Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 07:11
Page 1 of 2
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 07:38
That was in the bloggs last week and made international news comment. Most of the apparent warming in NZ only shows up after adjustments were made to the raw data by NIWA. While it may be scientific to adjust data to account for a shifts in temperature sensors I think its also untidy.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 07:52
but there is still a warming trend in the 2nd graph, and there is no other period on the graph where it has been as consistantly as warm as of late
both sides are cherry picking data points
both sides are cherry picking data points
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 08:19
Making adjustments for site changes etc is nothing new and is perfectly normal and acceptable meteorological practice. Not doing so is what would be misleading, which is what the CCG have chosen to do, either deliberately or through incompetent ignorance, in an attempt to discredit NIWA and other respectable NZ climatologists with the lead-up to Copenhagen.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 08:20
I'm new to the forum and intrigued by everyone's thoughts.
I think we need to be cautious with all information and judge for ourselves. For me there is a lot of data figures being thrown around but I am willing to keep an open mind.
I think we need to be cautious with all information and judge for ourselves. For me there is a lot of data figures being thrown around but I am willing to keep an open mind.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 08:44
This is a total beat-up, and the continued retailing of lies by the CSC should result in legal action. All these data exrcises were explained long ago, and the CSC continues to ignore them. Their dishonesty and stupidity extends to the point where even an adjustment like that for Wellington sea level sites vis-a-vis Kelburn at 125m ASL is deliberately left out. When they have then shifted ground and tried to consider only more recent records, say from 1930, they ahve made assertions like "Kelburn shows no warming" - again pure garbage. "Open mind?" - poppycock. It is simply a measure of desperation on the part of a dicredited group, and very reminiscent of the antics of the creeps who retailed lies for tobacco companies over several decades. Anyone who is interested can find more detail at many sites, e.g. "hot topic".
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 08:48
NIWA have NOT been cherry-picking! All they, and anyone with half a brain, have to do, is to report the facts. This tripe was tried on a few years ago in the days of Augie Auer and co - and when NIWA responded, the CSC suddenly stopped talking. Now with Copenhagen imminent, they're trying to see just how much public ignorance can be exploited.Manukau heads observer wrote:but there is still a warming trend in the 2nd graph, and there is no other period on the graph where it has been as consistantly as warm as of late
both sides are cherry picking data points
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 10:06
the article says there is no warming trend
but I can see one easily in the second graph
so I would not put much faith in the people behind the article myself
but I can see one easily in the second graph
so I would not put much faith in the people behind the article myself
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 12:44
Good feedback guys.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 17:55
That graph is a total crock, because the stuff prior to about 1910 or so contains invalid concatenations of records from Wellington and other places. Again, refer to sites like "hot topic" for a detailed technical explanation.Manukau heads observer wrote:the article says there is no warming trend
but I can see one easily in the second graph
so I would not put much faith in the people behind the article myself
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 19:19
this is interesting
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie- ... scientist/
also , check outpress release is now out:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/clima ... ature-rise
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie- ... scientist/
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Wed 02/12/2009 22:43
The warming line should be from the 0( normal line) should it not? not the bottom of a cool period as warming from this line to 0C(normal) is not concidered to be abnormal only a trend upwards above normal isManukau heads observer wrote:the article says there is no warming trend
but I can see one easily in the second graph
so I would not put much faith in the people behind the article myself
and if so its only about .25 of a deg.Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 07:03
but the data from the first half of the graph is from stations at different locations, which were warmer, and so needs adjusting
see the posts above
in any case, the last part of the graph shows a period of warm that is above anything prior
that was not mentioned in the article now was it
see the posts above
in any case, the last part of the graph shows a period of warm that is above anything prior
that was not mentioned in the article now was it
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 07:06
The term 'normal' (represented as '0') is based on the average from 1971 to 2000 (not the average over the entire length of measurements). NIWA's graph shows a relatively steady trend since 'reliable records' began from around 1910, i.e. it was around this time that international standards for recording measurements were adopted with the introduction of Stevenson Screens etc.melja wrote:The warming line should be from the 0( normal line) should it not? not the bottom of a cool period as warming from this line to 0C(normal) is not concidered to be abnormal only a trend upwards above normal is
