Thread: Errors in surface temperature records. Corrections coming.

It is good news for improving accuracy in surface temperature readings. This article summarizes the errors in New Zealand's official historical temperature trend since the 1860's and indicates that corrections are likely in the works. This is good news for accuracy in climate research, perhaps one day the global trend can be considered reliable.

Crisis in New Zealand climatology

The problem:

The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The reason it matters:

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

Or not...

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-warm...ceptics-wrong/

Adjustments to the numbers are coming indeed.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Hon Rodney Hide, a climate sceptic who is a Minister in the current Government and leader of the junior coalition partner, the ACT Party, has called upon his ministerial colleagues to formally repudiate the NSS and to withdraw all publications and formal papers which are based on the spurious warming trend of 0.92°C. The Government has not yet responded to this challenge.

The 0.92C warming trend is not spurious unless and until proven to be so. I'd suggest waiting to see the outcome of the study.

The study is completed, the conclusions are drawn. This is a "project" to produce a "new" more accurate record.

Originally Posted by cypress

The study is completed, the conclusions are drawn. This is a "project" to produce a "new" more accurate record.

Sorry, must have missed that. Do you have a link to the study and its conclusions? I've googled quite a bit and can only find, for instance, NIWA's quite plausible sounding rebuttal of various accusations. I haven't found any serious study that's been done, so any additional info would be appreciated.

No Bunbury I would agree you will be unable to find a "serious study" that suits you.

I don't understand. Please explain what you mean, and provide some sort of evidence that a study of New Zealand temperature records has been performed that shows there is a problem. This is a straightforward request. I have found plenty of blogs that talk about "fraud" and so on, and a speech by a New Zealand government minister making some accusations and a response to that by the people accused. But no study. I am asking for your help in finding this.

Edit: Never mind, I think I've found it:

http://www.climateconversation.words...warmer_yet.pdf

A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, from a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Originally Posted by Bunbury

The 0.92C warming trend is not spurious unless and until proven to be so. I'd suggest waiting to see the outcome of the study.

I would say the 0.92 warming is also not proved. Throwing our spurious data... What if they are throwing out data they shouldn't?

If you have a sudden large drop in temperature, by what reasoning can you prove it should be thrown out? It is "spurious" by definition.

Why does raw data need adjusted? I would say those deciding how to adjust the data are likely more wrong than simply using raw data, averaged.

What sigma are they using? At what point is data spurious? Is it realistic?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why does raw data need adjusted?

Did you read the first link I posted? There are links within that link that clearly explain what was done and why for one of the sites in detail.

Originally Posted by cobra

Why does raw data need adjusted? I would say those deciding how to adjust the data are likely more wrong than simply using raw data, averaged.

I agree that you would in fact say things like that, on that basis (that you don't know why they do what they do).

What I find puzzling is that you seem to be proud of the fact.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Why does raw data need adjusted? I would say those deciding how to adjust the data are likely more wrong than simply using raw data, averaged.

I agree that you would in fact say things like that, on that basis (that you don't know why they do what they do).

What I find puzzling is that you seem to be proud of the fact.

If the data was good to begin with, no adjustment is needed. Adjustments introduce error, of which can be manipulated by those who are skilled.

Tell me what I missed. Give me a short summary why the data needs manipulation to be correct.

Wild Cobra, there is not much point in arguing about the results, the adjustments or the reasons the adjustments might have been made. A study was completed, it has quietly been decided that the current compilation is in error. The researcher who generated the data is no longer working there and a project has been commissioned to generate a new record set using peer-reviewed methods with transparency. All that is left is to wait to see what the new results look like.