The Figures Don't Match
MONDAY JANUARY 06, 2014
THE FIGURES DON'T MATCH
In 2013 the average maximum temperature for Auckland was 17.7C, and the average minimum was 13.2C.
Here’s the proof, as displayed by a website called http://www.wunderground.com/ .
The arrow points to the yearly average maximum for 2013. Note the word “YEARLY” in white is showing that we selected the “year” option.
Then we went looking for years that may have had higher temperatures. The most logical place to look is in the years that have represented peak years of each previous "sunspot" cycle Presumably with solar radiation enhanced, these peak years would be the most likely to yield higher averages. This is what we found.
For our year-2000 data, look at what the arrow is pointing to:
Where did we get our earlier-year Auckland data from?
Daily climatological observations were taken from Station A64871 in Albert Park, in the centre of Auckland, of which we retain copies of all records. The station was Auckland’s main data-gathering depot and recorded temperatures as well as other weather data from 1930 to 1990. After 1990 the gathering station moved to Mangere airport as it was then known, although rain data continued to be gathered in Albert Park for a further 3 years.
What does the data show?
Obviously 2013 is not the warmest year on record in Auckland, according to the data, nor even the second warmest. Why would the data lie? No reason. Why would scientists lie? Might it be to receive further research funding if they can convince the government and taxpayers that climate change is happening and that giving them heaps of grant money is a good idea? The data shows that 2013 was the coolest year in the list for maximums, but minimums were higher by about half a degree. Minimums are the overnight lows, the temperatures you feel as you get out of bed each morning.
Why might minima be half a degree higher?
Remember, the station moved from the hilltop at Albert Park to the airport. Airports are built on dry flat windy ground, suitable for planes. Mangere is rather sheltered, being in the lee of the Pukekohe and Bombay hills and somewhat protected from the northwest by the Waitakere Ranges. At airports there is a lot of heat in the general vicinity, from plane and car exhaust fumes, reflecting glass from terminal buildings etc, and from a huge area of asphalt which holds daily warmth from the sun. The daytime heat gets stored in the concrete, in the buildings and roads. Just stand near a stone wall in the evening after a sunny day to see what I mean. Plus there are warm human bodies everywhere day and night distributing little parcels of heat around a small relatively enclosed area. There were not many planes and cars up on Albert Park last time I looked, unless they were hidden in the flower beds, nor asphalt, nor reflective windows. In fact there are just cool trees there, which is why it is called a “park”. (This is not rocket science).
Is the data reliable?
It is very hard to get weather data showing previous year averages from our national weather agencies, even though through our tax dollars they technically belong to us all. We have had to go to sources other than what is now made available by the climate office. Daytime temperatures using old Albert Park data plus internet data show 2013 to be COOLING. If there is global warming, it has side-stepped Auckland. But the plot deepens. The reader may wonder what happens when we go to NIWA’s online data and take a peak at NZ's other capital cities.
Data from other capitals
Let’s look at data we obtained on the internet from NIWA’s own website. The stations are
We would expect that if NZ was warming, then surely the warming would be uniform across the country. After all, the claim is that the whole globe is warming, and that trend is also affecting us, as the whole of NZ is part of the globe. But if anyone has, as it appears, fiddled the data, they did not do a thorrough job.
First off, some current data appears to be different now compared with the old data for year 2000. Also, 2013 figures do not match that of other online-publishing weather agencies which presumably would have been supplied by NIWA. Otherwise there would be other data-gathering stations alongside ours at the same locations and this is not the case, as all forecasting is now hooked up to an international database. Yet I have proven above with my screen shots that the 'entered' figures vary. Thirdly, from city to city across the country, uniform temperature gradients are NOT what we find. Figures are in degrees C
So we are being asked to believe that whilst the whole rest of the globe may have had its hottest year yet in 2013:
- Auckland remained within a degree of its 60-yr average,
- Christchurch remained within a degree of its 60-yr average,
- Dunedin hasn’t changed significantly in a decade, after suddenly getting 2 degrees hotter than the other cities 13 years ago, all by itself.
- Wellington got 2 degrees warmer than 2000, being the only city to do so.
- Wellington is now to be considered the climate trend representing the whole of NZ and the other cities don’t count
- Only the parts of NZ that show a warming trend are to be considered part of the globe; the rest can belong to some other planet
2013 for Australia was the hottest year on record,
for the WMO, 2013 was the seventh warmest on record http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/13/us-climate-talks-idUSBRE9A90JZ20131113,
in 2013 parts of NZ were warmest on record http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/9581885/Last-year-was-warmest-year-on-record,
but other parts were only the second warmest?
So what to believe, if anything? Why would it matter if 2013 was half a degree higher over 365-days somewhere on the planet? Would we feel hotter and unable to cope? If you went outside now into the sunshine and the temperature rose by half a degree in ten minutes, chances are no one would notice. Because all day, every day, temperatures where you are vary by about 10C. They are called daily maximums and minimums. And everyone copes. But now yet another question arises. Let us suppose that Australia has had the hottest year ever. If not also the whole globe at once, what would have singled Australia out for special treatment?
The number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html )
Year # of Tornadoes
The number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period (table below).
(Source: NationalInteragencyFireCenter; http://www.nifc.gov/ )
2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880
*2013 data through 10/16
Final comment: science or rubbish?
Let the reader decide. There may be global warming and there may not. We cannot tell from these figures because there is no consensus. Something that is called a science, in this case “climate science”, must be uniform in its presentation of data. Otherwise it is all pseudoscience until the data is verified beyond dispute. Science prides itself on precision. The idea of the scientific method is that someone in one laboratory should be able to come to the same conclusions in another laboratory far away, provided the original data be not in dispute. I am suggesting that the original data for temperatures across main cities in NZ indeed should be in heavy dispute and must be discarded pending an internal inquiry, and meanwhile should be ditched. The confusions must be straightened out along with the media analyses that have come from interpretation of this data. We cannot rely on a science whereby one can say what one likes depending on what they want the public to believe. Medicine would never put up with that. The media will always print something if they think it will sell papers or increase traffic to websites and so keep advertisers happy and people in jobs. The media cannot be blamed for that, but they can be held accountable if they do not also provide balance and good investigative journalism if there is a scam in the wind. Truth must be important; at least because we are trying to teach children how to be honest. Doesn't this come from adults, and for adults from the scientists?
© Ken Ring 2014