Hansen's way of dealing with inconvenient history

[daveman]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss. nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Arnost Khun says: Aug 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM A saved version of the data (excludes 2006) is available via the Wayback Machine here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

I hate trying to link on my phone. you have select the whole thing up to Fig.D.txt and paste it into your browser

last year the wayback machine still had dates from 1999 and 2001 (or thereabouts) which were more in line with the first graph in the blinl comparitor. the numbers for 2007 are still there but by 2009 the links go to a 'Forbidden' title. the current figures are available at http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

my apologies for technical difficulties in providing direct links. anyone interested in learning more of the whole story can google 'climate audit, leaderboard'.

None of your links work.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

 

[edthecynic]

edthecynic- as you are so well versed in the updates to these temperature data sets, could you point me to the year of revision, and the reason for the revision that led to

continental US temps
Year Old New 2011
1934 1.23 1.25 1.195
1998 1.24 1.23 1.318
1921 1.12 1.15 1.080
2006 1.23 1.13 1.292
1931 1.08 1.08 0.965
1999 0.94 0.93 1.068
1953 0.91 0.90 0.859
1990 0.88 0.87 0.918
1938 0.85 0.86 0.750
1939 0.84 0.85 0.773
(New was 2007)

I would be really interested in finding out why such wholesale changes are constantly being made, especially in records that are decades old

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss. nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Arnost Khun says: Aug 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM A saved version of the data (excludes 2006) is available via the Wayback Machine here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

I hate trying to link on my phone. you have select the whole thing up to Fig.D.txt and paste it into your browser

last year the wayback machine still had dates from 1999 and 2001 (or thereabouts) which were more in line with the first graph in the blinl comparitor. the numbers for 2007 are still there but by 2009 the links go to a 'Forbidden' title. the current figures are available at http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

my apologies for technical difficulties in providing direct links. anyone interested in learning more of the whole story can google 'climate audit, leaderboard'.

None of your links work.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

OK Ian, I modified each of your 3 links the way Dave did and I got the exact same numbers for all 3, matching your 2011 numbers. So how does that prove anything?

 

[IanC]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss. nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Arnost Khun says: Aug 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM A saved version of the data (excludes 2006) is available via the Wayback Machine here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

I hate trying to link on my phone. you have select the whole thing up to Fig.D.txt and paste it into your browser

last year the wayback machine still had dates from 1999 and 2001 (or thereabouts) which were more in line with the first graph in the blinl comparitor. the numbers for 2007 are still there but by 2009 the links go to a 'Forbidden' title. the current figures are available at http://data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

my apologies for technical difficulties in providing direct links. anyone interested in learning more of the whole story can google 'climate audit, leaderboard'.

None of your links work.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

thanks daveman. any chance you could paste the first link into your browser and repost that link too? edthecynic could easily do it himself but he would rather complain

 

[daveman]

None of your links work.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

thanks daveman. any chance you could paste the first link into your browser and repost that link too? edthecynic could easily do it himself but he would rather complain

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

You just had a space in each URL.

 

[IanC]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

thanks daveman. any chance you could paste the first link into your browser and repost that link too? edthecynic could easily do it himself but he would rather complain

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

You just had a space in each URL.

thanks again, I just figured that out myself

 

[edthecynic]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

thanks daveman. any chance you could paste the first link into your browser and repost that link too? edthecynic could easily do it himself but he would rather complain

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

You just had a space in each URL.

Hey Ian, I said I did what Dave did and got to see all three links and they were all the SAME data!!!! The Wayback Machine said this 2nd link Dave just posted was first accessed in Jan 10, 2006 and the numbers are the same as your 2007 link and your 2011 link. The numbers you posted showing changes from pre 2007, 2007 and post 2007 must be phony yet again. When are you going to learn not to copy and paste from CON$ervative websites?????????

continental US temps
Year Old New 2011
1934 1.23 1.25 1.195
1998 1.24 1.23 1.318
1921 1.12 1.15 1.080
2006 1.23 1.13 1.292
1931 1.08 1.08 0.965
1999 0.94 0.93 1.068
1953 0.91 0.90 0.859
1990 0.88 0.87 0.918
1938 0.85 0.86 0.750
1939 0.84 0.85 0.773
(New was 2007)

I would be really interested in finding out why such wholesale changes are constantly being made, especially in records that are decades old

 

[IanC]

I just did a little experiment. I chose 1920, 1960 and 2000 as random years in areas I expected lowered, unchanged and increased 'adjustments'. unfortunately I dont have pre-1999 data. my expectation was that by 2006 Hansen's GISS had raised recent temps and lowered old ones and left the pivot area unchanged. in 2007 Hansen got the slap in the face when an AMATEUR pointed out his data was afflicted with a Y2K bug so he had to hurriedly correct his numbers (somewhat) to save face while the spotlight was on him. after the media attention died down he was free to start 'correcting' things again.

1920 started low in 2006 -.45, corrected higher in 2007 -41 and then steadily dropped again in 2008 and 2011 -.43 and -.449

1960 went from -.22 to -.24 to -.24 to -.230. nothing much

2000 went from .65 all the way down to .52, started up in 2008 to .54 and has skyrocketted all the way up to .692 in 2011.

seems suspicious to me but Im sure they have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

 

[flacaltenn]

""""seems suspicious to me but Im sure they have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc """""

It's the flux capacitor in the WayBack machine again. Marty hand me that decrometer...

Yup -- it's constantly rippling around.. Must be finding shoeboxes of ancient handwritten temperature observations in the same places they find those extra votes in Chicago when they need them...

 

[westwall]

is RollingThunder really trying to defend the NZ debacle? its funny how there is always an 'explanation' after the fact that ignores the main issues and lets these jokers save some face.

it was deny, deny, deny until it totally blew up. now its 'it doesnt make much of a difference so whats the big deal'. that sounds like all the climategate conspirators. the big deal is the integrity of science. even an accurate answer (and Im not saying any of these jokers are right) obtained by incorrect methods is not the right answer, its just a lucky coincidence.

Indeed. If ever there was an example of the science being secondary to political ideals this was it. And it continues. A travesty indeed.

 

[RollingThunder]

is RollingThunder really trying to defend the NZ debacle? its funny how there is always an 'explanation' after the fact that ignores the main issues and lets these jokers save some face.

it was deny, deny, deny until it totally blew up. now its 'it doesnt make much of a difference so whats the big deal'. that sounds like all the climategate conspirators. the big deal is the integrity of science. even an accurate answer (and Im not saying any of these jokers are right) obtained by incorrect methods is not the right answer, its just a lucky coincidence.

Indeed. If ever there was an example of the science being secondary to political ideals this was it. And it continues. A travesty indeed.

As usual, walleyedretard, the strange denier cult myths you believe in with all of your heart and little pea-brain may seem true in your denier cult fantasy world/echo chamber but they have no connection to actual reality or the real world we all actually live in (sticking your head in the sand doesn't really work, btw). You're impervious to facts but here they are anyway for the benefit of anyone reading this who has more than two brain cells to rub together (unlike you, walleyed).

NIWA stands by its scientists
New Zealand National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research
May 06, 2010
(free to reprint - not under copyright)

NIWA today rejected allegations by Hon Rodney Hide that it had misled Cabinet Ministers over its analysis of New Zealand temperatures.

“I stand by the integrity and professionalism of our scientists,” says NIWA’s Chief Executive John Morgan. “NIWA is an internationally respected and responsible science organisation and we do not get involved in political commentary or process. NIWA will continue to conduct its science in a highly professional and ethical way.”

“There are many lines of evidence which point to New Zealand’s climate warming,” says NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt. “This evidence includes land-based measurements, ship-based measurements, and shrinking glaciers.”

