6 ms·

OK here are the sources. Note that I said the spike was 60 seconds, not 1 second, not sure where you got a 1 second spike from. Re-reading the stories it seems

OK here are the sources. Note that I said the spike was 60 seconds, not 1 second, not sure where you got a 1 second spike from. Re-reading the stories it seems it was more like a few minutes rather than one minute. Anyway, the RAF Coningsby investigation was done by Chris Morrison over the course of about a year. I suspect you or others will reject the source for ideological reasons, but here's how he developed the story. This brief spike mattered because it was widely covered in the UK as irrefutable evidence of climate change, it being the hottest temperature ever recorded there. It's not about inclusion in monthly averages. It begins here, with the BBC lying about where the record temperature was observed. Not a great start: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/20/climate-alarmists-turn-up-the-heat-as-temperature-records-broken-at-british-airports/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/20/climate-alarmists-turn-u... "The BBC noted on Radio 4 last night that the record temperature arose in the “village” but co-ordinates on the Met Office site place the device halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby, home of two squadrons of frontline, combat ready squadrons and a training base for Typhoon pilots." Here's where they discover the record was set during a brief spike: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/27/fresh-doubts-emerge-about-40-3c-u-k-temperature-record-next-to-airfield-runway/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/27/fresh-doubts-emerge-abou... "Over six minutes, the temperature jumped suddenly by 1.3°C to 40.3°C at 15.12 (3.12pm), and was 0.6°C lower just a minute later. In just two minutes from 15.10 the rise was 0.6°C." Here the Met Office claims that they have a rigorous verification process, and maybe a break in clouds was the reason for the spike, but Morrison got a satellite photo that showed it was a cloudless day: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3c-record-at-u-k-airbase-after-met-office-fails-to-respond-to-questions/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/04/doubts-remain-about-40-3... Here's where they FOIA the logs and find the 3 planes landing at the time the record was set: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-jets-landed-next-to-measuring-device-when-britains-record-temperature-of-40-3c-was-recorded/ https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-... Re: no warming. Someone else was confused by this, maybe my language wasn't clear enough. The US CRN only has data back to 2005 because that's when it was opened. The point is that the older network is garbage, with lots of heat-causing corruption in the record and very low data quality. Climatologists in the 1990s were drawing totally different temperature graphs to today's, yet they are both supposed to be based on the same observations. This is clearly a terrible situation to be in for any field, and a big driven of distrust in climatology. Good scientists care about instrument accuracy, they don't collect low quality data and then constantly rewrite the collected data in a never ending attempt to retroactively fix it! So if we restrict our view to the data collected by the trustworthy weather station network, what do we see? No warming at all, even though CO2 rose constantly over the time period in question. That's a serious problem and the attempts at debunking it aren't convincing.

godelski 3y ago
So I'm not buying it from the articles. They are unconvincing and not really saying too much. They keep point back to satellite data and that surface temperature stations are biased. I actually addressed some of this in this comment[0]. The arstechnica article actually discusses a lot of this. We know that airport data is biased. No one has claimed otherwise. It's also why the data is pre-processed before being used. It doesn't make it garbage, it just makes it biased. If you know the direction it is biased, you can unbias it. I'm not sure what Watts is talking about and I can't read his report. Even using the wayback machine I can't load it. But if he did what he's saying he did then it looks like he just unbiased the debiased data, not the raw. The arstechnica post even goes through this btw. Processing data is pretty common. I mean we aren't fucking idiots. If you can figure out an issue in 2 seconds, you bet it has been addressed. Other sources are just other blog posts so forgive me for not taking them as good value given that I can read articles from scientists and understand all their methods and models (which are open sourced[2]). I mean even the blog you linked me has a graph of arctic sea ice[1] (also addressed in other comment) where they didn't even bother to remove the 1981-2010 mean line. Which both years are below... But if you look at my comment[0] you'll also see why their selection (especially of the time range in months) is deceptive. I walk you through how to verify yourself. It is fine if you don't believe the NOAA data, but if you don't then you also can't believe dailysceptic since they are using that same data to dispute NOAA's claims. Both are dependent on the data being accurate. Which a big irony given our above discussion. To be more direct with satellite data (because I'm guessing you aren't going to read the arstechnica article), satellites don't measure temperature, they measure brightness. That is then turned into temperature. But they also don't measure ground temperature. So you're biased to that. But this can of course be adjusted and corrected for. But again, if we can do that for satellites why can't we do it for airport thermometers? The reasoning just doesn't line up in a consistent fashion. I can tell you're really passionate about the subject. I congratulate you on that. We need passionate people and in no way do I want to get rid of your passion. You're trying to seek truth, and that is honorable. But an important part in science and truth seeking is to become your own adversary. Once you feel that an idea is good you have to attack it pretty fucking hard. You can't be sad when things get knocked down, it is just part of the process. You take what's left and rebuild from there and repeat. You need to challenge your own viewpoints. If there is nothing to convince you that would cause you to change viewpoints (even in the hypothetical!) then you aren't actually seeking truth, you're seeking validation. So if you're seeking truth and you are acting in good faith, tell me just one precise thing that would get you to change your mind if the data suggested. I'll go first: I would doubt the weather models if I saw a constant or increasing trend of arctic sea ice that was outside variance levels. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36564370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36564370 [1] https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/image-69.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/image-69... [2] https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/about-data-set/ https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/about-data-set/ (btw, their skeptics guide also addresses all these issues. I hate to break it to you, but these are the same talking points from skeptics over the last decade. So it tends to be fairly easy to refute because noting additional has to be done. Just reapply the previous method to the newer data)

