Shine a torch, and watch the roaches run for cover……

Nothing here to suggest that NIWA accepted or adopted that feedback.

Using BOM’s ACORN-SAT criteria, those adjustments would NOT have been made e.g. there would be NO adjustments to Auckland (0.00, +0,02, -0.12, 0.00, R&S cumulative sum for Auckland -0.1, NIWA -0.62).

That is, BOM ACORN-SAT criteria makes even less site move step adjustments (after R&S application) than the R&S criteria does.

Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review
Page 30 – 31
Appendix A
The Rhoades & Salinger (1993) Method
Description of the method

Located here for anyone interested:-

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf

One of my “to do’s” is to get a better understanding of that process (it’s certainly clear enough) but I confess that at present I haven’t got down to the nitty gritty,.but I’ll keep at it from time to time.

Having worked with professional engineers, architects, law practitioners and such like, I learnt to recognize the boundary of my technical ability and from then on to defer to relevant expertise. I think perhaps NIWA (and climate science generally) should learn to do the same.

BTW, made an interesting discovery recently. Anyone in New Zealand can provide legal information as long as they don’t encroach upon the “reserved areas of law” as described in s6 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA), which covers the provision of advice in relation to the direction or management of legal proceedings. and don’t hold themselves out as something they are not e.g. qualified in law. I’ve always wondered what the limits were because I’ve been in the position to advise on council plan changes (and have done so by contract) but never knew the bounds in respect to Acts and Regulations even though I’ve had to have a working knowledge of several – now I do.

Requirements for offering legal services on the internet

http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/in_practice/practising_law/regulatory_advice/requirements_for_offering_legal_services_on_the_internet2

This could be useful in regard to the RMA (and perhaps the ETS).where in the RMA, conflicts can be resolved and agreements reached via mediation and independent hearing without needing to go to court.

An Everyday Guide to the Resource Management Act

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/

They do NOT adjust for a step (break point) LESS than 0.3. Prior to that in the HQ series they had made 0.1 C adjustments.

So if (hypothetically) the 2nd Alice Springs Min site move step at 2001/02 had worked out at -0.29 C, they would not have made an adjustment and the only adjustment this century would have been the weather adjustment at 2004/05.

From Trewin 049 page 96 pdf:-

10.6 Changes in surrounding vegetation – Alice Springs

The homogenisation procedure detected a large number of relatively small shifts, in both directions, in minimum temperature at Alice Springs in the post-1974 period (Fig. 29). There was no significant site move at Alice Springs after 1974, but the shifts matched multi-year rainfall variations quite closely, with a tendency for higher minimum temperatures in the years following very dry periods and lower minimum temperatures in the years following very wet periods.

Station photographs over the post-2000 period suggest that the height of vegetation (mostly grass) in the 100-200 metres around the immediate instrument enclosure varies considerably, being quite high during wet periods (e.g. immediately after the very wet 2000-2001 period) but almost non-existent after very dry years as occurred in the mid-2000s. A possible mechanism for this to affect minimum temperatures in the way observed would be for high grass to reduce screen-level wind speeds at the observation site, and therefore reduce mixing of the near-surface layer, reducing observed minimum temperatures (conversely, the absence of nearby vegetation would increase screen-level wind speeds and increase mixing of the near-surface layer).

All over the world, rain makes grass grow, so naturally wind speed, near surface mixing and therefore temperature are modified but that is no reason to adjust out the change, rather it should be recorded as such because the record is of weather, seasons and climate IMO.

This is quite different to say Albert Park where, as I understand, trees grew but they kept on growing. The Alice Springs grass on the other hand, grows when it rains, dries up when it doesn’t rain, grows again when it does and so on, that’s the nature of weather and grass – ask our dairy farmers about that.

Ken, as usual, showed zero understanding of the issues. To be honest, I suspect he still doesn’t understand what’s going on, or how he prompted us. Gareth is the same, but isn’t a scientist, so I suppose he has that excuse. I laughed when I saw Gareth had given a summary of the court case.

So getting back to motivation, thanks Ken, you were the catalyst that really got the Audit and court case moving.

The 1st +0.8 C Alice Springs Min step at 2004/05 is due to WEATHER (seasonal vegetation change)

The 2nd -0.3 C Alice Springs Min step at 2001/02 is due to SITE MOVE (“a few metres west”).

The NZCSET v NIWA case is essentially about (among other things) site move adjustments (as in the 2nd step above) but in the Australian situation, the site move adjustments can be secondary in magnitude to the weather adjustments (nearly 3x in that Alice Springs case).