The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued a press release:
New Zealand may not have warmed at all in the past 100 years, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in the international science journal, Environmental Modeling & Assessment. The paper, A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand, by New Zealand authors Chris De Freitas, Bob Dedekind and Barry Brill, covering the period 1909-2009, shows an increase of 0.28+/-0.29 °C/century, compared with the current official NIWA seven-station series (7SS) showing an increase of nearly 1 °C/century.
The government must take this new finding into account in future climate policy development, says Prof Robert M. Carter, a graduate of Otago University and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
Professor Carter explains: “To place a rate of warming of 0.28 °C in context, extensive geological datasets show that rates of temperature change have varied naturally by up to plus or minus 2.5 °C/century during the last 10,000 years (i.e., through the interglacial warm period that we currently live in). In other words, prehistoric rates of natural change has exceeded the warming in New Zealand over the last century by as much as ten times.
“Furthermore, the margin for error associated with de Freitas et al.’s warming estimate is plus or minus 0.29 °C/century. In other words, statistically, this is indistinguishable from no warming at all in New Zealand over the last 100 years.”
“The De Freitas et al. 2015 7SS New Zealand temperature record now being an established and peer-reviewed result surely requires that the Government incorporates it into future climate policy development,” said Professor Carter.
In 1980, Dr M.J. Salinger applied a new statistical technique of homogenisation to the period of New Zealand record between 1853 and 1975, using data from seven geographically spread observing stations. This seven-station series (7SS) showed a rate of warming of about 1 °C/century, which figure was subsequently widely factored into climate policy determinations in New Zealand.
In this new paper, the authors have undertaken an updated reanalysis of the 7SS record. They say they have followed strictly the statistical technique pioneered by Salinger (as published in a paper by Rhoades & Salinger in 1993), though incorporating subsequent data corrections identified in the scientific literature, and provide a detailed schedule of the adjustments that were made in their analysis.
Full paper available in our archives.
Views: 88
From the press release: “This seven-station series (7SS) showed a rate of warming of about 1 °C/century, which figure was subsequently widely factored into climate policy determinations in New Zealand.”
This is an odd claim. Can someone here give an example of a policy that considered the 7SS result? References please.
Unfortunately Bob Carter is demonstrating his complete ignorance of high school statistics. Assuming that the estimate of 0.28+/-0.29 °C/century is correct, the probability that there has been no warming is < 2.5% (i.e. extremely unlikely). It is untrue to say that this result is statistically indistinguishable from no warming at all in New Zealand over the last 100 years.
I can make no sense of the final sentence in the press release. The press release probably should have been edited by a professional.
NIWA should’ve used professionals on their 7SS record.
A linear trend, beginning 1909, of 0.28+/-0.29 °C/century says nothing of WHEN warming, or cooling, occurred.
The first part of the series is actually cooling (i.e. the trend CANNOT be extrapolated back in time). The second warming, the third no change (again, the trend CANNOT be extrapolated forward in time). If CO2 had been the driving factor of NZ temperature, the greatest CO2 change has occurred in the most recent years therefore temperature should have followed suit – it hasn’t. This even with a 0.4 °C boost from the 1997/98 El Nino.
Worse. the IPCC/MfE/NIWA CO2-based prediction found on NIWA’s “future scenarios” page is 1.8 °C/century starting 1990. This is over 6 times the historical rate of rise over the entire 7SS series and clearly absurd.
Whether minimal warming occurred in the NZ series or not is immaterial, fluctuations are to be expected. The critical issues are: when did any warming occur? and, why is there no present warming commensurate with CO2 rise and CO2-based predictions?
Answer: the man-made CO2-forced theory of climate is wrong for New Zealand at least.
[Simon] >”I can make no sense of the final sentence in the press release. The press release probably should have been edited by a professional.”
The final sentence is:
“They say they have followed strictly the statistical technique pioneered by Salinger (as published in a paper by Rhoades & Salinger in 1993), though incorporating subsequent data corrections identified in the scientific literature, and provide a detailed schedule of the adjustments that were made in their analysis.”
First element – “followed strictly the statistical technique”
Second element – “though incorporating subsequent data corrections identified in the scientific literature”
Third element – “and provide a detailed schedule of the adjustments”
Perfectly clear, second element includes UHI corrections, what can you make no sense of Simon?
Man of Thessaly,
Your eyes seem to have quite recovered.
They all do. No climate change measures would have been possible in New Zealand if the politicians and business leaders who sponsored and implemented them had known that our temperature has not risen in any unusual way for well over 100 years, because to do so would have meant pushing against an enormous weight of logic. To pretend that NIWA’s 7SS temperature record has played no part in the development of our unnecessary climate change policy is merely to prepare the ground for eventually admitting its fatal errors—a pretense that also displays a disregard for science.
Now, what would you say about the substance of this post?
It’s pretty tortured sentence construction.
I wasn’t aware that subsequent UHI data corrections had been made. Presumably an example of this is trees growing in Albert Park. I have always been puzzled why the paper’s figures are so much lower than any other estimate (e.g. BEST). It would seem to me that if you are going to make explicit UHI adjustments then you could probably use a larger number of periods for the site correlations. Some of the warming is being lost from too many imposed break-points.
Maybe I should actually read the paper some time.
>”the man-made CO2-forced theory of climate is wrong for New Zealand at least.”
