NIWA's Kiwi Kaper

https://i2.wp.com/weblog.greenpeace.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/cilamte-kiwi.jpg?resize=240%2C297
One of Greenpeace New Zealand's pitches

It should be noted that NIWA is not the official Meteorological Service of New Zealand. From their FAQs:  Is NIWA the Met Service?

No, the MetService is a separate company which can be found at www.metservice.com. NIWA does perform climate prediction and monitoring services, however, but these are more long term.

and…NIWA is a Crown Research Institute, established in 1992. It operates as a stand-alone company with its own Board of Directors and Executive.

– Anthony

Crisis in New Zealand climatology

by Barry Brill

May 15, 2010

The warming that wasn’t

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Hon Rodney Hide, a climate sceptic who is a Minister in the current Government and leader of the junior coalition partner, the ACT Party, has called upon his ministerial colleagues to formally repudiate the NSS and to withdraw all publications and formal papers which are based on the spurious warming trend of 0.92°C. The Government has not yet responded to this challenge.

New Zealand is a small country, with a strong tradition of open Government, and is not an easy place to keep secrets. The acceptance of the NSS for so long offers evidence of the dictum: “you can fool all of the people some of the time..” But if that can happen in New Zealand, how much greater is the probability that similar shenanigans could be happening in larger, more complex, jurisdictions?

BACKGROUND

The New Zealand Meteorological Service, with its forebears, has been measuring and recording our weather since 1861. In 1992, it published a booklet containing a detailed history of all its weather stations, along with 140 years of climate data. In that year, NIWA came into being and has now published most of the Met Service data online.

In 2007, the then Prime Minister announced her party’s intention that New Zealand should lead the world in fighting climate change, and aim to be the world’s first carbon-neutral country by 2025.

Earlier in 2007, NIWA produced a web page, followed by a printed brochure, with a graph showing that New Zealand had already warmed by an amount far in excess of global averages. The web page claimed a temperature increase of 1.1C during the 144 years of Met Service records, and a 0.92°C trend during the 20th century.

These are remarkable claims. They came out of the blue and do not accord with any written histories, or the personal impressions of our older generations. They don’t square with “hottest day” records held in provinces and city archives. They were not accompanied by big changes in rainfall or winds or sea levels. In these claims, NIWA is a very lonely orphan.

Read the entire substantial essay here at Quadrant Online

h/t to WUWT reader A C Osborn

0 0 vote
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kim
May 15, 2010 6:06 am

Partisan thermometrics.
===============

kim
May 15, 2010 6:08 am

Through the Thermometer Glass.
==================

H.R.
May 15, 2010 6:29 am

“[…] For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. […]”
(Emphasis mine.) So any claims that “the models agree” with observed data is an indictment of the models. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

geo
May 15, 2010 6:38 am

Good grief. That makes Phil Jones look like a careful and conscientous documentarian!
In northern Iowa this morning for some surfacestation hunting!
[REPLY – Great! Be SURE to include measurements from pavement or buildings, and if possible, make the shots include all such heat sources/sinks with the station visible. I’ll be having to add a Google Earth measurement view to any surveys you make, and it can be very difficult without all that. But you are an old hand at this, so this is just a reminder. Thanks, and happy hunting. There’s nothing more exhilarating than that initial spot! ~ Evan]

Baa Humbug
May 15, 2010 6:43 am

Peer reviewed by the Australian BoM? You got to be kidding. That’s like appointing Bernie Maedoff to audit the Enron accounts. What a crooked joke.

PJP
May 15, 2010 6:44 am

Absolutely amazing.
Why is it, that even in developed countries, a single individual can get away with manipulating “official” records so dramatically and for so long, and government policy be blindly driven by this forged data?
We have seen it in the UK, we see it in the US and now in NZ.

Gary Pearse
May 15, 2010 6:49 am

A compact country like NZ is an ideal place to choose as a control on a science out of control. The big problem in climatology is impatience. There is no need to alter historical records at all except to insist on quality siting. If there is warming of significant amount the record will show it to us without fudging, fiddling and trying to tease out of the data more than is in there. Same with sea level. It’s fine to manipulate data for research purposes and for speculation on what may be, but it’s unacceptable to alter the official records. To do that is like altering the genetic code to make a match with that of a suspect in a crime.

stan stendera
May 15, 2010 6:50 am

I wonder if Dr. Salinger is any relation to J. D. Salinger, the famous FICTION writer.

Adam Gallon
May 15, 2010 6:56 am

“Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.”
Take that 0.92°C trend out of HadCRUT and what happens?

geo
May 15, 2010 6:58 am

Hahaha. Good point, H. R. Wanna bet that if forced to remove the influence that somehow that model will end up with roughly the same results anyway? These people may be zealots, but they’re intelligent zealots and they’ll figure out a way to get where they want to go anyway!

Jeff L
May 15, 2010 7:00 am

Makes you wonder what other shennanigans are going on with other data sets. With the AGW issue being so political, it is hard to trust at face value any data sets presented by government entities

May 15, 2010 7:07 am

We should have more sunlight, the world’s best disinfectant.

May 15, 2010 7:10 am

Just how many wheels does this wagon have? Surely there cannot be many left to fall off.
Expect to see this splashed all over the MSM as New Scientist claim happens … not!

A C Osborn
May 15, 2010 7:15 am

My concern when I highlighted this to Anthony was do with the Global Temperature asa well as the sheer arrogance of what was doen here.
Is New Zealands Temp series used for any fo the surrounding “Grid Bins”?

old construction worker
May 15, 2010 7:23 am

tarpon says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:07 am
‘We should have more sunlight, the world’s best disinfectant’
I’m going to push for more sunshine laws. If it takes putting audio and video recording devices in very hook and cranny in every corner of every room in Washington, so be it. There will be so much light it will make the streets of London look like the dark side of the moon.

jaymam
May 15, 2010 7:26 am

NIWA have since named a different list of nine mainland stations “with long-term records where no significant site changes have occurred” and challenged anyone to download the data which is available on the NIWA site..
Here are the 9am temperatures at those stations from 1960 onward (there’s no data earlier). There is a slight downward trend.
http://i40.tinypic.com/353dra9.jpg
Here are GISS temperatures for Auckland Airport from 1880 to 1990.
There is an insignificant trend.
http://i43.tinypic.com/643tba.jpg

May 15, 2010 7:34 am

Something the article didn’t mention is that one of the stations in the NIWA Seven Station Series is dropped from the NASA GISS product because GISS can’t do there UHI correction on it. This was something I stumbled across months ago when I found Auckland NZ had no final adjusted output from GISS even though it is in the station list for stations used by them. I sent an Email to GISS and got areply back from Dr. Rudy about that station and why GISS doesn’t use it:

You found one of the 284 urban or peri-urban stations that were droppedin our homogenization procedure because there was not a sufficientlylong overlap of its record with a combination of at least 3 ruralneighbors.
There are 2 rural neighbors within 500 km and a third one within 1000km. The overlap of the combination of those 3 records and the Aucklandrecord was 19 years, just 1 year short of the 20-year limit that ourprocedure requires. Non-rural stations whose trend cannot be adjusted to match their ruralneighbors are dropped. The effect is similar to using only ruralstations to find the global temperature trend.
Thank you for your interest in our web site.
Reto

Amazing how NIWA thinks that is a good station to use but even GISS doesn’t use it because it can’t be properly adjusted.

latitude
May 15, 2010 7:41 am

“Take that 0.92°C trend out of HadCRUT and what happens?”
poof
Then they would have to explain the trend going down.

bubbagyro
May 15, 2010 7:42 am

PJP says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:44 am
The governments are not blind. Their key people have horses in that race.
This just shows how the deletion of monitoring stations is so dangerous. Just one perpetrator in a grid can alter, using “interpolation” algorithms, all the data sets in the world.
I wish we could have a benefactor to set up monitoring stations in the many remote “holes” that have become so critical. Here’s where Bill Gates could put some of his “mad money” to good use.
I would place improved Stevenson screens at slightly higher altitude, away from the ground effects, fully automated, taking readings every few seconds, and with satellite radio then reporting to a secure server. I’m sure it’s been thought of.
Maybe then, perhaps, climatologers can begin to be climatologists again.

