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.
bill (15:55:27) :
RK (13:27:11) :
the reason CRU had not released the global temperature dataset is due to the 1% of the entities who own the data has not agreed to the release. I have 2 suggestions to CRU: (1) release the 99% of the data that is not under the restraint,
———-
[response by bill]:
“This has already been released by giss for many years”
==========
I thought that CRU had released its data only confidentially to a university in Georgia, and was still stonewalling requests for its data on the grounds of ownership by others. It may be that a statement that the data CRU is holding back is the same as that GISS uses would be sufficient to proceed with an evaluation of the CRU dataset. But until that’s said, or CRU releases the data, critics can’t “get a handle” on what they’re attacking.
NIWA fudging data is not a new issue, a couple years ago I tried to reconstruct their temperature record after I saw them ignore a local well sited long term record for Christchurch in place of a station moved three times in a small fast growing town far out of Christchurch. The graph they showed in the MfE report was used as evidence of global warming, but I noticed they had also truncated this station to hide the warmer than today temps in the 1940’s. This led me to do a total construction for NZ. Using fudged GISS data I got a very small warming trend, much less than theirs, using their raw data I got no trend, and when I adjusted the raw data for shifts as they claim they do, I still got virtually no warming. They dont have a leg to stand on! PS I have pics of several well sited NIWA stations. You can access their raw data for free from Cliflo on their website.
Yet another IPCC heavy hitter who refuses to release data and/or full methodology/code funded buy taxpayers’ money.
This gets more enraging by the day.
The layman tends to be torn between one point of view and another opposing view when reading conflicting reports.
The initial report on the NZ temp graph showed how the raw data showed no growth while the adjusted data showed a growth.
The approach taken was plausible understandable and believable.
Quite clearly the raw data showed no growth but the adjusted data did and the conclusion was that this was deliberate and an attempt at deception in the name of AGW.
The rebuttal has been strong.
It has not been quite so moderate in its language and it has attacked the debunkers and their qualifications.
But again, it seems to be robust, i.e. sound. They explain how many such temperature adjustments are necessary, it attempts to suggest how the corrections are arrived at and examples it with a weather station move.
However, while I tended to initially think, “Oops!” not proven after all” I took another look.
It troubled me that so many weather stations were on airports. Since the 1950’s there has been significant exansion in air traffic and improvements in aerodrome facilities. New hardstandings, more car pars, more buildings and air conditioners and so on.
One wonders if what has been measured deosn’t bear a far greater corelation with the growth and advances in air traffic than it does with climate change or CO2.
Then we have the questions about why the data for rainfall begins in the 1950’s when reliable data from much earlier s available. It is this truncating of the available data that is also a concern and we have seen this used to hide the decline, for example.
But in the end, I revert to the original raw data.
This seems to show, despite station moves etc., no significant increase.
It would seem to me that if the bulk of the data is robust and shows an increase that interpolating data at other sites (which I find hard to understand – if you don’t have measurements, inferring what those measurements would be if you did have sensors seems fraught with risk) would suggest that the adjustment should include an increase.
However, where the bulk of the data shows no such increase, then how can you justify including an increase.
Finally, why should we adjust data?
Why should we need to infer data for any particular site?
I can see a justification for an individual site if you want to try and understand some local climatic or weather situation at that site.
If I want to know how the weather at a location has changed over the years and there is no weather station at that precise location, then I can see the valdity for interpreting or inferring what might have been the history from the history at surrounding sites.
However, when we are trying to deduce global climatic conditions over time and project the future, I cannot be so confident of the rightness of including and manipulating such data. I am especially concerned where the manipulations are of a magnitude greater than the global projections.
Take two stations one reading 4 degrees higher than the next nearest and we want to interpolate the data for a virtual station in between.
WE could simply average the data and say that it is 2 degrees higher than one and 2 degrees lower than the other If we now average the three sites we find no difference than if we averaged the two real sites.
Thus no need for the virtual site.
