Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
AGW, it's just not science
Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.
My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.
for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.
Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not.
I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods.
I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.
BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?
No I haven't read it.well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.
Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.
My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.
for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.
Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not.
I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods.
I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.
BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?
I did find this statement from skeptical science as they talked about the report and they stated this winner:
We know that temperatures measured by ship sensors are often warmer than temperatures measured by buoys,
My curiousity goes to these sets of questions immediately,
*Are they recording the temperature of the ocean at the same point and time?
*are they both at the same depth?
*Did anyone ever compare the two different devices in order to benchmark the difference readings between the two different devices?
Ian, Have you ever taken two different thermal devices and read different temperatures from the same source.
for instance, take a glass of water, take a mercury thermometer and take a reading and then take a digital thermometer and take a reading?
I know that in the course of my life, I've had my temperature taken with both and they have always given the same 98.6 when I wasn't ill.
So again, logically, why would one thermometer sensor run warmer than another? And from there I'm sorry, I don't buy any of it. someone can post on this board till forever and I will have not moved one inch from my position that it is all fixed.
Good questions. It's hard to keep thermometers calibrated exactly. Each type of thermometer has its own strengths and weaknesses.
For SSTs the change from buckets to intakes to buoys have caused a lot of problems. One of the criticisms of Karl15 was the choice to adjust the offset and trend of good quality bouy data to the poor intake data. Ocean temps are poorly sampled in both area and time. The numbers can be pushed around a lot depending on how you calculate them. Every few years a new and 'improved' method comes along and the old results are consigned to the trash, making comparisons difficult.
Stability in method may be more important than having the 'best' method. When changes due to different methods often make larger adjustments than the trend you are trying to measure.....
AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
AGW, it's just not science
I'm curious Frank. Do you not believe in the Greenhouse Effect, or disbelieve that CO2 plays a part in it, or just doubt that any further change in CO2 will have a measurable effect?
I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat. Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left. It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right. The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere. Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum". Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates. There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum". From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.
Crick you need to update this, apparently the water does not reradiate the energy its absorbs
The raw data is right here.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
I've pointed to that data many times before, yet many deniers still choose to lie outright and pretend it's not available. Lying is kind of what they do. It's all they do. For example, jc and frankhere keeps lying about no experiment, despite having experiments shown to him over and over.
Basically, it's not possible to be an honest person and be a hardcore denier. One can be honest and maintain a lukewarmer position, but all of the hardcore deniers here are pathologically dishonest cult pissguzzlers.
Well looky, looky, we are now in July, th 14th day of 2016, and still not one experiment that demonstrates the magical properties of CO2 with regard to temperature.
Nothing that can challenge this experiment:
CO2
Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.
Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.
Winning
Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.
Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.
What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.
What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.
jc, if you weren't a 'tard, you would have understood that. However, you are a retard, so you fell for it hard.
Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.
Everyone is certainly very impressed with your obsessive lifelong devotion to pathologically lying, and with your inability to locate your balls, and with your rise to stardom in loser-American community.
Now, not all deniers are dishonest eunuchs. Just most of them.