At the heart of Mr Hide’s criticism are two independent time-series using land-based temperature measurements. These are the long-running 7-station series which uses a composite record of measurements for seven places around New Zealand and goes back more than 100 years; and an independent, 11-station series which uses measurements from another 11 stations and stretches back almost 80 years. The 7-station series uses adjusted data to account for site changes, whereas the 11-station series uses unadjusted data. Both show a long-term warming trend for New Zealand.

In specific response to Mr Hide’s criticisms:

NIWA has already published a schedule of adjustments for its 7-station series on this website.

Information about the 11-station series (for which no adjustments were made) is already available on this website.

The two series show very similar trends. The warmer and cooler periods clearly do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one uses adjusted data. This is shown clearly in the graph...

Two New Zealand temperature series compared. The warmer and cooler periods clearly
do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one
(the seven-station series) uses adjusted data.

We wish to make clear the following:
.• NIWA makes its original climate data freely available over the web for anyone to analyse, and it can be accessed here. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
• The adjusted 7-station series was made available to a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition on 19 July 2006.
• The need to make adjustments is internationally accepted amongst climate scientists. In climate science, it is a necessary and well-established process to ensure you are comparing apples with apples, such as when a site moved to a higher or more exposed location. NIWA keeps all the original, unadjusted data secure in the national climate database, which anyone can access free over the web.
• The initial 7-station series was documented in Dr Jim Salinger’s PhD thesis for Victoria University. This was reviewed and passed by expert examiners, and is available from the university. Since then, several papers have been published in the scientific literature documenting the methods used and analysing the results from this series. References are available on our website.
• NIWA has a project underway to further document the 7-station series, and will post this information on our website.
• When this issue first arose last year, NIWA provided an open briefing to MPs, which was attended by Mr Hide.

 

[westwall]

is RollingThunder really trying to defend the NZ debacle? its funny how there is always an 'explanation' after the fact that ignores the main issues and lets these jokers save some face.

it was deny, deny, deny until it totally blew up. now its 'it doesnt make much of a difference so whats the big deal'. that sounds like all the climategate conspirators. the big deal is the integrity of science. even an accurate answer (and Im not saying any of these jokers are right) obtained by incorrect methods is not the right answer, its just a lucky coincidence.

Indeed. If ever there was an example of the science being secondary to political ideals this was it. And it continues. A travesty indeed.

As usual, walleyedretard, the strange denier cult myths you believe in with all of your heart and little pea-brain may seem true in your denier cult fantasy world/echo chamber but they have no connection to actual reality or the real world we all actually live in (sticking your head in the sand doesn't really work, btw). You're impervious to facts but here they are anyway for the benefit of anyone reading this who has more than two brain cells to rub together (unlike you, walleyed).

NIWA stands by its scientists
New Zealand National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research
May 06, 2010
(free to reprint - not under copyright)

NIWA today rejected allegations by Hon Rodney Hide that it had misled Cabinet Ministers over its analysis of New Zealand temperatures.

“I stand by the integrity and professionalism of our scientists,” says NIWA’s Chief Executive John Morgan. “NIWA is an internationally respected and responsible science organisation and we do not get involved in political commentary or process. NIWA will continue to conduct its science in a highly professional and ethical way.”

“There are many lines of evidence which point to New Zealand’s climate warming,” says NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt. “This evidence includes land-based measurements, ship-based measurements, and shrinking glaciers.”

At the heart of Mr Hide’s criticism are two independent time-series using land-based temperature measurements. These are the long-running 7-station series which uses a composite record of measurements for seven places around New Zealand and goes back more than 100 years; and an independent, 11-station series which uses measurements from another 11 stations and stretches back almost 80 years. The 7-station series uses adjusted data to account for site changes, whereas the 11-station series uses unadjusted data. Both show a long-term warming trend for New Zealand.

In specific response to Mr Hide’s criticisms:

NIWA has already published a schedule of adjustments for its 7-station series on this website.

Information about the 11-station series (for which no adjustments were made) is already available on this website.

The two series show very similar trends. The warmer and cooler periods clearly do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one uses adjusted data. This is shown clearly in the graph...

Two New Zealand temperature series compared. The warmer and cooler periods clearly
do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one
(the seven-station series) uses adjusted data.

We wish to make clear the following:
.• NIWA makes its original climate data freely available over the web for anyone to analyse, and it can be accessed here. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
• The adjusted 7-station series was made available to a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition on 19 July 2006.
• The need to make adjustments is internationally accepted amongst climate scientists. In climate science, it is a necessary and well-established process to ensure you are comparing apples with apples, such as when a site moved to a higher or more exposed location. NIWA keeps all the original, unadjusted data secure in the national climate database, which anyone can access free over the web.
• The initial 7-station series was documented in Dr Jim Salinger’s PhD thesis for Victoria University. This was reviewed and passed by expert examiners, and is available from the university. Since then, several papers have been published in the scientific literature documenting the methods used and analysing the results from this series. References are available on our website.
• NIWA has a project underway to further document the 7-station series, and will post this information on our website.
• When this issue first arose last year, NIWA provided an open briefing to MPs, which was attended by Mr Hide.

What was that cult boy? I don't grock your gibberish.

 

[RollingThunder]

Indeed. If ever there was an example of the science being secondary to political ideals this was it. And it continues. A travesty indeed.

As usual, walleyedretard, the strange denier cult myths you believe in with all of your heart and little pea-brain may seem true in your denier cult fantasy world/echo chamber but they have no connection to actual reality or the real world we all actually live in (sticking your head in the sand doesn't really work, btw). You're impervious to facts but here they are anyway for the benefit of anyone reading this who has more than two brain cells to rub together (unlike you, walleyed).

NIWA stands by its scientists
New Zealand National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research
May 06, 2010
(free to reprint - not under copyright)

NIWA today rejected allegations by Hon Rodney Hide that it had misled Cabinet Ministers over its analysis of New Zealand temperatures.

“I stand by the integrity and professionalism of our scientists,” says NIWA’s Chief Executive John Morgan. “NIWA is an internationally respected and responsible science organisation and we do not get involved in political commentary or process. NIWA will continue to conduct its science in a highly professional and ethical way.”

“There are many lines of evidence which point to New Zealand’s climate warming,” says NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt. “This evidence includes land-based measurements, ship-based measurements, and shrinking glaciers.”

At the heart of Mr Hide’s criticism are two independent time-series using land-based temperature measurements. These are the long-running 7-station series which uses a composite record of measurements for seven places around New Zealand and goes back more than 100 years; and an independent, 11-station series which uses measurements from another 11 stations and stretches back almost 80 years. The 7-station series uses adjusted data to account for site changes, whereas the 11-station series uses unadjusted data. Both show a long-term warming trend for New Zealand.

In specific response to Mr Hide’s criticisms:

NIWA has already published a schedule of adjustments for its 7-station series on this website.

Information about the 11-station series (for which no adjustments were made) is already available on this website.

The two series show very similar trends. The warmer and cooler periods clearly do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one uses adjusted data. This is shown clearly in the graph...

Two New Zealand temperature series compared. The warmer and cooler periods clearly
do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one
(the seven-station series) uses adjusted data.

We wish to make clear the following:
.• NIWA makes its original climate data freely available over the web for anyone to analyse, and it can be accessed here. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
• The adjusted 7-station series was made available to a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition on 19 July 2006.
• The need to make adjustments is internationally accepted amongst climate scientists. In climate science, it is a necessary and well-established process to ensure you are comparing apples with apples, such as when a site moved to a higher or more exposed location. NIWA keeps all the original, unadjusted data secure in the national climate database, which anyone can access free over the web.
• The initial 7-station series was documented in Dr Jim Salinger’s PhD thesis for Victoria University. This was reviewed and passed by expert examiners, and is available from the university. Since then, several papers have been published in the scientific literature documenting the methods used and analysing the results from this series. References are available on our website.
• NIWA has a project underway to further document the 7-station series, and will post this information on our website.
• When this issue first arose last year, NIWA provided an open briefing to MPs, which was attended by Mr Hide.

