Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational:  you're going to need to become sane before you're going to be worth talking to.

Topic: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news) (Read 4147 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #525
Okay, responding to this post here, even though it makes for quite a disjointed discussion, but this post at least appeared to be a genuine attempt to engage, so I'll do the same...
Since the last time we discussed this, Hausfather actually wrote what I think is the clearest explanation of the adjustments that I've read yet...
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on this...
While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point.
...because that is what it appears you are doing in this discussion.
Can you explain why you think it's nonsense? Because from my perspective, you focusing specifically on Blue Hill appears to be doing exactly what Hausfather is describing in that quote.
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
Raw data shows more global warming
That's simply not true.  Or rather, it's meaningless. The actual raw data from quality stations does not show more warning.  Certainly the data from absolute shit stations that are useless because of real issues shows "more warming", but the adjustments used by GISS/NOAA/HADCRUT don't fix that problem.  They actually make it worse.
How do you evaluate whether a station is "quality" or "absolute shit"? And how could the adjustments possibly make the problem of the "absolute shit" stations showing more warming in the raw data worse if the adjustments decrease the warming? If the problem is that the raw data shows more warming than there should be, an adjustment that decreases the warming would by definition make it less of a problem, wouldn't it?

Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time.
Meaningless, since the land changes are bullshit.
Even if the land changes were bullshit, that statement would still be meaningful. Do you think the adjustments to the ocean temperatures are also bullshit?
All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a "raw" global temperature record.
That part is mostly true, and using raw data from quality stations shows clearly why the adjustments are bullshit.

The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line).
Bullshi figure.
Why? Because it includes both stations you consider "quality" and stations you consider "absolute shit"? What would be your preferred approach? Only using data from stations you consider "quality"? Are there enough of those to build a meaningful global temperature record? Or is your point that we can't build a meaningful global temperature record because we don't have enough "quality" stations?

The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.
Nonsense graphic.  Showing the difference (or the adjustments) to the surface stations is not even shown.  It's smoke and mirrors and bullshit.
When you say "surface stations" here, do you mean the land stations? There is another graph that shows those, so it's not like they're hidden. There's one graph that shows the land adjustments, one that shows the ocean adjustments, and one that shows the combination of the two. Is your complaint that the method of combining the two is bullshit? If so, why do you think it's bullshit?

Also, have you seen the graph that shows the land adjustments? You can see that overall it's a pretty negligible change, right? The bulk of the adjustment, by far, is to the pre-1940 ocean temperatures, which were raised by about 0.3C or so. This means that the only significant change the adjustments make to the global trend is to reduce the extent of warming. Furthermore, it's not like any raw data has been hidden. You can obviously still access it, as you do when you rail against the Blue Hill adjustments. So I really don't get your whole crusade here.