Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    18,646
    Total Members
    25,819
    Most Online
    Donut Hole
    Newest Member
    Donut Hole
    Joined

March Madness

Prismshine Productions

By Prismshine Productions,
in New England

 Share

Recommended Posts

vortex95

vortex95

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, WinterWolf said:

You’re welcome. No points scored.
 

But If you notice the usual suspects are giving you weenies for pointing out very valid points…because it doesn’t fit in with the narratives.  Then they wonder why these narratives aren’t taken seriously, and have very serious flaws.  But thank you for pointing out these obvious issues…that some of us have realized.  But when it comes from a pro…it carries a little more weight.  

Thanks.  The push back or snark does not bother me.   I don't try to label ppl anything (e.g. usual suspects) b/c that tends to hurt the overall dialogue.

I'm not here to tell ppl what to think, only present hard facts or items that some may not be aware of that can do a long way as to how one thinks about and approaches things.

There are two things I focus on:

1) Past wx history (esp. recorded) - It has occurred and factual so you can't really debate its validity in a debate.  And it is remarkable what is out there that you may not have know about that puts what occurs today to shame in many regards.  Such provides context and perspective, and the more you look and learn, the better the picture becomes.

2) The social aspects involved w/ debate/argument - this is biggie, and is what wrecks many civil discussions/debates these days.  Things like logical fallacies and cognitive biases, these are harmful to science.  Human nature and all its shortcomings and nuances we all are susceptible to cloud issues to the max.  Example?, recency bias - the tendency to assign more value or significance to what happens in the here and now or in recent memory vs. long ago.
 

  • Like 3
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

powderfreak
powderfreak

ICON with the follow up wave on Monday pasting SNE. I beat the cops and ineedsnow to it…

TauntonBlizzard2013
TauntonBlizzard2013

Gas up 55 cents in less than a week here. Folks better hope the cold weather shuts off in the next 10 days because they are going to need to borrow from their 401k for future heating bills. I am

WinterWolf
WinterWolf

I’ll take it…And It won’t last long…unlike the previous mummy. You’ll see! 

Posted Images

vortex95

vortex95

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, dendrite said:

Kidding aside. For the last decade plus, almost every met in here has called out ASOS/AWOS sites when they are starting to run out of line. We overanalyze temps and dews in here daily so we notice when a site starts to report data that is out of place with the norm. I think we have personally contributed to some of these sites getting fixed earlier than they would’ve otherwise been.

I have mentioned many times about how ASOS is very responsive and that they had to go with 5 min running means to better mimic the slower response of liquid thermometers. We’ve all mentioned how it’s difficult to thread all of the site’s records with changes in instrumentation, shielding, and siting. It is what it is.

But this was just about throwing “UHI” out there because of heat records when every site out there in tumbleweedville is breaking records by 10°F.

That's true, calling bad obs out is good, but then many "break" or "wander" again, and the cycle repeats.  So it doesn't go away really for long-term average temps impact.

UHI is not to be discounted.  It impacts long-term temp averages significantly, and in certain cases, the short-term as well.  Such as days hitting some psychologically pleasing number ending in 0 or 5 (e.g. temp 90+).  UHI adds a couple of degrees to the max for many cities. and w/ time, the warm biases are getting higher.

*****

Here is something I think some may find useful concerning wx data and stats,, esp. when it comes to reporting today, perceptions, and how things can be manipulated and skewed easy when details or facts are left out.  This goes back to what I said about data sets and how they can be processed and interpreted in many different ways, and how the resultant stats can be made to say just about anything.

You need to be skeptical and put on your critical thinking that more than ever these days, that is what I emphasizing here, not who is "right" or "wrong" or the like.

-----

I would caution as to the number of records broken in any given event w/ primary wx parameters involved.  I've seen posts that over 600 all-time temp records have been set w/ the current heatwave.   That may be true, but there is a caveat.  What stations are they using to get that number?  I ask b/c the period of record (POR) for many wx stations now is very short since we have installed a *lot* in the last 30 years alone.  I know this subject very well b/c I was the keeper of files for wx reporting sites across the globe when I was at WSI, and I still keep track of it all on my own time now.

In last 25 years alone, over 600 AWOS sites have been installed and METARs available from the MS Valley to the West Coast.  Just in TX, over 130.

So you can see where I am going w/ this.  When it is claimed a temp record is set at any site, you *have* to ask, "what is its POR?"  Sure, we have many GHCN sites and those are proper to use, but I found in order to inflate and hype totals, sites that do not have a long climate history are included.  I shouldn't have to spell it out, but can you see how easy it is to set temp records of *any* kind when POR is short?

This doesn't discount the nature of current heatwave as to high-end, but you see how numbers can be "played with" to make things appear more impressive than they really are.  Disregarding POR is disingenuous when you are talking climate records.

This comes all around to how we report on things, and "adjust" for the max effect for hype and to promote certain narratives.  Considerable exaggeration and plain lies derived from wx data exist and this practice is rife for a host of non-scientific reasons, and it is lopsided toward gloom and doom b/c of warmer overall temps to the point it has become ridiculous (i.e. everything bad that happens now is due to warmer global temps or "the Earth's day has increased by 1.33 milliseconds in the last century from climate change!").

