NZ weather temps: Warming or not?


Filed in:

There's been further debate about the authenticity of some New Zealand weather site figures asthe debate rages on about global warming.  

Scientists on Friday rubbished claims from New Zealand climate-change sceptics that temperature data from around the country had been deliberately tampered with to show a higher degree of warming.

The suggestion from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Climate Conversation Group comes just days after "Climategate", in which thousands of emails and documents sent between scientists were hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and leaked on the internet.

Sceptics have been selecting out comments from the emails and saying they are evidence of selective science and even collusion in preparing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) principal climate scientist James Renwick , sacked Niwa scientist Jim Salinger and commentator Gareth Renowden say the timing of the attacks is no coincidence.

The Climate Conversation Group (CCG) and the Climate Science Coalition have released their own analysis showing that unadjusted temperature readings from seven weather stations with 100-year-plus records – Auckland, Masterton, Wellington, Hokitika, Nelson, Lincoln and Dunedin – were stable and did not create the warming trend that Niwa's adjusted figures did.

CCG convener Richard Treadgold claimed the results were "shocking".

Niwa's adjustment of early temperatures down by up to 1.3 degrees Celsius had introduced a "false warming", allowing the graph to climb to the present day.

"It's a disgrace," Treadgold said.

Renwick, Salinger and Niwa chief climate scientist David Wratt hit back at the claims of manipulation.

Wratt said Niwa climate scientists had previously explained to members of the coalition why such corrections had to be made. He was disappointed they continued to ignore that and present misleading analyses.

Salinger said adjustments were made for legitimate reasons, such as changes of site.

"I haven't seen this work but it will be b......., because I have worked on this for many years.

"When I was doing my PhD, looking at the record up to 1975, there were at least 50 to 60 climate stations started in the 1930s that, before we did anything, 90 per cent of them showed warming."

Renwick said there were several reasons for adjusting the temperature record, including introducing new thermometers or sensors to a weather site, and changes to its exposure caused by growing vegetation or urbanisation.

For example, the Wellington figures had to be adjusted down when the official weather site moved from the Thorndon waterfront to Kelburn. "That's a move up of about 120 metres – that is the equivalent of a degree of cooling."

The claims were "more of the same" with Copenhagen only 10 days away.

Source: The Press


Comments

Climategate reveals cooling, not warming trend

We now know that NIWA has also been involved in CRU- style temperature faking...claiming that over the last 100 years there has been a warming trend , when in fact there was none, when the last 10 years show a cooling in temperatures world-wide..

David Wratt, NIWA's chief climatologist, IPCC vice- chairman 2007 AR4 report which claims adjustments were made to compensate for changes in locations. He justifies his claim, in the case of Wellington, by saying that since the Thorndon ( closed in 1927) is 3m a.s.l. the same as Wellington Airport, they guessed the temperatures taken at Wellington Airport would be the same as Thorndon, conveniently ignoring the fact that they are in a different climatic zone and 15km apart!

But, why, were adjustments made in that manner? Surely, NIWA had plenty of time to set up a temporary temperature station site at the disused location site to record actual data for , say, one year? That would have saved a lot of 'soul searching 'and questions 'down the track'....

... But, no, for what reason, one can only speculate, given his involvement with that dubious panel, the useful tool of the One World Government (NWO), doing its dirty work to terrorize mankind c.f. Pope Benedict XV's definition of a New World Order - an uheard of reign of terror....www.catholic2007.blogspot.com

We learn that Dr. Salinger has not looked at the opposition report, and refers to it as probably a load of b.......! That's a pretty scientific response to a serious claim, I would have thought, unless he has something to hide? A flippant response it is, an attempt at a reasonable scientific explanation, it is not!

And, while we are on the topic of hiding, ' hiding the decline' and all! David Wratt has refused to release data on the remaing N.Z. sites used in this study . A sort of , 'case closed', no more correspondence will be entered into!

But this is all payed for by the taxpayer, it should be available for the public viewing, since it's conclusions will affect the public dramatically,and to their detriment, they have a right to know the truth , and available for peer review....at the moment it most certainly is not!

Perhaps, he too, has something to hide? The truth, maybe, because the truth is coming out day by day...check out from one of the many info sites now popping up at TBR.cc which does in depth analysis of the N.Z. coverup in relation to Climategate!

It is not going to go away.....yet....This is only the beginning of Climategate...and then it will be Copenhagen.

Ah, yes, wonderful, wonderful, Copenhagen.....8 - D

You have no idea what you are

You have no idea what you are talking about. If anything, the adjustments are conservative, as Thorndon could be if anything a little warmer than the airport, requiring therefore a slightly greater downward adjustment to match Kelburn. Furthermore, you have also conveniently ignored the nationwide warming signal shown by dozens of stations around the country.

To repeat - you are an ignorant, hysterical conspiracist. The planet however continues to verify the work of the scientists by showing obvious changes. You flat-earther types are simply squealing ever louder because you are running out of arguments.

This is not a "debate".

This is not a "debate". Treadgold and others are retailing garbage, and they know it. The fools at CSC ought also to know that there are plenty of NZers who can recall the coldness of winters in the 1930s (for example), despite the well-known "nostalgia effect" which tends to restrict people's memories to hot days in summer holidays. The data is unequivocal, and these so-called scientists are an embarrassment to truth and rationality.

Debate it is not - Cover -up it is

RW should pause for a moment, and cool down, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on real data providers...as the side for truth slowly increases the heat!. 8 - [

Perhaps he would do well to ponder for one moment, the following I "nostalgically" scrapped up from the halls of my fading memory, ' specially for him/her/it!!!

