3 ms·

So I initially wasn't too interested in the temperature changes. It seemed like fairly considerable changes but I didn't know what to reference each change fro

by dev1n 11y ago

So I initially wasn't too interested in the temperature changes. It seemed like fairly considerable changes but I didn't know what to reference each change from. Was it the delta YoY? Maybe I missed the info explaining that in the page. When I looked at CO2 ppm I got really scared. Talk about hockey stick growth.

akiselev 11y ago
You can look at the heat map scale on the bottom right, just remember that it's a bit misleading because the heat map only covers the range when data was available (2002 through 2014 for CO2 concentration, but late 1800s to 2014 for surface temperature). Usually when we developers look at heat maps it ranges from an absolute zero (like number of clicks on a Web page) to a local maximum, but here "zero" is really a global average that is much higher than absolute zero temperature as defined in physics. The reality that these graphics represent is absolutely dire, but the way they are presented here isn't exactly the most honest representation of the data. For example, if we had CO2 concentration data for the last two thousand years, this graph would be much more informative because we'd go from grey to yellow over the time period 1700-1900 and yellow to red in the last century, which is much more representative of the changes in human CO2 production.
sparkie 11y ago
It's interesting when you look at the temperature record that the data sources are NASA/GISS, but the record goes back way further than these organisations have existed. So we ask, where does the data come from? The bulk of the earlier record is from standard weather stations enclosed in stevenson screens, which are dotted around the globe in cities and remote areas. The number of these has varied over the timeframe shown here, as some have been abandoned over the years, and the nations responsible for them have changed. A first, obvious question one might ask is: Where can I get the raw data for all of these weather stations since the recordkeeping began? To which one might suspect there's probably a freely available corpus for all climate scientists to look at. You'd think completely wrong though. There is no data. The data from these stations is aggregated in national weather organizations, who publish only an "average" temperature. Most of the raw data archive is lost. What data you can actually acquire (perhaps you can get more if you have 'credentials'), is rather limiting, and vague as to what it represents. This is the main reason I look at climate science with a pinch of salt. All of the scaremongering depends on this so called temperature record dating back to 1880, but they're comparing apples and oranges. In any science experiment, you take the variable you wish to measure and attempt to keep everything else constant. In climate science, the means of measuring surface temperature is allowed to be variable - it's changed significantly since 1880. The recent record uses satellite imagery in addition to the surface measurements for example. Still, climate scientists are treating it as though the data they have is from a fixed number of weather stations in fixed locations, where any human activity around them can be considered to have no effect. This reality doesn't exist. What is really behind this data of NASAs is "an adjusted view of surface temperature from 1880 to 2014", where the adjustments are made based on hundreds of theories and climate models proposed by many other climate scientists (albeit in peer reviewed works). I want to believe that the state of AGW is as dire as it is made out to be, but until I have the raw data at hands reach for any of these publications, and we can start comparing oranges to oranges, I remain sceptic.
- skew 11y ago
  I'm sceptical that you've ever actually tried to get any data. The first sentence of NASA's GISTEMP page tells you where they get there data, and a few more clicks will get you to daily logs for a decent chunks of it.
  - andygates 11y ago
    Sparkie also doesn't understand that raw data, especially over long timescales where collecting methods have changed, is messy stuff. It has to be cleaned up to be useful, and the people who are best qualified to do that are, gosh, climate scientists. Temperature dataset papers are routinely published and any odd assumptions challenged by other people knowledgeable in the field. In short, demanding "raw data" is a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    - skew 11y ago
      I disagree extensively - raw data should definitely be available, and there are a number of interesting things you can do with it without any special expertise. For one, evaluating whether those adjustments even affect any overall conclusions you are concerned about, like this: http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5323606&postcount=32 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=532360... If there is incompetence at play here, it's in failing to get ahold of raw data.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by dev1n 11y ago

akiselev 11y ago

You can look at the heat map scale on the bottom right, just remember that it's a bit misleading because the heat map only covers the range when data was available (2002 through 2014 for CO2 concentration, but late 1800s to 2014 for surface temperature). Usually when we developers look at heat maps it ranges from an absolute zero (like number of clicks on a Web page) to a local maximum, but here "zero" is really a global average that is much higher than absolute zero temperature as defined in physics. The reality that these graphics represent is absolutely dire, but the way they are presented here isn't exactly the most honest representation of the data. For example, if we had CO2 concentration data for the last two thousand years, this graph would be much more informative because we'd go from grey to yellow over the time period 1700-1900 and yellow to red in the last century, which is much more representative of the changes in human CO2 production.

sparkie 11y ago

It's interesting when you look at the temperature record that the data sources are NASA/GISS, but the record goes back way further than these organisations have existed. So we ask, where does the data come from? The bulk of the earlier record is from standard weather stations enclosed in stevenson screens, which are dotted around the globe in cities and remote areas. The number of these has varied over the timeframe shown here, as some have been abandoned over the years, and the nations responsible for them have changed. A first, obvious question one might ask is: Where can I get the raw data for all of these weather stations since the recordkeeping began? To which one might suspect there's probably a freely available corpus for all climate scientists to look at. You'd think completely wrong though. There is no data. The data from these stations is aggregated in national weather organizations, who publish only an "average" temperature. Most of the raw data archive is lost. What data you can actually acquire (perhaps you can get more if you have 'credentials'), is rather limiting, and vague as to what it represents. This is the main reason I look at climate science with a pinch of salt. All of the scaremongering depends on this so called temperature record dating back to 1880, but they're comparing apples and oranges. In any science experiment, you take the variable you wish to measure and attempt to keep everything else constant. In climate science, the means of measuring surface temperature is allowed to be variable - it's changed significantly since 1880. The recent record uses satellite imagery in addition to the surface measurements for example. Still, climate scientists are treating it as though the data they have is from a fixed number of weather stations in fixed locations, where any human activity around them can be considered to have no effect. This reality doesn't exist. What is really behind this data of NASAs is "an adjusted view of surface temperature from 1880 to 2014", where the adjustments are made based on hundreds of theories and climate models proposed by many other climate scientists (albeit in peer reviewed works). I want to believe that the state of AGW is as dire as it is made out to be, but until I have the raw data at hands reach for any of these publications, and we can start comparing oranges to oranges, I remain sceptic.

skew 11y ago
I'm sceptical that you've ever actually tried to get any data. The first sentence of NASA's GISTEMP page tells you where they get there data, and a few more clicks will get you to daily logs for a decent chunks of it.
- andygates 11y ago
  Sparkie also doesn't understand that raw data, especially over long timescales where collecting methods have changed, is messy stuff. It has to be cleaned up to be useful, and the people who are best qualified to do that are, gosh, climate scientists. Temperature dataset papers are routinely published and any odd assumptions challenged by other people knowledgeable in the field. In short, demanding "raw data" is a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  - skew 11y ago
    I disagree extensively - raw data should definitely be available, and there are a number of interesting things you can do with it without any special expertise. For one, evaluating whether those adjustments even affect any overall conclusions you are concerned about, like this: http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5323606&postcount=32 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=532360... If there is incompetence at play here, it's in failing to get ahold of raw data.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]