What was that cult boy? I don't grock your gibberish.

Not surprising since you're far too retarded and idiotic to understand much of anything, let alone hard science.

And BTW, moron, you're apparently so ignorant and out of it that you don't even know how to spell 'grok' correctly. LOLOLOL...

 

[edthecynic]

I just did a little experiment. I chose 1920, 1960 and 2000 as random years in areas I expected lowered, unchanged and increased 'adjustments'. unfortunately I dont have pre-1999 data. my expectation was that by 2006 Hansen's GISS had raised recent temps and lowered old ones and left the pivot area unchanged. in 2007 Hansen got the slap in the face when an AMATEUR pointed out his data was afflicted with a Y2K bug so he had to hurriedly correct his numbers (somewhat) to save face while the spotlight was on him. after the media attention died down he was free to start 'correcting' things again.

1920 started low in 2006 -.45, corrected higher in 2007 -41 and then steadily dropped again in 2008 and 2011 -.43 and -.449

1960 went from -.22 to -.24 to -.24 to -.230. nothing much

2000 went from .65 all the way down to .52, started up in 2008 to .54 and has skyrocketted all the way up to .692 in 2011.

seems suspicious to me but Im sure they have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

Again, no links to the original data.
I decided to waste more time checking 1920 against the 3 links you gave for pre 2007 data, 2007 data and 2011 data and all 3 show the SAME -.449 as the anomaly.

I notice you are avoiding the thread where your source used a -662.4 C as the April 2011 continental USA anomaly. That means to deniers the USA was 662.4 degrees C below the 30 year average USA temp!!!!

I'm sure YOU have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

 

[IanC]

I just did a little experiment. I chose 1920, 1960 and 2000 as random years in areas I expected lowered, unchanged and increased 'adjustments'. unfortunately I dont have pre-1999 data. my expectation was that by 2006 Hansen's GISS had raised recent temps and lowered old ones and left the pivot area unchanged. in 2007 Hansen got the slap in the face when an AMATEUR pointed out his data was afflicted with a Y2K bug so he had to hurriedly correct his numbers (somewhat) to save face while the spotlight was on him. after the media attention died down he was free to start 'correcting' things again.

1920 started low in 2006 -.45, corrected higher in 2007 -41 and then steadily dropped again in 2008 and 2011 -.43 and -.449

1960 went from -.22 to -.24 to -.24 to -.230. nothing much

2000 went from .65 all the way down to .52, started up in 2008 to .54 and has skyrocketted all the way up to .692 in 2011.

seems suspicious to me but Im sure they have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

Again, no links to the original data.
I decided to waste more time checking 1920 against the 3 links you gave for pre 2007 data, 2007 data and 2011 data and all 3 show the SAME -.449 as the anomaly.

I notice you are avoiding the thread where your source used a -662.4 C as the April 2011 continental USA anomaly. That means to deniers the USA was 662.4 degrees C below the 30 year average USA temp!!!!

I'm sure YOU have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

have you even looked at the Way Back site? and you are saying all the 2006 version is the same as the current version? hahaha and you have the nerve to call me a liar!

as far as the RSS trends, you are again being deceptive. it was clearly stated that the trends become more volatile as the time frame decreases. you are mocking a trend of a few months and implying that it negates the usefulness of trends of 10 years or longer. you also highlighted mid trophospheric in the code when the first line specifically turned off mid trophospheric data sets. then you printed up mid trophospheric numbers (I assume thats what they were) and said they didnt match. I realize you are willing to say anything to 'win' an argument but it is getting to the point where you are acting like finding a typo is the equivilent of rebutting an idea.