Doesn’t hold true for Antarctica either. PhD thesis from Germany via Climate Etc:
‘Antarctic specific features of the greenhouse effect’
Holger Schmithusen
Abstract. CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of increasing CO2. The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957.
[Judith Curry] – “Current explanations for the cooling in Antarctica include ozone hole and the Southern Annular Mode. This thesis argues for a negative greenhouse effect (GHE), whereby there is more radiation emitted from the top of the atmosphere over Antarctica than by the surface. The reason this happens is because of a combination of temperature inversions (the temperature increases with height in the lower atmosphere over Antarctica) and the high elevation. The negative GHE is most prominent in austral autumn, because the stratosphere is still warm while the surface is cold. In spring the stratosphere is warmed up rapidly by the absorption of ozone, while the surface has just started to recover from its winter temperature, causing a strong negative GHE in October.”
Schmithusen explains the effect: >>>>>
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/06/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-transfer/#more-19219
PhD thesis from the Alfred Wegener Institut, Universitat Bremen
http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/edocs/00104190-1.pdf (link doesn’t work for me at present)
# # #
The atmosphere transfers excess energy from the tropics to the poles where the efficient energy transfer medium (GHGs) sends it out to space, as happens in the thermosphere i.e. GHGs are a coolant (CO2 refrigerant code R744).
>”CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times”
Except it is a totally ineffective forcing agent at TOA which is the critical climate change criteria according to the IPCC.
From the Schmithusen explanation:
“The term negative GHE might seem to sound odd, as we think of GHGs to act like a blanket for the planet, shielding terrestrial radiation from being emitted to space. “Anti-shielding” does not make sense. The following thought experiment demonstrates that GHGs can actually help the planet to lose energy, that would not be emitted without them: ”
“Say, there were no GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere. Clouds shall be neglected as well, to make things easier. The planet gains energy over the tropics (positive budget) and loses this extra energy over the poles (negative budget). The energy transport in-between is carried out by the atmosphere. The ocean, of course, also contributes to this meridional transport of energy, but this is not of importance here.”
In the wider context, the meridional transport of energy by the ocean is all important. This absorption and lag is what causes the surface imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) which in turn is what causes the TOA imbalance (0.6 W.m-2). LW emission and supposed “forcing” (actually ineffective) is irrelevant to this.
>”I have always been puzzled why the paper’s figures are so much lower than any other estimate (e.g. BEST).”
BEST does NOT adjust for UHI either. But BEST stays with UHI contaminated Albert Park whereas the 7SS (NIWA & De Freitas et al) moves to Mangere when better data becomes available. Uncorrected BEST Auckland has a lessor trend than NIWA’s Auckland. If corrected for UHI, BEST Auckland would have a lessor trend than De Freitas et al Auckland (my estimate).
>”It would seem to me that if you are going to make explicit UHI adjustments then you could probably use a larger number of periods for the site correlations.”
This is woolly Simon. The correction period is set by the raw data used for a site in a location e.g. Albert Park. The UHI correction is applied over the period within that data where the UHI has effect. This was applied by De Freitas et al but NOT by NIWA or BEST.
As soon as better data was available (Mangere), the 7SS moved the Auckland site from Albert Park to Mangere, hence the break adjustment.
>”Some of the warming is being lost from too many imposed break-points.”
Rubbish. The break adjustments are NOT “imposed” and are NOT within a UHI effected site e.g. Albert Park. UHI adjustment is NOT a break adjustment – read the methodology.
>”Maybe I should actually read the paper some time.”
Yes, good idea.
The break adjustments e.g. Auckland where UHI was prevalent in Albert Park (but not at Mangere), are necessary because of site moves e.g. Albert Park to Mangere. This is the accepted 7SS homogenization process for a location e.g. Auckland. UHI adjustment is an entirely different process.
>”The break adjustments are NOT “imposed” and are NOT within a UHI effected site e.g. Albert Park”
There might be minor site adjustments at Albert Park (can’t remember off hand). But these are well documented at all sites, all locations, and relatively non-contentious. The number of break adjustments to the 7SS is not an issue (never has been) because the reasons are well documented.
Not so in BOM’s ACORN-SAT. BOM make automated adjustments for undocumented statistical breaks (“imposed” adjustments), with comical results, see:
‘Scandal: BoM thermometer records adjusted “by month” — mysterious square wave pattern discovered’
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/scandal-bom-thermometer-records-fiddled-by-month-mysterious-square-wave-pattern-discovered/
Simon:
“I wasn’t aware that subsequent UHI data corrections had been made. “
They weren’t subsequent, they were made before the break-point adjustments, for obvious reasons.
“Presumably an example of this is trees growing in Albert Park. I have always been puzzled why the paper’s figures are so much lower than any other estimate (e.g. BEST).”
Yes, sheltering and UHI were both problems at the Albert Park site, as identified by everyone, including NIWA. Except NIWA made no attempt to correct for it.
“It would seem to me that if you are going to make explicit UHI adjustments then you could probably use a larger number of periods for the site correlations.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Please re-phrase if you want an answer.
“Some of the warming is being lost from too many imposed break-points.”
No, the opposite is true. If UHI and/or shelter is not first removed, then many break-points actually increase the trend greatly, by introducing artificial warming.
See here.
“Maybe I should actually read the paper some time.”
It’s always useful to read a paper before trying to comment intelligently on it, I’ve found.