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 07:15
I think the essence of the CSC media release is that the two charts look different. The chart that follows adjustments shows a much bolder warming trend. They are also questioning the validity of some of the adjustments but I also note that the details of the adjustments Jim Salinger/NIWA made are not yet in the public domain, so looks like some guess work on the part of CSC.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 07:22
yes, if you take away the unreliable early data, then the graphs look the same, show the same warming trend
if we go through another upward warming trend in the next 5 years, and beat the previous warmest year in 1998 or so, then what will the sceptics say then, maybe we should reduce emessions and increase efficiencies of energy use, and clean up pollution for future generations....but in the mean time 5 years of progress on that could have been wasted
even if global warming is not going to be as bad as predicted, improving the environment we live in has to be a good thing
if we go through another upward warming trend in the next 5 years, and beat the previous warmest year in 1998 or so, then what will the sceptics say then, maybe we should reduce emessions and increase efficiencies of energy use, and clean up pollution for future generations....but in the mean time 5 years of progress on that could have been wasted
even if global warming is not going to be as bad as predicted, improving the environment we live in has to be a good thing
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 08:15
The CSC was given all the relevant information long ago. I am taking the liberty of pasting these comments regarding NIWA's latest remarks from another website, as it is important that the lies and obfuscations by the CSC should not be minimised in their breathless arrogance. Note particularly: best fit +1.0C 1931-2008.
"The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), accused last week of fiddling the long term New Zealand temperature record to create spurious warming, has released information showing that the attack mounted by the NZ Climate “Science†Coalition and Climate Conversation Group has no merit.
The NIWA announcement shows that the warming trend in the long term record is also found when weather stations with long term records that require no corrections are used. From the release:
Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week.
I’ll have more detail on that series when it’s made available. So the warming in the record is robust, found in sites all round New Zealand, and doesn’t depend on mysterious adjustments. But the Treadgold/CSC report also made claims about data being hidden:
Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.
That’s an outright lie, as the NIWA release shows.
For more than two years, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition members have known of the need to adjust the “seven station†data. They have had access to:
the raw data
the adjusted data (anomalies)
information needed to identify the adjustments made by Dr Salinger
information needed to develop their own adjustments.
The NIWA release cites emails to CSC members Vincent Grey and Warwick Hughes in July 2006, which provided all the references required to calculate the necessary adjustments themselves. In particular, all the information about the station site changes has been publicly available since 1992 and details of the methodology since 1993!
So where does this leave Treadgold and the CSC? They have published a report, issued press releases and made blog posts that misrepresent the facts, and have shown themselves incapable of conducting good science. They have proven themselves morally and ethically bankrupt, and should — if they had any decency — withdraw and apologise. But I won’t be holding my breath."
I understand Grey is about 86 - perhaps he can claim to have had a Ronald Reagan moment?
"The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), accused last week of fiddling the long term New Zealand temperature record to create spurious warming, has released information showing that the attack mounted by the NZ Climate “Science†Coalition and Climate Conversation Group has no merit.
The NIWA announcement shows that the warming trend in the long term record is also found when weather stations with long term records that require no corrections are used. From the release:
Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week.
I’ll have more detail on that series when it’s made available. So the warming in the record is robust, found in sites all round New Zealand, and doesn’t depend on mysterious adjustments. But the Treadgold/CSC report also made claims about data being hidden:
Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.
That’s an outright lie, as the NIWA release shows.
For more than two years, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition members have known of the need to adjust the “seven station†data. They have had access to:
the raw data
the adjusted data (anomalies)
information needed to identify the adjustments made by Dr Salinger
information needed to develop their own adjustments.
The NIWA release cites emails to CSC members Vincent Grey and Warwick Hughes in July 2006, which provided all the references required to calculate the necessary adjustments themselves. In particular, all the information about the station site changes has been publicly available since 1992 and details of the methodology since 1993!
So where does this leave Treadgold and the CSC? They have published a report, issued press releases and made blog posts that misrepresent the facts, and have shown themselves incapable of conducting good science. They have proven themselves morally and ethically bankrupt, and should — if they had any decency — withdraw and apologise. But I won’t be holding my breath."
