Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[ScienceRocks]

Let Hansen explain his reasoning---I'm sure he has good reasons for doing what ever. Maybe the people that made the first graphs 30-40, 50, 70 years ago did bad job with the data and Hansen is making it better.

Wow... by this reasoning I'm sure the Catholic Church had good reasons to torture Galileo till he recanted too.

Nice job Torquemada! Capital!

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Hansen has a well paid group of people that work night and day going through numbers and making sure they fit. Believe it or not there are screw up's with the data(temperature devices) that need to be flagged. That is how science works.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let Hansen explain his reasoning---I'm sure he has good reasons for doing what ever. Maybe the people that made the first graphs 30-40, 50, 70 years ago did bad job with the data and Hansen is making it better.

Wow... by this reasoning I'm sure the Catholic Church had good reasons to torture Galileo till he recanted too.

Nice job Torquemada! Capital!

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wow... by this reasoning I'm sure the Catholic Church had good reasons to torture Galileo till he recanted too.

Nice job Torquemada! Capital!

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

Interesting site. It is sad that these sites could be so fudged.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

Interesting site. It is sad that these sites could be so fudged.

almost as easy as Hansen's. But... it's too easily verified by others, hence it has a lot more credibility.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow... by this reasoning I'm sure the Catholic Church had good reasons to torture Galileo till he recanted too.

Nice job Torquemada! Capital!

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

 

[flacaltenn]

Say WHAT edthecynic??

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

You might be assuming that the location bias has been removed, but if it HASN'T then the anomaly BECOMES the measurement. The problem is that if you DON'T control for the basic calibration of the sensor -- all bets are off as to sensitivity and accuracy..

 

[daveman]

...and you often act against your own best interests...

Remember...it's ALWAYS in EVERYONE'S best interests to vote to keep liberals in power.


And it's just coincidence that it's liberals saying that. No, really.

 

[edthecynic]

Say WHAT edthecynic??

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

You might be assuming that the location bias has been removed, but if it HASN'T then the anomaly BECOMES the measurement. The problem is that if you DON'T control for the basic calibration of the sensor -- all bets are off as to sensitivity and accuracy..

That's right, and temp stations near heat sources produce abnormally LOWER anomalies because the heat source creates a HIGHER average temp to measure the anomaly against. That is why when temp stations near heat sources are removed from the data set, the temp of the data set rises.

So when deniers get their way and the badly located temp stations are removed from the data set, they cry foul that the number of stations is decreasing and the temp is rising, proving that they are not interested in an accurate data set, but only in discrediting the data set.

 

[daveman]

Say WHAT edthecynic??

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

You might be assuming that the location bias has been removed, but if it HASN'T then the anomaly BECOMES the measurement. The problem is that if you DON'T control for the basic calibration of the sensor -- all bets are off as to sensitivity and accuracy..

That's right, and temp stations near heat sources produce abnormally LOWER anomalies because the heat source creates a HIGHER average temp to measure the anomaly against. That is why when temp stations near heat sources are removed from the data set, the temp of the data set rises.

So when deniers get their way and the badly located temp stations are removed from the data set, they cry foul that the number of stations is decreasing and the temp is rising, proving that they are not interested in an accurate data set, but only in discrediting the data set.

You want to pretend it's the hot stations being removed, but it's not...the cold ones are.

Archived-Articles: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.​

Do you really think that only 4 stations can represent the true average temp in CA? Especially ones set in heat islands?

Yeah, yeah, we all know about these "corrections". They're obviously bullshit.

Real scientists like as much data as they can get. AGW "scientists" only want data that confirms their preconceived conclusions.

Therefore, AGW "scientists" are not practicing science.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is thousands of data points within the global record all recording hour by hour, day after day, year after year. With the fast computers today and a much better understanding of the heat island effect and more data to compare what is normal---who's to say that it is not better?


Some one just as easily could of fucking fudged with the numbers on the miles long sheets of paper that temperature used to be recorded on. who's to say. Figuring out numbers by hand or even some huge piece of shit, that took up a room in the 1940-1950s, is somehow better then a super computer, we have today that can go through trillions of numbers per minute?

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

Actually it's a lack of obsession, not a lack of understanding, of anomalies. A disregard for a false pattern as full of science as phrenology or astrology.

When you're forced to use clean data, you cry foul because it does not present the end you desire. You claim that fixing the bias issue creates a BIGGER bias?

You're trying to rig this Faro wheel even as it spins.

 

[edthecynic]

Say WHAT edthecynic??