'A wise old owl sat in an oak,
The more it heard, the less it spoke.
The less it spoke, the more it heard.
Wasn't it wise, that old bird!

8 - D

If you think the likes of CSC

If you think the likes of CSC are "real data providers", you are seriously deluded. For yourself, I doubt if you could reliably cite even one climatological fact about NZ beyond the elementary kind known at primary school level. The discrediting of CSC claims about NZ temperatures are not ad hominem - they are simple straightforward refutations of nonsense. Goodbye.

RW redefines nonsense!

Hello,

No , you accuse us of being flat earthers/ conspiracists et al, in your desperate attempt to discredit the oppostion...now if that's not an ad hominem approach then maybe the strawman argument might address it better?

These are people, like the general public who demand , as they rightfuly should, access to the climate data which purportedly claims N.Z has been warming up the last 100 years, but denied, as if it was a state secret...when the real data shows the warming up to be a complete fabrication and fraud at the least...the refusal to release the data to the scientific community to check for validity, raises serious questions...

Now, people can make mistakes, and that is excusable, but to deliberately cheat is criminal and acedemic/scientific suicide...

All your twisting an squirming will not make it go away, unfortunately for your side, as the latest video release shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QhmGYRoWE

...and then, should we not let 'we the people' decide who is actually telling the truth?

Well, I won't be annoying you anymore today, cos it's time for a cup o' tea, and besides I have a few more e-mails to rumble through!

Pleasant dreams....only 7 more sleepless nights before Copenhagen!

8 - D

RW redefines nonsense!

Hello...well actually, ol' chap they are cos' you are attacking the people who challenge your science, rather than refuting their evidence - perhaps you would you accept "strawman" argument then?... 8 - D

The climate fudges are not going to be let off the hook so easily!

The pressure continues to mount, as new evidence of their fraud comes to light. see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Qhm6YRoWE

Let the people be the judge on this one, the very people to whom the rightful release of climate data, continues to be suppressed and denied, as if it was a state secret - the suppression of which denies other scientists the opportunity to check the validity of the data, and whether it is being made up...[hide the decline]..or not 8 - ]

Anycase, I thought I was not worth replying to? Seems like you are having to have a rethink on this one....and I am only warming up, excuse the fun/pun...I guess I will have to continue to be a Thorn tin your side for a wee bit longer....only 7 more days to Copenhagen, seven more sleepless nights for some, I fear ....8 - [

Toodle loo....gotta rush ....time for anuther a cup o' tea

Climategate link

correction to that link...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Qhm6YRdJE

...we'll get there in the end.... no excuses, cos' I was wearing my glasses .....8 - D

You're not going to get away

You're not going to get away with the likes of this: "...access to the climate data which purportedly claims N.Z has been warming up the last 100 years, but denied, as if it was a state secret...when the real data shows the warming up to be a complete fabrication and fraud at the least".

Outright lie. You had better be careful, as there is nothing secret about the information re the NZ temperature record, and all the adjustments for stations like Wellington have been explained long ago. And in case I hadn't already mentioned it, records of stations that have not had site changes show clear warming going back to 1930 or earlier (and don't start throwing in red herrings about urbanisation as the great majority are not in cities or towns). At some point Treadgold and other members of his army of imbeciles may find themselves in court over such slanders/libels - and they would lose. Be careful what you wish for, genius.

Who are the real criminals? [fudges of the overlaps]

...so the pot is calling the kettle black, now...

...you are really getting desperate, is the heat proving too much for you....they must be going through hell at the moment in the U.K....so I would imagine their counterparts in this crime in little ol' N.Z. are getting a foretaste of the same....8 - D

How are they going to cope in Copenhagen? 8 - [

You had better watch your

You had better watch your remarks. Your continued campaign to smear NZ scientists may yet land you in a court.The latest release shows that the CSC has scored an "own goal".

Repetition of lies, and pretending that the group had not received information they were given at least 2 years ago, is utterly contemptible. I am copying part of this text from another website to make sure that others reading this thread will not think your crank comments on the NZ data have any validity whatsoever:

The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), accused last week of fiddling the long term New Zealand temperature record to create spurious warming, has released information showing that the attack mounted by the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition and Climate Conversation Group has no merit.

The NIWA announcement shows that the warming trend in the long term record is also found when weather stations with long term records that require no corrections are used. From the release:

Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week.

I’ll have more detail on that series when it’s made available. So the warming in the record is robust, found in sites all round New Zealand, and doesn’t depend on mysterious adjustments. But the Treadgold/CSC report also made claims about data being hidden:

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

That’s an outright lie, as the NIWA release shows.

For more than two years, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition members have known of the need to adjust the “seven station” data. They have had access to:

the raw data
the adjusted data (anomalies)
information needed to identify the adjustments made by Dr Salinger
information needed to develop their own adjustments.

The NIWA release cites emails to CSC members Vincent Grey and Warwick Hughes in July 2006, which provided all the references required to calculate the necessary adjustments themselves. In particular, all the information about the station site changes has been publicly available since 1992 and details of the methodology since 1993!

So where does this leave Treadgold and the CSC? They have published a report, issued press releases and made blog posts that misrepresent the facts, and have shown themselves incapable of conducting good science. They have proven themselves morally and ethically bankrupt, and should — if they had any decency — withdraw and apologise. But I won’t be holding my breath.