Global warming (or whatever it's called now) - apparently NZ has missed out

[Dadpole]

I'm not at all surprised that people have cooked up data to support global warming. Bloody hippies.

They also cook up data to deny global warming too. Somewhere in all the warped (from all sides) data may be the truth, but who can find it.

Jantar has a very good point about data gathering too.

[Cayman911]

burn them hippies. burn burn BURN!

the only green i support is a green 5.0L Lamborghini V10 Gallardo

[mashman]

Instead of a nice pristine site with class A data we get a contaminated UHI site with class D data.

Then someone like Salinger will come along and homogenise the data to make the results useless.

That doesn't exactly encourage sceptics, such as myself, to believe that temperature readings and other AGW measuremed data are accurate enough to generate regional, let alone global models that highlight whether we have a serious impact on Climate Change, or not. It's still best guess work. As you say, class D data.

Whilst that's a simplistic, uneducated viewpoint, it's not a great leap of the imagination to conclude that, if 1 measurement is wrong, or has been changed to fit another (more accurate ) model, then any other associated/homogenised models could very easily be classed as pointless to the sceptics under the premise of garbage in garbage out. I fear that's why you don't get the 14k needed to obtain class A data... What a waste of 20 years worth of brainpower, time and MONEY...

[Pwalo]

In defense of many of NIWA's scientists, in general, blame the bean counters rather than the scientists. A climatologist wants to establish a weather station near a particular location, lets use Invercargill as an example. The scientist bases his proposal to NIWA management on an ideal weather station on an ideal piece of land with no trees or buildings within 30 meters, no built up areas within 3 km, and no likelyhood of being built out for at least 50 years.

Weather station cost: $2600
Communications package: $4500
Remote power supply with backup: $7500
Lease of land: $1000 per annum
Maintenance: $2000 per annum
Total $14600 (yes, I have been involved with a few so these figures are pretty close)
Annual: $3000

What gets approved is: Place it next to the control tower at the airport and use the mains power supply:

Weather station cost: $2600
Communications package: $200
Remote power supply with backup: $nil
Rent of 1 sq m of building: $200 per annum
Maintenance: $200 per annum
Total $2800
Annual $400

Instead of a nice pristine site with class A data we get a contaminated UHI site with class D data.

Then someone like Salinger will come along and homogenise the data to make the results useless.

So I guess the bottom line is that it's a complete load of (potentially expensive) cobblers then.

And I understand that it should be called 'Global climatic disruption' now.

[Jantar]

That doesn't exactly encourage sceptics, such as myself, to believe that temperature readings and other AGW measuremed data are accurate enough to generate regional, let alone global models that highlight whether we have a serious impact on Climate Change, or not. It's still best guess work. As you say, class D data........

That is exactly why the global land temperature record is useless. The only data that can count is raw Class A data, and that is very rare. Satelites are much better, but they only measure the lower troposphere, not the surface temperature.

So I guess the bottom line is that it's a complete load of (potentially expensive) cobblers then.

And I understand that it should be called 'Global climatic disruption' now.

GCD is just another spin so that warmists can say "look, its getting warmer, must be Mann made", "Look its getting cooler, must be Mann made", Look we have weather, must be Mann made."

All the warmist efforts still talk about stopping anthropengic global warming even when it isn't happening.

[svr]

Another tragi-comedic thread by idiots.

Sea level rise is the best indicator of planetary warming. (er, yes it is going up...). Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, partly caused by industrialisation, intensive agriculture and deforestation are the reasons.
The issue now is whether anything could actually be done. Maybe. Will anything be done? Nope, people are clearly very stupid.
In the 6 deg warmer, 10 billion population future, what we'll actually need here in NZ is a fucking big military to protect our shores.

[davereid]

That doesn't exactly encourage sceptics, such as myself, to believe that temperature readings and other AGW measuremed data are accurate enough to generate regional, let alone global models that highlight whether we have a serious impact on Climate Change, or not. It's still best guess work. As you say, class D data.

I'm not even sure it makes it to "class D".

30 mumble years ago, I was a technician fixing electronic stuff for the NZED. I remember visiting our substations where the station operator would fill out his climate record. The log book would dutifully record the data at the correct time. The reality was the Station Operator was in the bush hunting, at the pub pissed or playing golf and filled it out the next day as a good guess.

Jantar would know, but I bet lots of our early climate data was collected by substation operators, postmasters, station-masters and so on. And they used a rain-gauge, a basic max-min thermometer that was never calibrated, an a well hung-over eye to read it.

Years later, the manual equipment had been replaced with modern electronic equipment.

But did it give better record ? I'm not sure. I had a batch of a dozen temperature probes arrive from a major manufacturer. I tied them all together and logged them as they warmed up from a tank of ice to room temperature.

The logger manufacturer had 3 versions of software for these probes, and I used all three as a comparison, logging each few minutes.

My dozen brand new temperature probes had a temperature scatter of well over 1 deg. C.

[mashman]

I'm not even sure it makes it to "class D".

It's funny that there are classes used to describe the quality of data I always thought that data was right, or it was wrong...

[Jantar]

It's funny that there are classes used to describe the quality of data I always thought that data was right, or it was wrong...

Actually, you are right. The data is data, its the site that is Class A, Class B, etc. Personally I wouldn't trust any data that isn't from a Class A site.

[mashman]

Actually, you are right. The data is data, its the site that is Class A, Class B, etc.

either way though the data is "skewed"? must be pretty frustrating being a scientist