You might be assuming that the location bias has been removed, but if it HASN'T then the anomaly BECOMES the measurement. The problem is that if you DON'T control for the basic calibration of the sensor -- all bets are off as to sensitivity and accuracy..

That's right, and temp stations near heat sources produce abnormally LOWER anomalies because the heat source creates a HIGHER average temp to measure the anomaly against. That is why when temp stations near heat sources are removed from the data set, the temp of the data set rises.

So when deniers get their way and the badly located temp stations are removed from the data set, they cry foul that the number of stations is decreasing and the temp is rising, proving that they are not interested in an accurate data set, but only in discrediting the data set.

You want to pretend it's the hot stations being removed, but it's not...the cold ones are.

Archived-Articles: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.​

Do you really think that only 4 stations can represent the true average temp in CA? Especially ones set in heat islands?

Yeah, yeah, we all know about these "corrections". They're obviously bullshit.

Real scientists like as much data as they can get. AGW "scientists" only want data that confirms their preconceived conclusions.

Therefore, AGW "scientists" are not practicing science.

The American Stinker is a right wing extremist blog and hardly a reliable source for anything.

But for argument's sake lets assume that these closed stations could provide valuable data. Why don't you deniers set up and man stations where you think they will give accurate data??? Deniers do not because they have no desire to collect accurate data, their only purpose is to create doubt about everyone else's data.

Climate research budgets get cut and the most expensive and hardest to reach and man sites get closed down. CON$ and deniers want even more cuts so they can bitch about more stations being closed down. Deniers are well funded by energy companies so they can afford to man the closed stations. But they won't!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Home =Surfacestations.org

They're tracking how often those sites have become compromised in providing accurate data in the US.

Again you show a lack of understanding of anomalies. If the recording station is near a heat source, that increases the average temp the anomaly is measured against, making the temp anomaly smaller. When the data from these sites is removed from the data set, as requested by the deniers, the removal of these abnormally lower anomalies from the data set raises the temp of the data set and the deniers cry foul.

Actually it's a lack of obsession, not a lack of understanding, of anomalies. A disregard for a false pattern as full of science as phrenology or astrology.

When you're forced to use clean data, you cry foul because it does not present the end you desire. You claim that fixing the bias issue creates a BIGGER bias?

You're trying to rig this Faro wheel even as it spins.

No that's what you deniers claim. If a station exists for a while and then the area around it is later developed and a heat source is introduced, the temp anomalies rise at first, but as the heat source is worked into the average the anomaly is measured against the anomalies decline. So when the station near a heat source is removed from the data set, the older temps go down and the newer temps go up and the deniers have a shit fit.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's right, and temp stations near heat sources produce abnormally LOWER anomalies because the heat source creates a HIGHER average temp to measure the anomaly against. That is why when temp stations near heat sources are removed from the data set, the temp of the data set rises.

So when deniers get their way and the badly located temp stations are removed from the data set, they cry foul that the number of stations is decreasing and the temp is rising, proving that they are not interested in an accurate data set, but only in discrediting the data set.

You want to pretend it's the hot stations being removed, but it's not...the cold ones are.

Archived-Articles: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.​

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.​

Do you really think that only 4 stations can represent the true average temp in CA? Especially ones set in heat islands?

Yeah, yeah, we all know about these "corrections". They're obviously bullshit.

Real scientists like as much data as they can get. AGW "scientists" only want data that confirms their preconceived conclusions.

Therefore, AGW "scientists" are not practicing science.

The American Stinker is a right wing extremist blog and hardly a reliable source for anything.

But for argument's sake lets assume that these closed stations could provide valuable data. Why don't you deniers set up and man stations where you think they will give accurate data??? Deniers do not because they have no desire to collect accurate data, their only purpose is to create doubt about everyone else's data.

Climate research budgets get cut and the most expensive and hardest to reach and man sites get closed down. CON$ and deniers want even more cuts so they can bitch about more stations being closed down. Deniers are well funded by energy companies so they can afford to man the closed stations. But they won't!!!

The American Stinker is a right wing extremist blog and hardly a reliable source for anything.

Right. a published magazine is a blog. Gonna try the "No true Scotsman" defense now? You would be valid in saying it is a right wing opinion mag.

But for argument's sake lets assume that these closed stations could provide valuable data. Why don't you deniers set up and man stations where you think they will give accurate data??? Deniers do not because they have no desire to collect accurate data, their only purpose is to create doubt about everyone else's data.

