Comments on: NIWA’s maverick methodology http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/ Taking the heat out of global warming Sun, 20 May 2012 09:44:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Richard Treadgold http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40415 Richard Treadgold Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:03:24 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40415 Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

]]> By: Richard C (NZ) http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40283 Richard C (NZ) Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:06:14 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40283 Earth the same temperature now as 30 years ago — and decreasing http://www.heliogenic.net/2011/02/03/earth-the-same-temperature-now-as-30-years-ago-and-decreasing/ Earth the same temperature now as 30 years ago — and decreasing

http://www.heliogenic.net/2011/02/03/earth-the-same-temperature-now-as-30-years-ago-and-decreasing/

]]> By: Richard C (NZ) http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40262 Richard C (NZ) Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:51:15 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40262 "assumed.........." being the key element. Who is to say that assumed adjustments are incorrect? A review can only discard subjective adjustments by weight of opinion but that does not make their assumed replacement values any more correct than Salinger's assumed values. Even if there were firm rules for selection of reference stations, that would not make the process any more than an assumption - it's would just be an assumption with constraints. “assumed……….” being the key element. Who is to say that assumed adjustments are incorrect?

A review can only discard subjective adjustments by weight of opinion but that does not make their assumed replacement values any more correct than Salinger’s assumed values.

Even if there were firm rules for selection of reference stations, that would not make the process any more than an assumption – it’s would just be an assumption with constraints.

]]> By: Alexander K http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40232 Alexander K Sat, 05 Feb 2011 15:19:00 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40232 I had experience of wildly differing microclimates between Albany and Warkworth on a daily basis for a number of years and know that from that experience that any person who insists that weather stations in New Zealand which are widely separated will give similar readings is either barking mad or absolutely in ignorance about NZ's climate, neither something one would expect of NIWA. Playing statistical games to ensure that the mythical warming occurred is hardly objective science - inference can never be empirical, observed data. Lord Rutherford would NOT approve of NIWA's approach to science! I had experience of wildly differing microclimates between Albany and Warkworth on a daily basis for a number of years and know that from that experience that any person who insists that weather stations in New Zealand which are widely separated will give similar readings is either barking mad or absolutely in ignorance about NZ’s climate, neither something one would expect of NIWA.
Playing statistical games to ensure that the mythical warming occurred is hardly objective science – inference can never be empirical, observed data.
Lord Rutherford would NOT approve of NIWA’s approach to science!

]]> By: Barry Brill http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40218 Barry Brill Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:54:36 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40218 "if there is not sufficient overlap then it’s just subjective guessing". Well, it's a bit better than that. When there is no actual overlap, NIWA sets out to create a "virtual overlap" by reference to other stations. If another acceptable station (or the average of several such) experienced an inter-annual temperature shift at the relevant time, then it is assumed that the subject site would have experienced an identical shift. The problem is that there are no firm rules governing the selection of the reference stations – or the weighting to be ascribed to each one. The Review discards 51 of the 52 adjustments made by Salinger, and disagrees with his selections. This ensures that the outcome is determined by the subjective decisions of the particular analyst. “if there is not sufficient overlap then it’s just subjective guessing”.

Well, it’s a bit better than that. When there is no actual overlap, NIWA sets out to create a “virtual overlap” by reference to other stations. If another acceptable station (or the average of several such) experienced an inter-annual temperature shift at the relevant time, then it is assumed that the subject site would have experienced an identical shift.

The problem is that there are no firm rules governing the selection of the reference stations – or the weighting to be ascribed to each one. The Review discards 51 of the 52 adjustments made by Salinger, and disagrees with his selections. This ensures that the outcome is determined by the subjective decisions of the particular analyst.

]]> By: Richard C (NZ) http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40193 Richard C (NZ) Sat, 05 Feb 2011 06:23:25 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40193 "The temperatures from the two sites may be merged, as long as the difference between their “base level temperatures” can be identified. This is best done by running the two sites in parallel for a lengthy period and then comparing averages from the two sets of data. The interannual variations (being in lockstep) cancel out and the difference in base levels is revealed. " Fine, but if there is not sufficient overlap then it's just subjective guessing, and if a similar process was not followed for the 31 remote station comparisons then they are just making it up. No need to be a climate scientist to do that, any amateur effort will do because how can the results be verified except to reinstall stations for the purpose of comparison in retrospect? “The temperatures from the two sites may be merged, as long as the difference between their “base level temperatures” can be identified. This is best done by running the two sites in parallel for a lengthy period and then comparing averages from the two sets of data. The interannual variations (being in lockstep) cancel out and the difference in base levels is revealed. ”

Fine, but if there is not sufficient overlap then it’s just subjective guessing, and if a similar process was not followed for the 31 remote station comparisons then they are just making it up. No need to be a climate scientist to do that, any amateur effort will do because how can the results be verified except to reinstall stations for the purpose of comparison in retrospect?

]]> By: Andy http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/02/niwas-maverick-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-40175 Andy Sat, 05 Feb 2011 04:14:47 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=8722#comment-40175 If these temperature records are so intertwined with dependencies, then it is very hard to pull apart the threads to see where the warming signal is coming from. Thanks to Barry for another interesting analysis. If these temperature records are so intertwined with dependencies, then it is very hard to pull apart the threads to see where the warming signal is coming from.

Thanks to Barry for another interesting analysis.

]]>