CEO can’t produce a single scientific reference
NIWA methodology unrecognised, never published
Regular readers appreciate that one of this blog’s principal concerns is NIWA’s failure to disclose the methods it has used to adjust the raw readings behind the national temperature record—the so-called 7SS or “seven-station” series.
NIWA has persistently claimed that its adjustment methods are recognised internationally, but failed at the High Court hearing in July last year to supply evidence of international approval; the court heard only assertions from NIWA itself, which, though empty, seemed oddly to convince Mr Justice Venning of their legitimacy. Now those mendacious claims are catching up with NIWA’s CEO, John Morgan—but I get ahead of myself.
First, for the serially dishonest critics of our persistence on this topic, let me explain (yet again) that we have never disagreed with the occasional need for adjustments, we merely wish to know how NIWA makes them. After all these years, after questions in the Parliament, a court case and an aborted appeal, newspaper and blog articles, radio reports and private emails, NIWA scientists have still not told us how they make the adjustments.
Why are we concerned? Two reasons: 1) scientific convention everywhere expects full publication of one’s experiments, methods and data to allow replication by anyone interested, so finding out what was done is usually a mundane request, easily answered because there’s no reason for secrecy. 2) NIWA’s secret methodology grossly overstates the country’s warming as 0.91°C per century—using data from seven long-term weather stations, it increased every one of them—an incredible failure of chance alone.
Whopping temperature rise
According to the Coalition’s 2011 audit of NIWA’s 2010 review of the national temperature record, raw readings taken directly from the thermometers over 100 years show an insignificant rising trend of 0.23°C per century. Adjustments according to Rhoades and Salinger (1993) (RS93) produce a trend of 0.34°C per century. However, NIWA’s adjustments overstate that trend by 168%, declaring that average NZ temperatures have risen a whopping 0.91°C per century.
NIWA claims its methodology is internationally approved but has never described it or released any details. We find this behaviour inappropriate for a scientific organisation, even if it weren’t funded by public money, as NIWA, of course, is.
NIWA has bluntly refused requests from the Coalition’s scientists for data and methods since the 1990s without offering reasons. They had the gall to claim they had given us what we asked for (why were we asking again?), so we asked for the emails they referred to; they refused; we found them ourselves and debunked their lies.
Then they gave us false citations. For example, NIWA claimed their method was fully described in Salinger’s 1981 student thesis. Follow that, you idle ones, they cried, you’ll have all you need to work out the adjustments for yourself. We discovered the thesis was unpublished, though a single hand-bound copy was locked in the “Closed Reserve Collection” of the VUW library in Wellington, available for six hours per week day and not to be borrowed. When, after many weeks, through contacts unavailable to ordinary citizens, we gained academic access to it and studied it over yet more weeks we found it described no method, it is internally inconsistent and chops and changes on a whim.
Mendacious diversion
It’s impossible to know what the thesis means. The whole exercise was a mendacious diversion of no substance. Unpublished, the thesis is not even scientific literature — yet NIWA claims it’s internationally accepted! That is incredible.
Until we know their calculations our scientists cannot judge the results — good or bad, right or wrong — nobody can, can they? Given NIWA’s history of secrecy and obfuscation in their relationship with the Coalition, why should we accept their results without examination?
NIWA’s CEO, John Morgan, is a dapper, charming fellow whom I met during the hearing last year. He was kind enough to let me read his notes when I found his counsel’s voice hard to hear. I recently asked him to justify his October statement in the NZ Herald by sending me a copy of the scientific literature which allegedly approves of NIWA’s measurement technique. His answer has angered me.
“Internationally accepted” but not one citation? Hah!
John Morgan was quoted in the Herald as saying:
Niwa chief executive John Morgan said he was pleased but not surprised by the outcome. “We never doubted the excellence and integrity of our science and our scientists,” he said. “The methodology applied by Niwa was in accordance with internationally recognised … methodology.”
What does “in accordance” mean? Almost, but not quite? Nearly there? Means well? Honest intentions? Anything but accurate?
Give us a citation! Tell us precisely, please, who “recognises” the scientists’ methodology and where they are.
So what was his reply to me? Here it is in full:
In making my statement I was referencing the judgment of Justice Venning in his 2012 High Court decision where he said in relation to the Review:
“the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology [para 182].”
The judgment is available here: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/2297.html
As you are aware, Justice Venning considered evidence from a number of experts in climate science in reaching his decision that the Review was in accordance with recognised scientific opinion.
As these matters have now all been thoroughly canvassed before the Court and are matters of expert scientific opinion, they are not the correct subject matter for further requests under the Official Information Act. Your request for further scientific literature or documents may be better directed to those international scientific sources or authorities which you believe may support your views.
In checking Venning J’s judgment I found he did say the words John cites and it was in paragraph 182.
On the evidence? What evidence?
Now, gentle reader, please note the whole sentence:
“On the evidence I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology”
— emphasis added.
So what was the evidence that so satisfied this judge? It turns out to be mere assertions by our publicly-owned science organisation. No evidence was offered for the use or approval of either Salinger’s thesis or RS93, no evidence described NIWA’s methods; nor, perhaps most surprisingly (considering the implications for Morgan’s “reference”), did the judge evaluate any scientific statements or assertions. Why ever not? He explains it clearly several times (still, John missed them all). For example, in the following statements [referenced by paragraph number], he first acknowledges NIWA’s refusal to abide by scientific methods:
[44] “NIWA does not accept there is any such obligation [to follow] recognised scientific opinion [as in] established scientific opinions and methods described in internationally recognised research journals.”
Odd, really, for scientists to so emphatically disavow aspirations to good quality work, but it surely shows where their heart lies. Then the judge denies his own evaluation of scientific statements, specifying instead that he accepts statements given in evidence and does not adjudicate on mutually opposed assertions:
[44] “…the Court is not in a position to definitively adjudicate on scientific opinions.”
Note the importance of this and similar declarative comments in the context of Mr Morgan’s claim that the judge corroborates NIWA’s scientific methodology. It’s a ridiculous claim, renounced by the judge in the very document Morgan cites. Try again, John, we’re waiting.
The judge sets out the conservative case for staying with the status quo (and it’s a sensible argument):
[45] “I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise. In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate.”
[48] “I consider that unless the Trust can point to some defect in NIWA’s decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law, this Court will not intervene. This Court should not seek to determine or resolve scientific questions demanding the evaluation of contentious expert opinion.”
That’s clear enough; do you understand, Mr Morgan, that even if you thought he might have confirmed it, the judge tells us plainly that he could not, did not and never would confirm the international recognition of your scientists’ methodology. He simply reiterated what you yourself told him. The reference is defective by reason of being circular and you cannot use it. Kindly provide a proper reference. Your scientists claim international recognition for their methods; make them tell you where it’s recognised, because they are refusing to tell us and covering their refusal with obfuscation—or are you conniving with them on that?
[57] “Dr Salinger published sections of his thesis results in a number of international journals.”
Not the whole paper, if you can see the difference. So the thesis remains unpublished, unrecognised and unscientific. NIWA must ensure their scientists do not cite it again.
[78] “…the Trust contends that, rather than apply the best recognised scientific opinion to produce the 7SS, NIWA applied the thesis. NIWA’s position however, is that the methodology relied on to produce the 7SS was in fact derived from the same methodology found in RS93. There is a stark conflict between the parties on this point. It is essentially a factual dispute which does not require the Court to decide which of two tenable scientific opinions should be preferred.”
This clear statement negates Mr Morgan’s assertion that the judge validated Morgan’s empty claim of international recognition. He should acknowledge this error and provide a proper reference to the international acknowledgement he claims, if one exists.
