|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 14, 2008 15:26:27 GMT
But he just assumes the adjustment is wrong. Looking at the junkyard of a USHCN site - would you rely on a private company who had such a gross lack of care in public, to be right in another area where what they do is not public? Can anyone honestly say they are PROUD of the state of these sites? If not then why isn't something done?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 15, 2008 0:10:43 GMT
Perhaps it's like that old myth of NASA spending millions developing a pen working in space and the russians just using a pencil.
Ie you don't need bells and whistles, just enough to get the job done.
The sensors were set up for weather reporting which doesn't require great accuracy. The climate guys have come along midway into that party and tried to compile a climate record requiring far more accuracy than a single station provides. Yet as has been found when they use a large number of these individually inaccurate station, run some statistical validation and adjustment, they get quite reliable temperature records showing the change in temperature over time.
Simply pointing out individual stations are in junkyards is only addressing individual stations, not the temperature records.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 15, 2008 1:29:08 GMT
"they get quite reliable temperature records showing the change in temperature over time."Prove it
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 15, 2008 2:39:05 GMT
Perhaps it's like that old myth of NASA spending millions developing a pen working in space and the russians just using a pencil. Do you know it's a myth? Sounds very NASA to me. The sensors were set up for weather reporting which doesn't require great accuracy. The climate guys have come along midway into that party and tried to compile a climate record requiring far more accuracy than a single station provides. Yet as has been found when they use a large number of these individually inaccurate station, run some statistical validation and adjustment, they get quite reliable temperature records showing the change in temperature over time. Simply pointing out individual stations are in junkyards is only addressing individual stations, not the temperature records. So, given, as you say, the 'Climate guys' came in midway, I'm a little puzzled as to just how they'd actually know the past records were inaccurate. I can think of two ways they'd come up with this view... 1. The temperatures from the past didn't agree with the whole agw hypothesis 2. Their models, given the old data input, kept refusing to produce critical global warming. See, you can't say it's because of the satellite data because there was none from the older dates to compare with & when looked at unadjusted & un-statistically validated' the data where it does cross over agrees with the supposedly inaccurate temperature measuremnet being performed by the now much maligned dedicated Weather Service volunteers and staff. So just how did they decide the temps were inaccurate?
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 15, 2008 7:48:44 GMT
[yatta-yatta] Ie you don't need bells and whistles, just enough to get the job done. The sensors were set up for weather reporting which doesn't require great accuracy. The climate guys have come along midway into that party and tried to compile a climate record requiring far more accuracy than a single station provides. Yet as has been found when they use a large number of these individually inaccurate station, run some statistical validation and adjustment, they get quite reliable temperature records showing the change in temperature over time. Simply pointing out individual stations are in junkyards is only addressing individual stations, not the temperature records. The rule is still "Garbage in, garbage out." There is no number of bad sensors that will magically provide good data, just as there is no number of bad scientists that will provide good science, "consensus" or not. If you're trying to measure a GW trend of 0.1°F per decade and your sensors are only good to +/- 0.3°F, you'll never detect any valid trend. There just won't be enough precision. My experience is that if the place looks like a pigsty, odds are the output is going to be dreck. I've found that a sloppy attitude usually shows itself across the board, in all areas of behaviour. Old Etruscan proverb: "Where bug is, bugs are."
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 16, 2008 22:28:39 GMT
A larger number of sensors increases the precision of the average.
It's known that individual stations can be in error for various reasons - see surfacestations.org provides plenty of examples.
Individual sensor data can be detected as in error when it deviates significantly from nearby records. Temperature anomolies are very similar over large areas, so neighbouring stations can be used to verify a particular station's data. It all becomes a statistical task to weed out the bad data and only include the good stuff.
I took a look at all this a while back and it looked good to me. The satellite record shows a similar trend over the past 30 years as the surface records so that's independant indication that it's about right. I remain unconvinced by arguments that simply point out individual stations which contain errors. I know these errors exist, what I haven't seen evidence of is that they significantly impact the trend over the overall record.
