Bishop Hill New New Zealand temperature records - no warming
Dec 21, 2010 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface Via Scoop, sceptics in New Zealand have persuaded the country's weather bureau to revise their temperature records.
NIWA has abandoned the official national temperature record and created a new one following sustained pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition and the Climate Conversation Group.
Spokesman for the joint temperature project, Richard Treadgold, Convenor of the CCG, said today: “We congratulate NIWA for producing their review of the NZ temperature record — more than a year after we challenged it — and we think it’s great that NIWA have produced a graph with full details behind it.
“But we note that, after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of the old temperature series has simply evaporated. They’ve finally given in, but without our efforts the faulty graph would still be there.”
Congratulations to everyone involved in this effort. What a triumph for citizen science.
And the punchline is this:
“NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century. For all their talk about warming, for all their rushed invention of the “Eleven-Station Series” to prove warming, this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960.
Read the full story here.
(H/T Messenger)
Reader Comments (55)
This is a big story in the long game... well done to everyone involved...
So there's been no warming during the last fifty years in NZ, and that's official?
Heh.
Look where NZ is on the globe - the Warming hasn't made it down to there as of yet, but it will surely come!!!
/sarc
Jiminy Cricket
"This is a big story in the long game... well done to everyone involved..."
Exactly, the new NZ data set was to be "peer reviewed" by the Aus BOM. If that has happened then the questions about "adjustments" to other data sets will follow.
We live in interesting, but cold, times.
Is this story accurate? 4 days ago NIWA claimed that the Aussie BoM "peer-reviewed" and confirmed the warming.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news
@FergalR
Here is the actual PR from Climate Conversation
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/news/december-20-2010/
It is directly as a consequence of the your link.
NIWA is spinning it one way. Climate Conversation the other. The key phrase in the CC PR is:
this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960. Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were falling during that period.
Whilst I am delighted that the truth is emerging regarding the official temperature record, I wonder if this new, more accurate, non-heating NZ record will be included in the official global records now instead of the flawed heating NZ record.
If so, then we need the same sort of audit on all global records.
@Jiminy Cricket,
Ah, thanks. Having read it again I realise that it's NZ warming while the rest of the world was cooling (and vice-versa) that's the point. That carbon dioxide sure is magical stuff!
It might be an idea to look at the NIWA's report:
www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108934/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series.pdf
The key points:
"The key result of the re-analysis is that the NZ-wide warming trend from the
“seven-station” series of about 0.9 °C/century is virtually the same in the revised
series as in the previous series"
and
"The variations in time of New Zealand temperature are consistent with completely
independent measurements of regional sea temperatures. There is also a strong
correlation between variations in New Zealand temperature and prevailing wind
flow, which relates closely to the abrupt warming in the mid 20th century, and the
slower rate of warming since about 1960."
Not sure of the basis of the "no warming since 1960" claim. It doesn't seem to be bourne out by the NIWA's report.
@Rain
It's pretty glaringly bourne out if you look at the graph on page 4, but thanks for playing!
Good afternoon Bishop,
A few months ago, I gave you a lead on this (and a successful court case taken by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition against NIWA) and you followed it up. At the time, it generated a hell of a lot of comments and I am delighted to read the great news now on a successful outcome.
Peter Walsh
And, he added sulkily, I didn't get a H/T for it either!
Peter
Well consider yourself hat-tipped!
Oh Bishop, he simpered, that is so so kind of you.
I am going to frame it and hang it above my computer so I can see it every time I log on to the most WONDERFUL Bishop Hill Blog.
Peter
How much other data will prove to be crap?
"this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960."
1960? Heard something about that date before? Something to do with divergence?
But hey ho, I am cold cos I am warm, and good old Sol is heading south for the hols, no need for Heathrow.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Am I missing something? The NIWA site claims no such thing as of 16/12/2010
In fact they claim the revisions make no difference to the 0.9DegC T rise.
WUWT??
