274 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 654
IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet
The trouble with anomalies

Verity Jones has two nice articles on how inclusion or exclusion of temperature anomalies can make a difference in constructing global data sets

The trouble with anomalies… Part 1 | Digging in the Clay

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

The trouble with anomalies… Part 2 | Digging in the Clay

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

but the really funny punchline was at the end! he compared the whole thing to the AMO and it matched pretty well. hahaha. the warmists say that everything is known and controlled for but they are full of BS. every area of climate studies look OK superficially but it all breaks down once you look at things more carefully or if you add other variables. the science is not settled people!



I know most people dont really care to figure out how any of the science behind the climate wars actually works but a whole lot of information is out there.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” ― Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2012, 06:56 PM
asterism's Avatar
Congress != Progress
Member #24388
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,753
Thanks: 162
Thanked 2,022 Times in 1,476 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1719
asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute
asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute
Climatologists just aren't very good with large amounts of data and computer modeling. They have no training in those areas.
__________________
Politics is show business for ugly people.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to asterism For This Useful Post:
IanC (11-06-2012)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2012, 07:30 PM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,060
Thanks: 873
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,274 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 654
IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet
Climatologists just aren't very good with large amounts of data and computer modeling. They have no training in those areas.
Unfortunately you are correct. Gergis2012 is a good example of that. They attempted to use better methodologies, screwed up, and then found that their findings were impossible to attain without using cherrypicking and circular reasoning.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” ― Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2012, 08:05 PM
flacaltenn's Avatar
Not a spectator sport
Member #30473
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Posts: 13,757
Thanks: 5,118
Thanked 5,483 Times in 3,897 Posts
Mentioned: 639 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6431
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Too bad we don't have a satellite record back thru the 30s.. It would be pretty hard to "homogenize" that wouldn't it?

If you are losing that many stations over the span on which the anomalies are calculated, then simply -- the idea that anomalies are self-canceling is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for another reason that I didn't see specifically in the article -- but maybe it's in her references. And that is that the station biases dont' matter ONLY IF they are static during the span on which the anomalies are based. If Urban heating springs up 1/2 way into the span --- you can't ignore that effect on bias.

As for the match to AMO -- If you're fixated on coming up with ONE GLOBAL NUMBER -- the Earth is 75% ocean. AMO is about +/- 0.5degC.. How can you make the statement that "natural forcings are insignificant".. Especially when they accidentally show up in the "variance" part of your anomaly??

Guess what? Same reason --- biases only normalize out if they are STATIC during that period of calculating the span for the anomaly.. AMO PDO ?? Not static.. Isn't this WHY the variances SHOULD track things like AMO? Someone ought to break this down into quadrants with the Atlantic/Pacific North/South hemis.
__________________


Quote:
The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
― George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by flacaltenn; 11-06-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2012, 10:47 PM
asterism's Avatar
Congress != Progress
Member #24388
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,753
Thanks: 162
Thanked 2,022 Times in 1,476 Posts
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1719
asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute
asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute asterism has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by flacaltenn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Too bad we don't have a satellite record back thru the 30s.. It would be pretty hard to "homogenize" that wouldn't it?

If you are losing that many stations over the span on which the anomalies are calculated, then simply -- the idea that anomalies are self-canceling is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for another reason that I didn't see specifically in the article -- but maybe it's in her references. And that is that the station biases dont' matter ONLY IF they are static during the span on which the anomalies are based. If Urban heating springs up 1/2 way into the span --- you can't ignore that effect on bias.

As for the match to AMO -- If you're fixated on coming up with ONE GLOBAL NUMBER -- the Earth is 75% ocean. AMO is about +/- 0.5degC.. How can you make the statement that "natural forcings are insignificant".. Especially when they accidentally show up in the "variance" part of your anomaly??

Guess what? Same reason --- biases only normalize out if they are STATIC during that period of calculating the span for the anomaly.. AMO PDO ?? Not static.. Isn't this WHY the variances SHOULD track things like AMO? Someone ought to break this down into quadrants with the Atlantic/Pacific North/South hemis.
Biases only normalize if you have a valid statistical sample of the population.
__________________
Politics is show business for ugly people.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2012, 09:42 AM
flacaltenn's Avatar
Not a spectator sport
Member #30473
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Posts: 13,757
Thanks: 5,118
Thanked 5,483 Times in 3,897 Posts
Mentioned: 639 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6431
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow flacaltenn is cooler than the underside of a pillow
That is true.. But here you have a dynamic bias. The argument is that even if your thermometers read slightly high or low because of placement or calibration -- that over the 20 or 30 period, if you subtract out the average and ONLY look at the anomaly (delta T/ Avg T) then all that positional and calibration bias goes away.. That's not true if the bias CHANGES over that period. The changes BECOME part of the anomaly. So if you have a weather station that's been there for 20 years into your period of averaging and THEN someone builds a parking lot next to it 5 years before the END of the averaging period. That's gonna be part of the anomaly.

The important bit for this OP is that NATURAL cycles can also become part of the anomaly if they vary cyclically during the averaging period. (like ocean temps eg.) And the anomaly measurements themselves will change and have differing variances depending on where you stop and start the averaging period.
__________________


Quote:
The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
― George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by flacaltenn; 11-07-2012 at 09:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2012, 12:41 PM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,060
Thanks: 873
Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,274 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 654
IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet IanC is faster than a speeding bullet
you guys have both made good points.

the way I see it is that data handling for global temps has degenerated into numerology. guys like Hansen have crunched the numbers in a thousand ways looking for the most dangerous trends and then made their 'adjustments' accordingly.

while I do believe that global temps have risen a little over the last 150 years I also believe that a lot of the trend has been manufactured by selective choosing of sites and weighting poor quality data like the Arctic to give an overestimate of the real change. the US has the best data, and its trend using unadjusted readings is very small. it is only when you start adding areas like Arctic airports or African incomplete series that you get an even noticable jump.

we may end up spending trillions of dollars on a problem that doesnt even exist. I think we should employ specialists to do things like check the actual thermometer readings before they get 'lost' and only the 'corrected' ones are available. scientists seem to think cleaning up and repairing data series is a job that is beneath them. fair enough, get an accounting firm in to do the grunt work of catching the mistakes ( and there are many, many thousands of them). hire several teams of statisticians to develop competing methodologies for correcting some of the more obvious biases (anyone besides me wondering why the BEST papers still havent passed peer review after more than a year?). GISS has never had to undergo scrutiny for its methodologies even though obvious flaws have been pointed out on numerous occasions.

even with best practises and continued improvement of data collection we need to have more realistic accessment of the uncertainties involved. often the size of the effect we are looking for is much smaller than the error bars for the measurements. while future data is likely to improve, you cant get 'better' data out of old noisy data sets. often all of the trend comes from 'adjustments'.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” ― Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.