It’s six years since NIWA published their Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series (pdf, 8.5 MB), the latest version of the national temperature record. It’s six years, too, since NIWA promised the people of New Zealand (in Parliament) they would publish the methodology in that report in a peer-reviewed journal. But they haven’t done so—maybe they aren’t too pleased with it.
Last year, three scientists associated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition published a peer-reviewed paper concluding the New Zealand temperature rise over the last hundred years was only 0.28°C, much lower than the last NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.
Kenneth Richard has just posted an article on the de Freitas et al. paper at NoTricksZone – h/t Maggy Wassilieff. He describes the paper thus:
According to scientists de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015), removing “contaminated data” from New Zealand’s nation-wide temperature record — and using updated measurement techniques rather than error-ridden outdated ones — reduces the long-term (1909 to 2009) New Zealand warming trend from today’s +0.91°C to +0.28°C, a 325% change.
NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.
If NIWA haven’t published their own methodology they can scarcely claim their method superior, as they did during the application for judicial review in 2012. It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C. Regardless of the global warming hypothesis, science shows there’s been no significant warming in New Zealand.
Mr Richard concludes by putting the de Freitas et al. paper in a stunning global context:
A few days ago, a compilation of over 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers revealed that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades, and that modern temperatures are still some of the coldest of the last 10,000 years. Apparently the nation of New Zealand can now be added to this list as a region where no significant changes in temperature have taken place within the last 150 years.
Visits: 611
In February 2010 Dr Wayne Mapp advised the NZ Parliament that a scientific paper on the NZ temperature record was to be prepared by NIWA staff and submitted to a scientific journal for publication.
Money was allocated for this work.
In the 6.5 years that have passed, no peer-reviewed scientific paper on this topic has appeared from NIWA.
Where is it?
“NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.”
NIWA certainly does recognise its value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
De Freitas has questioned anthropogenic global warming, and the way information is received and interpreted. He has written that carbon dioxide emissions themselves may not necessarily be the source of recent increases in global temperature. In the New Zealand Herald (9 May 2006), he wrote:
“There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6 °C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming.”
As an editor for the journal Climate Research[2] he accepted the now discredited paper which gave rise to the Soon and Baliunas controversy.
In 2013, De Freitas said the devastating heatwave and wildfires that ravaged New South Wales in January were not linked to climate change, and said the Earth hasn’t warmed at all in a decade.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_(journal)
In 2003, a controversial paper written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas.[4][5] The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium”.[5] Several of the scientists cited in the paper have since denied this conclusion and have claimed that their data and results had been misrepresented.[6] In response to the handling by the journal publisher of the controversy over the paper’s publication, several scientists, including newly appointed editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned from the journal’s editorial board.[7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
In 2003 von Storch was appointed as editor-in-chief of the journal Climate Research (having been on the editorial board since 1994), with effect from 1 August 2003, after a controversial article (Soon and Baliunas 2003[10]) had raised questions about the decentralised review process (with no editor-in-chief), and the editorial policy of one editor, Chris de Freitas.[11] Von Storch drafted and circulated an editorial on the new regime, reserving the right to reject as editor in chief manuscripts proposed for acceptance by one of the editors. Following the publisher’s refusal to publish it unless all editors serving on the board endorsed the new policy, von Storch resigned four days before he was due to start his new position.[12] Four other editors later followed. Von Storch later told the Chronicle of Higher Education that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”[13]
Dennis, do you have a point to make by this cutting and pasting exercise?
What is the point of this above cut and paste?
We are well familiar with Climategate, which according to the paranoid conspiracy theorist Dennis has something to do with “Big OIl”
>Where has all the warming gone?
Depends where you are. It hasn’t gone to Perth.
‘Coldest Perth September recorded in 120 years of records (must be climate change)’
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/coldest-perth-september-recorded-in-120-years-of-records/
>”It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C.”
Thing is: that’s not “long” term. It’s only from 1909.
There is NZ meteorological data recorded in the late 1800s. de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015) expound:
Not long-term either, just longer. NIWA’s proprietory Virtual Climate System Network (VCSN) doesn’t bother with homogenization and you have to pay for that. Why bother with it in the giveaway?
A national or local record (high or low) still stands in raw site data irrespective of homogenization adjustments but it doesn’t in a homogenized series because the temperature is no longer as read. That’s bogus.
[deFD&B]>”Extant 1868 archives record the national normal mean surface temperature at 13.1 °C (when converted from degrees Fahrenheit) being the average of 10+ years read at six representative weather stations.”
6SS 1858 – 1868
13.1
7SS 1996 – 2015
12.45
12.27
13.41
13.35
12.79
12.90
12.67
12.62
12.17
13.11
12.40 << 10 years to 2015
12.67
12.86
12.31
13.10 << 2010 same as 1858 – 1868 6SS
12.80
12.50
13.40
12.80
12.70 << 12.74 average of last 10 years
>”13.10 << 2010 same as 1858 – 1868 6SS"
2010 was an El Nino spike in the 7SS data.
‘Supplementary Information: Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ – July 2011
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf
Lincoln: Site Change in 2000 – no adjustment in either NIWA or NSCSC
Wellington: Site Change in 2005 – NIWA Result
The shift between Kelburn and Kelburn AWS is calculated by means of the 16-month overlap. It is found to be -0.06°C. This is a very small amount, and will be accepted as is.
# # #
No other site changes post 2000, just Kelburn 2005. The 21st Century and last 10 years in 7SS are essentially non-homogenized and on the same basis as 1858 – 1868 6SS.
NIWA don’t have the IPCC projection plotted against any of their datasets. The baseline is the average of 1980 – 1999 centred on 1990. Their “projection” is here:
Figure 2: Schematic of time horizons for climate projections.
https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/large/public/sites/default/files/images/imported/0010/73495/schem_timehorizon_revised2_0.gif?itok=6qAq1S8o
From: Climate change scenarios for New Zealand
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios
0.9°C by 2040 from 1990, 0.18°C/decade, 0.45°C by 2015.
1980 – 1999 7SS
12.25
12.86
12.12
12.03
12.68
12.85
12.65
12.77
12.93
12.97 Average 12.55
12.99
12.16
11.49
11.84
12.33
12.59
12.45
12.27
13.41
13.35
12.55 + 0.45 = 13.0 target 2015. 12.74 average of last 10 years to 2015.
NIWA’s “projection” is already overshooting by 0.26°C at 2015.
@Dennis,
Really? This is verifiable only if you buy the book Climate Cover-Up – The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009), by James Hoggan. I don’t believe it, but you probably believe his other one-eyed assertions, too, and all the changes made by William M. Connolley, whose deceitful, climate activist fingers have been all over these entries since 2005. Find better material. Like, credible.
If you want to refute the paper’s findings, refute them. But don’t just stand off and hurl mud pies.
de Freitas got the sack. Von Storch resigned when he couldn’t raise the standard of peer review. Other editors followed.
The de Freitas paper has been debunked more often than sailor’s squeeze. Hasn’t it?
BOM looked at the NIWA methodology too, didn’t it? I’m so bored with this I can’t be bothered checking.
Anyway, ignoring NZ data would make no significant difference to the global mean. Earth is retaining more energy and warming. A lot. Surface and oceans.
