Just in from the Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS.
When it came to light last week that NIWA‘s official temperature graph and the data on their website were at odds, the former returning an increasing temperature graph the latter a flat graph, three questions were asked of NIWA by the Climate Conversation Group that they are yet to answer.
- Why, of all the temperature stations in New Zealand, were the 7 stated sites chosen to be deemed indicative of New Zealand’s temperatures?
- What precise adjustments were made to the temperatures?
- What was the methodology of 1 and 2?
NIWA have talked about how they adjusted temperatures recorded in Wellington. But this does not answer these questions.
NIWA have had Jim Salinger cite 11 sites that, without adjustment, showed some warming but again this does not answer the questions above and some warming is not the same thing as anthropogenic warming.
As long as NIWA keep answering questions they were not asked and fail to answer the ones they have been asked, as long as anthropogenic climate change apologists like Gareth Renowden and Ken Perrott keep trotting out red herrings and other fallacious answers all the while waving “trust the scientists” placards, this issue will not go away.
Flat climate temperature charts were adjusted upwards. This has happened in more than one country and it appears from the leaked climategate emails that this was done for political and not scientific means. It is, therefore, reasonable for us to have some questions and unease about all this and it is equally reasonable to expect NIWA to friggin’ answer these questions. If there is a sound answer to 1-3 then tell us, show me the science.
Tags: Climate Conversation Group · Climategate · Gareth Renowden · Jim Salinger · Ken Perrott · NIWA27 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
And why do they only talk about Wellington? There are 6 others of the 7.
NZ Climate Science Coalition cannot make sense of the Hokitika data.
I couldn’t get to the meeting last night.
How many people showed up?
I’d like to know the answer to No. 1
For No 2. I don’t understand why the adjustments can not be worked out when both the raw data and adjusted data are available.
As for No 3. a more detailed methodology of the adjustments would help. However, NIWA state clearly on their website that this is detailed in a paper:
Rhoades, D.A. and Salinger, M.J., 1993: Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes. International Journal of Climatology 13, 899 – 913.
So that is that question answered. Now, does the Climate Science Coalition have specific problems with this methodology? I haven’t seen any detailed response regarding this from them.
Madeleine, can you please explain what parts of the hacked emails specifically relate at all to temperature adjustments made in NZ?
Linda,
There were about 75 people at the meeting last night.
Hi Simon, from what i could get from the meeting last night the issue of 2. concerns specifics, the example that was given was “if the adjustment is 10, is it done by +20 and then -10, is it just + 10 etc” As to whether they have problems with the methodology, from what I heard last night they have some scientists who want to examine but they have not been given the information to do so, It was not that they have any actual problems as of yet.
The meeting was interesting, it was not a populist rant, everyone there seemed to know stuff about environmental science. Such as the Co2 cycle of trees, cows, weather etc as well as economics. It was one of the few times I felt like I was one of the most ignorant people in the room. This is the problem with being a lay man trying to work out exactly what the ins and outs of a debate are.
What does frustrate me is the kind of dismissals you always here. Some defenders of AGW act as though disagreement with AGW is like believing in a flat earth, some skeptics claim belief in AGW is pseudoscience and ridiculous. I suspect both sides are overstating there case.
.-= My last blog-post ..Three Questions for NIWA =-.
Matt,
So a discussion was held about the methodology of adjustments and no one brought up details of that paper I listed? The paper that apparently explains the methodology in detail.
This seems clearly to me to be a problem. And heightens my point from a previous thread about the nature of such meetings.
I just had a quick read through of that paper. I’m not a climate scientist, so have no professional opinion since I don’t know the background to this type of research. But it is 14 pages of a seemingly well-developed process based on common stats and equations. They identify the strengths and weaknesses and the most appropriate ways to deal with different sites. It’s all very reasonable, as one would expect.
Surely to even begin to meaningfully criticise NIWA’s results one would have to fully critique this methodology…
Simon, no none discussed NIWA’s methodology, my understanding was that NZCCC had some scientists who wanted to thoroughly examine the results, adjustments, method etc but did not have the information to do so because their requests for information had no been answered. In fairness to the rep from NZCCC I saw he did not appear to have prejudiced any results from the outset, it was more that some scientists associated with his organization had some questions of some sort but needed detailed information about the 7 stations, the exact adjustments, how they were done, why those 7 stations were chosen etc.
It did not appear to me they were drawing any actual conclusions at this stage untill they actually got the data.
Much of the discussion was over the ETS with the people I mentioned chipping in. The ETS and NIWA’s stats are really separate issues and no one really got into the latter in the Q&A
.-= My last blog-post ..Three Questions for NIWA =-.
I’d love to know not just how they adjusted the data but how they validated their adjustment. Because it’s all very well making an adjustment that seems reasonable but making sure assumptions match with reality is important.
.-= My last blog-post ..Free Market Environmentalism: The Common Good Part 2 =-.
nyokodo,
So read that paper I list. This is not a simple topic, if you’re really interested the data and methodology is there for you to examine in detail.
I don’t understand why the NZ Climate Change Coalition isn’t releasing detailed critiques of NIWA’s approach. All the data and methodology is there, or available. To say otherwise seems misleading.
They seem to have some people with the required technical skills involved in their cause. I guess we must wait and see what their scientists are up to.
Ideally some of them would write their own analyses and get it published in a journal. Peer review, all that. If their arguments are strong enough…
Simon, yeah I wonder the same thing, perhaps there is something they want from NIWA which is not in the article. But I guess wait and see.
.-= My last blog-post ..Three Questions for NIWA =-.
Simon, it appears they don’t have any validation from Thorndon to Kelburn, they’ve just assumed the same adjustment as the airport. However if their assumption is wrong and thorndon should be warmer than they have it, there goes the nice progression upwards.
.-= My last blog-post ..Free Market Environmentalism: The Common Good Part 2 =-.
I have written to the coalition requesting some clarity on their methodology. Particularly whether they had bothered to do an analysis of variance on the data (required to support their assertion that their is no reason for corrections/adjustments. And secondly what scientific review procedures they applied to the report.
The request has been passed on top Bob Dedekind and Richard Treadgold. If they have nothing to hide I expect a quick answer as the questions are very straightforward.
Depending on their response I may do a more detailed posting on the science behind their claim of no adjustment required. It is the key to the whole controversy.
.-= My last blog-post ..The global warming conspiracy? =-.
Ken
I have written to the coalition requesting some clarity on their methodology. Particularly whether they had bothered to do an analysis of variance on the data (required to support their assertion that their is no reason for corrections/adjustments. And secondly what scientific review procedures they applied to the report.
I spoke to Richard last night, from talking to him my understanding is that NZCCC never claimed that there is no reason for the adjustments, nor were they trying to provide an alternative flat account of warming. They were simply (a) noting that the raw data unadjusted from the 7 stations did not show an increase and (b) wanted to know specific details about the adjustments, what exactly they were why they were made. So they could examine them to see if they were justified.
I put to Richard last night that the movement in location justified adjusting the data he agreed that this was totally reasonable, he also said he was quite willing to accept an increase in temperature if it showed this, what he merely wanted to know was why the 7 stations were taken as representative of NZ, what the precise exact adjustments were to the seven stations and why they were made, so that he could hand the material on to some scientists he had working on it.
.-= My last blog-post ..Three Questions for NIWA =-.
Matt – I have also spoken to Richard and he has confirmed my suspicions that no statistical analysis was done on the data (required to check if there were site effects) and the report did not receive the normal level of scientific refereeing.
The report actually says “the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.” Now the only way such a statement can be supported is with a relatively simple analysis of variance in the data. As I said – this was not done. A half way competent reviewer would have pointed out the problem to them and they could have corrected it before publishing.
But then again they didn’t submit their report to normal scientific review!
Now, I suppose I could search out the raw data and do my own analysis. (I have actually asked someone who has the data to do this but suspect he won’t). But more simply I could just look at the graphic presentations of the Wellington site data – these clearly show that there is a station site effect. So it’s pretty obvious the report sparking off all this controversy is faulty. By not correcting for site differences these groups have actually rourted the data and produced a faulty graphic. Their treatment of the data was at least naive and faulty, if not dishonest.
And it’s this graphic that has got you and your mates all worked up thinking you had found evidence of scientists fiddling the data.
Just not true. You should really try to overcome your confirmation bias and approach these matters more critically.
.-= My last blog-post ..The global warming conspiracy? =-.
Matt – I think you should go back and actually read the report you relied on for your posts here. Richard has obviously back pedaled as NIWA put their releases out. But there are serious incorrect claims in that report and serious charges challenging the integrity of New Zealand scientists.
And they have not, as yet, withdrawn the report. They are adopting the usually trouble maker tactic of moving on to make new accusations, from which they will move on and make others – and so on. The moving target tactic. It’s a tactic you use here, and other apologist blogs commenting on this issue have similarly used.
No wonder serious people question the wisdom of engaging with people like this.
.-= My last blog-post ..The global warming conspiracy? =-.
And I can’t see that any of the 3 methods for correcting lone site data that are mentioned in the paper “Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes” apply to the method that NIWA have claimed for the Wellington data.
I am happy to be corrected.
Here are the methods
3. ADJUSTING AN ISOLATED STATION
Sometimes it is desired to adjust a station that has no near neighbours, e.g. stations on isolated islands or early records…. several statistical procedures can be used alongside information on station histories to assist in the estimation of the effect of a site change.
3.1. Graphical analysis
3.2. Test using annual values
3.3. Test using subannual differences over symmetric intervals
3.4. Finding the most prominent change points
.-= My last blog-post ..Adjusting multi-site and single site temperature data =-.
Madeleine,
I still wouldn’t mind an answer to my question of what parts of the hacked emails specifically relate at all to temperature adjustments made in NZ?
Bloggers need to be held more accountable to statements like this – it’s how conspiracy theories spread.
I have a fourth question: what happened to the Kelburn records for 1927? These would eliminate the need to use the airport “adjustment”, because they overlapped the 1927 records for the Thorndon station. Does anyone believe such important records have been lost?
[…] confess I now believe in manmade Global Warming, Three Questions for NIWA, Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious […]
Maybe we need to take legal action to get these answers from NIWA, If they are not forthcoming voluntarily? .
“the questions should be routine to answer, the fact they are not, and deflecting answers are dismissive is not the scientific approach.” Assume fraud!.
Maybe Ken who seems so dismissive of the leaked emails can answer the questions put to NIWA.
Maybe Ken could inform us as to why Dr Salinger was removed from NIWA?.
Here’s and email for you Simon
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=992&filename=.txt
(DR Salinger was fired so its a genuine email)
Salinger shows his true colors
“so I guess we all will be walking and cycling very quickly as farmers keep their animals burping out methane…that’s my little sermon for this morning!”
He despises Farmers and the animals they raise for food!.
No doubt he would bankrupt farmers and NZ for the CO2 fraud!.
Our NIWA scientists acting like little school bullies, telling there GANG leader Mann how wonderful they are and pulling their weight in the war against any distractions from their pet FRAUD.
there you go!.
Do you guys realise that Vincent Gray (scientist in the Climate Science Coalition responsible for the “research paper”) has now admitted he made a mistake.
He was responsible for approving the “research paper” which claimed there were no reasons for site effects. he now acknowledges he made a mistake in allowing that through.
The whole “case” of these denier groups has disappeared.
Truth really will out, won’t it?
.-= My last blog-post ..Testimony of non-believers =-.
Ken, if sceptics admit mistakes, that yet another thing that alarmists lack: Honesty. The number of red-faced admissions of error that we should have seen from those on the global warming gravy train is considerable.
To say that the entire “case” for global warming scepticism disappears because of one admission of one error just reveals how non-serious your comments are.
.-= My last blog-post ..Theological Liberalism: Relevant or Pathetic? =-.
Glenn, the denier groups I refer to are the NZ ones and on the NIWA issue it all centres on the false claim of no site effects (including your posts, Glenn). Now Vincent admits the mistake it’s about time you and your denier mates followed the only honest path.
But I won’t hold my breath.
.-= My last blog-post ..Testimony of non-believers =-.
[…] confess I now believe in manmade Global Warming; Three Questions for NIWA; Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS; NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious […]