4 ms·

The first graph ("External factors explain nearly all global temperature change") shows what appears to be temperature precisions of less than 0.1 degree C, yet

by apo 7y ago

The first graph ("External factors explain nearly all global temperature change") shows what appears to be temperature precisions of less than 0.1 degree C, yet reports no error bars. How is it that a graph like this is even acceptable, given the importance of the conclusions? How does this study account for the inevitably poorer precision and accuracy of measurements made over 100 years ago? How are systematic errors (differences in measuring procedure, differences in time of day precision, etc.) accounted for? A paper from Cowton/Way is available, but it appears to focus on filling in gaps from lack of data at the poles: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.22... Where is the readily-accessible explanation for how the underlying dataset accounts for so many unknown factors?

microcolonel 7y ago
When there is effectively a religious commitment to the assertions you're making, why worry about justifying them?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mikekij 7y ago
I'm so glad to see you bring this up. In my graduate physics training, I was taught to be extremely cautious about statistical significance, error propagation, and error bars. I remain skeptical of our conclusions about AGW, not because I have a political view on the subject, but because I'm skeptical that our temperature measurements from 120 years ago have a precision of less than 1 degree C. But I (sincerely) assume that the climate scientists working in this space have compensated for this lack of precision in their conclusions. Right?
- llamataboot 7y ago
  nah, pretty sure you're the first person to think of that one!
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Hyperskepticism run wild. You, an outsider, doubt the science because you think that the people who have specialized in the field and have spent their careers collecting data are not as smart as you and have overlooked the quality of their data sets. I'll go farther and say nobody better understands the limits of their data sets than the people who work with them.
  - btakita2 7y ago
    Dr. Valentina Zharkova & Dr. Henrik Svensmark refute this fallacy. Dr. Svensmark lost his institutional funding when he found & published experimental evidence & a model that cosmic radiation seeds clouds. This highlights the monetary & career incentive to hold a certain position. Any deviation from that position will result in a loss of funding. Dr. Svensmark is now independently funded. Here is one of his presentations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k
  - lostmymind66 7y ago
    I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Many supported laws for trying to reduce emissions are nothing more than wealth transfer schemes used by one group to take power from another. I also would like to know how so many experts in their field missed the fact that they were using incorrect data sets for so many years. Google 'climate gate'. Nobody talks about it anymore, but it was a serious enough problem that hundreds of universities had to come out with retractions/explanations. If you are a scientist that doesn't support the current narrative about climate change, you will have a difficult time getting funding and your career will most likely be over the second you submit anything for review. I've noticed that scientists that do have contrary theories are either retired or plain on retiring..for this very reason. If scientists are going to be the authority now, what about things like the definition of sex/gender? Is it only an authority when it suits our political needs? I don't deny that climate change is happening. There is just too much noise to really know the actual truth about the extent of the damage and what we can do to prevent it.
- jpeloquin 7y ago
  Precision thermometry is an old science. Fahrenheit obtained a precision less than 1 °C using a mercury-in-glass thermometer in 1714. Platinum resistance thermometers were developed around 1900. These technologies are still used today. Furthermore, accuracy greater than the precision of an individual measurement may be obtained by averaging multiple measurements. All the tools needed to accurately track temperature existed 120 years ago. For what reasons do you believe that meteorologists did not use the tools available to them?
jphenningsen 7y ago
Just from a first look, the caption of the figure references Figure 5 in Haustein et al 2019 [1]. You can see that this figure is way more detailed and includes a confidence interval. This article is clearly not a scientific publication but aimed at a broader audience. As for your other questions about the details of the methods used to gather and analyse this dataset, I am sure you can find plenty of information in the actual paper and references therein. Generally speaking however let me comment that you will not be able to formulate a meaningful critique of the nitty gritty details you inquire about without the equivalent experience of at least a PhD in the specific subfield. [1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
- jolfdb 7y ago
  "it's for a popular audience" is a bad justification for publishing misleading or wrong information that teaches people a wrong headed view of what a science is. It's not just poor quality, it's a actively harmful to culture and social progress. It's a supernormal stimulus, the journalism equivalent of replacing real foods by sugar and oil mixes -- it pushes people toward preferring wrong things over right things.
  - craigzucchini 7y ago
    Probably get over yourself tho
  - huslage 7y ago
    The general public care about conclusions of the science, not making up their own minds about what the science says. The overall article does a very good job of summarizing the paper. I'm not sure that what you're looking at as "wrong information" actually qualifies as such.

by apo 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

When there is effectively a religious commitment to the assertions you're making, why worry about justifying them?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mikekij 7y ago

I'm so glad to see you bring this up. In my graduate physics training, I was taught to be extremely cautious about statistical significance, error propagation, and error bars. I remain skeptical of our conclusions about AGW, not because I have a political view on the subject, but because I'm skeptical that our temperature measurements from 120 years ago have a precision of less than 1 degree C. But I (sincerely) assume that the climate scientists working in this space have compensated for this lack of precision in their conclusions. Right?

llamataboot 7y ago
nah, pretty sure you're the first person to think of that one!
tasty_freeze 7y ago
Hyperskepticism run wild. You, an outsider, doubt the science because you think that the people who have specialized in the field and have spent their careers collecting data are not as smart as you and have overlooked the quality of their data sets. I'll go farther and say nobody better understands the limits of their data sets than the people who work with them.
- btakita2 7y ago
  Dr. Valentina Zharkova & Dr. Henrik Svensmark refute this fallacy. Dr. Svensmark lost his institutional funding when he found & published experimental evidence & a model that cosmic radiation seeds clouds. This highlights the monetary & career incentive to hold a certain position. Any deviation from that position will result in a loss of funding. Dr. Svensmark is now independently funded. Here is one of his presentations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k
- lostmymind66 7y ago
  I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Many supported laws for trying to reduce emissions are nothing more than wealth transfer schemes used by one group to take power from another. I also would like to know how so many experts in their field missed the fact that they were using incorrect data sets for so many years. Google 'climate gate'. Nobody talks about it anymore, but it was a serious enough problem that hundreds of universities had to come out with retractions/explanations. If you are a scientist that doesn't support the current narrative about climate change, you will have a difficult time getting funding and your career will most likely be over the second you submit anything for review. I've noticed that scientists that do have contrary theories are either retired or plain on retiring..for this very reason. If scientists are going to be the authority now, what about things like the definition of sex/gender? Is it only an authority when it suits our political needs? I don't deny that climate change is happening. There is just too much noise to really know the actual truth about the extent of the damage and what we can do to prevent it.
jpeloquin 7y ago
Precision thermometry is an old science. Fahrenheit obtained a precision less than 1 °C using a mercury-in-glass thermometer in 1714. Platinum resistance thermometers were developed around 1900. These technologies are still used today. Furthermore, accuracy greater than the precision of an individual measurement may be obtained by averaging multiple measurements. All the tools needed to accurately track temperature existed 120 years ago. For what reasons do you believe that meteorologists did not use the tools available to them?

jphenningsen 7y ago

Just from a first look, the caption of the figure references Figure 5 in Haustein et al 2019 [1]. You can see that this figure is way more detailed and includes a confidence interval. This article is clearly not a scientific publication but aimed at a broader audience. As for your other questions about the details of the methods used to gather and analyse this dataset, I am sure you can find plenty of information in the actual paper and references therein. Generally speaking however let me comment that you will not be able to formulate a meaningful critique of the nitty gritty details you inquire about without the equivalent experience of at least a PhD in the specific subfield. [1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1

jolfdb 7y ago
"it's for a popular audience" is a bad justification for publishing misleading or wrong information that teaches people a wrong headed view of what a science is. It's not just poor quality, it's a actively harmful to culture and social progress. It's a supernormal stimulus, the journalism equivalent of replacing real foods by sugar and oil mixes -- it pushes people toward preferring wrong things over right things.
- craigzucchini 7y ago
  Probably get over yourself tho
- huslage 7y ago
  The general public care about conclusions of the science, not making up their own minds about what the science says. The overall article does a very good job of summarizing the paper. I'm not sure that what you're looking at as "wrong information" actually qualifies as such.