New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) responded to charges that it had incorrectly adjusted the nation’s temperatures records to fit the global warming theory. In a statement released on its website, NIWA said the corrections were required to compensate for changes in monitoring station locations.
Yesterday, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition charged that the government agency in charge of monitoring the nation’s climate modified the data improperly. The group said that more recent temperature readings were artificially raised to show warming when in fact there was none or very little.
NIWA countered saying that they use “internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites.” Temperatures can vary widely from one location to the next, even over relatively short distances, so climate scientist compensate for this by adjusting the temperature records.
The government agency cited one case in which a station in Wellington was moved from Thorndon to Kelburn in 1928. The new site sits at an altitude 122 m (400 feet) higher than the previous one and is on average 0.8°C cooler thus requiring an adjustment upwards in the temperature from the date it moved going forward.
Six of the seven official monitoring stations have had their temperatures modified resulting in what NIWA says is a 0.92° C per century temperature rise. Without those adjustments, the data shows a negligible 0.06° C per century temperature rise.
In a statement, NIWA said, “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.”
The announcement of possible improper modifcation of climate data comes on the heels of the Climategate scandal involving Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia and many of the world's top scientists. Last week, thousands of private emails between scientists were released raising charges of collusion, data manipulation and falsifying of data.
- More information – NIWA: Combining Temperature Data from Multiple Sites in Wellington
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
Niwa explains one of the many stations in a reasonable manner (moved station to different elevation change = temp offset). But that does nothing to shed light on the adjustments to all the other stations that didn't get moved.
I agree with Eruditio - the explanation is lacking and also they don't make mention of the urban heat island effect that could be skewing temperatures at the new location. Adjusting so many stations by such large amounts just doesn't make sense.
What NIWA should also point out is that the weather station at the airport SHOULD be adjusted DOWN due to Urban Island Heat Effect. Lots of aircraft blowing heat can and does make a substantial difference to temp. readings. if you look at the graphs, the airport readings ARE CONSISTENTLY HIGHER than Kelburn.
This type of "trick" has been used (and debunked) many times by the IPCC
Note too that all the older readings have been shifted _downward_. If you really are compensating correctly for a move by shifting all readings subsequent to the move upward, you should be leaving the prior temperatures alone. Unless you want to create a false upward slope.
Not true, Bill. If the new station is moved to a cooler location, the older should be shifted downward, else you'd have to adjust every new reading until infinity. The current temperature should always be read as is. Vice versa for a station that goes to a warmer location. The old should be moved upward.
So we all know that the climate change people have an agenda, and that agenda has little reliance on ethical and factual observation and reporting. So what? Does anyone think that will stop the coming taxation and elimination of freedoms that will be applied to all of us because of global warming? Of course not. I don't know why we even talk about it any more. We're done until someone decides to do something decisive to insure your freedom and well being and I don't see that coming in the near future.
Flat-lined data irrespective of altitude and sensor change implies to me that the data were already calibrated, and the upward trend may be due to calibrating the data twice.
So where is this set of "internationally accepted techniques" documented?
I mean... other than the climategate e-mails ;)
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!