[Simon] >”“It would seem to me that if you are going to make explicit UHI adjustments then you could probably use a larger number of periods for the site correlations.”
[Me] “This is woolly Simon.”
[Bob] “I have no idea what you’re trying to say here [Simon].”
I suspect that because Simon has not read the paper and therefore doesn’t understand the respective methods (break-point correction vs UHI correction) or the sequence of correction (UHI first), he is conflating the methods and getting himself in a tangled mess.
Even then, “use a larger number of periods for the site correlations” doesn’t make sense. The R&S “number of periods” is T = 1 and T = 2 years of monthly data i.e. only 2 periods of data for site corrections. This has nothing to do with UHI correction.
As Bob alludes, possibly we can expect a coherent clarification once Simon has actually read the paper and methodologies. We can hope.
Should be – “T = 1 and T = 2 years of monthly data i.e. only 2 periods of data for site [correlations]”
But this is AFTER correction for UHI which also requires correlations, target to comparators. Simon may actually have an idea of UHI correction that is intuitively on the right track when he says “you could probably use a larger number of periods for the site correlations” if he actually means “use [longer] periods for the [UHI] site correlations”. The latter is EXACTLY what is done in De Freitas et al.
Obviously UHI correction requires comparison of sites over the entire period of contamination which is many more than T = 1 and 2 years. De Freitas et al carry out the correction process, NIWA BEST and GISS don’t.
>”A linear trend, beginning 1909, of 0.28+/-0.29 °C/century says nothing of WHEN warming, or cooling, occurred. The first part of the series is actually cooling (i.e. the trend CANNOT be extrapolated back in time). The second warming, the third no change (again, the trend CANNOT be extrapolated forward in time). If CO2 had been the driving factor of NZ temperature, the greatest CO2 change has occurred in the most recent years therefore temperature should have followed suit – it hasn’t.”
Picture emerges with polynomial trends (source Bob D):
R&S vs NIWA 7SS polynomial trends
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcasr5o71gi5j1e/R%26S%20poly%20vs%20NIWA%20poly.png?dl=0
The temperature curve, whether R&S or NIWA, after 1950 (start of anthro attribution) is almost the inverse of the CO2 curve (not shown). New data has been added to the 7SS since that graph but the polynomial trend remains much the same.
CO2 is obviously NOT the NZ climate driver.
Professor Carter explains: “To place a rate of warming of 0.28 °C in context, extensive geological datasets show that rates of temperature change have varied naturally by up to plus or minus 2.5 °C/century during the last 10,000 years (i.e., through the interglacial warm period that we currently live in). In other words, prehistoric rates of natural change has exceeded the warming in New Zealand over the last century by as much as ten times.”
Someone tell the Vatican (expect talk-to-the-hand):
‘The Dark Green Shoes of the Fisherman’ – Written by Walter Stack, Quadrant Online on 08 July 2015.
[…] The following is a sample of some of the false or misleading statements, found on pages 18 to 37 — the Encyclical section dealing with “pollution and climate change”. Statements from the Encyclical are in italics [quotes here]. My comment follow in plain-face text.
Page 18:
“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” (page 18)
Multiple datasets show no statistically significant warming for over 18 years. The claimed warming over the 20th century is within past limits of natural variability. Current temperatures are still below those indicated for the Medieval Warm Period and well below those of the Holocene Climate Optimum about 6000-8000 years ago.
“In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events….”
This is simply misleading. The rate of sea-level rise has not increased from that of the pre-industrial period, while current sea levels are 1-2 metres below those of the Roman Warm Period and between two and four metres below those of the Holocene Climate Optimum. Multiple studies also find that the frequency and intensity of storms, blizzards, droughts, floods, tornadoes, and heat waves over recent years are all well within earlier historical limits of the past 150 years.
Page 19:
“…a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity….”
No evidence exists as to what portion of any warming is due to greenhouse gases and how much might be due to various other influences both natural and anthropogenic.
More>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-dark-green-shoes-of-the-fisherman.html
[Stack] – “Climate change hysteria, having debilitated science and heavily infected the media, NGOs, politics and sundry interest groups, now appears to have morphed into a virulent strain of fundamentalist belief to which even the Pope seems to have no immunity.”
[Judith Curry upthread] – “Current explanations for the cooling in Antarctica include ozone hole and the Southern Annular Mode.” [SAM]
7SS corresponds with SAM:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/aao/slp/samslpreanalysis19482011.gif
Lurkers, or anyone, who have looked at the 7SS polynomial trends upthread will have seen, hopefully, that the R&S trend line at 2010 is back where it was in 1909, AND, in the same phase.
>>Can someone here give an example of a policy that considered the 7SS result?
>They all do.
No, I don’t think so, not even in the vague way you describe, let alone the specific past warming rate of 1 C/century that the press release claims. NZ’s climate policy seems to be addressing international commitments (the Climate Change Response Act, which has no reference to NZ climate change), or some non-specific allowances for future climate change (Resource Management Act, National Policy Statement on Freshwater), or specific consideration of future sea-level rise (Coastal Policy Statement). The global average warming is relevant enough for all this legislation. Where has a past NZ warming of 1 C/century been ‘factored into climate policy determinations’ as the press release claims?
I grant you, the 7SS warming is mentioned in the recent discussion document for the public consultation on the new emissions target, but I think you’d be overstating its importance to say that the decision this week relied on it.
>Now, what would you say about the substance of this post?
I haven’t read the new paper (like Simon :-)) or studied NIWA’s method, and as I say above I don’t think NZ’s climate policy depends on the amount of past warming here. But I think NIWA are more likely to be right than de Freitas et al, mainly because the 7SS rate is pretty similar to the global rate (which is very robust, and has survived a lot of skeptical inspection). It would be unusual (though not impossible) for NZ to have remained unchanged while the rest of the world warmed.
T Man >”Where has a past NZ warming of 1 C/century been ‘factored into climate policy determinations’ as the press release claims?”
“historical observations” below:
Downscaling to New Zealand
To identify likely future climate changes across New Zealand, projected changes from global climate models are statistically downscaled. This is a method for building in local spatial detail from information at the much coarser-scale available from GCMs. Historical observations are used to develop regression equations that relate local climate fluctuations to changes at the larger-scale. These historical observations are then replaced by the model changes in the regression equations to produce the fine-scale projections. Downscaled changes were prepared on a 0.05° grid (approximately 5km by 4km) covering New Zealand.
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios
However I don’t think the 7SS is specifically used at all for this, probably NIWA’s VCS which starts 1972. Less than 1 C/century since 1972 in that and no warming recently.
But it’s the same 7SS methodology that forms the basis of other datasets used to determine historical NZ climate. From NIWA again:
Climate variations over the last 140 years
“Surface temperature trends for New Zealand and parts of the South West Pacific can be reconstructed from land and marine surface temperature observations made since 1860. More complete climate data exists for much of the region since the 1940s. Salinger et al (1995) have homogenised and analysed trends in South Pacific island temperature and rainfall. Surface marine data have been taken from an updated version of the Global Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (GISST) marine data set (Rayner et al., 1995). All these records have been homogenised to remove any artificial trends as far as possible (Folland et al., 1997).”
“In the New Zealand region (T3) the magnitude of warming between the decades 1861 – 70 and 1981 – 90 is 1.1°C. Temperatures increased sharply after the 1940s, but annual mean warming has slowed recently.”
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate
The warming has now ceased but the policy continues.
>”I haven’t read the new paper (like Simon :-)) or studied NIWA’s method,………..But I think NIWA are more likely to be right than de Freitas et al,”
Therefore you have absolutely no knowledge on which to critique de Freitas et al or assess relative merits.
>”mainly because the 7SS rate is pretty similar to the global rate (which is very robust, and has survived a lot of skeptical inspection).”
The inspection is only really starting in earnest, survived? no. The adjustments in global datasets don’t agree with each other for a start. This just goes on and on, suffice to say here that the global rate has no certainty. I would point out too that the 7SS is inserted as-is into CRUTEM4 and therefore HadCRUT4 so it contributes to the trend in this part of the world at least.
>”It would be unusual (though not impossible) for NZ to have remained unchanged while the rest of the world warmed.”
Not unusual and certainly not impossible, and same for a large portion of what you describe as “rest of the world”. Upthread (see German thesis) you can read of the “non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957”, cooling according to Judith Curry. Reasons include Southern Annular Mode (SAM). I provided links to 7SS polynomial trend and SAM. 7SS tracks SAM.
Note also the “negative” greenhouse effect in this region.
Man of Thessaly,
Of course it does. It would be seen as insanely insular explicitly to relate our efforts to our “own” climate, and activists have a much easier job of persuading our do-gooders to assist in the climate “battle” precisely because the 7SS shows strong warming here. There is no impediment to believing that all “determinations” of policy include consideration of our own temperature history (and take NIWA uncritically at its word). In fact, it’s impossible to believe they ignored it.
But we still must face the fact that the 7SS uses the wrong method and thus vastly overstates the warming.
Your grasp of policy is impressive but you will note that I made no such assertion. Again, it’s unthinkable that everyone ignored it and, if I did so assert, it might overstate the importance but would not fabricate it. I’m saying the warming in the 7SS is a ubiquitous factor even if it’s never cited in the finished documents.
So you’re no scientist. Bold, though, for how do you know NIWA’s method has no defects?
As I say above, neither do I, and yet I do see an inevitable, powerful influence.
With the greatest of respect, Man of Thessaly, this matter has nothing to do with your thinking, nor with any ranking of NIWA against these authors, nor with any similarity you might see in the rates of warming, but only with the evidence, calculations and logic of this paper. Nor will I be drawn into the diversion you offer of discussing the global rate of warming, which doesn’t of course exist, as it’s a whole collection of competing rates. As to survival, NIWA’s 7SS does not survive the scrutiny of this paper.
Actually, it’s not only possible, but perfectly normal, for in a chaotic system of numerous data points about half will move up, half will move down and half will stay the same. I’m sure you get the point and perhaps you can spot my deliberate error.
So we are left with this remarkable paper with its substance still undiscussed. Do, please, get on and read it then let us know your thoughts. Ask a scientist for help if you need some (that’s what I do). Then you might see how it challenges your beliefs. But do come back; tell us.
>”the 7SS is inserted as-is into CRUTEM4 and therefore HadCRUT4″
CRUTEM4 Temperature station data
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm
Code 41, Station count 13, New Zealand Homogenized series , NIWA, New Zealand
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record
‘Seven-station’ series
‘Eleven-station’ series
[NIWA] >”These historical observations are then replaced by the model changes in the regression equations to produce the fine-scale projections.”
Problem being the “fine-scale projections” work out to be 1.8 °C/century from 1990 out to 2040 (see NIWA’s future scenarios page). BEST-NZ 37SS rate in their monthly data since 1970 is 0.72 °C/century. Moving annual mean trend 0.96 °C/century. Note the 0.24 C difference just in monthly vs annual data i.e. the data should not be smoothed.
But since 1972 – 1997 the moving annual mean trend was -0.024 C/decade and 1997 – 2013 -0.156 C/decade. The 1998 solar-fueled El Nino produced a +0.4 C shift in between hence the overall positive trend.
BEST vs NIWA moving annual trend 2004 – 2013 is 0.027x vs 0.0573x i.e. a disagreement. Minor problem because the real disagreement is with the “fine-scale projections” on which policy certainly is based having “replaced” the historical observations (the default data).
I am totally unsurprised by the finding of a mere 0.28°C of ‘warming’ over the past century. All that I read tells me that the arguments for runaway global warming have no basis in any credible science and my observation of the way the world works tells me that the evidence for alarm of any kind is non-existant.
The real picture of a greening planet, stable tides and burgeoning agriculture is a case for hope, not dismay.
But that would not suit those of a Green disposition.
Alexander,
Yep, it’s seriously weird. But I should point out a typo in your comment: the paper finds warming over the previous 100 years of 0.28°C, not 0.8°C. You’ve managed at a stroke to increase their finding by nearly two thirds. Much like NIWA. If you like, I can go behind the scenes and wordlessly change it for you. Just let me know. I won’t even mention it.
>”I’m saying the warming in the 7SS is a ubiquitous factor even if it’s never cited in the finished documents.”
Yes, a political lever especially at NIWA. But the 7SS didn’t start with warming originally though (still doesn’t). NZCSC’s ‘Are We Feeling Warmer Yet’ (AWFWY) featured NIWA’s Figure 7 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 dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm
NIWA’s response to AWFWY was:
NIWA Media Release 26 November 2009 – “Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S00055.htm
Well yes except Figure 7 showed that the “past century” trend starts at a cool phase i.e. the 19th century cooling portion of the graph tends to detract from the “unequivocal 20th century warming” message. So now when you go to NIWA’s website the original Figure 7 7SS graph has disappeared taking 1853 – 1909 with it. In it’s place is the 7SS from 1910:
Figure 7: Mean annual temperature for New Zealand, calculated from NIWA’s ‘seven-station’ series. ……………The black dotted line is the linear trend over 1910 to 2010 (0.96°C/100 years).
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate
But the unhomogenised raw data (AWFWY) returns a statistically insignificant 0.06°C per century since 1850. AWFWY states “there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s”. I disagree. There’s cooling from about 1880 – 1940 and warming from 1940 – 2000ish.
Here’s the thing – There is no necessity whatsoever to homogenize that revised 7SS data because NIWA’s flagship product, Virtual Climate Station Network (VCSN), does NOT homogenize station data:
Virtual Climate Station data and products
https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/our-services/virtual-climate-stations
VCS starts 1972 and has an identical profile to BEST-NZ from then on (I’ve checked and can provide spreadsheet) because VCS methodology is similar to BEST’s (except the adjustments) and in fact predates it. So when you look at BEST-NZ and NIWA-VCS from 1972 you are effectively looking at unhomogenized 7SS data PLUS numerous other unhomogenized stations (BEST 37, VCS many more).
1972 is the start date because the raw data is good quality and can be used as-is from then on. Even BEST adjustment since then is minimal which is why the profiles are identical. VCS uses raw data from CliFlo and any other weather station data that can be accessed, it’s a massive data gathering exercise.
So given NIWA’s VCSN precedent, it is not necessary to homogenize raw data when numerous stations are included. From 1972 on, BEST-NZ monthly data is an identical profile proxy for NIWA’s VCSN, just that the absolute values differ but at a constant offset. Just substitute VCSN with BEST for trend analysis.
As upthread, BEST-NZ (NIWA-VCSN) 1972 – 1997 moving annual mean trend was -0.024 C/decade.
This is NOT “unequivocal” warming over New Zealand through the past century by NIWA’s own unhomogenized VCSN flagship product. The political lever has been NIWA’s specious linear trend in the homogenized 7SS.
>”VCS methodology is similar to BEST’s (except the adjustments)”
BEST adjusts arbitrarily by their circular “regional expectation” rationale. This gets silly for NZ prior to 1970, and in some instances not so good elsewhere after 1970 either. Fortunately NZ data is not so easily corrupted over the latter period.
GISS aren’t put off however. Here’s their CO2-forced model-based adjustments to Gisborne Aero:
At 1963 the cumulative adjustment is 0.7
At 1968 the cumulative adjustment is 0.6
At 1972 the cumulative adjustment is 0.5
At 1975 the cumulative adjustment is 0.4
At 1980 the cumulative adjustment is 0.3
At 1982 the cumulative adjustment is 0.2
At 1986 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2001 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2002 the cumulative adjustment is 0.0
There is no valid reason for adjustments of this nature. And there is no resemblance to the BEST adjustments to the same station: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157058
More here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/temperature-records/
[T Man] >”It would be unusual (though not impossible) for NZ to have remained unchanged while the rest of the world warmed.”
