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.
My post??
NIWA has made an announcement
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
[quote]NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.[/quote]
If it was really 1.9C warmer 156 years ago we must have been in a local ice age.
“Charlie (20:22:20) :
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 …””
Yes, that was FAQ 2. in the science section. I emailed them some months ago complaing about it, using as my “irrefutable proof” that the mann graph had been dropped from IPCC ar4. I got the reply that everyone who has entered this vipers nest has got … that the problems with Mann don’t matter because they have so many other sources. I have been preparing a list of papers from the leaked material, and an email to them saying “Oh, you mean these?” Seems like someone beat me to it.
“… in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.” I happen to have spent a long time in Wellington. Basically the city sprawls along a former beach area and then climbs up a hill – all of which is built upon – and the Met office is close to the University – all that hill is subject to the UHI effect. That adjustment for altitude – might be OK on a barren hillscape, but not on a built up hill area. Try this site for a view of Wellington
http://www.maplandia.com/new-zealand/wellington/wellington/ .
Also, very interesting that they DID NOT mention any other site in NZ. No explainations ready to hand ?.
“”” Andrew (20:13:54) :
press release is now out:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. “””
Sorry press release; but no cigar for you; you’ll have to smoke a dock weed instead.
The movement of a site such as from Thorndon to Kelburn, is tantamount to ceasing the sampling at Thorndon, and commencing sampling at Kelburn.
If such a change in sampling regimen causes a change in the temperature continuous function reconstruction; requiring “adjustment” that simple fact is prima facie evidence that the sampling process violates the Nyquist criterion; so the reconstructed temperature map function is bogus.
Random sampling in Oscilloscope technology is quite old; they were doing that at Tektronix in the 1960s. In the case of random sampling, every single sampling “station” is moved in a quite unpredictable way for every sampling interval. now the randomizing algorithm ensures that samples are always; or at least mostly always within the period required by the Nyquist criterion (1/2B).
The reconstructed continuous function has good fidelity even though every “thermometer” is effectively in a continuous state of motion and may never turn up in the same place twice.
So as I said, and have reiterated many times; if you sample the function properly, in acordance with the Nyquist sampling theorem criterion; it doesn’t matter if you move a station, or even if you move them all, so long as the maximum station spacing called for is maintained.
So nyet NIWA; you chaps are just engaging in self delusion. Oh sure if you mostly leave your seven thermometers in place for a while, you will continue to get coherent data from those seven locations; and you can even plot them on a graph if you like; but just don’t go telling anybody that you are measuring the mean temperature of New Zealand; you are simply measuring the mean temperature of your seven stations (maybe dependiong on what fudging you do); but you are doing what Hansen does at GISS; he is simply measuring (calculating) GISStemp; and nothing more. You are simply measuring your seven wonderful spots, and nothing more.
Roger Knights said: “Let’s not try to hit a home run. Swinging for the fences feels good, but will get us nowhere. Let’s just try to get on base, and let our main work be done by TIME. (As recommended by Kuznetsov in War and Peace.)”
How well was this process working prior to this scandal? Seems like only abrupt events make any difference in the world, unlike bored Russian writers might think. Those writing about history can enjoy the luxury of seeing how each swing of the pendulum is inevitable. Those making history lack that luxury.
It occurs to me that something intentional is happening here. If an international effort has been underway to create a false impression of AGW it could be accomplished in a very straightforward manner by adjusting the models used to reconstruct PAST climate proxy temperature data. These models could then be used to “control” for any temp., CO2, or solar variables which current AGW scenarios required as a baseline. Once the “historic” baseline data are accepted as true, normal science can be trusted to provide legitimate “confirmation” of warming trends across a wide range of disciplines for the simple reason that there has been empirical warming on the earth for the better part of four decades. The “trick” as they say in their emails, is to graft the present real data points on to the reconstructions so that they satisfy all the logical requirements of the AGW argument. However, the really clever move is epistemological. Current climate scientists are operating in complete good faith. Their lichens, estuaries, ice caps, animal migrations, etc. are in fact behaving as they describe them but they are now seen against the backdrop of a unidirectional paleo-climate model and projected into the future in this way. The real trick is not essentially technical at all. It is far more sophisticated because in enlisting current normal science in the service of a theoretical contrivance it can cover itself in all the philosophical arguments that have defended science since the Enlightenment. It can claim that anyone who dissents is an enemy of science itself. In Medicine, the virus which feeds on the immune system while benefitting from its defenses is the most deadly virus of all.
If such a situation is intentional, as I believe it is, the skill set required for this operation is quite clear. It would include the following capabilities: intellectual skills of the first order, a deep commitment to an alternative political/social order, advanced training in applied mathematics and/or computer modeling, a high level knowledge of paleoclimatology, incredible energy and an institutional placement at or near the center of the climate science community. The person or persons I describe will have been active for some years. They will have realized early on that they do not have to control everything. Controlling the Past is all that is needed, the Future, as we have seen , will take care of itself
tional
dissents is an enemy of science itself.
“Anyone see moonbot’s latest column?”
It’s Monbiot’s usual BS. The claim is that the problem is one of appearances not one of substance. That is clearly a misrepresentation on his part. And then he does the usual job of villifying the skeptics by claiming that they are all in the pay of Exxon Mobile. What nonsense. I don’t know who these people are that are suppose to be working for the oil companies to spread disinformation. I’m sure that some people like that can be found and used as strawmen by Monibot. But I haven’t formed a single opinion based on the input of such people. Look who Jones is afraid of. It’s people like McIntyre, not the people that Monibot mentions. I formed all of my skeptical opinions based upon the data and none based upon some oil company shill telling me what I should believe. I think that is probably the case for most of the skeptics. Monibot’s caracterizations of the opposition to AGW as being unethical are themselves unethical and are derived from a cherry picked sample set that suits his purpose.
How?
Some of us might need some specifics before we carte blanche “buy-off” on any given course of action, because, you know, there is a lot of misinformation circulating out there these days that could use clearing up.
Do you suppose you (and your friends) could practice an Amish way of life and avoid involvement in the modern banking system (just a hypothetical)?
Forms and Functions of Modern Banking – a review for some, an introduction for others …
And –
Fractional-reserve banking
.
.
also see NIWA’s direct connection to the IPCC:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/key-contacts
Dr. Wratt was also cc’d here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=861&filename=1202939193.txt
Paul Demmert, that graph is indeed interesting.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Unless my old eyes are badly in need of glasses it says virtually all of the 20th century warming is due to adjustments.
If I had to choose one English word to describe this debacle, it would be “thick.” Thick in deception, thick in the head. How can so many thinking, educated, peer reviewed scientists be so stupid? Oh well, they are only people and we shouldn’t be surprised. Even though some of them tried to set themselves up as gods, history tells us that a percentage of our population will have grand illusions about themselves and they will go to great lengths to appear as having special powers. Changing the climate is just one of their powers.
Interesting how this is playing so far. So they trot out one single station that obviously did require an adjustment and act as if that explains the record for the entire country.
Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s.
Funny, seems to happen a lot when viewing unadjusted individual stations of long record.
“Anyone have access to some old Sacramento Bee newspapers from the late 60’s to early 70’s?”
There’s a pay site that archives 100 million pages of old newspapers, and that allows keyword searches. You can probably get a free trial offer, and you can subscribe by the month, quarter, year, etc. Under $100 per year. Useful for lots of topics. Unfortunately it doesn’t carry the Sacramento Bee. Here’s the link.
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/Default.aspx
They really do believe the people are stupid.
NIWA
“For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.”
Get two people and two thermometers together,that read the same temp. at the same location (digital,reading 1/10 of a deg.C). Move one to Kelburn the other to Thorndon, communicate via cell-phones and post the result.
michael hogen wrote: “The real trick is not essentially technical at all. It is far more sophisticated because in enlisting current normal science in the service of a theoretical contrivance it can cover itself in all the philosophical arguments that have defended science since the Enlightenment. It can claim that anyone who dissents is an enemy of science itself.”
In very simple terms they have the Hockey Stick handle and when confronted dance around and point to the blade as if that’s the only issue that is being challenged.
I’ve done contract work for NIWA, I wasn’t impressed with some of the stuff (Can’t give detail) I saw and people I had to deal with, so I am not one bit surprised about this.
The Australian Govt Department of Climate Change has removed it’s FAQ (a copy is on wayback) and replaced it by a link to New Scientist. I wonder what New Scientist thinks about being outed like that?
Glenn (19:34:06) :
WAG (18:28:10) Said;
“This is exactly why climate scientists shouldn’t be forced to make their data public – because lay people don’t understand the reasons for adjusting data and deliberately misinterpret it. “Adjusting” data is not the same as “faking” it.
Glenn (19:34:06) : replied… Adjusting data can indeed be done for purposes of deception, and is not unheard of. And not all lay persons are unable to understand data adjustments, some are able to make informed decisions about whether data has been fudged or not, and make determinations of the intent.
Please define “lay person” I’m a professional engineer, despite my spelling handicap. People who want to communicate the excellent job they did will not just tell you they adjusted numbers; they will tell you the value of the adjustment; why the adjustment was made and are prepared to show documentation that the value of the adjustment is reasonable. I think I can handle that much information and I think most people can.
michael hogan (21:50:41) :
Oh, no, it’s far simpler than that.
Start over.
Do it right or hit the “Coming Ice Age” road.
I guess NIWA forgot to include this site in their study; records from 1880 and still rural.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=507936150000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
(and yes, look in the bottom right corner and it’s Jim Hansens data)
Arn Riewe (16:52:00) :
re – HEAT ISLAND EFFECT
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/does_this_make_.html
He has an interesting plot of Max Heat Island Effect in Deg C vs “sky view” metric (?). He notes that his sources assert that “no one gets a number for the Urban Heat Island effect less than 1 degree C”. Although I trust him more than I do anyone of the usual suspects from CRU, I would still like to know where he got that graphic from. If it’s solid, it would be great to have the original ref.
He also references http://www.surfacestations.org/ in the last half of the article. (apparently he participated in the survey).