This scandal probably stems from the scientists rather than Morgan or his administration (for what would they understand of the science?). In the High Court hearing, Dr Wratt was unable to point to any authority or precedent anywhere for NIWA’s (1981 thesis) method of calculating the adjustments; in the recent appeal they alleged that the only precedent was RS93. Now, Mr Morgan says publicly (and outside a courtroom, making it fair game for challenge) that the 1981 thesis method is internationally recognised. Unfortunately for him, he fails utterly when I ask for a reference.
He cannot dredge up a single example of anybody, anywhere, using NIWA’s long-superseded 1981 technique. He took two working days longer than permitted on an OIA request to come up empty-handed.
Mr Morgan has failed; he needs to apologise and make amends.
The CCG letter to NIWA
22 Oct 2013
Dear John,
You may remember that we met during the High Court hearing. I certainly remember how cordial you were to this “opponent” and appreciate your kindness in letting me follow your notes when your counsel’s voice was indistinct. As you probably know, I blog on matters of interest to those who follow climate science in New Zealand.
In a report in the NZ Herald dated 16 October 2013, you are quoted as saying that “The methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised … methodology.” My readers understand that the broad ‘neighbour comparison’ method described in NIWA’s ‘Review’ of the Seven-station Series (7SS) is commonplace, but many contend that the statistical measurement techniques used in the Review document are unique to NIWA staff. It is clear that your staff do not follow Rhoades & Salinger, but nobody seems to know what they do follow.
Could you please let me have a copy of the scientific literature or any other international document which approves of the measurement technique used by NIWA in the Review? Any document you relied upon for your statement to the Herald would be relevant. If the technique is described on the internet, a reference to a specific URL would be acceptable.
This request is made under the Official Information Act. As this matter is of current interest, I should be pleased if you could regard this request as being urgent.
Regards,
Richard Treadgold
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group
Member of NZ Climate Science Coalition
Morgan’s reply to the CCG
21 Nov 2013
Dear Mr Treadgold
I write in response to your email dated 22 October 2013 where you requested under the Official Information Act:
In a report in the NZ Herald dated 16 October 2013, you are quoted as saying that “The methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised … methodology.” …
In making my statement I was referencing the judgment of Justice Venning in his 2012 High Court decision where he said in relation to the Review:
“the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology [para 182].”
The judgment is available here: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/2297.html
As you are aware, Justice Venning considered evidence from a number of experts in climate science in reaching his decision that the Review was in accordance with recognised scientific opinion.
As these matters have now all been thoroughly canvassed before the Court and are matters of expert scientific opinion, they are not the correct subject matter for further requests under the Official Information Act. Your request for further scientific literature or documents may be better directed to those international scientific sources or authorities which you believe may support your views.
Regards
John Morgan
I acknowledged
Thank you for your response to my request for verification of your statement on NIWA’s methodology.
Comparing Morgan’s response with this restatement of my original request reveals the total inadequacy of his answer.
Desperate last gasp
As these matters have now all been thoroughly canvassed before the Court and are matters of expert scientific opinion, they are not the correct subject matter for further requests under the Official Information Act.
A transparent attempt to shut me up which fails because he didn’t answer the question.
Snide last word
Your request for further scientific literature or documents may be better directed to those international scientific sources or authorities which you believe may support your views.
A contemptuous comment that ignores both the logic of our request for a reference and his blatant refusal to provide one.
NIWA is for the most part an admirable and honourable organisation, but in this meaningless, prolonged spat over the national temperature adjustments the climate division lets the team down. The dereliction of duty now extends, I’m sad to say, as high as its Chief Executive Officer.
It’s more than time that he brought these friendly, personable, yet oh-so-unruly scientists to account.
Views: 359
The “coalition’s” best course is probably to set up a private climate authority which competes with NIWA and issues its own set of published weather data which can then be held out as a counterpoint to NIWA’s data. David vs Goliath, and an unfunded David too — not the easiest option. Alternatively, we all can wait for Goliath’s feet of clay to crumble, I suppose.
NIWA is perfectly good at collecting data and there’s no need to compete with them. They would perform the necessary adjustments quite adequately, too, but their work should be open for independent supervision. Simple enough. I laugh when I hear NIWA scientists implying that I or the Coalition have a preferred result in mind. We want the data to show no warming, or something. It’s hilarious. They imagine we’ve got some kind of prejudice against warming, but it’s not like that at all.
When they hide what they’ve been up to they invite suspicion, and when we challenged them they panicked. Pointed us in the wrong direction, misled Parliament and their Minister, the whole nine yards. Meanwhile, we’ve published our results for anyone to see: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf.
In truth, the only result we’re want is a proper one, with data collection and adjustment under control and according to well-accepted methods. But how can we judge those things in NIWA’s work unless they tell us what they’ve done?
. I laugh when I hear NIWA scientists implying that I or the Coalition have a preferred result in mind
This is somewhat ironic since the entire “science” of AGW has a preferred result in mind., as predetermined by the IPCC when it was formed, according to its charter.
Brilliant detective work, Richard. Where does this leave Justice Venning’s pronouncements re NIWA’s methodology – can this be revisited and re-examined ?
Thanks, Alexander. I don’t know how to answer your question. The appeal was intended to revisit some of Venning’s decisions but it struck a serious procedural hitch. We couldn’t continue because certain witnesses were not cross-examined during the hearing. We didn’t cross-examine them because we were unaware that we were allowed to. I’m not a lawyer and I haven’t followed the arguments. But I know our legal team were gutted when they realised they had to withdraw.
You can see from this post there are some flaws in Venning’s judgment, and there are others too; whether they are repairable I have no idea.
[Venning] “I consider that unless the Trust can point to some defect in NIWA’s decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle…..”
[What Venning could have added] “You do of course point to your Statistical Audit showing exactly that but I’ve dismissed it out-of-hand.”
[Morgan] “Your request for further scientific literature or documents may be better directed to those international scientific sources or authorities which you believe may support your views.”
Well yes Mr Morgan, but that would be Rhoades and Salinger (1993) wouldn’t it?
Nice!
Classic bureaucratic weaselling,the truth is emerging as you keep prodding.
What does come across, very clearly, is the CEO is either dishonest or has been deceived.
So it’s the classic catch 22.
The first rule of our elected and appointed royalty, otherwise known as the Kleptocracy, is protect your own.
This mans wilful? failure to understand your request for information, clearly shows CYA kicking in to high gear.
The NIWA’s problem is the classic, Oh what a tangled web we weave…
How do they escape, stonewall till retirement being the usual option.
NIWA published on its website a lengthy “Review” document explaining how they did the adjustments. The broad methodology of neighbour comparisons is pretty standard, but the actual statistical measurement of the before-and-after temperature differences between neighbouring stations has a mysterious quality.
The mystery is that the technique looks as if it is exactly the same as Salinger used in his 1981 thesis. But everybody knows that technique is obsolete. So how could it be described as “internationally accepted methodology”?
Why can’t NIWA’s CEO say “we used the technique described in X paper published in Y journal … or discussed at Z conference”?
Presumably, because the NIWA technique has never been described in any scientific publication, at any time or anywhere.
I’ve asked this of myself before several times and a couple of times out loud here at CCG but no answer either way because haven’t followed it up myself and no-one else has answered (not that I remember anyway): what NZ data goes to CRU?
I’ll add now (assuming, like BEST, the NZ data in CRUTEMP can be accessed separately by anyone other than CRU – or even that they can):
1) What is the difference (if any) between the NZ data (raw or whatever) CRU receives and the NZ data in CRUTEMP?
2) How does the NZ data differ from the 7SS in terms of values and trends
It wont be NIWA’s homogenized 7SS data (CRU gets NZ data prior to 1909 and more than 7 stations surely), neither does AU’s homogenized BOM HQ or ACORN-SAT go to CRU, hence HARRY_READ_ME-32 (using divisions from
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html):
Does/did CRU get all or some of CliFlo which is in “RAW” form i.e. no homogenization whatsoever?
If CRU gets CliFlo “raw”, what stations are selected, what adjustments occur, and what methodology is used?
