Global Climate Change Science News

[piscator]

By a standard covariance matrix, which I can then use to de-weight poor observations in the network adjustment.

How do you know they were poor observations?

From the mathematical adjustment I just performed. You fucking pigeon.

[Seth]

By a standard covariance matrix, which I can then use to de-weight poor observations in the network adjustment.

How do you know they were poor observations?

From the mathematical adjustment I just performed. You fucking pigeon.

So, you're telling me that your mathematical gyrations affect the temperature at a particular spot on the planet 50 years ago?

You should patent that as a time machine.

You are assuming that an anomalous reading is faulty when in fact it may or may not be faulty. By "de-weighting" what you think is an anomalous reading you may in fact be skewing the entire curve improperly because you want the data to fit your idea of what the line should look like. You have absolutely no way of knowing if that observation is actually faulty because it's an observation of an ephemeral phenomenon (unlike a survey point) that you cannot go back and check.

The problem with "adjusting" the data is, as I have said, it's far too easy to make assumptions about the "faultiness" of the data and "adjust" it to fit your preconceived notions of what the line should look like. "Oh dear, it cannot be right that global temperatures have actually gone down in the last 200 years, there must be an error in the raw data, so I will adjust the data so that it shows that global temperatures are going up, which I believe to be true."

Scientists are not saints after all. They locked up Galileo for life for bucking the hierarchy. Money talks, bullshit walks, and there is a LOT of money at stake in the AGW fraud.

[Seth]

You can go back and adjust temperatures. Say you have 6 points in a circle, and one in the center, all on flat ground. The one in the center is 10 degrees higher than the average of the six. Which one is wrong?

Mixed metaphor aside, let's suppose that you are viewing data from 50 years ago that shows six points in a circle, all at the same elevation, and one in the middle is 10 units higher than the others, and you cannot go to the site today to confirm those observations. Which one is wrong? More appropriately, which oneS are wrong? One of them? Two. Any? All?

You have no way of knowing, therefore you must rely on the reputation of the person who made the original observations. If you "adjust" out that anomalous center point, you could be adjusting away Mt. Everest

Let's say that the circle is a circle of observations of temperature and the center spot is 10 degrees higher than the others. Is it an erroneous measurement or was the temperature at the center spot actually 10 degrees higher? How do you know?

You don't. Piscator makes assumptions about what the value ought to be based on adjacent observations. But how far apart are those adjacent stations? is it possible that there was an unusual temperature drop at one station that did not occur at other stations?

And if one looks at the plot of the raw data, how much deviation from the expected result is allowed before it must be "de-weighted" or removed from the data set?

If we are examining a data set where the total change in temperature is being reported in tenths or hundredths of a degree, and whether or not the scientific conclusion of AGW depends on whether the linear mean goes up a tenth of a degree or down a tenth of a degree, how difficult might it be to "re-weight" or "adjust" every raw data point just enough to achieve the desired upward trend?

That is the fraud that is being alleged here, and I see nothing in your arguments, or Piscator's, that precludes this sort of deliberate fraud from taking place as a part of a political or ideological agenda. There have been enough instances of fraud and statements by "climate scientists" that show a strong motive to lie about the conclusions they draw that many, many people no longer believe them, and rightfully so. Science has become the butt-buddy of the AGW political movement whose purpose and intent is to seize ever-more power and control over the population, using AGW as their stalking horse.

Trust has been destroyed and now the evidence of the fraud is coming out, in dribs and drabs because of the intense political and economic resistance.

[Tero]

...you could be adjusting away Mt. Everest

We are talking temperature. It is flat as we stated. say that we know the anomalous point got a new thermometer in 1960. Do we adjust the old data to make the new reliable thermometer count, past 1960, or do we just throw out that point forever, and never measure there. Which is the smart thing to do?

Just this happened, when they started adding points at higher altitude, where there was no thermometer at all in the oldest data sets. The temperature at the higher altitude can be calculated for the missing years, with some accuracy. Not as good as a thermometer, but better than no point at all. You can give a higher weight to real data vs calculated data. Look up weighted average.

