BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

UPDATE 15:49 NZDT - NIWA's news release in response to this story appears to have been delayed, and according to a radio news report a few minutes ago Rodney Hide, leader of the minority Act Party and a minister in the National Government, is now calling on his Cabinet colleague, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith, to "please explain" [normal transmission now resumes]

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

 

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA's web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on

between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. 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 [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909

to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

 

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

The revelations are published today in a news alert from The Climate Science Coalition of NZ:

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.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA's web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger's colleagues.

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.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there's no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It's a disgrace.

NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.

NIWA's David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

"Do you agree it might look bad in the wake of the CRU scandal?"

"No, no," replied Wratt before hitting out at the Climate Science Coalition and accusing them of "misleading" people about the temperature adjustments.

Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU's Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were "destroyed" or "lost", meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.

UPDATE: NIWA has finally responded:

NIWA Media Release                        26 November 2009

 Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

 NIWA's analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

 Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

 NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA's Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he's very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

 NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

 For more information, contact:

 Dr David Wratt
 Chief Scientist (Climate)
 NIWA, Private Bag 14-901
 Wellington, New Zealand
 Phone: +64 4 386 xxxx
 Cellphone + 64 021 xxxxxx

 Renwick, James
 Science Leader - Principal Scientist Climate NIWA, Private Bag 14-901
 Wellington, New Zealand
 Phone: + 64 4-xxxxxxx

UPDATE 3:

NIWA chief scientist David Wratt says he has no plans to release data backing up claims of different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites.

Wratt told Investigate tonight that some studies existed which contained "overlapping" periods which allowed NIWA to compare the temperatures at both locations.

He said NIWA intendeds to release data regarding the Kelburn weather station tonight, but will not release other data.

"There are various other sites that will be affected by a change in location"

"Have you done a 12 or 24 month study comparing both locations simultaneously?"

"There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”

“But you’ll be providing all that shortly?”

“Well, we’re not going to run around in circles just because somebody has put out a press release. We will continue to put out what is reasonable to provide.”

“Wouldn’t it be important –“

“No!”

“…for people to see the comparison studies between both sites?”

“Look, we’re talking about scientific studies here. I’ve told you we’ll put out information about Wellington. Basically it’s not up to us to justify ourselves to a whole lot of people that come out with truly unfounded allegations. We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff and I can’t have my staff running around in circles over something which is not a justified allegation. The fact that the Climate Science Coalition are making allegations about my staff who have the utmost integrity really really pisses me off.

“That’s all I’ve got to say to you now – [click]”

 MY COMMENT AS BLOGGER: Without the baseline comparisons between the weather sensors at one site and then the other, the public and researchers remain in the dark as to whether the adjustments fairly reflect the changed locations. We don't even know when the adjustments were finally applied. There is nothing wrong with making adjustments, but without transparency it is largely meaningless and unable to be peer reviewed

FINAL UPDATE: New post on NIWA's Wellington data here

Comments

[George]

So one station with a legitimate move is explained and that is supposed to explain why so many of them all received adjustments in the same direction? Generally temperatures are expected to be adjusted downward over time to compensate for urbanization. You don't adjust the past cooler.

They don't need to go through every individual station one at a time in order to create the appearance if it being quite a chore. Simply release the adjustment that has been applied to the station data. People are smart enough to find out if a station has been moved, that information should be in the station records. If there is a problem with one or more stations that have not moved but have been adjusted, those specific examples can be addressed.

I don't think anyone is trying to harass anyone, they are simply trying to understand why so many stations seem to have all been adjusted in the same direction over the same period of time. Did they all move at once? Somehow that seems doubtful.

[Cliff Millam]

Wow Alexa, thanks for clearing this all up! By all means let's not ask anymore for data and methodology. I mean that whole open scientific method is sooooo passe don't you think. We should believe them. They are SCIENTISTS and this whole wrongheaded approach of open discovery and ablility to recreate results to confirm theory is a waste of valuable time after all.

[AcidComments]

"Wow Alexa, thanks for clearing this all up! By all means let's not ask anymore for data and methodology."

Yep.

All you could say it goes sort of like this:

Just believe and do everything we say. We're scientists we're the perfect GOD Like beings.

When we say jump.. you jump. When we say stick your head in noose... stick your head in a noose. WE always know what's best for you. WE are perfect we don't make mistakes...Mistakes are for you inferior people who're not scientists...Compute... so always except the data...except the data....No Matter how much we fiddle the data...we fiddle the data...or Hide the data...or hide the data...Compute.

[Doug]

The late Professor Augie Auer knew Salinger fiddled numbers, And even suggested NIWA be shut down.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00001.htm

[Budgieboy]

Well done Ian, this is the leading story @

http://www.memeorandum.com/

First link I clicked on had entirely reposted everything above.

I get the feeling the pressure is starting to build, even as the media try's to ignore it.

[Brian]

Wratt hates to justify anything to anyone. The fact that he's a public servant has long escaped his superior intellect. Mere plebians and other scientists should not be allowed to question his superior knowledge.

[R2D2]

OK Wratt, so what your saying is global warming so far has had the catastrophic effect of making Kelburn's weather equal to Thorndon's 100 years ago? Whats next? Oriental Bay??!!

[Cliff Millam]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html

[R2D2]

Hokitika adjusted +0.89, that would require a movement of the temperature station 137 metres. Does Hokitika have this kind of altitude variation?

[bill]

I wonder if anything is known about Wratt's educational background. The clip above makes him seem pretty stupid, bluster + whining nonsense about 'my staff'. maybe he is displaying the narrow mindedness and inability to cpmprehend criticism which are hallmarks of the half educated. It turns out that Professor OPhil Jones, the man at the centre of the CRU scandal did his first degree at the University of Lancaster 1970 -73. What that means is that Jones, at 18, was pretty stupid, definitely in the bottom 40% of his Sixth Form. Stupidity isn't something you grow out of. Learning, even bogus learning, can disguise it, but it doesn't go away.

