|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Helping along global warming
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Helping along global warming
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| SDVT-2 |
NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.
To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.
Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.
"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pit...d/s_513013.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ |
|
|
| booybob |
god damn big oil is paying him to state that.
i bet big oil moved those station so they could have an excuse and not be blamed for global warming.
fucking big oil, up to dirty tricks again :rolleyes: |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
well fuck. Is global warming real at all? I always accepted the data showing that there is a slight warming. But based on this, I now have to question the observations themselves.
Turns out that the "warming" may be manmade after all. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
| I like the picture of the "Weather Station" that is 5 ft from a bin that is used to burn trash. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
The ones on or adjacent to paved surfaces (one with 2 AC units and the exhaust end of a jet pointed at it) are unreal. Ever stand on a paved lot on a hot day? Fuck. This really pisses me off.
And this is after a review of just a few sites. Fuck. |
|
|
| HotShotMagic |
Move along... no global warming here...
So you've cut and pasted a .002 percent of inaccuracy. Based on the standard ANOVA this is a drop in the proverbial bucket, not even a decent spit.
Again, the amazement is that when the MSM posts "Global Warming" news it's nothing more than "Alarmism and Spin"... But when one reporter gives you the hope of being .002% closer to correct... it's all good.
Intellectual dishonesty. Again.
Move along... no global warming here. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| Any science where you can't trust the data is Junk Science. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by HotShotMagic
Move along... no global warming here...
So you've cut and pasted a .002 percent of inaccuracy. Based on the standard ANOVA this is a drop in the proverbial bucket, not even a decent spit.
Again, the amazement is that when the MSM posts "Global Warming" news it's nothing more than "Alarmism and Spin"... But when one reporter gives you the hope of being .002% closer to correct... it's all good.
Intellectual dishonesty. Again.
Move along... no global warming here. |
Without going back to the site, there were something like six sites with major problems. Out of 40 sites checked. I get that to be 15% of the sites to have questionable data. Where did you get you 0.002%? |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by HotShotMagic
Move along... no global warming here...
So you've cut and pasted a .002 percent of inaccuracy. Based on the standard ANOVA this is a drop in the proverbial bucket, not even a decent spit.
Again, the amazement is that when the MSM posts "Global Warming" news it's nothing more than "Alarmism and Spin"... But when one reporter gives you the hope of being .002% closer to correct... it's all good.
Intellectual dishonesty. Again.
Move along... no global warming here. |
You have mean math skills. |
|
|
| HotShotMagic |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Without going back to the site, there were something like six sites with major problems. Out of 40 sites checked. I get that to be 15% of the sites to have questionable data. Where did you get you 0.002%? |
Based on the article from Bill, (who trust me is no scientist), I negated the 2 sites he mentioned as having faulty data, ie. so their results only count in the negative, not removed. So I negated the .002% based upon a media giant from Pittsburgh.
In the scientific method, there is an ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance) involved in every study. While it's sensational journalism, it doesn't do anything to disprove the study... The numbers still stand as accurate.
To break it down... A temp sensor near a trash barrel may influence the result, the overall result is already factored into a +/- .05% factor. Break out a .002% factor and you are already factoring in the standard deviance.
If you understand polls, then you understand deviance. Reporting on deviance is just "grab what you can" journalism. It doesn't mean anything. Email Bill if you want more details. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by HotShotMagic
Based on the article from Bill, (who trust me is no scientist), I negated the 2 sites he mentioned as having faulty data, ie. so their results only count in the negative, not removed. So I negated the .002% based upon a media giant from Pittsburgh.
In the scientific method, there is an ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance) involved in every study. While it's sensational journalism, it doesn't do anything to disprove the study... The numbers still stand as accurate.
To break it down... A temp sensor near a trash barrel may influence the result, the overall result is already factored into a +/- .05% factor. Break out a .002% factor and you are already factoring in the standard deviance.
