490 replies to this topic

[Rich C]

https://www.climate....bal-temperature

Edited by Rich C, 25 February 2023 - 03:30 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Remember that it was discovered that the historical records were all "adjusted" down to make current readings look like new records.

When the Vikings return to Greenland and Iceland, we'll talk.

 

GREENPEACE Co-Founder: 'Why I'm a Climate Skeptic'...

"Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today.

And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization."

 

 

Top scientists start to examine 'fiddled' global warming figures...

 

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming 'Hiatus'...

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

 

Weather data at Washington's Reagan National Airport fiddled...

When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading way too hot at Washington's Reagan National Airport, they replaced the faulty sensor — but refused to adjust the bad readings it had already taken. And when dealing with "the pause" in global surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that showed no pause.

 

Now ask yourself, "WHY?" Who will benefit from this panic?

Remembering “Solyndra” –  Green Energy Failures Are Hidden Inside Biden’s Infrastructure Proposal? ...

Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 February 2023 - 02:10 PM.

[Rich C]

Remember that it was discovered that the historical records were all "adjusted" down to make current readings look like new records.

When the Vikings return to Greenland and Iceland, we'll talk.

The problem with these type of posts is that they PRESUME that the objective of the adjustment is improper.  But the study is not presented, the adjustments are not presented for analysis.  I can assure you that not all data tailoring in statistical studies is improper.

 

Many of these statistical based studies use data that is trimmed.  My blog entry from this past Saturday 2/25 discusses this very topic.  You see, what is important is not that the data has been trimmed or altered, the important factor is WHY the data was trimmed.  Does the tailoring of the data improve the study result, or make it less relevant?

 

Here is what I wrote this weekend:

"A strange thing is happening with the 12 month trailing GAAP PE that I report on the monthly Long Term updates.  The PE jumped up from 19 to 24 in one month.  We see earnings falling below the year prior level, which makes the denominator smaller in the “price divided by earnings” PE fraction.  If earnings continue to come in below the year prior level, the PE can explode upward in a recession.  In the monthly long term updates in the Valuation section, I say my “TRIMMED 30 year average PE”, and you are looking at the reason I had to trim some data out.  If a recession got bad enough and earnings approach zero (does not usually happen), we know that division by zero tends to infinity.  Data that squirrely would skew the average so bad as to make average meaningless in good times, and usually times are good.

 

Another way to think about it is that the PE does not mean the same thing in a period where earnings are going down, than it does in normal times when earnings are rising.  Rather than being a measure of valuation, it more likely is a statement on corporate earnings ability, and that we are in unusual times.  That is still a bad thing.  In a recession, you want to buy stocks when they are at their lowest level.  That may happen when earnings are their lowest, and that may cause a spike in the PE ratio.  In this scenario, avoiding high PE stocks as overvalued would be wrong.  Those stocks could just be at the bottom of an earnings trough, and ready to begin recovering and growing again."

 

In my case, I say  I have tailored the data, I dropped data out so I call it a trim, and I explain WHY I dropped some data out.  I did it to give me and my readers a more useful metric, one that is more representative of normal times, so you can tell when you leave normal times.

 

It is one of many proper and useful instances where tailoring the data is a good thing.

 

Without a much better understanding of what tailoring was done with the climate data, and WHY, you have no basis to decide whether the tailoring is an improvement or a detriment to the study.

[Rogerdodger]

The problem with these type of posts is that they PRESUME

" PRESUMED" based on the reality of human nature and thousands of years of human experience.

 

Galileo PRESUMED that the Church was a political organization in bed with politicians and their varied political agendas.

Many do the same today with our Globalist Overlords.

Speakers of truth must be silenced...as always.

 

Real science is critical of "established," bought-and-paid-for modern day dogma.

And, like Galileo, they are labeled as apostate "deniers."

 

Northern Greenland  was once 50-60f degrees warmer than now!

 

[Rich C]

 

The problem with these type of posts is that they PRESUME

" PRESUMED" based on the reality of human nature and thousands of years of human experience.

 

Galileo PRESUMED that the Church was a political organization in bed with politicians and their varied political agendas.

Many do the same today with our Globalist Overlords.

Speakers of truth must be silenced...as always.

 

Real science is critical of "established," bought-and-paid-for modern day dogma.

And, like Galileo, they are labeled as apostate "deniers."

