NIWA didn’t use Rhoades & Salinger. We can prove it. They lied.
NZ Climate Science Coalition statisticians have uncovered evidence of scarcely believable deception from our National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA).
Last December, NIWA released a reconstructed NZ temperature series Report on the Review of NIWA’s Seven Station Temperature Series (“7SS Review”) (pdf, 8.5 MB). It has a fresh new graph (below) that’s all but indistinguishable from the previous graph. But that’s not the point.
The point is the new series is a lie.
It’s important to understand that NIWA have a Bible and they know how to thump it. Rhoades and Salinger 1993, Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes (R&S), is the NIWA Bible for estimating the effect of known site changes on temperature and rainfall measurements.
How do we know this? Because NIWA told us. Oh, how often they’ve told us! For they never tire of saying: “the adjustments to the multiple sites comprising the ‘seven-station’ series were calculated by Salinger et al. (1992), using the methodology of Rhoades and Salinger (1993).”
NIWA said one thing, did another
That wearisome statement appears in the Overview portion of the 7SS Review, in the discussion on each and every one of the seven stations, and R&S is mentioned as an authority many times in its 169 pages — nowhere does it mention any deviation from the well-established scientific methodology in R&S. Before the 7SS Review began, NIWA and its minister, Wayne Mapp, made it crystal clear in media releases and in answer to questions in the Parliament that they’d be using R&S to make the adjustments.
But NIWA didn’t follow Rhoades & Salinger. They did whatever they liked so they could show warming.
Why is it devastating? Because it proves that NIWA’s 7SS Review finds warming only by disregarding the statistical techniques it said it would use – Rhoades & Salinger. The reality is that New Zealand has had no strong warming for a hundred years, and NIWA lied to us.
NIWA has done the unthinkable and ditched the R&S methodology. From beginning to end, their statistical calculations largely ignore the scientifically validated procedures that are carefully set out in R&S and instead use unheard-of methods containing obvious flaws.
They use remote stations (up to 1100 km!) instead of neighbouring ones, unsymmetrical periods instead of symmetrical ones, annual data, when R&S is specific about requiring monthly data, ignore the R&S requirement to weight the averages according to the correlation with neighbouring stations and they use many years of comparison (up to 11!) instead of strictly one or two years.
It’s a complete shambles.
The 7SS Review was the subject of a specific $70,000 item in the Vote: Science estimates for the 2010-11 fiscal year. It was obviously the Parliament’s intention that these funds would be used in applying the best available science to the historical data. That was not done and the money was apparently spent instead on some “made-up” junk science with the object of deriving a warming trend which was the same as that shown in the old 7SS.
Is the Auditor-General watching?
This diversion of taxpayers’ funds will surely be of interest to the Auditor-General.
To verify the 7SS, NIWA wheeled in the 11SS, which they themselves invented with Jim Salinger, has data missing everywhere and is laughably unscientific. Far from substantiating the 7SS, the 11SS merely ruins NIWA’s integrity.
After we published Are we feeling warmer yet? (AWFWY) we asked NIWA what adjustments they had made to the temperature record. Their constant theme was that they had followed the scientific literature and we ought to know what it said.
When we asked what they’d done, they cynically cited the scientific literature that they did not follow. First they mentioned Salinger’s thesis (but it wasn’t there – think what that means!) and then R&S (which contained a good methodology, but Salinger hadn’t used it). Now we find that NIWA hasn’t used it, either.
NIWA lied to everyone
When NIWA announced the 7SS Review, they said they would use R&S for the adjustments. Fair enough. We waited for the report.
Now we have examined the report. They didn’t use R&S. NIWA lied to everyone.
It seems incredible that this agency has a monopoly on advice to the government on global warming when they’ve blatantly cooked the books to inflate the New Zealand temperature record. Who’s going to call them to account? Is their Minister paying attention?
The R&S paper dealt with two aspects of non-meteorological site changes: sudden change (e.g. relocation), for which it gave statistical techniques for offsetting adjustments; and gradual change (e.g. shelter, UHI), for which it advised firmly and unequivocally to omit the station.
They failed to do either. Can we ever trust them again?