4 ms·

I think you're missing the point. The negative adjustments of past temperatures are neither the work of one scientist, nor even one scientific organization. L

by kapitza 10y ago

I think you're missing the point. The negative adjustments of past temperatures are neither the work of one scientist, nor even one scientific organization. Let's say for simplicity that they're the result of ten entirely separate confirmed hypotheses about systematic errors in old data. Each of these was produced by an honest researcher who followed the scientific method: formulate a hypothesis, test it, etc. Let's say their technical work is perfect. All the hypotheses are correct. But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if confirmed, adjust past temperatures downward. We would naturally expect historical errors in temperature measurements to be evenly distributed. Like errors in cheap thermometers. If they are evenly distributed, we would expect there to be ten other such hypotheses, involving upward corrections in past measurements, which were not studied because of their low impact if confirmed. This hypothesis explains the data that we ourselves see: that past temperatures are continuously being lowered as the data evolves. And it requires no one to be a bad, incompetent, or dishonest researcher.

cfmcdonald 10y ago
But your whole premise is false. From the OP: "And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (spoiler alert), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s."
- kapitza 10y ago
  I don't know how they came up with this sentence. I'm sure it is true in some sense of the word "true." But just look at the data: https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/ https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments... Perhaps OP is talking about some older data before the cutoff of this graph. Edit: the Guardian article posted elsewhere shows the opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... Amusingly, the Guardian illustration is credited to the same person who wrote the article I cite: Zeke Hausfather. Welcome to the world of climate statistics. When bar charts drive trillions of dollars in public policy, they tend to get pretty wonky, pretty fast...
  - newtohn 10y ago
    It is due to the adjustments of the ocean temperature data. The SST data has been adjusted upward. Due to the adjustments the global temperature is estimated to be warmer in the past than the raw data show (http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/homogeni...)
woodchuck64 10y ago
> But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if confirmed, adjust past temperatures downward. You have to show this, you can't just assume it. For example, sea surface temperature adjustments are the opposite; in your words, a low-impact hypothesis that is nevertheless formulated and confirmed. http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenizati...
- kapitza 10y ago
  That's a good point. On the other hand, the SST measurements are a lot lower impact (in terms of the number of times they're used in graphs that get into your newspaper) than air temperatures. Which may be not be logical. But humans aren't logical. For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. Finding the anthropogenic "signal" is a matter of number-massaging statistical wizardry, not at all unlike general circulation modeling. If we had a sample of about 20 independent planets we could experiment on, it'd be no sweat. But science is hard. There's no law of nature that says the definitive experiment actually has to be practical. The definition of science is "we know," not "this is the best we can do."
  - woodchuck64 10y ago
    > For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
  - newtohn 10y ago
    The SST adjustments have a larger impact on global temperatures than the land adjustments. Hence the global temperature has been adjusted higher relative to the raw data for the period before 1940.
xenadu02 10y ago
Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism. The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer. CO2 causes atmospheric warming. The underlying principles are simple and sound. We are emitting tons and tons of CO2 by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels. The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do. >But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows. >We would naturally expect historical errors in temperature measurements to be evenly distributed. No we wouldn't and you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your claims. >If they are evenly distributed, we would expect there to be ten other such hypotheses, involving upward corrections in past measurements, which were not studied because of their low impact if confirmed. I'm going to be direct and honest here: This is why I think you're just lying to push a point. This is not how the scientific method works. None of what you've postulated is correct. And for the record there are various groups (including some oil companies) pouring millions into scientific studies trying to prove global warming isn't happening. None of their supposed "evidence" has withstood peer review or scrutiny. Evidence is what ultimately matters, a point you seem to be trying really hard to avoid addressing.
- hueving 10y ago
  Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation. >Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism. Any skeptical post would qualify for this. >The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer. The same tactics (attacking data sources) are used in any critical analysis of a given scientific field (see sociology). >CO2 causes atmospheric warming. Repeating the conclusion is not an argument. >The underlying principles are simple and sound. Right, but the underlying principle isn't being disputed. The underlying principles behind lots of research can be fine while the research itself is garbage (e.g. bad data collection methodology). >The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do. This is so idiotic I don't even know where to start. You're saying that there is no reason to question scientific findings if you think a whole method of research is fundamentally flawed? "The only reason you have to argue against numerology is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do." Sounds silly, doesn't it? >That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows. Cute, I take it you've never worked in academia? People completely throw away experiments that fail to support their hypothesis all of the time. Especially if the result would bring down a fire of threats to their career. (https://xkcd.com/1478/ https://xkcd.com/1478/ https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/) Bias in the researchers is a very big problem in all scientific fields. When you're trained to be a hammer and all you work with are hammers, and you get your funding from the hammer use-case fund, you certainly aren't out looking for screwdriver use-cases. Please keep the discussion to substantive counterpoints other than ad hominems, strawman arguments, and appeals to authority.