 

Northern Greenland  was once 50-60f degrees warmer than now!

 

 

Unfortunately you are avoiding the issue.  You have a post above that criticizes science groups for the unscientific crime of "fiddling" with the data.

 

I have criticized that post because it is too vague.  What was the study, what data was changed, and WHY was the data changed?

 

I have stated that I myself use "trimmed" data to form a 30 year average S&P 500 PE ratio, and I stated why I dropped some observations.

 

You have no direct response, and jump around to some other disconnected post.

 

Now, here is another scientific approach to data tailoring in healthcare studies.  I can promise you, techniques such as this are used in science a lot.

 

"A generic computer-based tailoring system is made up of five components: (1) a user profile that contains an individual’s specific characteristics, (2) a library of selected content materials, (3) a set of rules that helps the system match the user profile to appropriate content from that library, (4) a delivery channel for communicating tailored information to users and (5) a tailoring engine which does the entire processing.⁵ An interdisciplinary approach is required to develop such a system. Developers and researchers from domains of health promotion, health informatics, computer science and communication with wide range of perspectives and diverse definitions, strategies and approaches should sit together for a consistent teamwork throughout the development, implementation and evaluation of information tailoring systems.^" 

^{https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5770833/}

 

^{It is not always a good idea to use all of the data observations that are available to a study.  Well defined approaches exist to select subsets of the data, without affecting the accuracy of the study.}

 

^{So, what data was "fiddled" and WHY was it omitted?}
 

[Rogerdodger]

The Long Winter of 1880/81

 

1846 Climate Change Reality: Donner Party Dies in Snow

 

1990's Politicized Settled Science: "No More Snow"

 

2023 Reality: 1846 Repeat

22 hours ago — The gates at Yosemite National Park have been shuttered due to extreme weather and climate conditions for a second time in less than a year.

 

Yosemite National Park closed indefinitely; parts of park buried in 15 feet of snow

 

 

 

22 hours ago — The gates at Yosemite National Park have been shuttered due to extreme weather and climate conditions for a second time in less than a year.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 02 March 2023 - 10:41 AM.

[Rich C]

"Water levels on the Rhine River, Europe’s second-largest river, have continued to fall due to soaring temperatures and lack of rainfall. The low water levels are preventing many vessels from navigating through the waters at full capacity. The Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission captured satellite images of part of the Rhine River near Cologne. They show the stark difference between August 2021 and August 2022."

 

https://scitechdaily...river-runs-dry/

[Rogerdodger]

It's strange that climate change has been going on since... forever.

 

 

Historians pinpoint the very 'worst year' ever to be alive: Climate Change in 536 A.D.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 03 March 2023 - 03:40 PM.

[Rich C]

It's strange that climate change has been going on since... forever.

 

That is a fact.  However, absent supporting data, what is really important is WHY has the climate changed over eons of time?

 

In the beginning of our planet, it was basically a hot mass with no water and very little atmosphere.  The planet began to change itself.  Water formed into pools, life began, and an atmosphere grew larger.  Would you expect the climate to be the same as it was billions of years ago?  Of course not.

 

So I think we would all accept that over eons, changes of the earth itself have caused changes in the climate.

 

The next question is, does that mean that the ONLY source of climate change on our planet can come from the earth itself?

 

With the coming of man, thinking man, and modern society, I think it is clear that it does not logically follow that because the early reasons for climate change were changes on the planet itself, that it must forever be the case that ONLY changes on the planet itself can be the only reason for climate changes.

 

Man and society have wrought massive change on the planet, and it is very believable that man's activity, in particular widespread burning and use of carbon based fuel since 1800 or so, could have an effect on our atmosphere and on our climate.

 

I think it is unreasonable to believe that whatever caused a climate change one million years ago is the only thing that can ever cause a climate change on this earth.

[Rogerdodger]

whatever supposedly caused a climate change one million years ago couldn't be TAXED.

 

Read some history and you will find that the solution to Climate Change is always TAXING The United States and shutting down OIL, the lifeblood of America, while ignoring the worst polluters.

 

U.N.'s solution to mid 1970's Global Cooling was to tax the United States and give the money to the worst polluters .

Solution to 1980's Global Warming was to tax the United States and give the money to the worst polluters.

1990's solution to Climate Change was to tax the United States and give the money to the worst polluters.