-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actual Weather Station Data from Rural Weather Stations
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
No it's because I have better things to do, as I've explained several times now.
"Prove me wrong!" has been the cry of the crank down the ages, where science is concerned. It doesn't work like that. The person challenging the accepted theory is the one who has to show he or she has something valuable to bring to the party.
You are demanding that I put a lot of my intellectual effort into investigating what data this unqualified nobody collected, whether it is valid, whether it is representative of anything meaningful, what, if anything, recognised authorities had to say about it, and how it relates to the other data that we have now. And as I don't pretend to be a climate scientist myself, that will be a lot of work. It's like asking me to research the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the plum pudding model of the atom, just because you come along and claim there could be something in it, even though it has been long since dismissed as wrong. Well, ballocks to that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
exchemist
Veteran Member
I haven't looked, to be honest. So it's not original data then? Quelle surprise.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I haven't looked, to be honest. So it's not original data then? Quelle surprise.
I can't say for sure that it is original or not, but it is very cherry picked. For the entire US only about 70 stations were chosen.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Updated data from one of Daly's posted sources clearly show warming trends:
Tim Osborn: HadCRUT5 global temperature graphs
Removing urban data is useless since we are talking about overall warming. The impacts of it are clearly being seen in sea level rise and glacial melting as well as extended droughts and extreme weather in various parts of the world.
I wonder what Daly would say about these things were he alive.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And we still do not have an answer as to why when there are thousands of weather stations did Daly only take data from roughly 70 in the US?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
My assumption is he picked data that specifically backs his claims while ignoring that local temperatures may not see as much variation as others due to a myriad of factors. As far as I know, climate scientists don't deny this. The whole idea of climate change is looking at overall trends globally.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That sounds likely to be the case to me too. Climate scientists have to use all of the data when they publish in peer review. Deniers can ignore the inconvenient data that disagrees with them.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
I'm not sure about this site, but the megadrought in the Western United States is definitely real. Lake Mead is drying up. The fire danger is elevated. Some are saying that it's a consequence of climate change, but if you know any scientists who can give an alternate explanation, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
And then claim political motivation and data munipulation for opposing conclusions...
exchemist
Veteran Member
Ah, so that's it. A cherry-picked data set, deliberately chosen to be unrepresentative, in order to support a false claim.
The idea, presumably, is to use some data that can be claimed to be "real", in order to generate rhetorical talking points in settings in which the audience is unlikely to be able to spot that the data is actually grossly incomplete. It really is just like the creationists, isn't it?.
Oh well, until the next time........
Actually they are not.
To cite a source means to have a link to the actual original data set.
Here there is just a link named this and that data center with the link going to some random jpeg plot that is unsourced, unvalidated and unverified.
In contrast global surface temperatures are based on 32000 different sources (land weather stations, balloons, sea temperature measuring buoys, satellites) which are independently checked and cross-validated (accounting for any anomalous effects like urban heat island). The full data set and the correction methods and codes and the cross-validations are available at these websites. Also included is a recent paper that independently checked 17 years of data from land and satellite measurements and showed that they matched.
The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Climate Data Records | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS - IOPscience
Shown below is the mean temperature data (land and satellite based) from multiple independent sources measured over 17 year period (2003-2017)
Well collected and well analyzed data never lies. But people with ideological agendas can surely lie about what the data tells.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well, you post some good stuff! And I usually learn something when I read them, which I love. I was never very good at chemistry, but your posts have been helping me with that.
It sounds like we're definitely wired up the same way. I'm the guy on the internet who can't go to bed because somebody is saying something inaccurate on the internet.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I know that cartoon and try to treat it as a memento mori - not always successfully, it has to be said. But sometimes, when we get particularly crappy propaganda masquerading as science, I get the bit between my teeth.Well, you post some good stuff! And I usually learn something when I read them, which I love. I was never very good at chemistry, but your posts have been helping me with that.
It sounds like we're definitely wired up the same way. I'm the guy on the internet who can't go to bed because somebody is saying something inaccurate on the internet.
I see you've been at it again, by the way.......
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I have some work to do in that area as well.
Well, you've been at it again, so ...I see you've been at it again, by the way.......
KW
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you are now claiming that he thew out almost 2,000 weather stations due to what he claims are the result of the urban heat island effect?
About Data | Weather Underground
He had only about 70 stations listed. To throw out any one of them requires a full explanation. He only made one general claim and did not substantiate it.
And not only can I explain Antarctica's record cold, your supported my claim with a link that you posted. Have you forgotten your reward for doing so?
But it’s not just “actual weather station data,” it’s carefully selected weather station data with certain stations omitted. Also, I’m no expert, but I suspect climate charge is a sufficiently complicated issue such that it cannot be easily measured and examined by mere weather station data.