by kapitza 10y ago

cfmcdonald 10y ago

But your whole premise is false. From the OP: "And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (spoiler alert), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s."

kapitza 10y ago
I don't know how they came up with this sentence. I'm sure it is true in some sense of the word "true." But just look at the data: https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/ https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments... Perhaps OP is talking about some older data before the cutoff of this graph. Edit: the Guardian article posted elsewhere shows the opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... Amusingly, the Guardian illustration is credited to the same person who wrote the article I cite: Zeke Hausfather. Welcome to the world of climate statistics. When bar charts drive trillions of dollars in public policy, they tend to get pretty wonky, pretty fast...
- newtohn 10y ago
  It is due to the adjustments of the ocean temperature data. The SST data has been adjusted upward. Due to the adjustments the global temperature is estimated to be warmer in the past than the raw data show (http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/homogeni...)

woodchuck64 10y ago

> But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if confirmed, adjust past temperatures downward. You have to show this, you can't just assume it. For example, sea surface temperature adjustments are the opposite; in your words, a low-impact hypothesis that is nevertheless formulated and confirmed. http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenizati...

kapitza 10y ago
That's a good point. On the other hand, the SST measurements are a lot lower impact (in terms of the number of times they're used in graphs that get into your newspaper) than air temperatures. Which may be not be logical. But humans aren't logical. For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. Finding the anthropogenic "signal" is a matter of number-massaging statistical wizardry, not at all unlike general circulation modeling. If we had a sample of about 20 independent planets we could experiment on, it'd be no sweat. But science is hard. There's no law of nature that says the definitive experiment actually has to be practical. The definition of science is "we know," not "this is the best we can do."
- woodchuck64 10y ago
  > For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
- newtohn 10y ago
  The SST adjustments have a larger impact on global temperatures than the land adjustments. Hence the global temperature has been adjusted higher relative to the raw data for the period before 1940.

xenadu02 10y ago

Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism. The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer. CO2 causes atmospheric warming. The underlying principles are simple and sound. We are emitting tons and tons of CO2 by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels. The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do. >But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows. >We would naturally expect historical errors in temperature measurements to be evenly distributed. No we wouldn't and you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your claims. >If they are evenly distributed, we would expect there to be ten other such hypotheses, involving upward corrections in past measurements, which were not studied because of their low impact if confirmed. I'm going to be direct and honest here: This is why I think you're just lying to push a point. This is not how the scientific method works. None of what you've postulated is correct. And for the record there are various groups (including some oil companies) pouring millions into scientific studies trying to prove global warming isn't happening. None of their supposed "evidence" has withstood peer review or scrutiny. Evidence is what ultimately matters, a point you seem to be trying really hard to avoid addressing.

hueving 10y ago
Your post is also lacking many concrete details so it's not adding to the conversation. >Your posts seem like classic climate change denialism. Any skeptical post would qualify for this. >The same tactics were used to argue that lead in gasoline wasn't a problem and that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer. The same tactics (attacking data sources) are used in any critical analysis of a given scientific field (see sociology). >CO2 causes atmospheric warming. Repeating the conclusion is not an argument. >The underlying principles are simple and sound. Right, but the underlying principle isn't being disputed. The underlying principles behind lots of research can be fine while the research itself is garbage (e.g. bad data collection methodology). >The only reason to argue against the science is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do. This is so idiotic I don't even know where to start. You're saying that there is no reason to question scientific findings if you think a whole method of research is fundamentally flawed? "The only reason you have to argue against numerology is if you have an ulterior motive or you've been unwittingly duped by those that do." Sounds silly, doesn't it? >That isn't how science works. It doesn't matter what they hypothesize, what matters is what the evidence shows. Cute, I take it you've never worked in academia? People completely throw away experiments that fail to support their hypothesis all of the time. Especially if the result would bring down a fire of threats to their career. (https://xkcd.com/1478/ https://xkcd.com/1478/ https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/) Bias in the researchers is a very big problem in all scientific fields. When you're trained to be a hammer and all you work with are hammers, and you get your funding from the hammer use-case fund, you certainly aren't out looking for screwdriver use-cases. Please keep the discussion to substantive counterpoints other than ad hominems, strawman arguments, and appeals to authority.