Explain why this belief of yours is bith scientifically testable and better than the methodolgy of the results you criticise. I'm sure you can hold yourself to the same standards as reputable climate scientists, so feel free to be as technical as you like.
#Paul
Is he allowed to prevent you from looking at the data he bases it on then?
There are many ways of manipulating data and adding figures together. There's only one way to show raw data, and that can be replicated easily by others.
I'm saying that rural data is the only data that can be trusted, because of the Urban Heat Island effect.
Those are the only figures that NIWA supply for 9am temperatures for the nine mainland NZ sites that they nominated:
Here you go. Please go and have a look:
Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of eleven stations spanning New Zealand where there have been no significant site moves for many decades. For six of these stations these records go back to at least the 1930s.
The sites are Raoul Island, Tauranga Airport, Ruakura (Hamilton), Gisborne Airport, Chateau Tongariro, Palmerston North DSIR/AgResearch, Westport Airport, Molesworth, Queenstown, Invercargill Airport and Campbell Island."
NIWA have not specified how they get their average figures. This of course is the whole problem with Climategate.
That was considered statistically significant by NIWA on the site above.
"Those who should know" have their own agenda to be as alarmist as possibile.
But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick the
9am figure rather than attempt any average.Two points there. The first is that you are continuing to ignore the air temperature over the oceans which make up two thirds or so of the Earth's surface area. The second is that the Heat Island Effect is incontrovertible evidence of man made global warming. (Albeit one based on energy expenditure rather than directly on CO2 emissions).
And:
"We have analysed raw data from these sites directly, with absolutely no adjustments to the numbers from the NIWA climate database. Taking all sites together and averaging the annual mean temperatures (difference from 1961?90 mean at each site..."
With a graph that shows a temperature rise of about 1 degree C from 1931 to 2009.
So why do you get a marginal drop and Salinger gets a substantial rise? Could it be that the difference is that Salinger used average figures and you did not?
You could of course ask them. I am sure there is no deep secret about how they arrive at their figures unlike some of the output from the deniers.
They have a rise of about 1 degree over 78 years with a maximum deviation from a straight line mean of about 0.5 degrees. You have a drop of about 0.1 degree over a 50 year period with a maximum deviation of about 1.0 degrees. Not exactly the same ball park is it?
So the sceptics say but they have been found to be making up false quotes in the absence of real evidence.
And don't forget the global picture.
Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day? How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being better?
Since the NIWA "mean" data goes back to around 1880. I assume that they didn't have fancy logging instruments back then. I'd say they had a maximum and minimum thermometer that they took readings off once a day and then reset. In around 1960 they decided to log 9am temperatures as well, probably because it's a better statistic.. The 9am temperature would be more consistent and useful than the average of say a 5am and a 3pm reading which is what the min/max thermometers would give. In fact the time of the min/max reading would be different every day, and the reset process could cause errors or could even break the thermometer, requiring a new one that is bound to read different.
snip
Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for unsuccessfully is 'weather'.
Temperature varies considerably over a 24 hour period but doesn't have a fixed relationship with the clock. For instance yesterday the temperature here went from -2.1C at 2.30am to 0.6C at 5.30pm while the previous day it went from -4.1C at 7am to 3.8C at 3pm. The 9am figures were -1.4C and -3.8C respectively. That -3.8C is only marginally above the daily minimum.
24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude they were not?
The ideal average would be based on continuous measurement over time. Averaging max and min is a good way short of that but very much better than selecting a data point almost at random which in effect the 9am point is.
FWIW the average temperatures for the 2 days in question were -0.8C and
-1.3C while the deviations from those averages were .05 and 1.15 for max/min average and -.6 and -2.5 for the 9am point.
As he writes it, it's about a superior methodology, and not due to some specific set of data values that just happen to support his belief.
#Paul
You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.
It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.
Well no.. 9 am is not random at all, however the time of max temp and min temp does vary and is much closer to random.
FWIW you can't actually work that out from the data provided, to do so you must be adding in data between the points actually measured, a pretty basic error to make. I expect climatologists don't do that but as they hide their data I can't be sure. Its also odd that you can say averaging min and ax temps if not very good and then still use them to try and convince others that they have meaning.
>
Of course it is biased.
That is what is non as a non sequitur. 24 hours is one complete cycle of day and night 365 of which go to make up the normal year.
No answer to than question then.
The timing of max and min temp during a 24 hour period is irrelevant to the average temperature for that period. Likewise the temperature at a particular time point.
What on earth are you on? My weather station produces data points at 15 minute intervals and that is close enough to continuous for all practical purposes.
I didn't say that at all. I said it was a good way short of ideal but very much better than selecting a single timed data point. If you do enough digging you may well find someone who has researched the difference between max/min average temperature and the true mean for real life situations.
No more biased than the average of the min and max as you suggested. You have no idea if it were at the min for 23 hours or at the max for 23 hours or any combination between. You can fiddle the average to any value between min and max and still claim the data is good.
Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes to sleep at night?
