Met office report

[weirpig]

2 minutes ago, Mapantz said:

@tablet

There's no need for personal jibes & insults. I understand that these types of threads can generate heat between users, but insults and sniping are not tolerated.

Keep it friendly. Thank you.

whats he said?.

[tablet]

NOAA also give out temperature readings for places on this planet that have no temperature recording equipment , they use models , the same models that have been proved to be wrong on many occasions

the real recorded data

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, tablet said:

NOAA also give out temperature readings for places on this planet that have no temperature recording equipment , they use models , the same models that have been proved to be wrong on many occasions

the real recorded data

Forgive me for seeming so obtuse, but how can locations 'that have no temperature-recording equipment', have real recorded data?

[tablet]

Just now, Ed Stone said:

Forgive me for seeming so obtuse, but how can locations 'that have no temperature-recording equipment', have real recorded data?

that is the question , why do the publish temperature data for places on the planet that have no recording equipment

[BornFromTheVoid]

27 minutes ago, tablet said:

I find it difficult to believe you can alter temperature records like these  :

same graph 18 years later

 and come up with a good response for the alterations , and saying " oh , we're human , we make mistakes " just isn't convincing , as you say the number of people these organisation's have and the hardware at their disposal  makes me question these adjustments

So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!

[Methuselah]

22 minutes ago, tablet said:

that is the question , why do the publish temperature data for places on the planet that have no recording equipment

So what, pray, can you possibly hope to gain from pretending to present recorded data, when knowing full-well that no such data exist?

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!

I don't think it does, BFTV; but those who keep posting bogus data do...

[tablet]

8 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!

this needs to be openly talked about , as they say " the truth will out "   if there is something going on that's underhand , on either side , it needs to be discussed

[tablet]

funny though , you calling graphs from NASA and NOAA ( from different time frames ) bogus data ?

 

[tablet]

14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

So improving methods and updating data doesn't make sense, but a global conspiracy of scientists that spent decades becoming experts only to give it all up to corrupt the temperature record for some unknown nefarious purpose whilst providing all the data and methods on their corruption does make sense...
Mods, this thread needs to be nuked from orbit!

again , I would give you the example of Dr Peter Ridd , he spoke out about the the great barrier reef , he said it was " doing just fine " , James Cook University sacked him for not going along with the AGW narrative

[Methuselah]

And what on Earth has an arguably deranged scientist's personal opinion on the fecundity of The Great Barrier Reef got to do with the Meteorological Office's report on temperatures here in the UK?

Are you trying to force the mods into closing the thread?

[BornFromTheVoid]

11 minutes ago, tablet said:

again , I would give you the example of Dr Peter Ridd , he spoke out about the the great barrier reef , he said it was " doing just fine " , James Cook University sacked him for not going along with the AGW narrative

It's not doing fine. But he was sacked for misconduct anyway.

Among the allegations, the university says Ridd had “perpetuated a view that you were not allowed to talk to your wife about the disciplinary process, when in fact this was contrary to what you were told by verbally, and in writing … ”. He had denigrated a colleague, disclosed confidential information and “failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or manage a conflict of interest between your own interests and the interests of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the interests of the university
 

28 minutes ago, tablet said:

funny though , you calling graphs from NASA and NOAA ( from different time frames ) bogus data ?

 

[Methuselah]

41 minutes ago, tablet said:

funny though , you calling graphs from NASA and NOAA ( from different time frames ) bogus data ?

I do believe that, in all honesty, it was your good self who claimed that the data presented by NASA and NOAA were bogus...'added', 'altered'?

Edited November 6, 2018 by Ed Stone

[tablet]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

I do believe that, in all honesty, it was your good self who claimed that the data presented by NASA and NOAA were bogus...'added', 'altered'?

I claimed only that in the course of time , the data had been altered , which it clearly has

[tablet]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's not doing fine. But he was sacked for misconduct anyway.

