Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still
shows man made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.


And ?



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.


And ?

nand

"dennis@home" wrote in message ...


"geoff" wrote in message ...
In message , "dennis@home" writes
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is so disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but
it still shows man made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the
problems.


And ?

nand

Exclusive maybe.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham.
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 23:02



"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows
man made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.


And ?

nand

Exclusive maybe.


Pauli-X

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

"Graham." wrote in message
...


And ?

nand

Exclusive maybe.

Careful you will confuse him.

On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.

You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long
term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the
databases are held and what to select.
All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly
constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone
down slightly and some have gone up slightly.
The "hocky stick" is a fraud.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:06:15 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.


And ?

nand

A nand job?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.

You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long
term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the
databases are held and what to select.
All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly
constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone
down slightly and some have gone up slightly.
The "hocky stick" is a fraud.

There is a lot of what may be evidence that is suppressed..
like the statement about satellite records showing warming since records
began in 1979.. the data begins in the 60's but that prior to records
"beginning" is ignored

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.

You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long
term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the
databases are held and what to select.
All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly
constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone
down slightly and some have gone up slightly.

I'd be interested to see that data.

The "hocky stick" is a fraud.

dennis@home wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows
man made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.


Not really relevant, and a tiresome bandwagon which doesn't belong in this
group (imho)

On Feb 15, 10:40 am, "OG" wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

...



On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!

He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.

You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long
term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the
databases are held and what to select.
All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly
constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone
down slightly and some have gone up slightly.

I'd be interested to see that data.

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.

The "hocky stick" is a fraud.

Matty F wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:40 am, "OG" wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

...



On Feb 14, 10:39 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
Now we are supposed to compile our own data to prove (or not) global
warming..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm
His (Phil Jones, one of the "leading experts in global warming" data is
so
disorganised that he won't let anyone have access, but it still shows man
made global warming!
He also states that other data that is used to prove global warming has
its
problems but doesn't say why or how to fix the problems.
You can get data from elsewhere in the world of raw data from long
term weather stations. It's quite an effort to understand the way the
databases are held and what to select.
All the data I've got shows that temperatures have been roughly
constant for 50 to 130 years. At some sites the temperature has gone
down slightly and some have gone up slightly.
I'd be interested to see that data.

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.

The real key is global sea temperatures, since that's really the thermal
sink ..land temperatures may go up or down with global warming.


What is pretty much fact, is that the earth is retaining more energy as
a result of CO2 increase.

What is less certain is where that energy is going.


'Man made climate change' is a better word than 'global warming'



The "hocky stick" is a fraud.

Matty F wrote:

snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.

John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued
than mean sea level wasn't rising.

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.

How convenient.

On Feb 21, 9:25 pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
Matty F wrote:

snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.
I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".
I am not much interested in any other statistic that cannot be
measured directly over a long period.

John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued
than mean sea level wasn't rising.

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.

How convenient.

OK then, here are my graphs of the nine weather stations in NZ that
NIWA themselves chose and added together to prove that NZ has had a
warming trend.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2md3rsh.jpg

As you can see there is a downward trend.
Note that these are the 9am temperatures, which I believe is a more
reliable measurement than the average of the maximum and minimum daily
temperature.

I have added the nine graphs together he
http://i47.tinypic.com/ic91dt.jpg

The downward trend is confirmed.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Matty F wrote:

snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be unbiased.
It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose published
conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the selected
subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

Do you think they don't use a subset of available data to prove there is
warming?

Matty F wrote:

snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.

I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".

So what about the 70% or so of the Earth that isn't rural?

I am not much interested in any other statistic that cannot be
measured directly over a long period.

Well the figures you culled from NIWA are only for a relatively short
period.

John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued
than mean sea level wasn't rising.

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.
How convenient.

OK then, here are my graphs of the nine weather stations in NZ that
NIWA themselves chose and added together to prove that NZ has had a
warming trend.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2md3rsh.jpg

You will need to point me towards the page that justifies your comment.
What I saw on the NIWA site was a claim to gobal warming based on the
data from seven representative sites, none of which figure in your list
of nine.

As you can see there is a downward trend.
Note that these are the 9am temperatures, which I believe is a more
reliable measurement than the average of the maximum and minimum daily
temperature.