Denialism isn’t stopping the warming. It’s like the daft NZ stance on “NUCLEAR”, just hindering progress. The world will need nuclear soon enough, regardless.
Even if only to pump out the flood water … 🙂 🙂 🙂
@Dennis,
Which paper? The man’s published hundreds. Prove it.
I can’t believe you raised this. Didn’t you know? Their report was distinctly unfavourable. See my post NIWA — show us the peer review! on April 28, 2011.
Surprise! The NZ temperature record is uniquely long in the Pacific basin, which extends over 33% of the Earth’s surface, so our data have an enormous influence on the global mean surface temperature. All the more important to get it right. Don’t want to distort the truth, do we?
What warming?
Ha ha ha
@Dennis,
Now you just laugh at questions of fact? You’re becoming more and more irrelevant.
Dennis
>”Earth is retaining more energy and warming. A lot. Surface and oceans”
Where? OHC now is same as March 2013. El Nino heat dissipated. There’s minimal temperature rise this century therefore minimal heat accumulation.
Problem is Dennis: What little excess energy there is accumulating now is a tiny fraction of the theoretical GHG-forced energy demanded by IPCC projections which downscaled to New Zealand are already overshooting.
NIWA’s NZ “projection” is already overshooting by 0.26°C at 2015.
The theory is BUSTED Dennis.
Denis
>”Anyway, ignoring NZ data would make no significant difference to the global mean.”
Take out the entire Southern Hemisphere and the global mean would still be skewed by the Northern Hemisphere.
“Global” warming is contributed far more by the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern:
GISTEMP: Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif
1.3 vs 0.8 C
GISTEMP: Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
1.0 vs 0.6 C
Don’t be fooled by the “global” warming illusion Dennis. It is differential and nothing to do with “well mixed greenhouse gases”. Notice too that Southern Latitudes do not conform to the CO2 curve. Neither do Northern Latitudes.
There is no relationship whatsoever between CO2 and Northern Hemisphere temperature (at maximum “adjustment” in the case of GISTEMP).
BTW. GISTEMP picks up NZ stations outside of 7SS (Why? HadCRU/DRUTEM takes 7SS+4 offshore) and adjusts beyond recognition for no reason but to achieve “warming” commensurate with their climate model (e.g. Gisborne Aero). This is well documented here at CCG and elsewhere. They do this everywhere on the planet.
>”NIWA’s NZ “projection” is already overshooting by 0.26°C at 2015.”
This translates to excess Joules over time (cumulative), the same problem the IPCC have with global theory excess except theirs is a problem of an excess of 100s of ZetaJoules.
Q (Joules) = mass of AIR * heat capacity of AIR (cp) * Temperature
This calculation for the AIR mass over the area of New Zealand with 0.26°C from 1990 – 2015 would be very embarrassing for NIWA. 0.26°C is bad enough.
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
“The warming trend over the 77 year period of this series is close to 1°C
“We have analysed raw data from these sites directly, making no adjustments to the numbers from the NIWA climate database. Taking all sites together and averaging the annual mean temperatures anomalies (difference from 1961–90 mean at each site) results in Figure 1 below.”
But. Ideology says no warming.
Science is irrelevant. *Cough*
“The warming trend over the 77 year period of this series is close to 1°C”
Why is Dennis pushing the discredited and non-peer reviewed NIWA report?
Just another Big Government shill
Wellington latitude is 41.2865°S
GISTEMP 24S – 64S
Year..24S-44S..44S-64S.. Ave
2006 54 19 22
2007 53 6 29.5
2008 55 10 32.5
2009 61 18 39.5
2010 65 23 44
2011 68 26 47
2012 59 25 42
2013 63 30 46.5
2014 75 23 49
2015 74 19 46.5
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.txt
YIKES! 24.5°C warming just this last decade 2006 – 2015.
GOVT WARNING: THIS IS THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT IN NEW ZEALAND, EVACUATION TO ANTARCTICA MUST PROCEED IMMEDIATELY……NO….WAIT….
let’s add in and average Antarctica and 64S-90S.
2006 22 33 38.5
2007 29.5 114 71.75
2008 32.5 45 38.75
2009 39.5 80 59.75
2010 44 34 39
2011 47 92 69.5
2012 42 43 42.5
2013 46.5 67 56.5
2014 49 48 48.5
2015 46.5 -31 7.75
Hmmm….30.75°C cooling this last decade. We are in terrible trouble. We will all freeze to death if we stay here.
GOVT WARNING: THE ORDER TO EVACUATE TO ANTARCTICA HAS BEEN CANCELLED. EVACUATION TO THE TROPICS MUST PROCEED IMMEDIATELY
[NIWA] >”“The warming trend over the 77 year period of this series is close to 1°C”
What’s the trend in this 6SS and 7SS data Dennis?
[deFD&B]>”Extant 1868 archives record the national normal mean surface temperature at 13.1 °C (when converted from degrees Fahrenheit) being the average of 10+ years read at six representative weather stations.”
6SS 1858 – 1868
13.1
7SS 1996 – 2015
12.45
12.27
13.41
13.35
12.79
12.90
12.67
12.62
12.17
13.11
12.40 << 10 years to 2015
12.67
12.86
12.31
13.10 << 2010 El Nino year spike but only same as 1858 – 1868 6SS
12.80
12.50
13.40
12.80
12.70 << 12.74 average of last 10 years
Cranks go at it hammer and tong
For them science is always wrong
GHGs are harmless gases
Billowing from their asses
Fortunately they won’t be round for long
[NIWA] >”“The warming trend [linear only in 11SS] over the 77 year period [1930 – 2007] of this series is close to 1°C”
Raoul Island, Tauranga Airport, Ruakura (Hamilton), Gisborne Airport, Chateau Tongariro, Palmerston North DSIR/AgResearch, Westport Airport, Molesworth, Queenstown, Invercargill Airport and Campbell Island.
The linear trend in Ruakura (Hamilton) since 1970 is negligible. The warming occurred prior to 1970. Look at the 11SS graph:
11SS
https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/large/public/sites/default/files/images/0009/99837/average_all_annual_0.jpg?itok=_MnOpatq
1/7.7 = 0.13°C/decade or 1.3°C/Century. NIWA’s 7SS trend 1909- 2010 is 0.92°C/Century. NZCSC+CdeF 0.28°C/Century.
But fact remains: No 7SS or 11SS warming this century. The per century linear trend does NOT represent the data statistically. It is absurd to put a straight line through that data. A polynomial trend tells an entirely different story:
R&S/NZCSC 7SS polynomial trend vs NIWA 7SS polynomial trend
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/R%26S%20poly%20vs%20NIWA%20poly.png
Thus the idiotic notion of a linear trend in NZ temperature falls apart completely.
Dennis N Horne on October 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:
Dirty Ditty Dennis and Serially Wrong Simon.
What a pair. We need better trolls.
[NIWA 11SS] >”Raoul Island, Tauranga Airport, Ruakura (Hamilton), Gisborne Airport, Chateau Tongariro, Palmerston North DSIR/AgResearch, Westport Airport, Molesworth, Queenstown, Invercargill Airport and Campbell Island.”
