Renowden on the reanalysis

Gareth Renowden posted comment on the new paper in what seems to be his customary style: unpleasant, vexing, offensive, loathsome and short on fact. Still, along the way he did venture some factoids which I shall rebut while ignoring the vexatious.

First, his article was headlined: NZ cranks finally publish an NZ temperature series – but their paper’s stuffed with errors. To the first phrase, I note that publishing a temperature series is clearly beyond him and, to the second, I say we’ll see about that.

Renowden spends his first 300 words pouring malicious invective on the authors of the paper—and on me, but so what to any of it? In stooping so low, he reveals more of himself than of us.

I won’t answer the vitriol, just the errors; and I won’t do it all at once, but in pieces. He’s too poisonous to stay with for long. He would be eminently more readable were he to return to his journalistic roots, I’m sure, this activist role he’s chosen ill befits him. (He refers to the paper as dFDB 2014—good enough.) The first substantive thing he says is:

dFDB 2014 repeats the old canard that NIWA’s Seven Station Series (7SS) before the 2010 review was based on the adjustments made in Jim Salinger’s 1981 thesis. This was a key claim in the NZ Climate Science Education Trust‘s evidence to the High Court and so transparently at odds with written reports and papers from 1992 onwards that it was easy for NIWA to refute. As one close observer of the case told me:

Judges may not understand maths, but they are pretty good at English, and take a dim view of litigants who wilfully and perversely misrepresent simple English sentences.

Gareth, which sentences did we perversely misrepresent? You forgot to mention them.

I included the ‘close observer’ quotation simply because Renowden doesn’t even begin to attempt to pretend to justify it, so it’s a fantasy. Justice Venning, for all his errors, never made an allegation remotely like that. I don’t know why he calls it a ‘key claim’ in our suit. Our suit sought four things:

A. A declaration that the New Zealand Temperature Record is not a full and accurate record of changes in the average surface temperatures recorded in New Zealand since 1900;
B. An order setting aside NIWA’s 2010 decision to rely upon the Seven-station Series and the Eleven-station Series as the basis for the New Zealand Temperature Record;
C. An order preventing NIWA from using the NZTR (or information originally derived from the NZTR) for the purposes of advice to any governmental authority or to the public, pending its redetermination and independent peer review.
D. An order requiring the defendant to produce a full and accurate climate record of changes in the average surface temperatures recorded in New Zealand since 1900.

In paragraph 12 of our amended statement of claim of 1 July 2011, we stated in our introductory remarks:

The 7SS temperature data is sourced from the National Climate Database, but is subject to a number of adjustments (the Adjustments) taken from a student thesis submitted in 1981 by Dr James Salinger, a former NIWA employee.

This wasn’t even part of our claim, never mind a ‘key claim’. This was a simple reiteration of what NIWA had been telling us and the country for a long time. It’s what we thought was true, simple as that. Renowden is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and I will prove it. On 10 October 2010, I posted The Curious Case of the Missing Thesis. It includes:

When the NZ Climate Science Coalition made an OIA request for the NIWA amendments which shaped the whole NZ temperature record, it was told the amendments came from a doctoral thesis submitted in 1981 by James Salinger.

NIWA’s General Counsel officially advised (on two occasions) that “the methodology is documented” in the thesis, but “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations in Dr Salinger’s thesis work are the property of Dr Salinger, who no longer works for NIWA.”

When NIWA belatedly published its Schedule of Adjustments on 9 February 2010, it explained that relocations of weather stations required before-and-after comparisons against an independent station. The document notes that “Salinger (1981) provides the results of these three-site inter-comparisons for the 7-station series, up to about 1975.”

There is more corroboration that NIWA persistently and publicly claimed that the thesis was the source of the adjustments (I can’t believe I’m having to go through this just to counter lies). Again, from my October 2010 post:

The Minister responsible for NIWA, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, told Parliament on 18 February 2010 that the adjustments to the 7-station series were taken from the Salinger thesis. In a follow-up written answer (PQ1320) he explained more fully that “the adjustments used in the present “seven-station” series are consistent with those in the Salinger thesis. Some changes to the original adjustments have been necessary in the thirty years since the thesis was published.”

In answer to PQ1193, Dr Mapp advised that the source material for NIWA’s Schedule of Adjustments were: “a list of the more than 30 sites used to develop the ‘seven-station’ series; raw unadjusted data for these individual sites from NIWA’s National Climate Database; the time series of adjusted monthly mean temperatures at the seven locations; and Appendix C from Dr Jim Salinger’s 1981 Ph.D. thesis.”

Finally, to refute NIWA’s original claim that the worksheets were with Salinger, “who no longer works for NIWA” we learn the real reason NIWA couldn’t produce them (we had asked for them repeatedly).

In answer to other Parliamentary Questions, Dr Mapp described how the detailed calculations for the Salinger thesis had been recorded on the VUW mainframe, and were lost when the University changed its system in 1983.

Renowden said that ‘our’ claim that the 7SS was based on the thesis was “so transparently at odds with written reports and papers from 1992 onwards that it was easy for NIWA to refute.”

If it was ‘at odds with reports and papers from 1992,’ why did they tell us to look in the thesis? He’s also forgotten to cite NIWA’s ‘refutation’. Where was it, Gareth, and exactly what did they say?

You want to have another go, Gareth? That was rubbish.

 

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)All_on_RedBobDRichard TreadgoldAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard Treadgold
Guest

Those commenting seem well familiar with the NZ story.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Going through deFDB14 word-for-word now. First up in Background:

“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.”