Seems to me any CRU homogenization adjustments (if any) CANNOT be by NIWA’s criteria because there’s no citable basis for that.
But if CRU gets “raw” CliFlo and leaves it that way, where does that leave NIWA’s 7SS because the the “raw” 7SS trend is only 0.24 C/century or something.
Or is the NZ data “processed by NIWA before CRU gets it? This seems improbable because Harry is working with WMO IDs for stations. These are the equivalent to raw CliFlo data as I understand.
Answering (i think) some of what I’m asking, and gaining some understanding of the process (I’m wrong re ACORN but right about pre-1909):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Release Notes for version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 state that :
“Additions to the CRUTEM4 archive in version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0
The changes listed below refer mainly to additions of mostly national collections of digitized and/or homogenized monthly station series. Several national meteorological agencies now produce/maintain significant subsets of climate series that are homogenized for the purposes of climate studies. In addition, data-rescue types of activities continue and this frequently involves the digitization of paper records which then become publicly available.
The principal subsets of station series processed and merged with CRUTEM (chronological order) are:
Norwegian – homogenized series
Australian (ACORN) – homogenized subset
Brazilian – non-homogenized
Australian remote islands – homogenized
Antarctic (greater) – some QC and infilling
St. Helena – some homogenization adjustment
Bolivian subset – non-homogenized
Southeast Asian Climate Assessment (SACA) – infilling /some new additions
German/Polish – a number of German and a few Polish series – non-homogenized
Ugandan – non-homogenized
USA (USHCNv2.5) – homogenized
Canada – homogenized
Via WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/met-office-hadley-centre-and-climatic-research-unit-hadcrut4-and-crutem4-temperature-data-sets-adjustedcorrectedupdated-can-you-guess-the-impact/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No mention of New Zealand non-homogenized or homogenized (NZ not a principal subset?), or 7SS or CliFlo. And Australia/New Zealand combined (no mention of NZ only) goes back to 1855ish, well before the 7SS:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/update_diagnostics/ausnz.gif
How did that happen wrt NZ?
++++++++++++++++++++++
CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 release notes:
Australia
The ACORN-SAT database (holding 112 homogenized daily Tmax and Tmin temperature series) was acquired through Blair Trewin (BoM). The dataset is available for download and a link to this is:
http://datahub.io/dataset/acorn-sat
The start date for the series is 1910 and domestic ID codes are used throughout. This requires a matching exercise with the existing CRUTEM database so that WMO/pseudo-WMO identifiers are in use after initial processing to obtain Tmean series for subsequent merger (using blanket overwrite) with CRUTEM. Five new series were added. It should be noted that the merger with existing CRUTEM holdings does not remove any pre-ACORN subsets already present.
Where pre-ACORN subsets are present after merger, it is necessary to check for any obvious homogeneity issues in the post-merger series. Following the checking exercise, two options are available to address homogeneity issues. One option is the application of ‘adjacent’ ACORN monthly adjustments to pre-ACORN subsets. The other option is to adjust the first-reliable-year (FRY) header flags so that any data before the FRY are not used in CRUTEM analyses. 22 of the post-merger series had adjustments applied to the pre-ACORN subset and 17 of the post-merger series retained/acquired FRY flags that are different from their first year of data.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0_release_notes.html
++++++++++++++++++++++
How is CRUTEM4 compiled?
++++++++++++++++++++++
CRUTEM4 dataset
Brief description of the data
The gridded data are based on an archive of monthly mean temperatures provided by more than 5500 weather stations distributed around the world. Each station temperature is converted to an anomaly from the 1961-90 average temperature for that station, and each grid-box value is the mean of all the station anomalies within that grid box. As well as the mean anomaly, estimates are made of the uncertainties arising from thermometer accuracy, homogenisation,…………
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Looks like the details of compilation (relevant to NZ) could be in the CRUTEM3 reference (“more than 4000 weather stations” – 1500 less than CRUTEM4):
P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. (Copyright 2006 AGU) (PDF)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
A read for another day.
>”Looks like the details of compilation (relevant to NZ) could be in the CRUTEM3 reference……..”
Nope, CRUTEM2/3/4 and references for 3/4 are all about “additions” to CRUTEM1, hence no reference to NZ in the CRUTEM4 release notes. From Wiki:
“HadCRUT1 at first combined two sea surface temperature datasets (MOHSST for 1881–1981 and GISST for 1981–1993) with an earlier land surface air temperature dataset from the Climatic Research Unit. The land surface air temperature dataset was replaced in 1995 with the newly published CRUTEM1 dataset”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT#HadCRUT1
Nothing about CRUTEM1 in the HadCRUT1 reference so off to Climate Audit:
‘Jones et al 1985-1991 and CRUTEM1 (1994)’
Jones’ original compilation of station data, funded by the US Department of Energy, was described in three technical reports: Bradley et al 1985 (out of print and not online other than an excerpt here), TR022 (Northern Hemisphere) online here and TR027 Southern Hemisphere (online here),
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/03/dr-phil-confidential-agent-re-visited/
“TR027” is: Jones, P. D., S. C. B. Raper, C. M. Goodess, B. S. G. Cherry, and
T. M. L. Wigley. 1986c. A grid point surface air temperature
data set for the Southern Hemisphere. DOE Technical Report
No. TR027. U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research
Division, Washington, D.C.
I’m unable to retrieve TRO27 from Steve M’s CRU link or anywhere else yet (e.g. Scholar). Maybe should try Web of Science, DOE or something. Anyway Steve M says:
That’s a start but without TR027 I’m not much wiser about the homogenization (or not) of NZ station data and the methodology of such..
Others have gone before:
‘CRUTEM: Replication -v- Reproduction’
Ron Broberg
After my initial work on CRUTEM, I left it behind as I turned to work on GHCN metadata and then GSOD data set. Others, better qualified, turned to working the station anomalization and gridding methodologies. So it was with some surprise I bumped into comment whose author was bemoaning the lack of “replication” of CRUTEM.
This thread is an open invitation to those concerned with the validity of CRUTEM’s methodology to describe what it is they would like to see along the lines of “reproduction.” I am not interested in obtaining Dr Jone’s code. I am interested in what is thought to be required for an independent verification.
References [several]
1985: A grid point surface air temperature data set for the Northern Hemisphere [Hotlink TR027 – Abstract only]
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/crutem-replication-v-reproduction/
‘Grid point surface air temperature data set for the Southern Hemisphere’
Abstract
A compilation of 610 station records of monthly surface air temperature has been assembled for the Southern Hemisphere, north of 62.5/sup 0/S. In order to use these data to construct the first grid point temperature data set for the Southern Hemisphere, the homogeneity of each of the station records has been assessed. Each station has been classed into one of three groups: immediately usable, corrected, or uncorrectable. The results are presented in tabular form. Of the 610 station records, 293 were used to produce a gridded data set on a 5/sup 0/ latitute by 10/sup 0/ longitude grid between 5/sup 0/S and 60/sup 0/S inclusive. Grid point anomalies for 1851 to 1984, with respect to the reference period 1951 to 1970, were interpolated from station data using a simple algorithm. In order to produce a best possible data set, Antarctic data were included after they became available in 1957. 18 refs., 6 figs.
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6042184
Two comments from “carrot eater” in the above thread:
carrot eater
2010 July 9 at 1:24 am | #6
Mosher,
I don’t think the code you imagine entirely exists at CRU. I think they’ve released some utilities, like the gridder. But I don’t think they have a systematic setup like GISS where a single program reads in a small number of text files of data, and automatically does all their processing – adjust, combine, grid. It appears to me that CRU does not apply the same homogenisation technique to every station; some of the homogenisation is done by hand. Or at least, it was, at some point. Some of the homogenisation may be done by the providing country.
carrot eater
2010 July 9 at 6:27 am | #9
Right, and that’s what I’m getting at. The anomalies and gridding, that’s relatively easy, and a quick description is all you need to understand what they did. But that code is there, if you want it.