I don't know how NIWA get their average figures but given the degree of
variability in a daily cycle I would have thought that just about any
method that uses more than one data point period from a particular time
would be far superior.

I have added the nine graphs together he
http://i47.tinypic.com/ic91dt.jpg

The downward trend is confirmed.

Given the large variations I doubt if that is statistically significant
but that is hardly the point. What is important is the global picture.
For instance during our recent exceptionally cold spell the world as a
whole was actually warmer than average according to those who should know.

dennis@home wrote:

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

Do you think they don't use a subset of available data to prove there is
warming?

Still pursuing the conspiracy theory I see. You will be telling us next
that the widely quoted extract from the stolen e-mails about adding the
real temperatures back in had something to do with fiddling the recent
temperature record.

But if Daly's subset is chosen to reflect his belief that GW doesn't
exist and the fuller set (whether complete or not) shows a GW trend then
the remainder of the set that Daly ignored must show an even stronger
trend to GW.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

Do you think they don't use a subset of available data to prove there is
warming?

Still pursuing the conspiracy theory I see.

Not at all, I know they ignore data, they say they do so.
They don't justify why they ignore the data.
They don't even tell you what data they don't ignore.
Therefore I conclude that they are ignoring the data that changes their
results.
They can easily avoid this by publishing the data.
Until they do I will assume the worst as many others will.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

Still pursuing the conspiracy theory I see.

Not at all, I know they ignore data, they say they do so.

So you say, but where?

They don't justify why they ignore the data.

If they ignore it.

They don't even tell you what data they don't ignore.

There is a good deal of published data out there. Certainly sufficient
for Daly to cherry pick stuff he thought advanced his cause while
ignoring the the bulk that didn't.

Therefore I conclude that they are ignoring the data that changes their
results.

A conclusion you should come to only if you know they are ignoring
significant data.

They can easily avoid this by publishing the data.

What data? The basis for their conclusions or the data you claim they
ignore?

Until they do I will assume the worst as many others will.

What a curious view of the world. To the prudent assuming the worst
would be that the perils of GW have been under estimated, not that the
problem just doesn't exist.

Matty F wrote:
I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".

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

wrote in message
...
Matty F wrote:
I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".

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.

Is he allowed to prevent you from looking at the data he bases it on then?

#Paul

On Feb 22, 3:22 am, Roger Chapman wrote:
Matty F wrote:
snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.

AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.

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 believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".

So what about the 70% or so of the Earth that isn't rural?

I'm saying that rural data is the only data that can be trusted,
because of the Urban Heat Island effect.

I am not much interested in any other statistic that cannot be
measured directly over a long period.

Well the figures you culled from NIWA are only for a relatively short
period.

Those are the only figures that NIWA supply for 9am temperatures for
the nine mainland NZ sites that they nominated:


John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued
than mean sea level wasn't rising.

I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.
How convenient.

OK then, here are my graphs of the nine weather stations in NZ that
NIWA themselves chose and added together to prove that NZ has had a
warming trend.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2md3rsh.jpg

You will need to point me towards the page that justifies your comment.
What I saw on the NIWA site was a claim to gobal warming based on the
data from seven representative sites, none of which figure in your list
of nine.

Here you go. Please go and have a look:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...-from-raw-data

"New Zealand temperature trends from a set of eleven climate stations
with no significant site changes since the 1930s

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."

As you can see there is a downward trend.
Note that these are the 9am temperatures, which I believe is a more
reliable measurement than the average of the maximum and minimum daily
temperature.

I don't know how NIWA get their average figures but given the degree of
variability in a daily cycle I would have thought that just about any
method that uses more than one data point period from a particular time
would be far superior.

NIWA have not specified how they get their average figures. This of
course is the whole problem with Climategate.

I have added the nine graphs together he
http://i47.tinypic.com/ic91dt.jpg

The downward trend is confirmed.

Given the large variations I doubt if that is statistically significant

That was considered statistically significant by NIWA on the site
above.

but that is hardly the point. What is important is the global picture.
For instance during our recent exceptionally cold spell the world as a
whole was actually warmer than average according to those who should know.

"Those who should know" have their own agenda to be as alarmist as
possibile.

Matty F wrote:

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.
AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.

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.

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick the
9am figure rather than attempt any average.

I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".
So what about the 70% or so of the Earth that isn't rural?

