Thursday
26Nov2009
Fiddling in the Antipodes
Nov 26, 2009 Climate New Zealand Climate Science Coalition finds evidence that temperature records in that country have been adjusted to show warming. It never rains, but it pours eh?
Nov 26, 2009 Climate
Reader Comments (37)
I hope that Jeff Id at The Air Vent doesn't mind if I repeat what I said there:-
Moving a measurement station uphill by about 400 feet would make quite a difference in many climates, perhaps especially in a notoriously windy city like Wellington. But once you start “adjusting”, you have to justify the size of every adjustment, including the “zero adjustments” i.e. the ones you didn’t make.
If they won’t show, just say “no!”.
Bishop,
Many thanks for your('s and the other guys working on the files) hard work on the CRU leak.
"Adjustments" seem to be showing up all around
Firehand has a post about fudging of sea level rise and a link to a Torygraph article:
http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-my-my-isnt-this-interesting.html
I sincerely hope that there is sufficeint momentum building up to allow the scientific method to triumph, here at least, over pet theories supported by cherry picked data, manipulation, subterfuge and a compliant or even biased media.
In one field that I am partiularly interested in, pseudo science, propaganda and outright lies appear to have ruled supreme since around 1920, and the majaority of the mainstream media seem to be happy to repeat the myths.
The field: civillian ownership of firearms and its (apparently inverse) correlation with armed and violent crime.
Legal owners of guns are, like you guys, familliar with having “critical theory” used to be-little or dismiss our criticisms and we are painted by the MSM as “illiterate”, “racist”, “bitter”, “industry funded”, “mentally deficient and therefore susceptible to right wing conspiacy theories” …insult de jour…
Researchers such as Prof John R Lott, are dismissed as "right wing" and therefore their work is apparently meaningless (regardless that he began his researches from an anti gun viewpoint, and found that the evidence was actually strongly the other way).
Others such as Gary Kleck, whom I gather holds liberal to left of centre personal views and was apparently a card carrying ACLU member - are conveniently ignored.
in the run up to the 1997 British general election, the magazine "Guns Review" disappeared from the newsagents, the rumor (which I can't find proof of googling it today) was that the publisher had been bought out by Michael Heseltine's Haymarket Group, to silence its' criticism of the Tory Party.
I don't want to distract anyone from working on the CRU files, but for anyone who is interested in a look at the myths peddled to support gun control, there is a very good paper by Gary Mauser & Don Kates titled "Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?"
It is about third down Mauser's papers page: http://www.garymauser.net/papers.html
John R lott has a conrovesial and amusing Blog, and Alphecca.com still covers media bias of firearms coverage.
Keith
In all the excitement of the past few days, I'd forgotten, I found your site through a link posted by John Lott!
Keith
Hi Bishop,
Just been looking at this and then a "defence" of the NZ - NIWA on the alarmist site Hot Topic.
Sadly everyone has got the stats wrong (including the NIWA). They take the daily averages of TMax and TMin to get a daily average. Then they average these again to get an annual average. Then they average again to get a "normal" temp.
So this is an average of an average of an average. Sorry no-can-stats-do. Do this in my class and you will have to sit at the front and clean the blackboards every day for ever.
Your Grace,
That there are adjustments is not, of itself, an issue. TOBS (Time of Observation), site moves, equipment changes, even the simple fact that the screen containing the thermometer has been repainted can make a massive difference in the raw record. The example of Wellington being moved from coast inland and uphill is given and is valid.... so far as it goes.
The problem is HOW have the adjustments been made and can they be supported. This is not at all clear. In particular, the various, differing, attempts to correct for encroachment/Urban Heat Island effects are wobbly to say the least.
This is where the metadata and documentation of all such adjustments are so vital. SMcI did a whole stack of stuff on precisely these sites when he was trying to piece together the number - and qualtiy - of sites that go into the global surface temp records. Was perhaps a year ago but can't get access to CA as server is swamped. One for the blogswarm to look up perhaps.
Do we know why the raw NZ data has suddenly appeared/why there is such a fuss about this now? I thought the raw data and size of adjustments was known about for some time? Is there anything new here?
TPG,
No. The "adjustments" are of the same order of magnitude as the "trends". This makes the whole cooked output invalid for trending.
