lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

oh looky: lee wants more precision presumably with some associated error value 

<snap, servant: we need some more precision and some of that error value thingy pronto !!>



<<mummys orders, I've told you before I won't be afraid to bring out the big guns and such...  >>

Lee,

-You are incapable of a simple arithmetic calculation. I gave you three chances to redeem yourself.

-You obviously don't understand the Earth's Carbon Balance

-You don't understand what the Southern Oscillation Index is, and you confuse what its predictive value is. 

-When faced with the basic technical details of radiative forcing, you abandon the thread only to start a new one

-The only technical material you can discuss is what you glean from denialist blogs. (without actually understanding it)

-You don't read original papers

-You fail to understand the difference between Significance Levels and Confidence Intervals


In short, you are really not in a position to demand precision data from anybody.

What do you understand to be the difference between precision and accuracy?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:



Accuracy - Instrumental or Human error in reading?

Instrumental - has error bars. eg Dry bulb thermometer +/-0.5C, Thermistor +/-0.1ºC
Although there is some doubt on the accuracy of digital devices.

'One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

    For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average  a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.'

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/12/university-of-augsburg-44-year-veteran-meteor...

Original in German\-

http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Meteorologe-findet-Diskussion-um-Klim...

Human error = who can tell?

When merging datasets we should use the wider error bars. We cannot adjust for human error.

Precision - Averaging temperatures to tighter error bars.e.g.  the two datasets in glass thermometers and digital and coming up with errors to 1/100's of a degree. e.g NOAA who seem to always confuse accuracy with precision.

An interesting article at Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:



You just proved you know nothing about accuracy or precision.

Your pistol shooting also needs work.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



If the instruments are faulty or they change sites it is better to have them as a new site. IF there is a change in instrument or site there may be a step change in temperature. IF there is a step change in temperature it may be feasible to adjust the temperature for that change, but it is not preferred. It would be a constant, it would be noted as to the size and for the reason for the adjustment. To homogenise data because there is no report, or because it is deemed one reading is inconsistent is not correct. Ad hoc adjustments are not correct.

'The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best-correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.'

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

So the "scientifically accepted practice" is to make adjustments that are not replicable?

I was taught if it is not replicable it is not science.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



Are all other things equal?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:



Did you read this?

'Mapping urban heat islands of arctic cities using combined data on field measurements and satellite images based on the example of the city of Apatity (Murmansk Oblast)'

' Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. The experimental data on air temperature were obtained as a result of expeditionary meteorological observations, and the experimental data on surface temperature were obtained based on the data of the space hyperspectral Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) system, channels 31 and 32 (10.78–11.28 and 11.77–12.27 micrometers, respectively). As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified that was estimated based on the underlying surface temperature, and its mean intensity over the observation period significantly exceeds the representative data for European cities in winter. '

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS000143381509011X#/page-1

UHI from heating the buildings escaping to the atmosphere. Now you know where GISS gets the red for the Arctic.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:


i could have left it as a direct quote lee - but I dont work like you and Jethro do. I try to be honest with my public posts in this temple of intellectual worship.

Your job is to find the PRECISE quote made by the international fossil fuel and mining corporate community with regards to the science of AGW and what should be done about it.

Surely you don't expect me to do all of your work?

You cant survive by merely viewing jethro's videos.

Now get a move on, and be very ACCURATE with your posts in future

Be accurate and precise lee

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:



No I expect you to do your own work.