Henry chance
May 15, 2010 7:42 am

Post modern math. You can draw the slope from a single point. When I grew up, (the olden days) it took two points to create a line and see the slope.

jaymam
May 15, 2010 8:06 am

Here’s Auckland NZ Decadal Average Temperature by Month (a Willis type graph) – -data ex GISS
http://i41.tinypic.com/311ur2t.jpg
1950 was the highest decade between 1881 and 1993 (the only data at GISS). 1990 was the lowest in June.

stan stendera
May 15, 2010 8:07 am

I’m going to recomment.
I wonder if Dr. Salinger is any relation to J. D. Salinger, the famous FICTION writer. J. D. Salinger is well known for being secretive.

Zoltan Beldi
May 15, 2010 8:12 am

Wow…If the GISS don’t even want to use it. it must really stink.

Tim Clark
May 15, 2010 8:56 am

GISS…..NSS……. It’s no coincidence they’re all truncated to *sses.

Pat Moffitt
May 15, 2010 9:03 am

PJP says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:44 am
Absolutely amazing.
Why is it, that even in developed countries, a single individual can get away with manipulating “official” records so dramatically and for so long, and government policy be blindly driven by this forged data?
Policy is not set by the data. The data is transformed to fit the policy. Social Justice was the solution and climate change was the “problem”.

John Blake
May 15, 2010 9:19 am

The more we read of CAGWists dementia in widespread venues, the more it seems –as emphatically stated in this article– that virtually everything published by Warmists’ Green Gang of peculating ideologues since the early 1980s must be excised, extruded, excreted from body politics by root-and-branch.
Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. uniformly operate in bad faith, under false pretenses, to the extreme detriment not only of disinterested public policy but of objective, rational scientific enterprise. What makes climate hysterics’ ongoing calumnies, pejorative vituperation, insufferable is that their self-righteous rants are based on conscious, knowing fraud which they will go to any lengths to hide.
Nothing one can say does justice to this extraordinary forfeiture of public trust. Not for one moment do Climate Cultists “pastoralize” their own behavior– quite the contrary, as Al Gore exemplifies. Society’s defense demands that these incredibly ill-willed poseurs face real-world consequences now, not in tenured Neverland a generation hence.

D. King
May 15, 2010 9:34 am

“It should be noted that NIWA is not the official Meteorological Service of New Zealand. …- Anthony”
“It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process.”
http://tinyurl.com/268febg

May 15, 2010 9:46 am

Post modern philosophy and its consequence: post normal science and politics
A philosophical/scientific/political tradition in which the one who holds power gets to tell the story. The story is by definition, the “truth”, without reference to fact or fiction. That is because the meta-story is that truth its itself a prior fiction and what it actually is cannot be known by man. Hence the use of “consensus” to determine the story to be told. This so called “consensus” is often the result of intellectual fraud and extortion. Yet, once the story is published and “reviewed” by the “relevant experts” it becomes the “truth” not to be questioned by test or counter evidence.
Out of this comes the circumstance in which the masses pay with their lives and fortunes and the political elite get to play without consequence. This works as long as there is wealth to steal and victims to sacrifice. We, the prospective sacrificial victims are not to question our “betters”. Why? They get to tell the story. That’s the sole reason and nothing else. We don’t have a say in the matter or so they hope.
One interesting side effect is that the political elite don’t learn from history because they believe that history is simply the “story” told by the previous political elite. They conclude that it has no more relation to actual truth than their own story and is thus subject to their whim this time. They are always surprised when things don’t work out to match their story. However, they are ready and willing to make up a new story that does not contain the “failed” parts of their old story.
Question: Why do we victims cooperate with and even vote for such a thing? Its been going on since man invented governments. Always with the same path and the same end in the dark abyss. Only the places, names of the guilty, and the body counts are different.
Observation: Its not post modern anything. Its as ancient as the alliance between a tribal chieftain and his witch doctor.

Robert of Ottawa
May 15, 2010 9:53 am

I know that the Kiwis are an advanced lot, inventing atomic physics ‘n all, but Auckland Airport in 1880?

David Ball
May 15, 2010 10:00 am

You will find this hilarious. I heard on “alternative radio” a “debate” on cap and trade. The two opposing views were represented by Joe Romm on one side and the head of Greenpeace on the other. Talk about an echo chamber !!! They have zero scruples these people. As you might conclude, it was not a very informative debate. Epic fail.

tty
May 15, 2010 10:09 am

Actually this New Zealand caper has no effect on CRUTEM, since CRU doesn’t use the doctored version. They use the raw data. As somebody said earlier, in comparison with this Phil Jones is beginning to look rather virtuous.

DirkH
May 15, 2010 10:14 am

Linked newspaper article says Lucy Lawless, activist singer, appears in court case of Salinger re his unfair dismissal. Quick google for “Lawless Salinger” gives interesting results. e.g.:
Lucy Lawless and Jim Salinger at Beehive – [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
18 Nov 2009 … Lucy Lawless and Jim Salinger visit Parliament to present nearly $5000 fundraised to get PM John Key to Copenhagen …
Greenpeace link already dead, ministry of truth in purge mode it seems.
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/media/main.php/v/…/presentation/ – Im CacheLucy Lawless and Jim Salinger offer Key Copenhagen cash | Sign On – [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
18 Nov 2009 … Lucy Lawless and Jim Salinger rocked up to Parliament, with a giant Copenhagen boarding pass and a fat cheque in hand. …
http://www.signon.org.nz/…/lucy-lawless-and-jim-salinger-offer-key-copenhagen-cash – Im CacheLucy Lawless and Jim Salinger offer nearly $5000 to John Key | Sign On – [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
Auckland Wednesday November 18 2009 – Actress Lucy Lawless and top climate scientist Jim Salinger will visit Parliament today to present Prime Minister John …
http://www.signon.org.nz/…/lucy-lawless-and-jim-salinger-offer-nearly-5000-to-john-key – Im Cache
Weitere Ergebnisse anzeigen von http://www.signon.org.nzLawless and Salinger offer Key ticket to Copenhagen – Story … – [ Diese Seite übersetzen ]
18 Nov 2009 … Actress Lucy Lawless and Jim Salinger will offer John Key $4781 to get him to a climate change conference in Copenhagen Lawless and Salinger …
http://www.3news.co.nz/Lawless-and-Salinger…/Default.aspx – Im Cache

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
May 15, 2010 10:17 am

The poster screams of brainwashing children with this rebranded prehistoric climate religion

DirkH
May 15, 2010 10:22 am

Seems i made a job title mistake, sorry, activist ACTRESS Lucy Lawless, not activist singer Lucy Lawless.

A C Osborn
May 15, 2010 10:28 am

tty says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
But do they use the specially selected Sites?

David Davidovics
May 15, 2010 10:42 am

This reminds me of a point in the fable “Animal Farm” where the founding principles were revised secretly when it became politically advantageous. Eventually all the core values were completely lost or adjusted and only the oldest generation could remember and recite them but by then it was too late. Just a story, right? I’m glad George Orwell isn’t here to see this.
We are talking about revising history here. I can’t think of a greater scientific loss than to have original historical source data disappear which can never be replaced.

PaulH
May 15, 2010 10:58 am

In 1992, it published a booklet containing a detailed history of all its weather stations, along with 140 years of climate data.
It sounds like the Kiwis could use a Surface Stations project right about now.

ShrNfr
May 15, 2010 11:08 am

I would say that global warming is causing kiwis, but that comment would be for the birds.

D. King
May 15, 2010 11:17 am

tty says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
CRU doesn’t use the doctored version. They use the raw data.
I thought Jones lost the raw data.
The CRU uses raw homogenized data, which
is like raw data, …only homogenized. : )

May 15, 2010 11:22 am

Who said the warming is not man made?