So you're ignoring the whole purpose of surfacestations.org? Gotcha. Find the biased station and force them into code or be moved to some place that IS in code. I'm sure you don't give a ratfuck if they're placed in the middle of a blacktop parkinglot with HVAC exhaust blowing directly on them because it gives the data you want.

This isn't science. This is fraud.

Climate research budgets get cut and the most expensive and hardest to reach and man sites get closed down. CON$ and deniers want even more cuts so they can bitch about more stations being closed down. Deniers are well funded by energy companies so they can afford to man the closed stations. But they won't!!!

Horseshit. The chicken littles are well funded by gubmint groups and far leftwing watermelon ecofascist 'charities'. A business funds a study and suddenly it's 'coal conspiracy' to perpetuate the ebil capitalist system that must be destroyed!!!! [/froth] At least their agenda is to keep their doors open, provide jobs, and improve the lives of everyone they can instead of driving them into some neo-luddite, faux tribal rainforest hunter-gatherer society that died in of starvation 2000 years ago.

No that's what you deniers claim. If a station exists for a while and then the area around it is later developed and a heat source is introduced, the temp anomalies rise at first, but as the heat source is worked into the average the anomaly is measured against the anomalies decline. So when the station near a heat source is removed from the data set, the older temps go down and the newer temps go up and the deniers have a shit fit.

No. It is not. The new false temps are taken by people who have not been told the truth that the site is biased (which would be almost everyone if the chicken littles could shut down groups of independent people and honest scientists who disagree) would accept it as true. You're pimping a scam. You know it and are insulted to have been caught. The type of guy that could be caught smoking gun in hand and say "I didn't do it." The ethics of a hungry piranha.

 

[edthecynic]

So you're ignoring the whole purpose of surfacestations.org? Gotcha. Find the biased station and force them into code or be moved to some place that IS in code. I'm sure you don't give a ratfuck if they're placed in the middle of a blacktop parkinglot with HVAC exhaust blowing directly on them because it gives the data you want.

As I pointed out, a station near a heat source creates a higher than normal 20 year average that the anomalies are measured against giving COLDER temperature anomalies in the long run. Because deniers are completely ignorant about how anomalies work, they think removing a station near a heat source will lower the overall temperature of data set and when the warming trend becomes more obvious when the stations deniers want removed are taken out of the data set, they cry foul which is a testament to their complete ignorance of science.

 

[daveman]

The American Stinker is a right wing extremist blog and hardly a reliable source for anything.

In other words, it doesn't support the cult.

But for argument's sake lets assume that these closed stations could provide valuable data. Why don't you deniers set up and man stations where you think they will give accurate data??? Deniers do not because they have no desire to collect accurate data, their only purpose is to create doubt about everyone else's data.

Is it possible you're really that stupid?

AGW cultists have made an allegedly scientific claim. They need to use science to back it up.

They have failed to do so. It's not up to me to disprove their claim; it's up to them to prove it.

Climate research budgets get cut and the most expensive and hardest to reach and man sites get closed down. CON$ and deniers want even more cuts so they can bitch about more stations being closed down. Deniers are well funded by energy companies so they can afford to man the closed stations. But they won't!!!

And yet you think we have the money to enact your ludicrous green policies?

Sorry, your claims just aren't realistic. You continue to defend bad science because it supports what you want.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Big Fitz]

So you're ignoring the whole purpose of surfacestations.org? Gotcha. Find the biased station and force them into code or be moved to some place that IS in code. I'm sure you don't give a ratfuck if they're placed in the middle of a blacktop parkinglot with HVAC exhaust blowing directly on them because it gives the data you want.

As I pointed out, a station near a heat source creates a higher than normal 20 year average that the anomalies are measured against giving COLDER temperature anomalies in the long run. Because deniers are completely ignorant about how anomalies work, they think removing a station near a heat source will lower the overall temperature of data set and when the warming trend becomes more obvious when the stations deniers want removed are taken out of the data set, they cry foul which is a testament to their complete ignorance of science.

Wow. You just won't stop, will you? Like a hamster on a toilet paper tube.

What the fuck is with you liberal whackjobs today? Collective menstruation or something?

The goal is to not "shut it down" but "make them accurate". Just 'compensating' via software is not getting good data, it's assuming for bad data. You can't have good science if you refuse to demand good data. 99.95% of all collection points can be moved to some degree or another to get accurate data. If you're not willing to concede that artificial increases in temperature due to development or any other cause of bias in the readings means that site is no longer a valid collection point. Like drawing water from a well. If the water goes bad, you stop using that location, and dig another one where it is not bad.

