Australian Politics Forum - Evidence for global warming.

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #150 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:34pm lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:26pm: Johnnie wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:21pm: Are you saying that the thermometers lied? Do you think they use thermometers to get ACORN2 "data"? How did they arrive at the data, digital thermo meters.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #151 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 3:06pm

Johnnie wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:34pm:

How did they arrive at the data, digital thermo meters.

You can't homogenise temperatures in a remote location with a local thermometer.

It is called statistical manipulation. Grin

Heck, You can't even get a thermometer to read yesterday's temperature; let alone from years ago.

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #152 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 4:07pm

Bobby. wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:19am:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 1:32am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 12:47pm:

Yes lee, I know 1720 was before the start of the industrial revolution Wink

Hey Barny can you please explain why ACORN is adjusting raw temperature data and making them hotter than originally recorded......???

BOM explains why they make the adjustments here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs

We don't want actual reasons and explanations we want FUD Cheesy

So they admit to doctoring the data.

That's an odd way of looking at it.

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #153 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 4:29pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 3:06pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:34pm:

How did they arrive at the data, digital thermo meters.

You can't homogenise temperatures in a remote location with a local thermometer.

It is called statistical manipulation. Grin

So why don't you tell the scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology that they are wrong
And that you as a keyboard warrior with google are right

And no this isn't an "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is an appeal to the expertise.

Having some keyboard jockey with google telling the Bureau of Meteorology that their methods are wrong is completely meaningless and just makes you look like a fool

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #154 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 4:45pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:

And no this isn't an "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is an appeal to the expertise.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:07pm:

"In Fig. 2 it is obvious that the record has been compromised after 1936, probably by the vegetation issue identified by the BOM. A Pearson correlation of less than 0.5 disqualifies a comparison station based on monthly data according to the BOM methods. For the accuracy required by this post yearly data should be good enough and will almost certainly be confirmed if anybody wants to wade into the monthly data.
For the 10 years from 1927 to 1936 the correlation between Darwin PO and Wyndham Port is 0.39 which disqualifies Wyndham Port as a comparison station. Wyndham Port also has very poor or no correlation with Darwin Airport from 1942 to 1945 (correlation 0.03). The BOM should not have used Wyndham Port as a comparison station."

They certainly show no expertise. It violates their own methodology.

"In version 2, the anomalies at the reference stations were instead combined using a weighted median.

Here, the weighting function is defined as:

ws = rs²/(Σ rs²), where rs is the Pearson correlation coefficient between site s and the candidate station.

(By definition, the values of ws sum to 1.)

The weighted median is then defined as the station monthly mean temperature anomaly at station k, T_k, where the anomalies at all N reference stations are ranked from lowest to highest, T₁, T₂, …,T_N, and k is
the lowest value such that w₁ + w₂ +…+ w_k ≥ 0.5. (If the sum of the weights is exactly 0.5, then the weighted median is the mean of Tk and T_k+1.)

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:

Having some keyboard jockey with google telling the Bureau of Meteorology that their methods are wrong is completely meaningless and just makes you look like a fool

Not as much a fool as you when you won't even look. Grin

But thanks for pointing out BoM's analysis for ACORN2. Wink

But really you should try to explain why it is so good.

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #155 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:00pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 2:07pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 1:32am:

BOM explains why they make the adjustments here:

Yes.

"The standard scientific practice is to detect potential artificial jumps by comparing data from the station of interest (the candidate station) with data from other nearby stations where the suspected artificial jump is absent (reference stations). If there is an artificial jump in the data, this will be reflected in the candidate station warming or cooling relative to other surrounding stations."

See 5.

"All maximum recordings before 1/1/37 at Darwin P.O. (014016) were lowered by 1.02C on this date due to changes in the local vegetation. These changes were made by the BOM based on maximum temperatures taken from the comparison station Wyndham Port (001005)."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/08/darwin-temperatures-unscrambling-the-acor...

Contributed by Bob Irvine.

Wyndham is 446Km. hardly what one could call "nearby". Wink

How well do temperatures from Wyndham marry up with Darwin?

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/clip...

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/clip...

"In Fig. 2 it is obvious that the record has been compromised after 1936, probably by the vegetation issue identified by the BOM. A Pearson correlation of less than 0.5 disqualifies a comparison station based on monthly data according to the BOM methods. For the accuracy required by this post yearly data should be good enough and will almost certainly be confirmed if anybody wants to wade into the monthly data.
For the 10 years from 1927 to 1936 the correlation between Darwin PO and Wyndham Port is 0.39 which disqualifies Wyndham Port as a comparison station. Wyndham Port also has very poor or no correlation with Darwin Airport from 1942 to 1945 (correlation 0.03). The BOM should not have used Wyndham Port as a comparison station."

