The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Can any climate change alarmists debunk these two graphs:
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 22nd, 2024 4:56 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' https://web.archive.org/web/20230106114047/https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-Year-1895-2019-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-Year.png
Actual substantive replies please. If I want ad hominem attacks or smears about the author I can go to reddit. And I know the reasoning for adjusting raw data, I'm not trying to claim it's fake just because it's adjusted.
For me, the second graph, if true, would just blow the ass out of AGW. It shows a preposterous 0.99 correlation between the magnitude of adjustments for a given year and atmospheric CO2 levels. So if you tell me the CO2 levels for this year, I can tell you with precision the adjustments that will be made to the raw temperature data.
And here's the same graph, but with raw data, no adjustments. It shows basically no correlation.
|
 |
Date: December 22nd, 2024 5:14 PM Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Occams Razor: they are fitting the announced temps to match the amount of CO2.
|
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:26 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' Yeah, but I don't care enough to dig through the datasets and see if this is legit. I don't really expect other poasters to either, but maybe a climatology masterman can explain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476410) |
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:09 PM Author: UN peacekeeper bc effects are cumulative and not instantaneous (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476388) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:24 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' How is that relevant when the issue is how adjustments to raw temperature data (including historical readings based on imprecise equipment and practices) are almost perfectly correlated with atmospheric CO2? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476406) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:33 PM Author: UN peacekeeper i won't dispute that climatologists aren't free of bias (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476431) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:38 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' But this wouldn't just be bias. A virtual 1:1 correlation would indicate straight up dishonesty. Even if there are certain adjustments that are correlated with atmospheric CO2, there's no way it would be a 1:1 correlation considering all the other adjustments (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476450) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:11 PM Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband Sure. Standby one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476389) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:34 PM Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband Conclusion: either you or the Redditor who runs "realclimatescience.com" is unable to read graphs for comprehension:
Your first link is to temp change over *time, and shows something like a 2C increase over 120 years.
Your second link purports to be graphing temperature "adjustments" against CO2 concentration (without any time axis, of course), but doesn't explain what the word "adjustment" means beyond the paren "final minus raw" which doesn't mean anything by itself.
Your third link seems to graph temperature against CO2 concentration (also without a time axis), and shows a positive correlation between the two -- i.e., temperature is higher when CO2 is higher -- which is the fundamental premise of AGW.
Does the realclimatescience redditor also include a graph of CO2 concentrations over the last 120 years?
ISHTH. Anything else I can do to help explain the science? |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 6:39 PM Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband Found this for CO2, but only since 1959 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/
Seems to correlate with your temp graph. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 7:45 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' "Your first link is to temp change over *time, and shows something like a 2C increase over 120 years."
It's not "temp change," it's simply the final (adjusted) data minus the raw, which shows the magnitude of adjustment. So your statement about showing a 2C increase over 120 years seems irrelevant, other than to show that they've generally gone from adjusting the temp down to adjusting it up.
"Your second link purports to be graphing temperature "adjustments" against CO2 concentration (without any time axis, of course), but doesn't explain what the word "adjustment" means beyond the paren "final minus raw" which doesn't mean anything by itself."
Ok at this point I'm assuming I didn't explain what the graphs purport to show well enough. It is not in dispute that NOAA adjusts the raw USHCN data, and they've done it multiple times, which makes sense because of more accurate measurement and statistical methods using new data as it comes. But for a given station's location, there will be a raw temp avg number, and the final (adjusted) number. The final number minus the raw shows the magnitude of the adjustment. Time is irrelevant here (unless you can explain why it is) because it is simply showing that two things have an almost 1:1 correlation, when scientifically and statistically, that should be almost impossible.
"Your third link seems to graph temperature against CO2 concentration (also without a time axis), and shows a positive correlation between the two -- i.e., temperature is higher when CO2 is higher -- which is the fundamental premise of AGW."
I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure a correlation of .023 is either extremely weak or insignificant. But the significance of this graph is that even though you would expect significant adjustments to older data, you wouldn't expect raw or adjusted temperature data to have a weaker correlation to atmospheric CO2 than the magnitude of adjustments. The implication, obviously, is that the adjustments are made to create the correlation.
But again, I haven't dug into the datasets these graphs come from, and I'm not a scientist or statistician |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 8:01 PM Author: Bill DaWall there wont be snow in africa this christmas time. the only gift theyll get this year is life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652983&forum_id=2#48476702) |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2024 9:27 PM Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"' Bump.
EPaH gave the only real effort and it was disappointing. The problem with climate science is the amount of unknowns, and the fact that it span multiple fields of science like physics, chemistry, biology and statistics. I'm a skeptic, so I'm not fully convinced it's a hoax, but there are many respected scientists who acknowledge that the data and studies used in climate science would be ridiculed in the hard sciences. |