I understand Grey is about 86 - perhaps he can claim to have had a Ronald Reagan moment?
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 08:22
How does trading carbon credits improve the enviroment? Who gets the money that we have to pay? How do they spend it to cut down? If so why arnt we just told to cut down on emissions? As we all pay it doesnt encourage anyone who has plenty of cash that wouldnt care to pay therefore defeats the purpous of the whole scheme?
Can anyone answer these questions?
Can anyone answer these questions?
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 08:34
except when it means higher prices - then people get scared and boycott such talkManukau heads observer wrote:even if global warming is not going to be as bad as predicted, improving the environment we live in has to be a good thing
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 08:43
^ Think we might need a separate thread - perhaps in the off-topic section?
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Thu 03/12/2009 11:50
Below are a few more pertinent excerpts from this morns Press Release that RWood referred to.
(The full release is perhaps a little too long to post here, but well worth a read)
(The full release is perhaps a little too long to post here, but well worth a read)
NIWA: NZ temperature rise clear
Thursday, 3 December 2009, 10:03 am
Press Release: NIWA
(a) Coalition told in 2006 of need to take account of site changes
NIWA advised NZ Climate Science Coalition member Dr Vincent Gray of the need to calculate appropriate adjustments to account for significant site changes in an email to him dated 19 July 2006, pointing out problems with graphs he had produced without any such adjustments. We advised him that over the period covered by his analysis the Hokitika site moved from the town centre, to the edge of town, then the airport. We also advised him there had been several site changes in Auckland and Dunedin, and told him about the 120 metre change in the height of the Wellington measurements...
(b) Methodology for adjusting data publicly available
The methodology for adjusting for site changes in the NZ temperature record was published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Climatology in 1993. NIWA referred Dr Vincent Gray of the NZ Climate Science Coalition to this paper on 19 July 2006.
(c) Unadjusted (raw) data publicly available
NIWA’s unadjusted climate data is available to anyone at no charge, through web access to the NIWA climate database. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
(d) Adjusted series provided in 2006
NIWA provided Dr Salinger’s adjusted temperature series (anomalies compared with 1961–1990 averages) for each of the seven stations, to NZ Climate Science Coalition member Warwick Hughes on 19 July 2006. Information about changes to the seven station sites is documented in a publicly-available report published by the NZ Meteorological Service in 1992, and much of this information is also available from the metadata in the climate database.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Tue 08/12/2009 18:34
I really think that if we use the old grey matter and look past all the figures to see what it's all about, the better for us all.
As is said, follow the money trail, it's all to create another method of tax to rape us all of our hard earned cash.
Man made global warming my a.. these people are just telling the lies to keep the government funding rolling in and keep them in the job of misleading us all.
I would be quite at ease in buying a property close to the sea.
To show how desperate the yanks are they have now made Carbon Dioxide a harm to mankind, I'm rolling around laughing at it all.
I'm sure these people have been drinking water that has flouride in it, what a joke.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
As is said, follow the money trail, it's all to create another method of tax to rape us all of our hard earned cash.
Man made global warming my a.. these people are just telling the lies to keep the government funding rolling in and keep them in the job of misleading us all.
I would be quite at ease in buying a property close to the sea.
To show how desperate the yanks are they have now made Carbon Dioxide a harm to mankind, I'm rolling around laughing at it all.
I'm sure these people have been drinking water that has flouride in it, what a joke.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Tue 08/12/2009 18:54
Actually Carbon Dioxide is harmful.
When you exhale it's not so much to get in more oxygen, it's much more to get rid of the carbon dioxide.
Your exhaled breath still contains lots of oxygen.
When you exhale it's not so much to get in more oxygen, it's much more to get rid of the carbon dioxide.
Your exhaled breath still contains lots of oxygen.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Tue 08/12/2009 19:29
of course every plant needs the carbon dioxide and they convert it back to oxygen.Actually Carbon Dioxide is harmful.
Re: Naughty NIWA?
Posted: Tue 08/12/2009 19:45
actually better for us all if we increase energy efficiencies and reduce emissionsI really think that if we use the old grey matter and look past all the figures to see what it's all about, the better for us all.
does not take much grey matter to work that out
instead of putting you head in the sand and say its not my problem