Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2017's global temperatures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    You lost me here - if the raw data is corrupted you (general - here until designated otherwise) can't 'fix' it. You either recorded the data correctly or you didn't.
    "Has problems" includes lots of things other than "is corrupted". To give a relevant example, a satellite that's used to measure temperatures in the atmosphere had problems with its data because the orbit decayed faster than expected. The raw data's still there, it's not corrupted, but we know it has issues that need to be corrected before it's used.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      "Has problems" includes lots of things other than "is corrupted". To give a relevant example, a satellite that's used to measure temperatures in the atmosphere had problems with its data because the orbit decayed faster than expected. The raw data's still there, it's not corrupted, but we know it has issues that need to be corrected before it's used.
      Exactly. Other examples include sensors that were replaced with new ones with different sensitivity, and located at a lower elevation to be more accessible. In order for the old data to be useful, it has to be adjusted to reflect a) the change in instrumentation, and b) the change in elevation. But the climate deniers categorize such modifications as "skewing the data." Of course, to the lay person, the idea that base data would be "adjusted" in light of new information smacks of "conspiracy" and feeds right into the narrative pushed forward by MM and his ilk. To someone who understand how science functions, it's not all that surprising.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        "Has problems" includes lots of things other than "is corrupted". To give a relevant example, a satellite that's used to measure temperatures in the atmosphere had problems with its data because the orbit decayed faster than expected. The raw data's still there, it's not corrupted, but we know it has issues that need to be corrected before it's used.
        What issues? What needs to be corrected for? I don't get this - if you (general) know your data set isn't corrupted and have the data what exactly are you correcting?
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Exactly. Other examples include sensors that were replaced with new ones with different sensitivity, and located at a lower elevation to be more accessible. In order for the old data to be useful, it has to be adjusted to reflect a) the change in instrumentation, and b) the change in elevation. But the climate deniers categorize such modifications as "skewing the data." Of course, to the lay person, the idea that base data would be "adjusted" in light of new information smacks of "conspiracy" and feeds right into the narrative pushed forward by MM and his ilk. To someone who understand how science functions, it's not all that surprising.
          CArpe, no offense but I'm trying to understand something here and you are making it harder for me so I'm ignoring your posts until I get it straight.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            CArpe, no offense but I'm trying to understand something here and you are making it harder for me so I'm ignoring your posts until I get it straight.
            The largest adjustment is called TOBS, for time of observation, primarily affecting the U.S. data, because, bless us all, we love doing things on our own, unregulated. Which means if it was most convenient to check the high/low thermometers in the afternoon, that's what was done.

            Not any longer of course, because it regularly resulted in falsely recording a high temperature of the previous day as the high for the current day.

            Here's how.

            It's 3 p.m., just past the hottest time of day, and the station keeper goes out to record the high/low marks on the thermometers and shake them down to reset them. When the thermometers come back to temperature, it can happen that the 3 p.m. high is actually higher than the high temperature for the next day.

            Whoops.

            You could actually work with those errors if the procedure was never revisited, but the procedure was revisited to prevent those errors, and so an adjustment was needed.

            Now, with automatic recording of hourly temperatures, it's easy to record how a time of observation error would affect today's measurements, and use that data to create historical adjustment factors.

            Double-bumping high temperatures in the past created artificially high historical records, which when adjusted, made them cooler, with the result that the warming trend in the U.S. became more pronounced.

            This error did not affect European measurements, where the stations were government-run, and more carefully regulated.


            You should also know that these objections are very old, and were answered here, on this forum, nearly ten years ago in discussions including myself, and sylas, and Glenn Morton. You should also know that with improvements to station keeping, and better stations and instruments, there's no longer any need for TOBS adjustments, and hasn't been for decades.

            What I'm seeing is a very old objection brought forward to a new generation that doesn't remember the answer, like a carnival con moving on to the next town, where no one has yet heard of their scam.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              What issues? What needs to be corrected for? I don't get this - if you (general) know your data set isn't corrupted and have the data what exactly are you correcting?
              Because it was dropping in altitude, each orbit took less time to complete. As a result, it wasn't looking at the same spots at the expected time of day. Since temperature varies with time of day, this was skewing the entire data set, a problem that would only get worse over time.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                The largest adjustment is called TOBS, for time of observation, primarily affecting the U.S. data, because, bless us all, we love doing things on our own, unregulated. Which means if it was most convenient to check the high/low thermometers in the afternoon, that's what was done.

                Not any longer of course, because it regularly resulted in falsely recording a high temperature of the previous day as the high for the current day.

                Here's how.