What question? Did you read what i said before you said that? Well read what I said above as it appears you need it in simplistic terms.
So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather station!
Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.
You are just being absurd.
Weather tends not to work like that but even if it did there is an extremely high probability that the 9am figure would be either at the maximum or the minimum and thus less accurate than the average of the two extremes.
I checked the deviations for the previous 8 days and the standard deviation for the max/min average was little more than half that for the
9am figure (after adjusting for offset to minimise the difference).Stop trying to imply that others use your dishonest methods to get the result they want to see.
You do write the most appalling garbage. What arbitrary time intervals does the Dennis the Menace school of illogical thought deem appropriate for use in determining the average temperature at a particular point.
The question repeated below.
"As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude they were not?"
I have read an awful lot of irrelevant garbage from you. What I haven't seen is anything remotely mathematical. You can carry on swearing black is white as long as you like but the colour won't change.
More irrelevant obfuscation. Don't you have anything sensible to add to your argument?
How about a month or a year or a decade or 27.8 days? There is no logical reason for it to be a day. You don't appear to realise this.
You appear to think that two values (min and max) taken from arbitrary points is better than one value taken at the same time each day. I see no reason to agree with you.
Well if you can prove mathematically that choosing two points and averaging them is actually better then do so. But don't expect me to believe that anything you come up with actually represents the real average temp as you just can't do it from the max and min values and no amount of maths will make any difference. Why don't you post your data logger results for a month or two so we can see what the average is compared to taking the average of min and max?
What's up? worried that not being able to derive the true average temp from the max and min causing you problems?
Why, they are the ones providing the results without the data to back it up. I chose to not believe them until they produce the evidence rather than the results.
snip
But the 24 hour period is logical, unlike the periods you propose above. I am not going to try guessing how you would attempt to use a period of
27.8 days, or indeed one of a decade as your primary unit for average temperature so why don't you stop waffling and actually post something constructive for a change. I for one would really like to hear your proposals for using a period of 27.8 days as the basis period for annual average temperatures. I think we can rule out a decade as being useful in determining average annual temperatures.More waffle.
The timing of maximum and minimum temperatures within a 24 hour period has little relevance to the average temperature, likewise the actual temperature at a particular time point. That you appear to think that is not so is is a damning indictment of your capacity to think logically.
I am not sure I could provide a mathematically rigorous proof for all eventualities so I am not even going to try. I have however provided some figures that go some way to proving it. You OTOH just keep making absurd statements without any attempt to back them up with figures.
Just for the record I will just summarise what I have previously said as simply as possible. Feel free to pull holes in it if you can.
In any 24 hour period there will be a maximum and a minimum temperature and the mean temperature must lie somewhere between the two, the exact position depending on the shape of the temperature graph for that particular period.
In any 24 hour period the temperature at 9am can lie anywhere between the maximum and the minimum depending on the weather conditions at the time. It will therefore exhibit much more variability with respect to the true mean than the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.
Detailed analysis of daily temperature patterns are likely to produce one of two conclusions. Either that there is a consistent offset between the true mean temperature and the max/min average or over time the offset averages out. Either way the result would consistent for temperature comparison purposes on a long term basis. Doing likewise with the 9am point would be much less successful both in the size of the offset and in the variability of its distribution.
I might just do that. Not that it would do you much good as you don't seem at all comfortable with figures.
Why would I be worried? Unlike you I am not trying to hide anything.
They have the data (much of which is in the public domain) you do not. Ergo they at least have the chance of being right. All you have going for you is your prejudices.
You are never going to get to the truth by keeping your head stuck firmly up your own arse.
How is it logical?
Well if you are determining average yearly temps then a yearly average would be far more sensible than a 24 hr one. See the logic in that?
As for 27.8 well that's an approximation for a lunar month taken from a guestimate of some of the different ways of stating it.
That's what *I* said or can't you read? I also said that you have no idea if it was max -1 for the rest of the time or min + 1 for the rest of the time.. this means the average could be ~max or ~min and is very unlikely to be (max + min)/2
I think its you that has that problem.
Really, where is the data to back that up?
Data?
You do like to make assumptions and try and persuade others that it is true.
We are waiting.
You are trying to hide the fact that you have no idea of what the true average temp is and just insist that your average is a better average than someone else's. At least with the 9 am figure it is precise and well defined.
The only prejudices I have is against these climatologist types who won't revel the methodology or the data they use. Until they do they may as well be Sun reporters.
You are never going to be able to see the truth where your head is.
snip
As I said before it is one complete cycle of day and night.
If you know the average temperature for each 24 period it is the easiest thing in the world to work out the average temperature for any longer period.
All I see is you trying to evade the point. As I said above you can get to the annual average easily enough if you have the daily averages. How on earth are you going to work out the annual average without using a smaller time unit that one year and, in particular which data points are you going to select to produce your annual average?
