Comments on: Australian Temperature Adjustments

By: http://test.com

http://test.com — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:48:38 +0000

test…

Kmdp3t0 | test …

By: stumpy

stumpy — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:49:58 +0000

I have used the same technique to do a similar analysis with the NZ data and could not replicate NIWA's data, even when I used NASA GISS data that had been “adjusted”.

By: stumpy

stumpy — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:49:58 +0000

I have used the same technique to do a similar analysis with the NZ data and could not replicate NIWA's data, even when I used NASA GISS data that had been “adjusted”.

By: Temperatures still rising, 2010 may be hottest yet, Met Office says - Page 61 - Political Forum

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:18:13 +0000

[...] Posted by Renesan http://landshape.org/enm/australian-…e-adjustments/ The aftermath of Climategate is the realization that all entities that collect, monitor and [...]

By: Temperatures still rising, 2010 may be hottest yet, Met Office says - Page 60 - Political Forum

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:02:08 +0000

[...] Bureau of Meteorology uses data that has been fudged and faked. Or was that just a lie? http://landshape.org/enm/australian-…e-adjustments/ The aftermath of Climategate is the realization that all entities that collect, monitor and [...]

By: davids99us

davids99us — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:41:45 +0000

Probably that sort of thing. But this is only with the average, not with the difference normalization method I am proposing.

By: tty

tty — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:45:32 +0000

Does one dare to guess that the sharp rise in temperatures c. 1940 was due to the building of new air force bases in northern Australia?

By: balerbill

balerbill — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:12:15 +0000

As a query …are the temperatures adjusted to Mean Sea Level (MSL) ..which if they are, would result in many having bits added on to the raw data.

If not how can one construct a data set that is creating an an average temerature for a region if the vakles arrived at are dependant upon the height above MSLof the gauges used..which can vary enormously

By: TravisMonitor

TravisMonitor — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:01:36 +0000

Paz makes a good point. The normalization for any given station is to define a 'base period' and then subtract the given temp reading from that base average. For stations operating for the whole period would be the average over that whole period, then the trend would be preserved as is.

For stations introduced in the middle of the series however, the base period is tricky. if you do the whole remaining period, then you are going to shift the year 1 in the opposite direction of any trend from year 1 to the average remaining years, in effect reducing the effective trend.

Alternatives are:
1 year base period - assume year 1 is 'zero'
5 year base period - average out a few years to avoid an outlyer effect
10 year base period etc.
ANother way to normalize is to check the numbers for the nearest stations and to set the 'offset from mean' to equate to the avg offset of nearby stations.

Also, what about Urban Heat island effect? If that is not taken into account, it throws a lot of this off.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:53:04 +0000

Are you normalizing them to a common base period, or just the mean for each station for every data point? You should do the latter, otherwise everytime a station gets added in (ie is established in a new year) the mean gets closer to zero, which automatically reduces the trend.