Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

DumBozo wrote:

Of course you have no evidence that there is a bias, or conspiracy for that matter, to adjust temperatures upwards.

Does it matter why temps were adjusted upwards?

DumBozo wrote:

You only give us here say[sic].

Hearsay.
-
"People will love you for saying that," grandpaw.

[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Liberals do suck.[/QUOTE]

You're angry that they won't suck on your itch.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you have no evidence that there is a bias, or conspiracy for that matter, to adjust temperatures upwards. You only give us here say.

I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.

Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?

Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.

But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.

It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.

[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Liberals do suck.[/QUOTE]

litesout wrote:

You're angry that they won't suck on your itch.

All these years later and litesout's still having problems wrapping quotes.
Unbelievable.
Must be the faulty injun brain cell.
Ö¿Ö

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?
Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.
But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.
It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.

Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc. the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining. When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range. That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>OK, I think I'm getting your drift.
Late 70s, early 80s data wasn't considered accurate enough, so it was adjusted in the late 80s, early 90s and again in the late 90s, early 2000s and will continue on this path ad infinitum.
Thanks for the info, grandpaw.

I didn't really expect you to be able to internalize range of error nor accuracy of instrumentation. No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.

It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.

However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless. Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading. There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
I apply the duck test. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Thirty-five years of one way adjustments and you seem to believe it was legitimate. Why?
Errors do creep in and responsible people do go back in to correct them and annotate the record as to why the correction was made.
But this link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that was posted earlier really doesn't address the obvious question.
But it's not just temperature. I put up links to sea level adjustments and ocean temperature adjustments that display the same sort of bias. Bias is easy to pick off in reports of variable data such as temperature and sea level. It's easy because it's hard to hide if the original data is available.
It's more difficult when it comes to the discussion and analysis, but you have to assume that if the same people reporting the data are writing the text to go along with it that it's subject to the same exaggerations, omissions, fudging and flinching that ordinarily goes on when someone with an agenda produces an "objective" report.

And sometimes all you end up with is the quack. You are still pushing a conspiracy.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc.

The bias is obviously there, see my last several posts.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining.

Got a link for that, or did you make that up?

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range.

You're probably confusing accuracy and precision but let's not quibble.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.

You made that up too didn't you? You're expecting me to believe that the instruments are out of calibration or inaccurate in only one direction. You need to say why that its, otherwise you might as well tell me that Abraham Lincoln's dog had five legs.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
And sometimes all you end up with is the quack. You are still pushing a conspiracy.

Conspiracy is hard to prove, bias isn't. Bias can easily be seen from the data. People have a bias to want the data to go one way or the other, it's human nature. Inspectors in manufacturing depending on the feature to be examined have a natural bias to find that it meets specifications or that it doesn't. Subjectivity is often difficult to achieve. The folks at GISS don't seem to know what the word means.

Sit down! shut up! Ill tell you when its time to poop!

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Due to all the racket about conspiracies and bias, etc. the readings are usually limited to the lower range of values to eliminate whining. When the instruments are adjusted for greater accuracy and the margin of error narrows, the values move back to the middle range. That explains why the values are adjusted upwards as accuracy increases.

oh good 'bozo', and to think it all appears as if they are just making numbers up to fit their pre-decided outcome. so they adjust the numbers, adjust the instruments, limit readings to the lower ranges to eliminate suspicion of fraud, then slowly ramp things up to the middle range of made up readings and numbers. all the while applying for and recieving copious amounts of taxpayers money in government grants under the pretense they are doing a fair, honest and exhasting study. you almost make it sound funny. any time I am using an instrument, of any kind, new, used or old, I refer to the instruction manual of the unit so that the first time use, and those afterward, are within the manufacturers specifications and guidelines. you are telling us that the 'climate science' experts just set up their brand new taxpayers supplied machines and start fiddling with stuff untill they have what they believe are the desired results. what did they do, throw the instruction manual out with the box the instrument came in? if they do not know how to operate the instrument without playing with the settings they need to get the manufacturers rep. to come and show them how the instrument was designed to work. you are making your genius 'climate scientists' look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, who can't even run an instrument designed to take temperature readings without screwing the readings up, thus making 'adjustments' and 'smoothing' necessary. you've got to be kidding me.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>I apply the duck test.

No, you invariably apply the "liberals suck" test. If any liberals agree with something, you hate it.

It's how you reduce all of the world's scientific complexities to one simple question: "does this serve my personal political war"?

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you invariably apply the "liberals suck" test. If any liberals agree with something, you hate it.
It's how you reduce all of the world's scientific complexities to one simple question: "does this serve my personal political war"?

The data doesn't back up your side of the argument as I pointed out several posts back.

DumBozo wrote:

No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.
It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.
However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless. Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading. There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.

OK, riddle me this.
You aquire a new, more accurate gauge, do you then alter all of your readings back to the date you aquired your previous gauge?
If ten years have passed since the old gauge was used, you spent that ten years working with faulty data.
Taking that to the nth degree, your data will never be accurate.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

I didn't really expect you to be able to internalize range of error nor accuracy of instrumentation. No matter what the accuracy of instrumental measurement is, it is never exact and can always be improved upon.

