New Zealand climate data scandal

[lomiller]

There is however a question I want to ask about the recording of temperatures. Why are these temperatures recorded during the cooler times of the day. Why not record the temperature continuously and take the highest during the day. Would this not then eliminate the need to correct the temperature data?

The data was first collected for weather reporting and forecasting. Using it to study climate history was an afterthought. The reason data is collected earlier in the day is because different terrain warms differently when exposed to sunlight. It was found that readings taken earlier in the day were a better gauge of air temperature.

 

[Skwinty]

Fair enough Ivor,
Wouldn't the average of the highest daily temperature over a period of time eliminate those glitches.
Comparing temperatures at noon and midnight makes no sense. Also 10am in Africa is not the same as 10am in America though, or do they only compare the figures local to the measuring station?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The NIWA response is at

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise

 

[Father Dagon]

Here's the point: it's CRAP data, collected in a slipshod manner that isn't consistent over many decades. It's like measuring with a rubber ruler. You can't trust it. Seriously. Scientists are applying whatever correction values they think are needed to "adjust" the figures to what they think is the "correct" response.

They've waved these figures about as an absolute truth, set in stone, proof that AGW exists. Now, they're chagrinned to have it made public that the numbers are set in Silly Putty.

I don't know which set of numbers to believe. They're all crap. The value for the increase in average temperature is less than the "noise" in the measurements.

Look up Cargo Cult Science in wikipedia. Here, I've even included alink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Looks to me like the climate scientists were building a runway in hopes that the gods would land.

Beanbag

+1

(Like those commercials or "white coaters".)

 

[Megalodon]

Here's the point: it's CRAP data, collected in a slipshod manner that isn't consistent over many decades. It's like measuring with a rubber ruler. You can't trust it. Seriously. Scientists are applying whatever correction values they think are needed to "adjust" the figures to what they think is the "correct" response.

Another one who thinks his ignorance is a justification to slander a professional class....

They've waved these figures about as an absolute truth, set in stone, proof that AGW exists.

Yes, and they've done this by repeatedly warning that there's a variation between the different estimates of global temperature. As for set in stone, no estimation in science is set in stone.

I don't know which set of numbers to believe. They're all crap. The value for the increase in average temperature is less than the "noise" in the measurements.

You already believe something. You believe that a whole class of international professionals is somehow conspiring to make you believe that something is true, for some undisclosed (but in all probability nefarious) purposes.

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist...

Looks to me like the climate scientists were building a runway in hopes that the gods would land.

Yes, we know... And the government is in on it, and had bigfoot place the nanothermate near the sensors...

 

[lomiller]

Fair enough Ivor,
Wouldn't the average of the highest daily temperature over a period of time eliminate those glitches.
Comparing temperatures at noon and midnight makes no sense. Also 10am in Africa is not the same as 10am in America though, or do they only compare the figures local to the measuring station?

As per my post, the high of the day is heavily influenced by surface heating from the sun and can change significantly depending on local terrain.

 

[Skwinty]

As per my post, the high of the day is heavily influenced by surface heating from the sun and can change significantly depending on local terrain.

Ok, I accept that.
Do the temperatures measure at say 10am in Nevada get compared to the 10am temperatures in Aspen?

 

[lomiller]

Ok, I accept that.
Do the temperatures measure at say 10am in Nevada get compared to the 10am temperatures in Aspen?

No, but they would compare it to nearby stations in Nevada in order to identify site anomalies and determine the temperature of that particular part of the grid. (They don’t just take all the stations and average them afterall, because that would give more weight to places with more weather stations.)


The point of eliminating the effect of surface heating for weather reporting/forecasting is more noise elimination. It's be less important for climate study but removing noise is still helpful, as long as you can correct for the false bias/trend the change creates.

 

[Skwinty]

Thanks,
I will go back to lurking now.

 

[macdoc]

Sqwinty

There is however a question I want to ask about the recording of temperatures. Why are these temperatures recorded during the cooler times of the day. Why not record the temperature continuously and take the highest during the day. Would this not then eliminate the need to correct the temperature data?

You'll find the Australia data captures the daily highs and lows and then computes means....

http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi

go nuts

Don't lurk....ask questions....the lack of honest queries around here is gruesome.

 

[varwoche]

That is of course correct. The problem is, more or less the same raw data was used 30 years ago to prove -- after sufficient "correction" -- that the planet was experiencing global cooling. Clearly the same data can be massaged in many different ways.

BS of a high order.

