More "modified?" climate change data

[Erik Mesoy]

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

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

Highlighting mine, to which I say like the blogger: THE DATA, PLEASE. SHOW YOUR WORK. It is up to you to justify yourself, not (just) to "people that come out with truly unfounded allegations", but to general public scrutiny. Your results are supposed to be replicable. You and your staff do most certainly not seem have "the utmost integrity".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your results are supposed to be replicable.

This. The backbone of science.

 

[El_Machinae]

This shift seems to be reasonable, though, doesn't it?'
Edit: nevermind, I wasn't paying attention to the Y-values, just the relative difference between the airport & kelburne.



to




Though it's the consistent Kelburne data that seems to be really important when talking about 20th century warming.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I rescaled the graphs to the same size with GIMP, green-ified the unadjusted one for easy contrast, and overlayed them with partial transparency. Here's the result:


mandatory ad


Weird things are happening at several places. The first low bar is practically identical on both graphs, then the scaled data is a good deal lower for a while, until the scaled data becomes higher about 1972, stays slightly above until around 1988, and then decreases below the original again. Before and after the mentioned year of 1928 the scaling doesn't seem to change much (eyeball: -0.4°C or so) despite the mention of an 0.8°C adjustment.

Explanation, please?

Animated .gif with varying transparency:

Spoiler :

ignore this

You can extract the scaled images from that if you want to check them.

 

[illram]

I've generally found that the more pissed someone gets when you accuse them of something, the more likely it is they did it.

 

[ArneHD]

I could find this story on any big name websites. Is it breaking news?

Edit: Better source Erik. The one you have presented is not good enough for me, I'm afraid.

 

[Till]

Erik:
What's weird about it? There is no reason to assume that the graph of the raw data resembles the adjusted one. Remember that we are looking at the average of graphs from several stations - each (presumably) with unique, non shape preserving adjustments.
The 0.79° change only applies to the Wellington station.

Unless NIWA guys release the changes for the other stations, we can just speculate. I do think that they should release them to peer review, if they haven't done so already. Making them accessible to the general public may be more trouble than it is worth, as squadrons of layman will rummage through it, looking for further "scandals".

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Arne: Yes.

Posted by iwishart on November 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM

That's 10 hours ago if my conversion from New Zealand time is correct.

Till: But the resemblance is there. I agree that they should release the data, emphatically so when there are multiple variations to be explained. If they haven't already "lost" it, or deleted it to avoid having to comply with the local equivalent of a Freedom of Information act, or the like. *mutters darkly*

 

[Till]

Erik: The point i was trying to make is that the raw data is useless by itself. If stations were relocated, as the Wellington data shows, you have to make adjustments. Without it the graph is meaningless, and it is pointless to compare it to the official one. You can't even detect all true variations this way, because graph segments might be affected by multiple changes, which cancel each other out.

 

[uppi]

Why do Climate Change deniers always have to make it so obvious that they fail science that bad?

Maybe I should compare the temperatures in the Sahara from 1950 to 1990 and add the temperature in Greenland from 1970-2008. Voila, Global Cooling! I'd be famous! (not with the right people, though...)

 

[Berzerker]

Why do Climate Change deniers always have to make it so obvious that they fail science that bad?

Maybe I should compare the temperatures in the Sahara from 1950 to 1990 and add the temperature in Greenland from 1970-2008. Voila, Global Cooling! I'd be famous! (not with the right people, though...)

actually if you used those dates and measurements it would show global warming, we were in a cool period from ~1940-70 and we've been warming since

 

[innonimatu]

Erik: The point i was trying to make is that the raw data is useless by itself. If stations were relocated, as the Wellington data shows, you have to make adjustments. Without it the graph is meaningless, and it is pointless to compare it to the official one. You can't even detect all true variations this way, because graph segments might be affected by multiple changes, which cancel each other out.

The unreleased "raw data" in this case is, I assume, the corrections applied to each station and the reason that was done, for each case. The temperatures have apparently already been published. Unfortunately it has always been the rule, rather than the exception, in science (outside mathematics) not to include the algorithms and calculations done on the raw data when publishing a paper. Be it for lack of space, unwillingness to help "competitors" (yes, that happens, and it's worsening), or fear of having some error found.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Why do Climate Change deniers always have to make it so obvious that they fail science that bad?

