World rejects Rhoades & Salinger ’93

Following discussion about how widely accepted Rhoades, D. A. and Salinger, M. J., Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes, (1993) is, and thus informs temperature adjustments, I checked at the Wiley Online Library. They record no citations. Here’s a screen shot:

Why should NIWA document their version of RS93 when nobody uses it? Nobody cares.

This explains does not explain why NIWA has refused to document their version of RS93 in the scientific literature—but still nobody cares.

So, when NIWA assured the Parliament in about 2010 that our national temperature record was produced using accepted science, it deceived us, because in fact nobody accepts very few accept it. Quite apart from the fact that they don’t even use the method prescribed in RS93, anyway—they distort it. Though they call it an improvement.

This isn’t going away, Dr Mullan. Why don’t you publish?

UPDATE 12 Dec 2016

Thanks to Warwick, who pointed out the paper has 101 citations in the Wiley Online Library, but because of some glitch they’re not reported on the page I copy above.  – RT

6 Thoughts on “World rejects Rhoades & Salinger ’93

  1. Warrick on December 12, 2016 at 7:44 am said:

    Clearly an error in Wiley algorithm. Google Scholar records over 100 citations, many from this same Wiley journal.

  2. Richard Treadgold on December 12, 2016 at 10:06 am said:

    So it does. Thanks, Warwick. Sorry, I obviously performed the wrong search. I’m pleased my question to Brett Mullan can stand, though, since he still hasn’t published the work.

  3. Gary Kerkin on December 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm said:

    Does 100 citations mean that others have used the method? Or merely saw it, cited it, and then forgot it? The one reference that I spotted (and then didn’t hunt any further) indicated that it has been used in Spain. I haven’t studied it sufficiently to elucidate whether or not the application was successful, viable, or even useful! (Nor do I wish to…there are plenty of other things to occupy my thoughts!)

  4. Richard Treadgold on December 12, 2016 at 2:07 pm said:

    Yes, exactly. btw, I saw your Spanish reference after I’d posted this. I’d like to scroll through those 101 papers and get some idea of it, so, if there’s time…

  5. Gary Kerkin on December 14, 2016 at 5:57 pm said:

    I wish you luck, Richard. Even though I played with it at the time Chris de Freitas and Bob Dedekind were preparing their paper, and I looked more closely at the methodology which was a precursor to the R&S technique, I am not convinced that it is truly applicable in a universal sense. You know my misgivings about normal statistics. I am not convinced that application to temperature data series is appropriate, or, indeed, proper but I doubt I would win many arguments in that regard! That said, however, I cannot offer a reasonable methodology for adjusting data series in an appropriate and properly justified way.

  6. Richard Treadgold on December 14, 2016 at 8:04 pm said:

    Wow. Interesting comments, Gary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation