This time in New Zealand.
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:
But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
In this case, there *may* be a good explanation for this:
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.
However, once again the raw data is not being made available, nor are the codes used to analyse the data. Now, if this was being done by a private organization on their own dime, then they can do with the data whatever they like, including hiding it from the public. If this was being doen by the government, but the results were for some military program that requires secrecy, then again keeping it from the public would make sense. but this is being done using taxpayer funding, for a reason that is far from secret. There is no good reason to not release the raw data.
6 Responses to “More climate data goofiness”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Oopsie! And yet another case of “pay no attention to the data under the rug!” syndrome. This just keeps getting gooderer and gooderer.
In this case, there *may* be a good explanation for this
It’s a cast-iron explaination. I’ll provide the links:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise
That’s where you got your quote from. There’s also this on that page:
“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.”
And this page explains what all the kerfuffle was about:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington
Very basic science. Either the NZ ‘skeptics’ are dense or they’re prone to falsehoods.
However, once again the raw data is not being made available, nor are the codes used to analyse the data.
Raw data is here: http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
As for analysis – that’s the job of whoever wants to look at it. Besides, if you look at the way a correction had to be made because of the movement of monitoring sites the raw code would probably have code to correct the temperature and fudge factors and people would start yelling “Climategate2! Climategate2!” – leading to researchers having to spend time talking to reporters and politicians instead of doing their job.
> It’s a cast-iron explaination.
Nope. Well… unless you’re referring to cast irons tendency to shatter when put under sudden stress when subjected to cold…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/
The NIWA seem to have put their new weather stations not only *in* *town,* guaranteeing a heat island effect… they put one of ’em next to an air conditioner, guaranteeing even further artificial heating.
And yet air conditioners and heat-island corrections don’t seem to be too much of a problem, so I’m sure NIWA manages:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/
>And yet air conditioners and heat-island corrections don’t seem to be too much of a problem
Of course they’re not. Just make up a number. So long as it trends the temperatures higher, you can park the thermometers inside blast furnaces and just add a ‘correction.”
Here’s the thing: there are *rules* regarding surface station siting. These rules are reguilarly broken. But they are broken in a way that trends the temperature upwards. So once again you are excusing breaking the rules in favor of a system that leads to data trneding temperature upwards.
The station siting rules are there for a reason. But I guess that doesn’t matter. Why do real, rigorous science, when you can handwave some fudge factors into place?
A roommate encoraged me to check out this post, great post, interesting read… keep up the cool work!