The debate about New Zealand's climate records centers on
corrections made to the nation's climate records and whether
or not they skew the results to show global warming. (NIWA / New
Zealand Climate Science Coalition)
A debate about New Zealand’s climate records has become front and center in the wider debate about manmade climate change. Some have said that the records were improperly altered to show the effects of global warming while the agency in charge of the monitoring stations says the records are correct.
Two days ago, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released a report showing that due to modifications of climate records, warming in New Zealand was higher than the global average. They said that were it not for the ‘corrections’ of the records, the trend would have been virtually flat.
New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the agency in charge of the monitoring stations and climate records, said that the corrections were necessary to compensate for station relocations over the last 150 years. The agency said they used, “internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites.”
NIWA used the station in Wellington which moved from Thorndon to Kelburn in 1928. The new station’s location is approximately six miles from the previous one and at an altitude 122 m (400 feet) higher. As a result, corrections were made in an attempt to keep the records consistent.
The debate however does not appear to be over as others continue to weigh in on the issue. Anthony Watts, editor of climate change site “Watts Up With That” said the very location of the station is the problem. The ‘urban heat island effect’ is often pointed to as a cause of warmer readings, particularly those around airports like the Wellington station is.
The New Zealand Science Coalition similarly pointed to the station issue and called on NIWA to be more open with its data. Coalition secretary, Terry Dunleavy said, "Nothing released by NIWA so far allows their methodology to be replicated easily."
The Climate Change Examiner exchanged emails with Dr. David Wratt, Chief Climate Scientist for NIWA, about the station in Wellington. Wratt said, “Wellington airport is well exposed (actually a very windy site as anyone who has travelled through there will be able to tell you), right next to the sea.”
The station has actually been in two locations at the airport. “Initially on a grassed site about 100m to the North of the crash fire building, and then from 1994 well to the west of the runway (on the other side of the airport),” Wratt explained.
Urban growth in the area would not affect temperature readings according to Wratt. “Population changes should not be an issue - fish to the North and South; not much change in housing density elsewhere,” he said.
Station moves are one of the most contentious issues in debates about the climate record across the globe. In the United States , Denver, Colorado has had an ongoing debate over the National Weather Service’s move of the official weather station 14 miles from its previous location in 1995. For more on the debate in Denver, read: Do Denver’s climate records come with an asterisk by the Denver Weather Examiner.
Related:
- Essex County Conservative Examiner - NIWA press release less than satisfactory
- TBR.cc - NIWA's explanation raises major new questions
Climate Change Examiner Facebook Page Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted.
Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
Comments
Excuse me, but if the sum total of the 'warming' since 1928 is no more than would be expected by moving the reporting staitions SIX MILES, how much of a problem could this really be?
I think David Wratt is having you on. An international airport is a heat island all by itself. Think "jet exhaust."
The problem is that we have to think about anything that might seem obvious, but that certain (un)worthies just flat don't want to tell us.
Once again, common sense about weather should end this debate. The airport location is of course warmer, but it is also lower, and the difference is .79 degree celsius, which, if anyone actually checked elevation's effects on temperature would find that in line.
The CCC people took the temperatures from a sea level location and connected its last reading to a location much higher in elevation (colder). This would be like taking temps in Florida for a few years, then taking them in the Rocky Mountains for a few more, making a graph, and then claiming the temp is dropping. That doesn't work. To keep the graph consistent, you'd have to lower the temp of the readings in Florida to fall in line based on comparative data.
The NIWA did just that. Now that the skeptic group has been called out, they won't admit their error, and instead are trying to re-spin this.
Excuse me, but if the sum total of the 'warming' since 1928 is no more than would be expected by moving the reporting staitions SIX MILES, how much of a problem could this really be?
The effect of moving a station is to increase or reduce the temperature contribution by some fraction of a degree (which will be small because you are averaging). This creates a discontinuity in the curve, raising or lowering it by some small amount. What we see here is a curve that has been tilted up, an effect that moving weather stations around will not produce. The NIWA has offer an explanation technical enough to fool the ignorant, but that to anyone with a mathematical understanding of the situation is patently absurd!
Who's "debating"? A small minority who wishes these shills and usual suspects (Bellamy? Come on.) are actually telling the truth?
Best,
D
Dano - Do you do any critical thinking of your own or do you just blindingly accept what these folks say? I really am curious. Have you ever saw anything from doubters of climate change that just for a second made you go hmmmmm?
"Have you ever saw anything from doubters of climate change that just for a second made you go hmmmmm? "
Sure. Once in a while.
But it doesn't stand testing. It can't stand scrutiny. Denialists and pseudoskeptics and contrascientists have nothing upon which to base their denial. Nothing. Nothing stands scrutiny.
Not even the Swift Boat-style Hacky Shtick.
So basing a belief on occasionally something coming up that can't stand scrutiny isn't a good way to set policy or to apprehend the world or to base a "debate". or or or.
Best,
D
AGW proponents are nothing more than "Data Molesters", and they are in denial that this is immoral because their closest friends and associates all do it as well.
Having escaped New Zealand, I can tell the world that Kiwis are mentally retarded yet try to play the morally superior card all the time. They don't like to admit that their best and brightest leave the country for good every generation... one fifth of the population have left the country. It is no surprise that NIWA are staffed by second rate scientists that believe the end justifies the means.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!