I'm saying that rural data is the only data that can be trusted,
because of the Urban Heat Island effect.

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).

I am not much interested in any other statistic that cannot be
measured directly over a long period.
Well the figures you culled from NIWA are only for a relatively short
period.

Those are the only figures that NIWA supply for 9am temperatures for
the nine mainland NZ sites that they nominated:


John Daly of course was a leading climate change denier who also argued
than mean sea level wasn't rising.
I don't have a web page or I could show the graphs of data that I have
obtained. Unfortunately to get that data I've had to agree not to
divulge it to others.

How convenient.

OK then, here are my graphs of the nine weather stations in NZ that
NIWA themselves chose and added together to prove that NZ has had a
warming trend.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2md3rsh.jpg

You will need to point me towards the page that justifies your comment.
What I saw on the NIWA site was a claim to gobal warming based on the
data from seven representative sites, none of which figure in your list
of nine.

Here you go. Please go and have a look:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...-from-raw-data

"New Zealand temperature trends from a set of eleven climate stations
with no significant site changes since the 1930s

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."

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?


As you can see there is a downward trend.
Note that these are the 9am temperatures, which I believe is a more
reliable measurement than the average of the maximum and minimum daily
temperature.

I don't know how NIWA get their average figures but given the degree of
variability in a daily cycle I would have thought that just about any
method that uses more than one data point period from a particular time
would be far superior.

NIWA have not specified how they get their average figures. This of
course is the whole problem with Climategate.

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.

I have added the nine graphs together he
http://i47.tinypic.com/ic91dt.jpg
The downward trend is confirmed.
Given the large variations I doubt if that is statistically significant

That was considered statistically significant by NIWA on the site
above.

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?

but that is hardly the point. What is important is the global picture.
For instance during our recent exceptionally cold spell the world as a
whole was actually warmer than average according to those who should know.

"Those who should know" have their own agenda to be as alarmist as
possibile.

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.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Matty F wrote:

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.
AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined
graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.

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.

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick the
9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?
How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being better?

On Feb 22, 8:51 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Roger Chapman" wrote in message

...



Matty F wrote:

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming.
AFAICS all the selected stations are land based and even with the
selected stations they don't appear confident enough of their selected
data to add all the separate sources together to give a combined
graph.

Well that is the whole problem with the IPCC and most "climate
scientists" - they try to add a whole bunch of figures together to get
some mythical "global" temperature figure. Their data manipulations
cannot easily be checked, especially if they refuse to divulge the
calculations they have done.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer mythical.

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.

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick the
9am figure rather than attempt any average.

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.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick
the 9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being better?

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.

dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...
Matty F wrote:
I believe that graphs of raw data from reliable rural weather stations
around the world are a better guide as to whether or not there is
"catastrophic global warming".

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.

Is he allowed to prevent you from looking at the data he bases it on then?

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

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

snip

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick the
9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for
unsuccessfully is 'weather'.

You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.

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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.


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.

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 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.

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.

dennis@home wrote:

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick
the 9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for
unsuccessfully is 'weather'.

You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.

Of course it is biased.

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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

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.

As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?

No answer to than question then.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick
the 9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for
unsuccessfully is 'weather'.

You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.

Of course it is biased.

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.


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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

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.

Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes to
sleep at night?


As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?

No answer to than question then.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather
station!


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.

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.

Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.

dennis@home wrote:

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to
pick the 9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for
unsuccessfully is 'weather'.

You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.

Of course it is biased.

No more biased than the average of the min and max as you suggested.

You are just being absurd.

You have no idea if it were at the min for 23 hours or at the max for 23
hours or any combination between.

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).

You can fiddle the average to any value between min and max and still
claim the data is good.

Stop trying to imply that others use your dishonest methods to get the
result they want to see.

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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. 24 hours is one complete cycle
of day and night 365 of which go to make up the normal year.

Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes to
sleep at night?

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.

As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?

No answer to than question then.

What question?

The question repeated below.

"As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather
station!

More irrelevant obfuscation. Don't you have anything sensible to add to
your argument?

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.

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.

Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.

You could always ask.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

But you have been very selective in your 'raw' data choosing to pick
the 9am figure rather than attempt any average.

Are you suggesting climate varies by time of day?

Climate doesn't vary by the hour. The word you were searching for
unsuccessfully is 'weather'.

You are the one that suggested the 9am figure would be biased.

Of course it is biased.

No more biased than the average of the min and max as you suggested.

You are just being absurd.

You have no idea if it were at the min for 23 hours or at the max for 23
hours or any combination between.

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).

You can fiddle the average to any value between min and max and still
claim the data is good.

Stop trying to imply that others use your dishonest methods to get the
result they want to see.

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.

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. 24 hours is one complete cycle
of day and night 365 of which go to make up the normal year.

Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes to
sleep at night?

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.

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.


As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?

No answer to than question then.

What question?

The question repeated below.

"As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude they
were not?"

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.


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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather
station!

More irrelevant obfuscation. Don't you have anything sensible to add to
your argument?

What's up? worried that not being able to derive the true average temp from
the max and min causing you problems?

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.

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.

Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.

You could always ask.

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.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as
being better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. 24 hours is one complete
cycle of day and night 365 of which go to make up the normal year.

Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes
to sleep at night?

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.

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.

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.

As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly
conclude they were not?

No answer to than question then.

What question?

The question repeated below.

"As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well if you can prove mathematically that choosing two points and
averaging them is actually better then do so.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I might just do that. Not that it would do you much good as you don't
seem at all comfortable with figures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather
station!

More irrelevant obfuscation. Don't you have anything sensible to add
to your argument?

What's up? worried that not being able to derive the true average temp
from the max and min causing you problems?

Why would I be worried? Unlike you I am not trying to hide anything.

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.

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.

Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.

You could always ask.

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.

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.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

snip

How do you justify averages over an arbitrary short period as being
better?

24 hours is hardly arbitrary being a basic measurement of time.

It is arbitrary compared to the timescales of climate change.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. 24 hours is one complete
cycle of day and night 365 of which go to make up the normal year.

Who cares, do you think the CO2 you say is causing this problem goes to
sleep at night?

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.

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.

But the 24 hour period is logical, unlike the periods you propose above.

How is it logical?

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.

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.

As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?

No answer to than question then.

What question?

The question repeated below.

"As to averages being better how on earth could you possibly conclude
they were not?"

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.

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'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


That you appear to think that is not so is is a damning indictment of your
capacity to think logically.

I think its you that has that problem.


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.

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.

Well if you can prove mathematically that choosing two points and
averaging them is actually better then do so.

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.

Really, where is the data to back that up?


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.

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.

Data?

You do like to make assumptions and try and persuade others that it is true.


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?

I might just do that. Not that it would do you much good as you don't seem
at all comfortable with figures.

We are waiting.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now we know what data is used by the climatologists, your weather
station!

More irrelevant obfuscation. Don't you have anything sensible to add to
your argument?

What's up? worried that not being able to derive the true average temp
from the max and min causing you problems?

Why would I be worried? Unlike you I am not trying to hide anything.

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.


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.

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.

Some climatologist probably has but they decided not to tell us.

You could always ask.

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.

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.

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 get to the truth by keeping your head stuck firmly
up your own arse.

You are never going to be able to see the truth where your head is.

On Feb 24, 10:00 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Roger Chapman" wrote in message

...

More bull****. 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.

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.

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:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf

"It is found that the exposures of most of the thermometers have been
affected by changes in shelter, screenage and/or urbanisation, all of
which tend to increase the observed mean temperature."

Matty F wrote:

snip

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.

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

On Feb 24, 12:19 pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
Matty F wrote:

snip

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.

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?

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.

"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"

So, you are resorting to "appeal to authority" now.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...atestissue.pdf

"Back in 1975, Salinger published a thesis on climate change in New
Zealand, but this 1980 study by a senior colleague suggests Salinger,
and others named in the Climategate emails, simply got it wrong."

Matty F wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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"

So, you are resorting to "appeal to authority" now.

No, just professional competence in analysing data.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...atestissue.pdf

"Back in 1975, Salinger published a thesis on climate change in New
Zealand, but this 1980 study by a senior colleague suggests Salinger,
and others named in the Climategate emails, simply got it wrong."

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.

Roger Chapman wrote:
Matty F wrote:

snip

There are some good graphs he
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Linked to "still waiting for greenhouse" so hardly likely to be
unbiased. It takes *some* data from NASA and CRU, both of whose
published conclusions support the notion of global warming and use the
selected subset to 'prove' there is no such warming....

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