 

[varwoche]

Here's the point: it's CRAP data, collected in a slipshod manner that isn't consistent over many decades. It's like measuring with a rubber ruler. You can't trust it. Seriously. Scientists are applying whatever correction values they think are needed to "adjust" the figures to what they think is the "correct" response.

They've waved these figures about as an absolute truth, set in stone, proof that AGW exists. Now, they're chagrinned to have it made public that the numbers are set in Silly Putty.

I don't know which set of numbers to believe. They're all crap. The value for the increase in average temperature is less than the "noise" in the measurements.

Look up Cargo Cult Science in wikipedia. Here, I've even included alink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Looks to me like the climate scientists were building a runway in hopes that the gods would land.

With this much fervent arm-waving, did you manage to achieve flight?

 

[lomiller]

nm

 

[a_unique_person]

umm you realize raw weather station data needs to be corrected for changes in the way it's been collected over the years right? For example it's collected in a cooler time of day then it was 60 years ago (which is the biggest single correction)

From Watts

Proof of man-made warming
What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

You don't understand the level of proof required for a claim by deniers. There just has to be apparent reason for something to be a good enough level for the claim to be valid.

 

[MikeMangum]

The data was first collected for weather reporting and forecasting. Using it to study climate history was an afterthought. The reason data is collected earlier in the day is because different terrain warms differently when exposed to sunlight. It was found that readings taken earlier in the day were a better gauge of air temperature.

Isn't that the point of the MMTS sensors?

 

[Wangler]

As RC posted earlier, the folks in NZ have already commented on adjustments:

For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Talking a look at the data from the site they mention, we can construct the following graph:



Note that there is no significant difference in mean annual temperatures before and after the switch between the Thorndon and the Kelburn locations (thickgreen line, in deg C from right side Y axis). Actual Thorndon mean for 1927 is 13.0, and mean for Kelburn for 1928 is 12.8.

This seems to indicate that the correction has been made in this data set.

Note that when looking at the annual mean temperatures, there is a gradual temperature decline, of 0.06 deg C per century over the period of 1912 to 2008.

When looking at the data with respect to an anomaly from the 71-00 average, we have yet to match the 10-year mean anomaly at Kelburn, that we saw at Thorndon right before the location was switched.

Looking at the Kelburn 10-year running average, we see a warming trend of 0.99 deg C per century, based upon this Kelburn data alone.

What I am trying to show, is that based upon the one station example given by the NZ folks, the temperature adjustment didn't seem to skew the result when looking at the annual temperatures between 1912 and 2008.

Granted, this is only one station, but this station's data seems consistent before and after the station changed position (and before and after the adjustment).

Ten year running averages of anomaly from the 1971 to 2000 mean annual temperature do show a gradual increase at this station. This increase becomes notable after about 1939, after a large drop between about 1925 and 1939.

 

[theprestige]

From Watts




You don't understand the level of proof required for a claim by deniers. There just has to be apparent reason for something to be a good enough level for the claim to be valid.

Personally, I don't need an apparent reason. However...

... If the claim is that the raw station data is unreliable, and that a specific method has been used to "correct" it, then I do need to see a detailed explanation of the methodolgy, a scientific rationale for determining the "correction" values, and some sort of experimental validation for this rationale.

Additionally, if the "corrected" values are to be used as a basis for promoting sweeping socioeconomic policy changes on a global scale, I'd like the process by which they were determined to be fully open to independent audit or experimental reproduction, and that such an audit or reproduction be carried out before such policy decisions are made.

Simply saying "the raw data is bogus, but don't worry--we just happened to know exactly how to correct it by just the right amount to accurately represent the reality of global climate change" isn't enough.

But not to worry: I'm sure all the technical details of the "New Zealand Method" are already open to the public, and have already been validated by independent researchers. Right? Right?

 

[macdoc]

NZ is also a tougher situation as it's a small land mass surrounded by a huge ocean buffer and right in the path of the major circumpolar wind/ocean - expect some pretty wild swings as a result.

Australia's larger mass reduces that imbalance.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Don't you know that it has been already demostrated that Global Warming is Mann-made?

 

[lomiller]

... If the claim is that the raw station data is unreliable, and that a specific method has been used to "correct" it, then I do need to see a detailed explanation of the methodolgy, a scientific rationale for determining the "correction" values, and some sort of experimental validation for this rationale.

Did you bother to look or did you just presume that scientists were releasing fraudulent data simply because you hadn’t bothered to look for evidence they were not?

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0450&volume=25&page=145

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=1&page=1099

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/....1175/1520-0426(2004)021<1025:SAEEIA>2.0.CO;2

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0450&volume=26&page=1744

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0477&volume=72&page=1718

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=9&page=1429

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html