This is an old argument, adjusted data versus non adjusted data, and why does the adjusted data show a trend and the unadjusted data does not? We’ve battled this here on WUWT many times with GISS and NCDC, now the battle is spreading down under to New Zealand. And surprise, they cite NCDC’s own adjustment techniques. And it’s the same thing NCDC and GISS does, cool the past and essentially ignore UHI and land use change factors.
The Seven Station Set (7SS) Above from NIWA: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2009 inclusive, based on long-term station records from between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908 onwards) locations. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2009 (0.91°C/100 years).
Oddly, there seems to be some serious distancing afoot by NIWA, they say essentially “it’s not ours”. I suppose I would too, when you find that you can simply download the raw “unadjusted” data, plot it yourself, and find there there is essentially no trend.
Above graph was noted in this report where they write:
Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.
Jo Nova sums this up pretty well. So well in fact I think I’ll let her (bold mine):
There’s a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims NZ has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data they found the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answer and got nowhere until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain nor defend the adjustments.
Richard Treadgold was one of that team and files this report on the Climate Conversation Group Website as shown below. Apparently there’s a legal case ongoing. I’ll have another post on this later. – Anthony
===================================
What’s left of the NIWA case?
Richard Treadgold
We hope justice will be done in the case against NIWA. Separate question: what of justice for the NZ temperature record?
The status of the NZ temperature record
For the last ten years, visitors to NIWA’s official website have been greeted by a graph of the “seven-station series” (7SS), under the bold heading “New Zealand Temperature Record”. The graph covers the period from 1853 to the present, and is adorned by a prominent trend-line sloping sharply upwards. Accompanying text informs the world that “New Zealand has experienced a warming trend of approximately 0.9°C over the past 100 years.”
The 7SS has been updated and used in every monthly issue of NIWA’s “Climate Digest” since January 1993. Its 0.9°C (sometimes 1.0°C) of warming has appeared in the Australia/NZ Chapter of the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports. It has been offered as sworn evidence in countless tribunals and judicial enquiries, and provides the historical base for all of NIWA’s reports to both Central and Local Governments on climate science issues and future projections.
NIWA has a printed promotional brochure describing its climate activities, which commences with the iconic 7SS graph. No piece of climate lore is more familiar to the public, and it is better known than NIWA’s logo.
But now, para 7(a) of NIWA’s Statement of Defence states that “there is no ‘official’ or formal New Zealand Temperature Record”.
In para 8(b) it says the NZTR is not a public record for the purposes of the Public Records Act, using the exemption of “special collections” defined (in para 4(b)) as non-public records used for “research purposes”.
In para 4, NIWA denies it has any obligation to use the best available data or best scientific techniques, while conceding that it has statutory duties to pursue excellence and to perform its functions efficiently and effectively.
The juxtaposition of these conflicting stances leaves NIWA looking decidedly awkward. Should it go all out to defend its most famous product, or throw the NZTR under a bus?
The 7SS adjustments
The 7SS posed as a genuine historical archive, until the NZCSC disclosed, in its 2009 paper Are We Feeling Warmer Yet, that the warming trend was merely an artefact of NIWA’s in-house ‘corrections’. After a lengthy saga (described in Brill, B.E., 2010a. ‘Crisis in New Zealand climatology’, Quadrant Magazine (May) and Brill, B.E., 2010b. ‘New Zealand climate crisis gets worse’, Quadrant Magazine (June)), it emerged that NIWA had adopted some 34 non-replicable adjustments proposed in 1980 by Salinger, whose calculations had been lost.
The NZCSC filed judicial review proceedings against NIWA, requesting the Court to:
• Declare the 7SS invalid
• Direct NIWA to prepare a valid replacement NZTR
In its Statement of Defence, NIWA announces that it has now completed a full internal examination of the Salinger adjustments in the 7SS, and has forwarded its “review papers” to its Australian counterpart, the Bureaux of Meteorologists (BOM) for peer review.
From ministerial answers to Parliamentary Questions, we know that this “review” has involved five or six scientists working for about six months, and has received a special grant of about $70,000. It comprises a replacement Schedule of Adjustments for the 7SS with de novo documentation and detailed justification for each adjustment.
The Hokitika example at http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data (scroll down to Documentation of the adjustment process) has been repeated for all seven weather stations.
The replacement 7SS doesn’t repeat the Salinger adjustments but it is to include any adjustments agreed between NIWA and BOM, both of whom will supposedly apply state-of-the-art homogenisation technology.
So the old 7SS has already been repudiated. A replacement NZTR is being prepared by NIWA – presumably the best effort they are capable of producing. NZCSC is about to receive what it asked for. On the face of it, there’s nothing much left for the Court to adjudicate.
What will happen in the court case?
The proceedings are not yet affected by these developments. If the replacement NZTR is as deeply flawed as its predecessor (which seems inherently unlikely) NZCSC will doubtless press on to trial – although some amendments to the pleadings would probably be required. If the new document seems respectable, the parties may well be able to resolve their remaining differences. Watch this space!
“Alexander K says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:05 am”
Re corruption, so wrong regardless.
“I find it difficult to believe that only seven accurate thermometers not suffering the depredations of UHI and with an acceptable unbroken length of service can be found by NIWA.”
Errrmm….Govn’t grants (read cash – for life if pro-AGW “results”). NIWA, been there done that. I’d trust NIWA as much as my friends’ “card reader”….
Mooloo
October 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Your reference to mangroves set me thinking. The mangroves of Ohiwa harbour (the worlds most southerly @38 degrees south) are tiny little scraggly things rarely more than 2 feet high. Compared with the mangroves of the Bay of Islands they are miniature. Bay of Island temperatures are not what I would call greatly different to Bay of Plenty temps, but the difference in size of the mangroves is astounding. If the difference in size is an indication of temperature, then the Ohiwa mangroves would surely be one of the most sensitive proxies of warming known to humankind.
In the 50 years I have lived in the western BoP area I cannot say that the Ohiwa mangroves have increased in size. They are still the tiny scraggly things that they have always been. I wonder if any botany dept. at any university has been recording them? Information in this regard may be just the needle needed to burst any “new” NIWA bubble.
It is time to standardize the temperature thing. I have a plan to do it and it is about ready to release. Check out my site tomorrow. It won’t help New Zealand, but at the global level it will help.
More satellite measurements would also help.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
Brendan H;
I think it’s shameful to bad-mouth and defame honest and hard-working scientists in international forums where they are unable to defend their reputations. By all means question the science, but leave off the accusations of fraud and deceit.>>
John advised that in his opinion you have been deceived and made a rather strong case in regard to the reasons why, which constituted the bulk of his response. I note that you cry foul over the word “deceived” but spent not one iota of your time and thought on the legitimate factual information he presented. You demand a discussion about science, but when presented with one, you focus on a single sentence out of several paragraphs and protest that. Where is your response to the factual issues raised? If you are so eager to discuss the facts, THEN DISCUSS THEM!
My experience is that those who have committed to the global warming mantra don’t want to discuss the facts. The scientists you claim can’t defend themselves in this forum are perfectly able to defend themselves, it is an open forum, and Anthony has a pretty much open door policy in regard to warmist scientists posting articles on his site, yet they rarely accept his frequent invitations.
I really am tired of warmists screaming about ad hominem attacks when confronted with a post that is 98% factual discussion and refusing to discuss the facts. If you accept the facts as presented, then the only logical conclusion is that you have been deceived. Dispute the facts if you believe them to be in error, or better still, get one of those honest, high integrity, intelligent, dedicated researchers to refute the deception on this site.
Just one.
No pressure.
Patrick Davis, I suspect we are making the same point!
From a previous post : “The 7SS does show a trend over the length of NZ” … and in
like vein NIWA makes the claim that its 7SS is “representative of New Zealand”.
I don’t think so. The four in the South Island are all coastal or near-coastal.
All they can represent is about 5% of the South Island land mass (and not, for
example, the vast bulk of Canterbury, Southland, Fiordland, Central Otago,
Southern Alps, & etc)
Yes… Caught red-handed with their trousers down 🙂
“…it emerged that NIWA had adopted some 34 non-replicable adjustments proposed in 19ese 80 by Salinger, whose calculations had been lost…”
Sounds like these guys got their training from Dr. Jones at the UEA CRU. It would seem these true believers in the CAGW conjecture will prevent any evidence becoming public which refutes their belief.
