|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2009 2:28:11 GMT
Just read chiefdo's site. Am I actually reading what he said correctly? I admit, I only read it twice...and have not seen verification from other sites.....but the question is: Is raw data actually raw data anymore? OR is modified raw data accepted as raw data without being properly labeled as raw data? Damn....I know I am older.....but when did raw data EVER get modified in science? That is why it is called RAW DATA.....notice the lack of any other wording here. RAW DATA..it is what it is.......un modified. But according to climate science.....you can modify raw data....not label it as modified...and then call it raw data...even if it is removed from the ACTUAL raw data by serveral layers? .....un believable.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 28, 2009 2:40:34 GMT
I believe raw data should still be raw data, but this is AGW. CRU anyone.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 28, 2009 6:01:37 GMT
I know this one . . . raw data is what gets lost once you have tortured it enough so that it now proves your hypothesis. That's how you get gullible warmist cult members to defend your "science" even when the vast preponderance of evidence shows that your whole movement is a complete fraud.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2009 7:50:15 GMT
If you do not have raw data then there is the chance that 'adjustments' may be run twice.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 28, 2009 10:24:08 GMT
If you do not have raw data then there is the chance that 'adjustments' may be run twice. Why only twice! Haven't you heard of an iterative procedure? ;D
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 28, 2009 13:06:12 GMT
Just read chiefdo's site. Am I actually reading what he said correctly? I admit, I only read it twice...and have not seen verification from other sites.....but the question is: Is raw data actually raw data anymore? OR is modified raw data accepted as raw data without being properly labeled as raw data? Damn....I know I am older.....but when did raw data EVER get modified in science? That is why it is called RAW DATA.....notice the lack of any other wording here. RAW DATA..it is what it is.......un modified. But according to climate science.....you can modify raw data....not label it as modified...and then call it raw data...even if it is removed from the ACTUAL raw data by serveral layers? .....un believable. Easy. RAW data is equivelent to you or I being "In the raw". Naked. No socks, shorts, or other clothing. Bare. Without makeup. What is being called RAW by CRU and others is more akin to a made up fashion "model". She looks good on the runway, but that's about all.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 28, 2009 15:00:41 GMT
Well for example lets take the UAH satellite temperature record. Microwave sounding units on a number of satellites since 1979 have measured microwave emissions from the atmosphere. As a result there are seperate sets of raw data for each satellite. The UAH scientists take this raw data and adjust it to compensate for satellite drift. Individual adjusted satellite data is then "combined" (I've heard that science should never combine different datasets into a longer records but UAH do it anyway), which is another "adjustment" Another adjustment is to convert the microwave emissions into temperature. There is also an adjustment to separate out temperature at different heights in the atmosphere. Who knows what other adjustments are made...I could check by reading the published papers that will outline the adjustments, but far better to just leave the question open with a suspiciously phrased 'who know what other "adjustments" are made' (remember to quote the word "adjustments" to imply a suspicious and possibly fraudulent activity) The result is the UAH satellite record. But notice nowhere on the UAH graphs do they label the plots as adjusted data. I've been told that is very unscientifically. Afterall when these graphs are shown to the public they might think those charts are raw data instead of heavily adjusted data. How devious! And just why are they adjusting raw data anyway? What if they make the adjustments twice? Why is the debate on this so silent. I don't see any problems of the satellite record in the mainstream media or in blogs (the only heroic exception being DenialDepot denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-1.html)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2009 15:08:03 GMT
Well for example lets take the UAH satellite temperature record. Microwave sounding units on a number of satellites since 1979 have measured microwave emissions from the atmosphere. As a result there are seperate sets of raw data for each satellite. The UAH scientists take this raw data and adjust it to compensate for satellite drift. Individual adjusted satellite data is then "combined" (I've heard that science should never combine different datasets into a longer records but UAH do it anyway), which is another "adjustment" Another adjustment is to convert the microwave emissions into temperature. There is also an adjustment to separate out temperature at different heights in the atmosphere. Who knows what other adjustments are made...I could check by reading the published papers that will outline the adjustments, but far better to just leave the question open with a suspiciously phrased 'who know what other "adjustments" are made' (remember to quote the word "adjustments" to imply a suspicious and possibly fraudulent activity) The result is the UAH satellite record. But notice nowhere on the UAH graphs do they label the plots as adjusted data. I've been told that is very unscientifically. Afterall when these graphs are shown to the public they might think those charts are raw data instead of heavily adjusted data. How devious! And just why are they adjusting raw data anyway? What if they make the adjustments twice? Why is the debate on this so silent. I don't see any problems of the satellite record in the mainstream media or in blogs (the only heroic exception being DenialDepot denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-1.html) SoCold: I never thought you would present a strawman arguement.....but as I am laughing.....good one. Seems that wet bulb thermometers have been around for quite some time...they are calibrated to a density of salt water. I am sure you know how that is done. Once calibrated, they are recognized as the premier raw data of temp record. There has not been anything built that is as accurate or as reliable. These are physical laws....well documented and easily replicated. Satellite data is still questionable as it is a young record. When looking at any satellite data, I take it with a grain of salt yet, as I know the calibration process is an ongoing thing. Everyone knows this and will freely admit it. A satellite reading is a best guess estimate at this time and proves nothing. That is the science is it not?
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Nov 28, 2009 15:08:21 GMT
Satellites do NOT read temperature directly. Thermometers DO!
There is zero reason to "adjust" actual thermometer readings. They are what they are.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2009 4:24:52 GMT
Time for bed as Ratty says....but..... Raw Data is what CRU doesn't have anymore.
