Interesting nuances in IPCC groups treatment of New Zealand temperature data

We have all seen the news that The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a newly registered arm of the Coalition, has filed a claim in the High Court seeking a declaration to invalidate the NZ Temperature Record, currently promoted by NIWA, and featured on its website.

It is fascinating the the Jones et al global temperature compilations which date from the 1980’s and are the series that fathered “Global Warming” – did NOT incorporate adjustments/corrections anything like those warming tweaks of NIWA.
Now the Jones et al global series ended in 2005 as CRUT2 and from 2006 the UK Met Office took over the data. The UKMO DID introduce warming adjustments/corrections very similar in magnitude to those used by NIWA.
This blog article of mine from 2007 points out the degree of warming over different timespans for two selections of grid cells covering New Zealand – for CRUT2 – CRUT3 (UKMO) and NIWA.
So we see, the very most emminent of experts – simply do not agree. So it may not be that simple for the New Zealand High Court.

4 thoughts on “Interesting nuances in IPCC groups treatment of New Zealand temperature data”

  1. Warwick

    What would it take to get a public airing of the arguments behind the homogenization techniques BoM employs on temp data sets here in Aus?

  2. I think a lot more media power than sceptics have a handle on. Remember back to late 2009 and how long it took the MSM to address Climategate – after ignoring the issue for weeks there was only grudging and distorted mentions.

  3. Warwick, given all the years of your effort dealing with an unrelentingly tendentious foolishness, I truly admire your grip on sanity.

  4. I see Richard Treadgold commenting on recent developments in NIWA’s attempt to generate a new New Zealand Temperature Record NZTR. This official NIWA page highlights two series they have published over the years.
    I find it a bit amazing they so quickly back away from these – generate something new – which we have not seen – and then say it will be “peer reviewed” by the BoM. Talk about getting Dracula to audit the bloodbank.
    The Australian BoM can not even generate a simple climate dataset for use by the Australian Energy Efficiency Industry. Talk about the “tangled webs we weave”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>