JimB
May 15, 2010 11:22 am

“Robert of Ottawa says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:53 am
I know that the Kiwis are an advanced lot, inventing atomic physics ‘n all, but Auckland Airport in 1880?”
Funniest comment here… 🙂
You’ve got to love the study of feedback loops. Everyone in business knows of them. They’re the means by which you measure the value of a subsystem or action within a process. Change the action, observe the feedback, and then act.
These systems we’re observing have no feedback loop. They run completely open…meaning there’s never any MEASURE/RESPONSE to one of the actions. Until recently, last Nov to be exact, there was no downside at all for pols or scientists squawking about AGW. It was all upside. And when one of them were charged or found out?…didn’t matter one iota. Business as usual, keep those grant cards and money comin’ in, folks. No feedback = no accountability.
Even with what happened…the rest of the shillsters haven’t recieved or haven’t paid attention to the outcome.
JimB

Walter Cronanty
May 15, 2010 12:02 pm

John Blake says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:19 am
….
What makes climate hysterics’ ongoing calumnies, pejorative vituperation, insufferable is that their self-righteous rants are based on conscious, knowing fraud which they will go to any lengths to hide.
Lionell Griffith says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:46 am

Observation: Its not post modern anything. Its as ancient as the alliance between a tribal chieftain and his witch doctor.
Well said, well said. If one reads the life story of King David, there truly is nothing new under the sun. I can’t determine whether the most vociferous CAGWers are: 1) oldtime shysters, using the hysteria for their own monetary gain; 2) oldtime socialists, using the new “green” tag as a method of grabbing economic and/or political power; or, 3) oldtime true believers, to whom the phrase “the end justifies the means” is a commandment.

DirkH
May 15, 2010 12:06 pm

“JimB says:
[…]
These systems we’re observing have no feedback loop. They run completely open…meaning there’s never any MEASURE/RESPONSE to one of the actions. […]”
I don’t think so. There was and is a positive feedback: Sketch a terrible catastrophe on the horizon, murmur the mystical words “More research is needed” and you get further funding. This is how the entire cacophony that poses as science grew and grew; an economist would call it a bubble. And economists know what happens to bubbles.

Wren
May 15, 2010 12:18 pm

NIWA stands by its scientist
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-stands-by-its-scientists
They say there is ample evidence of warming trend in New Zealand, including glacier melting.
The claim there has been no warming trend probably is based on a faulty analysis.

May 15, 2010 12:18 pm

The CRUTEM3 database shows there has been no warming in NZ in the last 40 years. All of the official warming is artificially created through adjustments.
See: New Zealand Regional Summary for an examination of the CRUTEM3 data and individual station adjustments.

kwik
May 15, 2010 12:24 pm

One wonders how much this has cost the taxpayers in New Zealand so far?

John in NZ
May 15, 2010 12:50 pm

@ Robert of Ottawa says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:53 am
“I know that the Kiwis are an advanced lot, inventing atomic physics ‘n all, but Auckland Airport in 1880?”
Good point. As a child in the 60’s I vaguely remember going to what I think was the opening of the Auckland Airport. Is there a step in the record in the 1960s.
Salinger btw worked at CRU some years ago.

DirkH
May 15, 2010 12:54 pm

“Wren says:
May 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm
NIWA stands by its scientist
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-stands-by-its-scientists

So the UNadjusted 11 station series looks nearly exactly like the adjusted 7 station series… how bizarre.

James Allison
May 15, 2010 1:25 pm

“I know that the Kiwis are an advanced lot, inventing atomic physics ‘n all, but Auckland Airport in 1880?”
Air Kiwi – the flightless airline.

Mike McMillan
May 15, 2010 1:29 pm

geo says:
. . . In northern Iowa this morning for some surfacestation hunting!

Hooray, that area’s been blank for a long time. Here’s the Iowa wish list –
Fayette, Indianola, Iowa Falls, LeMars, Rockwell City, and Storm Lake.

jaymam
May 15, 2010 1:47 pm

Wren: May 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“The claim there has been no warming trend probably is based on a faulty analysis.”
I challenge you or NIWA or anyone else to get the raw data from NIWA and plot a graph of 9am temperature for the sites that NIWA themselves specified, without any manipulation of the data:
http://i40.tinypic.com/353dra9.jpg
This graph is very important. Anthony can we please put this graph in line for this thread?

Mike McMillan
May 15, 2010 1:47 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
I know that the Kiwis are an advanced lot, inventing atomic physics ‘n all, but Auckland Airport in 1880?

Little known fact, that’s where the Merino Brothers, Rambouillet and Cheviot, began their Pacific Clipper service, shearing days off the travel time between Auckland and Wellington. Check out google Earth. Both cities are right there.

kwik
May 15, 2010 1:56 pm

“Wren says:
May 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Seems to be 6 to 1;
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology

RockyRoad
May 15, 2010 2:07 pm

New Zealand is famous for man-made temperature “warming”. This is nothing new. Neither are “melting glaciers” any indication of AGW–earth has gone through many cycles of glaciation/warming (100 % without the actions of man).

Gary Pearse
May 15, 2010 2:09 pm

PaulH says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:58 am
“In 1992, it published a booklet containing a detailed history of all its weather stations, along with 140 years of climate data.
It sounds like the Kiwis could use a Surface Stations project right about now.”
Good point Paul, with only 11 stations it could be done in a couple of days. Seriously, though, it would be good to encourage a surfacestations project everywhere.

KimW
May 15, 2010 2:15 pm

There is a strong ‘greeny’ and ecology movement in NZ. Our Resource Management Act in the early 1990’s was rushed through parliament by a dedicated Labour PM before a looming Electoral defeat. Essentially, it now allowed an activist living in a Commine in the Far North of the North Island to make a legal challenge to a proposed mining operation in the deep of the South Island, a 1000 km away. This meant a lot of do gooders sprang out of the woodwork and allowed activists to become prominent and supported by a MSM that believed in AGW. Heck, my local paper just regurgitates AGW articles from the UK Independent and has the merest mention of opposition to Copenhagen and is dismissive of hysteria about Climategate – skeptics ? – we are out to destroy the world by our ignorance. The recently defeated Labour Government made Climate Change a minor God. Electoral Inertia carried over and now we have a ETS of our very own as the Opposition had seen the ETS as unopposable as an election issue.
Salinger has apparently travelled to the ‘dark side ‘ in his belief that AGW has to be shoved down our throats by selection of the worst cases – the raw data is clear, but the adjustments sprang out of thin air. In Wellington, one adjustment is because the 1920’s station was moved up a hill to Kelburn and the altitude adjustment was mde. Wellington sprawls across the narrow harbour strip and surrounding hills and Kelburn is essentially surrounded by built up areas. The Airport likewise. The key thing here is that Salinger has not, will not reveal his adjustments. Oh yes, he was fired for preaching his AGW beliefs in an official capacity without authority.

Kiel
May 15, 2010 2:22 pm

“DirkH says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:22 am
Seems i made a job title mistake, sorry, activist ACTRESS Lucy Lawless, not activist singer Lucy Lawless”.
Unfortunately some of those very individual scientists who work for NIWA and have been ‘fiddling’ the data.
Are also prominent CO2 AGW/CC Advocates. Jim Salinger for one has been in Greenpeace campaigns along side Lucy Lawless!
So the amount of integrity and impartiality in their work appears to be highly questionable?

Dr A Burns
May 15, 2010 2:25 pm

From NIWA:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/101834/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf
“An example from 11 pristine sites with
no significant site changes or environmental changes since the 1930s is shown here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/
temperature-trends-from-raw-data. ”
While the 7 adjusted sites are readily available the “pristine” data is not … it needs a password … surprise, surprise. Perhaps this is another FOI for the experts to pursue ?