Except the “rest of the world” has not necessarily warmed. I’ve already provided the example of non-warming (cooling) of central Antarctica since 1957 upthread. Here’s another example:
‘Temperature adjustments in Australia’ – by Euan Mearns, March 17, 2015
Using the excellent web platform provided by NASA GISS it is possible to access GHCN V2 and GHCN v3 records, compare charts and download the data. It does not take long to find V3 records that appear totally different to V2 and I wanted to investigate this further. At this point I was advised that the way homogenisation works is to adjust records in such a way that a warming trend added in one station is compensated by cooling added to another. This didn’t sound remotely scientific to me but I clicked on Alice Springs in the middle of Australia and recovered 30 V2 and V3 records in a 1000 km radius and set about a systematic comparison of the two. The results are described in detail below.
In summary I found that while individual stations are subject to large and what often appears to be arbitrary and robotic adjustments in V3, the average outcome across all 30 stations is effectively zero. At the regional level, homogenisation does not appear to be responsible for adding warming in Australia. But the thing that truly astonished me was the fact that the mean temperature trend for these 30 stations, 1880 to 2011, was a completely flat line. There has been no recorded warming across a very large portion of the Australian continent.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/17/temperature-adjustments-in-australia/
Selected points:
# In Alice Springs the raw record is flat and has no sign of warming. In the adjusted record, homogenistaion has added warming by significantly cooling the past. Five other stations inside the 1000 km ring have similarly long and similarly flat records – Boulia, Cloncurry, Farina, Burketown and Donors Hill. There can be no conceivable reason to presume that the flat raw Alice Springs record is somehow false and in need of adjustment.
# Six records show a significant mid-1970s cooling of about 3˚C (Alice Springs, Barrow Creek, Brunette Down, Cammoo Weal, Boulia and Windorah) that owing to its consistency appears to be a real signal. Homegisation has tended to remove this real temperature history.
# The average raw temperature record for all 30 stations is completely flat from 1906 (no area weighting applied). There has been no measurable warming across the greater part of Australia. The main discontinuity in the record, pre-1906, arises from there being only 3 operating stations that do not provide representative cover.
# Homogenisation appears to have added warming or cooling to records where neither existed. Homogenisation may also have removed real climate signal.
# I find zero warming over such a large part of the Australian continent to be a surprise result that is consistent with Roger Andrew’s observation of no to little warming in the southern hemisphere, an observation that still requires more rigorous testing.
euanmearns | March 17, 2015 at 12:33
By way of a little further background. This post is a bit rough around the edges in part because it is a huge amount of work to clean the V3 data where large amounts of records are deleted and many are “created”. I was also feeling my way trying to make sense of how to treat the results. I have since moved on to look at Southern Africa and I hope these results will also be posted here. Excluding urban records that show warming trends, southern Africa looks like central Australia.
One thing I want to try and nail is how the likes of BEST manage to create warming from temperature records that are flat. I ventured on to Real Climate a few weeks ago and was told repeatedly that what GHCN and GISS were doing must be correct since BEST shows the same trends.
I have completed analysis of S S America and Antarctica that have yet to be published. All this pretty well confirms Roger Andrews observation that there is little warming in the southern hemisphere which I find is a real puzzle.
# # #
The de Freitas et al result is actually consistent with vast areas of the Southern Hemisphere
[RT]> There is no impediment to believing that all “determinations” of policy include consideration of our own temperature history
The impediment is that it doesn’t seem to be relevant. That’s why I said “references please” in my original question. As an aside, I note you put “determinations” in quotes. I also wondered exactly what this word means in the context of the press release. I’m starting to think that whoever wrote it doesn’t actually know much about climate policy.
[MoT]>> the 7SS warming is mentioned in the recent discussion document for the public consultation on the new emissions target, but I think you’d be overstating its importance to say that the decision this week relied on it.
[RT]> … you will note that I made no such assertion.
I wasn’t referring to you, Richard. Reword it as “one would be overstating…”. Sorry for the sloppy language.
[RT]> it’s unthinkable that everyone ignored it
Not so, I’m thinking it right now. It just doesn’t seem relevant to any climate policy.
[RT]> I’m saying the warming in the 7SS is a ubiquitous factor even if it’s never cited in the finished documents.
You don’t have to show it cited in the finished policy; just show me a policy where it might even be relevant! If the NZCSC thinks the actual warming rate is “widely factored into climate policy”, and you think it’s “an inevitable, powerful influence”, surely you can provide an example. Richard C quoted some NIWA information pages; not policy. I’m not sure what he means by “a political lever”.
[RT]>>> Now, what would you say about the substance of this post?
[MoT]>> I haven’t read the new paper… But I think NIWA are more likely to be right than de Freitas et al
[RT]> With the greatest of respect, Man of Thessaly, this matter has nothing to do with your thinking
Mate, you asked me what I thought about it! I don’t see much point in discussing the paper: I’m not interested in deconstructing the two analyses any time soon, but clearly either NIWA or de Freitas et al is wrong (or perhaps both?). Your view is clear; I’ve stated mine. My point here is that either way, I don’t think the 7SS has the influence on policy that the press release claims.
>”Richard C quoted some NIWA information pages; not policy.”
T Man, government policy is based upon IPCC reports, MFE & NIWA advice (the latter laid out on their information pages). What else can it possibly be based on? Why do you think the IPCC assessment summary is titled SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (SPM)?
Clearly, within NIWA’s case above the notion that NZ is warming at an extraordinary rate has been promulgated.
>I’m not sure what he means by “a political lever”
This is naive T Man. A “political lever” is what is used by anyone wanting to prise out funding or obtain a specific policy outcome from government. NIWA has a vested interest in keeping MMCC-based policy going in order to protect their revenue stream of alarm-based funding for man-made climate change research.
The entire UN FCCC/IPCC modus operandi is “a political lever”. It is predetermined science and conclusion. There is a mandate for finding human cause and to get national governments to implement policies based on CO2-forced warming and sea level rise. This is falling apart now that the CO2-forced models have failed spectacularly and the rate of warming has flattened. Natural variability has caught up with the IPCC (and NIWA, and the MfE, and the NZ govt) just as MMCC sceptics have been shouting at them but they didn’t want to know. Now there’s screeds of papers trying to explain the lack of warming. The IPCC even offers natural variability and solar change as 2 of the reasons for model failure (Chapter 9 Box 2).
The temperature datasets, 7SS is but one, provide the historical background on which attribution is based and the ongoing check against the models. The land+sea data has undergone so much alteration that it is no longer representative of actual climate. Fortunately now we have 2 satellite series, RSS & UAH, to provide an alternative. Guess what? lack of the predicted warming.
It is clear that there has been no alarming NZ warming whatsoever i.e. no alarm-based policy required.
>”The temperature datasets, 7SS is but one, provide the historical background on which attribution is based”
7SS and 11SS providing the 13 NZ regional datasets for HadCRUT4 as shown above.
And after attribution, policy follows.
It is ironical that Prof Jones the “midwife of global warming” had for 20 years with his CRUTEM2 data published a NZ trend that was vastly less than NIWA’s 7SS.
Hadley Centre inserts more warming into New Zealand climate history – May 2007
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=113
OT – I have just posted on a dusting of snow near Kaikohe – do readers have any other reports of rare snow from this event. SE Oz as far as Qld is forecast to be hit tomorrow by an Antarctic like blast.
Wazz, from your post linked:
CRUTEM2 New Zealand: 1864-2005, -0.086/1.4 Century
This indicates to me that the NZ data CRU used was NOT homogenized. Is this correct?
The CRUTEM2 NZ graph is similar, but not the same as the unhomogenized NZ graph in AWFWY:
AWFWY unhomogenized NZ
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/docs/awfw/Image2.gif
CRUTEM2 NZ
http://i2.wp.com/www.warwickhughes.com/agri/nz4gridscomp.gif?zoom=1.5&resize=444%2C224
Once you go back further than the early 1900s cool phase you get to the late 1800s warm phase. I suspect this is another reason why NIWA started their unhomogenized flagship VCSN at 1972. It would not be a good look if their proprietary series was as warm in the late 1800s as it is now.
The unhomogenized data e.g. AWFWY, CRUTEM2, VCSN, reveals the real historical NZ climate in my opinion.
>”This indicates to me that the NZ data CRU used was NOT homogenized. Is this correct?”
By this I mean sites amalgamated into locations as per 7SS/11SS. CRU doesn’t divulge their source data openly for CRUTEM2 (that I know of) as they do for CRUTEM4 but what they do say seems to support the above:
CRUTEM2 – What are the basic raw data used?
“Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used.”
“Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem2/
Says nothing about location homogenization. Jones and Moberg (2003) is:
Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate 16, 206-223.
This paper should clarify whether there was any location homogenization in CRUTEM2.
>”location homogenization”
In which NONE of the values, except for the location reference site, is measured data i.e. it is fictitious, no longer “data”, and pertains to no thermometer at the location. The thermometer at the location reference site did NOT measure the location-homogenized values.
So if for an imaginary location of Metropolis, the reference site is Metropolis Airport. The first site was Old City Post Office, next Metropolis Gardens, next Metropolis Water Treatment Plant, and finally the most recent open reference site is Metropolis Airport.
Now say there was a record hot year for all of Metropolis recorded at Old City PO at the beginning of the series. Because the cumulative adjustment to Old City PO required to amalgamate all four sites into one location series was -1 degree Celsius, the record hot year no longer appears in the Metropolis location series.
Thus record hot or cold CANNOT occur in homogenized temperature series except for the reference site for the location.
I suggest everyone unfamiliar with the concept of location homogenization thinks about this for a while. Let the realization sink in and settle.
To understand CRUTEM2 we have to go back to the origins of CRUT –
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/index.htm
there are links to the list of NZ stations considered on page 54, 55, 56.
Then the NZ stations actually used are on page 71 & 72. ~1880 stations were used for both hemispheres.
This next page has many links to help follow the evolution of Prof Jones work over the years.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crudata.htm
In 1994 CRUT global station numbers were expanded to ~3555 – there were ~1226 additions shown in a 1996 file. Prof Jones released no new data files that I was aware of (that includes after Jones & Moberg 2003 when I think the term CRUT2 came into use and 5159 stations were used). I am not aware station data has ever been released for CRUT2 Jones & Moberg. Staggering to think about.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem2/
After birthing CRUT3 in 2006 the UKMO was under pressure and released info showing 4138 stations – so UKMO gave quite a haircut to CRUT2. Then the 2009 Climategate leaked FOIA files revealed station data for the 1999 revision/update of ~2665 stations. So it became clear that after the 1994 and 1996 huge expansion of global station numbers there was a severe pruning in the 1999 file before expansion again in J & M 2003.
