A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand

[Crick]

Have you noticed that they're spending a great deal more time rehashing the court case they lost and then failed to pay for, then they are "rebutting" Renowden's technical criticisms?

 

[IanC]

Have you noticed that they're spending a great deal more time rehashing the court case they lost and then failed to pay for, then they are "rebutting" Renowden's technical criticisms?

Really? That's how you see it? They rebutted Renowden's public criticism line by line with public documents that were found either in the judicial or political record, and now you accuse them of just rehashing a court case where the judge decided that the courts were unable to decide matters of science?

Their paper went through a long and extensive peer review, as do most skeptical papers. I for one hope this gets extensive public scrutiny.

 

[Crick]

The 'journal' in which they got themselves published did NOT do a long and extensive peer review. As I stated, they failed to catch an entire paragraph repeated. How much review would it have taken to have caught that? And the journal has a reputation for publishing crackpot denier crap.

Tell you what. Let's extract Renowden's comments and see if we can match them up to the comments from DeFreitas's supporters.

 

[Crick]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

 

[IanC]

here is a non-paywalled link to the paper-

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/de Freitas NZ temp.pdf

it reproduces what the NIWA said they were doing in the public temperature dataset up to 2010. when originally questioned they simply ignored the questions, when Parliament demanded answers they threw up their hands and said we quit. it was only after they got input from big brother Australia and other global agencies that they came back with a black box methodology and a 'new and improved' 11 Station Series that apparently matches the requested results.

I really dont think the world realizes that the bulk of supposed climate warming is simply adjustments.

 

[IanC]

here is an estimate of the NZ trend using GISS data. about 0.45C/century.

Roger Andrews So How Much Warming Was There In New Zealand Anyway Tallbloke s Talkshop

 

[IanC]

Crisis in New Zealand climatology mdash Quadrant Online

yes, it is an OP-ED but it brings up many salient questions that were not answered by the NIWA.

 

[Crick]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

Ian, you have not responded to any of these. Are you now willing to admit that neither deFreitas nor his supporters answered any of these Renowden observations?

And, btw, the 11 Station Series matches NIWA's 7 Station Series. It does NOT match dFDB2014.

 

[skookerasbil]

70% of Americans think that the climate scientists have screwed around with the data according to Rasmussen.

That's all anybody needs to know.

 

[IanC]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

Ian, you have not responded to any of these. Are you now willing to admit that neither deFreitas nor his supporters answered any of these Renowden observations?

And, btw, the 11 Station Series matches NIWA's 7 Station Series. It does NOT match dFDB2014.

really? you want to go through the list?

Ok. #1.

the NIWA said its dataset was based on Salinger and Rhoades93, a peer reviewed methodology. when it was shown that it wasnt, they then said it was based on Salinger's 1981 doctorate thesis. when asked for the thesis and number work up they said buy a copy. when the thesis didnt explain the dataset because the working figures were missing, the NIWA said everything was 'lost' when the university changed computers. no one was quite sure how Salinger's dataset got put on the official govt website or why it was distributed worldwide without documentation.

crick, you always side with authority even when there is clear evidence that there have been major screw-ups all the way down the line.

this NZ case is yet another clarion call for data to be present and available to public scrutiny. Steve McIntyre shouldnt have to spend his retirement prising data out of clenched fists to analyze climate science papers. it should simply be available, as most Journal rules say it should be.

 

[SSDD]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

Ian, you have not responded to any of these. Are you now willing to admit that neither deFreitas nor his supporters answered any of these Renowden observations?

And, btw, the 11 Station Series matches NIWA's 7 Station Series. It does NOT match dFDB2014.

really? you want to go through the list?

Ok. #1.

the NIWA said its dataset was based on Salinger and Rhoades93, a peer reviewed methodology. when it was shown that it wasnt, they then said it was based on Salinger's 1981 doctorate thesis. when asked for the thesis and number work up they said buy a copy. when the thesis didnt explain the dataset because the working figures were missing, the NIWA said everything was 'lost' when the university changed computers. no one was quite sure how Salinger's dataset got put on the official govt website or why it was distributed worldwide without documentation.

crick, you always side with authority even when there is clear evidence that there have been major screw-ups all the way down the line.

this NZ case is yet another clarion call for data to be present and available to public scrutiny. Steve McIntyre shouldnt have to spend his retirement prising data out of clenched fists to analyze climate science papers. it should simply be available, as most Journal rules say it should be.

But he will find something wrong with it....and errors must not be exposed.

 

[Crick]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.

really? you want to go through the list?

Yes,I would.

[QUOTE="IanC, post: 10146496, member: 21028"
Ok. #1.

the NIWA said its dataset was based on Salinger and Rhoades93, a peer reviewed methodology. when it was shown that it wasnt, they then said it was based on Salinger's 1981 doctorate thesis. when asked for the thesis and number work up they said buy a copy. when the thesis didnt explain the dataset because the working figures were missing, the NIWA said everything was 'lost' when the university changed computers. no one was quite sure how Salinger's dataset got put on the official govt website or why it was distributed worldwide without documentation.

crick, you always side with authority even when there is clear evidence that there have been major screw-ups all the way down the line.

this NZ case is yet another clarion call for data to be present and available to public scrutiny. Steve McIntyre shouldnt have to spend his retirement prising data out of clenched fists to analyze climate science papers. it should simply be available, as most Journal rules say it should be.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. "
"NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments." DeFreitas et al don't get to substitute their opinions and interpretations for the findings and conclusions of the court. They lost. NIWA won.

And only fourteen more to go.

 

[IanC]

And OJ was declared not guilty.

And so were Mann and Jones.

But that doesn't mean this stuff is going away.

 

[Saigon]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

 

[jc456]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Retreating glaciers are part and parcel of coming out of an ice age...what do you think coming out of an ice age should look like?

 

[Crick]

And OJ was declared not guilty.

And so were Mann and Jones.

But that doesn't mean this stuff is going away.

And only fourteen more to go.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Nonsense - if the retreat were normal it would be part of an onoing pattern of steady or intermittent retreat. It isn't, obviously.

Isn't it amazing - evn when you have evidence right in front of you that you can go and look at with your own eyes, you still won't look at it. Staggering.

 

[Old Rocks]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Billy Boob, that was a couple of billion years ago. And was due to the rapid drawdown of CO2 at that time.

 

[jc456]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Billy Boob, that was a couple of billion years ago. And was due to the rapid drawdown of CO2 at that time.

yep and been melting ever since, just like the last million and the last hundreds of thousand and tens of thousand, so it's still melting. I didn't know you knew how the warming was supposed to happen. Hmmmmmm you're good. you must be a god!!!!!!