• Full Story

NZ temp review by NIWA 'not valid' - Critics

Print

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 5:35a.m.

Climate change sceptics have poured cold water on Niwa's claims an independent review has backed up the science used in its analysis that New Zealand temperatures have risen nearly 1degC in the last 100 years.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) scientists last year used analysis of long-term measurements from seven weather stations showing warming -- backed up by other observations, including measurements from ships - to indicate climate change in New Zealand.

On Friday the state-owned science company issued a peer review by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, which was carried out to ensure the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency.

Niwa chief executive John Morgan confirmed that the scientists from the bureau's National Climate Centre concluded that the results and underlying methodology used by his scientists were sound.

The series from the seven stations - Auckland, Wellington, Masterton, Nelson, Hokitika, Lincoln, and Dunedin - were reviewed in 1992, and then updated annually. They indicated a warming of about 0.9decC over the 100 years up to 2009.

But the Climate Science Coalition (CSC) dismissed the peer review, saying it did not go far enough and Niwa was overstating the Australian endorsement.

It was not a reanalysis of the seven station temperature record, said CSC spokesman Bryan Leyland.

"Such a task would require full access to the raw and modified temperature data and metadata, and would be a major scientific undertaking."

CSC had tried to get hold of the data but Niwa had told them it no longer had it on internal records, he said.

Trying to get meaningful data from seven widely separated weather stations for a meaningful national average temperature was not possible, Mr Leyland said.

He said Mr Morgan should resign for misleading people about the robustness of the review.

CSC would carry out its own review of the data in the New Year, Mr Leyland said.

Earlier this year Niwa said there were several reasons for adjusting the temperature record from specific sites, including introducing new thermometers or sensors to a weather site, and changes to its exposure caused by growing vegetation or urban sprawl.

Wellington figures had to be adjusted down when the official weather site moved up 120m in altitude in 1928 from the Thorndon waterfront to Kelburn, which is about 0.8degC cooler, on average.

Ignoring major changes in site location would produce wrong results, Niwa said.

"For the longer 'seven station' time series, adjustments to account for significant site changes are necessary in order to provide a meaningful estimate of New Zealand temperature trends," it said.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

04 Jan 2011 02:54p.m.

joes mama wrote:

//Wellington figures had to be adjusted down when the official weather site moved up 120m in altitude in 1928 from the Thorndon waterfront to Kelburn, which is about 0.8degC cooler, on average.

This can explain why its like 28c in wellington when the 3news weather chart only shows 21 or 22c, It gives wellington a bad name. FRAUD!!!

23 Dec 2010 03:43p.m.

TWE wrote:

It appears that Doris doesn't even know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. If you're going to try to name the 'fizzy' gas in some beverages at least use its proper name. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Aside from that, crack open as much champagne as you want, because not doing so will make as much difference as throwing a grain of sand in the ocean.

23 Dec 2010 12:22p.m.

Macca wrote:

Doris's personal brain tragedy is that I bet she's serious. As China adds more than NZ's total electricity generating capacity every 6 weeks...... NZ's ongoing tragedy? Very small brains.

23 Dec 2010 08:58a.m.

Doris wrote:

Just a side thought here. While the deniers may have scored a little victory -- a legal one, not a science-based one -- the threat of a fevered planet remains, and Christmas is the time to do something about it. Instead of opening bottles of carbon-rich champagne and beer (its what makes the bubbles) to celebrate the birth of the alleged messiah, drink still wine or, better yet, nature's elixir, natural water. We can all do our bit to save the world for our children, and forsaking our beer and champagne addiction is a small step in the right direction. Please, people, heed the science. Do the right thing.

21 Dec 2010 11:31a.m.

John. wrote:

Hi Michelle Hollis, If NIWA were so confident of the old series (as they stated publicly and to MP's Wayne Mapp & Nick Smith) why did they feel the need to reject most of Salinger's adjustments this time around, and why is it that they arrived at a different result this time? Looking at the new graph it appears most of warming occurred in the first half of last century. As CO2 levels have risen considerably since then, what is NIWA's opinion as to how a large increase in CO2 has led to a decrease in warming? As a result of this will NIWA be advising the government that CO2 appears not to be the main driver of temperature increase, and if not on what grounds does NIWA ignore the evidence contradicting the CO2/Temperature relationship ?

21 Dec 2010 10:11a.m.

Michele Hollis wrote:

A point of clarification from NIWA: All the raw climate data are at http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz. It's free for anyone to download. A spreadsheet of the adjustments, and detailed documents describing how and why these adjustments were made are available via http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record.

20 Dec 2010 10:37p.m.

V wrote:

NIWA never lies 'Yeah Right'

20 Dec 2010 01:52p.m.

TWE wrote:

Heh "James" is obviously confused about what the Scientific Method actually is, if he did the tiniest amount of reading he would know immediately that the IPCC and its supporters do not follow the Scientific Method. Plus, you won't find any 'good old-fashioned journalism' in the mainstream media these days. Getting the Bureau of Meteorology to do an 'independent' investigation of NIWA is meaningless because the BOM are just as dodgy as NIWA when it comes to massaging the facts to suit the agenda. Don't just resort to personal attacks on Bryan Leyland either (classic shoot the messenger tactics) he isn't the only member of the CSC, they do have climate scientists as well like Vincent Gray who was actually involved in the IPCC process! Get the facts before you try trashing a legitimate group attempting to promote REAL science.

20 Dec 2010 11:55a.m.

Craig keogh wrote:

Good to see TV3 put this story out there as you can see some of the warmists don't approve it may blow the whole co2 theory right out and embarras one or two peoplewho depend on it now? Another freezing winter here in England 4 in a row! It's called climate and it will happen if we are here or not! Craig Keogh. Dunedin & London

20 Dec 2010 10:48a.m.

Margaret wrote:

Climate Science Coalition? - a misleading name - Bryan Leyland is an electrical and mechanical engineer and power industry consultant. I suggest TV3 does some homework before giving such a very small and noisy minority so much space. Go to the NIWA website. Their scence is carefully and clearly explained.