This is what NASA GISS does to Gisborne Aero:
Gisborne Aero monthly plotted on this page (click graph to zoom in):
http://climate.unur.com/ghcn-v2/507/93292.html
There is no reason for a break between 1974 and 1979. But 1975/76 is only a 0.1 adjustment. There is a progressive cumulative adjustment in 0.1 increments adding to 0.7.
GISS raw monthly data (as plotted):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_14_0/station.txt
GISS adj monthly data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.txt
See metANN column at far right of the data sheets.
At 1963 the cumulative adjustment is 0.7
At 1968 the cumulative adjustment is 0.6
At 1972 the cumulative adjustment is 0.5
At 1975 the cumulative adjustment is 0.4
At 1980 the cumulative adjustment is 0.3
At 1982 the cumulative adjustment is 0.2
At 1986 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2001 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2002 the cumulative adjustment is 0.0
There is no valid reason for adjustments of this nature. And there is no resemblance to the BEST adjustments: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157058
Richard C wants better trolls
Andy S wants blow-up dolls
I just love the settled science
Not for me this daft defiance
Finding myself in funny holes
Graph comparison
NASA GISS adjusted annual Gisborne Aero temperature 1962 – 2004
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.gif
Compare to Gisborne Aero all meteorological temperature data 1962 – 1991.
Gisborne Aero: Vertical scale is temperature in tenths of degrees Celsius. 400 is +40°C, 145 is 14.5°C
http://climate.unur.com/ghcn-v2/507/93292-zoomed.png
Can anyone see any difference in the meteorological data 1962 to 1991 ?
NASA GISS would have us believe there was a 1°C difference.
NASA GISS says Gisborne Aero was about 13.2°C at 1962
NASA GISS adjusted annual Gisborne Aero temperature 1962 – 2004
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.gif
NIWA says Gisborne Aero was 14.18 + 0.31 = 14.49°C at 1962
Download the NIWA 11SS data here:
https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/import/attachments/11station_temperature_series_data.xls
NIWA disagrees with GISS by +1.29°C
NASA GISS data is scientific fraud.
Dirty Dennis was a troll
He loved his dirty dittys
Then one day he caught a cold
For a Warmy, what a crushing pity
@Richard C
In your 12:35 posting and subsequent… the giss data does not come through on your link….
I just get a “not found” notice.
(not that I really need any convincing…… but since I’m in Gizzy, I may as well have all the relevant data at my fingertips…)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507932920000&dt=1&ds=1
Tx Dennis,
best little aeropaddock in the country, eh?
Especially the main railway line crossing the runway.
Maggy
>”I just get a “not found” notice”
Yes sorry, those links give trouble. Here’a a different approach:
Go to this page:
Station Data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Select 1) “after removing suspicious records” and enter 2) “Gisborne Aero” then ‘Search’
Should get this page: Station List Search – Gisborne Aero [Hotlink]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=13&name=gisborne+Aero
Click the ‘Gisborne Aero’ hotlink and you should get the adjusted data page:
Station Data: Gisborne Aero (38.6 S,178.0 E) [ADJUSTED]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507932920000&dt=1&ds=13
Click ‘Download monthly data as text’ – Gisborne Aero [ADJUSTED]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.txt
This is GISS ADJUSTED from GHCN. GHCN is either “RAW” or ADJUSTED.
Too many links follow so I will break up my reply to avoid going into the spam trap.
Maggy
To get “raw” GHCN data go to this page:
Station Data Based on GHCN v2, Ending in Oct 2011
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Select 1) “raw GHCN data” and 2) Gisborne Aero then ‘Search’
As above, you should get this page: Station List Search – Gisborne Aero [Hotlink]. Same link trail should get you the GHCN data:
GHCN Gisborne Aero [“RAW”, but obviously adjusted as below]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_0_0/station.txt
GHCN “raw” 1963 metANN 13.62
NIWA adjusted 1963 ANN 14.18 -0.47 = 13.71°C
GISS adjusted 1963 metANN 13.23
Continues next comment.
Maggy
The actual RAW data is in NIWA’s CliFlo database here:
NIWA: The National Climate Database [CliFlo] – Database Query
https://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wgenf.genform1
About CliFlo – CliFlo Subscriptions
To access more than the demo, you must have a subscription to CliFlo. This can be done on-line using the link on the left.
https://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
If you have problems pulling out the raw Gisborne Aero data from CliFlo I might be able to help. Been a while since I’ve used it so give me some time to remember.
Also suggest you read this:
‘Cooling The Past In New Zealand’
February 9, 2015. By Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/cooling-the-past-in-new-zealand/
Scroll down to comments and Euan Mearns links to “Roger Andrews has a post on Energy Matters today that summarises the data from 800 stations – Roger seems to have worked on this for over a decade”
Much on Southern Hemisphere
‘How Hemispheric Homogenization Hikes Global Warming’
February 9, 2015 by Roger Andrews
http://euanmearns.com/how-hemispheric-homogenization-hikes-global-warming/
Richard C (NZ)
Three pages of twaddle. You’d bore the pants of a clothes line. I gave Maggy the link when she asked for it. One line.
Dennis’ (unnamed) data link corresponds to GHCN v2 from what I can see
From Dennis
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507932920000&dt=1&ds=1
GHCN Gisborne Aero [“RAW”, but obviously adjusted as above and below]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_0_0/station.txt
Gisborne Aero 2807 CliFlo RAW Annual Mean from NIWA
2807 1906 2 14
2807 1907 2 14.9
2807 1908 2 14.2
2807 1909 2 15.1
2807 1910 2 14.9
2807 1911 2 14.2
2807 1912 2 13.7
2807 1913 2 13.9
2807 1914 2 13.9
2807 1915 2 14.6
2807 1938 2 14.9
2807 1939 2 13.2
2807 1940 2 13.4
2807 1941 2 13.6
2807 1942 2 14.3
2807 1943 2 13.9
2807 1944 2 14
2807 1945 2 13.6
2807 1946 2 14
2807 1947 2 13.7
2807 1948 2 14.2
2807 1949 2 13.9
2807 1950 2 14.1
2807 1951 2 13.6
2807 1952 2 13.8
2807 1953 2 13.7
2807 1954 2 14
2807 1955 2 14.5
2807 1956 2 14.7
2807 1958 2 14.5
2807 1959 2 13.8
2807 1960 2 13.8
2807 1961 2 13.9
2807 1962 2 14.5 << NIWA 11SS 14.49. GHCN and GISS – no data prior to 1963
2807 1963 2 13.7 << NIWA 11SS 13,71. GHCH v2 13.62. GISS 13.23
2807 1964 2 14.0
2807 1965 2 13.7
2807 1966 2 13.8
2807 1967 2 13.8
2807 1968 2 14.1
2807 1969 2 13.6
2807 1970 2 14.6
2807 1971 2 14.6
2807 1972 2 14
2807 1973 2 14.7
2807 1974 2 14.3
2807 1975 2 14.4
2807 1976 2 13.3
2807 1977 2 13.5
2807 1978 2 14.1
2807 1979 2 14.5
2807 1980 2 14.1
2807 1981 2 14.8
2807 1982 2 13.7
2807 1983 2 14
2807 1984 2 14.2
2807 1985 2 14.1
2807 1986 2 14.2
2807 1987 2 14.3
2807 1988 2 15.0 << GISS 14.94 below
2807 1989 2 14.9
2807 1990 2 15.1
2807 1991 2 14.2 << GISS 14.19 Below
Compare to GISS:
NASA GISS adjusted annual Gisborne Aero temperature 1962 – 2004
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.gif
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC D-J-F M-A-M J-J-A S-O-N metANN
1962 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 10.7 9.8 10.5 10.8 14.4 15.0 16.2 999.9 999.9 10.3 13.4 999.90
YEAR metANN
1963 13.23
1964 13.26
1965 13.28
1966 13.28
1967 13.24
1968 13.70
1969 12.78
1970 13.99
1971 14.03
1972 13.55
1988 14.94
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.txt
From
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.txt
# # #
There's no warming in Gisborne Aero meteorological data since 1906 but GHCN only takes data from 1963, adjusts it a little, and GISS takes the 1963 series and adjusts it a lot for no reason except to achieve "warming".