Jantar
May 15, 2010 2:28 pm

DirkH says:
May 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm
“…….
So the UNadjusted 11 station series looks nearly exactly like the adjusted 7 station series… how bizarre.”
Not at all bizarre if you follow the links. You’ll find that the 9 station series and the 11 station series were also prepared by Jim Salinger when he still worked for them.

ShrNfr
May 15, 2010 2:30 pm

@D. King “The CRU uses raw homogenized data, which
is like raw data, …only homogenized. : )”
But is it Pasteurized? Perhaps Parmalat got their hands on it too.

icantletyoupostthatdave
May 15, 2010 2:31 pm

This is probably slightly OT…
I followed some links above and got to stuff about the Franz Josef glacier.
That reminded me that we went to Franz Josef in (SH) spring 2007. Wow!
If you ever get the chance, go see a glacier up close. I accept that they are (mostly) all melting – I’m not a geologist but I don’t worry too much because I assume that’s sort of implied by “interglacial”.
For me, the wonder is not what they are but more the impression they leave on the landscape. “Awesome” is too small a word and to see the “terminal moraine” (probably the wrong term, happy to be corrected) up close is a very humbling experience. Go walk through the boulder field at the edge of a glacier, Franz Josef is probably fairly “tourist friendly” in that regard but it’s still an incredible walk (certainly for a fat mathematician who spends too long sat in front of his computer).
I love glaciers, but I’ll take a few degrees of warming to not see one moving down my street any time soon.
Dave

singularian
May 15, 2010 2:32 pm

As John in NZ says above – Salinger was at CRU/UEA in the 80’s.
Also it should be mentioned that when NIWA was finally questioned on the methodology used for their records they could only point to Salingers thesis, held at the Victoria Uni library.
The thesis was written in the early 80’s and was not available unless you physically went to the library. Thats it. Thats all they had for documenting their methodology – a thirty year old thesis that was held in a remote library.
The tactics will be familar to anyone who’s been following the climatewars in the last couple of years. No documentation, no review of methodology, dodgy ‘raw’ data, politicalisation of scientists and lately a backdown – we’ll redo the record.
NZ’s Emissions Trading Scheme begins on Jul 1st. We’re world leaders apparently. Unfortunately our politicians don’t seem to have realised that they’ll only be leading the world in looking like complete dicks.

Gary Pearse
May 15, 2010 2:35 pm

HADCET UK-Mean 1659 -2009 shows an increase of only 1.4C in 350 years. So I guess we know what an approximately 2C increase in temp has done to the earth.

Dr A Burns
May 15, 2010 2:43 pm

The accuracy of early temperature measurements is quite a farce, considering the basis for huge adjustments of 3 deg F being statements from 1930, such as this:
“The maximum thermometer was apparently (sic) reading about (sic) 3 degrees too high”
http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/101835/Hokitika-Adjustments.pdf

May 15, 2010 3:00 pm

I wouldn’t hold out too much hope. John Key, the NZ Prime Minister is a former bankster (thank you Karl Denninger for that term) and keen on carbon trading so he and his mates can make money.
Using the Australian BoM for peer review gives it away. No doubt they’ll get David Jones or Neville Nicholls(former BoM) to do the review. LOL!

Malcolm Hill
May 15, 2010 3:03 pm

Peer reviewed by the BOM is ridiculous.
They have a position to defend thats not too different what the disputed NZ figures were protraying in the first place.
Can’t these poeple do anything right?

Bob Aughton
May 15, 2010 3:13 pm

“The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.”
Well I guess BOM knows all there is to know about temperature homogenization and adjustment not to mention UHI impacts – talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house!

Bob_FJ
May 15, 2010 3:16 pm

“… The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology…”

Hmm, but who will peer review the BOM’s peer review?

Bulldust
May 15, 2010 3:37 pm

I must second that comment about the peer review by the Aussie BoM… the latter is very much influenced by the AGW dogma. One just has to look through their climate summary for 2009 to see the reporting bias:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
I have a major beef with the way they report the rainfall section with a misleading title and obfuscating the fact that rainfall is increasing in Australia over the 110 period of the data.

Jeef
May 15, 2010 3:41 pm

Salinger was sacked for making repeated and unauthorised press comments. He lost his unfair dismissal appeal earlier this year. NIWA are as green as green can be, but the change in government here may be their undoing. Despite public appearances, the National lot are more sceptical than their labour predecssors.

AC of Adelaide
May 15, 2010 3:43 pm

D King at 11:15 I kinda lost faith in the idea of “raw data” when I read the “Get Jim to check this, then hide it” exchange discussed in Case Study 12 in D’Aleo and Watts. Seems there are degrees of rawness. I guess I’m just a natural sceptic.
I’m wondering when some smart law firm is going to think “class action?” I’m betting NZ power bill have increased on top of this trend line.
JimB at 9:53 Airport at Auckland? Almost possible see Richard Pearse, first powered flight, 1902 http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html

janama
May 15, 2010 3:58 pm

Have the Australian BoM referee?
here’s an example from BoM.
The BoM homogenised all our data in 1996 – Simon Torok and Nev Nicholls did all the work. Torok was employed and trained at the Hadley Centre at UEA so used similar homogenisation techniques. Here’s an example of their work and it’s impact on the Australian temperature record.
The HQ data is the new “Australian high-quality climate site networks” from which the annual temperature analyses is produced.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
BoM is the Australian weather station data
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
put them together and this is what you get.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Deniliquin_Post.png

janama
May 15, 2010 4:06 pm

here’s another example from the Bathurst Agriculture Station.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/bathurst_ag_station.png
All of the new HQ Data sites run from 1910 thus eliminating previous data. The above- Bathurst runs fron 1910 but the Torok and Bom data actually start earlier – you can see why they decided to go from 1910 in this chart.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/bathurst_ag_station_long.png

Mike J
May 15, 2010 4:50 pm

About the author:
“The Hon Barry Brill OBE is a New Zealand barrister and solicitor. He is a former Minister of Science & Technology, and Minister of Energy, and is currently chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.”
It is worth reading the entire article. It’s worse than we thought.

Ian George
May 15, 2010 5:23 pm

Just checked Auckland’s w/s on GISS NASA. Where’s the warming?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=507931190002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
and Invercargill
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=507938440004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
New Zealand – north to south.
Seems to be warmer in the 50s and 60s.

Bruce of Newcastle
May 15, 2010 5:41 pm

Search the phrase ‘goat ate my homework’ for more fun at NIWA’s expense.
I suppose it is logical: if you don’t want people to find your unsustainable assumptions behind your temperature series adjustments you either ‘lose’ the calculations (NIWA) or ‘lose’ the original data (CRU).

PaulsNZ
May 15, 2010 6:20 pm

Yes our small country is a breeding ground for Population control and indoctrination experiments, Our previous Deviant Prime-minister espoused anti-family sentiments along with her bent on the joys of Socialism She now enjoys a job at the UN advising other countries on how similar indoctrination and social engineering policies. Not to be out done our Present PM from a Merill-Lynch “Money speculating multimillionaire” background is continuing the SAME policies with and an ETS plan “scam” covering all things here in NZ, from food production to energy to LIFE.
We have been through the “PRIVATIZE at any Expense” selling all our Infrastructure to BIG FOREIGN business , now all our incomes go abroad and now we only have Primary produce as our main export so Taxing that out of existence makes great sense for the sake of Global Warming, Of course we have our %100 green image, we could try eating that, Oh thats right the GOVT has decided to let FOREIGN mining companies slice up NZ for all our mineral wealth, no-matter that its in the Tourist attracting parks and forests . I say the time for saying NO is long past?.

Taras
May 15, 2010 6:42 pm

Ian George, 5:23 PM, thank you Ian. Your comment is very helpfull.

