The 9am data is theirs. I just plotted it. It shows a decline in temperature in NZ since 1960. Clearly NIWA do not know why that is so, so there is no point in asking them.
So, you are resorting to "appeal to authority" now.
Everyone with an ounce of intelligences knows that taking the average of the min and max does not give you the average temp over 24hrs.
Of course you could do what I would do and average the mins over a year and average the max over a year and have an anual min and max figure to go with the average 9am figure. Then you can see if there has been a change in the average min, max and 9am temps over a few decades rather than adding in errors by creating a fictitious average of the min and max to see if that has changed.
You can't work out that the time period is arbitrary can you? You still think that a day is important on climate.
You are good at assumptions, are you a climatologist by profession?
My argument is about method and I don't collect 15 min average data, you do so produce it and i will use your own data to knock you down.
What exactly are the chances? You should have some idea rather than just assuming they do.
Like making assumptions, well you are really good at avoiding them aren't you.
Who's talking about weather? Weather and climate are not the same thing.
But they claim their raw unmodified data shows a rise. The discrepancy may well be down to their use of average temperatures against your use of the 9am figures. Alternatively someone has made a mistake.
No, just professional competence in analysing data.
That is a separate issue. A claim that defects in the measuring apparatus make the results unreliable. That would of course mean the 9am figures as well as the averages so the conflict between your analysis and theirs remains.
The NASA data has been 'corrected' more than once. It may, or may not, show 1934 as the warmest year in the 20th century, depending which version of the data they have chosen to use this week.
Russian scientists say that the Hadley Centre was selective about the data supplied by Russia, using only the 25% of stations that were in or near urban areas and that, using all stations, they can find no evidence of significant warming over the latter part of the 20th century, through to today, for their 1/8 of the world's land surface.
A recent study of the temperature stations used by the IPCC suggests that a disproportionate number of them are affected by outside warming factors, mostly urban activity. A number are said to be too close to the outlets from air conditioning plants. One is next to an incinerator, while aircraft have defintely contributed to warming at Rome airport - the measurement station is placed where it is washed by the exhausts from taxiing jets.
A group of statisticians, who specialise in making predictions, have drawn up a list of 150 protocols that should be followed to the ensure accuracy of data used and the conclusions drawn from them. They identified 127 of those as applicable to the IPCC report, of which 60 were clearly breached, a further dozen seem to have been breached and 38 could not be assessed, due to lack of data.
Other Russian scientists say that global temperatures are driven by solar activity and that we are about to enter a decades long cooling cycle.
A 30 year cooling cycle is also predicted by another set of scientists - oceanographers who say that ocean currents are the drivers of global temperature.
Global warming driven by man made greenhouse gas has become a political necessity since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. However, even if that theory is true, there is little evidence that reducing CO2 is going to do anything to reduce warming. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, which humans have virtually no effect on. CO2 comes next with, depending upon your scientist and the way in which you measure its contribution, is responsible for between 5% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. Humans produce 5.18% of greenhouse gasses, other than water vapour. Taking the worst case, in which CO2 produces 26% of the warming, humans are responsible for 5.18% of 26%, which is about 1.35%. Warming is said to be progressing at up to twice that rate per annum.
Colin Bignell
snip
But it gives an approximation of it which is more than can be said of the 9am time.
The above section suggests that you think the averaging the maximums and minimums separately over the course of a year will somehow give a different result to the 24 hour max/min average averaged over the year. Do you really mean that?
More garbage. Reminds me of the joke about the stranger in Ireland who stops to ask a local for directions on how to get to a particular place only to be told "Well Sir, if I was going there I wouldn't start from here". No one in there right mind would even dream of using a lunar month as their primary time period for calculating average temperatures.
snip
snip
You wish!. There is a fraction of data up thread but you didn't do anything constructive with that so I am not inclined to waste my time laboriously extracting data so you can ignore it.
snip
It is a pretty safe assumption given that the larger the sample size the lower the degree of uncertainty.
Another non sequitur.
snip
It is what we start off with.