>”Dennis’ (unnamed) data link corresponds to GHCN v2 from what I can see
I’ll do this again to get the data source and a link trail that works and to follow:
From Dennis (GHCN v2 “RAW”)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507932920000&dt=1&ds=1
Download Station Data – raw GHCN, Gisborne Aero
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Station List Search – Gisborne Aero [raw GHCN, Gisborne Aero]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?d=1&ds=0&name=gisborne+aero
Station Data: Gisborne Aero (38.6 S,178.0 E) [raw GHCN, Gisborne Aero] (link works)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=507932920000&dt=1&ds=0
GHCN Gisborne Aero [raw] (link probably doesn’t work, go back up a step)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_0_0/station.txt
Warming OR No Warming?
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ) Three pages of twaddle. You’d bore the pants of a clothes line. I gave Maggy the link when she asked for it. One line.”
Do you even know what you linked to Dennis? Was it raw GHCN v2 or was it adjusted GISS?
You assigned no title.
It was “raw” GHCN v2 BTW. At 1963 it was 0.09°C lower than NIWA’s 11SS you liked to upthread for the same station and 0.08 lower than CliFlo raw and 0.39 higher than GISS.
Surprising how many different values for one thermometer reading of max/min and 13.7 mean isn’t it?
I think you should all have a stiff drink and watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9welNKQsQho
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: The Battle Continues. Simon Fraser University
Richard C (NZ)
If you’d ever done any science you would know cheats copy the same page.
Now, settle down and watch the video. You won’t learn anything but …
Dennis
You link to BEST. Bad move. Did you not notice upthread this in respect to Gisborne Aero?
BEST adjustments are wildly at odds with GISS adjustments and both are at odds with NIWA.
Same all over the world. BEST and GISS are wildly at odds with each other and both are wildly at odds with National datasets.
>”If you’d ever done any science you would know cheats copy the same page.”
Same page of what Dennis? You don’t know what you linked to do you?
I had to do that for you.
Richard C (NZ)
Whooooosshhhh
Don’t cha love BEST’s chutzpah: “Difference from Regional Expectation”.
So how was this “Regional Expectation” established for Gisborne Aero in their circular reasoning?
Temperature Monitoring Station: GISBORNE AERODROME AWS
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157058
Nearby Long Temperature Stations
NAPIER AERODROM AWS
WAIOURU AIRSTRIP
NEW PLYMOUTH AERODROME
AUCKLAND, ALBERT PARK
PARAPARAUMU AERODROME
AUCKLAND WHENUAPAI AP
Each of these have “Regional Expectation” too. Where from?
Continues next comment
Temperature Monitoring Station: GISBORNE AERODROME AWS
Nearby Long Temperature Stations
Napier was warmer in the 1870s than 2000s. Adjusted down of course, “regional expectation” you know. Massive fluctuations too. All carefully smoothed out into a nice warming trend:
Temperature Monitoring Station: NAPIER AERODROM AWS
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157055
Waiouru had pronounced COOLING trend (-3.24 °C / Century). Adjusted to warming of course, “regional expectation” apparently (0.99 °C / Century):
Temperature Monitoring Station: WAIOURU AIRSTRIP
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/172950
New Plymouth on the other side of the island had a little warming but that was sliced and diced:
Temperature Monitoring Station: NEW PLYMOUTH AERODROME
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157057
Albert Park in a completely different climate region continues in the UHI/Sheltering era. NIWA and NZCSC go to Mangere. But even so there was no warming from 1850 to 2000s (0.07 °C / Century). Adjusted massively of course. “regional expectation” again (0.83 °C / Century)”
Temperature Monitoring Station: AUCKLAND, ALBERT PARK
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157062
And those BEST adjustments have no resemblance to GISS adjustments whatsoever.
What a farce.
>”Albert Park in a completely different climate region continues in the UHI/Sheltering era. NIWA and NZCSC go to Mangere. But even so there was no warming from 1850 to 2000s (0.07 °C / Century). Adjusted massively of course. “regional expectation” again (0.83 °C / Century)”
BEST Albert Park raw 1850 to 2000s: 0.07 °C / Century.
After breakpoint alignment: 0.64 °C / Century.
Regional expectation during same months: 0.83 °C / Century.
How does this compare with NIWA’s 7SS and R&S/NZCSC?
Supplementary Information: Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ – July 2011
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011%20SI.pdf
NIWA Albert Park does not begin until Sept 1909. 1910-2009 (°C/century):
Unadjusted raw 0.69
NIWA method 1.53
Rhoades & Salinger method 0.48
What a farce.
Thanks Richard C.
This is the first time I’ve been able to see a suite of Gizzy’s temperatures.
I’ve kept abreast of all the Paul Homewood / Tony Heller postings on homogenised /adjusted temperature stations.
cheers.
The *raw* data from Niwa 11 stations shows warming of about 1C didn’t it?
Prof Richard Muller checked the international science and found it pretty right.
Yet you want to hang on to the “ideas” of Paul Holmwood … ha ha ha …
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/paul-homewood-and-christopher-booker.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/10/climate-denial-food-chain-conservative-media-ru/202469
Dennis
>”The *raw* data from Niwa 11 stations shows warming of about 1C didn’t it?”
Yes it does. But don’t be fooled by bogus analysis or linear trends. The 7SS polynomial trends upthread demonstrate that. The 11SS doesn’t begin until 1931 but Ruakura raw data begins 1907. The “warming” only occurred from 1931 to 1970 but it was considerably warmer prior to 1931 and the earliest data is little different to the latest. Warmies will deny this of course.
Ruakura (Hamilton)
1907 13.70 CliFlo
1931 13.23 11SS
2009 13.05 11SS
Where’s your 1 C “warming Dennis?