NIWA NZT7
2010, 13.1
2011, 12.8
2012, 12.5
2013, 13.4

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Clear from the Australian archives too that that the mid to late 1800s were a similar regime to what is being experienced in the present day in both countries. The title of the paper then, ‘Reanalysis of Long-Term Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand’, and the application of a linear trend from 1909 to 2009 (0.28 °C
per century) is both misnomer and misleading.

Of necessity the term is reduced-term rather than long-term. Unfortunate, but a fact of life. Except the climate change regime 1800s to 1900s to 2000s has simply been – warm => cool => warm.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>’To the first phrase, I note that publishing a temperature series is clearly beyond him”

[Gareth complains] – “The paper as published contains no workings or supplemental material that would allow reproduction of their results”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-cranks-finally-publish-an-nz-temperature-series-but-their-papers-stuffed-with-errors/

de Freitas et al (2014)

Page 3 pdf: 3 The New Zealand Temperature Record

Page 4 pdf: 4 Rhoades and Salinger—RS93

Page 5 pdf: 5 Method 5.1 Description

Page 6 pdf: 5.2 Gradual Inhomogeneities

Raw data: http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wgenf.genform1

Now replicate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Given Gareth’s apparent confusion over the sum 2 + 2 and in light of 5.1 Description, it’s probably better that he doesn’t attempt a reproduction.

BobD
Guest
BobD

Yes, I chuckled at that. it’s the first thing NIWA did in the court case. When they realised we hadn’t made any mistakes, they were forced to start trying to claim that we used RS93 ‘too rigorously’, and we should have used longer periods, in the hope that a greater number of adjustments would pass the statistical tests.

All_on_Red
Guest
All_on_Red

Awhile ago all the warmists at Hot Topic were saying , ” do your own analysis if you disagree with NIWA “. Well now they have! Poor Gareth. Everyday he just looks more stupid.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”He’s also forgotten to cite NIWA’s ‘refutation’. Where was it, Gareth, and exactly what did they say?” #1 [Gareth in comments] – “The CSET seemed to want to make it about the methodology of series construction, and submitted their “audit” as evidence. NIWA had no choice but to prepare and submit a detailed rebuttal to that” http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-cranks-finally-publish-an-nz-temperature-series-but-their-papers-stuffed-with-errors/#comment-45029 #2 [Gareth in post] – “As such it [the ‘Statistical Audit’] contains mistakes that were pointed out in NIWA’s evidence to the High Court — evidence which was extensive, thorough and damning, but is not (yet) available in the public domain.” #3 [Gareth in post] – “Silly mistakes in the application of their version of RS93 appeared in the “audit”, were pointed out in NIWA’s evidence to the High Court,……” The “extensive, thorough and damning” evidence in #’s 1, 2, and 3 not forthcoming, nevertheless: #4 [Gareth in post following #3] – “…….but appear to be uncorrected in dFDB 2014.” Because there were no mistakes to correct. [de Freitas et al (2014)] – “The aim here is to apply the method set out by [17] (i.e. Rhoades and Salinger, 1993) exactly as they describe, without adjusting… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J J Venning ignored the ‘Statistical Audit’ (evidence) because…… [54] I accept Mr Smith’s criticism of Mr Dedekind’s evidence to the extent that Mr Dedekind is not an expert in the application of statistical techniques in the field of climate science. Mr Dedekind’s general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience or qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science. To that extent, where Mr Dedekind purports to comment or give opinions as to NIWA’s application of statistical techniques in those fields, his evidence is of little assistance to the Court. Never mind that it was reviewed by professional statisticians. Except earlier J Venning opines….. [44] The last feature is particularly relevant where, as in this context, the Trust’s challenge is based on what it defines in its pleadings as “recognised scientific opinion”. A less intensive review is particularly apposite where the Court is not in a position to definitively adjudicate on scientific opinions. The Trust defines “recognised scientific opinion” as established scientific opinions and methods described in internationally recognised research journals. NIWA does not accept there… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 Mike, Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

One wonders how Gareth became privileged to receive the details of the Theoretical and Applied Climatology submission and review process wrt de Freitas et al (2014).

PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline.

PLOS ONE Guidelines for Reviewers

6. Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. As the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one who is not directly involved with the manuscript (including colleagues and other experts in the field) should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the Academic Editor. Reviewers must not take any confidential information they have gained in the review process and use it before the paper is published. Even after publication, unless they have the permission of the authors to use other information, reviewers may only use publicly published data (i.e. the contents of the published article) and not information from any earlier drafts.

http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines

Not so much at Theoretical and Applied Climatology apparently.

Andy
Guest
Andy

O/T but Bryan Leyland was on TV Breakfast this morning, “spouting denialist drivel” (channeling my warmist friends here) in response to the IPCC Synthesis Report

It has caused predicable outrage from the usual quarters and lots of “Angry of Purley” letters to TVNZ

Andy
Guest
Andy
Andy
Guest
Andy

TVNZ have pulled the video from their website

Disgraceful

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Link doesn’t work (video pulled) but I see one Nick Young posting a HT link on ONENews Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/ONENewsNZ/posts/10152343389806218

Nick Young:
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/blog/Nick-Young/

They sure are incensed.

BTW Andy, go here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/11/wuwt-mentions-the-reanalysis/#comment-1242275

Andy
Guest
Andy

They sure are incensed.
Good, I am sure they will be burning lots of incense tonight as they poke sticks into voodoo dolls of Bryan

Andy
Guest
Andy

RC – thanks for the Huub wind link. Duly noted.

Post Navigation