godelski 3y ago

So I'm not buying it from the articles. They are unconvincing and not really saying too much. They keep point back to satellite data and that surface temperature stations are biased. I actually addressed some of this in this comment[0]. The arstechnica article actually discusses a lot of this. We know that airport data is biased. No one has claimed otherwise. It's also why the data is pre-processed before being used. It doesn't make it garbage, it just makes it biased. If you know the direction it is biased, you can unbias it. I'm not sure what Watts is talking about and I can't read his report. Even using the wayback machine I can't load it. But if he did what he's saying he did then it looks like he just unbiased the debiased data, not the raw. The arstechnica post even goes through this btw. Processing data is pretty common. I mean we aren't fucking idiots. If you can figure out an issue in 2 seconds, you bet it has been addressed. Other sources are just other blog posts so forgive me for not taking them as good value given that I can read articles from scientists and understand all their methods and models (which are open sourced[2]). I mean even the blog you linked me has a graph of arctic sea ice[1] (also addressed in other comment) where they didn't even bother to remove the 1981-2010 mean line. Which both years are below... But if you look at my comment[0] you'll also see why their selection (especially of the time range in months) is deceptive. I walk you through how to verify yourself. It is fine if you don't believe the NOAA data, but if you don't then you also can't believe dailysceptic since they are using that same data to dispute NOAA's claims. Both are dependent on the data being accurate. Which a big irony given our above discussion. To be more direct with satellite data (because I'm guessing you aren't going to read the arstechnica article), satellites don't measure temperature, they measure brightness. That is then turned into temperature. But they also don't measure ground temperature. So you're biased to that. But this can of course be adjusted and corrected for. But again, if we can do that for satellites why can't we do it for airport thermometers? The reasoning just doesn't line up in a consistent fashion. I can tell you're really passionate about the subject. I congratulate you on that. We need passionate people and in no way do I want to get rid of your passion. You're trying to seek truth, and that is honorable. But an important part in science and truth seeking is to become your own adversary. Once you feel that an idea is good you have to attack it pretty fucking hard. You can't be sad when things get knocked down, it is just part of the process. You take what's left and rebuild from there and repeat. You need to challenge your own viewpoints. If there is nothing to convince you that would cause you to change viewpoints (even in the hypothetical!) then you aren't actually seeking truth, you're seeking validation. So if you're seeking truth and you are acting in good faith, tell me just one precise thing that would get you to change your mind if the data suggested. I'll go first: I would doubt the weather models if I saw a constant or increasing trend of arctic sea ice that was outside variance levels. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36564370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36564370 [1] https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/image-69.png https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/image-69... [2] https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/about-data-set/ https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/about-data-set/ (btw, their skeptics guide also addresses all these issues. I hate to break it to you, but these are the same talking points from skeptics over the last decade. So it tends to be fairly easy to refute because noting additional has to be done. Just reapply the previous method to the newer data)