My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Marc my words... | Main | NIWA’s minister told to put up or shut up »

Comments

Steve Netwiter

That's an excellent explanation, thank you.

Of course, temperatures may have been rising since 1900. The real question is what were they doing over the last 2000 years?

Are they "exceptional" as the IPCC claims, or just typical of the natural variations?

I'm surprised that the scientists are not more open to having their work examined. I thought that's what science was about.

It's the prime aim to find errors, remove them, and move on?!

Steve

Dave

To me, it looks like the adjustments for five or six of the seven weather stations trend upwards over time, and that these upward trends in adjustments are what give the bulk of the warming trend in NIWA's official graph. Without the adjustments, the paper describes the warming trend as "statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850."

John Silver

You can not move a place.
Adjustment = forgery.
Difficult to understand?

Dave

I'll accept the +0.79°C for the periods between 1928 and 1970, but as the Wellington graph from the Climate Science Coalition shows, other offsets are applied before 1928. After 1970, the offset appears to vary wildly.

Dave

In my last comment, I meant to say:

I'll accept the +0.79°C offset for the periods between 1928 and 1970, but as the Wellington graph from the Climate Science Coalition paper shows, other offsets are applied before 1928. After 1970, the offset appears to vary wildly.

Lazarus Long

Um, aren't airports sorta like heat sinks, considering that they consist of thousands and thousands of acres of blacktp or concrete?

And this is.....science?

Ponsonby

Tell Wratt that he'll have to resign in parallel when Jones of CRU goes. That should wrattle his cage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Andrew

If the airport readings were articially hot due (eg. due to the measurement station being sited near a concrete runway) then that hot bias will be transferred to all subsequent Kelburn measurements.

Nothing can be inferred from the fact that 'Airport' and 'Thorndon' altitude and readings are similar. It might have been warmer 100 year ago. If so, the adjustment they have applied would completely erase that fact.

If this is the best case they can find to defend then I worry about all the other adjustments they haven't published.

Without further tests their adjusted data simply cannot be trusted.

All these changes and offsets need to be clearly noted, explained and published so they can be independently reviewed. It is not acceptable for a politically motivated clique to make these adjustments in secret - then expect the public to trust their adjusted graphs.

Larry

Gee! What a coincidence. The unadjusted data shows no major trend up or down. Amazing. What are the odds to have new measurements stations have such an overall increase in temperature adjustments?

AJ Abrams

If NZ temp reconstruction is about the slope...then all they had to do was remove Wellington prior to 1928. A 1928 to 2009 slope would be sufficient to tell if warming was happening.

So what does it say...well that 1924 to 2009 data (unadjusted) says no warming. You simply can't argue with that. There is your unmoved, no adjusted temp reading from 1924 to 2009 (84 years) showing nothing alarming happening. Why do you need more. Look at other known stations in NZ (I have) that haven't moved and are in prime (read no UHI effect ) locations. They all say no real warming. Case closed. What you have hear is your NZ scientists manipulating data to tell you the story they believe is true, not actually the truth as can plainly be seen.

Time for you to toss out bad science, bad scientists, and the politicians that helped pull the wool over your eyes.

Dave

Andrew, from NIWA's graph in their explanation, the measurements from Kelburn and Airport appear to track each other well with a 0.79°C offset during the period of overlap. My concerns relating to the Wellington adjustments are
1) The graph for Wellington in the Climate Science Coalition's paper shows that the offset between the unadjusted and adjusted temperature varies wildly after 1970. Why? Presumably, data from after 1970 is from Airport, the current station location, and therefore shouldn't require adjustments relating to location change.

2) How were offsets prior to 1928 derived?

And, as others have noted, if Wellington is showing a warming trend even when adjusted correctly for location, it could be due to Urban Heat Island. I wonder how many of the other six stations are located in urban areas.

Dave

AJ Abrams, all seven of the stations have adjustments -- not just Wellington. NIWA picked Wellington as an example to illustrate part of their adjustment methodology.

AJ Abrams

Dave,

You totally missed my point. I am talking about the original RAW data from wellington after it was moved to 125 M above sea level. All you need to look at is that one set from 1925 to current. Period. Since the only adjustment that could POSSIBLY be needed for that set is for UHI, which is a downward adjustment, you can see that there is no reason for alarm. Period.

I have looked at the unadjusted data, as it's now posted on a few sites. There is nothing to see and absolutely no reason to adjust temperature upward on that station. All you have to do is toss out pre 1925 data and look at what you have left.

George Turner

Seperating the three curves and looking at their start and end points:

The Thorndon readings went up by 0.05 degrees.

The Kelburn readings went down by 0.4 degrees

The Airport readings went up 0.1 degrees.

So you've got +0.05 - 0.40 + 0.1 = um, I got -0.25, they got +1.25

Someone is being too clever by half.

Dave

AJ Abrams, yes, I misread what you were saying, but I think the unadjusted data from 1928 to present-day has to be separated into three curves like George Turner did. I think NIWA changed from Kelburn to Airport around 1970.

Dave

Oh, you were talking about the Kelburn data from the graph NIWA gave in its explanation, not the unadjusted data from the graph for Wellington in the Climate Science Coalition paper.

bill

What is the accuracy and repeatability of these stations? Is it reasonable to expect two thermometers at the same place to agree to three decimal places?

AJ Abrams

Bill,

The accuracy of the thermometers isn't an issue because we are looking for trends. If a thermometer reads half a degree high, it doesn't effect the trend.

Dave

AJ Abrams, the Kelburn and Airport curves overlap, and the Kelburn curve looks like its missing the last datapoint.

NIWA's combined Kelburn/Airport curve goes up 0.6 degrees.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment