It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Zealands 150 year temperature record manipulated to show warming when there wasnt any!

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I am reading. Maybe I missed the point somewhere along the way?

My point was regardless of any siting (unless it is directly in the line of an exhaust from an air-conditioner 24/7) whilst the actual temperature would be wrong, it would still record trends.

It would still record highs/lows, etc.. but they will just be the wrong absolute values.

Instead of averaging data, that hides these details, it is best to first analyse all the data seperately, and do direct comparisons. If anything like this is found, it must not be simply "adjusted" out of the picture - it must be thoroughly documented.

It appears that this has not occurred to the data we are looking at, and this is part of the problem with the likes of the CRU. Because of their continuous adjustments, the real data is lost, and given the controversy over data being deleted, it makes things even more complex.

It is a huge task, but I'm just looking at random data samples right now (one set in the middle of summer, one in the middle of winter for the same site) and lokoing at the trend. I'm not (yet) interested in the absolute temperatures recorded - only the trend recorded.

This is the kind of data that should already be available from the likes of the CRU, etc.., in readable form, that is relatively easy to understand (after all, that is why they do this stuff, right???). As it is, the scientists are a apparently pro-actively preventing the general public from gaining access to this data, in direct contravention of scientific method.

Until this data is in the open, clearly presented and unambiguous, we can not possibly hold a serious debate on anything, never mind the specifics of climate change.

Ther is already plenty of information flying around that is strongly suggesting that temperature rises due to CO2, regardless of source, can lead to the temperature rises predicted, without intervention by some other process or processes in the environment.

I figure we need 5 to 10 years to just sort out the mess, and kick the politicians out the way so the truth can be found. Alas, politicians and lobbyists (aka environmentalists) have other ideas.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I am reading. Maybe I missed the point somewhere along the way?


Perhaps.

Some denier posts 'analysis' of station data used for climate analysis. Combines sets of raw data and shows adjustments have been made by the clever people who know what they are doing, claims they are being deceptive, whilst suggesting that there were no reasons for the adjustments.

The adjustments were made for siting issues. Like you said, they can have a profound effect on measurements. Taking a station up a hill will affect the data.

Therefore the clever people adjust for the bias and do the most robust science they can. Denier deceives. Same old.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
The adjustments were made for siting issues.



So they had to raise the temps incrementally each year till now because every year somebody kept blowing a larger fan at the temp station thus cooling to where they had to adjust the temp upwards? Fine. But how do the paid scientists know for sure the size and air output increase of the fan from year to year? Do they have a an accurate record here? Is this record also ajdusted, and if so explain?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Some denier posts 'analysis' of station data used for climate analysis. Combines sets of raw data and shows adjustments have been made by the clever people who know what they are doing, claims they are being deceptive, whilst suggesting that there were no reasons for the adjustments.

They did not claim there was no need to make adjustments. They questioned the methodology and asked for the data which showed how the adjustments were made. After numerous deflections and accusations, NIWA have now admitted they don't have the data.


NIWA blundered in not keeping track of some important records that justify the country’s warming since the 19th Century, even if it inherited the problem from its predecessor in the Met Service, or the early behaviour of Jim Salinger, who did the work. It blundered again when, instead of being honest, it attacked the CCG and the NZCSC when we asked to know the Schedule of Adjustments.

Now NIWA has admitted in writing that it lost the original data. This settles our original question for the moment and sets them free to go about repairing the situation. Their general counsel, Tim Mahood, made the admission a few days ago, and here’s the letter to prove it.


NIWA’s ghastly blunders — now read the official letters


So claims NIWA were being deceptive have been justified. They don't actually have the adjustments any more. They were... ahh... lost. They could have just said that in the first place, rather than to try to obfuscate the issue.

So now they will be re-creating the adjustments, so these can be fully scrutinised and checked for scientific mistakes. Now thats not such a bad thing, is it?


Originally posted by melatonin
The adjustments were made for siting issues. Like you said, they can have a profound effect on measurements. Taking a station up a hill will affect the data.

Therefore the clever people adjust for the bias and do the most robust science they can. Denier deceives. Same old.


Are you Jim Salinger? Just because he seems to be the only one who really knows what adjustments were made, the adjustments you seem to know all about. But it now looks like the "clever people" weren't so clever in the way they handled data. Not very good for an organization charged with the authority of providing scientific data to the global community, who's data could be the basis for signigicant political policy.

It could turn out that the adjustments are in fact, correct. But we will just have to wait and see.

But people will still blindly defend these guys. Same old



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
lol, OK. Back to the beginning. I know it's difficult to actually keep track of the crap these denier friends of yours spout.


What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.


Which was their original claim. Unremarkable station histories? No reason for any large corrections?

