Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Elim Garak]

None of this makes any sense on any level whatsoever.

If that's your stance, we have nothing to discuss. Proves my point.

Not 100% indeed. But we can make very good estimations in a lot of fields.

That's guessing. It has no predictive power. Anyone who relies on that is always risking. Sometimes risk is worth it, sometimes not. Everyone decides for themselves, but outcome are always a matter of chance.

[Endus]

If that's your stance, we have nothing to discuss. Proves my point.

What point? You said a bunch of stuff that made no sense at all. You literally claimed that historical data doesn't matter because magical shit might happen that we don't know about and can't quantify. Because reasons.

That's not an argument. It's magical thinking.

By your claims, science can't "work". The fact that we're discussing this over a highly complex international network run by machines that are basically rocks we taught to think for us, through science, shows how completely wrongheaded and ridiculous your position is.

[Chrysia]

That's guessing. It has no predictive power. Anyone who relies on that is always risking. Sometimes risk is worth it, sometimes not. Everyone decides for themselves, but outcome are always a matter of chance.

No, it's science. There's no such thing as 100% certainty in any scientific field.

[Endus]

No, it's science. There's no such thing as 100% certainty in any scientific field.

It's the old "make up a completely unrealistic and nonsensical standard, and then claim science is fake because if fails to meet your imaginary and ridiculous expectations" game.

It's literally no different from flat-earthers who claim that any footage from space showing a spherical earth is "CGI" and that you can't talk to anyone who's actually BEEN that high. Which is obviously bollocks and wrong.

[Arenis]

That's guessing. It has no predictive power. Anyone who relies on that is always risking. Sometimes risk is worth it, sometimes not. Everyone decides for themselves, but outcome are always a matter of chance.

That's... quite an insult to the entirety of the statistics field. These are not 'random guesses' that will end in 'oh boy such bad luck, better luck next time'. They are often derived from massive data sets and laid under heavy scrutiny before they are accepted by other people knowledgable in statistics...

A project I worked a bit on a while ago, was predicting locations of proteins (I didn't make the classifier though). With the aid of decision trees, HMM and other ML techniques they were able to predict up to 93% accuracy where it should be located, and only experimentally verified data was used (aka proteins that had their location verified by wet lab scientists beforehand). The lowest I was able to get to, was still above 80% accuracy, no matter what data-set I threw at it (verified ones only though).

So I'm sorry, but no, this is not bloody guessing. It has predictive power. A tremendous amount of it. And true 'chance' does not exist here. It simply means there are still characteristics we have not yet accounted for, which we can use to eventually improve the decision making...

[Torto]

I provided some links earlier. But basically, temperature recordings are taken in a bunch of different locations. And sometimes, the temperature measurements at a given station were moved from one location to another, to allow for better instrumentation, or because they realized the first was poorly located. To account for the many contextual differences between locations that could push the temperature at that specific spot higher or lower than the ambient local temperature, they evaluate this and then adjust it accordingly.

In short, they're calibrating the instruments to a known standard.

Yep this. Basically they keep changing locations until they get readings that suits their narrative. Then they use their 'findings' to scare governments and get more research grants.

[Endus]

Yep this. Basically they keep changing locations until they get readings that suits their narrative. Then they use their 'findings' to scare governments and get more research grants.

That's about all that level of nonsense deserves. Your avatar's shirt is meant to be ironic, right?

[Arenis]

Yep this. Basically they keep changing locations until they get readings that suits their narrative. Then they use their 'findings' to scare governments and get more research grants.

It's just normalization of data...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal...n_(statistics)

[Chrysia]

Yep this. Basically they keep changing locations until they get readings that suits their narrative. Then they use their 'findings' to scare governments and get more research grants.

Umm, no, that's not at all what they're doing, and not what Endus said.

- - - Updated - - -

Occam's Razor has no authority it's just a mental tool, also it's not about likeliness, but simplicity.

Simplest in terms of Occam's Razor refers to the number of assumptions you have to make. The most likely explanation with the given information you have will always require the least number of assumptions to be true, by definition of likelihood.

[Pterodactylus]

Pretty much, things that happened in the past cannot predict what happens in the future with 100% certainty.

So I guess you don't understand statistics and probabilities.

[Elim Garak]

That's... quite an insult to the entirety of the statistics field.

Statistics describe what happened but lack predictive power. No one knows the future, ffs. How is that an insult? Also no one respects statistics anyway, you probably heard the saying: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics, and many others.

it's exactly because of misuse of statistics to predict future, by profanes.

Simplest in terms of Occam's Razor refers to the number of assumptions you have to make. The most likely explanation with the given information you have will always require the least number of assumptions to be true, by definition of likelihood.

If it involves likelihood - it's an assumption, by definition.

So I guess you don't understand statistics and probabilities.

Guessing is what you do, yes.

[Endus]

Statistics describe what happened but lack predictive power. No one knows the future, ffs. How is that an insult? Also no one respects statistics anyway, you probably heard the saying: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics, and many others.

it's exactly because of misuse of statistics to predict future, by profanes.