And what I say above about POR, this is just one of many things that can be manipulated concerning wx data.  POR omission is something straightforward and easy to detect, but it gets more complicated than that.  Such as this:

P-hacking
The manipulative practice of re-analyzing or selecting data until non-significant results become statistically significant often by testing multiple variables or stopping data collection early.  This technique generates false positives, misleads research findings, and undermines scientific integrity.

  • Like 3
  • 100% 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
metagraphica

metagraphica

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Cold Miser said:

Stuck in a 69?  Could be worse places to be. 

 

3 hours ago, JACKASS said:

Depends on with who.

 

10 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Take your pants down 

 

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

I blow dong every other Thursday 

:damage:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dendrite

dendrite

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

Thanks.  The push back or snark does not bother me.   I don't try to label ppl anything (e.g. usual suspects) b/c that tends to hurt the overall dialogue.

I'm not here to tell ppl what to think, only present hard facts or items that some may not be aware of that can do a long way as to how one thinks about and approaches things.

There are two things I focus on:

1) Past wx history (esp. recorded) - It has occurred and factual so you can't really debate its validity in a debate.  And it is remarkable what is out there that you may not have know about that puts what occurs today to shame in many regards.  Such provides context and perspective, and the more you look and learn, the better the picture becomes.

2) The social aspects involved w/ debate/argument - this is biggie, and is what wrecks many civil discussions/debates these days.  Things like logical fallacies and cognitive biases, these are harmful to science.  Human nature and all its shortcomings and nuances we all are susceptible to cloud issues to the max.  Example?, recency bias - the tendency to assign more value or significance to what happens in the here and now or in recent memory vs. long ago.
 

Glad you have thick skin…we bust each other all of the time here. Usually it’s nothing personal. Wolfie loves his CO2 emissions and cold posts so he is fun to razz. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinterWolf

WinterWolf

Posted
Posted

Glad some folks getting snow.  Nothing here, dry and 35.  Let’s get some springtime weather. Have had it with this trash. 30’s and grey is just horrible.  As the guy Brian from Greenwich said..it’s like this in November alot…but the coming winter gives it a much different feel for sure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinterWolf

WinterWolf

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, vortex95 said:

That's true, calling bad obs out is good, but then many "break" or "wander" again, and the cycle repeats.  So it doesn't go away really for long-term average temps impact.

UHI is not to be discounted.  It impacts long-term temp averages significantly, and in certain cases, the short-term as well.  Such as days hitting some psychologically pleasing number ending in 0 or 5 (e.g. temp 90+).  UHI adds a couple of degrees to the max for many cities. and w/ time, the warm biases are getting higher.

*****

Here is something I think some may find useful concerning wx data and stats,, esp. when it comes to reporting today, perceptions, and how things can be manipulated and skewed easy when details or facts are left out.  This goes back to what I said about data sets and how they can be processed and interpreted in many different ways, and how the resultant stats can be made to say just about anything.

You need to be skeptical and put on your critical thinking that more than ever these days, that is what I emphasizing here, not who is "right" or "wrong" or the like.

-----

I would caution as to the number of records broken in any given event w/ primary wx parameters involved.  I've seen posts that over 600 all-time temp records have been set w/ the current heatwave.   That may be true, but there is a caveat.  What stations are they using to get that number?  I ask b/c the period of record (POR) for many wx stations now is very short since we have installed a *lot* in the last 30 years alone.  I know this subject very well b/c I was the keeper of files for wx reporting sites across the globe when I was at WSI, and I still keep track of it all on my own time now.

In last 25 years alone, over 600 AWOS sites have been installed and METARs available from the MS Valley to the West Coast.  Just in TX, over 130.

So you can see where I am going w/ this.  When it is claimed a temp record is set at any site, you *have* to ask, "what is its POR?"  Sure, we have many GHCN sites and those are proper to use, but I found in order to inflate and hype totals, sites that do not have a long climate history are included.  I shouldn't have to spell it out, but can you see how easy it is to set temp records of *any* kind when POR is short?

This doesn't discount the nature of current heatwave as to high-end, but you see how numbers can be "played with" to make things appear more impressive than they really are.  Disregarding POR is disingenuous when you are talking climate records.

This comes all around to how we report on things, and "adjust" for the max effect for hype and to promote certain narratives.  Considerable exaggeration and plain lies derived from wx data exist and this practice is rife for a host of non-scientific reasons, and it is lopsided toward gloom and doom b/c of warmer overall temps to the point it has become ridiculous (i.e. everything bad that happens now is due to warmer global temps or "the Earth's day has increased by 1.33 milliseconds in the last century from climate change!").

And what I say above about POR, this is just one of many things that can be manipulated concerning wx data.  POR omission is something straightforward and easy to detect, but it gets more complicated than that.  Such as this:

P-hacking
The manipulative practice of re-analyzing or selecting data until non-significant results become statistically significant often by testing multiple variables or stopping data collection early.  This technique generates false positives, misleads research findings, and undermines scientific integrity.

Excellent post, and points. Thanks for the great description. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...