Page 49 of 686
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:25 pm
by Per
Hilarious!
Did you even read the link you posted to? If not, here's the final part of it. Maybe you didn't get that far?
So what's really going on? Why Did NOAA "adjust" it's historical data?
First, historical temperature data was finally gathered into a database which allowed researchers to analyze very large quantities of data using computers, instead of paper-and-pencil. That new database brought in new weather data taken from smaller weather stations around the world, and effectively doubled the number of data points scientists had to work with.
Naturally, when doing science, more data is better.
Second, the method for measuring old sea surface temperatures has been revised, for the first time. Historically, commercial ships have collected temperature data as part of their routine. However, the methods used for data collection have typically skewed the individual results. Scientists simply figured out how to standardize the old data set to get a more precise measurements.
To explain, the old methods involved pulling up a bucket of seawater and dropping in a thermometer to check temperature. Later, around World War II, ships began monitoring temperature through intake valves. Since the measurements were made in engine rooms, the recorded temperatures tended to be about .12 of a degree Celsius hotter. Knowing this, scientists simply corrected the historical data collected by the flawed method, which provides a more accurate measure.
None of this is nefarious, it's just science doing what science does, correcting and improving understandings through peer review and collaboration.
Of course, an investigation is welcome. It's important to keep the air clear about how NOAA and other agencies gather their data. Peer review is essential. Consensus matters.
Fortunately, scientists around the globe have no agenda to perpetuate a myth. This is different from the fossil fuel lobby, which has been caught red-handed buying off small-time scientists and researchers to blog and sow doubt about global warming.
Global warming research is hardly lucrative, but fossil fuels are big business.
Global warming deniers are upset because the new and improved NOAA data suggests the planet was slightly cooler in the past than previously believed. This means the warming we see today is even more serious. Of course, it makes sense they will cry foul, although NOAA has already been transparent about its adjustments.
And people who think adjustments are a sign of conspiracy clearly don't know how science works. Because of science and the improved understandings we acquire, the body of knowledge is always being adjusted! This is no different than how an individual adjusts their behavior as they age and acquire more knowledge.
Hopefully, Rep. Smith will conduct a full and thorough investigation into NOAA's adjustment of historical climate data. Perhaps then the deniers will realize that something very big and very dangerous is going on, and the nefarious ones aren't the scientists, but the big money players who stand to win if the merchants of doubt can make the science controversial.
And you call this a crucifixion?
Bet you only read the headline, right?
You'd better have someone look at that gunshot wound in your foot though.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:34 pm
by Per
Strangelove wrote:Per wrote:
I'm just saying that it is happening, is all
... and I'm just saying it's no biggie.
Well, not for us, but the good citizens of the Maldives, Bangladesh and Florida are beginning to get their feet wet.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:41 pm
by Strangelove
I read it all.
I never said there was a "conspiracy".
If you haven't noticed, I've been linking to Catholic sites for UK's benefit of late.
As I said, they're nice about it, but say NOAA messed with the data due to human failings of some sort.
There are plenty of links which hold them closer to the fire, you can look them up as easy as I.
You need to address the fact that NOAA data was manipulated, accidentally or otherwise.
You need to address troposphere warming vs surface warming from the other link I gave.
(the other link accused NOAA of outright "data tampering"... figured one link balanced the other)
The NOAA graph you gave was useless (other than for alarmist purposes = other human failings).
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:43 pm
by Per
Strangelove wrote:
Ass UK kept screaming, it's a political issue
Political in the sense that Big Oil and the coal industry are spending a shitload of money to combat the findings of the real scientists by publishing dubious articles that try to cast doubt on what's happening.
But it's happening alright.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:46 pm
by Strangelove
^ yeah, I've heard that political viewpoint before, thanks.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:47 pm
by Topper
It is impossible to increase the precision of data post collection.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:51 pm
by Per
Strangelove wrote:
I read it all.
---
You need to address the fact that NOAA data was manipulated, accidentally or otherwise.
If you really read the article, it explains that the data wasn't "manipulated", it was corrected.
Anyway, I should finish my increasingly expensive coffee and head off to work.
