UPDATE: see the end of the article for a response.
Reposted from TBR.cc Investigate magazine’s breaking news forum:
New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking
The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.
In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:
The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:
Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.
Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?
Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!
Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?
It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s colleagues.
Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.
Proof of man-made warming
What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.
We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.
NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.
NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.
“Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?”
“No, no,” replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of “misleading” people about the temperature adjustments.
Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.
UPDATE: see this new post More on the NIWA New Zealand data adjustment story
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer guaranteed success in 70-649 exam with latest 640-863 dumps and 642-832 practice exam.
“Matthew Weaver (19:01:33) :
Question–and pardon being a bit off-thread–but is there any US station-by-station weather data downloadable that is presumed unadjusted? That is, the real original data reports by hour, day or whatever? As I read each of these reports–and realize that I’m sitting here with more computer power at my desk than these so-called scientists did even just 10 years ago, I’d like to download the data and take a look first hand.”
There is also a place where you can get a look at the original data sheets, but that is a long slog unless you are just looking for a specific month or so.
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/images/coopsample.pdf
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html
Also, just came across this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/africa.html
Might be promising.
BernieL (17:25:13) : says ” Also note that a remarkably hyperbolic version of the hockey stick graph has been removed from the Australian Gov website – at least I cant find it any more (anyone know more about this?).
It used to be here:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html ”
——————————
Archive.org is your friend. They archived that page in July 2008.
See: http://web.archive.org/web/20080720082852/http://climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html for a copy.
It is indeed an extreme case of hockeystickitis.
BernieL (17:25:13)
That CSIRO doc. you linked was very mind, it included this as a discussion of interglacials……
Significant warming begins in the Antarctic and several hundred
years later the warming causes the CO2 increase, mainly through ocean processes. The Northern Hemisphere
deglaciation follows the CO2 increase. Therefore, increases in CO2 contribute an amplification (positive
feedback) throughout most of the warming. The ice sheets also cause a feedback. The observed temperature
changes and rates of change cannot be simulated without the observed changes in CO2 or ice extent.
Variations in solar irradiance, natural and anthropogenic aerosols and land cover have also infl uenced climate.
Very mild….. and after warming, “several hundred years later CO2 increases”, truly amazing, they spoil it a bit by saying CO2 adds to the feedback (it possibly does but to a minor extent).
Yes I too am puzzled by the loss of the BOM warming chart. I have a link but no copy.
Does anyone have a copy of what was on
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html ? so that comparisons can be made.
Well, that doesn’t even come close to addressing the issues raised by CSC.
chainpin, I don’t think you’ll find much – I had a look at that yesterday. Though there is some data as I recall.
Any time an organisation says they are preparing an official response you know there is major butt-covering going on. Lawyers will be busy.
I’d like to make one other point about the temperature data. Once it’s definitively shown that the temperature record is corrupt then the whole CO2/AGW model goes into the garbage can because the computer models have been fit to fake data. They no longer have any validity. None. Zero. Done.
Once long ago, when CA was a little village with only a few visitors, I pointed this out and predicted that the Gates of Mordor would open when the temperature record came under scrutiny. I think that’s a glimpse of what we saw in the emails with Jones preferring to destroy the data rather than give it to Warwick Hughes or anyone else. It is more than sufficient to explain the vile behavior towards Steve McIntyre, Anthony, and many other skeptics that we’ve seen from the inner circle.
“No statistical data is ever presented unadjusted.”
except over important/vital matters like elections and census, school /university numbers etc and… something that should be so unequivocal as temperatures.
Here’s a hypothetical raw v adjusted case:
“Raw” data for the population of France in 2008
62,048,473 – 2008
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators
Population density of France in 2008: 110 people per sq km
http://about-france.com/facts-figures.htm
area of metropolitan France in 2008: 547,030 sq km
source: http://www.franceway.com/w3/Facts&Figures/geography/area.html
Therefore the adjusted population in france for 2008 was 60,173,300, but lets call it 6.0, as opposed to 6.2.
Thats 2,000,000 disappearances in one year
which leaves over 2 million unaccounted for
Imagine adjusting for overseas territories that are defined as being part of france against population density of 110, but not telling the public how these odd figures were arrived at.
In light of the press release check out the Wellington graph at Page 6 of http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
So we see at 1928 the 0.8 degree increase in difference (see jump in green line). Accepting the press release at face value there is no explanation why there were also temperatures adjustments between 1900 and 1928 and also from about 1970 onwards. These adjustments appear to make the past cooler and the more recent times hotter by about 0.3 degrees at both ends – 0.6 degrees in total.
Robert Wood of Canada (19:07:10) :
David (18:41:17) :
“There are standard, precise, mathematical corrections for wind velocity, humidity, cloud cover, velocity vector of the vessel, wetness of the bucket, wave height, etc.
Trust me; I’m a climatologist”
…and the data to do these globally are available back to 1870?
That was addressed to WAG (18:28:10) :
“The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.”
Wellington is one of the windiest places on the planet. I should imagine it has had a major UHI effect since 1928. Did they adjust for that?
Good points Paul, certainly without the raw data, it is impossible to replicate the results of any study.
Such violations of the scientific method simply must not be tolerated.
There was an excellent post at CA on the topic of disclosure which everyone should read:
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66
There are a set of NZ graphs in one of the leaked FOI2009 documents that might be worth comparing. To be found in:
“idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf”
These are seasonal but the adjusted graph looks very much like the summer graph.
Anyone have access to some old Sacramento Bee newspapers from the late 60’s to early 70’s?
There is something to be found in them that will put a regional nail in the issue of how much damage was done to the historical data.
A few things I believe happened awaits some provenance tests.
So, if you have some copies of Sac. Bee newspapers, by all means, speak up.
This will probably work for any US cities and even in other countries.
REPLY: Are you speaking of the weather station o the roof of the post office in downtown Sac?
unequivocal – –adjective 1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.
2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.
I always analyze the way people use their language.
This is like saying the “Science is Settled”. A bit arrogant.
Uh oh!
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=wa&station=004020&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=0
I plotted this only 2 weeks ago
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/mbar.jpg
The Climate Fraud Department at Telegraph UK has been notified of this development in “how they squirmed” comments 1:23am – thought it would be nice for the Dept Head to have something to mull over while word processing machine was warming up.
Disagrees with this as well
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=004020&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
Alvin (20:47:15)
I get your point, only temperatures are either or they are not what is recorded. Adjusting them makes little sense. At the moment here in London its recorded as 46F in Waterloo. How should it be adjusted to make it higher than 46F?
Warwick Hughes whom some of you may know has a truck load of New Zealand Temperature data from remote sites that are NOT “adjusted” for UHI. Perhaps if Warwick is reading this he may like to post some of them, otherwise a quick request on his blog site might do the trick. The data is interesting, but he seems to have taken it down off his site.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Alvin oops.. I think you were refering to the press release and not my post.
i’ll ask Anthony to make the adjustment
Wow ! Why did they gather so much data; a whole two stations from 1853 to 1908 and a whopping seven since then; talk about a data overload.
I can see why they need two stations; one for Noth Island and one for South Island; but where on earth could they put five more.
Well maybe one for Stuart Island would be good, and if they put one on White Island, that would give them a nice warm signal; and of course it just wouldn’t do to not have one on Rangitoto.
It just seems like so much data to process, and the place is only about 1000 miles long or so; and what is it you need for good continuity; one station for every 900-1200 km.
Yeah I would say NZ is really overdoing the spatial sampling there if you ask me.
I can just see the chaps at the DSIR, or this newfangled NIWA outfit saying; “she’ll be right mte; don’t sweat it, it’ll all come out in the wash !
Way to go Kiwi; you make me proud..
It seems to me that New Zealand is small enough that, if we could get the data, we could see if the adjustments make sense. One thing popped out about their denial. If you move a thermometer up 100 meters, do you adjust the new location’s readings up to jib with the lower location or do you adjust the old location down to jib with the new, cooler location? It seems in order to be unbiased, one would have to imagine there was a high elevation before-the-move thermometer reading lower based on the average difference between the locations and a low elevation after-the-move thermometer reading higher based average difference between the locations. That way, the effects of the move would be averaged out. Otherwise, one artificially moves the lifetime reading of the instrument up or down.
REPLY: Are you speaking of the weather station o the roof of the post office in downtown Sac?
Actually, I am looking for printed material that I saw as a Sacramento Bee Boy when I was young. 1st Sunday of any month 60’s -70’s will do the trick.
When found, post a jpeg online and compare to the historical records (GHCN data). I don’t know where that station would have been located in the nineteenth century, but COOP lists it as Sacramento 5 ESE .
I just listened to Richard Treadgold of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition on Newstalk ZB. He hasnt accused NIWA of fraud. All he has asked is that NIWA explain exactly HOW the temperature records were adjusted. The reasons and the methods. NIWA’s raw data shows NO warming in 150 years. The adjusted data shows 1.9C. Quite a difference. He also said it was quite astonsihing that all the adjustments did was pull the earlier temperatures down. Surely they should have worked both ways (thats me).