Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Adjustments Prior To 1972 Shall Be -0.2 Degrees


Pick It Down

Recommended Posts

Post Grad students, doing projects for CRU? Trained as in they have got a computer science degree. I know computer science degrees arent especially real world, but graduates arent that bad...

They probably don't have the money to do that. I think the grants they get usually contain a component for one or two postdoctoral researchers who are supposed to be working on the underlying science and spend part of their time programming as well. There isn't enough money to employ dedicated programmers, who would then have to be trained to understand what it is they're trying to implement. There probably isn't enough coding to be done to employ someone to work full-time on it either (although maybe you could have someone working full-time on a number of separate projects). I think it basically comes down to money. The money comes from the funding councils, and they're not in the habit of paying for people to do nothing but programming. You might argue that they should be doing that, but that's a political matter, and money's real tight these days...

Edit. Not only that, but the programs aren't the primary product of research. I suspect that they're usually just one-off tools that are used to perform a few calculations and then discarded. I think people just don't know how to manage this kind of thing yet, and again it costs money to work out and implement good practices. There are all kinds of problems about how to manage large collections of data and keep them viable as computer technology evolves, and also how to make them publicly available: these are new problems (and ones which may not occur in the commercial world) and people are still working out how to deal with them. It's like trying to re-invent librarianship from scratch, and you have the usual problem of different people coming up with different solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

They probably don't have the money to do that. I think the grants they get usually contain a component for one or two postdoctoral researchers who are supposed to be working on the underlying science and spend part of their time programming as well. There isn't enough money to employ dedicated programmers, who would then have to be trained to understand what it is they're trying to implement. There probably isn't enough coding to be done to employ someone to work full-time on it either (although maybe you could have someone working full-time on a number of separate projects). I think it basically comes down to money. The money comes from the funding councils, and they're not in the habit of paying for people to do nothing but programming. You might argue that they should be doing that, but that's a political matter, and money's real tight these days...

Excuses.

If the surface networks are this badly contaminated by fudge factors, then we might as well just rely on the satellites.

The warmists seem to think they agree with their botched surface records so why not.

The problem is the satellites began in 1979 only, there was nothing before then to keep the surface records honest which is why we keep seeing "adjustments" that make the past cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably don't have the money to do that. I think the grants they get usually contain a component for one or two postdoctoral researchers who are supposed to be working on the underlying science and spend part of their time programming as well. There isn't enough money to employ dedicated programmers, who would then have to be trained to understand what it is they're trying to implement. There probably isn't enough coding to be done to employ someone to work full-time on it either (although maybe you could have someone working full-time on a number of separate projects). I think it basically comes down to money. The money comes from the funding councils, and they're not in the habit of paying for people to do nothing but programming. You might argue that they should be doing that, but that's a political matter, and money's real tight these days...

Excuses.

If the surface networks are this badly contaminated by fudge factors, then we might as well just rely on the satellites.

The warmists seem to think they agree with their botched surface records so why not.

The problem is the satellites began in 1979 only, there was nothing before then to keep the surface records honest which is why we keep seeing "adjustments" that make the pre-1979 past cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whay are there any adjustments anyway ? This isn't the ******ing Nationwide monthly HPI figures we are talking about.

Measure temperature. Record it over a long period of time - look at results.

The simple fact there are adjustments going on shows all is not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whay are there any adjustments anyway ? This isn't the ******ing Nationwide monthly HPI figures we are talking about.

Measure temperature. Record it over a long period of time - look at results.

The simple fact there are adjustments going on shows all is not right.

Even as a sceptic I accept that some adjustments are necessary. For example the "Time of Observation" bias. Previously temperarutes were only measured at 6am and 6pm (or thereabouts) due to resource limitations, thinking that these would catch a max and a min. Newer records can more accurately measure max and min temperatures. Earlier records thus need to be adjusted into line.

However why they need to adjust January 2010 figures between June 2010 and July 2010 is at the moment unexplained - the only rationale appears within the Climategate emails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup - my perl scripts make computer programmers cry but they do what they're supposed to do which is good enough for me.

Perhaps your standards are low enough.

Are those codes good enough though to rebase world economies and spend billions on changing energy policy? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why someone would want to rebase world economies based on the number of mutations in a DNA sequence. If they did though I'm sure my scripts are as good as any mutation counting script to do that with.

Well the code this discussion is about is the code used to average world temperatures. If you'd like to discuss something else maybe it's time to create a different thread.

The code used to average world temperatures has been shown to be a fudged balls-up from which no sensible data can be retrieved unless you trust the high priests of global warming such as fraudster Phil Jones or liar James Hansen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the code this discussion is about is the code used to average world temperatures. If you'd like to discuss something else maybe it's time to create a different thread.

The code used to average world temperatures has been shown to be a fudged balls-up from which no sensible data can be retrieved unless you trust the high priests of global warming such as fraudster Phil Jones or liar James Hansen.

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climategate didn't stop them. What will? They badly need 2010 to beat 1998 as a new hottest year, they'll falsify the data any way they can to make it so.

changes_in_hadcrut_temperature_anomalies_from_june_3_to_july_28.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/hadcrut-is-hotting-up-adjustments-over-a-few-months/

You obviously have some sort of agenda, judging by the number of AGW-denial threads you keep starting, but this is simply ridiculous. How can even you expect anyone to take you seriously when you start a thread by quoting a random blog comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what was the error in these measured temperatures? I mean, all good scientific graphs should have error bars shouldn't they? The scale's a bit misleading too isn't it. It's almost like someone wanted to make the variations look larger than they are!