And Just for chuckles, here’s 11SS Tauranga and Hamilton anomalies from 1970:
1970 0.61 0.44
1971 0.60 0.75
1972 -0.20 -0.18
1973 0.54 0.41
1974 0.42 0.66
1975 0.06 0.26
1976 -0.71 -0.39
1977 -0.47 -0.67
1978 0.21 0.12
1979 0.29 0.29
1980 -0.20 -0.26
1981 0.47 0.51
1982 -0.43 -0.79
1983 -0.25 -0.44
1984 0.26 0.22
1985 0.18 0.28
1986 -0.03 0.01
1987 0.02 0.17
1988 0.64 0.79
1989 9999 0.34
1990 9999 0.61
1991 9999 -0.33
1992 -0.61 -0.72
1993 -0.49 -0.55
1994 -0.03 0.02
1995 0.47 0.61
1996 0.25 0.28
1997 0.05 -0.61
1998 1.31 1.23
1999 0.90 0.68
2000 0.88 -0.26
2001 0.75 0.66
2002 0.40 0.59
2003 0.58 0.43
2004 0.05 -0.31
2005 0.88 0.48
2006 0.40 -0.19
2007 0.81 0.46
2008 1.00 0.35
2009 0.73 -0.59
Mean 1961-90 14.4 13.64
Where’s your 1C “warming” Dennis?
>”Yet you want to hang on to the “ideas” of Paul Holmwood” [Sic]
Baloney. I do my own analysis Dennis. Besides, to name just a few…………..
Paul Homewood, Euan Mearns, Roger Andrews, Tony Hellar, Anthony Watts, Ken Stewart, Jennifer Marohasy, Joanne Nova, Bob Dedekind, Chris de Freitas, Barry Brill, Gary Kerkin, ……………..
They can all run rings around you Dennis, and plenty more of them around to.
BTW. I got the initial idea that got the NZCSC ‘Statistical Audit’ of the NIWA 7SS going from a CCG troll just like you Dennis (Ken Perrott). RT banned him long ago but he had served his purpose before then. I still have my email threads with the NZCSC guys that started it all but no I’m not a member.
Trolls are VERY useful at times, they just don’t know when they are playing into our hands. So be careful Dennis, you never know what you might start. Just look what Ken Perrott achieved, RT’s post would not have been possible without Ken’s input. Kudos to Ken.
Just in this thread you’ve inadvertently highlighted Albert Park has no trend 1850 – 2013, only 0.07°C/Century. This might even be news to the likes of Richard Treadgold in the NZCSC. They’re squabbling with NIWA over the Albert Park trend – NIWA method 1.53°C/Century vs Rhoades & Salinger/NZCSC method 0.48°C/Century. But there’s no trend in Albert Park since 1850, it’s flat.
So thanks Dennis, you’ve been a VERY useful troll. keep it going (and don’t get cold, stay warm or you’ll catch cold).
>”Just in this thread you’ve [Dennis] inadvertently highlighted Albert Park has no trend 1850 – 2013, only 0.07°C/Century. This might even be news to the likes of Richard Treadgold in the NZCSC. They’re squabbling with NIWA over the Albert Park trend – NIWA method 1.53°C/Century vs Rhoades & Salinger/NZCSC method 0.48°C/Century. But there’s no trend in Albert Park since 1850, it’s flat.”
Not news for NZCSC in respect to the composite series:
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition 25 November 2009 Are we feeling warmer yet?
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm
[RAW Composite] >”statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850″ [to 2009]
Composite trend same as Albert Park raw 1850 – 2013. But NZCSC had the AUCKLAND trend somewhat different in that article:
Auckland 1853 – 1991
+0.22 °C/Century NIWA Unadjusted
+0.62 °C/Century NIWA Adjusted
I suspect Bob Dedekind is well aware Albert Park is trendless over the longer timespan but maybe not.
Richard C (NZ)
I changed my mind about AGW after I studied the evidence, although it took me a long while to get around to it. You and the others you list only look at the bits that you think support your crackpot theories.
As you say, they run rings around me … they’re all going around in ever-decreasing circles… as they go down the gurgler! When the temperature goes up another degree they’ll be seen as the cranks and crooks they are.
Dennis
>”Prof Richard Muller checked the international science and found it pretty right.”
Rubbish. Where’s his analysis of GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, NIWA 7SS, BOM HQ and ACORN-SAT, USHCN, etc?
He’s done no such work. That would be a mountainous project. What he did was an alternative that disagrees wildly with the above when you look at the detail, the adjustments in particular.
Muller says this:
Prof Richard Muller: Not adjusting global temperature records would be “poor science”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-richard-muller-not-adjusting-global-temperature-records-would-be-poor-science
Fine. But BEST doesn’t look at the station documentation to see if there is good reason to adjust neither do they homogenize. They adjust gung-ho by their “scalpel” method of break analysis. This returns some bizarre adjustments as shown upthread. Then they adjust to their “Regional Expectation” by circular reasoning – totally bogus.
BEST don’t homogenize and neither do GISS (they disagree with each other) so their national series cannot be compared to homogenized series on an apples to apples basis. HadCRU adopts the homogenized BOM HQ and NIWA 7SS and 11SS for CRUTEM (land) and therefore HadCRUT.
The NZ apples to apples comparison is BEST NZ vs NIWA VCS because VCS is not homogenized but VCS does not begin until 1972. From 1972 onwards there’s no difference except absolute due to altitude. Dead flat 1972 – 1997, An abrupt 0.45C hike at the El Nino and a cooling trend thereafter. Yawn.
All Prof Muller did was open another can of worms. But in respect to NIWA’s VCS, yes. very good agreement but so what? It’s prior to 1970 that is controversial. NZCSC don’t quibble with NIWA about post 1970 because there’s negligible difference between NIWA 7SS and NZCSC 7SS post 1970.
It is when you look at BEST prior to 1970 that it all goes belly-up for Muller. New Zealand is represented by Hobart Australia in the first decade or so of their series. Think about that. And when you compare BEST Hamilton to NIWA’s Hamilton there’s a massive discrepancy. Reason being BEST get their Hamilton data from Auckland and Tauranga, not Ruakura – totally bogus.
Prof Muller is in no position to make any pronouncements re “the international [temperature record] science” even if he had analyzed all the various datasets, which he hasn’t, because there’s so much dodgy stuff in his own series.
.
>”they run rings around me … they’re all going around in ever-[widening] circles
Yes. And the wider they (and I) go round the more dross we find.
Professor Muller found the climate scientists right and the science valid. Global warming and climate change is happening. Muller had set up a new research department largely funded by big oil — Koch brothers.
Of course if you don’t like the facts … just invent your own. Butcher the evidence … pick over the bones.
No wonder you Can’t See The Wood For The Trees.
We’ve changed the atmosphere dramatically and it has responded dramatically. Just as an intelligent, educated and rational person would expect.
Dennis, thanks for linking to the video of Michael Mann peddling his book The Climate Wars
I have enjoyed Mark Steyn’s collection of anecdotes about Mann, called “A Total Disgrace to the Profession”, in which a number of scientists (including those that adhere to the AGW party line) that describe Mann as a fraud, bully, charlatan etc.
>”Professor Muller found the climate scientists right and the science valid”
No he didn’t. He just opened another can of worms. A whole new way to make shonkey “adjustments”..
BEST adjustments contradict GISS adjustments and vice versa. And BEST adjustments have no resemblance to national institutes adjustments like NIWA and BOM. But OK after about 1970 because there’s not much wriggle room for anyone, except GISS. GISS have no shame.
Best of all (heh), Albert Park, Auckland New Zealand raw has no trend 1850 – 2013.
Only 0.07°C/Century.
Dennis says
And you share the “evidence’ by calling us all morons and randomly linking to irrelevent sites.
This doesn’t seem like a recipe for success to me
Andy. I have no interest in trying to convert you. You are, as you say, a moron.