Homogenisation is another story.
GISS is conceptually easy, to the point of being too simple, though it takes a bit of programming.
NOAA.. I still haven’t worked on Menne 2009. Glancing at it, I bet it’s described well enough to implement for yourself, without peeking.
CRU.. all over the place, I think. The step where “Jones sits down and applies his professional judgment, in regards to a station move” (and I think there is some of that sort of thing in there, if I’m not mistaken) can’t be captured by any computer code. But then for some other station, they might do something like what NOAA did for GHCN v2.0. I don’t know, I’m really not very familiar with them; this is just what I got from looking over Brohan and Jones papers.
# # #
Right, so need to look at the “Brohan and Jones papers” which I think are referenced in the in previous post Ron hotlinks to first sentence above, which is:
‘Reconstructing CRUTEM’
Ron Brohan
Introduction
In December 2009, the Met Office posted code and dataset to reconstruct the Hadley Climate Research Unit global temperature anomaly. The dataset was a subset of the full HadCRUTEMP data. The released dataset was composed of data known to be public by virture of being data from weather stations that were part of the World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) Regional Basic Climatological Network (RBCN).
[…]
References [bottom of post – “Brohan and Jones papers” ?]
Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
Just realized I’ve already looked at the Brohan paper up-thread – sigh!
Desperately need TR027 for this table of results described in the Abstract:
“……the homogeneity of each of the station records has been assessed. Each station has been classed into one of three groups: immediately usable, corrected, or uncorrectable. The results are presented in tabular form. Of the 610 station records, 293 were used to produce a gridded data set…….”
293 stations seems very few to cover the Earth’s landmass even in this first incarnation of CRUTEM (e.g. the new ACORN-SAT is 112 locations). Any NZ stations used (if any) and their status will occur in that table – got to have that table.
Maybe Steve M can help.
Did find this re HadCRUT4:
‘The CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset: construction, previous versions and dissemination via Google Earth’
T. J. Osborn and P. D. Jones
2.2 Homogeneity adjustments
Changes in the location or local environment of a weather station, in the way in which the thermometer is exposed, or in recording practices (such as time of observation, or the way in which daily and monthly averages are calculated) can introduce inhomogeneities into the station timeseries of monthly temperatures. An estimated time series of temperatures that might have been recorded in the absence of such changes can be made by adjusting the mean values of the series prior to each change. For a change in station altitude, the adjustment factor might be estimated using a lapse rate, but for other cases it is estimated by differences from multiple neighbouring series (note that in data sparse regions, neighbours might be separated by several hundred 20 kilometres). This approach was the basis for the extensive homogenisation exercise undertaken by CRU in the 1980s, documented in US DoE TR022 (1985) and US DoE TR027 (1986). Electronic copies of these reports are available on the CRU website
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/publications/crurp).
Since the 1980s, CRU recommended that further homogeneity efforts should be instead undertaken by National Meteorological Sevices (e.g. Jones and Moberg, 2003), and the results of such projects have been incorporated into the CRUTEM station temperature database (Jones et al., 2012). The only homogeneity adjustment made by CRU since those made in the 1980s (recorded as explained above) is a recent adjustment to the St. Helena station (ID 619010) that was incorporated into CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 in May 2013 (see Sect. 3 for an explanation of version numbering). This was a standard lapse-rate adjustment for a known reduction in altitude of 166m that occurred when the station moved in September 1976 (D. Lister, personal communication, 2012); all values prior to 1977 were increased by 1.1 5 C.
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/6/597/2013/essdd-6-597-2013.pdf
CRU Research Publications http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/publications/crurp
USDoE TR022 1985 P. D. Jones et al. PDF
A grid point surface air temperature data set for the Northern Hemisphere
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1301877/USDoE_TR022.pdf/2753d01e-a2a9-496c-b0a7-bd5ef02f4ffd
USDoE TR027 1986 P. D. Jones, S. C. B. Raper, C. M. Goodess, B. S. G. Cherry and T. M. L. Wigley PDF
A grid point surface air temperature data set for the Southern Hemisphere, 1851-1984
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1301877/USDoE_TR027.pdf/a698cea3-655a-46b7-869d-420af24a80ee
Managed to gain access to TR027 via this CRU page and link but I think TR022 is damaged.
Excerpts from TR027 follow.
Excerpts from TR027
Well, well – “neighbouring stations”
Jones et al. (1985) is TR022
Jones et al. (1986a) is TR027
NZ stations should be Code B: “Stations homogenized”, given Salinger (1981) carried out homogenization prior. And of course, Salinger (1981) is the “Thesis”:
Salinger, M.J., 1981: New Zealand climate: the instrumental record. Ph.D. Thesis,Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
TR027 APPENDIX A and B is not copyable (scan) but contains:
APPENDIX A [page 13 pdf]
‘Station History Information and Homogeneity Assessment Details’
The NZ stations start on page 49 pdf. There are 22 including islands (e.g. Chathams).
APPENDIX B [page 61 pdf]
‘Stations used in the gridding algorithm’
The NZ stations start on page 66 pdf. There are 16 including islands:
Kaitaia Airport
Auckland
Gisborne Aerodrome
New Plymouth
Napier
Wellington
Nelson
Hokitika Aerodrome
Christchurch
Invercargill Aero
Dunedin
Campbell Island
Chatham Island 2
Raoul Is/Kermadec Is
Masterton
Lincoln College
Thus, in this CRUTEM incarnation (1851-1984), NZ makes up 5.46% (16/293) of the total number of global stations. Assuming the same number remain in subsequent versions (unlikely but just out of interest), NZ would make up 0.4% of CRUTEM3 (16/4000+) and 0.3% of CRUTEM4 (16/5500+).
“Most” of the above, “inspected and corrected” prior to CRU delivery by Salinger’s 1981 Thesis, apparently.
Good sleuthing RC. What amazes me is that there seems to be no process of audit or review of these data and their ‘homogenisations’ by any independent authority. And the alarmists wonder why we are skeptical of the historical temperature record.
Only really slated half my curiosity Mike. The question now is: what stations and what corrections to them contribute to subsequent CRUTEM versions up to CRUTEM4 at present i.e. where is the equivalent to APPENDIX A/B for that?
I doubt there’s similar documentation in the release notes and references (haven’t seen anything so far) for CRUTEM3/4 to isolate the NZ stations let alone the corrections and methodology used on them (but I’ll have a look when I get the urge).
I’m curious as to whether the NZT7 has been fed in just as ACORN was for AU superseding the previous data, and if so are there still the other stations in addition to those 7?
Thing is, if the NZT7 has been merged with CRUTEM, then there’s entirely different homogenization methodologies for NZT7 and ACORN in CRUTEM4.
Make that slaked, not “slated”
In the post linking to here,
http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-13-still-crazy-after-all-these-years/#comment-40336
These guys ^^ seem to accept the BoM endorsement as a kind of audit, yet in the NIWA report it says
We have been through this before, of course.
What did the review consist of then? We don’t know because information is blocked despite OIM requests
[Gareth] “The methods NIWA used in putting together the long term NZ record are not remotely controversial”.
The methods aren’t controversial. Not employed internationally but not necessarily controversial because of that (although NIWA is rather coy on what they used specifically – see following comment) but the application of them by NIWA is because application of them in the NZCSET’s ‘Statistical Audit’ does not replicate NIWA’s series. This is the essence of science – replication. That is the controversy Gareth, not your strawman.
I note (just to be picky) from my investigation of CRUTEM that NIWA’s series is much shorter than the NZ data in CRUTEM4 i.e. NIWA’s NZT7 is not “long-term” relative to CRUTEM4’s NZ data which looks to be contributing to CRUTEM4 from 1855ish (possibly) to 1909 prior to the NZT7:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/update_diagnostics/ausnz.gif
Just a matter of checking the NZ station dates referenced as used by HadCRU to ascertain the start date of contribution.
Down-thread from Gareth’s comment I see this (my emphasis):
The passage nigelj supposedly quotes “whether the methods had scientific error” does not actually appear in the BOM letter (so why did you use quotes Nigel?). It actually states:
However, further down BOM states:
The “major scientific undertaking” (i.e. independent replication, or not) of NIWA’s series) was not undertaken by BOM in their review but was in fact undertaken subsequently by the NZCSET in their ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station [BOM] Review’:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf
NIWA’s results were not replicated using R&S93. This is the answer to Murray’s question (for which he gets placed in moderation) “Maybe you can explain where in the peer review the validation of NIWAs methods is hiding?”. The BOM review did NOT “validate” NIWA’s methods by replication of NIWA’s results. BOM simply didn’t attempt that undertaking and stated that explicitly.
Murray also asks “Was the way NIWA adjusted the data international best practice? Answer, no. And “Or even backed by the review?” Answer, yes, In principle only but not in practice. NZCSET put the principle into practice but was unable to replicate NIWA’s result. Herein lies the controversy IMO.
>”NIWA is rather coy on what they used specifically”
What do they say? This begins what RT describes in ‘NIWA’s obfuscation unequivocal’ (next post) as:
“There are several papers citing each other in a complex chain of references…”.
Refer:
Mullan, A.B; Stuart, S.J; Hadfield, M.G; Smith, M.J (2010).
Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series
NIWA Information Series No. 78. 175 p.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series_v3.pdf
Page 6 pdf (my emphasis):
Salinger et al., 1992, is:
Salinger, M.J.; McGann, R.P.; Coutts, L.; Collen, B.; Fouhy, E. (1992). South Pacific
Historical Climate Network. Temperature Trends in New Zealand and Outlying
Islands, 1920–1990. NZ Meteorological Service, Wellington, ISBN 0-477-01598-0,
46 p.
http://docs.niwa.co.nz/library/public/0477015980.pdf
Salinger et al (1992) above states that the detailed homogenization procedure for the time series is described in Rhoades and Salinger (1992). Also explicitly states in HOMOGENISATION PROCEDURES that “neighbouring stations” were used. This is what NZCSET used in their ‘Statistical Audit’ but NIWA used remote stations in their ‘Report on the Review’.
So we’re back to R&S92/3 for the homogenization procedures used (but not necessarily applied absolutely) in NIWA’s NZT7. This is Dr Mullen’s perspective:
‘Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven-Station” Temperature Series’
A. Brett Mullan,
Weather and Climate, 32(1), 23-‐37. Submitted May 2012, revised June 2012.
http://www.metsoc.org.nz/system/files/journals/321/2012_321_23-37_mullan.pdf
>“neighbouring stations” ………..”This is what NZCSET used in their ‘Statistical Audit’ but NIWA used remote stations in their ‘Report on the Review’.”
Not entirely correct. From ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’:
NZCSET use the same comparison stations as NIWA going by their audit but the point is that NZCSET highlight R&S stipulating “neighbouring stations” but NIWA don’t adhere to that.
On page 4 pdf through to page 8 of Dr Mullen’s paper linked in previous comment (Mullen, 2012), Masterton is used as an example “to introduce the application of the R&S methodology”:
Comparison with the NZCSET treatment of Masterton requires reference to:
‘Supplementary Information: Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf
1920 site change starts on page 48 pdf.
1942 site adjustment starts on page 46 pdf
The respective NIWA/Mullen and NZCSET 1920 treatments are:
Mullen (2012):
NZCSET ‘Supplementary Information: Statistical Audit’ (my emphasis, abbreviated)
This in a nutshell demonstrates the NIWA – NZCSET divide IMO.
My addition “[BOM]” to ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station [BOM] Review’ is incorrect.
The BOM Review was a review of the NIWA Review – gahhh!
The Jones et al Northern Hemisphere TR022 book with station documentation details, including corrections is now available as four pdf files. The much shorter TR027 Southern Hemisphere book has been online in html form for several weeks.
Links are here –
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=510
Handy wazsah, cheers. I see Warwick states:
Does make for a wild goose chase. I managed to find some documentation of NZ stations “for later iterations” via the 2010 UKMO notification ‘Corrections to CRUTEM3′. Details here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2009/12/niwas-obfuscation-unequivocal-its-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-347979
On a subject close to the topic of your post – in case some of your readers have not seen these –
Simple GISS diagrams illustrating warming effect of conventional “adjustments” of “steps” in T data due to site moves outward from urban centre.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=753
[it is crystal clear that NIWA do exactly this – repeatedly adjusting out step changes – all through their seven station series – in this way NIWA cement UHI warming in their NZ 7 station century long adjusted trend.]
>”On a subject close to the topic of your [Richard Treadgold’s (RT) – not my (RC)] post”
Warwick’s post also touches on the topic of RT’s next post too wazsah. Warwick says in that Jan 2011 post you link to (my emphasis):
RT in the ‘NIWA’s obfuscation unequivocal’ thread (my emphasis):
I could be wrong (expect a correction from RT if so) but I think NZCSC’s OIA request asks (among other things) for the actual BOM Review that Warwick (and others looking) could not find (except for the one page cover letter) in NIWA’s “Report on the Review’.
It could be of course, that the cover letter is all there ever was.
Rural and urban stations show the same warming trend. Urban stations tend to be in ‘cool islands’ like parks and urban heating would only occur if someone built a building or tarsealed right up to the station. It is these sorts of changes that the adjustments are meant to correct. The myth of UHI being the cause of global warming has been well and truly debunked.The BEST team did a good paper on it. Note that Watts never got around to publishing his paper on UHI, either because the study was flawed or he didn’t like the answer.
>”Rural and urban stations show the same warming trend”
Yes of course they do, and this post at WUWT is complete rot:
‘Arctic isolated versus “urban” stations show differing trends’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/
Interesting study, thanks, RC.
Jan Curtis says:
September 22, 2010 at 10:47 am
I co-authored a paper on just this subject several years back:
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProjects/pages/AKpaper2.html
The Urban Heat Island Effect at Fairbanks, Alaska
N. Magee1, J. Curtis2, and G. Wendler2
(1) The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
(2) Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks AK 99775
Abstract
Using surface observation comparisons between Fairbanks and rurally situated Eielson Air Force Base in Interior Alaska, the growth of the Fairbanks heat island was studied for the time period 1949-1997. The climate records were examined to distinguish between a general warming trend and the changes due to an increasing heat island effect. Over the 49-year period, the population of Fairbanks grew by more than 500%, while the population of Eielson remained relatively constant. The mean annual heat island observed at the Fairbanks International Airport grew by 0.4°C, with the winter months experiencing a more significant value of 1.0°C. Primary focus was directed toward long-term heat island characterization based on season, wind speed, cloud cover, and time of day. In all cases, minimum temperatures were affected more than maxima and periods of calm or low wind speeds, winter clear sky conditions, and nighttime exhibited the largest heat island effects.
You can download a pdf version of the paper at the above link.
Do you have a reference, Simon? And one to the BEST paper, please.
Charlotte Wickham, Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104 http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.php
Jones et. al. Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/abstract
Is there a bit of controversy over the Jones et al paper? i.e is this the one that promted Doug Keenan to accuse Phil Jones of fraud?
Not sure if this is the one,but sounds familiar
Maybe not this exact paper, but Jones, Keenan and China definitely have a story
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
‘Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 1’
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/
Steve M documents Doug Keenan’s exploits re Jones et al (1990) in Parts 2 and 3; his own, The Team, and the Climategate revelations of it all in 1, 2 and 3. An amazing affair well worth reading in entirety.
Hard to isolate a particular aspect but this nugget in Part 1 caught my eye (my italics bolded):
My sincere thanks to Simon for reminding us all of this rather shabby saga (heroes and anti-heroes in this case)..
