Sorry for the late reply. I see you are eager for me to do so, but I don't have long to do so.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Why do they claim that no data needs adjustment given known changes in stations etc.
They don't. They question the need for such large adjustments, when no explanations are provided.
Salinger said adjustments were made for legitimate reasons, such as changes of site.
Except these reasons are not provided. Science doesn't just rely on peoples word.
Dude, read the actual PDF, they only use the overlap period to get a cooler average. The reason why they only use the overlap is because if they where
to trend out the South and the Higher station, the south historically is warmer, so what they do is find a point that show cooling and then make a
claim that this is typical for the entire history.
Of course they used the overlap period. That's how you can compare two sites. You can't compare different sites at completely different times to
make accurate adjustments. So what was it you wanted me to read again?
When they say "all the Adjustments" do you actually know how many station are adjusted? Wellington is explained, Lincoln, Dunedin and
Again, they are NOT explained. Just the possible reasons that they were adjusted. They don't have the records any more to show what adjustments were
made. NIWA directed people to papers which did not explain the changes made to the record. This is the issue.
Dunedin shows cooling. Some conspiracy hey. NIWA adjusted it, and it shows cooling after the adjust.
I bet you won't be questioning that adjustment.
Not a conspiracy. Just scientific negligence. And I will be questioning those adjustments. If correct adjusting principles have been applied, then
It may be shown that all the adjustments were made appropriately. I have come across this
the magnitude of adjustments, but not the reasons. Instead they provide this as a footnote
Please note that all adjustments can only ever be estimates, made in good faith and using scientifically accepted methodologies.
They also have this footnote for one of the sites, Albert park.
Note that the adjustments are increasing with time, a possible indication of urban warming. This is a key reason for moving to a less built-up
site (Mangere) as the station representing the “Auckland” location in the composite temperature series.
Albert park is smack bang in the middle of Auckland city, NZ's largest and fastest growing urban area. Of course there is an urban warming effect.
Yet they only note it as a "possible indication". So although it appears to have been adjusted due to the UHI effect (as it should be), it is not
known for sure.
This is not the kind of science that should be used to promote an official temperature record. NIWA are now trying to recreate the adjustments so they
can explain them sufficiently.
Lets hope that they were done so correctly