Steyn is not doing to well in his legal battle with Mann. Time is running out for the denialists … as the temperatures soar and the ice melts and disappears.
I have no interest in converting Richard C (NZ) either. Nobody takes his crackpot theory seriously and the idea thousands and thousands of qualified people are completely wrong interpreting the data and he is the only one right is preposterous. The “Chosen One”. Shows no understanding at all of how to study climate or any other complex natural phenomenon.
I don’t recall linking to Michael Mann “peddling his book” called “The Climate Wars”. Jog my memory…
I don’t wish to be “converted”. I am quite capable of making rational observations about the natural world without the advice of a sneering, sanctimonious bigoted blowhard.
Dennis thinks the “temperatures are soaring”.
0.85 degrees over 150 years
Please show me where.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/niwa-scientists-agree-de-freitas-climate-paper-streets-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-1517040
Andy. Gosh. Perceptions, eh. What I saw as an explanation of the hockey stick you saw as Mann peddling a book. No wonder you don’t know or understand anything.
Do you have any idea what a 1C global mean increase (and another 1C to come) means in some places? Do you even know what “mean” actually means?
Any idea the number of degrees difference between glaciation and the present comfortable climate?
” Do you even know what “mean” actually means?”
Yes
>” Richard C (NZ) …… Nobody takes his crackpot theory seriously and the idea thousands and thousands of qualified people are completely wrong interpreting the data and he is the only one right is preposterous. The “Chosen One”. Shows no understanding at all of how to study climate or any other complex natural phenomenon.”
WOW! I’m shattered.
I give up Dennis. I concede. I’m throwing in the towel. The IPCC’s massive theoretical blowout wins hand’s down.
Richard certainly doesn’t understand the concept of mean. He thinks that the AGW hypothesis is invalidated if he can find locations where temperatures have not increased.
He also does not understand that the BEST scalpel is another homogenisation approach, one that does not require access to a station’s metadata.
He also does not understand the concept of a confidence interval. Hobart and mainland NZ temperatures are cross-correlated; however the increase in imprecision increases the confidence interval.
” Do you even know what “mean” actually means?”
Andy: “Yes”
No you don’t. You have no insight at all into the meaning of mean in this context, how much energy is required to lift the global mean 1C.
As I tried to explain some time ago, it’s not at all like measuring and considering a 1C change in the mean temperature of a bath. (Richard gave me some of his usual twaddle… )
Richard C (NZ): “I give up Dennis. I concede. I’m throwing in the towel. The IPCC’s massive theoretical blowout wins hand’s down.”
“Massive theoretical blowout.” What are you talking about you old fool. This is science, the study of a complex global system that warms Earth to fit-for-human temperatures and moves massive amounts of energy around the globe. Not some video game with simple rules you read somewhere.
Do you even know what “mean” actually means?”
Andy: “Yes”
No you don’t.
Oh yes I do
Oh no you don’t
Oh yes I do
Mean = Sum(A1…An)/n for a discrete set of data
Morons can do means too
If my definition of mean is wrong, please give an alternative….
Andy. The question, was do you know what it means, not how to calculate it.
See if you can concentrate for three and a half minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgU3WrtE9I
Abrupt Climate Change & Greenland: Prof Jason Box (September 2016)
“The question, was do you know what it means”
yes, it means the average, as I described
What other “meaning” does “mean” have?
>“Massive theoretical blowout.” What are you talking about ………… This is science, the study of a complex global system that warms Earth to fit-for-human temperatures and moves massive amounts of energy around the globe”
Well yes, you’ve fingered the problem Dennis. This IS science. Theory, observation, and disparity in the case of IPCC theory. The IPCC’s theory, as implemented in climate models, is BUSTED. There is a BLOWOUT in the models. The IPCC admit the models are NOT modeling 21st Century climate, temperature in particular. They are TOO WARM.
Equally, their theoretical forcing at TOA is a BLOWOUT. Theory is far in excess of observations. I’m amazed you either still haven’t grasped this or just refuse to. The latter being DENIAL and no excuse, the former just an inability to comprehend and excusable. Plenty of sceptics don’t understand the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria either.
The IPCC’s theoretical forcing is increasing rapidly producing well on the way to 2000 ZetaJoules of excess energy since 1750:
That’s the theory. CO2 now 1.9 W.m=2 # 400ppm and increasing. Their theory is dead wrong. BUSTED.
Observations of the real-world TOA imbalance return only 0.6 W.m-2 and constant this century:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Game over.
Richard C (NZ): “Game over.”
Theory? Models? Nits? Nuts?
The temperatures are soaring, the ice is melting, being lost.
Simon
>”Richard certainly doesn’t understand the concept of mean. He thinks that the AGW hypothesis is invalidated if he can find locations where temperatures have not increased.”
No I don’t. You are fibbing on my behalf again Simon (see BTW below).
Do YOU know what the AGW hypothesis is Simon? What is it? It is not formally documented anywhere so how can you?. But the IPCC do have primary climate change criteria – the earth’s energy balance ‘measured at TOA’. Temperature is only a secondary effect of any forcing, natural or theoretical anthropogenic. See my reply to Dennis above and you will discover the IPCC’s anthropogenic theory has blown out in respect to their primary climate change criteria i.e. their theory is invalidated by the IPCC’s own TOA observations. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with temperature.
>”He also does not understand that the BEST scalpel is another homogenisation approach, one that does not require access to a station’s metadata.”
Fibbing again.
Firstly. Of course I understand the ‘scalpel’ method and what it is Simon. It is NOT that it “does not require” it is just that BEST don’t bother. Plenty of evidence to show it certainly is required. UHI/Sheltering for starters. BEST know nothing of that in respect to individual sites if they don’t access the site notes. They don’t adjust for it.
Secondly. BEST homogenize sites into a contiguous location series like NIWA/NZCSC 7SS i.e. “Station Moves” in BEST parlance (see Hobart below). Not saying location homogenization is the answer. I don’t think it is. I’m convinced NIWA’s VCS approach is far better, it predates BEST and doesn’t homogenize. Thousands of sites in NZ (far more than BEST, about 90,000) so there is greater sampling (diversity). Conforms to BEST after 1972.
Point is, the NIWA-NZCSC 7SS argument is over the homogenization of different sites into terms with one ‘reference’ site for the location (“Sites” and “Stations”). ONLY the break of DOCUMENTED site changes and moves is at issue in NZ. Unlike BEST, there are NO OTHER breaks considered in the 7SS. BEST adjust for breaks willy nilly (see Hobart below) where neither NIWA nor NZCSC adjust. BOM adjusts Max and Min separately (BEST don’t) so their adjustments don’t conform to BEST’s either.
Thirdly. The scalpel method is the minor problem with BEST but it still is the problem that produces bizarre breaks that are often completely opposite to other global institutions e.g. GISS. And BEST cannot locally justify ANY of their scalpel breaks if they don’t refer to site notes (“metadata”). BOM discovered the value of site metadata in respect to Rutherglen and even that they had to infer and their conclusion at Rutherglen has never been observationally proven (or anywhere else similarly). BEST wouldn’t have the foggiest clue at Rutherglen if they don’t refer to “metadata”. They only know about site changes from ID# and site name. They know nothing of a site move or change if the ID# and name doesn’t change.