If it involves likelihood - it's an assumption, by definition.

I'm not sure why you're explaining in detail how thoroughly you don't understand the concept of statistical mathematics, but you're doing it anyway.

Yes, scientists are not literally psychic with magic future-seeing powers, but that's an argument literally nobody was ever making except in your own head.

[Deianeira]

Endus. LOL.

I know why temps are raising. Recorded temperatures in a scientific manner started in early Victorian times which happened to be when a mini iceage was ending. Temperatures are now at record highs because compared to then, the temperatures are at record highs. Should we panic? In the short term yes. Are scientist right about disaster happening in the next 50-100 years. Probably. Are we going to ruin the planet? No. We pollute the world, sure, and we are responsible for extinctions at a huge rate but we are not causing the climate change. I foresee the cycle continuing and within 50 years or so temperatures will be 2 degrees cooler than what they are now. Why? We are going into a cycle where there is less radiation from the Sun for the foreseeable future. Should we jail those people who unnecessarily pollute the world? With extreme prejudice. But calm the fuck down people. It's not like you live in an island where global warming, the correct term to use because the globe was getting warmer without our help, is an actual threat.

- - - Updated - - -



What sounds more plausible. People analysing the arguments made with their own mind or people jumping on the most popular bandwagon because they don't want to be different.

Who said humans cause climatechange as a whole? Find one scientist that said that? But we ARE adding to it making it happen at an accelerated rate. And yes you are probably right that humans wont ruin the planet since earth will be here long after the last human have died. BUT why should we make it worse for ourselves to live here when we can do something about it?

[Elim Garak]

I'm not sure why you're explaining in detail how thoroughly you don't understand the concept of statistical mathematics, but you're doing it anyway.

Yes, scientists are not literally psychic with magic future-seeing powers, but that's an argument literally nobody was ever making except in your own head.

I find it hilarious how you attack my person. Please refrain from addressing me in such manner.

[Noradin]

I think this is interesting how the study notes nearly every cyclical adjustment made to the data, creates an upward trend. If something is cyclical, shouldn't adjustments to flatten that data out include adjustments in both directions?

Link to the study: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf


Link to the article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/ex...-climate-data/


Are the scientists in this study wrong? Does disagreement with them make someone a science denier, or are the scientists themselves science deniers? This science denial thing is tricky to sort out, if we are being objective. Is this study legit or nah?

They misrepresent their findings if the report on their study is correct.
Of course cyclical contributions need to be taken into account and removed from the raw data to get the non-cyclical contributions that are what we want to know about to identify trends. If taking out cyclical contributions leads to a clearer trend of raising temperatures then all that means is that there is a trend of raising temperatures, not that someone is trying to do something shifty.

- - - Updated - - -

Simplest in terms of Occam's Razor refers to the number of assumptions you have to make. The most likely explanation with the given information you have will always require the least number of assumptions to be true, by definition of likelihood.

Not exactly, but it will be the most useful for sure.
It is not so much that it is the most likely explanation, but that it is the explanation we can most likely check with least efford after which it becomes the most likely explanation if it passes.
Ocam's Razor is about efficiency of knowledge-accumulation and usefulness of hypothesises, not so much about finding the right one immideately as finding the best one to focus on as next step.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it hilarious how you attack my person. Please refrain from addressing me in such manner.

Stating the truth about something you posted on a public forum is now an attack on your person?

[Elim Garak]

Stating the truth about something you posted on a public forum is now an attack on your person?

Dream on. Just because you agree with something, doesn't mean it's the truth.

[Chrysia]

Statistics describe what happened but lack predictive power. No one knows the future, ffs. How is that an insult? Also no one respects statistics anyway, you probably heard the saying: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics, and many others.

it's exactly because of misuse of statistics to predict future, by profanes.

If it involves likelihood - it's an assumption, by definition.



Guessing is what you do, yes.

Yes, but scientists must make assumptions to advance hypotheses. It's part of science. The most likely hypotheses require the fewest assumptions.

[Elim Garak]

Yes, but scientists must make assumptions to advance hypotheses. It's part of science. The most likely hypotheses require the fewest assumptions.

Never argued against that. The work of science is never done. Just pointing it out. Because assumptions are just that - assumptions. They can be incorrect. Some people here though preach these assumptions to be the absolute truth and silence any opposing opinions.

[Chrysia]

Never argued against that. The work of science is never done. Just pointing it out. Because assumptions are just that - assumptions. They can be incorrect. Some people here though preach these assumptions to be the absolute truth and silence any opposing opinions.

Because at this stage anthropogenic climate change requires so few assumptions it's as close to fact as anything in science ever achieves.

[Elim Garak]

Because at this stage anthropogenic climate change requires so few assumptions it's as close to fact as anything in science ever achieves.

That thing is presented as the driving force of current climate change. That takes a lot of assumptions.