NIWA issued a response statement regarding the charges leveled by The NZ Climate Science Coalition here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
They say:
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.
I’m not too impressed, especially when you see where the weather station for National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) is, right on the rooftop next to the air conditioners:
Here is the station survey: NIWA_station_survey (PDF) and the Google Earth KML file
Thanks to: Dieuwe de Boer who did a good portion of station surveys in New Zealand last year.
The NZ Climate Science Coalition responds:
NIWA’s explanation raises major new questions
The NIWA climate controversy took a new twist tonight with the release of new data from the government run climate agency.
Reeling from claims that it has massaged data to show a 150 year warming trend where there isn’t one, NIWA’s chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report, issued a news release stating adjustments had been made to compensate for changes in sensor locations over the years.
While such an adjustment is valid, it needs to be fully explained so other scientists can test the reasonableness of the adjustment.
Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.
Here’s the rub. Up until 1927, temperatures for Wellington had been taken at Thorndon, only 3 m above sea level and an inner-city suburb. That station closed and, as I suspected in my earlier post, there is no overlap data allowing a comparison between Thorndon and Kelburn, where the gauge moved, at an altitude of 135 metres.
With no overlap of continuous temperature readings from both sites, there is no way to truly know how temperatures should be properly adjusted to compensate for the location shift.
Wratt told Investigate earlier there was international agreement on how to make temperature adjustments, and in the news release tonight he elaborates on that:
“Thus, if one measurement station is closed (or data missing for a period), it is acceptable to replace it with another nearby site provided an adjustment is made to the average temperature difference between the sites.”
Except, except, it all hinges on the quality of the reasoning that goes into making that adjustment. If it were me, I would have slung up a temperature station in the disused location again and worked out over a year the average offset between Thorndon and Kelburn. It’s not perfect, after all we are talking about a switch in 1928, but it would be something. But NIWA didn’t do that.
Instead, as their news release records, they simply guessed that the readings taken at Wellington Airport would be similar to Thorndon, simply because both sites are only a few metres above sea level.
Airport records temps about 0.79C above Kelburn on average, so NIWA simply said to themselves, “that’ll do” and made the Airport/Kelburn offset the official offset for Thorndon/Kelburn as well, even though no comparison study of the latter scenario has ever been done.
Here’s the raw data, from NIWA tonight, illustrating temp readings at their three Wellington locations since 1900:
What’s interesting is that if you leave Kelburn out of the equation, Thorndon in 1910 is not far below Airport 2010. Perhaps that gave NIWA some confidence that the two locations were equivalent, but I’m betting Thorndon a hundred years ago was very different from an international airport now.
Nonetheless, NIWA took its one-size-fits all “adjustment and altered Thordon and the Airport to match Kelburn for the sake of the data on their website and for official climate purposes.
In their own words, NIWA describe their logic thus.
- Where there is an overlap in time between two records (such as Wellington Airport and Kelburn), it is a simple matter to calculate the average offset and adjust one site relative to the other.
- Wellington Airport is +0.79°C warmer than Kelburn, which matches well with measurements in many parts of the world for how rapidly temperature decreases with altitude.
- Thorndon (closed 31 Dec 1927) has no overlap with Kelburn (opened 1 Jan 1928). For the purpose of illustration, we have applied the same offset to Thorndon as was calculated for the Airport.
- The final “adjusted” temperature curve is used to draw inferences about Wellington temperature change over the 20th century. The records must be adjusted for the change to a different Wellington location
Now, it may be that there was a good and obvious reason to adjust Wellington temps. My question remains, however: is applying a temperature example from 15km away in a different climate zone a valid way of rearranging historical data?
And my other question to David Wratt also remains: we’d all like to see the metholdology and reasoning behind adjustments on all the other sites as well.
Where “Global Warming” and “Peak Oil” meet
That place, of course, is the world´s financial market.
Read article at: http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-global-warming-and-peak-oil-meet.html
Global Warming is supposed to be obvious, recent and alarming. With that in mind …
Who actually cares what happened pre 1928?
…We are told that the alarming warming is in the last few decades
What is the point of trying to merge the two records?
… If I took the physical equipment from Wellington to Glasgow would that help some to see that they are now two completely separate records? They can never be merged
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 (…)
Why do Squid come to mind every time I read a press release from another of these goons? Shine a light – wall of ink.
If you move the site it isn’t the same site… it is a new site! In any case the new site (post 1928) should show obvious, recent and alarming warming regardless of any need for adjustment.
Sorry guys, I was of the opinion that these people were simply bungling buffoons but unless the “adjustments” are released real soon – I am heading toward fraud.
For any “greens” that may read this – look at the raw station data for yourselves. FOR ANY COUNTRY
Re: Nick Stokes (18:14:57) :
“The post is misleading. The building pictured is not Kelburn, in Wellington, but Khyber Pass, in Auckland.”
Actually, it’s confusing, as the dictionary defines misleading as “to lead in a wrongful direction by deliberate deceit”. Your comment is misleading.
No temperature records exists from the Thorndon and Kelburn stations in the same year, so NIWA has estimated the amount of adjustment that needed to be made.
Their reasoning is faulty. Thorndon 90 years ago must have ben pretty rural. What NIWA must do is put up a weather station in a rural are very close to Thorndon and see what the temperature difference is over a year between the Airport and Thorndon (which should be cooler) and subtract that difference from the adjustment they have taken.
This post is further misleading. Not only is the building pictured in Auckland rather than Wellington, but the linked documentation describes an air quality monitoring station, not meteorological.
Richard (18:48:18) :
“No temperature records exists from the Thorndon and Kelburn stations in the same year, so NIWA has estimated the amount of adjustment that needed to be made.