(And no, I don't drink my coffee out of a bottle, but there was no emoticon with a cup easily available...)
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:53 pm
by Strangelove
Great, you can address that other link (the one I actually quoted from, accusing "data tampering") later....
And don't forget about "troposphere warming vs surface warming"...
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:05 pm
by Per
Topper wrote:It is impossible to increase the precision of data post collection.
Are you being ironic?
That's something we have a lot of people working with at the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority where I work.
Case in point, the position data from a gps satellite can be several metres off, so we always compare it to the position data of the three nearest fix point stations (we have thousands of those), calculate the average error and then adjust for it. That way we get a margin of error that's just +/- 7 mm, which is good enough that you can use it for construction, farming, forestry etc by having machinery getting their positions from our systems rather than the uncorrected signal.
And when arial photography is converted to maps, there's quite a lot of corrections going on.
Not to mention the positional data of properties from the 19th and 20th century in our land registry!
We're constantly working with improving that data, way past collection!
But hey, I really need to get on my bike and head to work now!
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:08 pm
by Strangelove
^ Who are you kidding, you have a government job, you can post all day!
(and usually you do!)
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:41 am
by ukcanuck
Strangelove wrote:^ Who are you kidding, you have a government job, you can post all day!
(and usually you do!)
It's the only way to have a shot at keeping up with you !
Unfortunately I have a private sector job but lucky for you Eid is coming next week and I'll be free enough to drive a truck through some of these posts soon.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:14 am
by Puck
Topper's comment taken exactly as written is correct. You can't do anything to a data set to increase precision. Post-calibration to remove a known offset doesn't change the precision. If Per mentioned or inferred a change in 'precision' - although I didn't see it - he probably meant it in a more colloquial sense.
I feel marginally trolled...
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:16 am
by Per
ukcanuck wrote:Strangelove wrote:^ Who are you kidding, you have a government job, you can post all day!
(and usually you do!)
It's the only way to have a shot at keeping up with you !
Unfortunately I have a private sector job but lucky for you Eid is coming next week and I'll be free enough to drive a truck through some of these posts soon.
Eid... is this like id al fitr?
The shops here bring in baklava for that!
Hmmm... seems to be eid al adha.
Wikipedia goes on and on about Ibrahim willing to sacrifice his son, and about giving meat to the poor.
Nothing about baklava!
But how can Muslims have a party without baklava?
Makes no sense.
There must be baklava.
I'll have to go check at some store.
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:32 am
by Per
Puck wrote:Topper's comment taken exactly as written is correct. You can't do anything to a data set to increase precision. Post-calibration to remove a known offset doesn't change the precision. If Per mentioned or inferred a change in 'precision' - although I didn't see it - he probably meant it in a more colloquial sense.
I feel marginally trolled...
I'm not a scientist, and even though I took the natural sciences programme in high school, my university training is mainly in economics, business administration and modern languages (Spanish, English and German), so I guess my understanding of the word precision may lack in... er... precision.
That being said, the article stated that the changes made were due to two main causes:
a) They now had access to more data; the "original data" was based on temperatures measured in certain locations. Later they have gained access to temperatures measured during the same time period but at other locations. Of course, when calculating the global average, the more locations you have data from, the more reliable the results are.
b) In early observations of sea temperatures, they did not measure the temperature directly in the sea, but by getting a bucket of water out of the sea and then measure the temperature in the bucket, inside the ship. Based on a study comparing this method to the modern measuring, directly in the sea, they calculated a mean error, and then corrected the old measurements with this.
From my understanding, the former changes, caused by the increase in available data, would almost certainly lead to better precision in calculating global averages, whereas the latter changes, brought by adjusting the results stemming from a previously used flawed method of data gathering, may be bringing us closer to the truth, but not fulfill your criteria for what is considered better precision, right?
Re: US Erection 12 *AND* 16
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:37 am
by Per
Strangelove wrote:^ Who are you kidding, you have a government job, you can post all day!
(and usually you do!)
Yeah, right...
2,300 posts to your 11,600... pot? kettle?
btw, it's 6.30 pm.
I have to work some overtime tonight, but first I need a break.