If you understand polls, then you understand deviance. Reporting on deviance is just "grab what you can" journalism. It doesn't mean anything. Email Bill if you want more details. |
Yes I know all about Standard Deviation and Variance. But it is a balance of random errors in an expected range. When you do a spot check of your data points and you find 15% of them to be unacceptable you do not have random error. Through sloppiness or intent (I hope only sloppiness, but I fear intent) it seems much of the data is in question. And worse all skewed in one direction (warmer than proper stations would report).
A further study needs to be done on the reliability of the data we are receiving to see if these are isolated events or part of a larger problem. Then the known faulty data points should be discarded and temps should be recalculated using only good stations. Then we can talk Variance. |
|
|
| HotShotMagic |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Yes I know all about Standard Deviation and Variance. But it is a balance of random errors in an expected range. When you do a spot check of your data points and you find 15% of them to be unacceptable you do not have random error. Through sloppiness or intent (I hope only sloppiness, but I fear intent) it seems much of the data is in question. And worse all skewed in one direction (warmer than proper stations would report).
A further study needs to be done on the reliability of the data we are receiving to see if these are isolated events or part of a larger problem. Then the known faulty data points should be discarded and temps should be recalculated using only good stations. Then we can talk Variance. |
The ANOVA in a scientific study is usually considered to be significant if it is +/- 5% or 10% depending upon the specificity of your outcome. The lower the ANOVA the more reliable your results. If you are questioning the source of the data in an ANOVA then you are on a different plane... not questioning the results, but the data.
As you already have stated, you are questioning the reliability of the data. Then it is up to you to gather (or a new study to do so) the new data and analyze. Given the date we have... It stands as stated. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
| Fire next to a thermometer will make it rise. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Holy Elvis |
| Ass boil and his twelve other screen names hiding from this thread :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.
To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.
Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.
"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pit...d/s_513013.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ |
So do ALL the other studies referring to temperatures, showing warming use the NOAA temps?
You act as if this disproves global warming or something? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
So do ALL the other studies referring to temperatures, showing warming use the NOAA temps?
You act as if this disproves global warming or something? |
I have to be honest AB, this concerns me greatly. I don't understand how these monitoring stations could be allowed to be placed in some of these locations. Clearly the data can be effected by their positioning.
Sloppiness cannot be excused when building a data network that other scientists rely on for their work. And intent cannot be ruled out either. I can see a kid who believes we need to do more about global warming "helping" the data along to prove the point to the masses.
Does this mean that there is no global warming, almost certainly not. But fuck it does call into doubt the severity and speed of the warming. We need good data, and we may not be getting it. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
LOL
I'm not suprised this "concerns" you, TT. You are somewhat skeptical about this issue anyway. But before you fall in line behind the NCMike's of the world I hope you look closely at this and are honest with yourself about what it means if it is true.
I think you too easily dismissed Hot Shot's point earlier in this thread.
Are all of the stations wrong? If not, how many? And how would that affect the info, opinions of the people who used their data? How does their data compare to that of other sources independent of the NOAA readings?
If their data is still similar to that of other sources, will you still be so concerned?
It's just way too early and there are too many unanswered questions to react that strongly at this point. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
So do ALL the other studies referring to temperatures, showing warming use the NOAA temps?
You act as if this disproves global warming or something? |
There needs to be a better control on what we get our "scientific data” from. The implications from global warming are causing business lots and lots of money and are a world wide political football.
Is it to much to have Jethro not burn trash near one of the sensors, or move them from the exhaust of an AC unit?
At a minimum all data derived from all carelessly placed thermometers are thrown out and see what results. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
The USHCN data sets have been widely distributed throughout the research community for use in climate change studies since their development in the late 1980's. Recently these data sets have been used by the Climate Monitoring Branch (CMB) at NCDC in producing monthly reports on the current state of the climate in the United States.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate...cn/gridbox.html
Data Used
The U.S. CEI is based on an aggregate set of conventional climate extreme indicators which, at the present time, include the following types of data:
1) monthly maximum and minimum temperature
2) daily precipitation
3) monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)
4) landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocity
Each indicator has been selected based on its reliability, length of record, availability, and its relevance to changes in climate extremes.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate...ch/cei/cei.html |
|
|
| tom sizemore |
Quote: Originally posted by Holy Elvis
Ass boil and his twelve other screen names hiding from this thread :rolleyes: |
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PASTY WHITE CRACKER |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
There needs to be a better control on what we get our "scientific data” from. The implications from global warming are causing business lots and lots of money and are a world wide political football.