Among the allegations, the university says Ridd had “perpetuated a view that you were not allowed to talk to your wife about the disciplinary process, when in fact this was contrary to what you were told by verbally, and in writing … ”. He had denigrated a colleague, disclosed confidential information and “failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or manage a conflict of interest between your own interests and the interests of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the interests of the university
 

well I guess we will find out who's lying , it was due in court on Monday 5th November 2018 , but the court has postponed it , after Ridd and his supporters turned up  

[Devonian]

4 hours ago, tablet said:

but it's quite obvious that NASA are changing their past temperature readings making it appear warmer now that it would have had they left them unaltered

I have run a well known make of AWS since 2003. I upgrade to the newer version in late 2016.

Earlier this year I began to wonder if the rain gauge was recording correctly. To check it I bought a standard rain gauge.

The standard rain gauge (situated right be the AWS) nearly always records about 10-20% more rain than the AWS tipping bucket rain gauge.

 If adjust the data I've kept up by 15% to reflect the obvious (that the tipping bucket gauge in the AWS under records rainfall) am I dishonestly manipulating my data or applying common sense?

Well, If we follow your 'logic' then I'm being dishonest

[The PIT]

30 minutes ago, Devonian said:

I have run a well known make of AWS since 2003. I upgrade to the newer version in late 2016.

Earlier this year I began to wonder if the rain gauge was recording correctly. To check it I bought a standard rain gauge.

The standard rain gauge (situated right be the AWS) nearly always records about 10-20% more rain than the AWS tipping bucket rain gauge.

 If adjust the data I've kept up by 15% to reflect the obvious (that the tipping bucket gauge in the AWS under records rainfall) am I dishonestly manipulating my data or applying common sense?

Well, If we follow your 'logic' then I'm being dishonest

Tipping buckets by the design aren't going to be very accurate and the heavier rain the worse they are.

Interestingly I find my Davies also drifts with time so has to be adjusted slightly. However I wouldn't present the Davis station as accurate as I know it isn't. Other brands may be better but they are darn expensive just for testing purposes. Anyway I still send the rainfall to met office using the old method. I wouldn't if I had to rely on the Davies.

Temperatures with the new type sensor on my Davies VP2 the highs and lows generally agree with what I get in the Stevenson screen using the mercury substitute thermometers. However occasionally I'll get differences and this may be due to the Electronic station being able to respond quicker. The other thing which throws the Davies is when the fan starts dying and then you'll generally in summer get a difference of a degree or slightly more higher between the two.  

So for the Davies to be accurate it needs a good air flow through it. I need to swap the batteries this weekend as well. Just remembered.

[Devonian]

18 minutes ago, The PIT said:

Tipping buckets by the design aren't going to be very accurate and the heavier rain the worse they are.

Interestingly I find my Davies also drifts with time so has to be adjusted slightly. However I wouldn't present the Davis station as accurate as I know it isn't. Other brands may be better but they are darn expensive just for testing purposes. Anyway I still send the rainfall to met office using the old method. I wouldn't if I had to rely on the Davies.

Temperatures with the new type sensor on my Davies VP2 the highs and lows generally agree with what I get in the Stevenson screen using the mercury substitute thermometers. However occasionally I'll get differences and this may be due to the Electronic station being able to respond quicker. The other thing which throws the Davies is when the fan starts dying and then you'll generally in summer get a difference of a degree or slightly more higher between the two.  

So for the Davies to be accurate it needs a good air flow through it. I need to swap the batteries this weekend as well. Just remembered.

Yes. Generally the rain gauges aren't as good as the temperature sensors which are very good.

But my point was more about the people who blather on about 'raw' data and how any adjustments of that are a 'manipulation' and dishonest - up to and including Tablets world wide conspiracy by climatologists to corruptly change the data...

No, sorry, it's not dishonest to adjust data if you find a new version is more accurate and that better correction can be applied to past data (just like I discovered my past data is wrong and can be given a (not unreasonable I think?) correction to make it more accurate).

Edited November 6, 2018 by Devonian

[The PIT]

if the effect is linear you can adjust. However with the Davies it isn't linear and you cannot predict how big the difference will be and this is just talking about heavy rain. Add in snow and it gets worse. I certainly wouldn't send data to met office if for some reason the old fashioned gauge was none functional for some reason. If I did so I would be dishonest as I would know full well the data is inaccurate.

Your comment about data shows why data should be accurate, traceable and verified to be correct.