My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Marc my words... | Main | NIWA’s minister told to put up or shut up »

Comments

robk

jjw

"the reporting of a man who believes that the Bible is literal truth."

Ian probably believes, then, that if he were to tell lies he would go to hell... so he is quite likely telling the truth as he sees it.

What do you believe?

You're quite a comedian :-D

MrTips

Dear David Wratt

As a fellow scientist I have to say I am shocked at your attitude and methods.

1) You can move your temp. stations, that is fine. But you cannot merely "adjust" data from different locations to suit, what is at best, an educated guess. If Kelburn moved in 1927, you can only use data from 1927 on. Anything else is fiction and inaccurate.

2) If NIWA have moved other weather stations and made similar adjustments, as you call them, then the entire adjusted NZ data serious is rightly called into question. Temperature is what it is; it should not require "adjustment" and only data from the SAME weather station site can be compared with other sites.

3) Your willingness to engage in adjusting, and then defend it through "peer review", is extremely disturbing. And you shouldn't be so sensitive: like myself, you are paid by public taxpayer money, it is THEY who own the data.

I am not a climate scientist, but this is not about climate science per se. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that the data adjustments you are making is, a priori, invalid and unacceptable manipulation.

Let the raw data speak without a muzzle please.

Regards

MrTipsNZ

George Turner

Nobody back then was moving weather stations to find cooler locations to write down the data. Statistically, weather station relocations should have virtually no net impact on the data, since as many stations should be moving to a warmer location as to cooler ones.

Anyone claiming otherwise is selling manure, but that's what's going on.

George Turner

Another nitpick is that their data graph is missing the entire year of 1927. I would imagine that any sensible person with an old Ford pickup would only take a day to move a 2 foot square box ten miles. Why is an entire year missing?

Despite the missing year, the series drops 0.2C, close to the 0.1C global drop in NASA's land/ocean average, but the station data was adjusted by 0.8C

Why are they relying on an invalid altitude adjustment (it's only valid if the station was hoisted 400 feet up a radio tower but remained where it was) when nearby stations must surely cover the gap and tell them what the adjustment should probably be? Don't they even bother to look at their own data?

David Wratt

Dear Mr Tips

"As a fellow scientist I have to say I am shocked at your attitude and methods".

So I assume that in your field, if you disagree with someone you gratefully accept all the data they provide you on request. Then in three years time you produce an unrefereed paper which ignores the published best practice and knowledge, and send it out around the world with a press release questioning the integrity of those you disagree with.

Also, in your field is it normal to criticize other scientists from within a blog in which you hide behind a pseudonym ?

In some fields scientists present a talk at a conference setting out why they disagree, and then submit a paper to a reputable journal after they have considered the feedback from the conference attendees.

David Wratt (My final post on this topic)

George Turner

Mr. Wrat.

In all fields but climate science we prefer that our models at least pretend to obey the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Climatology doesn't.

In both the current shallow-water models of atmosphere (simplified from the developer who wore a powdered whig and tube socks) and the finite-element versions of climate models, there is no actual 3-D vertical dimension. Height is just a parameter and a column of air moving upward doesn't obey the law of conservation of momentum. Worse still, it doesn't even abide by Euclidean geometry. In the models, the Earth is flat but somehow warped, and unlike a Euclidean sphere the surface area doesn't increase with radius.

Worse still, the models treat gravity as a constant, not decreasing with altitude according to Newton's inverse square law, so in all the models the moon would crash into the Earth and kill all life on this planet within a day.

Other models, such as MIT's, are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, which as any boiler engineer on a tramp steamer could tell you, are completely invalid when evaporation or condensation is occuring (like in the puffy things known as clouds).

In all other fields but climatology, completely diverging from 1600's era physics would get you laughed out of the auditorium. In climatology it apparently makes you a god of fudging, data manipulation, and fraud.

So why is that? Could it be that the peers who've been reviewing are equally divorced from accepted scientific and engineering standards?

Ian Wishart

David, I've been in meetings otherwise I would have responded earlier.

The way I see it, your press release on Kelburn's adjustment did you no favours. NIWA made no effort to do a comparison study between Thorndon and Kelburn, and instead plucked an adjustment figure from 15 kilometres away in a different climate zone.

