Author Topic: Data contamination and future usefullness  (Read 6007 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2017, 08:58:41 AM »
Quote
Some will only ever see and hear what they want to hear

thanks for admitting to it

Your question is obviously not being discussed because it is absurd

Maybe you might be the one who doesn't want to discuss the contamination of data :) Jáchym. You are very defensive on this and yet have been very active on this thread so lets not kid ourselves, oh try and stick to the subject, it's the contamination of data being discussed   

You must be joking right?
My opiinon is based on research done by thousands of scientists all around the world.
You provide link to some blog? Without even looking at it, if someone considers this a valid source then there is no point in arguing at all with them. Waste of time.

Edit:
From the blog:
Quote
I’m a retired school principal

Aha... an expert in the field

This is what's now called "The Dumbing Down of America".  Where people are too lazy to research for themselves so they let any moron with a blog dictate what their opinion should be.

Many Americans are smart and do their own researching.  It's too bad those that don't scream from the rooftops.

 =D> =D> =D>

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2017, 10:41:01 AM »
Quote
Some will only ever see and hear what they want to hear

thanks for admitting to it

Your question is obviously not being discussed because it is absurd

Maybe you might be the one who doesn't want to discuss the contamination of data :) Jáchym. You are very defensive on this and yet have been very active on this thread so lets not kid ourselves, oh try and stick to the subject, it's the contamination of data being discussed   

You must be joking right?
My opiinon is based on research done by thousands of scientists all around the world.
You provide link to some blog? Without even looking at it, if someone considers this a valid source then there is no point in arguing at all with them. Waste of time.

Edit:
From the blog:
Quote
I’m a retired school principal

Aha... an expert in the field

This is what's now called "The Dumbing Down of America".  Where people are too lazy to research for themselves so they let any moron with a blog dictate what their opinion should be.

Many Americans are smart and do their own researching.  It's too bad those that don't scream from the rooftops.

"Where people are too lazy to research for themselves so they let any moron with a blog dictate what their opinion should be."

That goes for both sides....sadly enough....

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2017, 10:50:19 AM »
Here is something a bit more credible

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Read and then we can have a sensible debate

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2017, 04:04:14 PM »
It's really a simple question people and the response from the supporters club obviously highlights they don't like questions.

So leaving out the oh how dare anybody question us syndrome, how about a direct response to what is wrong with the actual original raw data, why does there have to be any contamination to justify the meaning of the data? Why should there be any need to doctor the data, the doctors have been caught out so this is the question, why doctor the data and if the answer is because the data doesn't show what "some" want it to show then so be it, be at least professional to admit it instead of the same old same old unsupportable rhetoric.     

So was contaminate and doctor the data, what does contaminated data mean over a period of time, my suggestion would be it's not worth a cracker in the long term, absolutely useless.

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2017, 04:14:12 PM »
Mattk,
  As you have Already found out that some people have their minds already made up because they don't want/like what they are presented with. Again, this goes for both sides....
There have been accusations made in the past of reports/data being fudged/manipulated/incorrectly presented. Who has proof? I can bet NO one here on this forum does, one way or the other.
Each side is dug in for the long haul... As I have stated before in older posts, unless each of us can set up , take accurate data , and can analyze the RAW data correctly and without influences, then all we have are those who excel in the field.... We are at their mercy , one way or another.... :-(

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2017, 04:29:33 PM »
Well the proof is there and has been presented by many but it may take a parliamentary inquiry to uncover this whole issue of manipulation and contamination.

It is absolutely known some countries do not follow the WMO standards, it is absolutely known max temps are based on real time instant data and not in line with WMO, it is absolutely known min temps are being cut off at a pre-defined/pre-set level, even the most hardened advocates can not hide from this blatant pre-conceived outcome.

Like how can any meteorological person worth their salt follow the line that it can't get any colder than say -10 deg C and if it does then it's still only going to be recorded as -10 degrees, what an absolute rort, and why is there this rort going on?   

Offline dupreezd

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2017, 04:40:55 PM »
Quote
what an absolute rort, and why is there this rort going on?