                It's 3 p.m., just past the hottest time of day, and the station keeper goes out to record the high/low marks on the thermometers and shake them down to reset them. When the thermometers come back to temperature, it can happen that the 3 p.m. high is actually higher than the high temperature for the next day.

                Whoops.

                You could actually work with those errors if the procedure was never revisited, but the procedure was revisited to prevent those errors, and so an adjustment was needed.

                Now, with automatic recording of hourly temperatures, it's easy to record how a time of observation error would affect today's measurements, and use that data to create historical adjustment factors.

                Double-bumping high temperatures in the past created artificially high historical records, which when adjusted, made them cooler, with the result that the warming trend in the U.S. became more pronounced.

                This error did not affect European measurements, where the stations were government-run, and more carefully regulated.


                You should also know that these objections are very old, and were answered here, on this forum, nearly ten years ago in discussions including myself, and sylas, and Glenn Morton. You should also know that with improvements to station keeping, and better stations and instruments, there's no longer any need for TOBS adjustments, and hasn't been for decades.

                What I'm seeing is a very old objection brought forward to a new generation that doesn't remember the answer, like a carnival con moving on to the next town, where no one has yet heard of their scam.
                Thanks for wasting five minutes of my time and utterly disregarding the actual question.

                What a complete dork - you see 'objection' in every question - and then wonder why so many people think there's something fishy about the whole thing.

                If global whatever we're calling it this week is a real phenomena then the proponents better get a grip on how they handle the polity - there are few absolutes in politics beyond the fact that political winds shift - sometimes slow, sometimes extremely fast. Screwing around with the people you want funding from is a very, very bad idea.

                Go away - actually want to understand this and you're not helping.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Because it was dropping in altitude, each orbit took less time to complete. As a result, it wasn't looking at the same spots at the expected time of day. Since temperature varies with time of day, this was skewing the entire data set, a problem that would only get worse over time.
                  Okay, that makes sense now but since the data set is skewed you're actually weighting (adjusting for skew), not correcting (rectifying error), right?
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    Thanks for wasting five minutes of my time and utterly disregarding the actual question.
                    De nada, chica.

                    What a complete dork - you see 'objection' in every question - and then wonder why so many people think there's something fishy about the whole thing.
                    Actually, I don't much wonder about that.

                    If global whatever we're calling it this week is a real phenomena then the proponents better get a grip on how they handle the polity - there are few absolutes in politics beyond the fact that political winds shift - sometimes slow, sometimes extremely fast. Screwing around with the people you want funding from is a very, very bad idea.
                    What committee are you chairing, again?

                    Go away - actually want to understand this and you're not helping.
                    Here's an idea. Instead of pretending you're God's gift to the global warming debate, climb down a bit, just far enough to see the folks who've been investigating this, with numbers, for over a decade.

                    I"m happy to help, but no one appreciates a rude student.

                    Current raw data needs little if any adjustment. Historically, the largest adjustment to the raw data was called TOBS. All other adjustments, or skews if you want to abuse the term, or weightings if you want to make me cringe, are also-rans.

                    The fact is the climate science community is unlikely to adopt your private definitions, so maybe, if you really want to understand the science, it'd be better if you adopted theirs.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      CArpe, no offense but I'm trying to understand something here and you are making it harder for me so I'm ignoring your posts until I get it straight.
                      No offense taken, Teal. I post and assume others make adult decisions about whether or not to read.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Okay, that makes sense now but since the data set is skewed you're actually weighting (adjusting for skew), not correcting (rectifying error), right?
                        Yes - but this seems a bit of hairsplitting to me. If you are adjusting the data to allow for a) change of measurement time, b) change of equipment, c) change of elevation, d) change of satellite rotational period/elevation, then you are saying "the numbers we have do not correctly reflect what was actually happening." That is error. The fact that the error shows a consistent skew, which can be determined and adjusted for, doesn't change the fact that the raw data, if used as is, will result in faulty analysis.

                        Error can be random (which would be pretty much impossible to correct) or consistently skewed by some factor (which is at least possible to correct). What I know of the adjustments that have been made to the climate data indicates it is the lattter, not the former.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Okay, that makes sense now but since the data set is skewed you're actually weighting (adjusting for skew), not correcting (rectifying error), right?
                          You could say the whole data set was skewed, or you can call it a time-of-day error. It seems mostly to be a matter of semantics in this case.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Thanks for wasting five minutes of my time and utterly disregarding the actual question.

                            What a complete dork - you see 'objection' in every question - and then wonder why so many people think there's something fishy about the whole thing.

                            If global whatever we're calling it this week is a real phenomena then the proponents better get a grip on how they handle the polity - there are few absolutes in politics beyond the fact that political winds shift - sometimes slow, sometimes extremely fast. Screwing around with the people you want funding from is a very, very bad idea.

