6 ms·

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 exa

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.
      - SirSavary 3y ago
        With all due respect, you can't claim half a dozen links are compromised of "invalid data" if you're not going to provide a proper source that states this data is invalid. You are a single commenter on HN, why would anyone read your posts and then invalidate the entirety of modern climate science? You need to give a little more to go off here.
        zackees 3y ago
        The sources have been posted and you can see for yourself that the climate sensors are located at the tarmac airports, many in the pathway of airplane exhaust jets. Example: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/lcd/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/lcd/ What you are looking for are “authoritative” analysis from the same in group perpetuating this scam, which is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Many authoritative sources outside of this club are rightly pointing out with hard data that this warming is so overstated, fraught with integrity problems (to put it lightly) and conflicts of interests that the entire narrative needs an audit and inclusion of climate scientists that have been locked out of this debate.
godelski 3y ago
> 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. I'm going to need a source on this. This doesn't even really make sense to me, because a single 1s spike (in either direction) should be filtered out. It also doesn't make sense how this would significantly affect a model which is performing a multi-decade analysis unless that single 1s spike was used to represent at least a month's worth of temperature. Which as far as I know the data is being pulled at at least a daily rate if not more, so the spike would disappear. For the "no warming" part, let's adjust things a little bit to be more clear. First, let's clear that noise. It is all jiggly and difficult to read and trend going on. Let's select the month of June (middle of the year) and then select a 12-month time scale. Interesting, the beginning and end have the same point. Let's now find out if this is a coincidence or not (current window should be 2006-2022). If we move our window to 2010-2022 we see a clear trend line up over the last decade, but it is noisy (-1.07 -> +0.96). So let's go in the other direction. 2000-2022 seems down, slightly. Let's keep going. 1990-2022, okay, very clear upwards. 1980-2022, very upwards. 1970-2022, we're now at -1.65 -> +0.96. 60's, seems we've stabilized. 50's, oh, difference is decreasing again. And we keep going and see a clear trend of increasing. I think when we're talking about a multi-decade effect we need to look at... multiple decades and be a bit more careful to not only look at one single window. Especially with numbers jumping around a lot.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > 'm going to need a source on this. This doesn't even really make sense to me I was in London all last summer, as I am now. You are correct. The idea that the record breaking temperature of 19 July 2022 (1) was some kind of fake or artifact of measurement, is horseshit, plain and simple. There's no other way to put it. This is a glib but nonsensical assertion. It's just deliberately wrong. That 1 day was the worst of it but the whole several weeks were bad. I myself measured 41C in my back yard on the 19th. Others had similar. 1) https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/met-office-uk-weather-today-heatwave-schools-closed-b2127060.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/met-office-uk-w... https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/uk-weather-extreme-heatwave-forecast-temperature-today-latest-live https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/uk-weathe... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63244353 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63244353

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.
    - SirSavary 3y ago
      With all due respect, you can't claim half a dozen links are compromised of "invalid data" if you're not going to provide a proper source that states this data is invalid. You are a single commenter on HN, why would anyone read your posts and then invalidate the entirety of modern climate science? You need to give a little more to go off here.
      - zackees 3y ago
        The sources have been posted and you can see for yourself that the climate sensors are located at the tarmac airports, many in the pathway of airplane exhaust jets. Example: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/lcd/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/lcd/ What you are looking for are “authoritative” analysis from the same in group perpetuating this scam, which is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Many authoritative sources outside of this club are rightly pointing out with hard data that this warming is so overstated, fraught with integrity problems (to put it lightly) and conflicts of interests that the entire narrative needs an audit and inclusion of climate scientists that have been locked out of this debate.

godelski 3y ago

> 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. I'm going to need a source on this. This doesn't even really make sense to me, because a single 1s spike (in either direction) should be filtered out. It also doesn't make sense how this would significantly affect a model which is performing a multi-decade analysis unless that single 1s spike was used to represent at least a month's worth of temperature. Which as far as I know the data is being pulled at at least a daily rate if not more, so the spike would disappear. For the "no warming" part, let's adjust things a little bit to be more clear. First, let's clear that noise. It is all jiggly and difficult to read and trend going on. Let's select the month of June (middle of the year) and then select a 12-month time scale. Interesting, the beginning and end have the same point. Let's now find out if this is a coincidence or not (current window should be 2006-2022). If we move our window to 2010-2022 we see a clear trend line up over the last decade, but it is noisy (-1.07 -> +0.96). So let's go in the other direction. 2000-2022 seems down, slightly. Let's keep going. 1990-2022, okay, very clear upwards. 1980-2022, very upwards. 1970-2022, we're now at -1.65 -> +0.96. 60's, seems we've stabilized. 50's, oh, difference is decreasing again. And we keep going and see a clear trend of increasing. I think when we're talking about a multi-decade effect we need to look at... multiple decades and be a bit more careful to not only look at one single window. Especially with numbers jumping around a lot.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> 'm going to need a source on this. This doesn't even really make sense to me I was in London all last summer, as I am now. You are correct. The idea that the record breaking temperature of 19 July 2022 (1) was some kind of fake or artifact of measurement, is horseshit, plain and simple. There's no other way to put it. This is a glib but nonsensical assertion. It's just deliberately wrong. That 1 day was the worst of it but the whole several weeks were bad. I myself measured 41C in my back yard on the 19th. Others had similar. 1) https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/met-office-uk-weather-today-heatwave-schools-closed-b2127060.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/met-office-uk-w... https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/uk-weather-extreme-heatwave-forecast-temperature-today-latest-live https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/19/uk-weathe... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63244353 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63244353