[Richard Treadgold]

It seems Dr Wratt became angry quite quickly. Too quickly?

WRATT: "Basically it’s not up to us to justify ourselves to a whole lot of people that come out with truly unfounded allegations."

Dr Wratt, you created an inconsistency between the data and the graph, on your web site. We've just noticed it and now we're asking how it happened. Any "allegations" were inferred by you and not implied by us.

WRATT: "We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff and I can’t have my staff running around in circles over something which is not a justified allegation."

Oh, so there have been scientific studies done on these station adjustments? We'd like to see the papers. Would you kindly provide references, please? But there's no need to be getting yourself upset! We agree you shouldn't "run around in circles" over unjustified allegations. On the other hand, we have a different opinion of your proper response to questions.

WRATT: "I’ve told you we’ll put out information about Wellington."

Look, we've been talking amongst ourselves, and we've decided that Hokitika might make a more interesting case than Wellington. We'd like to know why such large adjustments were made, since nothing even slightly interesting has happened there in the last 15,000 years. So if you're going to put out figures, would you please give the adjustments and reasoning for Hokitika instead? Yes, that would be far more useful, thanks.

My goodness, this could go on for ages. We need more popcorn.

There's more on www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz

Thanks for your support.

Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.

[Richard Treadgold]

Alexa: "What's fraudulent is for someone to take raw data, analyse it incorrectly, and then claim it's all a scam. Denialists demand raw data, and when they get it, they pull this sh*t... and you wonder why the guy's angry?"

No, Alexa, we noticed their graph showed strong warming, then that the data they provide does not. NIWA themselves demonstrate the discrepancy. The CliFlo database, by the way, is quite brilliant -- a good return for the taxpayer, and it's free!

We got the raw data and simply graphed it with no modifications -- no analysis, and no expectations either. We got a surprise! The paper shows the two graphs and asks the natural question: why the difference? Why do the raw data produce no trend at all while the adjusted data show strong warming? There are other questions, too, such as: are only seven stations sufficient to describe the whole country's temperature history? There are many score to pick from.

We do not, and you cannot have read the paper for yourself to verify this, call it a "scam". You are incorrect to imply that we do. You call us denialists, so please describe what it is we deny (apart from this).

Wratt has so far said only that there are reasons for the adjustments, but we demand to know the full details and reasons for them. It's not enough any longer, in the current climate of distrust, to say "trust us". Full explanations are essential.

There was a time, not too long ago, when nobody cared about the national temperature record; we all had far better things to be going on with! But now, we're being taxed more because the temperature is (apparently) going up, because we (apparently) have been working too industriously. So it's suddenly a matter of vital national interest and questions get asked in the Parliament!

Dr Wratt also said that explanations have already been given to the Coalition, but they were not, at least nobody in the Coalition can remember them. I don't think he's recalling the matter accurately, but we will be asking him what those explanations were and to whom they were sent.

In the meantime, our core questions are simple: what, precisely, were the changes made to the temperature readings at these seven stations and why were they made? We're entitled to ask these questions, as taxpayers, of our public servants and to expect a full and honest response.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.

[John S]

I can accept the Wellington adjustment as explained and by looking at the raw data. I think NIWA has used this as an example of robust adjustments deliberately .. because if you look at the data for Hokitika and Lincoln (which accounts for 2 from 7 sites) they have made adjustments in the middle of a series from a single continuous site. I ould love to know how you can possibly change (downwards the temperatures for some periods from the same site back in the 30's.

Also why not just use the longest running sites for this excercise?

[Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck]

Alec Rawls noted Urban Heat Island effect...

That Station was moved in 1928 and the adjusted up by .8c

Must ask them if and how much they adjusted for UHI for that station!!!!!

[twawki]

If you want more climate massage then just go to the Bureau of Meteorology!

[russ wood]

global warming is nothing more than a communist plot.when the Berlin wall came down they infiltrated and eventually took over the environmental movement.it also has a lot to do with greed. the biggest supporters of this are corrupt politicians that are heavily invested in green technology, like Americas AL GORE.

[Steve Rowe]

Why hasn't any of this climategate info made the TV news? Just like WMD's and the lack of reporting leading upto the financial crises our media has failed us once again. But you watch them all jump on the bandwagon when they want war with Iran.

[Larry Hulden]

I want to make a comment to
Alexa | November 26, 2009 at 06:26 PM
... If you bother to go to the NIWA data yourself ...
The basic problem is to get all data, algorithms and code for any claim of analysis. It is not enough to say that all data is there. This problem is very obvious with Phil Jones who says that all data has been released but nobody knows where. Next problem is that it is not obvious which data was used. A further problem is that the exact algorithm is not released. At the end of the day we actually don't know anything of how the published result was produced. Finally we do not know who approved these results to be published.
Larry Hulden
Finnish Museum of Natural History

[Elmar]

ONe word: data smoothing. When you make such a graph, it makes more sense to plot means of several years instead of just the data from every year. Scientifically completely acceptable. It accounts for the difference between the two graphs you show. No fraud, no swindle, just science.

[Pierre]

I don't care how they try to save themselves but i am very happy the whole scam is starting to fall apart. We'll probably never know who was behind this and where all our money went but it's better to have a small victory than none at all. Tomorrow our politicians who are not open for debate but see climate change as their new relligion are going to spend 30 billion euros of our tax money, money we've worked hard for, most politicians arn't even open for debate while scientists are. We are paying to be mobile these days while developing countries like china don't do anything at all.