Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Red tops move in on the act | Main | Penn State inquiry reports »
Tuesday
Feb022010

NZ climatologists lose their calculations

In a horrifying echo of CRU's loss of its temperature data, climatologists in New Zealand seem to have lost the calculations they use to adjust their temperature data.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

The killer point here is that the raw data has no trend, while the adjusted data shows warming. Funny that.

(H/T Tom Fuller)

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (13)

So what exactly is real anymore? This is all weird science. And of course, this is barely reported in the US. If it wasn't for blogs like this one and searchable news, this would go by the wayside.

And to think that so many governments/people have been conned. It's extraordinary.

Feb 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Yes, but youse blokes are in the Northern Hemisphere and don't really know what's going on down here in the Antipodes. So stop being picky. At least we'll have the only humans alive on the planet in 2050.

All three of us

Feb 2, 2010 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

Unfortunately this page updates as he does the next day's cartoons. Click through to the IPCC Intergenerational Report on Climate Change or try again

Feb 2, 2010 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

The NZ warming trend is entirely, and I mean 100%, made up from the adjustments. The adjustments are the actual signal, the raw flat temperature record only the carrier.
NIWA claims that adjustments were made according to published methodology - but even if the individual did indeed use it, which no one can actually know now, that methodology admits that at times, adjustments have to be made rather arbitrarily or estimated - i.e. it is not reproducible.
In other words - they have lost the actual data, but insist sata should be believed on their assurance. This is insane. If this is acceptable in NZ, then the public can't believe any figures published by the that government.

The director should be fired for loosing the data and hiding the fact from the government and skeptics for years.
The unit should reproduce the graph from the known raw data and the published methodologies. - If it' all so standard, then should be easy.

Feb 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Cejnar

Repeat after me:

Science without the data is robust...

Feb 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarlo

The Chinese have it right -- chop off the heads of a few chickens to keep the monkeys worried. I think we have a number of sacrificial chickens lined up. These guys should be someplace behind Jones et al. and Mann et al., but in the line up at the abattoir.

The monkeys, of course, are our elected politicians.

Feb 2, 2010 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

With the precedence and policy set by our leaders, I suggest that we then water board the monkeys to find out who their masters are.) I for one am sick of all these lies and half truths; told to us by those we have elected. It is interesting how it is the China stations that are missing and moved now... this Climategate thing is revealing to us all that there is much more that has yet to come out around the world. We all need to keep this moving into the light. We have been kept in the dark for way too long. Pray to God, that the truth will out.

Feb 2, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom

As Michael Cejnar said the director should be fired. I guess he didn't know this at the time of his posting but the director of NIWA at the time the changes were made was fired earlier this year for repeatedly violating NIWA policies:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/niwa-welcomes-jim-salinger-employment-decision

Now to some that name should ring familiar since it appears in the Climategate Emails, but that is only part of the story. Dr. Salinger prior to accepting the job with NIWA worked for:

Wait for it

Wait for it

The CRU

But it gets better, he not only worked for the CRU but he worked for them in the 1980's when CRU supposedly 'lost' their 'raw' data in a building move. Coincidence?

Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data. It’s published on NIWA’s website and in their climate-related publications.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet/

Amazing how data and records go missing around the CRU boys no matter where they are in the world.

Feb 2, 2010 at 8:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterboballab

Bishop,

"The killer point here is that the raw data has no trend, while the adjusted data shows warming. Funny that."

This insinuation of fraud is really beneath you. The 'trend' in the raw data is utterly meaningless - it MUST be adjusted to account for station moves etc. And you've been looking at this stuff long enough to know this.

I also see you are still relying on the NZ 'Climate Science Coalition', which is much like a group of tone-deaf people claiming to be the NZ Music Coalition.

Besides, weren't the august Climate Science Coalition caught making it up the last time they tried to do science by press release? Does anyone credible back their latest spin?

Feb 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank O'Dwyer

Lost? It's at the boittom of of one the fjords, mate.

Feb 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

Surely the NWIA are in a much stronger position than the CRU if they want to recover their credibility?

Unlike the CRU, the NWIA appear to have both the "before" and "after" datasets, all that they are missing are the workings on how they got from the former to the latter.

Happily there are teams of people all around the world used to dealing with this kind of problem every day of their working lives. All the NWIA needs to do is call in a team of forensic accountants to go through whatever information they do actually have and they'll be able to produce a reconciliation. It'll most likely contain items such as "Jan 1927 +0.05deg adj adjustment due to station move reason x" and "Aug 1963 +0.05degC adj reason undocumented" but at least the NWIA would have something to start with.

Sure, they're not climate scientists but that's only part of the attraction ;-)

Alternatively the NWIA could always just start again, ideally employing some kind of "QC / document controller" and perhaps a "filing clerk" to take care of the boring tasks such as "revision control" and "record retention".

The great tragedy of the CRU situation is that despite countless thousands of hours spent by volunteers and others painstakingly collecting records over 150 and more years in all sorts of weather Britain might never know for sure whether / how much warmer it is now and that confidence in temperature records will be permanently destroyed.

Amateur weather observers all over the country must feel betrayed at how their painstaking work has been mishandled.

Feb 3, 2010 at 7:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrianMcL

Sorry - meant to type NIWA apologies

Feb 3, 2010 at 7:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrianMcL

And we are supposed to have warmed by 1.9C over 150 years, due to these "adjustments". Then someone had a look at the raw data and lo and behold, there was no warming at all. We will publish how we got the warming, cried NIWA. They published ONE result from Wellington showing a warming of 1.2 C. The max they could produce. Again there were objections to this adjustment. However for the average to be 1.9 the others should have been a lot more. Then after a couple of months of silence, during which they only reiterated warming was "unequivocal" and "robust", they announce they have lost the data. Shocking and appalling.

Feb 3, 2010 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>