However, if the correction is more complex and the virtual station data is assumed to be 1 degree lower than one of the real stations and 3 degrees higher than the other then we have added a distortion. The average of the three stations, one virtual, compared to the average of the two stations is no higher. This raises very serious questions about the appropriateness of the corrections.
I think I would far rather see methodology evolve that treats with the real data only but which addresses the missing stations in a different manner than currently used.
It seems to me it has been too easy to take raw real data showing no temperature growth and manipulate such that year of year growth has occurred with no other justification that the temperature adjustment algorithms used. In such a case it is easier (so says Ocam) to belive that the corrections are wrong than to believe the earth is entered into a runaway warming cycle. I should like therefore to see an independent verification of the change, some indirect method i.e one that can show in some related parameter, but one which is not temperature, that because A is responsive to B just as C is responsive to B that where we have missing data in A or where there are anomalies in the A data that we correct them using the C data as a reference.
Hmm.
So what about rainfall?
Lots of claims that Australia, for eample shows serous rainfall disruption since 1950. But that 1950 is claimed to be a false cut-off date. reliable data extends far earlier. So while the post 1950 data might suggest some correlation with temperature growth, the full data set does not.
On balance, i tend to agree with the initial report that NZ temperature records do not justifiably show any evidence of global warming. It is an artifact of the correction and nothing else.
I see there is still no retraction of the claim that the apparatus pictured in this post is a NIWA weather station, rather than part of an air quality monitoring station.
REPLY: tell me Nick, if you wanted to get accurate meteorological data, to use in conjunction with a science study of air quality sampling, would your first choice be meteorological data from the top of a building near a/c heat exchangers and vents? if so please describe then how it is OK to use data gathered in such a questionable environment to support a science study of air quality. That aside, are you certain the data from this station is not used for anything else? Say maybe for a FILNET like algorithm for missing data from other stations? The point being made here is that its a bad place for a weather station, period. – A
Ron (23:14:40) :
“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.”
Then how close is “good enough for government work” to apply a standard rule of temperature/altitude? The “adjustment” was .79C:
“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.”
NIWA claims “Thorndon (closed 31 Dec 1927) has no overlap with Kelburn (opened 1 Jan 1928)”. Yet the startpoint for Kelburn and the endpoint for Thorndon shows only about .2C difference on the first graph:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington
I suspect something is very wrong here. Were Thorndon to be adjusted down by .2C to .5C there would be no upward trend from 1910 to the present. Thorndon shows no trend up or down for a 15 year span ending in 1929, Kelburn shows no trend up or down for 15 years starting in 1929, ending around 1945.
There was a drop in temperature. Even by NIWA’s second chart, temps quickly dropped .3C or .4C right after Kelburn took over, and stayed low till around 1945 when temps increased from 1945 -1960 (app) back up to around .4C above pre 1929.
Kelburn shows no increased trend from 1960 to the present (end of charted date).
It appears to me, using *real* data (although admittedly only data inferred from the charts) that the area is the same temp today as it was in 1910, no overall upward trend at all, only a temporary drop in temp in the 30s – 40s.
Anthony,
Air quality measurement (for CO etc) is necessarily the measurement of an artificial environment. If you take other measurements of the sampled air (temperature etc) you want it to be representative of the sample. It is not meant to represent the climate. There is no indication that NIWA has ever presented the data as representative of the climate.
That said, it’s not clear to me that the box depicted is even a met measuring device. What is your evidence?
In fact, although this air quality monitoring station is located on a NIWA building, it is run by the Auckland Regional Council, who are listed in your link as the owners of the data.
Again in that document they say
AS2922 compliant?
No: but not deemed necessary as site purpose is to monitor peak pollutant levels.
REPLY: Great way to duck the question Nick. So accuracy of meteorological data is of no importance to you, just so long as somebody signs off on its OK.
Anthony,
No you’re ducking. You said in your post:
the weather station for National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) is, right on the rooftop next to the air conditioners:
It isn’t a weather station, and it isn’t NIWA. It is run, and the data belongs to, the Auckland Regional Council, which has nothing to do with meteorology. They measure peak pollutant levels.