Margaret
May 15, 2010 7:11 pm

A few comments from a NZ perspective:
1. On the fact that one person can have such an influence, please remember that NZ is a country of 4 million. Many of our institutions are a on a much smaller scale than other (larger) countries. (For instance, the Treasury has a total of around 340 FTE staff). It is inevitable when numbers are small that one person will have a high influence particularly if they are seen as skilled and competent.
2. NIWA is (as noted above) a Crown Research Institute — in other words it is a crown entity that is required to compete for research money (largely though not totally from the public purse. Having a “crisis” issue makes it more likely that they would get funding compared to the other CRIs. NIWA would be seen as the scientific agency with the most to offer policy makers on an issue like global warming though it would not be the policy advisor. NIWA has 726 FTE staff (Ministry for the Environment has this role – with 330 staff, but obviously has a large number of other roles, including some other significant policy areas.)
3. Metservice is a “state owned enterprise” ie a state owned company. Its job is to forecast the weather and make money on it. It does this very well — as shown by the fact that it was in the running with the BBC recently. But its research role is like that of any other scientifically based company – ie to improve its profitability by producing better weather forecasts. It would not be a natural place policy makers would look to for advice on long term trends – just what the weather will be tomorrow, next week or perhaps next season. (They seem to be rather better at this last function than the English — an important consideration for a country that has a large agricultural sector.) It has 201 staff.

graham g
May 15, 2010 7:22 pm

Everyone that reads these posts should reread slowly JANAMA’s post at 3.58pm above. I have to confirm the comments based on my observations.
Also ICANTLETYOUPOSTTHATDAVE AT 2.31pm comments about the Franz Josef glacier is interesting. I was there a few years ago, and also about 20 years earlier.
On the last trip,I was told the moraine had expanded since my previous visit.
Anyone care to confirm that important detail.
The ETS tax comment above is probably one significant reason why so many New Zealanders have come to Australia permentaly in the last few years. They made a good choice, as we have dumped the ETS project in Australia.

Chris
May 15, 2010 7:44 pm

The Australians are to be commended for standing up and loudly opposing their ETS, it is no thanks to the government and Prime Minister KRudd that it failed to become law. Now if only we could get rid of ours in NZ..

janama
May 15, 2010 8:09 pm

The Deniliquin site is also interesting if you go back pre 1910 for your data.
Here’s the BoM and the GISS data for Deniliquin from 1881 – 1992.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Deniliquin_Post_GISS%26BoM.png
Yet Australia’s High Quality Temperature data set says Deniliquin has been warming since 1910.

D. King
May 15, 2010 8:46 pm

ShrNfr says:
May 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Perhaps Parmalat got their hands on it too.
I don’t trust that stuff either!
AC of Adelaide says:
May 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I kinda lost faith in the idea of “raw data”…
Yep, it’s kind of a “data tartare” now.

Ibrahim
May 15, 2010 9:15 pm
janama
May 15, 2010 9:30 pm

AC of Adelaide says:
May 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I kinda lost faith in the idea of “raw data”…
the raw data for Australia is available. It’s available at this site
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
All of Torok’s work in 1996 is stored there including all the data and all the methodology he used to adjust it. It would be a mammoth task to re-adjust it all back.
An engineer friend did the readjustment for Sydney Observatory.
Here is the re-adjusted Max Mean and Min Mean for Sydney Observatory hill which sits right in the centre of Sydney above the western end of the Cahill expressway.
The adjustments are along the top referenced to the right hand scale.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_re-adjusted.png
Here is how the adjustments were made
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/adjustments.png

janama
May 15, 2010 9:36 pm

here’s Observatory Hill – do you think there may be a bit of UHI going on and where was it moved from??
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Observatory_Hill.png

JC
May 15, 2010 9:51 pm

Graham G,
Fox Glacier is advancing at the rate of a metre per week, and last year two tourists were killed when they got too close to the face which is continually collapsing,
Franz Josef is likewise advancing.. from Wikipedia “Having retreated several kilometres between the 1940s and 1980s, the glacier entered an advancing phase in 1984 and at times has advanced at the phenomenal (by glacial standards) rate of 70 cm a day. The flow rate is about 10 times that of typical glaciers. Over the longer term, the glacier has retreated since the last ice age, and it is believed that it extended into the sea some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.”
However, the smaller glaciers on the Eastern side of the South Island are retreating.
Whats it mean? Well, nothing really, except that NZ glaciers are dynamic, they advance and retreat rapidly, and the native vegetation is likewise dynamic and changes rapidly between and during ice ages. Interestingly, an official publication pre AGW (1959) showed a warming period about 800 years ago, but also say we have been cooling irregularly since peak interglacial warmth about 5000 years ago.
JC

Cadae
May 15, 2010 10:03 pm

I’ve been looking for temperature change indicators in New Zealand and realised we have a temperature sensitive native tree – the New Zealand mangrove – so I’ve done a bit of cursory research on it. Naturally propagated mangroves are not found below 38° South latitude. On the East coast its southernmost extent for at least 50 years (and probably much longer) has been at Ohiwa.
There is a large body of evidence testifying to the mangrove’s temperature sensitivity – http://www.marinenz.org.nz/documents/Alfaro_2006_Mangroves_research_and_bibliography.pdf.
A twentieth century warming trend of 0.92°C in NZ should have had a significant effect on the mangrove’s distribution below 38° South – it should have started growing in estuaries about 100-200km south , but I can find no evidence of such a growth in extent.
I think mangrove extent is a good indicator of NZ temperature trends over the last century and better research than what I’ve managed so far could confirm it.

janama
May 15, 2010 10:15 pm

Ibrahim says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Australia
book from 1913 about weather:
Thanks Mate – great find!!

jaymam
May 15, 2010 10:45 pm

“The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady ”
What instrumental raw data is this? Please be specific. What sites? What years? Where is the data? What type of temperature is being measured? I wish to check it myself.

Patrick Davis
May 15, 2010 11:30 pm

NIWA. Oh dear NIWA. I have had dealings with NIWA in the past, and I’ve implied before, it’s a shonky outfit. Anything that comes out of NIWA should be disregarded.
I recall, in times past, in Helengrad (Wellington) under Labour sometime in about 2001 an article appeared on stuff.co.nz by a weatherman I think. He stated that temperatures were no higher or lower than they were in 1941. The article didn’t survive long online.

Fitzy
May 15, 2010 11:42 pm

Well….
Thats what you get under a Communist/Fascist/Corporatist Government. We had nine years of a Socialist/Green/Lunatic Fringe/Lunatics with Fringes/Green-Fringe and Fringe-Fringe coalition that Instituted/Mandated/Man Dated Man/Statutorialised/Memoralised and Policided Aldus Huxley’s brave New World meets-Weekend at Bernies-meets-Police academy six into a fine rendition of an Economy/Society/Sovereign Nation mimicking a poo power diving into a turbo prop.
Lucky for us, it was replaced by a Tory-meets-Thatcher on Crack-meets-George Soros(not his real name)-meets-Hegelian Dialectic-meets-an overweight diabetic-meets-Enron inspired goverment, rushing to Sell Off, Dig Up, Burn, Pimp and other wise [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] in the [SNIP] while ramming a [SNIP] firmly in the [SNIP] with an ETS.
So if you have time, pop down to Gondwana Land’s orphan, and enjoy the entirely unremarkble temperate climate, periodically fluctuating accordng to natural variability.
Just don’t step in AGW poo when you get off the plane.

LightRain
May 16, 2010 12:15 am

jaymam says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:26 am
Here are GISS temperatures for Auckland Airport from 1880 to 1990. There is an insignificant trend. http://i43.tinypic.com/643tba.jpg
=======================================
Are you saying Auckland had an airport in 1880?

LightRain
May 16, 2010 12:17 am

The temperatures are fudged, but the EPA could care less about the temperatures — it’s the CO2 they want to protect us from. They didn’t think we’d by it as a pollutant so they invented the temperature scam.