 

[edthecynic]

I just did a little experiment. I chose 1920, 1960 and 2000 as random years in areas I expected lowered, unchanged and increased 'adjustments'. unfortunately I dont have pre-1999 data. my expectation was that by 2006 Hansen's GISS had raised recent temps and lowered old ones and left the pivot area unchanged. in 2007 Hansen got the slap in the face when an AMATEUR pointed out his data was afflicted with a Y2K bug so he had to hurriedly correct his numbers (somewhat) to save face while the spotlight was on him. after the media attention died down he was free to start 'correcting' things again.

1920 started low in 2006 -.45, corrected higher in 2007 -41 and then steadily dropped again in 2008 and 2011 -.43 and -.449

1960 went from -.22 to -.24 to -.24 to -.230. nothing much

2000 went from .65 all the way down to .52, started up in 2008 to .54 and has skyrocketted all the way up to .692 in 2011.

seems suspicious to me but Im sure they have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

Again, no links to the original data.
I decided to waste more time checking 1920 against the 3 links you gave for pre 2007 data, 2007 data and 2011 data and all 3 show the SAME -.449 as the anomaly.

I notice you are avoiding the thread where your source used a -662.4 C as the April 2011 continental USA anomaly. That means to deniers the USA was 662.4 degrees C below the 30 year average USA temp!!!!

I'm sure YOU have a perfectly reasonable explanation. /sarc

have you even looked at the Way Back site? and you are saying all the 2006 version is the same as the current version? hahaha and you have the nerve to call me a liar!

as far as the RSS trends, you are again being deceptive. it was clearly stated that the trends become more volatile as the time frame decreases. you are mocking a trend of a few months and implying that it negates the usefulness of trends of 10 years or longer. you also highlighted mid trophospheric in the code when the first line specifically turned off mid trophospheric data sets. then you printed up mid trophospheric numbers (I assume thats what they were) and said they didnt match. I realize you are willing to say anything to 'win' an argument but it is getting to the point where you are acting like finding a typo is the equivilent of rebutting an idea.

The link to the wayback site for the 2006 numbers was the one YOU supplied and the second link Dave fixed Internet Archive Wayback Machine
and the numbers were the same as the numbers from the 2011 link YOU supplied and was the first link Dave fixed http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

And regarding the troposphere data, I linked directly to the RSS TLT data site (TLT stands for The Lower Troposphere) http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...cean_v03_3.txt and I supplied you with the link to the downloadable pdf of the data Lubos used rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011
And the trends became more volatile as the time became shorter because Lubos used mind-boggling numbers that were not typos. The most mind-boggling was April 2011 anomaly of -662.4C which means the temp for the USA was below the 30 year average by DOUBLE ABSOLUTE ZERO!!!!! He had other months where the anomaly was greater than absolute zero, April wasn't the only one.
And you swallowed Lubos' numbers whole!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

As usual, walleyedretard, the strange denier cult myths you believe in with all of your heart and little pea-brain may seem true in your denier cult fantasy world/echo chamber but they have no connection to actual reality or the real world we all actually live in (sticking your head in the sand doesn't really work, btw). You're impervious to facts but here they are anyway for the benefit of anyone reading this who has more than two brain cells to rub together (unlike you, walleyed).

NIWA stands by its scientists
New Zealand National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research
May 06, 2010
(free to reprint - not under copyright)

NIWA today rejected allegations by Hon Rodney Hide that it had misled Cabinet Ministers over its analysis of New Zealand temperatures.

“I stand by the integrity and professionalism of our scientists,” says NIWA’s Chief Executive John Morgan. “NIWA is an internationally respected and responsible science organisation and we do not get involved in political commentary or process. NIWA will continue to conduct its science in a highly professional and ethical way.”