I know that but judging by what you said up thread you didn't at the time.
three points.
The real dat is in te sea. The sea is waht counts for global warming: Its not populated, its a massive heatsink, and it shows steadlily wraming tendencies across MOST of it. Some areas where e.g. melting ice water is upwaelling, are cooler.
Water vapour is inherently self limiting. beyond a certain point, it falls as rain. A warmer atmosphere can carry more water, but that leads to storms, carrying moist air higher to cooler atmospheric levels, and ice, hail, rain, snow and the like. So it is never a significant driver in climate change
CO2 by contrast, takes many years to absorb, mainly in the rain, where it is then washed out back into the sea, and again, it can bubble out of that as easily as it gets carried in. The whole ecosystem is the only final natural sink of surface level CO2. WE burn about a million years of geologically laid down carbon every year. Go figure.
Finally it doesn't matter anyway: Climate change is here, along with all the other elements of the problem of too many people on a resource limited planet. And the human race has proved itself to be too stupid and recalcitrant to deal with it before hand. Ergo Darwin rules, and many people will die. Possibly 60-70% of the world population over the next 100 years.,
The last big die-back was the Black Death in 1300 and something. When a pre industrial resource limit was effectively reached..too many people NOT to allow rapid spread of a disease there was no cure for.
The human race, aided by fossil fuel, has been growing exponentially ever since.
Every single problem we have is caused by over population. If we don't solve it, Nature will.
We wont, so its down to Nature, whose methods are anything but pleasant.
Rolling forward.."The government has officially denied taht it sanctions the popular practice of 'fat parties' where obese citizens are killed and eaten while their inedible remains are burnt on huge fires to keep people warm : 'We dont like it, but people are cold, and starving, and fat people drain resources and contribute nothing, and what would you have us do? without diesel we can't be everywhere at once'"
I thought I would return to this as this really is the nub of the argument the basics of which are in danger of being lost in the increasingly lengthy posts.
It is my contention that the frequently used max/min average for a 24 hour period gives an approximation of the true daily average in the way use of the single 9am temperature can't and averaging the daily averages of the course of a year will give a closer approximation to the true mean than averaging the 9am figures.
Specifically I suggest that the difference between the true mean for the year and the max/m> Note that these are the 9am temperatures, which I believe is a more
Which I obviously disagree with.
Dennis the Menace has sided with Matty but as is usual with him has had nothing constructive to say.
It's worth noting that changes in solar activity alter the temperature profile of the atmosphere differently than do changes in CO2 levels. The changes in temperature profile of the atmosphere are not consistent with changes in solar activity (ie incident light intensity).
Feel free to offer a suitably technical rebuttal if you like (assuming you have one).
#Paul
Where is your evidence that it even approximates it? All you can say is that the average lies somewhere between the min and the max exactly the same as the 9 am reading lies somewhere between the min and the max. Where is the evidence your assumption is any better? At least with the 9 am reading we know when it was taken and that tells us things about how it relates to sunrise etc.
No I mean what I said (ignoring the typo in annual).
8<
But you are the one that goes on about averaging temps over a day when all that does is average a bit of weather.
>
Well you keep adding in stuff.
It is an assumption, I have pointed out some of the potential errors and all I ask is that you prove your assumption. I haven't even claimed the 9am figure is closer to the average as I don't even think the average between daily max and min matters when you are considering climate change, it just adds another unknown variable.
I have pointed out why I think you are wrong, you may not think its constructive but you never think anything anyone says that you disagree with as being constructive.
I don't see that is contrary to anything I wrote.
I did not say it was significant in climate change. I said it was the most significant greenhouse gas. Without it, the world would be about
33C cooler than it is now, which we wouldn't want.Between 5 and 38 years, depending upon your choice of scientist.
As I said, we produce about 5.18% of the greenhouse gases, other than water vapour. saying we burn a million years of geologically laid down carbon every year makes it sound a lot, but it is still only about
1/20th of what nature is producing.It always has been, but scientific opinion is divided as to which way it is going right now.