.
[Fred Pearce] “The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.”
‘A Remote-Sensing Method of Selecting Reference Stations for Evaluating Urbanization Effect on Surface Air Temperature Trends’
YUYU REN AND GUOYU REN (2011)
Laboratory for Climate Studies, National Climate Center, Chinese Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
TABLE 2. Comparison of the urban warming for the national RCS/BWS network estimated using the reference stations selected with the RS and CM methods.
Urban warming for the RCS/BWS network (ºC 10 yr-1)
RS reference stations 0.064
CM reference stations 0.076
Urban warming contribution to the overall warming (%)
RS reference stations 23
CM reference stations 27
[Link includes Chinese characters but can be accessed through Scholar]
Referee Report:
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites
Identified from MODIS Classifications
by Wickham et al.
Signed review: Ross McKitrick.
Overall Comment
This paper tries to do 2 things in a single, short paper; namely introduce a new global temperature data product with a much larger number of stations than are available in GHCN and related products, and provide a quantification of non-climatic biases in surface temperature records. While the authors have developed an impressive new data base, the paper fails unfortunately to do a satisfactory job of either task. First, it omits many of the technical details
readers need to assess the new data base construction methodology. Second, the analysis of the urban-rural split is simplistic in light of where the current literature stands, and is not able to support the conclusions drawn. Specifically, the authors’ empirical results are consistent either with the stated conclusion or its opposite, and therefore they are in no position to say anything decisive.
I will recommend that the paper be rejected in its current form. I have no doubt that presentation of an important new surface data base is a publishable contribution, as long as some major improvements to the manuscript are made, as detailed below. But with regard to the analysis of surface disruptions and the spatial distribution of temperature trends, the analysis presented herein has serious inadequacies that make it unpublishable in its current form.
[…]
Quantifying the effect of nonclimatic contamination of the data
Judging by the paper’s title this appears to be the topic the authors want to focus on. It is clear that, if published, this will be a very prominent paper and its findings will be wielded to considerable polemical effect: indeed one of the authors has already taken the liberty of announcing partial findings in Congressional testimony. Great care must be taken to ensure that findings are accurate and are fully supported by the empirical analysis. In this regard I note two problems: the paper reads as if the authors have been careless in reviewing the existing debate, and the empirical work does not imply the conclusions.
The authors cite, in passing, papers by de Laat and Maurellis and McKitrick and coauthors (pp. 5-6) that present evidence of significant surface data contamination. They also cite papers that argue for the absence of such contamination. Despite the fact that Wickham et al. purport to adjudicate between these different literatures they do not summarise or explain the very different methodologies involved nor how their analysis relates to them, if at all. On page 13 lines 234-235 the authors conclude that their result “agrees with the conclusions in the literature that we cited previously” which is a baffling statement given that they cite papers that directly contradict one another. My overall impression is that the authors have not actually read all the papers they cite, and have not come to terms with the technical issues involved in the current debate. If it is their purpose to draw conclusions about the surface data contamination question they need to position their own analysis properly in the existing literature, which will require a detailed explanation of what has been done hitherto, and the use of an empirical framework capable of encompassing existing methodologies.
With regard to their own empirical work, a basic problem is that they are relating a change term (temperature trend) to a level variable (in this case MODIS classification) rather than to a corresponding change variable (such as the change in surface conditions). I will give a simple example of why this is a flawed method, then I will demonstrate it empirically.
Continues>>>>>>>>
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/referee_report.pdf
“I will recommend that the paper be rejected in its current form.”
Wickham et al. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104
DOI Not Found
10.4172/gigs.1000104
This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are:
* The DOI is incorrect in your source. Search for the item by name, title, or other metadata using a search engine.
* The DOI was copied incorrectly. Check to see that the string includes all the characters before and after the slash and no sentence punctuation marks.
* The DOI has not been activated yet. Please try again later, and report the problem if the error continues.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172%2Fgigs.1000104
Rejected apparently.
This is inaccurate. The inner-city Albert Park temperature series clearly shows the growing influence of trees planted in the park scores of metres from the weather station. As they got taller, the wind speed decreased and recorded temperatures rose over several decades. Tall buildings even further away started to have the same effect.
That’s why adjustments were made.
Growing trees are not a cause of urban heating, trees are common in rural areas too.
A large tree or group of trees would probably have some effect on a temperature station. What effect, I don’t know.
I thought the Stevenson Screen was supposed to eliminate wind effects, but who knows?
Sheltering is a source of artificial warming. See McAneney & Salinger (1990). They found a 1°C rise in maximum air temperature caused by 10-m high shelter, that grew over a 6-year period.
No Albert Park adjustment was made that countered sheltering. The station was closed in 1987 due to contamination by sheltering and vandalism.
Worse than that, NIWA took a station with known sheltering problems, compared it to Mangere, found Albert Park was 0.66°C warmer (even though it was higher in altitude), and promptly adjusted the entire Albert Park record back to 1855 downwards by 0.66°C!!!
Talk about incompetent.
Are you listening, Gareth? This is why we persist.
If only the major effect of “entire” (and why it shouldn’t be entire in this case – hence your emphasis Bob) on the resulting series as a whole could be more widely appreciated, the more people would realize just how out-of-order NIWA’s NZT7 is.
I made the comparison elsewhere of Masterton 1920. I’ll make it again this time adding the distinction of Brett Mullen’s “quite flexible” (his words) interpretation of R&S93 and NZCSET’s “rigid” interpretation of R&S9. Also adding the ‘Statistical Audit’ example of Hokitika Aero 1970 and the BOM TR049 overriding criteria for ACORN that discards adjustments of less than 0.3°C:
Masterton 1920
0.21 adj – NIWA “quite flexible” R&S93
No adj – NZCSET “rigid” R&S93
No adj – BOM TR049
Hokitika Aero 1970
0,25 adj – NIWA “quite flexible” R&S93
No adj – NZCSET “rigid” R&S93
No adj – BOM TR049
NIWA’s gung-ho decisions to make the respective 0,66 (Albert Park), 0,21, and 0,25 adjustments just in these 3 examples alone, unnecessarily corrupts the ENTIRE series prior to each adjustment for 3 locations out of the 7.
Necessary adjustments in accordance with sensible convention, yes. Unnecessary adjustments made willy nilly, no.
So, Bob, put your credibility where your mouth is – write this and your other “discoveries” up and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal.
[contemptuous question deleted]
>….this and your other “discoveries”
What exactly are you referring to here Brando?
Is it, for example, something you read in Appendix B of ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’?
Like:
Weightings
“NIWA do not weight the individual neighbour station shifts at all.”
And,
Error Analysis
“The most significant error in the NIWA method is the failure to base each adjustment on the clearly-defined confidence levels as specified on page 904 of R&S…”
And/or possibly:
UHI
“It is clear from reading the NIWA review papers that at no point has any adjustment been made for urban heat island (UHI) effects, even though the peer-reviewed literature explicitly states that New Zealand urban temperature records suffer from significant UHI and sheltering problems (Hessell, 1980; Fouhy, 1992).”
Any of those Brando?
BTW, there’s no need to write up NZ UHI in peer-reviewed literature if that’s already been done is there?
SimonP:
Not urban heating, sheltering. From McAneney (1990):
Also:
And:
At Albert Park, the sheltering is two-fold: trees immediately around the weather station, and buildings around the park.
Have a look at photos of Albert Park from the early 1900s, and go and stand there now. See if you can tell the difference.
http://www.elibrarynz.com/BLOG/WEB/ALBERT%20PARK%20Postcards.htm
Contrast that with, say, Appleby.
Was there ever a UHI adjustment for Albert Park RT?
Wasn’t UHI contamination the reason Auckland changed from Albert Park to Mangere?