Is it to much to have Jethro not burn trash near one of the sensors, or move them from the exhaust of an AC unit?
At a minimum all data derived from all carelessly placed thermometers are thrown out and see what results. |
You also are dismissing Hot Shot's comments. Since most of the sensors were likely accurate and not affected, their data would even out the slightly incorrect data from the others.
A better test would be comparing their data to that of other, unrelated thermometers. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You also are dismissing Hot Shot's comments. Since most of the sensors were likely accurate and not affected, their data would even out the slightly incorrect data from the others.
A better test would be comparing their data to that of other, unrelated thermometers. |
They have only looked at a few of the sensors, the whole system needs to be looked at. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You also are dismissing Hot Shot's comments. Since most of the sensors were likely accurate and not affected, their data would even out the slightly incorrect data from the others.
A better test would be comparing their data to that of other, unrelated thermometers. |
With respect AB, HotShot (who clearly has a solid understanding of data correction) understands that when you have bad data it doesn't matter how the correction is done you have bad results.
Quote: Originally posted by HotShotMagic
...If you are questioning the source of the data in an ANOVA then you are on a different plane... not questioning the results, but the data.
As you already have stated, you are questioning the reliability of the data. Then it is up to you to gather (or a new study to do so) the new data and analyze. Given the date we have... It stands as stated. |
Standard deviation and variance are used to smooth out random errors in a data group. These errors would be expected to fall evenly on each side of the mean as well as being limited in number. If this "study" is correct 15% +/- of the data stations are in doubt and all of their error falls on one side of the mean. This type of error would not be corrected for.
No matter where you are in the spectrum of this debate, I think we call all agree that the data should be impeccable. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Face it, the whole study has been discredited. Would you defenders feel the same way about clinical trials for medications? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Face it, the whole study has been discredited. Would you defenders feel the same way about clinical trials for medications? |
I'm not ready to go quite that far yet. I don't know what other data stations were used and how they might be effected. Satellite observations for example should still be fine.
But it does certainly call into question how much warming there really has been. Without trustworthy data there is no way to tell. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Even more disturbing is that we are not alowed to see the process they are using to "correct" the data they recieve:
Quote: There a number of highly intelligent people are thinking through a number of the issues raised here. For example, it appears that adjustments made to the measured data by researchers may actually enhance the urban heat island effect.
But its hard to tell for sure, because key software programs and formulae used to create such types of analyses for the IPCC haven't been made fully public. There is a Freedom of Information act effort going on in that regards because some requests for data sharing and formulae used to analyse the data have been rebuked.
Whats certain is that between the inconsistencies found with some of the surface weather stations and the lack of full disclosure on the methods used it warrants further study and investigation. One of the tenets of good science is data and methods sharing and repeatability by others. It is baffling that NOAA is not allowing their methods to be tested in this way. |
|
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
I'm not ready to go quite that far yet. I don't know what other data stations were used and how they might be effected. Satellite observations for example should still be fine.
But it does certainly call into question how much warming there really has been. Without trustworthy data there is no way to tell. |
I am not as smart as most people that post in this forum think they are but I do know what an average temperature is and how you get it.
With only 1200 plus sensors out there, how many with messed up high readings would it take to raise the average temp a slight bit? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
With only 1200 plus sensors out there, how many with messed up high readings would it take to raise the average temp a slight bit? |
It is impossible to know without knowing how the data is weighted and corrected. But regardless if the error is minuscule or responsible for all the warming claimed (very very unlikely) we do know that the error from these improper stations is all in the direction of exaggerating the warming. |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations -- which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers -- because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.
To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.
Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.
"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pit...d/s_513013.html
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ |
Its only a few out of 40 how much of a difference could it make? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Bist Meshugeh
Its only a few out of 40 how much of a difference could it make? |
No more than a couple of degrees. |
|
|
|
|
|