Follow the money.  :shock: A whole new industry has been created with lots of money to be made.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 04:59:14 PM by dupreezd »
Davis VP2 6163 | WiFi Logger
CWOP - FW0717
Blitzortung 2100

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2017, 04:54:24 PM »
Quote
what an absolute rort, and why is there this rort going on?

Follow the money.  :shock: I whole new industry has been created with lots of money to be made.

Part of the reason many don't believe in the impact man is having on the climate... Too many grants, jobs, positions, etc. to be lost if CC is a hoax....

Part of the issue is not that the climate is not warming or not. I think many see that. Its the economic impact that man has/is making on it. That's the crux of the discussion...

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2017, 05:04:47 PM »
Quote
what an absolute rort, and why is there this rort going on?

Follow the money.  :shock: I whole new industry has been created with lots of money to be made.

Part of the reason many don't believe in the impact man is having on the climate... Too many grants, jobs, positions, etc. to be lost if CC is a hoax....

Part of the issue is not that the climate is not warming or not. I think many see that. Its the economic impact that man has/is making on it. That's the crux of the discussion...

Regardless of CC or not, which BTW is not the question here. Why contaminate the data to produce a specific outcome? Why should ordinary consumers be paying through the nose for electricity just because selfish people couldn't handle their grants drying up and feel a need to whitewash ordinary people. It's really is quite disgraceful what is being done with data. 

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2017, 05:07:10 PM »
You just answered your own question.

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2017, 05:17:23 PM »
You just answered your own question.

Gee should make you head of the proposed parliamentary inquiry, would save a lot of more money wasting and hot air. Would be over in 5 minutes, How does the government plead on the charge of contaminating data to justify unsupportable outcomes, The Gov pleads guilty.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2017, 06:12:42 PM »
Right,
so, if you feel sick,you go to the doctor's, they examine you, do some tests and prescribe you antibiotics and tell you you should stay in bed for at least a week, you go home and a good friend of yours, say a taxi driver, tells you he thinks you are ok and that the tests were surely manipulated, you also think relatively ok, will you therefore go with your friends play basketball that evening?

In other words - I provided a link to a several-thousand long study done by over 5000 scientists all around the world, people who studied this. You provided a link to a blog of some former high school principal. And even if you come up with a different link to some suspicious source, you have not explained why those thousands of scientsts (in fact I could say "us", also being one of them) - why would all of us - coming from different countries, backgrounds, try to "manipulate you"? Do you doubt everything you see in your life? Do you doubt what doctors tell you or anyone else who is likely to understand someting better than you do?

One last thing - talking about money.... why do you think I have a part-time job... because salary of a meteorologist, despite Msc degree, is over 30% lower than the country average. This is probably one of the last jobs you would choose if money was the number one reason. And you know very well how many people have interest in global warming denial..... much more companies and people than might theoretically be interested in funding research.

You most likely know it very well, though not admit it, not in your economical benefit too?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2017, 06:18:05 PM »
P.S.
In case you didnt know, there is a fundamental difference between data manipulation and data adjustment. If data is adjusted in order to make it likely to be more accurate, it is actually desirable and it doesnt happen just in climatology! This also happens only rarely, not all data you see has been adjusted. And yes, of course you will come up with some article about somene who really manipulated it, all I can say about that is that no matter which field, there will always be a minority of idiots and people who want to cheat. If over 95% of top experts think something, regardless of what it is about, I will trust them.

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2017, 06:19:44 PM »
Jaycym,
  Sometimes it gets to a point when enough is enough... We've seen numerous times that magical "95%" figure thrown out. If so, has anyone amassed a list of ALL those who have sign on to this? Kinda of comical when people throw statements out like the 95% figure or  that over 5000 scientists agree on CC... Fine for the first time but when you hear that statement over an over again, people become suspicious.. They want to see a complete list of all of those scientist who supposedly have sign on...

I believe there is a happy medium that can be reached but it may well be too late....

Man , I miss the days on this forum just talking about PWS..... smh....
 

« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 06:27:43 PM by SoMDWx »

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2017, 06:38:26 PM »
They are not anonymous, that report for example includes a list of all institutions (and reviewers) involved (including basically every respected organization in the field of meteorology).