How big CRUT4 is I do not know.
So to turn back to NZ – I would expect that most extra stations used in the plethora of versions over the years post 1986 would be in the “stations considered” list for 1986.
The only times I am aware that Jones et al work has been reviewed was by Wood in 1988 – who by bad luck spent too much time on USA data and ignored USSR data.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/wood.htm
And my 1991 effort looking at how Jones et al conjured warming from Australian data – most of it is digitised here
http://www.warwickhughes.com/1991/targw.htm
Enough for now.
Jones and Moberg (2003) is here:
http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~yzq/books/paper5_IPCC/Jones2003.pdf
NZ doesn’t get a mention specifically so i assume NZ data is unhomogenized GHCN. Might become clear looking at the explanation of the inclusion of 7SS & 11SS in CRUTEM3. Then the explanation should read similar to the inclusion of Canada’s homogenized data in CRUTEM2, see:
c. Homogeneous Canadian temperature data (page 4 pdf).
CRU’s CRUTEM3 revision and update paper might be worthwhile reading in this respect.
Interesting Table in Jones & Moberg:
TABLE 2. Temperature change explained for each continent by the linear trend over several periods. Trends are expressed in 8C decade and in bold if significant at the 95% significance level. All start years are before 1861 except for Australia, Africa, and Antarctica, and their start years are given in parentheses.
Continent 1977–2001 [2.5 decades]
0.055 Australia [0.14 total]
0.284 Africa [0.71 total]
0.125 South America [0.31 total]
0.080 Antarctica [0.2 total]
Widely disparate, moderately large and quite small rises. Now Europe:
0.425 Europe [1.06 total]
Europe’s rise is 7.5 times Australia’s minimal rise over the 2.5 decades 1977–2001 in CRUTEM2.
>”Then the NZ stations actually used are on page 71 & 72.”
Thanks Warwick, I remember now. You’ve linked to this paper previously:
Jones PD , Raper SCB, Goodess CM, Cherry BSG, Wigley TML, (1986) TR027 A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere. Office of Energy Research , Carbon Dioxide Research Division, US Department of Energy. Under Contract No. DE-ACO2-79EV10098
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/index.htm
NZ stations are:
Kaitaia Airport
Auckland
Gisborne Aerodrome
New Plymouth
Napier
Wellington
Nelson
Hokitika Aerodrome
These aren’t location-homogenized. They are long-running sites, none of which continue after 1984.
Plus
Christchurch
Invercargill Aero
Dunedin
Campbell Is
Chatham Is
Raoul Is/Kermadec Is
Masterton
Lincoln College
Thanks to Warwick for compiling the index to CRU sites above. The original CRU site selection for NZ is the similar wide diverse cover that NIWA’s VCSN provides (mainland only).
Separate sites, unhomogenized to location, warm-cool-warm.
Then along came the 7SS & 11SS…………
>”CRU’s CRUTEM3 revision and update paper might be worthwhile reading in this respect.” [GHCN raw superseded by 7SS/11SS]
CRUTEM3/HadCRUT3 update is this paper:
P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. (2005)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
New Zealand doesn’t get a mention. Says nothing at all re the transition from GHCN to 7SS/11SS. Seems to indicate the transition did not occur in CRUTEM3. I thought it did, the 7SS was been around long before 2005. NIWA states”
“The last overall review of the seven station adjustments was performed in 1992”
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data
CRUTEM4 is described in Jones et al. (2012). 7SS/11SS is definitely in CRUTEM4:
CRUTEM4 Temperature station data
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm
CRUTEM.4.0.0.0
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/previous_versions/4.0.0.0/CRUTEM.4.0.0.0_release_notes.html
GHCN to 7SS/11SS transition must have been CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4 around 2011/12. ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ is dated July 2011.
CRU implemented NIWA’s 7SS/11SS into CRUTEM4 (superseding GHCN) just at the time when NIWA’s 7SS methodology was being shown to be substandard by the NZCSC.
Richard T:
MY APOLOGIES!!!
Careless typing, terrible proof reading!
”The 11SS — a Dog that didn’t bark’
January 5, 2011 \ by Richard Treadgold
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/01/the-11ss-a-dog-that-didnt-bark/
Turns the dog did bark. It barked in CRUTEM4 2011. It’s still barking.
“Careless typing, terrible proof reading!”
Terrible, terrible! ☺ (Change made.)
Thanks, Richard T.
My kids tell me that I am an expert when it comes to making unintentional gaffes!
Extraordinary comment thread:
‘EPA head: We don’t need to justify our regulations with data ‘
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/epa-head-we-don-t-need-to-justify-our-regulations-with-data.html#comments
Take a look.
“Extraordinary comment thread:”
What’s INMCM4?
>”What’s INMCM4?”
Russian Academy of Sciences climate model. It’s one of the 3 in this graph tracking HadCRUT4 (x) and RSS/UAH (o) at Surface this century (111 of 114 didn’t according to AR5):
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=500
However, at tropical mid troposphere INMCM4 (blue) is the better one :
http://www.redstate.com/files/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-620px.png
INMCM4 on the same trajectory as the satellites until about 2020 but a little warmer than the satellites. Takes off a bit after 2020. Remember, solar was held constant for these simulations and there’s no ocean oscillation effect either.