                            Go away - actually want to understand this and you're not helping.
                            It is hard to treat each conversation that has the same objections over and over again (person to peron, not you specifically) without becomeing a bit jaded.

                            That said, part of the problem is that the people that know better (the drivers of the 'controversy' ) keep pushing the same arguments to new sets of people who have not heard the long ago settled answers.

                            Normally, we have an educational system that helps bring those interested up to the current state of knowledge and that fields obvious questions in (hopefully) friendly environment. But when there are the combination of groups of people and information claiming the standard sources of information are biased and dishonest, and backlash and protective moves on the part of those same standard sources of information that appear to skeptics as whitewashing or a 'cover-up', it creates an outward spiral of polarization, with each side getting farther and farther apart.

                            It would be good if both sides could stop look at each other as demons with an evil agenda and if those that have studied well the issues can maintain a tolerant response for old questions asked by new participants in the diaglog, and that those skeptical and curious could park at the door the indoctrination that the evil intelligensia wants to use distorted science as a means to take over the world and purge it of all good things.


                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-13-2018, 10:12 AM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              That said, part of the problem is that the people that know better (the drivers of the 'controversy' ) keep pushing the same arguments to new sets of people who have not heard the long ago settled answers.
                              You can see this in the phrasing of Teal's complaint: "If global whatever we're calling it this week". The accusations of it being a constantly-changing branding have stuck because they've been repeated so often, even though they have no basis in reality.

                              (see usage of global warming vs. climate change, which shows no sudden shifts at all: https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...change%3B%2Cc0).

                              Now, we know she's here to try to understand this better, but she comes in with the baggage of a public discourse that's been dishonest in some fundamental ways. Which makes it really easy for these things to go off the rails.

                              (not picking on you, Teal, it just provided a handy example.)

                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Normally, we have an educational system that helps bring those interested up to the current state of knowledge and that fields obvious questions in (hopefully) friendly environment.
                              I think one of the issues here is that public schools have generally not given geology the attention it deserves; mine had bio, physics, and chemistry, but no science course in geology. Couple that with the fact that climate change seemed like an unimportant niche field until a few decades ago, and that's left many schools and teachers unprepared to handle it well. Many states and individual teachers have worked hard to fix this, but it's still a work in progress. (And one not helped by many state legislators trying to inject politics into the school standards).
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                You can see this in the phrasing of Teal's complaint: "If global whatever we're calling it this week". The accusations of it being a constantly-changing branding have stuck because they've been repeated so often, even though they have no basis in reality.

                                (see usage of global warming vs. climate change, which shows no sudden shifts at all: https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...change%3B%2Cc0).

                                Now, we know she's here to try to understand this better, but she comes in with the baggage of a public discourse that's been dishonest in some fundamental ways. Which makes it really easy for these things to go off the rails.

                                (not picking on you, Teal, it just provided a handy example.)
                                None taken - in fact this is part of the point I've been making overall. There is a lot of political baggage - on both sides. But ultimately, if you (general) want someone to change their mind about something, you have to meet them where they are, not where you want them to be. Now, I've been talking mostly about proponents in the last few months but it's just as true of opponents.

                                In this thread, I'm just trying to understand the other side. There are things that bother me (weighting a mean - and using a mean) but I'm not trying to debate them, just understand the picture.

                                I think one of the issues here is that public schools have generally not given geology the attention it deserves; mine had bio, physics, and chemistry, but no science course in geology. Couple that with the fact that climate change seemed like an unimportant niche field until a few decades ago, and that's left many schools and teachers unprepared to handle it well. Many states and individual teachers have worked hard to fix this, but it's still a work in progress. (And one not helped by many state legislators trying to inject politics into the school standards).
                                <takes deep breath> There's SOOOO much wrong with public education that we'd need another thread. That said, I think this is the wrong approach - those things should all be offered and even touched on but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to learn every major branch of science. And honestly, that's not really what the polity needs as a whole. They do need to understand methodology, survey research basics and statistics - because these are used incessantly in their daily lives (try finding a news article without a poll or reference to a study nowadays - sometimes when it has no relevance at all). A good working knowledge of methodology helps separate wheat from chafe (I still can't believe people even bother considering results from internet surveys). Not a perfect solution, but a good one, I think.

                                Honestly, I'm leaning toward more college like curricula in high schools with teachers being certified in the field itself. Not every kid needs college - or science aptitude, for that matter. Finding the sweet spot where as a polity they can understand what they are being asked to decide without losing kids that needed a different direction, that's the hard part.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X