Author: sansukong

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made G.W. Claims [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 04:28:26 |Display all floors
Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 03:15
Because I'm a scientist myself. Not in the area of atmosphere physics (which, btw, most so-called  ...

If you are educated statistician, you should know what you are talking about. But rats and sansukongs will not. So, be careful.

About statistics, we are talking about climate systems, not a one two factor systems.

If NASA who can tell you so much about the climate systems in Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn , even Pluto.

They are eminently qualified to tell me what they think of Earth climate system.


And not just NASA..........all the reputable scientific organizations, all the Ivy League universities, all the reliable scientific magazines, National Organisation of ocean and atmosphere administration,......all the National Science academies in the world.......they are all in agreement that man made global warming is a serious problem.

If you insist on otherwise, you must think you are God or you are very arrogant.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 09:59:01 |Display all floors
Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 02:15
Because I'm a scientist myself. Not in the area of atmosphere physics (which, btw, most so-called  ...

Part: 1 of 2
New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenizationPosted on July 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts

From the told ya so department, comes this recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting.

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].

Here’s the part I really like:  of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:

“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

And…

“homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.”

The paper abstract and my helpful visualization on homogenization of data follows:

Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization

Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012.

We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.

One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

To be continued ........




FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 10:01:01 |Display all floors
Part: 2 of 2
New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization

Conclusions
1. Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time
series.

2. Homogenization practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well
justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be
argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic
time series are regarded errors and are adjusted.

3. While homogenization is expected to increase or decrease the existing
multiyear trends in equal proportions, the fact is that in 2/3 of the cases the
trends increased after homogenization.

4. The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures
and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the
last century is smaller than 0.7-0.8°C.

5. A new approach of the homogenization procedure is needed, based on
experiments, metadata and better comprehension of the stochastic
characteristics of hydroclimatic time series.

Full text:

h/t to “The Hockey Schtick” and Indur Goklany


=============================================================

Here’s a way to visualize the homogenization process. Think of it like measuring water pollution. Here’s a simple visual table of CRN station quality ratings and what they might look like as water pollution turbidity levels, rated as 1 to 5 from best to worst turbidity:

In homogenization the data is weighted against the nearby neighbors within a radius. And so a station might start out as a “1” data wise, might end up getting polluted with the data of nearby stations and end up as a new value, say weighted at “2.5”. Even single stations can affect many other stations in the GISS and NOAA data homogenization methods carried out on US surface temperature data here and here.

In the map above, applying a homogenization smoothing, weighting stations by distance nearby the stations with question marks, what would you imagine the values (of turbidity) of them would be? And, how close would these two values be for the east coast station in question and the west coast station in question? Each would be closer to a smoothed center average value based on the neighboring stations.


UPDATE: Steve McIntyre concurs in a new post, writing:

Finally, when reference information from nearby stations was used, artifacts at neighbor stations tend to cause adjustment errors: the “bad neighbor” problem. In this case, after adjustment, climate signals became more similar at nearby stations even when the average bias over the whole network was not reduced.



FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 11:56:29 |Display all floors
So now Heartless Institute have changed ther name to Climate Depot?
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2012-7-20 13:05:34 |Display all floors
If NASA who can tell you so much about the climate systems in Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn , even Pluto.

They are eminently qualified to tell me what they think of Earth climate system


They can only measure those climate system and interpolate their developments - and so they do with earth. That doesn't proove that our climate change is caused by anthropogene factors.

Actually, not even the leading climate scientists in the Club of Rome, which published the first global climate change model and warned about the development in the 1970ies, consider the statistics sound. I know those guys personally (and some were my teachers as well as the teachers of the very NASA scientists that publish those models) and they do have their concerns, too.
That's why they don't use statistical models but rather set up (much more complicated) cybernetic models to modelate the earth's climate system. Nevertheless, they still only assume that the current climate change is caused by the raising carbon-dioxide levels and that those raises in carbon-dioxide levels are caused by men - so far, we still couldn't proove it.

If you insist on otherwise, you must think you are God or you are very arrogant.


Science is all about discussing things that haven't been 100 percent proven to be true yet - actually, the concept of paradigm shift or revolutionary science by T.H.Kuhn is one of the predominant epistemologies in contemporary science, so feel free to question critically whatever isn't known for sure (and even those things, too, as they still might be wrong or inaccurate if you look closely).

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 18:50:17 |Display all floors

RE: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made G.W. Claims

Everynowhere Post time: 2012-7-20 12:05
They can only measure those climate system and interpolate their developments - and so they do wit ...
Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming:

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

James Lovelock

James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-7-20 20:29:33 |Display all floors
sansukong Post time: 2012-7-20 18:50
James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.

The one thing I have learnt from my first day here is that this rat is full of farts.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.