So the NZCSC scientists are fully vindicated in their stance that NIWA got the adustments all wrong in the 7SS.

Now the NZT7, using different methods and getting different results for the adjustments, finishes up with the exact same trend for the last 100 years – 0.91°C.

This must mean one of two things: either “all roads lead to Rome” and the 0.91°C/century trend is correct; or the NZT7 has been manipulated to agree with the old 7SS.

Although the graphic above is a side-issue, it does suggest NIWA scientists are not above manipulating data to fit their objectives.

The simplest way to make such a picture would have been to take the start point and the end point and divide by 2.7 decades. If that was how it was done then picking another two dates 2.7 decades apart would clearly give a different result and it is a nonsense. If it was done differently I would like to know how they have backed out the natural cycle variations.

Jim Mck

The essence of the open letter is that he apologise for the unpleasant language used in discussing the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition e.g. describing them as ‘flat earthers’.

I have posted the link to the open letter here, in case anyone here would like to contact the Herald to request a reply from Brian Rudman.

http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/brian-rudman-will-he-apologise-an-open-letter/

Again, apologies for being off topic.

Mark.

Thanks for the support, Mark. Your site looks great. Good luck with it. I hope you keep up the energy. – Richard.

This seems to have demolished the NZ Science Coalition claims of absurd climate work by Salinger, but Salinger appears to have been vindicated 100% – perhaps by other means, but in essence completely vindicated. And by extension, the BOM review of Australian temperature history will probably result in exactly the same as before. The BEST re-review in the US? Doesn’t take much imagination to see a result identical to the GISTemp-to-date.

So on the skeptical account, we are not winning here, it seems. No one is saying the Australian BOM conducted a fraudulent whitewash.

So, are “we” wrong? Was our interpretation of the NZ temperature history out to lunch?

The semi-silence is strange.

The Peterson Review is quoted in the “Bible” thread – “positive and negative homogeneity adjustments in individual station’s maximum and minimum temperature time series largely balance out”.

So, it’s very unusual for adjustments to accumulate and create a long-term trend when none existed before.

But NIWA achieved this unusual feat with the 7SS. And then achieved it again with the NZT7, using a completely different set of adjustments.

Isn’t this the case? There is no change?

Because the sea is far more influential than the atmosphere in determining the trend of temperatures, the NOAA graphic can tell us what the relative warming trends must have been at various New Zealand coastal cities and towns.

Of the seven stations in the 7SS, we can see that they rank in the following order: Masterton (highest trend), Wellington, Nelson, Hokitika, Lincoln, Dunedin, Auckland.

But if we look at the trends favoured by NIWA (page 5) we find this ranking: Auckland (highest trend), Hokitika, Masterton, Wellington, Lincoln, Nelson, Dunedin.

Not one of them is in the right place!

But NIWA is certainly to be commended for their openness and candour in bringing this NOAA graphic to public attention.