Forthly. By far the greatest problem (bogosity) with both BEST and GISS is their respective “Regional Expectation”. GISS use their CO2-forced climate model for that and the results are laid out upthread. There is NO justification whatsoever for their Gisborne Aero adjustments or similar adjustments all over th world. Similarly for BEST but they don’t use a climate model. Their’s is circular reasoning. Examples upthread e.g. a cooling trend at Waiouru is changed completely to a warming trend from no evidence at all. The only reason for the massive adjustment from cooling to warming is their “Regional Expectation”. It is chicken-or-egg reasoning.
>”He also does not understand the concept of a confidence interval.”
Confidence? In NZ represented by Hobart in the 1940s? Get real Simon.
Observations in the early years are by eye from a thermometer, recent are by AWS. Recent observations are rarely adjusted, there is no need because the AWS sites aren’t changing on the scale thermometer sites were. Observations way back are massively adjusted. The 7SS is almost a non-issue in this respect in comparison to GISS and BEST. Fact remains. A record high Max or Min stands in the raw data – NOT in an adjusted series. All records are quoted from raw data. This is the big issue in Australia. BOM are claiming, on the strength of ACORN-SAT (or HQ) that only begins in 1910, that there are no records warmer than the recent ACORN=SAT data. This is dead wrong. There are plenty of meteorological readings from mid to late 1800s that BOM turn a blind eye to that show temperature then was much the same as now.
Similarly in NZ. Look at Albert Park raw in Auckland (BEST), 1850 – 2013 only 0.07°C/Century. This is an almost contiguous non-homogenized site. If you take out UHI/Sheltering (which BEST does not), you get flat or even cooling since the mid 1800s. 7SS doesn’t begin until 1909.
>”Hobart and mainland NZ temperatures are cross-correlated; however the increase in imprecision increases the confidence interval.”
Hobart is 2268 kilometers from Wellington and a different latitude, 42° 53′ South vs 41° 17′ South. And there is no relationship between East Coast Australia and Tasmania temperature profiles with New Zealand. Just look at a plot of all the 7 NZ sites against each other. There is a pronounced polynomial cycle in each that are all much the same except in terms of absolute temperature i.e. (1909) down from warm => cool (1950/60) => up to warm (1970ish) => no more warming.
Hobart exhibits the same profile post 1940 but prior to 1940 it is broken up by missing data which doesn’t provide the early warm part of the cycle, There is however, a warm period around 1870 that conforms to other raw data around Australia. BEST smooths that out of course by their “Regional Expectation”.
Again, there is meteorological data in NZ in NZ but not back at 1840. But Hobart is Jan 1841 to Oct 2013:
Temperature Monitoring Station: HOBART (ELLERSLIE ROAD)
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151745
By BEST’s rationale, Hobart is a proxy for NZ both absolute (bogus), profile (bogus) and trend (bogus). Clearly the profile is nothing like the NZ temperature profile and STILL there is “Regional Expectation”. How can there possibly be “Regional Expectation” for Hobart in 1840 ?
The trends are nothing like NZ but if you want Hobart as a NZ proxy Simon, the Hobart trends corroborate NZCSC more than they do NIWA:
Hobart
Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies…………………0.21
After quality control………………………0.22
NZCSC 7SS………………………………….0.28
After breakpoint alignment…………….0.54
Regional expectation during same months…………….0.64 ± 0.21
NIWA RSS……………………………………..0.92
BEST: Regional Climate Change: New Zealand
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/new-zealand
Question: What is the absolute temperature of Hobart vs New Zealand from BEST’s presentation of both?
BTW, Simon. You have no credibility if you make a habit of lying and projecting that lie onto someone else. In future. quote was is said by others – don’t lie about what you want others to have said.
Hells Bells Richard C (NZ) you do talk some tripe.
The global warming climate change hypothesis is quite simple. More CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy. More energy — the climate changes.
Temperatures up ice melting being lost — theory correct.
All the bullshite in the world isn’t going to alter that. We need to accept the problem and move to answers.
Dennis
>”The global warming climate change hypothesis is quite simple”
Do you know what a formal FALSIFIABLE hypothesis is Dennis? It includes a Null BTW (i.e. you don’t prove a hypothesis, you reject the Null). None has ever been written for anthropogenic climate change. Read Gerlich and Tseuchner on this. They came up with over a dozen variations but nothing formal and no real hypothesis so they had to go to Encl. Britannica among others.
>”More CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy.”
This isn’t from the IPCC Dennis. It is something you have made up. The IPCC define climate change in respect to ANY forcing at TOA including solar (TSI) and LULUC. CO2 is just one of their forcing factors:
Do the math. CO2 is 63.4% of WMGHG and WMGHG is greater then ERF.
IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):
>”Do you know what a formal FALSIFIABLE hypothesis is Dennis?”
Hypothesis
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
Scientific hypothesis
Working hypothesis
Hypotheses, concepts and measurement
Statistical hypothesis testing
In statistical hypothesis testing, two hypotheses are compared. These are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that there is some kind of relation. The alternative hypothesis may take several forms, depending on the nature of the hypothesized relation; in particular, it can be two-sided (for example: there is some effect, in a yet unknown direction) or one-sided (the direction of the hypothesized relation, positive or negative, is fixed in advance).[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
In terms of the IPCC’s definition above, a formal hypothesis for CO2 (in isolation from all other forcing factors) would be something like:
“The hypothesis for CO2 forcing requires that the TOA energy imbalance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing”
Obviously it doesn’t.
>”Read Gerlich and Tseuchner on this. They came up with over a dozen variations but nothing formal and no real hypothesis so they had to go to Encl. Britannica among others”
‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner (2009)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
3.3 Different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Moller (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Meyer’s encyclopedia (1974) . . . . 38
3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Schonwiese (1987) . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Stichel (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 1 (1995) . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 2 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 3 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after German Meteorological Society (1995) 40
3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Gral (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Ahrens (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Rahmstorf (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
# # #
Note this paper is in respect to “the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture” – NOT the IPCC’s climate change criteria at TOA.
This is the case for AGW in a nutshell:
We can’t explain the warming post 1950 without using “anthropogenic forcing”, therefore it is humans to blame
We can’t explain the other warming periods in the last 2 Millenia either, but that isn’t relevant, appparently
Richard C (NZ)
Tell me, what is the special quality you have that enables you to judge the science of global warming/climate change and the ten of thousands of climate scientists and possibly millions of other informed scientists don’t have?
Apart from the fact your understanding of science is fixated at a school experiment level and you feel free to define properties according to your needs.
and possibly millions of other informed scientists
Why have trillions, when you can have… millions
Dennis
>”Richard C (NZ) Tell me, what is the special quality you have that enables you to judge the science of global warming/climate change”
I don’t think it is “special” Dennis. Anyone can do it. It is just a matter of inferring a formal falsifiable hypothesis from the IPCC’s climate criteria since neither they nor any climate scientist has done so.
The IPCC’s climate change criteria is the Earth’s energy imbalance in W.m-2 (Joules per second) ‘measured at TOA’.
And that is for ANY valid forcing. It is glaringly obvious that the IPCC’s 1750 – 2016 theoretical CO2 forcing is NOT valid. Neither is their entire RF paradigm. The TOA imbalance refuses to “move” as posited.
