Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations, and State Enterprises — National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) has been the subject of many questions to both the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Minister in the chair right now, Wayne Mapp, over the last 7 or 8 months.

NIWA is responsible for maintaining our climate records, having taken over this function from the Meteorological Service of New Zealand in 1992. In the early to mid 2000s NIWA produced a graph showing that New Zealand was warming even faster than global averages. This new temperature series, which was based on only seven measuring sites throughout New Zealand, showed that the warming trend in New Zealand was 0.9 of a degree centigrade per century.

The New Zealand Climate Conservation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition combined to investigate the New Zealand temperature record. They started with the official graph and the raw temperature readings, both published on NIWA’s website, and they found that there were big differences between them. The raw data, which is simply the data of the temperatures recorded over the last 150 years, showed no trend whatsoever—no warming. It was only the adjusted data that showed the 0.9 degree warming. There was no explanation of the differences on NIWA’s website.

Most of us will know that there are very many good reasons to adjust data. There may be gaps in the series, the site for temperature readings may have shifted, or there may have been a change in the environment, such as tarsealed car-parks, or a change over time from rural land to urban land. There can be valid reasons for making adjustments, and the technical term for these adjustments is referred to as a schedule of adjustments. It is quite normal to have a schedule of adjustments and, in fact, it is essential to have a schedule of adjustments because it helps us to keep track of the reasoning behind those adjustments and it allows other scientists to cross-check the work that has been done.

But this is where it gets interesting. When NIWA was asked to produce the schedule of adjustments, it became very evasive. When it answered requests, it talked about the standard reason for making adjustments and it referred to numerous papers and methodologies for doing so over the last 20 or 30 years. But NIWA refused to provide that schedule of adjustments to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition when it asked for it, just over 12 months ago. At that stage the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the New Zealand Climate Conservation Group approached the ACT Party seeking assistance. We asked questions of the Minister for Climate Change Issues and also the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. We tried oral questions in Parliament, and we received evasive answers. We tried written questions, and again there was evasion. We asked ourselves what they were trying to hide. All we wanted was a schedule of adjustments for the official climate series, so that scientists, not politicians or political parties, could check the analysis. All we wanted was some basic science.

As scientists, NIWA should have welcomed the scrutiny of its data and its methods. Instead, it blocked us at every step. It eventually became clear that NIWA simply did not have a well-organised database with an accessible, up-to-date, or defensible schedule of adjustments. It also became clear that NIWA was in breach of its statutory obligations under the Public Records Act.

What we know is that the raw data showed no warming in New Zealand whatsoever. I see the Minister of Research, Science and Technology is nodding his head.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: No; shaking my head.

I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the temperature records of the New Zealand Institute, which are maintained by the Auckland Museum, showed a temperature of 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit in 1868, which is 12.9 degrees Celsius. A century later the same record shows 12.7 degrees Celsius. In essence, there is no warming. One may ask why this is important. It is important because in 2 days’ time New Zealand will join the expensive experiment that is the emissions trading scheme.

I think that speech could be characterised by the member who has just resumed his seat confusing the shaking of one’s head with the nodding of one’s head. Most people can tell that when someone shakes their head they are disagreeing with someone. If they are nodding their head it would imply that they are agreeing with someone. Apparently Mr Boscawen cannot tell the difference between those two actions. I think that probably goes to the very heart of the ACT Party’s confusion on this issue of temperature records.

It is simply untrue to suggest that the data is in any way faulty, flawed, or erroneous, or that it does not show any climate change. The member has asked literally dozens, if not hundreds, of written questions on this issue, and has been provided with extremely extensive information. However, he still trots out his interpretation of that information, and I believe the ACT Party, to its embarrassment, will have its campaign to discredit the temperature records of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) disproven by the science.

I want to take members, and indeed the public, through three key points about the data. There are two series involved here. The first is The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series. The oldest record goes back to 1858 and, as has been indicated, it has been subject to adjustments, for a variety of reasons. Sites have shifted. One site in particular in Wellington in 1928 changed altitude by 120 metres, from Thorndon to Kelburn. It is an a priori fact that when altitude is changed, there is a change in temperature, and therefore adjustments have to be made. I acknowledge that Mr Boscawen acknowledged that. A schedule of adjustments is necessary.

💬 John Boscawen: Why did you do the reverse with Hokitika?

The second point I want to deal with is the issue raised by the interjection, which is the situation of Hokitika. The first point is that the work on this series was originally done by Dr Jim Salinger as part of his doctoral thesis. It was extensively peer reviewed at that time, and more recently, because it was acknowledged that the seven-station adjustment was largely dependent on Dr Salinger’s dissertation and therefore should be reviewed.

What was the outcome of the recent review of data from the Hokitika station? There was less than one-tenth of a 1-degree variation between Dr Salinger’s work and the review. I suggest to members that that variation is not particularly significant. The institute is doing the same exercise on data from the other six older stations, and it will provide an up-to-date schedule of adjustments. The variation will be not terribly significant, I would suggest, in line with other work by NIWA.

The second key issue is that there is an 11-station series, actually the most important series, running from 1930 to the present. The member well knows that that series is not adjusted, and that is the critical point. It is an absolute comparison of the past with the present, because the sites have not shifted and are virtually all in rural areas. In fact, one of them is at Raoul Island.

What does that series show? It shows a temperature increase of 0.92 degrees Celsius from 1930 through to the present. It is one of the fundamental foundations of the science in this area in New Zealand, and I suggest to members there is no way that the ACT Party and its supporters will be able to rebut the veracity and accuracy of that series. It is unadjusted; it is taken by high-quality instruments; it does show an increase of 1 degree Celsius; and the rate of change broadly mirrors the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I suggest that this is much ado about nothing. The ACT Party is trying to raise a debate about a problem that simply does not exist.