Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by mojo, Jul 6, 2017.

  1. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    "In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

    “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

    “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso."
    Study Targets Adjusted Climate Data | The Daily Caller
     
  2. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,491
    2,802
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I wonder if the authors are planning to format their study for journal review and possible publication?

    I continue to wonder why no one has obtained (which is some cases means purchased) original T data from a broad coverage of global weather stations and performed on them fully transparent analyses. BEST did that to some extent, but obviously not to mojo's satisfaction. This would seem a very direct approach.

    Speaking of satisfaction I note that mojo did not like the journal that first published BEST results. an only imagine how much less he'd like it if they had taken self-publication approach followed here.
     
  3. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Its a peer reviewed published study.Nice try.
     
  4. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,491
    2,802
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I did read it. I wonder if you are even aware that you are wrong.
     
  5. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,491
    2,802
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    wordpress report figs. IV-1, IV-3 and IV-5 show that all versions examined of 3 global T datasets have no different slopes (+T) since 1970. This finding is not particularly emphasized, but oh well, some folks have agendas.

    It may have been a bit unpleasant for authors to get caught out on that RSS vs. UAH matter we have discussed elsewhere. But I reckon they'll survive. Daily Caller needs clicks, and I did help out in that regard.

    ++
    It may be beyond hope to get the idea across on climate journals. Let me try something different. Here is a list of gem and mineralogy journals:

    Mineralogy Journals

    I wonder if it is completely clear why and how these are 'journals', and why if I self publish my feelings about gemstones, that is not?
     
  6. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    14,923
    6,717
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Where was it published?
     
  7. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,491
    2,802
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Report @1 was asserted to be both published and reviewed. Later comments shed light on what a journal publication is. For the matter of review, there may be one more thing to talk about.

    In that report you can read

    “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:”

    Followed by names and titles. Beyond reviewers being often (not always) anonymous, I talk about ‘Agree with the Conclusions’.

    Journal reviewers’ tasks are to assess:

    Whether the matter stated is of scientific interest and in particular, whether the chosen journal is an apt place for it.

    Whether understanding of the matter stated can be advanced by authors’ methods.

    Whether those methods and subsequent analyses are done correctly.

    Whether reported results are fairly described and discussed in context of prior related research.

    Readers can appreciate something like a circle here. Some scientific thing was previously somewhat known and here it gets known better. Priors, this, and subsequent research are matters of record for readers to assess as they will. It’s how science thing works. Journal editors are not aiming to obtain agreement. They know very well that next one out of oven may be very different in methods results and conclusions. Journal editors are ‘defending” that their journal as a place for worthwhile additions to some list of topics.

    So, notice that ‘agreeing with conclusions’ is not part of journal review. Agreement might occur and often does. Instead, review is about whether the new bit adds to knowledge in a way that its addition can be assessed by readers. Lots of results get ‘accepted’ by lots of reviewers, so such assessments can be made later.

    I have reviewed many manuscripts for many journals. Never once have I been asked if I agree with conclusions. Yes, asked if conclusions have been appropriately stated, but that is different.

    What we have in [email protected] is no evidence that review has occurred, but evidence that something unlike review has occurred. It only merits these words by my hope that y’all get a clearer idea of what journal review is.
     
Loading...