Mooloo
May 16, 2010 1:27 am

PaulsNZ says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm
[snip rant] … Our previous Deviant Prime-minister espoused anti-family sentiments along with her bent on the joys of Socialism […snip more rant…]
We have been through the “PRIVATIZE at any Expense” selling all our Infrastructure to BIG FOREIGN business […yet more rant]

So in your completely off topic (for this blog) spiel you manage to bag our recent governments for being both Socialist and not Socialist. Get a grip man!
She now enjoys a job at the UN advising other countries on how similar indoctrination and social engineering policies.
Wacko alert! Dear old Helen is a social liberal, no doubt of that. But she’s in charge of the United Nations Development Programme, which has no social policies. It’s so not-liberal that it used to be run by a Turk (the Turks not noted for social liberalism), and Iran (bastion of liberalism, hardly) is a current board member.

Rereke Whakaaro
May 16, 2010 2:53 am

PaulsNZ said on May 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Yes our small country is a breeding ground for Population control and indoctrination experiments, Our previous Deviant Prime-minister espoused anti-family sentiments along with her bent on the joys of Socialism … I say the time for saying NO is long past

And as Dr Richard North at EUReferendum is fond of asking, “Can we shoot them all now, please?”

Rereke Whakaaro
May 16, 2010 3:05 am

Patrick Davis said, on May 15, 2010 at 11:30 pm

NIWA. Oh dear NIWA. I have had dealings with NIWA in the past, and I’ve implied before, it’s a shonky outfit. Anything that comes out of NIWA should be disregarded.

NIWA now has a “relatively” new CEO – John Morgan – I don’t know what his plans are for NIWA, but I did know him at his previous role as head of AgriQuality. He is nobody’s fool, and I suspect that his appointment to NIWA is part of the process of sorting this whole mess out.
As others have pointed out, New Zealand is a very small country, so any “rogue operators”, have a significant effect at first. But equally, they get seriously clobbered by the rest of us once they have been outed.

Ian Cooper
May 16, 2010 3:22 am

To graham g at 7.22p.m.
Both Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers on the west coast of the South Island in New Zealand have been advancing considerably from their maximum retreat in the early 1980’s. I first visited these galaciers in 1984, close to the time of the maximum retreats in the modern era. In 1989 I made it back to FJ and was pleasantly surprised by the sudden advance over the five years since my first visit.
In 2001 (my last visit to the glacier areas) I was staggered by the amount of ice and the advance of the terminal faces of both glaciers. I plan to be in that area again at the beginning of June this year to update my photo collection showing the changes of the past 9 years. According to official sources the two glaciers have advanced(mostly) and retreated (a little) since the mid 1980’s.
NIWA places the blame on the advance of these two glaciers at the feet of the predominance of El Ninos over this period. El Ninos increase the strength of the westerly, moisture laden flows over southern New Zealand during the southern spring/summer period (Sep-March). The increased rainfall drops at the top of the iceflows, the neve’s, and this results in an advance of the terminal face about 5 years later.
NIWA, thanks mostly to the likes of Jim Salinger, have promoted the decrease of the multitude of the glaciers on the eastern side of the Southern Alps as being due to CAGW. The nature of the eastern glaciers is quite different from the deep and steep gorge-like structure of the western pair. The eastern glaciers are often in broad valleys and had lost most of their bulk before the supposed influence of increased carbon emitted by man (this also applies to FJ & Fox).
I am only a lay person but it seems reasonable to me that if NIWA are right about El Nino advancing the western glaciers then shouldn’t the loss of moisture to the neve’s of the east also lie with the increased number/intensity of El Nino’s stopping the supply of new material. If so then where do we fit into that picture, other than being observers.
Coops.

Rob R
May 16, 2010 4:19 am

Robert of Ottawa and others,
The Auckland temperature record has not primarily been taken from Auckland Airport. The primary long-term record is from Albert Park. Temperature measurement commenced at Albert Park in 1853 and ceased in 1989 (data from the NZ National Climate Database.). The data from this station are a little patchy at the start and at the end but are very good from 1857 to 1983. The full record from Auckland contains one or more splices, probably including the temp data from Owairaka after about 1983.
By the way, many Kiwis believe that Richard Pearce (from South Canterbury in the South Island) was the first person to achieve powered flight. Earlier that the Wright Bros by a year or so. So perhaps the airfield dates are not so surprising.
To give NIWA a little credit they do maintain an excellent publically available climate database that can be accessed right from the NIWA website. It is called the “cliflo database”. You need to register to obtain a password and username but it is free. Available data includes but is not limited to:
01 Wet days (> 1mm rain) (month and year)
02 Mean Air Temp (month and year)
03 Mean Daily Max Air Temp (month and year)
04 Mean Daily Min Air Temp (month and year)
05 Mean Daily Grass Min Temp (month and year)
06 Extreme Max Air Temp (Hottest measurement of the month/yr)
07 Extreme Min Air Temp (Coldest measurement of the month/yr)
08 Extreme Grass Min Temp (Often the coldest frost of the month)
09 Total Sunshine (month and year) (month and year)
10 Mean 5cm Earth (Soil) Temp (month and year)
11 Mean 10 cm Earth Temp (month and year)
12 Mean 20 cm Earth Temp (month and year)
13 Mean 30 cm Earth Temp (month and year)
14 Mean 100 cm Earth Temp (month and year)
42 Mean cloud amount (month and year)
43 Lowest Max Air Temp (month and year)
44 Highest Max Air Temp (month and year)
47 Mean 50 cm Earth Temp
61 Std deviation of mean air temp
62 Lowest Daily Min Temp (month and year)
63 Highest Daily Min Temp (month and year)
65 Mean of 9am Temp (month and year)
Other data that are available include stats on air pressure, precipitation, run-off, wind, humidity, evaporation, soil moisture, heating degree-days, ozone etc.
Naturally the full range of data is not available for every station, but some have close to full coverage year after year for many decades.

PaulsNZ
May 16, 2010 5:21 am

“Former prime minister Helen Clark, head of the United Nation’s development agency, has called for climate change to be put at the centre of international development strategies.” Talk about Wacko.. You see M-loo we have been conned, National and Labour are cut from the same cloth, MONEY is their God, Its good to see John Key visiting his relations in Israel after a whistle stop to dance in the heroin fields of Afghanistan. This ETS Tax is a scam based on fraudulent science and its a world wide phenomenon that should ring alarm bells and it points to the IMF and the Con Artists in the UN.

jaymam
May 16, 2010 8:09 am

LightRain: May 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
“Are you saying Auckland had an airport in 1880?”
GISS identifies their data as “Auckland Airp (37.0S 174.8E)” which is imprecise but is approximately at Auckland Airport.
Planes first used that site in about 1937 and jet planes in the 1970s. The early data was probably from elsewhere in Auckland.
I am at the mercy of the organisations holding the data. The number of sites at GISS for NZ is woefully inadequate. The data may have been adjusted.
However let us not lose sight of the fact that the graph shows no warming in the major city in NZ, even though the airport site in not ideal and there is a large body of water nearby.
The graph using GISS data is here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/643tba.jpg

stumpy
May 16, 2010 12:36 pm

As an interested Kiwi resident I have attempted to re-create the graph using their own data, carefully allowing for station shifts etc… even though I essentially get a flat trend line (trend is not statistically significant). I have no idea how NIWA get the results they do. Using the data from NASA GISS also doesnt yeild the result. Many others have also tried with no avail. At last people might learn how the claims of warming in NZ are false. Note Paleo temperature records ALL show a warm period some 700 – 1000 years ago and cooling since, and a cooling trend through the entire interglacial period (that comes from a govt doc – but pre-2000) so NZ was much warmer in the past.
NIWA must be desperate for climate funding, if theres no warming, we dont really have much need for them! There quaterly climate outlooks are normally as accurate as the UK met offices!
NIWA’s temperature data is available free on their CliFlo website.