More evidence of your lack of familiarity with numbers. The much maligned Wikipedia is about the only easily available source that quotes the obscure variations of the Lunar Month and, surprise, surprise, none of them is 27.8. The common figure quoted is for 29.53 days. Anyway whichever you chose they all have one thing in common, none of them divide into a year without a remainder so are particularly unsuited to the task in question. And, again, what data points would you select to calculate the average temperature of a lunar month?
I can read. I can also comprehend which seems beyond your abilities at the moment. The actual exchange was:
***************************Well no.. 9 am is not random at all, however the time of max temp and min temp does vary and is much closer to random.
*************************We are after all talking about temperature measurement. The 9am figure is undoubtedly verging on random as far as its relationship to the average temperature is concerned. Your remark in fact suggested the max and min figures were of less concern than the times they occurred at.
More bullshit. There is no way the average of max and min temperatures could be one of the extremes. OTOH the average of max/min is *very likely* to be close to the true mean, the opposite of what you allege.
You can think what you like but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just about everything you have said in this thread suggests a complete inability to understand either numbers or weather.
Now that really is plumbing the depths of stupidity. WTF do you want data on? It is inherent in the situation that the average of max/min has less variance than a single data point selected at random.
You will just have to be patient.
The assumptions are logical, unlike yours.
We? You will just have to wait.
More bullshit. The time is indeed well defined. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the relationship between the 9am temperature and the true mean for the 24 hour period.
More bullshit.
I see we can add lack of imagination to all your other defects.
But you only know the max and min and don't have a clue as to the average.
Whichever are available.. like the yearly average at 9am not some made up average based on min and max at some unknown time like you think is better.
So produce the evidence. You come in here and spout all the same nonsense that other greenies but still can't understand that you don't have any data to back up your "facts" and can never actually produce it because of some obscure reason. When someone else produces some real data you always find some reason for it to be wrong even when you don't understand it.
This isn't about weather, its about you not understanding simple concepts.
So do you think the average of your max and min is the same in winter as in summer at all latitudes then?
See you are making the assumption that you think logically.
8<How? You said you have the max and the min temps but you don't know when they occurred so its hardly defined at all.
8<
I won't waste my time with him again. But I'd like to make some very important points. I chose the 9am temperatures because that's all I could find on the NIWA site, which is not easy to use. NIWA decided to record 9am temperatures around 1960. The 9am data for the sites that NIWA chose to illustrate a warming trend actually show a cooling trend. Instead they very likely used the "mean" of the daily maximum & minimum, and that shows a slight warming trend.
I think the reason that there is a difference is that trees have grown up and buildings and fences erected around many weather stations. That makes them more sheltered from the wind, so the maximums are higher, and the minimums are higher being sheltered from cold winds.
There is a paper about that here, published by NZ Meteorological Service scientist Jim Hessell in 1980:
You really are coming over as an imbecile. The use of a data point pegged to a particular time will give a very imperfect result but when all is said and done you are still forced to use at least one data point from each day. Your primary time period is thus 24 hours and not the year you so glibly claimed you would use.
As for that "min and max at some unknown time" you keep on sneering at anyone with an ounce of intelligence would appreciate that it is the temperature that far more important than the exact times the extremes occur within any 24 hour period.
What! No specious explanation of how you would simply resolve the problems inherent with using such a stupid division of time for this application as a lunar month.
On the simple level I don't need any evidence. It is self evident that a temperature curve that fluctuates in frequency, magnitude and level has an average somewhere between the 2 extremes. If it was a perfect sine wave with frequency of exactly 24 hours the average in that case would obviously be exactly half way between the two extremes and in that particular case the 9am temperature would have a fixed offset to the mean. However the curve is complex which makes the max/min average less than certain but really buggers up the prospects for the 9am point.
The fact that you think what I am saying is nonsense merely proves you are an ignorant fraud. Degree in Physics from Imperial,pah. I would be surprised if your real qualifications were anything more impressive than a RSA in creative writing.
Real data is something totally lacking from your argument. A least the misguided Matty F has some data to support his argument. You have none.
You are beginning to sound very like Dribble. Perhaps, like him, you really do have a degree, in Domestic Science, from one of the many institutions that will give out degrees for a few pounds and no questions asked.
I don't have ownership of the concept. The exact relationship depends on the shape of the curve. The chances are that any bias introduced by the difference between daylight and night time would balance out over the course of a year for a single place and balance out overall at any one time for the world at large.
That is the difference. I do think logically. You don't, which is why you keep digging holes for yourself that even a clever child of 10 would be able to avoid.
You seem to have been indulging in some creative editing but IIRC the well defined time with the random temperature attached referred to immediately above was 9am. So the 'How?" is just another of your long line of non sequiturs.
snip
The NIWA site says that the two scientists listed below analysed the raw data and confirmed a warming trend 10 times the size of the cooling trend you claim to have found in the same data. Did you consider for a moment that before you started slagging the scientist off you should at least have asked them how it was that the got a result so different from yours?
"This analysis was completed by: Dr Jim Salinger, Honorary Research Fellow, School of Environment, University of Auckland Dr James Renwick, Principal Scientist, Climate, NIWA Wellington"
snip
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.