Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Exploring the GHCN Data Part One: Getting the Raw Data

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,258
    Amen (Given)
    162
    Amen (Received)
    515
    So has this been abandoned, then?

  2. #12
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Only a masochist wants an in depth discussion of weighting....

    Otherwise, we're waiting for Leo.

  3. #13
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,359
    Amen (Given)
    4678
    Amen (Received)
    4345
    The biggest hurdle, of course, is that it's impossible to know if the data hasn't been quietly tampered with since we know for a fact that organizations like NASA and NOAA have been caught repeatedly fudging and fabricating the numbers to fit the environmentalist agenda. And of course they're not going to make the deception obvious by giving the public free access to the real, uncorrupted data. The only way to spot it is if you compare an older data dump to a current one.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/

  4. #14
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,359
    Amen (Given)
    4678
    Amen (Received)
    4345
    "The only way to spot it is if you compare an older data dump to a current one."

    And it needs to be pointed out that this can only be done if someone had the foresight to keep their own local archive since the organizations in question make it a point to purge old data from their servers.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  5. #15
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Its an interesting link, and its something I've been thinking of as well.

    I don't think there's any guarantee's for anything in this world. However personally outright fraud with the raw data would be easy enough to show. Just request the weather station data itself, and if it wildly diverges, then there's something up. Granted the raw data used comes from many sources, and even Anthony Watts admits he hasn't done a proper tracking of it. So there's not really any evidence that anything bad is at foot here.

    It depends in the end whether you're committed to Global Warming being a conspiracy I guess.

    But I understand the need for verification, and I'd definitely want to get that too, but I also don't wanna get sidetracked with what I'm doing now.

    I would personally like to examine it Mountain Man, but its an enormous project to verify the whole shebang. Neither the GHCN, nor GISS, nor BEST or HadCRU have denied that the raw datasets they receive have changed slightly. (roughly 0.1C adjustments here and there, as can be seen in the link). The argument has been that the alterations are due to updates when more accurate temperature data becomes available.

    The GHCN gets their data from the National Meterological Services, any quote-unquote tampering with the raw data they receive comes from there. The archived data of the individual weather stations are also available, but I haven't gotten around for that comparison yet.

    I might do that in the future. I definitely wanna do it. At least for a subset. Ask around and see what kind of documentation exists for the changes of various values. But as I only have a few hours I'm trying to be realistic with what I can do. And right now that's examining the particular kinds of adjustments made by the GHCN.

    In other words, one step at a time. For the next couple of weeks I'll just try to reproduce a simple temperature reconstruction from the raw data, and adding in the corrections for biases.

    I should be able to at least answer your question of "whether all adjustments favor global warming". I have a feeling they don't. One researcher told me that there's even more warming in the raw data than in the adjusted data!

    But we'll see.
    Okay, I was gonna tell MM he's being a bit paranoid, but rereading this, you're not helping. From a 'soft' science standpoint, this is sloppy work - extremely so given the politics and economics surrounding the issue. If you (general) going to tell everyone the sky is falling, you need more than an acorn. Not verifying data THEN weighting it? That's unprofessional in the extreme.

    I get you have other priorities in what you're doing here, but FYI without verification, the argument is much less compelling. Using a weighted mean and unverified data - I'm not a conspiracy theorist but that's really, really not hard to find reason to suspect.

  6. #16
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,641
    Amen (Given)
    878
    Amen (Received)
    2591
    Its lent; I gave up theologyweb along with a lot of other things. I post only because its weird to stumble upon a discussion happening in absentia.

    The short answer to lack of update is lack of time. I was already short on it when I started, and now I've gotten new responsibilities at work. I don't think its realistic for me to finish this anymore. When I get home I'm exhausted. Its unfortunate.

    It was a very small scope project, just objectively examine the adjustments made and whether they were all in favor of Global Warming, and have a discussion about all of them. It wasn't to reproduce, and justify, and examine the entire field of climate science. People here seems to be expecting it to be that, which is a bit odd.

    I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.

    My scope was specifically limited to examining the calibrations. Why they were made, and whether, as has been claimed, they were all, always, in favor of Global Warming.

    I'd love to continue it, but frankly, at this stage. I'm out of time so I can't.

    On hold until I have free time and energy for it.

    See you all after Lent (April 1st). I won't be responding until then.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 03-07-2018 at 01:49 PM.

  7. #17
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,359
    Amen (Given)
    4678
    Amen (Received)
    4345
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive...
    It's persuasive because those who have kept past copies of data have found unexplained discrepancies when compared to newer archives. Past data should be set in stone, so when you compare an archive from, say, 2010 with an archive from 2015, there should be total agreement between the two sets of data. But when you find, instead, that the newer data has had its numbers quietly "adjusted" to fit the global warming agenda then anybody with a modicum of common sense will smell a rat.

    image115.png
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  8. #18
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    ...
    I won't deal with the suspicion by Mountain Man that climatologists have secretly and covertly manipulated even the archived data. I don't know why you find that persuasive Teal or why you consider me not dealing with that 'extremely sloppy' if all I'm doing is examining the calibrations. That scope would be massive and difficult. And honestly Teal, if you don't think that I'm doing in this thread has value if I don't do that, then I'm not sure I think there's any reason for me to continue.
    ...
    I don't find the conspiracy theory persuasive - I find 'sloppy' the way you (personal) described the handling of data in general which I made clear with the parenthetical (eg: unverified). You weren't dealing with the verification issue - you said you were leaving that until another time which is fine - but you have also said over several posts that the data was BOTH unverified and weighted - just not by you personally. Either of those can be problematic (if you (general) can't trust the data set this is a bad thing; if you (general) are adjusting to correct for a skew you (general) are introducing the possibility of creating an externally invalid measure which is also a bad thing).

    I find conspiracies unlikely - especially big ones (people talk way too much) but stupidity, that knows no bounds. And I find the caveat that certain kinds of stupidity require really smart people to be true as well.

    The question is, is there really no sizable effort put into verification - which is what it sounds like in your post. If so, then there are internal validity issues at the get go. MAYBE they are meaningful, maybe not, but for me personally, I'm not voting to spend my tax dollars on something justified by 1) unverified data, 2) weighted analysis based on unverified data and 3) a weighted MEAN without a heck of an explanation why I should accept conclusions drawn from methodology with those issues.

    I still think MM's wrong about conspiracies but that doesn't mean that the corollary - that something is fishy here - is actually false. Things like 'weighting unverified data' do not inspire confidence - which was my point.

    Just in case it wasn't already clear - the term 'extremely sloppy' didn't apply to you at any point. Reread it - I'm not even discussing your methodology.
    Last edited by Teallaura; 03-13-2018 at 02:58 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •