Is it raw CliFlo data? Adjusted (by whom)? What locations? Or is it composite?

From what I understand, NZT7 is not included (why not?)

Why is the same data not used for both regional record and global? Does not the NZ component of the global record bear the same scrutiny as the NZT7?

So many questions.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/04/now-gluckman-wants-evidence-too/#comment-49828

I’ve replied to it there and you may wish to add more of your views on that, also the topic of that post and the other comments under it.

Thanks for your responses! There are so many internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the IPCC/Hansen/Gore claims that I can only think that the health of the forest is considered somehow apart from the health of the trees. Like how polar bears are endangered as a species, but individual polar bears are not and so suitable as hunting trophies on a game-room wall.

CO2 “warming” means that all heat in the oceans and non-oceanic surface comes from a downward heating of a warmed atmosphere. The speed with which heat penetrates 750 m into the oceans from a contact (and wind/wave turbulence) seems unlikely. After all, the air over the sea has warmed only 0.23C or so since 1979. If it were the sun’s rays, as they penetrate >60m and are powerful, seems more reasonable.

A 50 ppmv increase in pCO2 at 3.75 W/m2 is 0.51 W/m2, meaning that at the end of the rise there is a 0.51 W/m2 increase in power, while an AVERAGE increase of 0.25 W/m2. This is on top of a current atmospheric absorption (clear skies) of 68 W/m2 and a land/sea absorption of 236 W/m2. Those of us who have swum in Northern lakes during 35*C summers know how thin the warm water is all through summer. Heat doesn’t want to go down. But apparently 0.25 W/m2 of warming by CO2 over the last 30 years flows through and is obvious beyond a 68 W/m2 clear air absorption and 236 W/m2 substrate absorption BACKGROUND.

Pretty amazing how we can say that we know the energy in and out of 304 W/m2 with a confidence that during the year and between years there is no local or longterm change within 0.1 W/m2 (assuming that “real” has to be at least 2X SD). Yep, we are confident to 0.033% accuracy 95% of the time. Ignoring the albedo variation from a background 100 W/m2.

340.5 W/m2 +/- 0.1 W/m2, day to day, year to year, place to place consistency. No long-term deviation at a planetary level from that, no sir. Or local, either. Frankly, this is the first part of the IPCC meme I can’t be comfortable with. And without strong feedback mechanisms to keep our planet the near-stable temperatures it experiences, not acceptable to the IPCC meme. And there is the second part I’m not comfortable with.

And I haven’t even gotten to the temperature records in New Zealand or elsewhere.

The Albert Park weather station seems to have been a constantly changing thing. Its weather record compares the temperature of an exposed site at one time, with that of a partly wind-sheltered site at another time, and that of a fully-shaded site at a further time.

How can a “trend” be found when there are so many variables?

A linear trend on this data is anathema to me but I concede it wont go away but why not present an alternative that better represents the data.

If you’ve got a Google account, Here’s the NZT7 polynomial trend:-

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4_i4MX8e3UaZDNlYzY2ZDUtYWVkZi00OGE2LTliZTUtZDVmZWUyNzFiZjVi&hl=en

And the NZT7 location polynomials

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4_i4MX8e3UaNGQ0NjZmYjAtMTc1NS00N2FjLWEzYzEtNWZiZTFiZjI3Mjdi&hl=en

There’s a strong indication from the curve that there’s a cool phase on the way I think but you wouldn’t know that going by NIWA’s trend.

To produce a whole new time series, one must first perform time-consuming studies that let you make decisions on which to base much time-consuming work, which needs to go through time-consuming checks, then pass through time-consuming peer review, and so it goes on…

The court challenge is to show the official temperature record contains serious errors. Of course, since then NIWA has produced a new series, so who knows what will happen next?

The Coalition wonders about using only seven stations, and those particular stations, and about other “metadata” matters affecting the quality of the records. It has questions about the methods used to adjust the raw readings. But none of this is settled and ready for public review. To help assess the new NZT7, I’ve asked NIWA for their correspondence with the BoM, who reviewed NIWA’s report. But they declined, so I immediately appealed to the Ombudsman, who informed me last week that they’ve only just started their inquiry.

We can say that it’s odd the new NZT7, released last December, should reach the very same conclusion as the first one (0.91°C per 100 years). So there could well be errors and/or faulty data in it. Oh — read the above post!

And all the while, the global warming science questions get all trampled on and covered over in a giant soup and it’s hard to know what’s true.

Is there a record in NIWA of the actual thermometers used at each of the sites, when they were changed or moved? What is the life of a thermometer?

Hemi, I managed to put this under the correct post for you. I regret I cannot guarantee similar service in the future! — Richard

Regardless of the reasons, it comes down to the trend. The trend needs to be different from NIWA claims to have any reason for continued discussion. The difference from other parts of the world, other parts of the oceans, is significant. The number of stations is relatively small, much fewer than what many American students of statistics have reviewed.

What is the NZScCoalition’s take on the NZ temp history in graphical form? It must be done already if a challenge was made to the courts.

If it is out there already, I apologize: maybe it could be in the masthead, like NIWA had.