Theres an article linked on Drudge that claims that this story is a fraud. Its a piece by Tim Lambert on his Deltoid blog: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink
Claims the CSC is lying, and treating all stations as if they are one... He seems to be a dedicated warmist...
P-G
"The problem is HOW have the adjustments been made and can they be supported. This is not at all clear."
But what is abundantly clear is that the 'Climate Science Coalition' blatantly lied when they stated that the reasons for the adjustments were not provided. This is so regardless of whether you think the adjustments are correct.
It is also abundantly clear that there is no support for the claim of 'fiddling' here, nor that the readings were adjusted 'to show warming', rather than adjusted to correct for station moves, i.e. the actual reasons given, and something that you clearly have to do if you want to estimate the real trend.
I still hope for the day when the combined might of the 'skeptics' picks up on one of these little 'mistakes' from their side of the aisle. There is surely no shortage of them. Maybe they'll get around to correcting them one day.
(Perhaps they will do it after they post their own private emails in the interests of 'transparency' )
Frank,
Despite what you may have read elsewhere, and despite what Dr Wratt publicly asserted yesterday in his media release, the NZ Climate Science Coalition has never received data from NIWA on the adjustments to NZ temperature readings. That is what we seek. You are correct in stating that NIWA have given reasons for adjustments, but they have simply refused to hand over the actual data. Therefore it is impossible to examine or to validate their work. This is not as science should be performed. Please see today's media release, below.
Have you read the paper? You will not find in it the word "fiddle" in any form. Though we allege adjustments have been made, that is only a statement of the obvious, which NIWA have themselves confirmed.
We use vigorous language, yet we don't make a single uncorroborated statement. Saying that readings were adjusted "to show warming" simply acknowledges that warming appears only after the adjustments are made. It does not speak to the motives of the adjuster.
In the statement copied below (and I apologise for its length, but I didn't know what to snip) I draw your attention to the penultimate paragraph, which directly addresses your criticism.
Some observers might note that it has taken a political earthquake, in the form of a Minister's question in Parliament, to begin to prise this information out of NIWA, after years of simply ignoring valid requests from respected scientists. They still have not handed it over, but we are starting to imagine considering entertaining the possibility of optimism.
I hope this might substitute some light for the great heat being generated.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
Richard,
"You are correct in stating that NIWA have given reasons for adjustments"
And your paper is incorrect where it states they have not.
"Have you read the paper? You will not find in it the word "fiddle" in any form"
I have.
Have you read the title of the post to which you are responding?
"Saying that readings were adjusted "to show warming" simply acknowledges that warming appears only after the adjustments are made. It does not speak to the motives of the adjuster."
Oh I see - so it's all a horrible misunderstanding? You see, it would appear that a lot of people including His Grace here have read (about) the paper and, for some reason, have come to the conclusion that you are making an accusation of scientific fraud. I cannot imagine why.
I am sure you will rush to issue a correction and an apology to the scientists concerned. Otherwise people may think you meant to give the impression that you clearly did give.
Frank,
It is also abundantly clear that there is no support for the claim of 'fiddling' here, nor that the readings were adjusted 'to show warming', rather than adjusted to correct for station moves, i.e. the actual reasons given, and something that you clearly have to do if you want to estimate the real trend.
I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.
For clarity - I am agree with you that:
- the main post is not helpful:
- that there are perfectly valid reasons to make adjustments in general
- that some/many of those perfectly valid reasons apply in some/many cases in the NZ data
- that the CSC is being disingenuous in its approach to this
- that the motive for applying adjustments is not necessarily to introduce warming.
But where we disagree is as follows:
- the metadata for these stations is not readily available - SMcI has been after it for ages.
- any such adjustments applied as a result of metadata need to be rigorously documented and heavily justified and, I would submit, it is incumbent upon those producing the temperature series of record either to do that or to allow others to do so in an open and transparent manner.
- whilst it may not be a premeditated intention to apply bias to introduce warming, there is a LOT to worry about in terms of confirmation bias kicking about here both in adjustments and in the station selection itself.
- If the warming trend is - as is undeniably the case here - almost exactly equal to the sum of the adjustments, then any error in estimating the size of the adjustments directly impacts the trend. The trend is the adjustments, yet the empirical science to justify the adjustment say for a change of TOBS is woefully lacking and this sort of problem is rife.