Which is more likely if temperatures fall. Food crops can cope much better with heat than with cold.
A major factor in the black death was the fact that bubonic plague appears to have been absent from Europe since the plague of Justinian, which meant that the population had no natural resistance to it. The timing and morbity profile of later plague cycles suggest that many people had developed some immunity to the disease.
No reason to be without diesel, although the cost of producing it artificially in the lab, using algae eating human or animal waste, is currently too high for it to be a commercial proposition.
Colin Bignell
I offer no opinions as to the accuracy or scientific basis of any of the points I raised. If you want to discuss the solar activity theory, you need to contact the Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory.
I merely point out that the presence of major conflicting theories, none of which are proven or unproven, suggests that nobody really knows what is going on. In that case, why should we be spending huge amounts of money on the assumption that one theory, the basis for which is looking increasingly dubious, is right, rather than spending the money on preparing for the consequences of a change we probably cannot stop?
Colin Bignell
No scientific theory is ever proven.
Only actual repeatable tests will do that. Unfortunately we haven't half a dozen planets and a thousand yeers to perform comparative test on. We have to use models and hope they are correct.
By and large they all agree. man made climate change is happening, and the world, overall, is getting warmer.
suggests that nobody really knows what
No, suggests that you don't have much clue about how science and also the commercial and political world, operates.
There are very large interest on both sides, looking for short term gain. By and large, long term, we are all dead anyway, so who gives a f*ck?
The uncertainty in your mind is not a reflection of the science, its a reflection of those forces and the amount of obfuscation they have brought to bear.
In reality, its effectively unstoppable because no one wants to pay.
And no one can force them to.
And its too late anyway.
snip
Look at it as a very crude form of integration with a straight line replacing what can be a very complex curve.
That is where your simplistic notions break down. There is a very real difference between the behaviour of the max/min average and the 9am point. Except in the hypothetical case where max, min and true mean are one and the same the max/min average can *never* equal either of the extremes. There is no such constraint on the 9am figure. In practice the max/min figure is very unlikely even to get close to either extreme except when the extremes themselves get close.
Where is the evidence your assumption is any better? At
There you go again displaying to lack of knowledge about weather or indeed about the object of the exercise which is to get a figure for the average temperature for a 24 hour period.
So how would these figures help you to determine whether or not the there has been movement in the annual average temperature?
Which brings us back to one of my previous questions. How would you determine the average temperature for a year without any knowledge of the average temperature of each day?
But I at least have been trying to keep it to a manageable length, unlike you.
Well you certainly seem to be lending the 9am figure your support. It is even one of the three variables you would want to collect to monitor global warming.
You have made a number of specious claims about the nature of the max/min average but what you have failed to do is provide any real figures to back up your claims.
I have cut loads of your cr@p out.
I never said I would collect it, it is already there. If it were possible to go back in time and record data then I would put a few satellites in orbit and collect lots of data over the last few millennia, but its a bit to late for that. It is also another of your attempts to divert away from the real issue which is your ability to make unfounded assumptions without any data and a refusal to accept that they are useless without
Its you that is claiming it to be better, its up to you to prove your assumption.
And how is that better than the 9 am figure? All you are doing is adding in unknown data and making the data less useful.
Its you with the simplistic notion. You think you can get better data by adding two data sets together even when you don't know how.
So its Jan and you get a clear night at -14C for a couple of hours, then it clouds over and it goes to 1C and then its cloudy all day at 5C and you think the average is -8 when it obviously isn't. All you have done is created a faulty data set.
It will be quite apparent if there has been a change in the average high or low, you do not have the data to decide if there has been a change in the average. You have just created mythical data that does not show any useful change.
You are the one that claims you can, I said you can't basically because you don't know the average temp per day.
snip
I don't have time atm to reply in depth but I couldn't let this little gem pass me by. I said above that you don't see comfortable with figures. I think you have just proved my point.
Well that is just you trying to take the micky. What it actually shows is that you don't have a clue even if I did miss the
9 key.
Oh yes? And where did you intend to place that missing 9?
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.