Baa Humbug.
I wouldn't be surprised that NIWA isn't showing the adjusted temps and also a new graph for the old one. They have continuously obfuscated by not answering questions or giving confusing answers in order to avoid admitting their malfeasance in this matter. They must be sh***ing themselves as they have been found out in this untruth (may I say alleged lie?). Their jobs are in jeopardy and there is nothing like a scientist who has been found out in defending his back so they will carry on for as long as they can.
Andy Scrace, you are from NZ as I remember from the last NIWA discussion here. Can you help out with what is going on or may have been reported in the media in NZ please?
In the meantime, cud I suggest we keep an eye on the NZCSC site as they will be posting something pretty soon I have no doubt. I have been in touch recently with Dr Vincent Gray of the NZCSC re the lack of postings on their site. The man who vets/does the postings has been unwell since mid Nov but is back now and raring to go.
Peter Walsh
Since all seven Met stations are all seaside cities/towns, and the sea temperature has risen by 0.71°C (Fig 2, page 7); is it any wonder that the land temperature rise is approximately the same (0.91°C). i.e. there has been virtually no rise in land temperatures compared with sea temperatures during the period 1900 - 2009 (measured as 0.2°C). This is well within the range of measurement error.
The two graphs are so similar that one can postulate that Sea Temperatures around NZ are matched by the temperature readings of the coastal towns. They are wasting their time in bothering to measure the land temperatures.
If one takes the 1950 - 2009 period, by eye I would suggest the the rise is 0.1°C or 0.2°C and not the 0.71 of the 1900 - 2009 rise.
What caused the sharper rise in the sea temperatures during the first 50 years of the 20th century than the rise in the second 50 years. Was there more CO² 1900 - 1950 than 1950 - 2000? Or could it be something else?
Bishop,
Here is an extract from the NIWA item. This refers to Dr Jim Salinger as you will see. He was fired by NIWA for talking too openly I do know
I can't remember where, but some months back I saw a ref to Dr Salinger in relation to his method of calculating increases in world temperatures. Is he part of the IPCC panel, or is he in the UK twisting figures? I know he is still involved. Is his flawed method is being used elsewhere? If so what should be done about it?
“Almost all of the 34 adjustments made by Dr Jim Salinger to the 7SS have been abandoned, along with his version of the comparative station methodology
Join the dots: the now discredited adjusted data for NZ.
"Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Salinger once worked at CRU.
AJC
Thanks, it has now clicked with me, he worked at the UEA before moving to New Zealand.
So does that mean that the UEA should be approached and asked what Jim Salinger actually did there?
How about an FOI request, he said, nearly falling off the chair with laughter.
Peter Walsh
Peter
Just sent email to Andrew Revkin suggesting that he address the NIWA revisions on DotEarth as follows:
"Mr. Revkin, NIWA is the New Zealand National Institute of Weather and Atmosphere and is the keeper of New Zealand's official temperature series. After considerable dispute, NIWA has revised its published record for the last approx. 100 years with a result that New Zealand shows a very small amount of warming. The new series is provisional because NIWA still has two steps to take before the project is complete:
Complete the calculations on confidence intervals;
Publish its methodology which is to be peer-reviewed.
The full article is available at www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
The NIWA records had often been cited as proof that AGW exists. I submit that the results of this review are worthy of mention on DotEarth because it represents a significant step away from the prior argument that NIWA's result were a significant proof of AGW. It is worth noting that this change came about because NIWA was forced to release its methodologies which were found to be wanting. The result was recognition that New Zealand has experienced very little warming since 1960.
Thank you for your consideration.
RayG"
Two points to consider about the reviewed NIWA temperature series:
1. The review of the "seven-series" temperature series shows a 1909-2009 trend of 0.91C/century, unchanged from the original.
2. The NZCSC's apparent discovery of an "admission" that "New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century" is clearly a spin to salvage something from the fact that the series -- and the trend -- remains largely unchanged.