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2017, 06:39:51 PM »
They are not anonymous, that report for example includes a list of all institutions (and reviewers) involved (including basically every respected organization in the field of meteorology).

Again , no list.... just sayin'

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2017, 06:40:20 PM »
Jaycym, How does setting an absolute minimum temperature that no data can be recorded below be justified as "data adjustment", this practice does not make the data more accurate it simply contaminates the data yet you say it's actually desirable to do this, WHY does a whole country need to manipulate/contaminate data away from reality?

So by your admission the government/s are now the minority and cheats affecting an absolute majority, and for what purpose, something you still have to justify and no the 95% rubbish doesn't cut it anymore, the 95% claim has become an urban myth perpetrated by some who have no answers and still trying to hang on to ill conceived perceptions.

I am still waiting for an answer to why if the temp is actually, really say -12deg C why it is only recorded as -10Deg C ??????????????????   

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2017, 06:54:11 PM »
OK, I will only speak for my country where I have access to first-hand data (which most people dont). In my country we dont make any such adjustments. We have data going as far back as 1781 and we dont set any minimum temps etc. THe conclusion from this data speaks clearly in the favor of ever increasing rate of warming, a rate which largely surpasses any warming in the past (Im not talking about absolute values, Im talking about the rate of change).
And just to add to that - if I now became a GW denier - no I would not have more money, no I would not have any other benefits - I might have less stress at work because of more time to do other things.

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2017, 07:00:17 PM »
Jaycym,
  Sometimes it gets to a point when enough is enough... We've seen numerous times that magical "95%" figure thrown out. If so, has anyone amassed a list of ALL those who have sign on to this? Kinda of comical when people throw statements out like the 95% figure or  that over 5000 scientists agree on CC... Fine for the first time but when you hear that statement over an over again, people become suspicious.. They want to see a complete list of all of those scientist who supposedly have sign on...

I believe there is a happy medium that can be reached but it may well be too late....

Man , I miss the days on this forum just talking about PWS..... smh....
 

I was not the one who started talking about this again without providing single evidence and with the sole purpose of starting a flame war.

Offline SoMDWx

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
    • Southern Maryland Weather
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2017, 07:15:59 PM »
THe conclusion from this data speaks clearly in the favor of ever increasing rate of warming, a rate which largely surpasses any warming in the past (Im not talking about absolute values, Im talking about the rate of change).

And there lies the quandary.... Most will agree to the fact that overall average temperatures are slowly increasing. But to what percentage is contributed to mankind's involvement? That's the argument....and the political/economic discourse...

Some will tell you that these dramatic rise in temps have been occurring long before man became industrialized...


Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2017, 07:20:04 PM »
OK, I will only speak for my country where I have access to first-hand data (which most people dont). In my country we dont make any such adjustments. We have data going as far back as 1781 and we dont set any minimum temps etc. THe conclusion from this data speaks clearly in the favor of ever increasing rate of warming, a rate which largely surpasses any warming in the past (Im not talking about absolute values, Im talking about the rate of change).
And just to add to that - if I now became a GW denier - no I would not have more money, no I would not have any other benefits - I might have less stress at work because of more time to do other things.

if the data was left alone it wouldn't speak at all, would it? The data has clearly been contaminated to give a false impression that the temperature is increasing, so why does anybody want to give a false impression and then others tag onto this making claims re rate of warming. Of course the rate of warming is going to show as an increase if the minimum temp is capped higher and the max temp is based on instantaneous recordings.

So what's the point having WMO standards if half the world are ignoring them and looking for any way to manipulate the outcome?     

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2017, 07:37:44 PM »
OK, I will only speak for my country where I have access to first-hand data (which most people dont). In my country we dont make any such adjustments. We have data going as far back as 1781 and we dont set any minimum temps etc. THe conclusion from this data speaks clearly in the favor of ever increasing rate of warming, a rate which largely surpasses any warming in the past (Im not talking about absolute values, Im talking about the rate of change).
And just to add to that - if I now became a GW denier - no I would not have more money, no I would not have any other benefits - I might have less stress at work because of more time to do other things.

if the data was left alone it wouldn't speak at all, would it? The data has clearly been contaminated to give a false impression that the temperature is increasing, so why does anybody want to give a false impression and then others tag onto this making claims re rate of warming. Of course the rate of warming is going to show as an increase if the minimum temp is capped higher and the max temp is based on instantaneous recordings.