I am not sure how much of the last 30 years surface warming you guys are claiming doesn't exist. I am sure you aren't claiming it didn't warm at all over the past 30 years, but to what degree you are saying the surface records are wrong I don't know. I think stating that should be the first part of your argument really because if you are saying it's off by 5% then I won't even bother arguing over such a small amount and will just concede it to save us all time.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Dec 16, 2008 23:49:39 GMT
A larger number of sensors increases the precision of the average. It's known that individual stations can be in error for various reasons - see surfacestations.org provides plenty of examples. Individual sensor data can be detected as in error when it deviates significantly from nearby records. Temperature anomolies are very similar over large areas, so neighbouring stations can be used to verify a particular station's data. It all becomes a statistical task to weed out the bad data and only include the good stuff. I took a look at all this a while back and it looked good to me. The satellite record shows a similar trend over the past 30 years as the surface records so that's independant indication that it's about right. I remain unconvinced by arguments that simply point out individual stations which contain errors. I know these errors exist, what I haven't seen evidence of is that they significantly impact the trend over the overall record. I am not sure how much of the last 30 years surface warming you guys are claiming doesn't exist. I am sure you aren't claiming it didn't warm at all over the past 30 years, but to what degree you are saying the surface records are wrong I don't know. I think stating that should be the first part of your argument really because if you are saying it's off by 5% then I won't even bother arguing over such a small amount and will just concede it to save us all time. When was the last time these stations were calibrated? When was the last time any routine maintenance was carried out (removal of bird crap etc)? Does anyone know? If there is a regular maintenance program carried out then SOCOLD has no case to answer the equipment will be working correctly and accurately (aircon ducts aside). In regards to the SAT data is that before or after the IPCC tweaked a bit of code so it showed warming where there was none? Whilst on the subject there seems to be a lot "processing" of the data which i do not understand, i except the UHI effect needs to be factored in and re evaluated on a regular basis but where i work we conduct tests/experiments and we measure many parameters at very high data rates. This data is recieved in a raw format and then converted to units but that is it. Anymore manipulation of the data will render the data useless as it will lose its accuracy and what we measure is a hell of a lot more complex than simply reading the temperature of a thermometer. To me this convoluted, complicated process of data manipulation renders ALL surface temp readings useless, and simply allows organisations to simply fiddle with the figures to suit there own needs.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 17, 2008 1:06:04 GMT
The thing is socold, that if the accuracy of the instruments is off by 1/2 degree, or one or two for that matter, then the anomolies, which are measured in 1/100's of a degree are far more suspect.
If the error is 10 or 20%, still pretty good for analysis, but pretty darn lousy if you're going to change the way the entire planet lives and produces energy overnight. And that's what people like Al Gore are trying to accomplish. Regardless of the consequences to society.
If the warming trend is lower than has been determined, we should have more time to prepare for it.
If the science behind AGW is wrong, then at the least we may just be spinning our wheels and making changes that are counterproductive for a cooling trend. At worst, we are doing things that will make us worse off for the future.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 17, 2008 4:01:55 GMT
Anthony Watts has a project to audit the surface stations with volunteers. The results of the continuing audit is an archive of surface station photos located here gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php . The majority (over 70%) of the sites to not meet the level 1 or 2 siteing standards. GISS uses these sites to calculate the global temperature anomaly. They use some algorithm to 'adjust' to raw data to produce the final product. AGW is built on this level of 'science'. Hansen runs the GISS. Of course it is easily said that we really know what the temperatures are doing and they are going up due to CO2. Fortunately there is the satellite view of temperature and it is divergent from the GISS numbers. It would seem imperative that the surface stations be brought up to standards and properly calibrated. Using the new calibrations the historical raw data set could be used to create a new base dataset and the global land temperatures re-evaluated. Alternatively we can all shout peak oil AGW and tax our economies into oblivion while doing damage to the population and environment.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 18, 2008 0:51:03 GMT
Here's a comparison of the satellite records and GISS surface record over the past 30 years. It doesn't go up to the current month, but it serves the point, which is that the satellite records show very similar warming to GISS, basically confirming it independently.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Dec 18, 2008 4:19:13 GMT
Here's a comparison of the satellite records and GISS surface record over the past 30 years. It doesn't go up to the current month, but it serves the point, which is that the satellite records show very similar warming to GISS, basically confirming it independently. Better move to high ground while there's still time! Yikes! Help! Help!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Dec 18, 2008 14:28:06 GMT
We have never denied that the planet has been warming since the LIA, we just question why all of a sudden in the last 70 years the cause is suddenly manmade CO2. And the planet may continue to warm until grapes will grow in Greenland again...or not. But it sure hasen't warmed in the last 10 years which we did predict nearly 20 years ago. AGW'rs can't forecast current temps.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 19, 2008 1:08:44 GMT
So you all accept the surface warming in GISS in the last 30 years then?
I'll take it as a silent yes unless someone can suggest what the actual GISS trend in that graph should look like (half as much warming? a quarter?)
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 19, 2008 3:04:52 GMT
I do not deny the +PDO, likewise I do not deny the -PDO. Time will tell if the current minimum is important, but I think there is anecdotal evidence that it is very important. Notice how the graphs are currently going down nonlinear while CO2 is going up in a somewhat linear fashion. According to AGW theory this should not happen as the forcing is so dramatic and we have gone past the tipping point. Snow in Vegas and Malibu, skiing everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 19, 2008 3:52:23 GMT
So you all accept the surface warming in GISS in the last 30 years then? I'll take it as a silent yes unless someone can suggest what the actual GISS trend in that graph should look like (half as much warming? a quarter?) You are out walking climbing a steep hill - you reach the top and start to walk downhill on the other side. A statistician then says look we are several hundred feet higher than when we started - so we are still going uphill!! The difference in this analogy is that the downward slope ahead can be seen. In the CO2 causes global warming case - we are blindfold and can only say that the recent few steps are downward and no longer upward. The AGW argument in the late 90s and up to around 6 years ago was that warming due to CO2 was now more powerful than any natural climatological effect. All the IPCC AR4 models show a relatively linear rise in temperature with CO2 rise (yes some flatten and climb but none for more than a year) So us blindfolded walkers are starting to think that the map-reader has got it wrong - with every step we are still going downhill - and telling us that we are higher than we were when we started so we are really going uphill, is a nice statistical exercise - but it doesn't alter the fact that we are now going downhill after the crest 7 or 8 years ago.
|
|