I don't see any deniers here, just people insisting that science be done properly, and it's the credulists (tit for tat) who are failing badly at science.

I could find this story on any big name websites. Is it breaking news?

Edit: Better source Erik. The one you have presented is not good enough for me, I'm afraid.

By now it's in NZ newspapers The Standard, which is taking the "LIES AND TREASON" position, and The Scoop, which is acting as a mouthpiece for skeptics, so I'm afraid neither of those is very good as a source in itself. Google News points me to The Examiner, which I'm not sure if counts.
Nonetheless, NIWA's response makes it look like the charge is correct, since they're defending modification rather than denying it.

Anything specific you want a better source for?

Unfortunately it has always been the rule, rather than the exception, in science (outside mathematics) not to include the algorithms and calculations done on the raw data when publishing a paper. Be it for lack of space, unwillingness to help "competitors" (yes, that happens, and it's worsening), or fear of having some error found.

The original article says "NIWA intendeds to release data regarding the Kelburn weather station tonight, but will not release other data", so it doesn't seem to be lack of paper space, at least.


I went hunting for a more original source and got this PDF, which also sets out how various stations were modified:

  Trend: ºC per century 
Station  Unadjusted  Adjusted  Difference 
Auckland  +0.22  +0.62  +0.40 
Masterton  +0.47  +1.10  +0.63 
Wellington  -0.51  +0.28  +0.79 
Nelson  -0.23  +0.47  +0.70 
Hokitika  -0.13  +0.76  +0.89 
Lincoln  +0.02  +0.89  +0.87 
Dunedin  +0.69  +0.54  -0.15

There are also graphs of the specific modifications which look like this:


This doesn't really match up with the example given for the adjustment of Thorndon, where the whole graph was moved downwards; the adjustment line here is wobbly.

 

[luiz]

I expect plenty of "adjusted" data to show up in years to come.

 

[El_Machinae]

Man, I can't find anything approximating this on the Environment Canada website. A nice graph of average temperatures over the years ...

Though luiz, even honest data will be adjusted. "Adjusted" should not have scare-quotes. The issue is whether the adjustments are logged & if they are verifiable.

 

[luiz]

Man, I can't find anything approximating this on the Environment Canada website. A nice graph of average temperatures over the years ...

Though luiz, even honest data will be adjusted. "Adjusted" should not have scare-quotes. The issue is whether the adjustments are logged & if they are verifiable.

I understand. By "adjusted" with scare-quotes I mean suspicious adjustments such as this one. In the case of Wellington they bothered to explain why an adjustment was necessary, but what about the others?

They should explain all adjustments in detail, not only the reason behind them but also the mathematical calculations. Otherwise it is bad science.

 

[uppi]

I don't see any deniers here, just people insisting that science be done properly, and it's the credulists (tit for tat) who are failing badly at science.

If the deniers want science to be done properly, they should lead by example and not create graphs that are screaming science fail like the one in your OP.

I am pretty sure they published the method they were using to create these adjustments. Go read it and come up with your own set of adjustments and explain why your adjustments are more valid than theirs and then you have a discussion basis. The graph in your OP is a worse lie than Global Warming proponents have ever made.

 

[uppi]

actually if you used those dates and measurements it would show global warming, we were in a cool period from ~1940-70 and we've been warming since

way to miss the point.

 

[Murky]

You're not doing a apples to apples comparison here. Of course graphs covering different lengths of time will look different. This is a common denier tactic and a way to misrepresent the data to back up the wrong conclusions.

 

[innonimatu]

You're not doing a apples to apples comparison here. Of course graphs covering different lengths of time will look different. This is a common denier tactic and a way to misrepresent the data to back up the wrong conclusions.

And is it a common apologist tactic to use a weather station installed on a rooftop within an airport, within an airport, to represent late 20th century temperatures and consider that equivalent to an early-20th century station?



We all know how cities tend to be hotter than the countryside, and it's easy enough to see how that difference has been increasing as more surface area is paved over and motorized transports increased the releases of energy within cities. Do "apologists" of AGW correct station data for this?

Have any of the apologists actually read any of the leaked files? This, for example? Does it look like science? To me it looks like the efforts of someone who does not have any reliable data and is picking, choosing and manipulating what he has in order to produce results similar to those presented in previous papers. In other works, making up stuff as he goes along. So the people at the CRU really don't have the data to back their own papers. No wonder they'd been refusing to release what they did had.