Does that help?
Frank,
Not quite sure why you are arguing with Richard? Is not the issue here the fact that NIWA hasnt released their data to show how they arrived at their conclusion?
Untiil NIWA fronts up and provides their data, the accusation of fraud will remain...simply because their findings cannot be verified. I would have thought that even you would understand that?
Mailman
P-G,
Thanks for the response.
"- the metadata for these stations is not readily available - SMcI has been after it for ages."
What metadata do you need beyond the station histories? Which must be available as the CSC claim that there is nothing in them to justify any adjustments (a claim that is blatantly false).
"it is incumbent upon those producing the temperature series of record either to do that or to allow others to do so in an open and transparent manner."
What's stopping anyone from taking the raw data and making their own series with appropriate adjustments (which we can all agree are necessary to account for station moves etc - the disagreement is presumably over what size the adjustments should be). Anyone who claims to be competent to replicate/criticise the results should be able to do this. They don't need NIWA's help.
But they don't do this, I wonder why. Or maybe they have and they just don't publish the results because I suspect that any reasonable method results in pretty much the same answer: warming.
"If the warming trend is - as is undeniably the case here - almost exactly equal to the sum of the adjustments, then any error in estimating the size of the adjustments directly impacts the trend. The trend is the adjustments, "
In the case of station moves it would be easy to check this assertion by looking at the trends before and/or after the move, separately. For example in the case of Wellington if the trend is present in the latter half of the data, as I expect it is, then it cannot be an artifact of the adjustments.
I suspect that any reasonable method results in pretty much the same answer: warming. - Frank O'Dwyer
Frank,
Does this mean that any method that does not give warming is therefore unreasonable?
Tony,
Why don't you try some reasonable methods and see what they tell you? Too simple?
Not an answer to my question, Frank.
Would you care to try again?
Frank,
"But what is abundantly clear is that the 'Climate Science Coalition' blatantly lied when they stated that the reasons for the adjustments were not provided. This is so regardless of whether you think the adjustments are correct."
What we say in the study is true. NIWA stated one reason for a single station (Wellington) but they have not given reasons for any of the other six stations, nor have they disclosed the ACTUAL adjustments for any station. That is what we ask for, plus we wish to know what gives them confidence that just these seven temperature stations are properly representative of the whole country.
Surely, attempts to ascertain the correctness of the adjustments will fail while they remain undisclosed?
Please remember that NIWA have been asked numerous times for this data over many years by properly-qualified scientists working in the field and they have always refused. We hope that is about to change.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
Richard,
"What we say in the study is true. "
No it is not. This is what you wrote:
What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.
Since the histories show station moves that statement is proven false.
Furthermore despite your claims not to know the reasons for the adjustments you claim they are 'disgraceful'.
You should be correcting your study and apologising to the scientists you have smeared, instead you are here defending it and pretending it is true. Why?
By the way Richard, please send me the data and tools you used so I can replicate YOUR results.
frankodwyer AT netscape dot net
Many thanks.
Frank,
I'm afraid Tony is right. It is not enough to create your own temperature series: if it differs - no matter how sound your reasoning - from the one created by NIWA, it will be dismissed by the gatekeepers (and we now know that, yes, the alarmists do indeed have a stranglehold on what is or will be considered to be acceptable science) as wrong.
The approach that SMcI and others use is the correct one: you - NIWA/GISS,CRU whoever - hold yourself up to be the record of source. Fine - release the data and let the rest of us:
- reconstruct your work so we can verify that your data and your methods do generate your results. If they don't, we can dismiss your results because you haven't demonstrated that your method actually does what you purport it does. Replication is essential and is currently denied.
- Once you have replication, and only once you have replication, can you then pick apart either the method or the selection of stations to demonstrate why it is weak.
- ONLY once you have the replication AND the demonstration that the method was wrong (and why) can you then move on to correct the method and get a BETTER reconstruction. Until you have done this, you merely have COMPETING reconstructions, not better.
With the warmist strangehold on both what is considered acceptable/publishable science AND the political landscape, it is fanciful to suggest that a totally separate reconstruction can get airtime, especially if that separate reconstruction shows a less alarming picture, because it will then "not fit with the overwhelming consensus (tm)"
Do you agree with this diagnosis of the issue?