janama
May 16, 2010 2:14 pm

Rob R – thanks for that information – I registered with CliFo – it’s, as you say , a good data base and very accessible.
I selected a standard inland city, Hamilton with a data base back to 1906 – BTW I was born in Auckland and used to travel to Hamilton as a child to spend time on my uncle’s dairy farm in the 50s. 🙂 It sure has grown.
Here’s the chart for Hamilton and it looks like a typical Australian chart – the maximum mean is dropping slightly and the minimum mean is rising creating a general slight rise in the all over mean.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Hamilton_chart.png
The rising min mean is typical of UHI IMO as added development increases the heat sinks in the city which keep night time temps rising. The location of the station would have become less rural as Hamilton grew. Just look at the new housing development adjacent to it.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Hamilton_station.jpg

dixonstalbert
May 16, 2010 2:43 pm

Hi janama
thanks for posting your graphs for Deniliquin (074128)
link: http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Deniliquin_Post.png
The Bureau of Meterology data at
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=074128
appears to be the same as your graph, but is shifted 6-7 degrees upward; i.e. your graph has 18 degrees as 1914 mean temperature, while link above has 24.9 degrees.
Can you give url for data you used?
I am having hard time navigating through B 0f M site’s raw and ‘corrected’ data.
thanks
Dixon

Rob R
May 16, 2010 3:22 pm

janama
I have done similar charts for most of the longer NZ temp series, particularly those from the Sth Island. What you have found for Hamilton is repeated in almost every case where it can be established that UHI is not substantial, and also at many sites where some UHI would be expected.
Sites that have a fairly clear UHI induced trend include Christchurch Gardens, Nelson Airport, Wellington Airport, Auckland Airport, and Lake Grasmere (industrial site/saltworks).

Ian George
May 16, 2010 3:38 pm

Peer review by the BOM? Here’s something I came across while checking Lismore (Centre St) data.
In 1915 the raw data shows Lismore had a average max yearly temp of 27.4C.
Then I checked the BOM’s trend temp graph on the Australian high-quality climate site data and found that the 1915 temp had been reduced to about 26.7C. I found heaps of anomalies between the two records (but they seem to be consistent from around the 1980s to 2003/4.
Raw data at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=058037
Trend graph at:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=nsw&station=058037&period=annual
I also found earlier this year that the homogenised data for Lismore on the GISS NASA site has now been changed to reflect the ‘rawer’ data and does not show the same amount of warming as the homogenised data.
See
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945860000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
I think Australia needs a thorough inquiry as well.

Alex Buddery
May 16, 2010 3:46 pm

There’s been a bomb scare in the office of David Carter, New Zealand’s agricultural minister who also holds the position for biosecurity.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/bomb-scare-empties-newzealand-parliament/story-fn3dxity-1225867539914

janama
May 16, 2010 4:59 pm

dixonstalbert says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Dixon – your source is correct but you have the Mean Maximum temperature whereas the data I posted was the max and min added together and averaged – i.e. the Mean temperature. The other values (green) are from GISS which is also mean temp.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml – select min or max temp.
Rob R – yes it seems consistent – I did Te Aroha only a few km s away and it was exactly the same.
Ian – yes there is clear differences between the general weather data at BoM and the High Quality data records.
It appears they have been adjusted twice – once by Torok and once again for the HQ site.
Another interesting factor is why use Lismore Centre Street which is clearly urban for the national record when there is a consistent reliable record at Casino Airport from 1908 which is rural.
They state that they only use rural stations for the national analyses yet I’ve found some weird corruption of that.
For example – they list Bourke Airport as an HQ Rural site but if you check BoM data Bourke Airport only has 10 years of data whereas the HQ site has data from 1910. I found that they had taken the data directly from Brewarrina Hospital 100km away and added it to the Bourke 10 years and called it rural when Brewarrina Hospital is clearly urban.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Brewarrina_Bourke.png

Ian George
May 16, 2010 5:51 pm

The Lismore Centre St was at the end of that street in a park. They relocated the w/s to Lismore airport in 2004. Why they do not use Casino is beyond me.
Maybe it’s because there are 2 w/s at Casino airport (one is a manual and the other an AWS) and they are within 300m of each other. The manual is surrounded by houses and is only metres from a tarred road, whereas the AWS is on a grassed oval with no houses within 60m or so.
The AWS reads around 0.7C BELOW the manual data for max temps (and can be over a degree on some days). UH effect in action.

Warren
May 16, 2010 7:31 pm

” boballab says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:34 a
There are 2 rural neighbors within 500 km and a third one within 1000km. The overlap of the combination of those 3 records and the Aucklandrecord was 19 years, just 1 year short of the 20-year limit that ourprocedure requires. Non-rural stations whose trend cannot be adjusted to match their ruralneighbors are dropped. ”
Do they have any idea of NZ geography? 500km puts them in either Wellington, or past Cape Reinga. You can’t go 500km sideways in NZ, it’s a straight line North South to all intents and purposes.
As for the 1000km neighbour? Where is that? Invercargill? Subtropical in Auckland, (well almost) to bloody Antartic in Invercargill
Neighbours? They may as well use Melbourne or Sydney, even Brisbane would come into their area with that sort of thinking.

Geoff Sherrington
May 16, 2010 7:35 pm

Thought you might be interested in a few Climategate email extracts involving Jim Salinger of NZ, who was quite prominent in the IPCC/CRU/Mann efforts to promote a particular view of science and dissuade others, even after his sacking. His words below might come back to bite him on the butt. It’s a bit long, but revealing of an attitude of collusion to distort. There are more along similar lines.
…………………………………………………………
1051202354.txt
4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
PhD is at the same level).
Best wishes to all,
Tom.
……………………………………………………………………..
1051230500.txt
(To 32 recipients, including some top BoM Australians)
I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics’
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that’s no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won’t go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn’t uphold the
purity of science, who will?
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Warm wishes to all
Jim (Salinger)
…………………………………………………………………….
1060002347.txt 8/4/2003
Dear Mike et al
I also share Neville’s thanks to you all for the reasoned and evaluated responses over
the last few months. They have been good, and separated out ‘academic standards’
from ‘academic freedom’, which we have to be careful not to abuse.
I also note the following, come through over the weekend from the Wall Street Journal
(below) and would also compliment those of you who, with Hans Von Storch resigned
your editorships when information that should be published was clearly supressed.
If you have further information that you feel free to share on last week’s events then
we in New Zealand would appreciate hearing it, as we have been extremely concerned
about academic standards in the reviewing of articles from New Zealand sources.
Again thanks to all on your stands.
Best regards
Jim (Salinger)
……………………………………………………
1242136391.txt
Tue, 2009-05-12
From P D JONES to Peter Thorne
I’ll have to find a new contact in NZ now
Jim Salinger has
been sacked – but it’s only a small country. Iran is pretty good.
The US is the large bit of work. The US already has better station density than
almost anywhere else, so the effort won’t make much difference. But it is probably
worth doing, as it would reduce errors – even if no-one understands them. Glad you got the poor paper to review!
Soon we will be adding data for the Greater Alpine Region (32 sites) which
go back to 1760. These data all have adjustments for screen issues prior to
about 1880. This makes summers cooler by about 0.4 deg C and winters about
the same. Similarly, we will also add a load of stations for Spain
(again with Screen biases in).
………………………………………………………….
1248785856.txt
July 23,2009
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h… did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming – describing recently published paper
in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger “little new”
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at [76]http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
…………………………………………