And there is still no proof that the box you’ve circled isn’t just another aircon.
REPLY: The volunteer surveyor who took the photo circled the box, and if you zoom in you can see the gill IR shield on the pole, there are two others on poles also. Bear in mind the surveyor interviewed there at the NIWA building.
From the PDF survey form by the volunteer who took the photographs:
Address
National Institute of Water and Atmosphere
269 Khyber Pass Rd
Newmarket, Auckland
And…right here it says the same thing, same address. It’s NIWA, read it on this link:
http://www.nzs.com/site-profile/niwascience.co.nz/
Its says (in case you don’t want to read it yourself):
NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd
Physical Address
269 Khyber Pass Road, Newmarket, Auckland 1023
As for your other claim that this has nothing to do with meteorology…I’ve noted several papers on climatology that have authors that originate at that address:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122506356/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Marina Baldi, author #4 has an address there.
4 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., 269 Khyber Pass Rd, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand
Seems plausible that if they are studying the output of 143 weather stations in the Pacific Basin and writing papers about it originating from that address, that they might have a weather station there at their office? That NIWA office?
So contrary to your claim of “..and it isn’t NIWA” it is in fact NIWA, and it is in fact a weather station, complete with 3 gill IR shields for measuring temperature, and/or humidity/DP and an anemometer/windvane on a post. Yes they also measure air quality there. But they also measure meteological data.
And you still have not answered my question, do you think it is a good idea to measure meteorological data (for ANY purpose) on a rooftop next to a/c heat exchangers and exhaust vents?
Don’t duck that question again.
-A
Nick Stokes (14:45:40) : ..It isn’t a weather station, and it isn’t NIWA. It is run, and the data belongs to, the Auckland Regional Council, which has nothing to do with meteorology. They measure peak pollutant levels.
And there is still no proof that the box you’ve circled isn’t just another aircon
Nick Stokes I’m sorry but your pig headedness is begining to annoy me.
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
The link you sent me (http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/map/nz) identifies it as a NIWA station. And it measures meteorological data.
“Yes, they measure meteorological data. So do I.” That “so do I” seems to give you the belief that you have a right to infallibility.
As a matter of curiousity where do you measure meteorlogical data, for whom and why?
“The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition welcomes the commitment yesterday from Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist (Climate) at NIWA, to, in his words, provide “robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions,” said Coalition secretary, Terry Dunleavy.
“Our coalition would be happy to assist NIWA in making this information widely available,” said Mr Dunleavy. “Nothing released by NIWA so far allows their methodology to be replicated easily. So in order to not waste valuable NIWA staff time, we suggest NIWA release the procedures and allow others to replicate the work. The coalition is quite happy to post the procedure and its replication online to allow public audit.
“In the spirit of his commitment yesterday, we call on Dr Wratt to answer the following three questions.
“1. The graph of the New Zealand temperature record on the NIWA website is based on just seven weather stations. What, precisely, gives NIWA confidence that they are representative of the whole country?
“2. What, precisely, are the adjustments made to the temperature readings at each of those seven stations and when were they each made? We request access to the raw data involved in the making of these adjustments.
“3. What, precisely, are the reasons each station was so adjusted?”
The Coalition says Dr Wratt’s release mentioned specifically that NIWA climate scientists had previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections are made. Mr Dunleavy comments: “We disagree. We have no record of receiving an explanation. NIWA has in fact refused numerous requests over the years to disclose the corrections. The most recent one was a written request to Dr James Renwick – over a month ago – still unanswered. So we would be grateful to hear what Dr Wratt is referring to, when the information was sent and to whom.
[This was specifically posted on their website. Since removed? Bloody Liars!]
“We further note that access to this information is necessary for others to examine and replicate NIWA’s results, but in any case, it was gathered on behalf of New Zealanders and we are all entitled to see it,” Mr Dunleavy concluded.”
Sorry here is the link for the above: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S00057.htm
Here it is from their website “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.”
I think you are a liar Dr Wratt
Anthony,
If you’re interested in weather measurements, you won’t take readings at a site designed to measure peak air pollution (in busy traffic). The latter is what the ARC monitor, and I suspect the location pictured is the best they could get on the site, to be near the pollution measurement. But to answer your question, if you want measurements that are representative of Auckland’s weather, no, it isn’t a good idea. That isn’t ARC’s role.
Yes, it’s a NIWA building. But it is Auckland Regional Council equipment, and as your linked document unambiguously says, the data is owned by ARC, a municipalal body. There are very good reasons why NIWA would not have a weather station there. It’s in a location of high traffic density, with no open space nearby. Good for pollution measurement, bad for weather.
REPLY: And all I’m saying is that it’s not a good idea to measure meteorological parameters on top of a building. In this case it is the NIWA building. It would seem that if they are doing studies for air pollution, using that meteorological data, it would suffer from the same sort of issues. -A
Nick Stokes (14:45:40) :
Before you duck again,
Another approach to finding NIWA weather stations, Khyber Pass in particular:
http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
“CliFlo is the web system that provides access to New Zealand’s National Climate Database. ”
http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wstn.get_stn_nodt
22164 A6487B Khyber Pass, Auckland Regional Council 26-Jun-2001 – -36.86813 174.77063
http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wstn.data_availibility?cagent=22164
A6487B H 193 00 2001-07 2009-11 3058 100 Data: Hourly Air Temp
Richard (15:52:43) :
The site I (and you) linked lists measuring stations by location. And yes, this site is located at the NIWA building. But you’ll see the data listed is only of pollutants.
My point in saying “so do I” was to indicate that anyone can say they measure met variables. It doesn’t indicate that I (or the ARC) operate a weather station. I measure temperature and pressure for my own curiosity.
Nick Stokes (16:39:05) :
“Yes, it’s a NIWA building. But it is Auckland Regional Council equipment, and as your linked document unambiguously says, the data is owned by ARC, a municipalal body.”
I must have missed where any linked document unambiguously states that the equiptment or data is owned by the ARC. Is this it?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/niwa_station_survey.pdf
Could you be so kind as to point out the unambiguous language? I’m not accusing you of bs, cause you weren’t specific. Your link goes to the Anthony’s main article page.
But it occurs to me that it could very well be possible, perhaps probable, that the equiptment was provided by NIWA, and/or the data “owned” by NIWA.
“There are very good reasons why NIWA would not have a weather station there. It’s in a location of high traffic density, with no open space nearby.”
You should check out some of the other sites in the network.
Glenn,
I looked at your links. The third seemed the relevant one. Some items:
Name Khyber Pass, Auckland Regional Council
Observing Authority Auckland Regional Council
Synoptic Number (World Met. Organisation Number) –
WRA No –
And it listed, as did the above doc, the various met variables that they measure. No actual data that I could find.
Nick Stokes (17:11:45) :
Glenn,
I looked at your links. The third seemed the relevant one. Some items:
Name Khyber Pass, Auckland Regional Council
Observing Authority Auckland Regional Council
Synoptic Number (World Met. Organisation Number) –
WRA No –
And it listed, as did the above doc, the various met variables that they measure. No actual data that I could find.
**********************************
And that is supposed to tell us what? No data?
The usually listed station for Auckland is Auckland,Owairaka agent 1468
http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wstn.stn_details?cagent=1468
Synoptic Number (World Met. Organisation Number) –
WRA No –
The only difference is “observing authority”. What does that mean, or perhaps what would you like us to think it means, in the real scheme of things?
You do see agent number, network number, right?
Glenn,
Sorry about that faulty link. Yes, it is the one you listed. And just above the map:
Data Owner ARC,
Though owned by the Auckland Regional Council, the weather station at Khyber Pass is listed as a NIWA station: Station number 22164
Current Indicators:
Parameter Indicator Parameter Indicator
Rain X Evaporation –
Surface Wind Dirn X Surface Wind Speed X
Max Gust Dirn X Max Gust Speed X
Solar Radiation X Sunshine Hours –
10cm Earth Temp – 20cm Earth Temp –
30cm Earth Temp – 100cm Earth Temp –
Dry Bulb Temp X Wet Bulb Temp X
Grass Min Temp – Weather Phenomonen –
Max Temp X Min Temp X
Visibility – Cloud Amount –
MSL Pressure –
Wind Run X
Time Offset (from UTC) 12 dayl_daylight_area 02
Nick Stokes (17:03:23) : Richard (15:52:43) : My point in saying “so do I” was to indicate that anyone can say they measure met variables. It doesn’t indicate that I (or the ARC) operate a weather station. I measure temperature and pressure for my own curiosity
Well the ARC operate the weather station, on behalf of NIWA, in which they measure, among other things:
A6487B M 02 00 2001-08 2009-10 99 100 Mthly: Mean Temp
A6487B M 03 00 2001-08 2009-10 99 100 Mthly: Mean Max Temp
A6487B M 04 00 2001-08 2009-10 99 100 Mthly: Mean Min Temp
A6487B M 06 00 2001-08 2009-10 97 98 Mthly: Extr Max Temp
A6487B M 61 00 2001-08 2009-10 99 100 Mthly: Sd Of Mean Temp
A6487B M 62 00 2001-08 2009-10 95 96 Mthly: Lowest Mean Temp
A6487B M 63 00 2001-08 2009-10 95 96 Mthly: Highest Mean Temp
A6487B C 837 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Growing Deg Days (5c)
A6487B C 838 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Growing Deg Days (10c)
A6487B C 839 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Cooling Deg Days (18c)
A6487B C 861 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Sd Of Mean Temp
A6487B C 864 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Mean 9am Rh
A6487B C 865 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Mean 9am Temp
A6487B C 868 00 2001-01 2009-01 1 78 Climsum: Heating Deg Days (18c)
And you measure temperature for your own curiousity, does that qualify you to be the ultimate authority on the climate of the world, or NZ for that matter?
Instead of wasting everyones time on a non-issue, do you have anything to say on Richard (16:17:35) ?
I would just like to point out that the temperature readings used by NIWA don’t come from their building – the photo above does show their building and weather station, but the official data comes from the Kelburn weather station which is situated alone in an enclosure at the top of Kelburn near the MetService Building – it is not mounted on a roof or near exhaust from air conditioners.
You can see it here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+kelburn,+wellington&sll=-41.395893,174.381547&sspn=1.440226,2.384033&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kelburn,+New+Zealand&ll=-41.284594,174.767957&spn=0.000704,0.001164&t=h&z=20
NIWA’s building is in Hataitai – not Kelburn.
Nick Stokes (17:31:40) :
Glenn,
Sorry about that faulty link. Yes, it is the one you listed. And just above the map:
Data Owner ARC,
************************
This is nitpicky, since it doesn’t matter in “the real scheme of things”
but that isn’t quite unambiguous, Nick.
My doctor is the data owner of my medical record.
The meaning of the term in NZ, and on that webpage, may not mean what you think it means. It could mean that ARC has the responsibility and authority to take and keep official measurements for NIWA. Regardless, ARC is obviously providing NIWA with temperature data, or have been since the 7th of Nov, according to the data availability page. Look up the data yourself
http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/pls/niwp/wgenf.genform1
jfrater (18:02:05) : I would just like to point out that the temperature readings used by NIWA don’t come from their building – the photo above does show their building and weather station, but the official data comes from the Kelburn weather station which is situated alone in an enclosure at the top of Kelburn near the MetService Building – it is not mounted on a roof or near exhaust from air conditioners
jfrater – are you somewhat challanged in English comprehension? Is English not your first language? Just read the correspondence above and try to understand it. Take your time. Use Google translation if necessary.