From one of my earlier posts about three months back...


lets expand on this with data to illustrate. We have three sites. Three places. One is at 3m ( Thorndon), another at 4m (Airport), and one at 125m (Kellburn). Non-adjusted data show:



Clearly obvious that the higher site is showing cooler temps. No doubt. It's right there. The sites at 3m and 4m are warmer. Comparing the overlap at first glance for Airport (4m) and Kellburn (125m) shows very similar trends over time.


Moving a station over 100m upwards is remarkable and is a good justification for adjustments.

Now, onto the new blah from this group of deniers. You say:


So claims NIWA were being deceptive have been justified. They don't actually have the adjustments any more. They were... ahh... lost. They could have just said that in the first place, rather than to try to obfuscate the issue.


But in the letter of theirs, which this group say NIWA admit losing the data, they actually say:


You asked about adjustments made to the seven station data series. Information regarding those adjustments is available from the following publicly available sources:

· Salinger, M.J., 1981. New Zealand Climate: The instrumental record. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Victoria University of Wellington, January 1981;

Rhoades, D.A., and Salinger, M.J., 1993: Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes. International Journal of Climatology, 13, 899 – 913; and

www.niwa.co.nz...

In addition, NIWA staff are compiling some further material on the reasons for the station data adjustments, including dates of site changes, which should available through the NIWA website within the next few weeks.


From what I see, they say nothing about losing any information. They direct these dufi to sources and say they will compile further material.

I know I've had a long-hard day, but I see nothing in the NIWA letter which supports their claims at all. If you see it, let me know.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Moving a station over 100m upwards is remarkable and is a good justification for adjustments.

That may be so. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I'm not going to argue whether the adjustments to the Wellington record are scientifically plausible (ie adjusting Thorndon at the same rate as airport) or not.


Originally posted by melatonin
But in the letter of theirs, which this group say NIWA admit losing the data, they actually say:


You asked about adjustments made to the seven station data series. Information regarding those adjustments is available from the following publicly available sources:

Yes, they provide papers which outline what could or what should have been done. However, these do not explain exactly what adjustments were made to many of the stations in their official temperature record.


Originally posted by melatonin


In addition, NIWA staff are compiling some further material on the reasons for the station data adjustments, including dates of site changes, which should available through the NIWA website within the next few weeks.


From what I see, they say nothing about losing any information. They direct these dufi to sources and say they will compile further material.

I know I've had a long-hard day, but I see nothing in the NIWA letter which supports their claims at all. If you see it, let me know.

No worries. What has been asked of NIWA is to provide a Schedule of Adjustments, to see exactly what adjustments have been made, and why they were performed. However, NIWA explained in their response, that:

The original worksheets and / or computer records used for the calculations in Dr
Salinger’s thesis work are the property of Dr Salinger, who no longer works for NIWA.
NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.

So even though the adjustments were made to provide NIWA with an official temperature record, the information used to make those adjustments are not theirs. They were "lost" when Jim Salinger left, so they cannot provide any certainty relating to the accuracy of the calculations made.
But they have now stated "NIWA staff are compiling some further material on the reasons for the station data adjustments, including dates of site changes, which should available through the NIWA website within the next few weeks".

Here's what those pesky "deniers" have to say regarding that:

We read the following sentence - “NIWA staff are compiling some further material on the reasons for the station data adjustments, including dates of site changes…” – as suggesting that NIWA is belatedly engaged in constructing a Schedule of Adjustments. This reading is taken much further by a NIWA press interview in today’s issue of the Weekend Herald: “Two people in NIWA’s climate group have prepared a full set of documents including all the data from climate stations and a full explanation of the adjustments made to the records, which should be available online in about a week”.
If the reported statement is true, then NIWA has obviously (and it seems deliberately) breached its obligations under the Official Information Act to provide me with copies of these documents. Even if the Herald report is mistaken, NIWA clearly has extensive records which staff are compiling into a Schedule of Adjustments, and I am entitled to copies of those records.

4. Your answer seems to suggest that NIWA has no idea whether the Official Temperature Record, as represented in graphic format, is accurate or not. This is more than surprising, so I will break the question down into its components: Does NIWA believe the graph is appropriately accurate? What recognized measure of accuracy does NIWA apply (eg margin of error, percentage confidence, etc)?
What level of accuracy does the graph achieve, by that measure?


So NIWA have not yet explained exactly what adjustments were made and why, for their official temperture record. However, they now appear to be creating a new Schedule of Adjustments, and hopefully that will clear everything up... provided that adjustments were made according to proper and correct scientific principles.

I realise that this does not mean NIWA have acted maliciously or are part of some conspiracy, although their credibility will be called into questions if some adjustments to the official temperature record continue to go unexplained. Hopefully, for the sake of these scientists, their adjustments will be justified upon the release of further information.