One would have to say not even close.

Is this Bob Irvine qualified to be telling the BOM how to do their jobs? His blog post is incoherent.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #156 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:34pm

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:00pm:

Is this Bob Irvine qualified to be telling the BOM how to do their jobs?

He seems so. Unless you have proof those Pearson numbers are wrong. Wink

Do you need to be a climate scientist to crunch numbers? BoM have given their methodology.

You follow the methodology and tell us what happens. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #157 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:54pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:34pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:00pm:

Is this Bob Irvine qualified to be telling the BOM how to do their jobs?

He seems so. Unless you have proof those Pearson numbers are wrong. Wink

Do you need to be a climate scientist to crunch numbers? BoM have given their methodology.

How do I know that Bob Irvine knows what he's doing?

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:34pm:

You follow the methodology and tell us what happens. Wink

I'll leave that to the experts.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #158 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 6:15pm

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:54pm:

How do I know that Bob Irvine knows what he's doing?

So you don't know? Merely blathering. Grin

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:54pm:

I'll leave that to the experts.

But as I pointed out you don't need to be an expert to crunch numbers. All you have to do is follow the formula. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #159 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:03pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 6:15pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:54pm:

How do I know that Bob Irvine knows what he's doing?

So you don't know? Merely blathering. Grin

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 5:54pm:

I'll leave that to the experts.

But as I pointed out you don't need to be an expert to crunch numbers. All you have to do is follow the formula. Wink

I disagree. I think you probably do need to be an expert to crunch the numbers.

I don't know why you are so sure of Bob Irvine's work. What has he done that has won your confidence?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #160 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:07pm

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:03pm:

I disagree. I think you probably do need to be an expert to crunch the numbers.

It must be hard to add numbers together. Grin

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:03pm:

I don't know why you are so sure of Bob Irvine's work. What has he done that has won your confidence?

I see you have not come up with anything to discredit what he wrote. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #161 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:28pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:03pm:

I disagree. I think you probably do need to be an expert to crunch the numbers.

It must be hard to add numbers together. Grin

Yes. It can be. When there's a lot of numbers, and one needs expert knowledge to know which numbers to use and how to use them, it can be very hard.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:03pm:

I don't know why you are so sure of Bob Irvine's work. What has he done that has won your confidence?

I see you have not come up with anything to discredit what he wrote. Wink

I think the onus is on the blogger to establish his credibility. Don't you?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:44pm by Robot »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #162 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:22pm

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:

When there's a lot of numbers, and one needs expert knowledge to know which numbers to use and how to use them, it can be very hard.

Even when you are given the instructions on how to do it. Grin

Besides that's what computers are for. Number crunching.

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:

I think the onus is on the blogger to establish his credibility. Don't you?

No petal. You are the doubter saying his work is possibly no good. Prove it. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #163 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:55pm

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:22pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:

When there's a lot of numbers, and one needs expert knowledge to know which numbers to use and how to use them, it can be very hard.

Even when you are given the instructions on how to do it. Grin

Besides that's what computers are for. Number crunching.

Yes, even then, because using the relevant computer software is difficult.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:22pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:

I think the onus is on the blogger to establish his credibility. Don't you?

No petal. You are the doubter saying his work is possibly no good. Prove it. Wink

Nah: burden's on him.

There's a question you're avoiding, and it speaks to your critical thinking skills: How did you determine that Bob Irvine is a reliable authority on the subject at hand? Surely you don't just believe what virtual nobodies write on a blog?

ETA: And I don't just mean in this case; I mean in general. How do you figure out whose reliable and who isn't?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18840
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #164 - Jun 11^th, 2019 at 9:03pm

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:

Nah: burden's on him.

So a climate scientist should prove them self before writing a paper. And yet climate scientists say it is up to the sceptics to prove them wrong.

Seems like you want it both ways. Wink

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:

There's a question you're avoiding, and it speaks to your critical thinking skills: How did you determine that Bob Irvine is a reliable authority on the subject at hand? Surely you don't just believe what virtual nobodies write on a blog?

Well I don't believe you. Wink

Robot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:

ETA: And I don't just mean in this case; I mean in general. How do you figure out whose reliable and who isn't?

You look at the evidence. Wink

So what evidence do you have he doesn't know what he is talking about.

BTW - Watts is read and commented on by many. Some pro; some anti. I suggest you look at the comments.

Back to top

IP Logged