So what's the point having WdMO standards if half the world are ignoring them and looking for any way to manipulate the outcome?   


I said quite clearly that I don't know the details about what is done in your country, in my country such practices don't exist

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2017, 07:57:36 PM »
OK, for the record, just going to repeat a previous comment of mine that I dug up from WXF, on basically the same issue (lousy internet makes online stuff downright painful at 100Kbps...thank you telco lobbyists and politicians). Before Jáchym splits a cranial artery or two and strokes out.  :shock:

I have enhanced the text on the key points (from the original) for 'skimmability' for those with shorter attention spans. :twisted:

Links are clearly provided, as certain commenters keep clamoring for (had to modify two broken links upon checking). If their information came from factual, reality-based sources, not propaganda outlets, bought and paid for in many examples, they would already know what the objective, scientifically acquired data presents; not BS from specious and biased 'sources'. ](*,)

Original comment:
https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=28265.msg314039#msg314039

" The 'ACCD (Anthropogenic Climate Change Deniers) and CCD (Climate Change Deniers)' (per gwwilk above) have for years recycled the same old myths, mis'truths', disinformation, misinformation, and outright lies about climate change and/or global warming.
They have all been thoroughly discredited and debunked as the falsehoods that they are time and again. Their sources are varied, but the root causes of most have been exposed. These denier myths/untruths often cloak themselves in a veneer of appearing 'scientific'. And yet the 'true believers' persist in their 'alt-facts'.


But the actual, real, accredited scientists working in that discipline (and it's many ancillary supportive ones), 97% of them, publishing solid, documented, peer reviewed, research, have affirmed that climate change and/or global warming is occurring, and is accelerating.
They have also documented many of the immense, harmful effects CC/GW will have on the Earth, it's oceans, and most all it's lifeforms, not the least of which are humans. Some are already happening.

Here are some links to credible, factual rebuttals of the "deniers" (to lump them all together):

Debunking the Top 10 Climate Change Myths
http://climatenexus.org/communications-climate-change/debunking-the-top-10-climate-change-myths/

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths (193 of them!)
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
https://skepticalscience.com/

American Meteorological Society
http://ametsoc.org
http://journals.ametsoc.org

That's just a few, there are many more authorative sources, a bing.com or google search will turn up many thousands of institutions and scientific literature on the topic.

Like Jáchym, myself, and many others have commented here and elsewhere, doing something to forestall and/or prevent this very likely imminent global catastrophe is simply the prudent thing to do. And also like buying some insurance to hedge the known/unknown risks.
Taking out a little insurance is just smart
, and in many things, required by society-law-authorities-whatever.
Hell, I'm sure y'all carry many forms of insurance in everyday life: vehicle, home, life, etc. I even carry a $1M liability rider on my boat (from home ins), simply because almost every US (and many foreign, like MX) marina requires it to even dock in one. Plus the other dedicated boat policy that also meets Coast Guard requirements regarding a potential wreck and fuel spill incident. "
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 08:22:54 PM by Jstx »

Offline Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2017, 08:13:24 PM »
It's rather amusing the depths some have to go to and still don't even touch on the subject. For those that came in late and don't (or don't want to) understand the actual question re data contamination and this clearly is referring to the following 2 (yes just 2 simple) questions

1) Why would anybody want to cap the minimum temperature, where any temperature below a certain value is automatically assigned a pre-conceived (warmer) set value by default?

2) Why would anybody use (as official records) the instantaneous maximum temperate values contradictory to the WMO standards.

For those hiding behind credibility claims then here's your chance to provide valid, creditable and factual reasons for these 2 very simple questions and no doubt one wouldn't even have to be an accredited scientist to explain why this exaggeration to dupe the public has occurred  \:D/   

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2017, 08:59:37 PM »
I replied already,  the information and reasons I have to believe in GW are based on first hand data I have from my country where such practices are absent

 

anything