Ah yes (answering my own questions), Albert Park is one of the contentious sites, described from page 52 pdf onwards in:
‘Supplementary Information: Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf
Quoting:
In their document on Auckland, NIWA acknowledges this shortcoming [non-climatic urban effect (sheltering)] (appendix 5):
[NIWA]
But in their Auckland analysis they effectively ignored this problem, stating:
[NIWA
As stated above, the correct R&S approach is to discard this site entirely. However, since NIWA have included it in their composite series, we will attempt to cater for the problems ignored by NIWA. What we will do is try to ascertain the magnitude of the non-climatic sheltering effect by following NIWA’s lead and comparing Albert Park with a neighbour station, Te Aroha, which is suitably rural. NIWA claims the effect is limited to 1928-1960, but it’s clear from Hessell’s wind speed plot that the sheltering problem continued well beyond 1960. In fact we know for certain that Albert Park experienced a known wind speed reduction from 1916 to 1974.
We shall then attempt to adjust for this artificial warming trend before joining the Albert Park and Auckland Aero sites together.
# # #
Simon states:
“It is these sorts of changes that the adjustments are meant to correct”
And,
“That’s why adjustments were made”
Quite right. NZCSET made the adjustment to correct the change – NIWA did not.
Not by NIWA, RC. You’re right that it’s the very reason NIWA changed Auckland’s temp station to Mangere.
But NIWA make no adjustments anywhere for UHI. In that, it’s as though the effect doesn’t exist. I hope their supporters might contradict this.
I am a trifle sus of this – [comparing Albert Park with a neighbour station, Te Aroha, which is suitably rural.]
So there was no data nearer AKL than Te Aroha ? – (where of course there are no people)
It could be “data shopping” – just looking for something that fits what you want to do.
It would be interesting to see all data closer to AKL that “John West Rejected”
Te Aroha does seem a strange choice, being a long way from sea and tucked under a mountain.
You would have to think that a similar effect to the UHI could well have impacted Te Aroha. With the intensification of farming through Waikato the land has been drained which would surely have amplified the continental effect.
For my money a station like Baring Head should give a fair average of the temperature of air arriving at New Zealand and is unlikley to be distorted over time. Strangely long term temperature data for Baring Head seems to be the only bit of data not shown on the NIWA site.
Meantime I am building some walls to improve my already very pleasant microclimate.
First, I’ve become accustomed to thinking of NZ sites hundreds of kilometres from each other as “neighbouring”, because Jim Salinger, foremost climate scientist, has used it for a long time. Surely he couldn’t be wrong, right? But questioning the rights and wrongs and ramifications of a practice is never wrong, right?
But second, what a marvellous thought — that we ought to check the Baring Head temperature record for variation or trend or lack thereof. The location was selected when Noah was a lad for atmospheric CO2 readings, so there shouldn’t be a lot wrong with the purity of the air there. It could be most instructive to see how its temperature has varied.
Now, to make a nice dinner, edit an academic article, relax, go to bed… and tomorrow’s another day!
>”…..we ought to check the Baring Head temperature record for variation or trend or lack thereof……..It could be most instructive to see how its temperature has varied”
No chance. 18234 in CliFlo:
Year Stats_Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 2 – – – – – – – – – 13 13.6 – –
2007 2 – – – 13.3 13.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 10.7 11.3 13 15.6 –
2008 2 17.7 17.2 16.4 14 10.4 10.4 9.6 8.9 11.2 12 – 15.9 –
2009 2 17.3 16.5 15 13.5 9.7 8.5 8.5 11.1 10.8 10.1 13 14.8 12.4
2010 2 15.7 16.9 16 – 12.1 10.2 8.7 10 11.4 11.2 14.7 16.5 –
2011 2 16.6 17.5 15.6 13.2 13.8 10.7 – – 10.2 12.1 13 15 –
2012 2 15.7 15.4 14.2 13.7 10.9 9.1 9.6 10.4 11 12.1 12.5 – –
2013 2 – 16.8 16.3 15 12 – 10.5 11.3 11.2 12.7 14.3 – –
Have a happy recursive Xmas, guys… I hope some of you can get down to the Tasman Glacier, to see it before the “rebound from the LIA” melts it completely!
http://hot-topic.co.nz/tdb-today-tomorrow-is-being-written-in-new-zealands-mountains/#comment-40362
>“rebound from the LIA” – your words Rob.
Are you suggesting that was also the cause of all the other SI glaciated valleys sans ice?
Eileen McSaveney. ‘Glaciers and glaciation – Retreating ice and the glacier legacy’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 13-Jul-12
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/glaciers-and-glaciation/page-4
From about 14,000 years ago, as the climate warmed, ice age glaciers shrank rapidly. But 12,000–11,000 years ago they advanced again, building prominent rocky moraines such the Waiho Loop. This semi-circular ridge marks how far the Franz Josef Glacier advanced into the flats of the Waiho River.
Since then, the glaciers of the Southern Alps have continued an irregular retreat. They reached their minimum size about 6,000 years ago, when the climate was warmer than now. There have been minor advances during cooler periods such as the ‘Little Ice Age’ from the 15th to the mid-19th century.
Actually, “rebound from the LIA” is a denialist trope, Richard, but do tell us about the Skydragons again – or have you switched your alleigance back to the imaginary undersea volcanoes?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age.html#.UqjEPY0UjuA
Rob Taylor:
You seem to be very knowledgable about climate science as evidenced in your highly informative posts, so I was wondering if maybe you can educate me a bit as there is something that puzzles me regarding AGW. If there is no tropospheric hot spot, what empirical evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour? If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, how can it warm more than a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2? If it can’t warm more than 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2, how is AGW a problem?
Empirical evidence from both 40 yrs of radiosonde data and 2 satellites confirm the hot spot is missing, so maybe you can explain how it works for a humble layman such as myself so that I’m more fully informed. Many thanks in advance.
Magoo, this beloved straw man of Jo Nova’s has been endlessly debunked, including on this site, but, for the benefit of any slow learners amongst us, here it is again:
“The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it’s caused by the greenhouse effect. Jo Nova leads with the headline “The greenhouse effect is missing” and refers to the “telltale warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave”. However, the hot spot is not caused by the greenhouse effect. In fact, we expect to see an amplified warming trend in the troposphere no matter what’s causing the warming.
The hotspot is actually due to a basic law of physics called the moist adiabatic lapse rate. As air rises to higher altitudes, it cools. When the water vapor in the air cools enough to condense, latent heat is released – this partly offsets the cooling. In the tropics where the air is more moist, more heat is released. The result is we expect to see magnified warming trends in the troposphere compared to the surface, both over short intervals (say months to a year) and long intervals (over decades). Indeed over short periods, observations are consistent with expectations – a tropical hot spot”.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
Rob Taylor:
I’m a little confused about your answer and scepticalscience’s article, perhaps you can clarify for me. If the hotspot doesn’t exist, regardless of whether it was anthropogenically caused or not, the empirical evidence for positive feedback from water vapour is still missing – am I right?
Also, it’s true that a very weak hot spot has appeared for very short durations sporadically, but it is nowhere near as strong as the IPCC predicted, i.e. 0.6-0.8C (IPCC AR4). As a result am I correct to say that it is not evidence of positive feedback from water vapour? As the cause of the hotspot doesn’t have to be caused anthropogenically, (as mentioned in your previous scepticalscience article) perhaps it’s just natural variation – no?
As we all agree (you, me, scepticalscience, and everyone else) that the long term tropospheric hot spot doesn’t exist, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour? If there is no evidence for positve feedback from water vapour, what evidence is there for AGW? This also raises the question – if the hotspot is empirical evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, and observations from multiple sources show that it doesn’t exist, does that mean that the AGW hypothesis has failed an empirical test?
As you seem very knowledgeable on the subject of AGW, I’m sure you must be able to explain it to me and I would be most grateful if you could please. Surely you must have some evidence for it otherwise how could someone of your intellectual calibre believe in a scientific theory for which there is no evidential basis?