But all in all, if this leads to better accuracy and transparency regarding climate science and records, that can't be a bad thing


edit to fix wierd quote layout


[edit on 11-2-2010 by Curious and Concerned]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
That may be so. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I'm not going to argue whether the adjustments to the Wellington record are scientifically plausible (ie adjusting Thorndon at the same rate as airport) or not.


I showed the adjustments that were made and explained why. It's pretty obvious they were justified.

It's not that hard - the deniers say unremarkable history, not justification for the adjustments. But the history is a station that moved over 100m up a hill and obvious and clear resulting issues in the data - adjustment is more than justified.

These NZ deniers are eejits. I know you don't want to admit it.


Yes, they provide papers which outline what could or what should have been done. However, these do not explain exactly what adjustments were made to many of the stations in their official temperature record.


So the deniers say they have 'lost' the information, but in fact they have directed them to the information and are compiling more.

That's not lost. All you're really complaining about is that they didn't give the information they decided they wanted on a plate when demanded.


They were "lost" when Jim Salinger left, so they cannot provide any certainty relating to the accuracy of the calculations made.


lol.

So they wanted something like the original piece of paper with lots of +s, -s, xs, and /s so they could check his working...

You're joking? Is this GCSE maths or something?


So NIWA have not yet explained exactly what adjustments were made and why, for their official temperture record. However, they now appear to be creating a new Schedule of Adjustments, and hopefully that will clear everything up... provided that adjustments were made according to proper and correct scientific principles.


No, they are compiling further information. What that means is the information is there, they just don't have it in a box readily labelled 'For eejit whining deniers'.

There are already a number of readily available sources as well.

You've already been shown that the adjustment for one station this group have whined about it more than justified. These deniers wouldn't know 'proper and correct scientific principles' if they bit them on the ass - this is group that think moving a station 100m up a hill in of no consequence and they can just blindly string such data together.


I realise that this does not mean NIWA have acted maliciously or are part of some conspiracy, although their credibility will be called into questions if some adjustments to the official temperature record continue to go unexplained.


The raw data is out there already. NASA-GISS make their own adjustments on such raw data using station history etc. If station history is not available, then the data is not used. Once the station history is known, the adjustments are easily made.

There's a reason why there are different organisations producing independent temperature anomalies with generally the same data. They all use slightly different approaches to adjustment etc, and still show essentially the same outcome. That's replication. The original pieces of paper with Salinger's scribbles are completely irrelevant.

More noise from the deniers.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I showed the adjustments that were made and explained why. It's pretty obvious they were justified.


Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
That may be so. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I'm not going to argue whether the adjustments to the Wellington record are scientifically plausible (ie adjusting Thorndon at the same rate as airport) or not.



Originally posted by melatonin
It's not that hard - the deniers say unremarkable history, not justification for the adjustments. But the history is a station that moved over 100m up a hill and obvious and clear resulting issues in the data - adjustment is more than justified.

Yes, you can keep repeating the reasons for Wellingtons adjustments as much as you like, but that doesn't make any difference to the other sites, which are yet to be explained. Got it yet?

And they didn't say there were no need for any adjustments. They questioned the need for such large adjustments. And as yet they have not been explained (except for Wellington, yes I know that already).

And the purpose of showing the raw data without any adjustments was not to say that that would be a more accurate way to show the temperature record. It was to show the magnitude of the adjustments made and the trends that were consequently produced in the official temperature record. As you must agree the adjustments have provided a signigicant increase to the warming trend, compared to the raw data. They may be accurate, of course, but it appears that only Jim Salinger knows (oh and you, if you're not Jim Salinger) at this stage.


Originally posted by melatonin
These NZ deniers are eejits. I know you don't want to admit it.
No you don't know me as well as you think you do. There are many "eejits" in this world, from all walks of life, and all sorts of ideologies. I'll happily admit that some of the claims made in their paper were inncacurate. However, that is not justification to dismiss any of the other points raised (although you may feel differently, judging by the persistent name calling that's all too familiar.)


Originally posted by melatonin
So the deniers say they have 'lost' the information, but in fact they have directed them to the information and are compiling more.

That's not lost. All you're really complaining about is that they didn't give the information they decided they wanted on a plate when demanded.

Your'e right, they didn't give them the information that was asked. What's your point? They asked for the adjustments, and NIWA don't have them.

And I've told you already. The information they were directed to provided no explanations for the adjustments made to the official temperature record. They merely portrayed what could have been done. You can whinge all you like about these requests being too much for a poor scientific organization to handle, but these are still the questions put forward to them.

What adjustments were made to the record and why?

Do you think this is too much too ask of a scientific organization charged with providing information regarding such an important topic?
They have shown this graph without mentioning any adjustments being made. They also have not explained what the magnitude of compiling uncertainties, from the multiple adjustments, would be. They actually don't know exactly what has been done to the graph, yet they are happy to promote it as fact without any disclaimers. But just because some "deniers" and "dufi"(?) and "eejits" (or whatever other name you like to throw around) have asked questions of them, you're happy to dismiss their questions entirely. Interesting.


Originally posted by melatonin
No, they are compiling further information. What that means is the information is there, they just don't have it in a box readily labelled 'For eejit whining deniers'.

So if the information is there, after a few months, they still haven't been able to put it in the aforementioned box. They must be rather ineffecient in their data handling. Or is it that they don't have the information requested, and have to start again?

I know you seem to think that climate science organizations don't need to be held accountable for the information they provide, but many do. I would like to ensure that the correct scientific principles were applied when compiling information which could have a measurable effect on political policy. After all, my tax dollars are helping to fund their research.

So the "eejits" may have made mistakes, but at least they are forcing better standards in the compilation of scientific data and more transparency. And I don't think that's a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Yes, you can keep repeating the reasons for Wellingtons adjustments as much as you like, but that doesn't make any difference to the other sites, which are yet to be explained. Got it yet?


The reasons are available in the sources they referred to. They are compiling more information.


And they didn't say there were no need for any adjustments. They questioned the need for such large adjustments. And as yet they have not been explained (except for Wellington, yes I know that already).


lol, so the station which they made a denier's parade about is no longer important?

I know you want to ignore it, because it's just so bleedin' obvious these guys don't have a clue.


And the purpose of showing the raw data without any adjustments was not to say that that would be a more accurate way to show the temperature record. It was to show the magnitude of the adjustments made and the trends that were consequently produced in the official temperature record. As you must agree the adjustments have provided a signigicant increase to the warming trend, compared to the raw data. They may be accurate, of course, but it appears that only Jim Salinger knows (oh and you, if you're not Jim Salinger) at this stage.


No, NASA-GISS et al make their own adjustments. We don't need Jim Salinger to do them. I just showed a simple adjustment to one station set in the first page. It's not rocket surgery.

You seem to want to make this about Salinger. It's not. He's irrelevant. We could lose all his calculations, but as long as we have the station histories the adjustments can be readily replicated.


I'll happily admit that some of the claims made in their paper were inncacurate. However, that is not justification to dismiss any of the other points raised (although you may feel differently, judging by the persistent name calling that's all too familiar.)


Oh, come on. These are the guys who think moving a station over 100m up a hill is unremarkable, lol.


Your'e right, they didn't give them the information that was asked. What's your point? They asked for the adjustments, and NIWA don't have them.


Again, they want the original paper with numbers and workings? That's ridiculous.


And I've told you already. The information they were directed to provided no explanations for the adjustments made to the official temperature record. They merely portrayed what could have been done. You can whinge all you like about these requests being too much for a poor scientific organization to handle, but these are still the questions put forward to them.

What adjustments were made to the record and why?


Try here:


Article
Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes
D. A. Rhoades 1, M. J. Salinger 2
1New Zealand Institute for Industrial Research and Development, P.O. Box 31-310, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
2National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3047, Wellington, New Zealand


Funded by:
National Climate Centre Data Programme; Grant Number: 92-MET-33-352
DSlR Physical Sciences Climate Statistics Programme

Keywords
Temperature • Rainfall • Time series • Homogeneity • Cusums


Abstract
Methods are presented for estimating the effect of known site changes on temperature and rainfall measurements. Parallel cumulative sums of seasonally adjusted series from neighbouring stations are a useful exploratory tool for recognizing site-change effects at a station that has a number of near neighbours. For temperature data, a site-change effect can be estimated by a difference between the target station and weighted mean of neighbouring stations, comparing equal periods before and after the site change. For rainfall the method is similar, except for a logarithmic transformation. Examples are given. In the case of isolated stations, the estimation is necessarily more subjective, but a variety of graphical and analytical techniques are useful aids for deciding how to adjust for a site change.


Try here:

www.niwa.co.nz...

And there are other citations already noted.


But just because some "deniers" and "dufi"(?) and "eejits" (or whatever other name you like to throw around) have asked questions of them, you're happy to dismiss their questions entirely. Interesting.


lol, these people aren't interested in science. They are all about PR and obscuration.


So if the information is there, after a few months, they still haven't been able to put it in the aforementioned box. They must be rather ineffecient in their data handling. Or is it that they don't have the information requested, and have to start again?


It's just the case that most organistations like NIWA probably care more about doing science and real work than running around after a bunch a whiners and eejits.


So the "eejits" may have made mistakes, but at least they are forcing better standards in the compilation of scientific data and more transparency. And I don't think that's a bad thing.


Please.

Don't give me the standards BS. These guys couldn't give a flying flute about standards (see the hash they made to kick this thread off) - all about the noise.

Manufactroversy.

Picking imaginary nits.

Storms in thimbles.

Mountains out of dust.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join