Only Approved Scientists ™ can have valid opinions. Similarly, only Approved Politicians ™ can run for the White House, even if they are rape apologists
Should be
“The TOA imbalance refuses to “[change]” as posited.”
Richard C (NZ)
Why are you right and the climate scientists wrong.
Why are you right and the climate scientists wrong.
Shouldn’t that read:
What are you wrong and MILLIONS of climate scientists wrong?
These are the MILLIONS of climate scientists that study climate sensitivity, I presume
A hypothesis is in terms of the scientific method. No formal testable (i.e. falsifiable) hypothesis has been written for anthropogenic climate change or CO2-driven climate change, or any climate change for that matter.
But the IPCC have defined climate change criteria for their purposes. Just a matter of inferring a hypothesis from their criteria that conforms to the scientific method.
All you get is a Null for CO2.
Dennis
“Why are you right and the climate scientists wrong.”
In respect to a hypothesis for CO2 or anthropogenic climate change, none has been written to my knowledge except as above.
Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn by anyone.
But obviously a Null hypothesis for CO2 from the inferred hypothesis above.
Morons like us read Karl Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations”
Why are you — that means YOU — right and the climate scientists wrong.
That’s MILLIONS of climate scientists, Dennis
PS what do the 3% believe? i.e the 100-97 %?
Also, I’m wondering why the 3% of the population who are not heterosexual get so much airtime, yet the 3% of scientists who “don’t agree” are never heard.
So many questions
Richard C (NZ)
Let’s start again.
Do you think the climate scientists are wrong and you are right? YES/NO
In astrophysics, there were (or are) two competing theories for the creation of the Universe: Steady State and Big Bang
In the absence of well-defined and sufficient boundary conditions, it is possible to have more than one explanation for a physical phenomenon
So Dennis’ question is ill-posed.
>”Do you think the climate scientists are wrong and you are right? YES/NO”
Ill-posed as Andy points out. And already answered anyway.
If there is not even a “Working” hypothesis for anthro climate change then it is impossible to address one. Let alone “Alternate” and “Null”.
The IPCC’s anthro attribution is a political statement. It has nothing to do with hypotheses and the scientific method.
Government Agendas Drive Climate ‘Science’
By Larry Bell, 03 Oct 2016
There is no end to agenda-driven government and environmental activist claims based upon speculative theories, contrived data, and demonstrably false computer modeling predictions that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis.
[…]
President Eisenhower warned about just such a politically-corrupted, agenda-driven, federally-beholden science-industrial complex; along with a military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell address.
As he stated: “The prospect of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.”
Grave consequences of the federal scientific industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about are no longer mere prospects. It has become a very costly agenda-driven “do-good” industry that went terribly bad.
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/obama-science/2016/10/03/id/751347/
Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’
Climate Depot headline.
Directs to >>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over
Richard C (NZ)
As usual, beat-around-the-bush bullshit. Let me answer the question for you.
You are wrong. The climate scientists are right.
You are wrong and anyone who said he believes you are right and tens of thousands of scientists working in climate science are wrong would be judged insane. And as paranoid and delusional as you undoubtedly are, you’re not going to admit to being mad.
So. You are wrong. The climate scientists are right.
Not only do you not know anything about climate science, you don’t begin to know anything about the scientific method either.
You’re a rank amateur who doesn’t even know he doesn’t know.
Dr. Robert D. Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory of the IPCC
by Kyoji Kimoto 2. October 2016
[…]
The AGW theory of the IPCC is constructed on the Planck response of 1.2°K produced by the mathematically erroneous Cess method. Since Cess has admitted his mathematical errors in the above reply, the theory totally collapses together with the high climate sensitivity of 3°K for a doubling of CO2. It raises sea surface temperature as much as 2°K, thus leading to the various AGW scares such as rapid sea level rise and severer extreme weather in the GCM studies of the IPCC.
Kimoto [11] showed the surface climate sensitivity of 0.14-0.17°K with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1 W/m2 for 2xCO2. It is reduced from the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 at the tropopause due to infrared absorption overlap between CO2 and water vapor plentifully existing at the surface.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/02/leading-climate-sensitivity-scientist-admits-mathematical-errors-in-the-agw-theory/#sthash.ylOdJGZO.dpbs
>”you don’t begin to know anything about the scientific method either.”
What is the “scientific method”?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
# # #
For CO2
1) Steady 0.6 W.m-2 planetary energy imbalance at TOA 2000 – 2010.
2) CO2 forcing dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co). Produces 1.9 W.m-2 TOA forcing change 1750 – 2015.
For CO2, 2) is NOT “consistent” with 1). Therefore, CO2 cannot be a “tentative description”. Neither can a hypothesis be formed for CO2 in respect to 1).
Richard C (NZ): Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over
“Lovelock was no less bafflingly cheerful when he believed climate change was about to wipe out 80% of the world’s population.”
You really are an idiot.
Get your mind right – Embrace the ‘Lewandowsky Hypothesis’
by Peter O’Brien
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/03/get-your-mind-right-embrace-the-lewandowsky-hypothesis/
Richard C (NZ)
The scientific is and always was and always will be: What scientists do and judge to be valid science.
You can read all the Popper and Pooper you like, but that is the bottom line.
Various lines of evidence show global warming real and climate change happening. All possible causes have been examined and our CO2 is the explanation.
To deny it is to deny science and reality. Which you are free to do, of course.
Carry on.
Watts. Is he the blowhard who said he would accept Professor Richard Muller’s results?
But didn’t when Muller found the science good and the scientists right?
That nincompoop?
So the scientific method has been redefined by Dennis as “wot scientists agree on”
Awesome work.
Enlightenment move over, post-modernism has taken your place
>“Lovelock was no less bafflingly cheerful when he believed climate change was about to wipe out 80% of the world’s population.”
“…..when he believed…..”
Lovelock was of this belief back in his “Gaia hypothesis” days – NOT today.
He has completely changed his view since then Dennis – read the article:
Muller was never a “sceptic”, with his interests in geo-engineering and his activist daughter. He does have a healthy disdain for Michael Mann though
>”when Muller found the science good and the scientists right?”
He did no such thing. Certainly not in respect to climate science i.e. earth’s energy imbalance or climate sensitivity to CO2.
All he did was create an alternative way of compiling globally averaged temperature series with all its new attendant inconsistencies to go along with those of GISS and NODC and HadCRU and NIWA and BOM and ……….
Just producing GMST proves nothing Dennis. It is not the IPCC’s primary criteria in respect to cause and effect. BEST is simply massively adjusted meteorological data massaged with “Regional Expectations”.
“Regional Expectations” perfectly describes confirmation bias.
So. I have a choice between thousands of climate scientists’ and millions of informed scientists’ views and those of a few self-proclaimed experts presumably with special powers.
Gee. What a choice. Give me a nanosecond.
The global scientific community now regards global warming/climate change as a fact.
Against all the evidence, a few claim that is wrong. Now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Where is the evidence? All Richard C (NZ) does is set up a straw man and attack it.
I also accept global warming and climate change as a “fact”
Next …
Muller’s GMST didn’t validate the CO2-forced climate models.
If anything, helped invalidate them.