6 ms·

Literally all of your links are dead. Is this an LLM hallucinating non-existing evidence?

NavinF 3y ago
First link is dead, but the two Twitter links work if you're logged in
zackees 3y ago
No, it’s not dead, the first link is coincidental down for maintenance, per the message on the page. You can see the archived link here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170115133353/https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/12/post-8f16552a-802a-23ad-465f-8858beb85ac2 https://web.archive.org/web/20170115133353/https://www.epw.s... The other two links are alive but you need a twitter account to view them.
revelio 3y ago
No it's just Twitter requiring a login now. None of the claims zackees is making are new or obscure. They're well known problems proven many years ago. For example so many thermometers are located next to runways because climatologists collect data from weather stations that were never intended for them. Airports need this data but then it gets mixed into datasets that are claiming to measure general change in climate. This can lead to absurd outcomes. The UK had a very hot day last year, with the Met Office reported a "record breaking" temperature. The problem is that this temperature was recorded by a thermometer right next to a military airbase runway at the exact moment three fighter aircraft were landing. The temperature spiked up to the record level for 60 seconds and then dropped again, with the spike+drop being quite massive. Finding this out took a year of FOIA requests, done by independent bloggers of course, not journalists. Jet exhaust shouldn't be reported as climate change, but it is, because climatologists don't seem to care much about data quality. The underlying networks they use have a lot of corruption in them from various sources and the error bars are wide, but the uncertainty is never reported or shown to the public. A couple of decades ago this problem flared up in the US and Congress spent the money to build out a new state of the art weather station network just for climatologists, with very carefully sited stations. It's called the Climate Reference Network and climatologists refuse to actually use its data. If you review the thermometer readings it generates you can see why: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-tempera... For nearly 20 years it's shown no warming in the USA whatsoever.
- chris1993 3y ago
  It shows a warming trend. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warmi...
  - revelio 3y ago
    Did you actually look at the data or just immediately Google for a rebuttal? The page you link to asserts there to be a trend, but then links back to the page I linked to, which: a. Doesn't plot trend lines. What are they trying to link to, exactly? b. Has no observable trend in it. You can see that with your own eyes. Look at the graph! BTW, in the text there's a claim there's a trend but, "the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86°F per decade, with uncertainties ranging from -0.58°F to 2.31°F per decade." In other words the trend is so tiny the uncertainty bound includes zero, which means they can't actually say if there's a trend at all. It might even be going down. This is all another way to say there's no observable problem in this data. It's called global warming, but in the country with the best temperature network it doesn't happen.
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      The plot (your plot) shows a clearly observable positive trend. Use the scrubber to expand the plot to cover the 1950s to today.
      - revelio 3y ago
        From my original post: > A couple of decades ago this problem flared up in the US and Congress spent the money to build out a new state of the art weather station network > For nearly 20 years it's shown no warming in the USA whatsoever. i.e. since the construction of a high quality network, warming doesn't happen anymore. If you zoom out to the 1950s you're incorporating data from the old network. The US government built a new one because data from the old network was being extensively modified by climatologists post-collection, and they were even modifying data long in the past, using the low quality of the network as a justification for doing so. More than half of all observed warming comes from these administrative adjustments and aren't actually visible in the original data, so you can see why you'd want to fix that.

First link is dead, but the two Twitter links work if you're logged in

No, it’s not dead, the first link is coincidental down for maintenance, per the message on the page. You can see the archived link here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170115133353/https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/12/post-8f16552a-802a-23ad-465f-8858beb85ac2 https://web.archive.org/web/20170115133353/https://www.epw.s... The other two links are alive but you need a twitter account to view them.

revelio 3y ago

No it's just Twitter requiring a login now. None of the claims zackees is making are new or obscure. They're well known problems proven many years ago. For example so many thermometers are located next to runways because climatologists collect data from weather stations that were never intended for them. Airports need this data but then it gets mixed into datasets that are claiming to measure general change in climate. This can lead to absurd outcomes. The UK had a very hot day last year, with the Met Office reported a "record breaking" temperature. The problem is that this temperature was recorded by a thermometer right next to a military airbase runway at the exact moment three fighter aircraft were landing. The temperature spiked up to the record level for 60 seconds and then dropped again, with the spike+drop being quite massive. Finding this out took a year of FOIA requests, done by independent bloggers of course, not journalists. Jet exhaust shouldn't be reported as climate change, but it is, because climatologists don't seem to care much about data quality. The underlying networks they use have a lot of corruption in them from various sources and the error bars are wide, but the uncertainty is never reported or shown to the public. A couple of decades ago this problem flared up in the US and Congress spent the money to build out a new state of the art weather station network just for climatologists, with very carefully sited stations. It's called the Climate Reference Network and climatologists refuse to actually use its data. If you review the thermometer readings it generates you can see why: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-tempera... For nearly 20 years it's shown no warming in the USA whatsoever.

chris1993 3y ago
It shows a warming trend. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warmi...
- revelio 3y ago
  Did you actually look at the data or just immediately Google for a rebuttal? The page you link to asserts there to be a trend, but then links back to the page I linked to, which: a. Doesn't plot trend lines. What are they trying to link to, exactly? b. Has no observable trend in it. You can see that with your own eyes. Look at the graph! BTW, in the text there's a claim there's a trend but, "the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86°F per decade, with uncertainties ranging from -0.58°F to 2.31°F per decade." In other words the trend is so tiny the uncertainty bound includes zero, which means they can't actually say if there's a trend at all. It might even be going down. This is all another way to say there's no observable problem in this data. It's called global warming, but in the country with the best temperature network it doesn't happen.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    The plot (your plot) shows a clearly observable positive trend. Use the scrubber to expand the plot to cover the 1950s to today.
    - revelio 3y ago
      From my original post: > A couple of decades ago this problem flared up in the US and Congress spent the money to build out a new state of the art weather station network > For nearly 20 years it's shown no warming in the USA whatsoever. i.e. since the construction of a high quality network, warming doesn't happen anymore. If you zoom out to the 1950s you're incorporating data from the old network. The US government built a new one because data from the old network was being extensively modified by climatologists post-collection, and they were even modifying data long in the past, using the low quality of the network as a justification for doing so. More than half of all observed warming comes from these administrative adjustments and aren't actually visible in the original data, so you can see why you'd want to fix that.