4 ms·

and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous i

and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.

tonymet 9mo ago
Given the amount of noise and normalization , I would like to see that claim better qualified. That’s what I’m calling attention to. Being more formal with the claims , and transparent about the records origins
- genewitch 9mo ago
  i'm literally in the middle of trying to parse a couple of papers that examine the methodology of at least the NOAA homogenization model. did you know there's only eight sensors, globally, that we have data for >95% of the last 100 years, that are labelled as "fully rural"? so this means that 99.9% of the stations must therefore be, at least, more likely to be adjusted, doesn't it? The entire premise that UHI is irrelevant because they "normalized" the 99.9% and it showed it was irrelevant is... i don't know, it's something, though.
  - tonymet 9mo ago
    I agree it's suspicious. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'm trying to understand the e2e process. i.e. divide 1880-present into Epochs and understand what %-age of coverage, resolution & how precise were the instruments
    - genewitch 9mo ago
      after you do all of that, see if you can find pictures of the stations, the little structure the old ones were in are called "CRS" which stands for Cotton Region Shelter. these were the old liquid-in-glass style thermometers. The new ones have multi-plate radiation shields to house the thermistor and protect it from direct sunlight while allowing airflow. i guess some people say they look like a beehive, but they're a cylinder. so the CRS ones could be put anywhere. the new MMTS sensors had a pre-cut length of cable for installation, as the base unit was to be situated indoors. So CRS could be out in the middle of a field, where the MMTS are generally within 30' of a building. Maybe we should throw out all the MMTS data? Now, though, someone finally realized, and they're installing wireless MMTS - minimum-maximum temperature sensor, tells the min and max over the last 24 hours, and you record those numbers once per day, at a specific Time-of-Observation. Changing the time-of-observation requires de-biasing the data, too!
      - tonymet 9mo ago
        i agree that the apparatus varies tremendously over the decades. Real science is hard work and I applaud environmental scientists for their efforts. We need to be careful about qualifying "raw data" since software engineers usually stop at a textfile and forget about the origins.

and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.

tonymet 9mo ago

Given the amount of noise and normalization , I would like to see that claim better qualified. That’s what I’m calling attention to. Being more formal with the claims , and transparent about the records origins

genewitch 9mo ago
i'm literally in the middle of trying to parse a couple of papers that examine the methodology of at least the NOAA homogenization model. did you know there's only eight sensors, globally, that we have data for >95% of the last 100 years, that are labelled as "fully rural"? so this means that 99.9% of the stations must therefore be, at least, more likely to be adjusted, doesn't it? The entire premise that UHI is irrelevant because they "normalized" the 99.9% and it showed it was irrelevant is... i don't know, it's something, though.
- tonymet 9mo ago
  I agree it's suspicious. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'm trying to understand the e2e process. i.e. divide 1880-present into Epochs and understand what %-age of coverage, resolution & how precise were the instruments
  - genewitch 9mo ago
    after you do all of that, see if you can find pictures of the stations, the little structure the old ones were in are called "CRS" which stands for Cotton Region Shelter. these were the old liquid-in-glass style thermometers. The new ones have multi-plate radiation shields to house the thermistor and protect it from direct sunlight while allowing airflow. i guess some people say they look like a beehive, but they're a cylinder. so the CRS ones could be put anywhere. the new MMTS sensors had a pre-cut length of cable for installation, as the base unit was to be situated indoors. So CRS could be out in the middle of a field, where the MMTS are generally within 30' of a building. Maybe we should throw out all the MMTS data? Now, though, someone finally realized, and they're installing wireless MMTS - minimum-maximum temperature sensor, tells the min and max over the last 24 hours, and you record those numbers once per day, at a specific Time-of-Observation. Changing the time-of-observation requires de-biasing the data, too!
    - tonymet 9mo ago
      i agree that the apparatus varies tremendously over the decades. Real science is hard work and I applaud environmental scientists for their efforts. We need to be careful about qualifying "raw data" since software engineers usually stop at a textfile and forget about the origins.