Many thanks in advance, I’m sure you can help me and am looking forward to your response.
Magoo,
Good analysis — for how else would we manage it?
I find a certain irony that a New Scientist article entitled “climate myths” has a prominent display of the Hockey Stick, with the instrumental data spliced onto the paleo data
Speaking of the Little Ice Age, there is a sign at Franz Josef glacier that shows the extent of the glacier during the LIA, or at least that is what the Department of Conservation claim.
This is a regional effect that coincidentally happened around a similar time to the regional LIA in Europe that caused the Thames to freeze.
>”Actually, “rebound from the LIA” is a denialist trope, Richard,”
Sure it’s not just your mind playing tricks on you again Rob, and a bit of projection?
I refer you to my previous response here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/11/epic-fail-niwa-your-methods-are-a-global-secret/#comment-365117
And to assist you, given your inability evidently, I’ll highlight what every fossil-fuel-driven climate change sceptic would understand very clearly and very quickly:
And
And (my emphasis for your assistance)
And (my emphasis for your assistance)
And (my emphasis for your assistance)
So the Southern Alps glaciers have been in retreat since 12,000–11,000 years ago i.e. the current retreat is nothing unusual. And it was warmer 6000 years ago i.e. the current warmth is nothing unusual.
But according to what you’re implying Rob, glaciers should not have advanced after the LIA even though the climate warmed, in a natural way, over the last 400 years. Neither should they have advanced since 6000 years ago when it was warmer than now.
Why, according to your understanding, wouldn’t glaciers advance in warmer periods and retreat in cooler just as they have always done historically?
BTW, you better contact Te Aro, inform them they’re spreading “a denialist trope”.
Correction (got everything back-to-front like Rob)
[according to Rob] “Neither should they have [retreated] since 6000 years ago when it was warmer than now.”
“Why, according to your understanding [Rob}, wouldn’t glaciers [retreat] in warmer periods and [advance] in cooler just as they have always done historically?”
>”…but do tell us about the Skydragons again”
Sure, but the IPCC’s been doing that for 25 years Rob. CO2 is the Skydragon that’ll scorch us all with its fiery breath – apparently.
Turns out to be just another myth though.
BTW, sceptics of the Skydragon myth actually being real are known as “Slayers”.
>”…..have you switched your alleigance (sic) back to the imaginary undersea volcanoes?”
No “alleigance” (as you put it Rob). Just another fact-of-earth that the IPCC discounts completely (and you think is “imaginary” Rob). Meanwhile in the real world:
‘Submarine Volcanoes Erupting’
“Did you know that 80 percent of the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place underwater? These underwater eruptions occur regularly, forming new landmasses and providing a living environment for deep-sea creatures. In 2009, scientists discovered the deepest ocean eruption ever found—the West Mata Volcano. Explore other videos that capture the beauty and mystery of the ocean realm at NOAA Ocean Today.”
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/submarine-volcanoes-erupting
Gee, super hot magma on the ocean floor – who wooda thunk?
Also on the (off) topic of volcanoes:
‘Fire And Ice; Volcanoes, Not CO2, Melt West Antarctic’
“The discovery finally confirms long-held suspicions of volcanic activity beneath the vast West Antarctic ice sheet.”
“….this is the first time anyone has caught magma in action far from the coast. Erebus had been thought to be the continent’s only active volcano.”
“Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2-2-kilometer-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow,” said the study.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/fire-and-ice-volcanoes-not-co2-melt.html
# # #
Just a wild thought, but I’m guessing atmospheric CO2 re-radiation is “unlikely to penetrate the 1.2-2-kilometer-thick overlying ice” too.
No doubt Taylor will now become obsessed with my “imaginary underice volcanoes” in addition to my “imaginary undersea volcanoes”.
Just about had enough of Rob Taylor in off-topic, wind-up, complete BS mode.
Why aren’t his comments in the equivalent of RC “Borehole” or HT “Twilight Zone” ?
He’s not funny anymore.
He’s on permanent moderation and not all his comments get through. Feel free to ignore him.
Sure, why not? You ignore most things, including 150 years of climate science observations and experiments, all of which are in agreement with AGW..
But, who cares what you close-minded fools think, anyway?
>”150 years of climate science observations and experiments, all of which are in agreement with AGW”
Except this (for starters):
Tropical Mid-Troposphere 20S-20N Observations vs 73 CMIP5 RCP8.5 Models
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png
From:
‘IPCC spin translated – the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail’
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines-in-their-leaked-synopsis-97-of-models-fail/
According to you Rob, anyone who “ignore”s the Observations vs Models above is a “closed-minded fool”. But YOU wouldn’t do that, would you Rob?
Sorry to be a bit single-minded, fellers, but I am still extremely pissed that m’learned friend (who shall be nameless) could get the self-evident facts of the case against NIWA so wrong and that the law provides no recourse or simple mechanism for correcting his error.
I discovered for myself more than a half-century ago that the law is not only an ass but also that the law’s functionaries can create real injustice out of their own ignorance and bias.
So why have judges at all, Alexander, when the “facts” are so “self-evident”. Heck, why not scrap Magna Carta and go back to the Divine Right of Kings / Popes to proclaim what is real, and what is not?
On the subject of reality, here is some actual science that may be of interest:
“An apparent hiatus in global warming?
Kevin E. Trenberth,
John T. Fasullo
Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s.
Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise.
For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless.
Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
The full paper is avaiable for free from this site.
CAUTION: LEARNING MAY OCCUR
This paper clutches at assumptive straws and is being pulled apart in the blogosphere. (e.g. http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/trenberth-and-fasullo-try-to-keep-the-fantasy-alive/ and http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/more-on-trenberth-and-fasullo-2013-an-apparent-hiatus-in-global-warming/)
It is a travesty that Trenberth can’t account for the missing heat. Global warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that Gaia didn’t get the memo from the Team.
He mentions melting sea ice, but wait – oh I guess he didn’t get the sea-ice extent memo. He mentions heating of the oceans, but Argo, as sparse as it is, has only been in effect since 2003. Hardly a robust data set. This paper is pure conjecture and speaks volumes about the difficulty the CAGW hypothesis is facing.
>”CAUTION: LEARNING MAY OCCUR”
Yes, Trenberth and Fasuillo’s. They’ve caught up with what every man-made climate change sceptic knows already, viz:
In fact, those are the only 2 decades in the IPCC’s 6 decade attribution period (1951-2010) that exhibited any warming at all.
Then (gasp):
Geniuses, both of them, but about 25 years late.
We never see childbirth without a baby; precipitation without rain, hail or snow, dawn without the sun or atmospheric warming without warm air.
It is remarkable, even for these slippery scientists, that they claim that global warming can occur without global warming. Believing this requires the suspension of reason.
>”Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways”
Why just this week, it’s been manifesting as over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA, the first snowfall for 112 years in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, and the heaviest Israel snow in December since 1953 — 60-years ago.
The IPCC predicted this would happen…….oh wait…….no……they predicted exactly the opposite:
‘In 2001, the IPCC predicted milder winters and less snow. Experts are hoping no one remembers’
[TAR] “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/411543526648709120
NZ Herald’s New Zealanders of the Year
includes:
Dr David Wratt
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/new-zealanders-of-the-year/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501017&objectid=11172355
Dearie me, Rob Taylor, I would have expected that you could have found someone a little more credible than Kevin Trenberth, who is STILL looking for his missing heat, which he thought was hiding in the atmosphere but now he thinks just may be hiding in the deep oceans.
Your comment is a travesty, sir!
Real science, indeed.
Our culture obviously has a major problem when the ability to read is mistaken for the ability to reason.
Russian climate scientists are making us aware that, in their view, the current record-breaking cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere actually signals the beginning of a new Little Ice Age
Maybe, maybe not, but the Russians have a way better track record than dodgy Kevin.