It is no surprise that fewer and fewer of the peoples of the world believe in this global warming scam – like the DoDo it is well and truly dead!
“In its Statement of Defence, NIWA announces that it has now completed a full internal examination of the Salinger adjustments in the 7SS, and has forwarded its “review papers” to its Australian counterpart, the Bureaux of Meteorologists (BOM) for peer review.”
Can someone explain to me please how this can be called “peer reivew”. I was under the impression that peer review was a double blind process. I you pick who reviews your work and they know where it’s come from that’s just mate schatting over a beer not the true process of peer revies.
I did not say the scientists were the ones deceiving him. It is a case of self deception. He is assuming that the 11 station graph is an accurate representation of what is happening. I think a little closer look at the rest of the station sites and how human activity around them has changed might show some interesting things.
Campbell Island is very isolated, but a number of DOC workers have been there eradicating rats and sheep from the Island. This could have resulted in changes to the micro climate around the met station.
According to Dept of Conservation, “Campbell Island became a reserve in 1954. Many of the feral sheep died out, and from 1970 the rest were progressively culled. The last remaining sheep were eliminated in 1992.” from http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/historic/by-region/southland/southern-islands/campbell-island/
davidmhoffer: “I note that you cry foul over the word “deceived” but spent not one iota of your time and thought on the legitimate factual information he presented.”
My comment focused on the matter of alleged corruption. I highlighted this issue because it has become second nature among climate sceptics to assume lies and deceit by climate scientists, and in my view this assumption poisons the debate.
Offhand, I don’t have any information about UHI effects in New Zealand, but a while back NIWA released an explanation of adjustments to the Hokitika station, which should give a flavour of the reasoning for temperature adjustments.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/101835/Hokitika-Adjustments.pdf
#
#
Brendan H says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:31 am
“John in NZ: “I am sorry Samoht but you are being deceived.”
As a New Zealander, I take exception to claims that New Zealand scientists are in the business of deceiving their countrymen. New Zealanders are among the most honest and upright people on the planet, and their institutions are regarded as the least corrupt in the world.
I think it’s shameful to bad-mouth and defame honest and hard-working scientists in international forums where they are unable to defend their reputations. By all means question the science, but leave off the accusations of fraud and deceit.”
Hi Brendan
I am sorry you took my comment that way. I said nothing about the scientists.
It is a self deception.
I tried to post a reply but it disappeared. This may end up a double post.
I also think the Campbell Island site may well have changed enough to affect the temp record.
Dept of Conservation (DOC) have removed the Campbell Island Sheep. According to DOC “Campbell Island became a reserve in 1954. Many of the feral sheep died out, and from 1970 the rest were progressively culled. The last remaining sheep were eliminated in 1992.”
from http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/historic/by-region/southland/southern-islands/campbell-island/ Did they die because they were starving due to overgrazing? Remove the sheep and change the habitat and therefore microclimate?
In 2001 they began their rat eradication program.
http://www.newzeal.com/theme/antarctic/NZ/Campbell/CampbellRat.htm
This means a lot (relatively) of human activity.
The met station was automated in 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Island,_New_Zealand
In my experience, once you automate something you tend to forget about it. The met station is at Beeman Cove which from the image in this link has had a few buildings and roads construsted. I wonder how far the MMTS is from the nearest road.
For Brendan H, Alexander K and others who may take exception to accusations of deceit and/or corruption levelled at NZ scientists and bureaucrats.
Firstly, the global corruption index that I have seen regularly published in NZ (showing NZ to be the least corrupt country in the world) is, I believe, produced by an NZ institution. It is perhaps therefore wise to regard it with some caution.
Secondly, we do not know, and perhaps never will, the causes of what has gone on at NIWA. It could be changes in personnel, the normal bumblings of bureaucracy, incompetence, emotion-led thinking, conscious or unconscious bias, or some form of corruption. It matters little, since the effects are the same. We do know, however, that NIWA’s case for Global Warming is neither open, nor transparent, nor peer-reviewed, and that the NZ government and others continue to rely on it. I suggest this is a far from satisfactory situation.
Lastly, the price of freedom from corruption is eternal vigilance by citizens. This is a true in NZ as anywhere. What bloggers like Anthony, and parties such as those that have taken NIWA to court are doing is exercising this vigilance. I take my hat off to them.
All the best.
“If the new document seems respectable, the parties may well be able to resolve their remaining differences. Watch this space!”
So they just ignore that this either Fraudulent or Criminally Negligent poor science was promoted to the gubmint and by the gubmint as reason to pass a number of bad policies which damaged many New Zealanders financially?? They also ignore how the authorities attacked the Deniers and Sceptics who tried to correct the corrupt science?? (I realize that trying to follow the money to determine chicken and egg on the grants and payments is likely a bridge too far)
Sounds typical of here in the States also. Not too many embarrassing bodies lying about, carry on.
I live in a small provincial City in NZ.. Our Global Warmist Mayor sited OUR temperature records for our City as showing us to be TOO cold !. ( The sensors are out away from industrial heat pollution. ) SO they where moved .. to and inner-city location within meters of a busy road and a sports dirt track.. Guess what ” Headlines one year on “Wanganui hottest year on record” Global Warming hits our City”
Correction to my above post: I assume that when it is mentioned that NZ is “the least corrupt country in the world”, that people may be referring to the reports published by Transparency International (TI). NZ appears to be equal first with Sweden and Denmark in their survey of perceived corruption (not actual corruption) for 2008. The NZ chapter of TI is at:
http://www.transparency.org.nz/
They have an article from FEB 2010 entitled: “Are we as good as we are perceived.”
Next international perception survey due later this month.
All the best.
I am getting interested in Campbell Island.
It is about 700km southeast of the South Island. (S52.33 E169.09 ) Sub-antarctic. Very cold. A change in vegetation from overgrazed grass to un grazed scrub and tussock could have a big effect on temperatures being recorded.
According to people who were counting Albatross in 1996
http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/sr101-Entire.pdf
“There have been significant and continuing
changes to the vegetation of Campbell Island since feral sheep ( Ovis aries)
were systematically removed from parts of the island between 1970 and 1990.”
When they first tried to farm sheep on the island (late 1800’s), they began by burning the existing vegetation. Next came overgrazing. They stopped trying to farm in 1931 but let the sheep run wild. After the removal of the sheep there should be an ongoing change to the islands vegetation. This could continue for decades. The removal of the sheep should result in an increase in vegetation. This in turn should provide more shelter and therefore we should see recorded temperatures rising.
I definitely did not take offence at the idea of corrupt science and scientists in NZ.
The NZ government has been persuaded to bring the infamous ETS legislation into law; the information must have come from somewhere and NIWA is the obvious choice.
Brendan H;
My comment focused on the matter of alleged corruption. I highlighted this issue because it has become second nature among climate sceptics to assume lies and deceit by climate scientists, and in my view this assumption poisons the debate.>>
If that is your position, then for starters, the fact that the scientists in question are from New Zealand has nothing to do with it. I live in Canada, easily one of the least corrupt countries in the world. I’m also in sales in high tech. I remember in graphic detail the first time I was asked for a bribe, some 30 years ago. I sort of remember the second one. I stopped counting well over two decades ago, and if you ask me when the last one was, I really couldn’t tell you. When there are large amounts of money at stake, corruption happens, and living in the least corrupt country in the world by no means confers immunity, and is not a defense. The facts are the only defense, and on the facts, John made an excellent case that your perception is not in line with reality.
On the larger front, there are certainly a litany of accusations, and yes, some skeptics assume deceipt. But the bulk of them engage in discussions of the facts, frequently disagree openly with each other, and are eager to debate with the warmists.
If the debate has been poisoned, may I suggest that you consider:
The 10:10 video in which skeptics, even children, are nonchalantly murdered merely for disagreeing.
Greenpeace’s threat of violence against skeptics including “we know where you work, we know where you live”
Repeated calls by Hansen, Suzuki, and others to criminalize skeptic beliefs.
Studies, multiple of them, suggesting that skeptics are deficient in intelligence, upbringing, or geneticaly predisposed to being amoral.
The coining of the word “denialist” to discredit skeptics by associating them with holocaust deniers.