You can't create data that wasn't their in the first place. All they're doing is taking a guess at it. And their guesses are biased.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

It can be as simple as measuring the rainfall from a rainstorm. Some rain gauges record to the nearest 0.1 in or perhaps to the nearest mm. I have an older standard weather bureau gauge (Henry Green) that measures accurately to 0.01 inches. This could be refined to a higher degree of accuracy if desired but for practical purposed, 0.01 accuracy is adequate.

For yet to be taken readings that's true. But for refining the historical record it is not. If the storm last week was measured with an instrument that was only accurate to ±0.1" you aren't ever going to know how much rain fell accurate to ±0.1 mm.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

However, there is the possibility of a "lip error" due to the fact that the lip is not dimensionless.

If you know that the gauge was off consistently a set amount.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Also thermal expansion of the gauge or the water itself introduces an error. All these variables must be adjusted for an accurate reading.

You can only adjust if you know what those variables were at the time of measurement.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

There is no measure except counting that is exact and adjustments must be made for increased accuracy.

Only if you can repeat the measurement. If the opportunity is gone, it's gone, and you won't know, you will never know, you can't know. You can't make data up out of thin air. Well you can of course; GISS seems to be proving that.

Here's that graph I put up earlier:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
Here's the first line of date I used to produce it:

YYY .. MM ... 2008 ... 2012 .. Delta
1880 .. 1 ..-0.22 ..-0.56 ..-0.34

Sometime since 2008 Dr. Hansen and his team at GISS determined that world temperatures were really 0.34°C cooler. Based on what? is the question.

And as Earthling pointed out, in another four years or so they will be dropping them again while they jack up those from the last few decades. They're quite brazen about it you know.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>OK, riddle me this.
You aquire a new, more accurate gauge, do you then alter all of your readings back to the date you aquired your previous gauge?
If ten years have passed since the old gauge was used, you spent that ten years working with faulty data.
Taking that to the nth degree, your data will never be accurate.

Say what?

blah blah

This is the most inaccurate post this week. LOL. Wrong useage of technical terms as well.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't create data that wasn't their in the first place. All they're doing is taking a guess at it. And their guesses are biased.
<quoted text>
For yet to be taken readings that's true. But for refining the historical record it is not. If the storm last week was measured with an instrument that was only accurate to ±0.1" you aren't ever going to know how much rain fell accurate to ±0.1 mm.
<quoted text>
If you know that the gauge was off consistently a set amount.
<quoted text>
You can only adjust if you know what those variables were at the time of measurement.
<quoted text>
Only if you can repeat the measurement. If the opportunity is gone, it's gone, and you won't know, you will never know, you can't know. You can't make data up out of thin air. Well you can of course; GISS seems to be proving that.
Here's that graph I put up earlier:
http://i45.tinypic.com/smyot1.jpg
Here's the first line of date I used to produce it:
YYY .. MM ... 2008 ... 2012 .. Delta
1880 .. 1 ..-0.22 ..-0.56 ..-0.34
Sometime since 2008 Dr. Hansen and his team at GISS determined that world temperatures were really 0.34°C cooler. Based on what? is the question.
And as Earthling pointed out, in another four years or so they will be dropping them again while they jack up those from the last few decades. They're quite brazen about it you know.

To all the above. You have not proven that there is a bias. It may appear so, but unless one has all the ramifications it is simply conjecture.

Answering the questions about the rain gauge, if it were important enough to correct back data, then from information about the construction of the gauge, the temperature conditions at the time (temperature data is collected at the weather station.) it would be possible to correct the readings to a more accurate degree.

Of course, this gives old Anthony something to slobber over to keep his readers happy but if one compares the different data sets, one finds the same pattern.

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t...

It is obvious that the corrections follow the trends of the other data sets. Now, unless you really believe in some sort of conspiracy, you should understand that the corrections were in line with the other data sets....

Of course, I should have said "usage."

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The data doesn't back up your side of the argument as I pointed out several posts back.

Say what, teabags? Who are you to judge "the data", or whatever sliver of it you choose to support your political views? You aren't qualified to mop the floors in a climate lab.

As for "my side", there are actually three sides in this argument:

1) Those who accept the united, expert judgement of every single major national scientific academy and every major earth sciences society, which all agree that humans are warming the climate.

2) Those who reject the scientific consensus because it contradicts the oil industry line.

3) Those, like me, who reject the scientific consensus as far too cautiously conservative, given the huge body of evidence that they have understated the problem.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
To all the above. You have not proven that there is a bias. It may appear so, but unless one has all the ramifications it is simply conjecture.
Answering the questions about the rain gauge, if it were important enough to correct back data, then from information about the construction of the gauge, the temperature conditions at the time (temperature data is collected at the weather station.) it would be possible to correct the readings to a more accurate degree.
Of course, this gives old Anthony something to slobber over to keep his readers happy but if one compares the different data sets, one finds the same pattern.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t...
It is obvious that the corrections follow the trends of the other data sets. Now, unless you really believe in some sort of conspiracy, you should understand that the corrections were in line with the other data sets....

I agree.

I must say, the progress is fantastic.