Thanks. I’ve asked for an expert opinion.

Quote
“Ask yourself this: are the two examples shown on the pages you cite actually applied to the NZ temperature record (NZTR)?”

I have already downloaded the data they provide for the seven station series, and yes, they use the data from both those examples. You might try doing it yourself. Plot the data and compare it with what they have for Wellington and Auckland . You will find them to be identical!

We asked NIWA two questions: What changes did you make? Why did you make them? NIWA have given us the numerical adjustments, but no clue as to why each adjustment was made. They (through Dr Mullan) have recreated the Hokitika adjustments, although they are not what Salinger did. They are yet to provide reasons for the remaining six stations, though they have said they would “recreate” them. We will never know the reasons for the original adjustments done by Salinger.

If you were reviewing their adjustments, you would ask why they were made, wouldn’t you? You would be especially keen to see their justifications once you learned that the raw data contains no trend until the changes are made. Boy, you’d double-check those changes really well, I bet!

They have offered examples since November, but we didn’t ask for examples, and that’s it in a nutshell.

Ask yourself this: are the two examples shown on the pages you cite actually applied to the NZ temperature record (NZTR)? If you think they are, please locate the precise statement from NIWA that says so. In fact, there is nothing on those two pages that says those examples are actually applied to the NZTR. The language they use is nicely ambivalent, but, to be blunt, Chris, they are bluffing. If they were not, they would say clearly “these are the changes”.

So you see it’s very simple, but because most people trust our public servants to do the right thing, they miss the fact that NIWA is using clever, ambiguous language and become frustrated, then they get angry at us. But we’re just asking the questions that we first put to NIWA last November. We will keep asking until we get answers, because we simply want to review the national temperature record.

Cheers.

Here is the links:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record/why-climate-data-sometimes-needs-to-be-adjusted/combining-data-from-multiple-sites-in-auckland

and

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/why-climate-data-sometimes-needs-to-be-adjusted/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington

and

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data

Chris, only here will you learn that the NZ Climate Science Coalition always knew that adjustments were necessary, and why. Please remember that after seven months we’re still waiting for NIWA to answer our simple questions: what changes did you make and why did you make them?

Thanks for your comments.

People are always quick to throw wild accusations. We all need to do a little thinking first!

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/why-climate-data-sometimes-needs-to-be-adjusted

It does seem that Renowden is distancing NIWA from the 7SS; I’ll dig up some statements from Wratt and Smith that demonstrate their past reliance on it.

It’s easy to see that the earliest readings were lowered, resulting in a high rate of warming. Ninety per cent of the adjustments NIWA made went to increase the rate of warming. One would expect to see about 50% going each way, if the adjustments were made without prejudice, or randomly.