Their reasoning is faulty. Thorndon 90 years ago must have ben pretty rural. What NIWA must do is put up a weather station in a rural are very close to Thorndon and see what the temperature difference is over a year between the Airport and Thorndon (which should be cooler) and subtract that difference from the adjustment they have taken.”
Knowing what the weather is today doesn’t give us accurate information as to the weather pre 1929. Today the average over a year might be .5C but in 1922 it may have been .3C or .7C. This averaging an average to average is pseudoscience.
Nick Stokes (19:08:00) : This post is further misleading. Not only is the building pictured in Auckland rather than Wellington, but the linked documentation describes an air quality monitoring station, not meteorological
The post is not misleading but the picture (maybe). It is not Wellington but gives an idea of the quality of the station.
The linked documentation does say meteorological data is measured.
“Meteorological parameters measured on site: Wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation.”
Glenn (19:19:45) : Richard (18:48:18) :
“..Thorndon 90 years ago must have ben pretty rural. What NIWA must do is put up a weather station in a rural are very close to Thorndon and see what the temperature difference is over a year between the Airport and Thorndon (which should be cooler) and subtract that difference from the adjustment they have taken.”
Knowing what the weather is today doesn’t give us accurate information as to the weather pre 1929. Today the average over a year might be .5C but in 1922 it may have been .3C or .7C. This averaging an average to average is pseudoscience.
Not quite pseudoscience. I dont know how you are mentioning “averages”. Where do averages come in? What we are interested in the difference between a station like Thorndon 150 to 90 years ago and Kelburn of that time. Since we cant have this difference this is the next best thing.
BY THE WAY: NIWA HAS REMOVED THAT PRESS RELEASE FROM THEIR SITE! ITS NO LONGER AVAILABLE AND EVEN A SEARCH DOES NOT SHOW IT UP!
DID ANYBODY COPY IT BEFORE THEY REMOVED IT?
Anthony,
thanks for the snip. I am suitably chastised now. sorry about that mate.
brnn8r (11:53:31) : says “In New Zealand we have a version of the FOIA it’s called the official information act 1982 ……. Would it be worthwhile me testing the waters to see if I can get the data released under the act?”
Yes indeed, please make the request. What happens too often is that everyone assumes that someone else has made the request and nothing end up going in.
The head post says “Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed.”
Perhaps the reason is that they no longer know why it was done. What they should be able to release is all raw data and the metadata/station history.
Richard (19:26:05) :
Yes, they measure meteorological data. So do I. But it’s an air quality station – there’s no indication that the met data is used for any met or climate purpose.
Ok the link at the top of the page is still working and I have copied it.
Rob (11:06:35) :
“If there is an old site closing down and a new one opening up, why would they wanna splice them, regarding them as one station that has moved? There is the old station and the new.
Why not simply accept that some stations has data for a certain range of years and that other stations has data for other ranges of years?
When all stations have been averaged together, each and every station will only contribute with measured data, no adjustments (guesses).”
I think you have it nailed. Whatever trend the old site shows, that’s all the valid data there is, at that location in that time span, available for study. No overlap, no science.
oops .. error in the tags. Most of that was not intended to be bold and shouty.
Nick Stokes (19:47:47) : Richard (19:26:05) :
Yes, they measure meteorological data. So do I. But it’s an air quality station – there’s no indication that the met data is used for any met or climate purpose
What would they use it for then? It is a NIWA station.
A station move is a fixed-value adjustment. Why is the adjustment getting larger every year?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
If you know you’ll have to adjust your reading, why not take a better reading in the first place?
What’s the progressive adjustment for? Progressively failing eyesight?
REPLY: Excellent question. One that only NCDC can answer. I asked the same question is my book, Is the US Surface Temperature record Reliable?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
– Anthony
Richard (20:22:02) :
It is air quality that is presented from the site.
I guess they need the met measures for various correlation studies.
Well, if you treat the station as three different measurements, and just going from the start to end of each series, Thorndon goes up by 0.05C, Kelburn down by 0.4, and the airport up by 0.15. When I add those together I get -0.2C.
Their final graph has it going +1.25C
That’s not how things are done, of course, but it does highlight what a big adjustment they’ve made, possibly bringing new dangers to New Zealand’s farm economies throughout WW-I and the roaring twenties. *gasp*
You know, if a stock analyst kept applying adjustments to companies’ past performance numbers, somebody might take serious issue with it, to say the least.
A station move beyond a few feet is a new station.
A few years before the Thorndon records began, there was a significant earthquake which caused the while area to rise several meters. The area that is now the airport was lifted out of the sea.
Lambton Quay used to be the shoreline.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/historic-earthquakes/3/6
I wonder how small altitude changes like these affect weather station measurements?
Put temperature data in pot
Cook until hockey stick comes out clean.
Im thinking NIWA didnt make the adjustments untill about 1935 .explains the lower temps till then.
Here’s graphs of the NIWA adjustment:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S00060.htm
Before eyeballs at no increase
After has an increasing trend of around .5C
“Where there is an overlap in time between two records (such as Wellington Airport and Kelburn), it is a simple matter to calculate the average offset and adjust one site relative to the other.”
Yes, paintbrush can do that easily.
“Wellington Airport is +0.79°C warmer than Kelburn, which matches well with measurements in many parts of the world for how rapidly temperature decreases with altitude.”
IF it *is* then they put it in the wrong time slot.
Glenn. If the third station (Station C in post above) with an overlap was 5000 miles away it would not work. But in New Zealand stations are never 5000 miles apart.
Much of this discussion has been around how to get accuracy at a single station. The main published records use around 5000 records. Ideally for quality control each station should go through a rigorous process. Difficult enough in New Zealnd which has good metadata – but almost impossible in countries which have civil wars and or major upheavals.