“There are many lines of evidence which point to New Zealand’s climate warming,” says NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt. “This evidence includes land-based measurements, ship-based measurements, and shrinking glaciers.”

At the heart of Mr Hide’s criticism are two independent time-series using land-based temperature measurements. These are the long-running 7-station series which uses a composite record of measurements for seven places around New Zealand and goes back more than 100 years; and an independent, 11-station series which uses measurements from another 11 stations and stretches back almost 80 years. The 7-station series uses adjusted data to account for site changes, whereas the 11-station series uses unadjusted data. Both show a long-term warming trend for New Zealand.

In specific response to Mr Hide’s criticisms:

NIWA has already published a schedule of adjustments for its 7-station series on this website.

Information about the 11-station series (for which no adjustments were made) is already available on this website.

The two series show very similar trends. The warmer and cooler periods clearly do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one uses adjusted data. This is shown clearly in the graph...

Two New Zealand temperature series compared. The warmer and cooler periods clearly
do coincide, despite the fact they use separate data-sets and only one
(the seven-station series) uses adjusted data.

We wish to make clear the following:
.• NIWA makes its original climate data freely available over the web for anyone to analyse, and it can be accessed here. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
• The adjusted 7-station series was made available to a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition on 19 July 2006.
• The need to make adjustments is internationally accepted amongst climate scientists. In climate science, it is a necessary and well-established process to ensure you are comparing apples with apples, such as when a site moved to a higher or more exposed location. NIWA keeps all the original, unadjusted data secure in the national climate database, which anyone can access free over the web.
• The initial 7-station series was documented in Dr Jim Salinger’s PhD thesis for Victoria University. This was reviewed and passed by expert examiners, and is available from the university. Since then, several papers have been published in the scientific literature documenting the methods used and analysing the results from this series. References are available on our website.
• NIWA has a project underway to further document the 7-station series, and will post this information on our website.
• When this issue first arose last year, NIWA provided an open briefing to MPs, which was attended by Mr Hide.

What was that cult boy? I don't grock your gibberish.

Not surprising since you're far too retarded and idiotic to understand much of anything, let alone hard science.

And BTW, moron, you're apparently so ignorant and out of it that you don't even know how to spell 'grok' correctly. LOLOLOL...

 

[RollingThunder]

What was that cult boy? I don't grock your gibberish.

Not surprising since you're far too retarded and idiotic to understand much of anything, let alone hard science.

And BTW, moron, you're apparently so ignorant and out of it that you don't even know how to spell 'grok' correctly. LOLOLOL...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/bombthrower.jpg

the kookster, in all his glory....doing what he does best...

 

[FactFinder]

What is "hard science" Is that when one gives up objectivity and takes a hard stance? I thought that was antithetical to real science.

 

[RollingThunder]

What is "hard science" Is that when one gives up objectivity and takes a hard stance? I thought that was antithetical to real science.

Ahhh...what a moronic misinterpretation.....ignorant as well as stupid, I see. Too stupid to use google too, I guess, even when you admit to not understanding the terminology. LOLOL. So typical of clueless denier cultists like you.

Hard and soft science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate. Fields of the natural, physical, and computing sciences are often described as hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described as soft.[1] The hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.

The outline of 'hard science' is a very good description of modern climate science.


***

 

[westwall]

What is "hard science" Is that when one gives up objectivity and takes a hard stance? I thought that was antithetical to real science.

Ahhh...what a moronic misinterpretation.....ignorant as well as stupid, I see. Too stupid to use google too, I guess, even when you admit to not understanding the terminology. LOLOL. So typical of clueless denier cultists like you.

Hard and soft science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate. Fields of the natural, physical, and computing sciences are often described as hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described as soft.[1] The hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.

The outline of 'hard science' is a very good description of modern climate science.


***

Hmmm, I wonder where a "science" that relys on computer modelling sits?