Care for a fake burger anyone? It will taste like meat...well....sorta....ok......it issssss protien tho! Now just eat the damn thing and be quiet!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2009 12:07:59 GMT
Well for example lets take the UAH satellite temperature record. Microwave sounding units on a number of satellites since 1979 have measured microwave emissions from the atmosphere. As a result there are seperate sets of raw data for each satellite. The UAH scientists take this raw data and adjust it to compensate for satellite drift. Individual adjusted satellite data is then "combined" (I've heard that science should never combine different datasets into a longer records but UAH do it anyway), which is another "adjustment" Another adjustment is to convert the microwave emissions into temperature. There is also an adjustment to separate out temperature at different heights in the atmosphere. Who knows what other adjustments are made...I could check by reading the published papers that will outline the adjustments, but far better to just leave the question open with a suspiciously phrased 'who know what other "adjustments" are made' (remember to quote the word "adjustments" to imply a suspicious and possibly fraudulent activity) The result is the UAH satellite record. But notice nowhere on the UAH graphs do they label the plots as adjusted data. I've been told that is very unscientifically. Afterall when these graphs are shown to the public they might think those charts are raw data instead of heavily adjusted data. How devious! And just why are they adjusting raw data anyway? What if they make the adjustments twice? Why is the debate on this so silent. I don't see any problems of the satellite record in the mainstream media or in blogs (the only heroic exception being DenialDepot denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-1.html) And yet SoCold the actual raw microwave sounder data could still be available. Lots of it but it could still be there. AND as you said: "Who knows what other adjustments are made... I could check by reading the published papers" All the adjustments documented and openly available - yet CRU refused to make any of this available - it was certainly not in their published papers. Which research agency would you have more faith in SoCold - one that openly documents its adjustments or one that refuses to publish input data or its adjustments with even legal requests denied?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Nov 29, 2009 14:23:38 GMT
Mmm, interesting discussion. There is no such thing as measuring temperature directly, as it is derived from physical properties of matter. Do thermometers represent the real temperature once they are calibrated?
Now, you could consider calibration as an "adjustment" too. The best thing in my opinion however would be to use the same instruments and calibrate them using the exact same procedure. (However, nothing is exactly the same.) If this yields a representative temperature is debatable, because thermometers rely on physical processes which may behave differently under different circumstances (try an alcohol thermometer on Antarctica...). Another difficult question is what is a representative temperature? I once had three relatively "good" thermometers in our garden (of the same brand), two were hanging next to each other (less than 4 inches apart) and one was hanging 10 yards away. ALL three thermometers where recording a slightly different temperature. What is the real temperature in my garden? And what would you do if you would try to compare measurements of 3 gardens away, or a city away, or on a mountain slope, or near the coast, or ... Long term measurements have different problems, like the environment might change. Do you "adjust" for this or not? Do you move the thermometer because you want to try and keep a consistent temperature history? Isn't this also a form of "adjusting" the data series? What happens if you change to a newer form of temperature measurements (new instruments)? Different adjustments are often done for different purposes. Here in the Netherlands there are thermometers which represent the local conditions (some near cities, coast, near forests, etc.), because this is the "best" temperature representative for that location. However, for climate purposes, adjustments have to be made to compare these series, and some average of 25 measuring stations at different locations has been used for the last decades. However, this data set is only very short. All temperature records are actually too short or have many of the problems explained above (and many others) which is a big problem for climate science.
The WMO has official procedures for trying to keep the temperature record consistent, but in fact these are all calibrations and adjustments of the "raw" data (temperature measurements). Recently there has been a debate in the Netherlands of a thermometer which was moved at our National weather center. This was done, because the trees close to the thermometer had grown too much. In order to keep a consistent measurement series, 4 years of measurements were done at both locations. In less recent history the thermometer has moved from Utrecht to De Bilt (~4 miles away). Since the start of this measurement series in 1706, the environment has changed several times of course.
Defining "raw data" is very very difficult if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2009 14:45:59 GMT
That is my point. Defining raw data is difficult. With that said tho: Raw data is what it is. Temperature is local in nature. We all know and understand urban island etc. When you move a thermometer, you have changed the data set. You do NOT meld it like it is the same. There is a start point and an end point. The variables in micro climate are huge. As I have pointed out before, and I live in a rural area, the temp can vary as much as 10F in a radius of 10 miles. When looking at the temp data record, one takes that into mind. You don't have to change the "raw" data with calculations, adjustments etc. As soon as you adjust the temp, you have lost the raw data. The margin of error in thermomiters can be large if they are not scientific grade.
When you move a thermometer a few miles, you have a new start point. NO matter how much you try and meld things...in the real world it just doesn't work and only adds a certain degree of error. Compound those errors and the output is junk.
That is really what we have with the current temp record. Instead of using anomolies, use the temp. You then have removed a degree of bias, (meaning bias in a scientific sense).
This is not complicated nor difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 29, 2009 14:49:53 GMT
Not so difficult at all. You write down the temperature recorded on the thermometer in your log book for the thermometer. Date time and by who. The log book should contain the calibration events. If the station is moved new log book. If the Stevenson screen is changed it is noted in the log book. As the environment is changed around the location note it in the log book. Keep the log book out of the dumpster as it is important.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2009 15:00:19 GMT
Not so difficult at all. You write down the temperature recorded on the thermometer in your log book for the thermometer. Date time and by who. The log book should contain the calibration events. If the station is moved new log book. If the Stevenson screen is changed it is noted in the log book. As the environment is changed around the location note it in the log book. Keep the log book out of the dumpster as it is important. Or....leave it in the dumpster if you have poor trash pickup and hope the service doesn't improve.
|
|