[piscator]

You can go back and adjust temperatures. Say you have 6 points in a circle, and one in the center, all on flat ground. The one in the center is 10 degrees higher than the average of the six. Which one is wrong?

Yep. Covariance matrix. The outlier weakens the other solutions, especially in comparison to solutions that don't include the outlier.

[piscator]

If we are examining a data set where the total change in temperature is being reported in tenths or hundredths of a degree, and whether or not the scientific conclusion of AGW depends on whether the linear mean goes up a tenth of a degree or down a tenth of a degree, how difficult might it be to "re-weight" or "adjust" every raw data point just enough to achieve the desired upward trend?

That is the fraud that is being alleged here, and I see nothing in your arguments, or Piscator's, that precludes this sort of deliberate fraud from taking place as a part of a political or ideological agenda.

I can assure you there's a lot of fraud taking place as part of political and ideological agendas. So publish your "Observed Values are always True Values" approach to statistics, deflate this massive "Adjustment" conspiracy, retire on your Fields stipend, and go down in history with Gauss and LaPlace. Bravos in advance!

[Animavore]

Here's an article on the spate of recent "fiddling with the data" conspiracy theories which have been surfacing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... =edit_2221

[macdoc]

I notice Seth overlooks the hilarious fact the Berkeley Group ( BEST ) were hired by Koch and Dear Anthony to uncover all errors and fraud in the climate record of main stream science....

drum roll....

conclusion.....??

Yeah the record is accurate and it's getting warmer.....

[Seth]

...you could be adjusting away Mt. Everest

We are talking temperature. It is flat as we stated. say that we know the anomalous point got a new thermometer in 1960. Do we adjust the old data to make the new reliable thermometer count, past 1960, or do we just throw out that point forever, and never measure there. Which is the smart thing to do?

Just this happened, when they started adding points at higher altitude, where there was no thermometer at all in the oldest data sets. The temperature at the higher altitude can be calculated for the missing years, with some accuracy. Not as good as a thermometer, but better than no point at all. You can give a higher weight to real data vs calculated data. Look up weighted average.

The key is "with some accuracy." The allegations being made is that a systematic fraud is being perpetrated through the use of subtle "adjustments" to temperature records worldwide under the guise of "correcting" something that may or may not need correction. Since the necessary "adjustments" to change the slope of the line are very small, very small "adjustments" over a long period of older records are capable of completely changing the evidence that is supposed to support the AGW theory.

We have no reason to trust NOAA or the ICCP or anybody else who has a political or financial motive to falsify the data because we have been lied to before. Therefore it is reasonable and prudent to question the accuracy and intent of these "adjustments."

"Climate Science" fucked itself up the ass by allowing itself to become the lackey and instrument of political agendas, and now it's lost credibility that it may be impossible to regain.

Shoulda been honest with us in the first place.

[piscator]

a systematic fraud is being perpetrated through the use of subtle "adjustments" to temperature records worldwide under the guise of "correcting" something that may or may not need correction. Since the necessary "adjustments" to change the slope of the line are very small, very small "adjustments" over a long period of older records are capable of completely changing the evidence that is supposed to support the AGW theory.

What gives you those ideas, aside from ideology and politics?

[Seth]

a systematic fraud is being perpetrated through the use of subtle "adjustments" to temperature records worldwide under the guise of "correcting" something that may or may not need correction. Since the necessary "adjustments" to change the slope of the line are very small, very small "adjustments" over a long period of older records are capable of completely changing the evidence that is supposed to support the AGW theory.

What gives you those ideas, aside from ideology and politics?

The lack of global warming in the last 18 years.

[piscator]

Who told you that?

[Seth]

Who told you that?

Mother Nature.

Been to Boston lately?

[piscator]

Who told you that?

My Momma.

Been to Boston lately?

What? Is it flooding again?

[Animavore]

Great article on the climate denialists in The Guardian today.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... test-years