I could go on. And on. And on. If you take exception to the notion that you have been decieved when it is coupled with a thorough explanation of why that may be the case, then I must assume that you are equally appaled at the antics of some of the warmists whose actions have gone beyond poisoning the debate. They have instead refused to debate and instead engaged in a blatant attempt to discredit and silence skeptics, going so far as threats of violence and criminalization.
These are the signs of a movement that no longer has the facts on their side, and rather than reconsider their position, have instead resorted to the presentation of magic sufficiently advanced that it may pose as science. So don’t be wagging your finger from within your cloak of morality. It was woven by the same tailer that clothed the emporer, and it exists in your mind only.
Enough please with the No True Kiwi defence of NIWA.
Its position in August was”We are confident that, in the unlikely event that [a court case] proceeds, then our stance and our science will be fully vindicated.”
Some in the Anglosphere will be put in mind of the defiant words of British politician Jonathan Aitken in a libel case against The Guardian newspaper:”If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon.”
Yes, he was quickly proved to be a liar and sent to prison for perjury.
Likewise, for all NIWA’s fighting words and bluff, when (forcibly) given the opportunity to demonstrate the quality and veracity of their “science” it folded. It has been exposed as a peddler of falsehoods.
Unless and until heads roll and there is a thorough cleanout it is now irrelevant in the debate and its output worthless.
As the saying goes in New Zealand, NIWA, yeah right.
Brendan H says:
October 10, 2010 at 2:31 am
Clearly Brendan you are a deluded fool. Of course it is a reasonable assumption that government warmist scientists are lying. After so many examples it is the default position.
Corruption? Did you see where it has been reported by Bob Woodward that the Obama administration and Gen David Petreus that the Karzai government was a “criminal syndicate”? Of course it is, just like any government at any level.
I emailed David Wratt (Chief Scientist at NIWA) and invited him over here to respond to this post, in particular give reasons why NIWA are still prominently displaying the NZTR as proof of global warming when they can’t explain or defend the temp. adjustments made.
In the real world most things tend to saturation (which is occasionally devastating as exemplified by the collapses of the Roman Empire and Chinese Dynasties).
Urbanization is no exception. Many cities across the globe have already reached or are reaching the final phase of urbanization, which should diminish the UHI effect and is actually reflected by the flattening of measured temperatures.
In addition to the slumbering Sun and the start of the cooling phase of AMO and PDO, this may be drastically changing the discussion on global warming oops climate disruption in three to five years. Really interesting times ahead.
By the time they’re through, the new homogenized data will be…
worse than we thought!
John in NZ: “I am sorry you took my comment that way. I said nothing about the scientists. It is a self deception.”
The relevant comments were as follows:
samoht: “Niwa also posted a series from the most consistent 11 stations in the country”
John in NZ: “I am sorry Samoht but you are being deceived.”
The implication from the above is that NIWA is doing the deceiving. A number of comentators on this thread have assumed fraud and nefarious purpose on the part of NIWA, while having little understanding of the issue. Your comment appeared to be more of the same, so I think my inference was justified. But I accept your retraction.
I can’t make any comment about land-use on Campbell Island, but the pdf I posted for the Hokitika site (one of the “seven-station” series) posited three reasons for the adjustment of temperatures: site changes, instrument error, and comparison with another New Zealand site.
The paper also explains the reasons for choosing these adjustment factors and the methodologies used to adjust the historical temperatures. I’m not qualified to make any judgement on these explanations, but NIWA has made major efforts to communicate the science. I think they should be commended for this rather than condemned.
davidmhoffer: “If that is your position, then for starters, the fact that the scientists in question are from New Zealand has nothing to do with it.”
On the contrary, I think the culture of a country does have some relevance to the way its institutions operate. A culture that is perceived to be low in corruption doesn’t get that way by accident, and since culture is pervasive, the wider culture will have an effect on the way institutions carry out their functions.
“I could go on. And on. And on.”
So could we all. Many climate sceptics now seem to have an almost instinctive opposition to climate science, an attitude that I think is corrosive to rational debate.
It was when the debate over climate science descended to accusations of fraud, lies, cheating etc that climate sceptics crossed the line to take the issue away from the science and into ideology.
This an implicit admission of defeat on the science. In my view, this aspect of climate scepticism has done immense damage to science by breeding a casual cynicism towards especially public institutions that do science.