Argue all you like about international best practice, but if that's "best practice" then it proves why the surface network records around the world are a standing joke.

Western economies are being asked to transfer jobs and income to the third world under the aegis of a UN governing entity as contained in the current draft of the proposed Copenhagen treaty. The amount of money involved is estimated to be in the hundreds of trillions over coming decades.

And you want the public of New Zealand, and for that matter the world, simply to "trust" NIWA because the guys in white coats know best?

From what I saw of your Kelburn explanation last night, it's a crock, and I note other scientists commenting on your Kelburn explanation on various blogs around the world have reached a similar conclusion.

You may be able to convince Gareth Renowden and the crew at Hot Topic, but between you and I we both know the actual nitty gritty of this is a little beyond them.

I cannot believe that you guys genuinely believe that applying Airport to Thorndon without any comparison study was in any way at all valid science.

If NIWA does genuinely believe that, and if in fact your overseas "peers" believe it, then God help the planet.

This week, we have seen your international colleagues caught out. I've read the emails, I've quoted them in context. As other climate scientists have expressed publicly, Jones et al are a disgrace to science.

I note Nick Smith called such comments "conspiracy theory" and nominated you as the man who could set the record straight. On this blog are readers and scientists from all over the world, so go right ahead, tell them how the emails they've seen are wrong.

Tell them that the upper echelons of climate science have not corruptly stacked the peer review process so it bears no relation to honest and objective independent review.

Tell them that scientists, including New Zealanders, have not attempted to hide data inconvenient to the global warming theory, such as Mick Kelly's infamous email.

Tell them that the peer review of Grant Foster (Tamino's) rebuttal to McLean et al (a rebuttal involving NIWA staff as well) was not dodgy, as per the emails asking for suggestions of favourable reviewers to nominate.

Sorry David. You guys have been playing politics. It's a little bit late to be precious and start playing the "poor me, independent scientist" line.

The efforts of your colleagues overseas have destroyed any claims to credibility through peer review. The just released Copenhagen Diagnosis, for example, containing data similar to that we disagreed about the other day before you muted me, involves some of the disgraced climate scientists from the emails scandal.

If your colleagues are prepared to cook the books and hide the evidence, and conspire to prevent critics from getting their work published, why should any single person trust anything NIWA and its colleagues say any more on the subject of climate change?

How can we truly know if the peer review process in submitting "a paper to a reputable journal" was actually honest? We don't know any more.

Climate scientists don't have much credibility left, and your Kelburn excuse has not helped you.

My suggestion, as I said at the start of this post - release the complete data on the sites you're getting the warming trend from in New Zealand.

If NIWA has nothing to hide, then surely it has nothing to be afraid of by opening its data and processes up to genuine, public, peer review.

AJStrata

This is completely bogus.

Think average heights of trees or something and you can see the fallacy of the reasoning. The average height is different between the raw and the 'adjusted' height. The real height is in the raw data, the processed 'height' is fiction

It fails the simple laugh test.

John Campbell

I have no problem in accepting a warming trend, assuming it's properly measured. The real question is whether this trend is good supporting evidence for the AGW hypothesis. Since the warming over the last century (with a downward blip around the 70s when some "scientists" were shouting that a new ice age was imminent) is not unique in the historical record - either in rate of increase or in magnitude, and since the temperature was warmer in Medieval times than it is now, and since global temperatures over the past 10 years have been steady in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2, and since no "hot spot" has been observed in the troposphere as the AGW hypothesis requires, etc., etc., I still don't see the evidence supports the IPCC's hypothesis. The null hypothesis is clearly winning so far.

Gooner

From Mr Wratt:

In some fields scientists present a talk at a conference setting out why they disagree, and then submit a paper to a reputable journal after they have considered the feedback from the conference attendees.

Why would anyone bother disagreeing and writing papers etc when the science is settled?

MrTipsNZ

David Wratt

You wrote in reply. In some fields scientists present a talk at a conference setting out why they disagree, and then submit a paper to a reputable journal after they have considered the feedback from the conference attendees.

And it appears in climate science, based on the Hadley emails, that those who disagree and attempt to publish find their manuscript in permanent peer review limbo never to be seen again.

FYI, in my discipline, which is biomedicine, someone gets an idea into there head, publishes it and talks at a conference, provided the conference secretariat accept the talk (for that is another manipulatable screen as well). If there is contrary data, then the concept sits in limbo until a consensus is reached, which can take YEARS.

There is NO consensus regarding AGW, despite what you or any other individual might say. I notice you have also conveniently ignored the concept of sharing raw data with Chris de Freitas or Richard Treadgold. Why?

Your not helping yourself, and neither is Jim Salinger. Sooner or later someone will OIA the raw data and its game over, IF there has been unacceptable manipulation.

And plenty of scientists in NZ have blogging pseudonyms. Its the argument, not the contributor, that counts.

MrTipsNZ

Hamish

Aj Abrams

It is not an issue if the same thermometer was used at kelburn for 80 years......

AcidComments

"If your colleagues are prepared to cook the books and hide the evidence, and conspire to prevent critics from getting their work published, why should any single person trust anything NIWA and its colleagues say any more on the subject of climate change?"

There's plenty of people out here that used to use their Services and NO Longer Do because in REALITY they're a LAUGHING Stock because of their AGW Bias like so many of their counterparts in overseas Govt Depts pushing the same BS!

Rob R

In the Sth Island of NZ the mean environmental lapse rate across the ground surface (over the full year) is only about 5 deg C per km. If this applies in the Nth Island at Wellington the NIWA adjustment would be at the upper end of realistic values. It's not out of the question but needs to be justified.

AcidComments

"And it appears in climate science, based on the Hadley emails, that those who disagree and attempt to publish find their manuscript in permanent peer review limbo never to be seen again."


At it looks like here we go again.

Told ya so – more upside down data in Mann’s latest paper

Peer review doesn’t seem to catch the problem of using inverted data. That’s a good question for science and the peer reviewers. I suggest those who have contact put the question to them, because the results will look different when the data is used properly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/

NucEngineer in USA

Clearly, the completely raw data, with no UHI adjustments, neighboring sea surface grid homoginization, siting or selection adjustments, raw, raw, needs to be provided.

Then show this internationally accepted adjustment method, documenting how much and why. That will be the only way to close all questions.

Is someone afraid to provide all the raw data, even for sites not selected for algorithm input?

Neil Ferguson

I or my eyes must be missing the point. I hope someone will check me on this. I looked at the raw and adjusted charts, and it looks like from 1950 on they are almost the same, showing a rough slope of 1 deg/century. The raw chart looks flat before then, and the adjusted chart shows the same slope before as after. So why should (us) skeptics be sqawking?

The skeptics mostly accept a warming since 1850 at 1 deg/century; they disagree it's been dramatically accelerated since 1950, especially by CO2. Wouldn't the _corrected_ chart reinforce their view? Wouldn't the _raw_ chart reinforce the views of the AGW proponents?

Jason

Why is there no data for prox. 1990 to 1995 in the Airport graph. Ask for the data, it likely is "inconvenient."

Jason

"warmer than Kelburn, which matches well with measurements in many parts of the world"

Many parts of the world? Then there are other parts of the world this does not match well with. Majority? What is science between choosing one part of the world over another?
How about forgetting the world and testing it out in New Zealand?

Silly. But there are billions in grants and trillions in global ETS trades at stake!

JS

Re: David Wratt's explanation for the Wellington adjustments -

1)Since Kelburn was erected to replace Thorndon, and since they didn't run concurrently, it would seem that calibrating the two would be best done by finding a third station that has a similar temperature record to Kelburn but ALSO has a continuous history from some time prior to 1927. This could substitute for the lack of overlap.

2) Once the true difference between Thorndon and Kelburn is determined, then Kelburn should be adjusted up to provide a continuation of the Thorndon series.

3) I can see no justification for adjusting Thorndon down. The temperature record IS what it IS. The only valid adjustment would be to bring Thorndon's replacement station, Kelburn, into line with Thorndon data.

4) The Airport data doesn't belong in the above set at all. It should remain independent of the Thorndon-Kelburn series, and the only adjustment to be made to the Airport data is a DOWNWARD adjustment for UHI since it is well known that airports will be artificially warmer.

Wratt's methodology doesn't look very sound.

The comments to this entry are closed.