Feet2theFire
May 16, 2010 7:57 pm

I have yet to see graphs of raw-vs-adjusted data for any station that identifies WHEN any siting changes took place. Nor ones which show WHEN TOB changes were made.
I’ve seen – here, in particular – some graphs that showed steps in the adjustments, but I have missed any that also showed those steps vs WHEN changes took place.
If anyone could point toward some of those, it would be much appreciated. The more, the merrier.
My reason is that I’d really like to see if the step changes match the siting/TOB changes. If they do not match, WTF? There is NO reaason for a siting/TOB change to do anything but ONE step change per siting/TOB change. In between changes raw-vs-adjusted should be EXACTLY – or all but exactly – parallel. Any intermediary steps should be, by definition, arbitrary and unwarranted – and hard to characterize as anything but fudging of the data.
Am I wrong on this?
I am kind of surprised I find myself asking this at this late date. Surprised that this hasn’t been already covered. If it has, GREAT. But if so I haven’t seen it. This is a very simple method of looking at what the adjustments really are. They certainly can claim some validity to adjustments for before and after of any siting/TOB changes. Those are simple and arguable, in basic terms, as in, “Was that adjustment the correct amount?”
I’d love to see them argue for any steps that do not coincide with siting/TOB changes.
In addition, as we have seen, virtually ALL such adjustments since about 1990 have been in the positive direction, while pre-1990 adjustments are virtually ALL in the negative direction. And yet, where are the justifications for these period-slaved unilateral adjustments? Where are the pre-1990 positive adjustments? And where are the post-1990 negative adjustments?
None of this is complex. It is all extremely basic thought processes and simple questions.

janama
May 17, 2010 1:22 am

It’s great to see this thread keep going with support from Aussies and Kiwis.
I’m not a scientist – I’m an old record producer who these day designs recording studios.
http://www.johnlsayers.com
If there are any scientists who would like to offer their time to help sort this out I’d be grateful for the input.
the data is here: ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
would a dedicated scientist sort this out please because I have two important plans to draw up for studios in Perth and Mumbai and I’m tied into constructions in Taiwan, Perth and Auckland.
Please contact me at john@johnlsayers.com and I’ll be happy to pass on the info I have.
cheers
John

janama
May 17, 2010 1:42 am

BTW – I know the outcome of this will be I get contacted by dads who want my advice on how to soundproof their teenage kids band reahearsal room from the neighbours 🙂

KimW
May 17, 2010 2:20 am

Oh Yes, the latest from NIWA – powerful predictions 90 years into the future.
“High concentrations of harmful ozone will be circulating over New Zealand by 2100, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) scientists say.
Niwa modelling showed that ozone in the lower atmosphere could become a problem for New Zealand and for much of the southern hemisphere.
Surface ozone is already a problem in northern hemisphere where prolonged exposure to it is considered detrimental to human health and plants.
“Surface ozone is an air pollutant, in contrast to stratospheric ozone which shields us from harmful UV radiation,” Niwa scientist Guang Zeng said. “High levels of surface ozone affect human health causing respiratory diseases, and cause damage to plants and crops.”
Ms Zeng and her colleague Olaf Morgenstern have found that changes in atmospheric circulation due to climate change are contributing to the increase. There was less ozone created by industrial pollution in the southern hemisphere compared to the north. However, increasing ozone in the stratosphere, combined with climate change, would negatively affect New Zealand’s air quality, Ms Zeng said. “The projections suggest that we could have dangerous levels of ozone concentration during the winter months, risking health issues and lower agricultural crop productivity.
“Increased surface ozone will also contribute to global warming, as ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas,” she said.”

May 17, 2010 2:44 am

The data stated to be from Auckland Airport beginning in 1880 is weird – the first alleged flight in NZ was made by one Riochard Pearse in the South Island, just prior to the Wright brothers’ flight and one of many madfe by diverse inventors around the world to precede Wilbur and Orville’s effort. The first flights in the Auckland area were made by the Walsh Brothers in the disctrict of Papakura in their biplane named ‘Manuwrewa’ (an adjacent district to Papakura) in about 1910. They formed the New Zealand Flying Club which trained over 1000 pilots who few for the RFC during WWI.
But Auckland airport from 1880?

Ryan
May 17, 2010 2:53 am

Love to see that raw data – the actual thermometer readings from 140 odd years ago. As far as I have seen the Mercury thermometers used can only be read to 0.5Celsius anyway, so quoting a temperature increase correct to 2 decimal places is spurious in any case, and purely an artifact of the long-division necessary to calculate averages.

NoAstronomer
May 17, 2010 10:52 am

@David Davidovics
That’s okay, many people mistake Animal Farm for fiction.

Ken Stewart
May 17, 2010 10:19 pm

janama, NoAstronomer:
I’m going to put up a post any day now about “All thermometers are equal, but some thermometers are more equal than others”. in relation to BOM’s high quality (sic) data set. I’ve checked Queensland: http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
and many sites are not pretty- eg Roma gets an extra 0.9C warming to help it along. I’m almost ready to put up Northern Territory which is truly frightening!
We stand on the shoulders of giants- in my case, janama. Keep it up John!
Ken

Rob R
May 17, 2010 10:51 pm

Alexander,
As I noted above (about 30 comments up) the Auckland temperature data from 1853 to 1983 (130 years) are derived from Albert Park (in Auckland), not from Auckland Airport.

Anthony G
May 18, 2010 3:01 am

As an employee of the Australian BoM, I can attest to its bias towards AGW. Of course this isn’t helped by the fact that such bias is instilled (subtly and not-so-subtly) into new recruits, whether it be via its meteorologist or observer training programs. And then of course there’s the fact that it’s a government agency, and so it must do exactly what the government says. It’s all rather sad as I respect the organisation for its provision of non-climate products.

May 18, 2010 3:42 am

Thanks for clearing that up, Rob R. Place-name anomolies can be a real mystery!

Rob R
May 18, 2010 4:09 am

Alexander
If you are from Auckland and haven’t done so recently MOTAT (Museum of Transport/Technology and Aviation History) is worth a visit as they have a great display on the achievements of Richard Pearce.

Ian George
May 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Ken (May 17, 2010 at 10:19 pm)
Found your article very interesting. The ‘dumbing down’ of earlier raw temps bears out much of what I have been looking at over the past year or so.
At the end of last year I downloaded some data for Lismore from GISS showing ‘localised’ data and the ‘homogenised’ data. This ‘dumbing down’ effect was noted in the latter so as to make the upward trend more significant. However, I recently took another look and, lo and behold, the ‘homogenised’ data has gone missing and now reflects the ‘localised’ data.
Does anyone know what is going on?

jaymam
May 18, 2010 4:34 pm

janama May 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Your graph showing a falling maximum mean (i.e. the afternoon temperature unaffected by UHI) and a rising minimum mean (i.e. the night time temperature affected by UHI) explains why “mean temperature” appears to be rising.
Here’s the Hamilton 9am temperature compared with “mean temperature”.
http://i49.tinypic.com/5n3zex.jpg
All data ex NIWA.
Note that the UHI affected “mean temperature” has risen one degree over the 9am temperature in less than 40 years. I think that “mean temperature” should not be used by the recording authority. It’s an extra calculation and depends on two temperatures at random times of the day, and it’s more affected by UHI.
Presumably the old max-min thermometers have to be reset each day by shaking, which could introduce errors and the need to change damaged thermometers. The 100 year record depends on such old technology.
The 9am temperature is real simple and reliable and the thermometer doesn’t have to be handled (and warmed by hands).

George E. Smith
May 18, 2010 5:23 pm

Well I don’t know about the Auckland Airport in 1880; or the Flightless Kiwi Airline; but I can assure you that in Wellington; there is enough wind that the Kiwi most assuredly can fly; And that wind comes in the natural cold kind, and the anthropogenic wind is somewhat hotter and emanates from Parliament House.
But as to becoming the first carbon neutral country; well good luck on that; but why would you want to be carbon Neutral. Here in the USA; we are and likely always have been a net carbon sink; so all your CO2 emitters; it ain’t our problem; we don’t emit any; over and above what our tree farming and agriculture etc take up. Google “A large Carbon Sink in North America” and learn for yourself.
And I don’t believe you Kiwi chaps are either; because you also have very extensive farmed forestry.

George E. Smith
May 18, 2010 5:27 pm

“”” Rob R says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Alexander,
As I noted above (about 30 comments up) the Auckland temperature data from 1853 to 1983 (130 years) are derived from Albert Park (in Auckland), not from Auckland Airport. “””
Well Albert Park is right across the street from my Alma Mater; in fact I have a picture of the Floral Clock right on my office wall.

%d bloggers like this: