The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 12:02pm:



lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 11:37am:



Why not? What difference would 0.1C make they already make adjustments of at least 0.9C.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 12:02pm:


You can't even reference right.

BTW - Bourke 3 January 1909 does not appear in Bourke's hottest temperature at Bourke Post Office. It is listed as 1903 at 49.7C so that is an adjustment of over 2C. Bizarre innit?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 12:22pm:



Where have I been shown to be wrong petal?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 12:22pm:


So sad for you. You were the one changed the time forward.

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 12:33pm:



Of course I am not a scientist.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 2:33pm:



What do you mean vague? The only vague thing is you.

Don't you remember my post where I said data should not be changed? Did you think that was just a zephyr passing by?

Remember what I wrote about UHI and how they would somehow have to warm the past rather than cooling it to make today's figures more comparable. And said at the end they shouldn't even do that?

BoM adjusted the 3 January 1909 temperatures by over 2C, if it had been 2C it would have tied with 1903. That is fact.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 2:33pm:



And those "professionals" adjust the data. Some due to station moves without dual recording at both places, some due to change of instrumentation and a lot for "statistical reasons".

Data should not be changed for station moves, adds or changes. The data just is. But you still haven't got back to us why data should be changed for "statistical reasons". Why is that petal?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 2:33pm:



Yes petal.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 2:33pm:


Yeah, they don't respond very well to criticism.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 2:33pm:


I will leave that up to you to decide petal. One you you may understand what is data and what isn't data. (Hint: adjusted data ain't data).

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 10:21am:



Poor petal. You rally have a comprehension issue.

What part of -

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 5:34pm:



didn't you understand?


The fact is they are wrong.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 10:21am:


That is the part that I said you should decide for yourself.

Data should not be changed. After it is changed it is not data.

Changing the data as in the ACORN series of adjustments is a no-no. You can't years later go back and say "this was the temperature that day".

Remember what that assessment of the BoM homogenisation was?

"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."

2015 TAF report.

So if we use human "expertise" the adjustments can't be replicated. if the results can't be replicated it is not science.

Poor petal completely lacking in maths skills and comprehension at the very least.

But really do tell us why temperatures from years ago should be adjusted for "statistical reasons"?

One of the questions to which you always fail to respond.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:



As do many others petal.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:


poor petal. Lost in his little dream world. So do you adjust up or own for tree changes? How about buildings up or down? Locations around a weather station up or down.

Don't forget UHI that should put temperatures up. You know tarmac roads v gravel roads.


How does one make those types of adjustments statistically? Statistics can never tell you on a specific day x years ago the temperature was really cooler/warmer by y degrees.

It would seem logic is not a part of your repertoire

So tell us why the bulk of the adjustments are down.

Edit :"Appeal to Authority

argumentum ad verecundiam"

"Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Au...

There is no preponderance of evidence that homogenisation of temperatures is in fact  -True.

And why did you ignore this -

"So if we use human "expertise" the adjustments can't be replicated. if the results can't be replicated it is not science."

They are supposed to be doing scientific work aren't they?

FYI lee

An appeal to authority fallacy would be if i was to say "Global Warming is a Hoax because Donald Trump said so"

Clearly Donald Trump is not an expert in the field, he is merely an authority figure.