Comments on: Are we feeling warmer yet?

By: Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS | MandM

Auckland Public Meeting: Climategate, NIWA and the ETS | MandM — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:53:44 +0000

[...] featuring Richard Treadgold, convenor of the Climate Conversation Group, who collated the paper Are we Feeling Warmer Yet? that Matt drew from in NIWA, Climategate and Evasive Fallacious Answers. This data originated from [...]

By: Our cooling world - Page 24

Our cooling world - Page 24 — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:41:06 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Climate Conversation Group » Lincoln – a comedy of errors

Climate Conversation Group » Lincoln – a comedy of errors — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:00:47 +0000

[...] would be easy to overlook this little paper, but don’t be tempted! In the context of “NIWAgate”, our legal move against NIWA and world-wide action to clarify temperature records which seem to [...]

By: Climate Conversation Group » Nicks in the myths of time

Climate Conversation Group » Nicks in the myths of time — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 03:12:48 +0000

[...] myths arise from a misinterpretation of the paper we published last November, Are we feeling warmer yet?, which questions the official national temperature graph produced by NIWA (available on their web [...]

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:33:06 +0000

That’s a long time ago, to be sure.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:02:42 +0000

Tauranga have records going back to 1913

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/local/news/city-slips-to-fifth-in-sunshine-survey/3760620/

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:34:41 +0000

Yes, no doubt there could be such stations tucked away around the country. But I don’t think there’s an issue with the management or the quality of the stations JUST BECAUSE they’ve been run by the government service. There are quality issues, sure, as you might expect on old pieces of equipment and old records. The scientists know more about that than I do, but I have not heard anybody suggesting we should replace the official sites.

By: Procida

Procida — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:26:28 +0000

Richard, are there any large beef, sheep or “other” stations or institutions, nationwide, which have been in the same family for generations, who have kept historical records over several decades, using the same form of measurement?

If so, wouldn’t their records be far more accurate than NIWA stations which tinker around with shifting, and possible placing thermometers in “conditions” which may not replicate those of the previous locations?

Surely somewhere there are longstanding, consistent, comparable records, which don’t have either confounders or variables?

By: bethyada

bethyada — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:22:08 +0000

Yes, adjustments can of course be valid. The point here is that they’ve refused to disclose them, even when asked to do so by scientists working in the field. Yes, and more than that, they should have labelled the graph adjusted as well as specify how it was adjusted without being asked.

We couldn't agree more. - Richard

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:56:23 +0000

Nonsense. At each location, there are a number of stations that have been operating for different lengths of time. Wellington has 30, 9 of which have the annual averages you used in your graphs. Many of these stations are no longer active (like Thorndon), and for each, start and end dates and many other important details (like elevation) are right there in the database. To make your graphs, you therefore had to combine data from different stations for each locality. However, you chose not to tell us that or show us at what points in your graphs there were changes in thermometer location; and you wrote that there was nothing in the ‘station’ histories that warranted adjustments. For changes in elevation this is clearly false, and it’s very difficult to believe that your ‘scientists’ wouldn’t have been aware of that.

So, I have some questions for you: why did you not tell us where there were changes in thermometer location on each of your graphs? How did you choose at what points to make those changes? Why do you not think such changes (‘anything in the station histories’) are significant? And why do you continue to maintain that NIWA has refused to answer your questions when you say yourself that one of their scientists provided their adjusted dataset for each location, and when the station information available in the database allows you to build your own graphs and see exactly when and what adjustments have been made?

I’ll ask the scientists. I can say that the data we obtained from Dr Salinger’s colleague showed the output, but not the method used. – Richard