Same theory. That surface station that was in a field is now in a refrigerated warehouse parkinglot downwind from the physical plant. It is no longer a valid location. Find the nearest location that IS valid and move it there so your statistics are true.

 

[Big Fitz]

The American Stinker is a right wing extremist blog and hardly a reliable source for anything.

In other words, it doesn't support the cult.

But for argument's sake lets assume that these closed stations could provide valuable data. Why don't you deniers set up and man stations where you think they will give accurate data??? Deniers do not because they have no desire to collect accurate data, their only purpose is to create doubt about everyone else's data.

Is it possible you're really that stupid?

AGW cultists have made an allegedly scientific claim. They need to use science to back it up.

They have failed to do so. It's not up to me to disprove their claim; it's up to them to prove it.

Climate research budgets get cut and the most expensive and hardest to reach and man sites get closed down. CON$ and deniers want even more cuts so they can bitch about more stations being closed down. Deniers are well funded by energy companies so they can afford to man the closed stations. But they won't!!!

And yet you think we have the money to enact your ludicrous green policies?

Sorry, your claims just aren't realistic. You continue to defend bad science because it supports what you want.

That's all there is to it.

This whole argument smacks of this fucking stupid quote:

"Some see the world and ask 'Why?'. I see the the world as it should be and ask 'Why not?'."

I'll tell you why not. Your desired utopia is not reality, and physics do not bend to your whim, presupposition or desired outcome.

 

[daveman]

This whole argument smacks of this fucking stupid quote:

"Some see the world and ask 'Why?'. I see the the world as it should be and ask 'Why not?'."

I'll tell you why not. Your desired utopia is not reality, and physics do not bend to your whim, presupposition or desired outcome.

Leftists engage in magical thinking. They see what they believe. When reality conflicts, reality is ignored.

 

[edthecynic]

So you're ignoring the whole purpose of surfacestations.org? Gotcha. Find the biased station and force them into code or be moved to some place that IS in code. I'm sure you don't give a ratfuck if they're placed in the middle of a blacktop parkinglot with HVAC exhaust blowing directly on them because it gives the data you want.

As I pointed out, a station near a heat source creates a higher than normal 20 year average that the anomalies are measured against giving COLDER temperature anomalies in the long run. Because deniers are completely ignorant about how anomalies work, they think removing a station near a heat source will lower the overall temperature of data set and when the warming trend becomes more obvious when the stations deniers want removed are taken out of the data set, they cry foul which is a testament to their complete ignorance of science.

Wow. You just won't stop, will you? Like a hamster on a toilet paper tube.

What the fuck is with you liberal whackjobs today? Collective menstruation or something?

The goal is to not "shut it down" but "make them accurate". Just 'compensating' via software is not getting good data, it's assuming for bad data. You can't have good science if you refuse to demand good data. 99.95% of all collection points can be moved to some degree or another to get accurate data. If you're not willing to concede that artificial increases in temperature due to development or any other cause of bias in the readings means that site is no longer a valid collection point. Like drawing water from a well. If the water goes bad, you stop using that location, and dig another one where it is not bad.

Same theory. That surface station that was in a field is now in a refrigerated warehouse parkinglot downwind from the physical plant. It is no longer a valid location. Find the nearest location that IS valid and move it there so your statistics are true.

Once you concede that development has skewed the data, obviously you need to remove ALL the bad data from the data set. When that happens the temperature of the older remaining data in the set from the time when the heat source was first introduced goes down because the warmer anomalies are removed. And after the data, from the heat source that has reached the point where it has abnormally raised the 20 year average the anomalies are measured against and therefore lowered the anomalies measured against it, has been removed, those temps in the remaining data set go up thus making the warming trend more pronounced. When the now more accurate data shows a more pronounced warming, the deniers claim that making the data more accurate is "manipulating" the data because the more accurate data does not support their bias.

 

[Big Fitz]

This whole argument smacks of this fucking stupid quote:

"Some see the world and ask 'Why?'. I see the the world as it should be and ask 'Why not?'."

I'll tell you why not. Your desired utopia is not reality, and physics do not bend to your whim, presupposition or desired outcome.

Leftists engage in magical thinking. They see what they believe. When reality conflicts, reality is ignored.

Yeah... speaking "Truth to Power" doesn't work on climatology though. And no matter how much you chant "CO2 CO2 go away, come again some other day", it won't matter a fig.