Comments on: Auckland warming is deception

By: Climate Conversation Group » Temperature adjustments science or art?

Climate Conversation Group » Temperature adjustments science or art? — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:34:58 +0000

[...] Adjustments were subtracted when they should have been added. See Auckland warming is deception. [...]

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:32:59 +0000

I asked Anthony Watts (again) not long ago to include Climate Conversation but to date I can’t see a response; he probably gets that sort of request all the time. But it might be a good idea for you to send him your request, just as you’ve worded it here — it’s candid and genuine and might get his attention. We support other sceptics and would be pleased to see our name on their sites. Thanks.

By: (not so) Silent

(not so) Silent — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:08:11 +0000

Very nicely put Bob. I enjoyed that also.
This site should get linked on WUWT. Both blogs have a great way of cutting to the issue and explaining it well. And allowing contrary views a polite hearing with reasoned debate. Not like the scorn and ridicule you get on Hot Topic and Open Parachute. They censor as well.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how shrill and desperate Ken seems to be these days.
Look at the striking contrast of posts between him and Bob.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:32:40 +0000

An enjoyable analysis, that, Bob!

By: Bob D

Bob D — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:14:33 +0000

Once again, Ken, you’re missing the point.

The peer-reviewed literature shows that Auckland Albert Park has experienced significant non-climatic warming due to urbanisation effects and instrument changes. It concludes there is negligible climatic warming at the site. That, like it or not, is the current state of play.

The NIWA graph on the other hand was not peer-reviewed, has no calculation methodology to back it up, and yet claims a significant climatic warming.

Which carries more weight: a peer-reviewed paper in the NZ Journal of Science, written by a senior member of the Climate section of the Met Service, or an unsubstantiated set of unreproducible calculations based on a student thesis, that hasn’t gone through a journal peer-review process?

No contest, I suggest. There is no reason to produce a paper, there is nothing to refute. The current paper stands. The outlier is the NIWA graph. It must be removed.

Bizarrely, you’ve ended up defending anti-science.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:23:25 +0000

Huub it is hardly antagonistic to encourage someone to make their evidence available in the normal manner. As an academic you will know this is not via a blog or via legal action. It is not via a report claiming mischievously that adjustments are not necessary and accusing our scientists of misconduct – fraud.

If he has something of value it is best presented in the correct venues – conferences, peer reviewed publications, etc.

With the history of this organisation, (don’t forget their slanderous report has been thoroughly discredited) it’s hardly surprising that he can’t get any scientific ear.

And of course he doesn’t want one. This organization exists to attack the science, to distort and discredit the science. And to libel our honest scientists.

it is political – not scientific.

And it is blatantly dishonest.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:12:39 +0000

Google discloses that a pdf copy of the Hessell 1980 paper may be found at http://tinyurl.com/2djeu26. The Albert Park screen-change effect is set out in Table 2 on page 4.

By: Quentin F

Quentin F — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:15:28 +0000

They do it (data massaging) in New England too
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ne_temp_history_trends.pdf
Article by Dr Edward Long

By: Bob D

Bob D — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:25:09 +0000

Hi Huub,

There appear to be some old paper-based Met Service records that haven’t made their way onto the CliFlo site. From time to time NIWA have had to go back to these and correct CliFlo. An example is the Hokitika Township vs. Southside sites, where they were joined together in CliFlo as one station, but when NIWA checked the old paper records, they found them to be two separate stations, and they had to correct the database. The same happened at Thorndon, where 29 “missing” overlap days were discovered.

Dr Hessell would of course have had full access to all these records, and his analysis would in fact have been more accurate than NIWA’s now, because there would have been no confusion as to what was digitised and what wasn’t – it was all paper-based, and all of it was accessible.

By: Huub Bakker

Huub Bakker — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:47:14 +0000

Heavens Ken, you sound very antagonistic.

Speaking as an academic, it seems to me that Barry is providing a valuable service for NIWA. While none of us likes to be proved wrong, we should be keen to see work reviewed and errors pointed out so that they can be corrected. Certainly the apparent error in the sign of the screen-change adjustment in 1950 seems to be a real issue. Barry has either made an error in his analysis or NIWA has. It would be very simple for NIWA to either explain why Barry is wrong or to correct the temperature series; providing a better product and increasing trust in NIWA’s work.

Unfortunately Barry has not provided a link to the page in question so it’s very hard to investigate his claims.

BTW there is nothing in the metadata for the Albert St site regarding a screen change in 1950. What other source did Hessell have to provide this information/