But it's not a scientific graph is it? It's on some cranks website and has been made in excel. Why are you expecting error bars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as a sceptic I accept that some adjustments are necessary. For example the "Time of Observation" bias. Previously temperarutes were only measured at 6am and 6pm (or thereabouts) due to resource limitations, thinking that these would catch a max and a min. Newer records can more accurately measure max and min temperatures. Earlier records thus need to be adjusted into line.

However why they need to adjust January 2010 figures between June 2010 and July 2010 is at the moment unexplained - the only rationale appears within the Climategate emails.

Haven't maximum and minimum thermometers been around for rather a long time ?!

But anyway if there are any circumstances like this then yes I can see a reason to 'play' with the data. However there is no need to have done it over the past 50 years or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not a scientific graph is it? It's on some cranks website and has been made in excel. Why are you expecting error bars?

My point is that regardless of how the data is presented, look at the temperature scale. This upwards revision between the two datasets has apparently made a significant change in the trend of the model. Yet the maximum change in the dataset is equal to or less than 0.025 degrees. My question is would you expect any of the measurements taken to generate the raw data (nevermind 'corrected' for whatever adjustments are deemed necessary) would be accurate to 0.025 degrees? For example if you're measuring the temperature of the ocean 100m down at a particular place, do you think the equipment and the local conditions (i.e. local variations in current, tides, the direction of the boats wake) would allow you to make a measurement that accurate?

Or even to 0.05 degrees?

All measurements will have a certain element of noise. If the model is sensitive to changes that lie within this noise threshold then you have a problem. The best you can hope for is that you have to put big error bars on your models predicted values. With something as complex as a climate model, my guess would be that the model 'flips' around producing vastly different results depending on small perturbations in the intial conditions, a bit like a Chaotic Pendulum.

My major concern with climate change modelling is that it seems the people creating the models have a preconceived notion of the result they want/expect. Unsurprisingly the model is tweaked and poked until it behaves. But this isn't 'Good Science'. If you want to impress, make a concrete prediction, let everyone know and sit back and observe. If you're right, I'll pay attention. If you say 'well it's not as easy as that', why the hell are passing this off as science.

Edited to rant a bit more....

1) The historical temperature data taken only 30 years ago (never mind the 100-200 year stuff) will have correspondingly larger error bands because of the indirect methods of producing the data and the inferior instrumentation.

2) And saying 'Well we can argue the toss but if we don't do something now it'll be too late in 30 years time' sounds a bit like 'This once in a lifetime offer closes at midnight, give me your money now or you'll miss the boat.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously have some sort of agenda, judging by the number of AGW-denial threads you keep starting, but this is simply ridiculous. How can even you expect anyone to take you seriously when you start a thread by quoting a random blog comment?

My "agenda" is to stop us wasting so much money on dodgy science.

Unlike you, I am able to ascertain the strength of an argument on its merits. Would you dismiss a HPC argument because it was a "random forum comment"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ever want an AGW fanatic to shut up, just mention the Mediaeval Warm Period and ask them to explain it in the context of current AGW theories. Not one has risen to my challenge yet.

Adjusting the data to do what you want it to is not science, it's statistics.

The next time some irrational fool tries to imply that the existence of the MWP somehow disproves AGW, be sure to inform him (in simple language - there are many scientific illiterates who seem unable to grasp this simple point) that climatologists are fully aware that AGW is not the only effect that influences climate. By way of analogy, ask the logically-challenged retard if he also believes that that a person who has been ill with the flu cannot possibly become ill with AIDS. You might also point out to the ill-informed bigmouth that warming in the MWP is generally believed to have been largely a North Atlantic phenomenon and that there is evidence that other parts of the world actually cooled during this period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh.I've got to you, haven't I? :)

Perhaps it doesn't disprove AGW, (I disagree) but it does indicate that the effects are vastly overstated, and that there are other (unkonown?) elements out there that have a far more significant influence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that climate change exists, history confirms it, just that current theory no longer supports what's happening in the real world, and that the effects of man in that change are vastly overstated. Instead of accepting that theory needs more work, some have decided to try and fiddle the figures.

Besides, if the MWP is so irrelevant, why did the CRU scientists feel that they had to disguise it? Are there parallels with the current situation whereby some glaciers are melting, and others are growing?

PS This logically challenged retard is quite aware that, once people start resorting to insults, they are on the way to losing the argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time some irrational fool tries to imply that the existence of the MWP somehow disproves AGW, be sure to inform him (in simple language - there are many scientific illiterates who seem unable to grasp this simple point) that climatologists are fully aware that AGW is not the only effect that influences climate. By way of analogy, ask the logically-challenged retard if he also believes that that a person who has been ill with the flu cannot possibly become ill with AIDS. You might also point out to the ill-informed bigmouth that warming in the MWP is generally believed to have been largely a North Atlantic phenomenon and that there is evidence that other parts of the world actually cooled during this period.

You are scared you may be wrong. Easier just to admit that than get all angry with everyone else.

I think you are wrong. I may be wrong. Who knows. However - who cares. That means I win and you lose. Already. Try it yourself. Very liberating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ever want an AGW fanatic to shut up, just mention the Mediaeval Warm Period and ask them to explain it in the context of current AGW theories. Not one has risen to my challenge yet.

Adjusting the data to do what you want it to is not science, it's statistics.

MWP is a regional event whereas AGW is GLOBAL

MWP is most likely accounted for by changes in the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic basin - explaining why the observed warming was in that area. Furthermore the MWP was somehwat cooler than the 20th Century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.