The New Global Cooling Thread.

They have pictures and videos of them [IPCC scientists] collecting data. Right... just as I said before, Pleebo is just looking for blind followers of his words, just like his mentor Al Gore.

Back before global warming and climate science became a fad, they weren't expecting their data to be of such use.

The methodology of collecting the data was more than likely lax in that aspect.

Yeah I know. hehe.

Wait, you are complaining about yourself now?

My favorite one was when he argued on forever about how even if we take all these steps for CO2 reduction it would at best have a minimal impact in 50 years time or so. That was classic.

Damn am I the only one that thought this was about the Fonzie spreading coolness ?

So you didn't read it either. Anyone else?

Ten pages from now we will be arguing over what "reading" is.

That's what the checks in the pdf Pleebo linked to are doing...

Most of those checks are there to explicitly counteract behaviors you would observe in the situations I described.

You correct for known faults or errors and throw out any data that meets criteria for exclusion, and try to evaluate the results.

Is it perfect? Dear god, no. Is it sufficient to draw any conclusions from? Yes.

If you have a specific issue regarding specific data points, then please bring it up. I've used enough time to explain the underlying uncertainties that can occur in the general data collection process.
Throwing out data because it doesn't fit with a model is a bad idea.
Modifying data to fit a model is a bad idea.
Modifying data due to known errors is perfectly acceptable as long as it is stated, as is removing data that has high statistical probability of being an erroneous reading.

The obvious answer is that reading means agreeing with Pleebo.

What does reading mean to you?

I'm halfway through the report. I know where some of the variation is coming from. You'll also see that they don't have anything in there reassuring people that the equipment was properly maintained in the first place. Nice try though.

I'm not asking for automatic agreement. I'm asking for your specific criticisms so an actual debate can happen. So far it's just you twits squawking about nothing.

But that's not my argument.

My argument is, if the data collected were inherently flawed to the point that normal data scrubbing isn't enough and to use drastic measures to alter the data for it to become "usable," then the data should not be used at all because the method of record-keeping was inadequate.

The data is not usable if it requires too much alterations to it that would change "A" to "Z". Neither the raw data nor the adjusted data.

Which is why I stated my error ratio example/question.

The only solution is to collect the data again, using better recording methodologies. Since these are time-based recordings, it would take decades for us to get usable data again to make sound analysis that the average temperature is rising. Then we can re-evaluate if the methodology is sound or not.

I don't know if this particular data is so bad it's unusable, but the sheer amount of data scrubbing required due to the inconsistencies described in the report is somewhat alarming.

Equipment maintenance records for each COOP station are available along with their respective measurements online. I worked with some of these data sets extensively and can point you to them if you'd like.

Called it

Which should bring the question of usability.

So then which corrections within the report do you think go beyond "normal" and what methods would you consider drastic and why?

Sure, let's have a look.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20018983&tab=MSHR

I just picked a station. Details pretty much anything that happened the station in each of the tabs.

Er, alrighty. I'm having trouble finding what it is I'm looking for, though.

What can't you find? Or what specifically are you looking for?

I actually gave detailed information about why the current methods of data manipulation are biased to always create an upward trend, even if it was actually cooler. None of them bothered to actually read it. At best there was a cursory glance while they hunted for something to distort and attack, more commonly information that disagreed with their tenants was simply ignored.

You can't convince them no more then you can convince a creationist that the world couldn't of possibly been made in a few thousand years.

The really crazy part is that most ground sites should be adjusted downward due to them being located at airports and other urban population centers. The urban heat island effect is known to raise temperatures by 1~2°C. So ground temperatures are actually lower then raw data measured.

Where did you come up with this assumption?

Because he has yet to show it.

And I'm not the only one who's noticed that (because you didn't quote me saying that).

That is part of it.

The other parts are how data collection has changed as we get a greater understanding of what affects land temperature.

Here is a good article, Exposure, instrumentation, and observing practice effects on land temperature measurements that goes into some of the history of this. Why structures were changed, locations, instruments, etc.

Nausi, the irony in you using an XKCD comic is staggering.