NIWA news item: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/7-station-series-review
(The "New Zealand temperature record" label is misplaced. These are datasets generated from records.)
@Brendan H - this still means some kind of explanation is required for the earlier increased warming rate and the later reduced rate since c.1960, when the radiative effects of GHGs should have been kicking in most strongly.
And 0.9 deg C over a century in total isn't really much to write home about, especially if some proportion of it is natural variation.
Peter Walsh,
There has been nothing reported in the NZ media on this, to my knowledge.
I am a little bit on the fence. There is a bit of spin on both sides. The before and after graphs don't look significantly different to the untrained eye. In that respect, the "no warming since 1960" statement would hold true for both graphs.
I think we are hoping to see the methodology and error analysis published.
I am also interested by the statement from the Australian BoM that was included in the report from NIWA: (page 13)
The review does not constitute a reanalysis of the New Zealand ‘seven station’ temperature
record. Such a reanalysis would be required to independently determine the sensitivity of, for example, New Zealand temperature trends to the choice of the underlying network, or the analysis methodology. Such a task would require full access to the raw and modified temperature data and metadata, and would be a major scientific undertaking. As such, the review will constrain itself to comment on the appropriateness of the methods used to undertake the ‘seven station’ temperature analysis, in accordance with the level of the information supplied.
The full NIWA report is here (169 pages, pdf)
The Salinger connection is interesting. A quick Google for "Dr Jim Salinger NZ" is illuminating. I particularly liked ...
Call for NIWA to be disbanded (Sunday, 1 April 2007, 3:14 pm)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00001.htm
Two more interesting Salinger hits ...
NIWA disowns Salinger thesis
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/04/niwa-disowns-salinger-thesis/
The Curious Case of the Missing Thesis
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/the-curious-case-of-the-missing-thesis/
Follow the "adjustments" would seem to be in order. Lots of Salinger and Jones papers.
Beyond the NIWA comment that the growth rate is slower after 1960 is there any real split in the report between the two halves (or a 60/40 split) of the century? Of the 0.91 degree increase how much is during the low CO2 increase period and how much in the high CO2 period after 1960?
Can someone help me interpret the Raw/Adjusted plots in the NIWA report?
Page 26 (as reported by Acrobat Reader) shows a Figure 8 depicting raw and adjusted temperatures for Auckland. I'm trying to determine the linear trend of the green line. Looking at Table 1 on page 15, I can use that data in an Excel spreadsheet for the years 1910 to present. My rough cut based at the yearly level reveals a slope of 0.839 C per century.
The adjustment of .84 C/c exceeds the raw trend of ~.7 C/c. It sure would be nice to see a single chart with temps from 1910 to present for all stations, not just this piecewise melange.
Your readers provide interesting, perspicacious comments! But a few points should be clarified:
1. The new Temperature Record (NZT7) should be termed "provisional" until the justification has been independently peer-reviewed and published, as promised by NIWA earlier this year. Also, and this is important, NIWA say that they are still working on the 'statistical confidence intervals'. All the indications are that these margins of error will be large. Until they are calculated, the Provisional Temperature Record carries no credibility as a scientific document, so it's not possible yet to comment on the science of NIWA's review of the temperature record.
2. Morgan's press release also claimed that BOM's review ensured "the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency". This bears no relation to the extremely limited comment actually made by BOM on page 13 of the review document.
3. The comment about "no warming" since about 1960 is established just by looking at the new graph NIWA provides. It's not merely "spin," as someone suggests - it's what NIWA themselves graphically tell us. They show the graph; I think they mean us to look at it.
4. The amount of warming they find - 0.91°C/century - is not "small" as some say. It's 50% greater than the global warming of about 0.6°C over the same period. That is very significant, although the margin of error is 0.3°C. This is in spite of David Wratt (NIWA head of climate science) assuring the minister NZ can expect less warming than the globe, because of the presence of... what was it again?... oh, yes: the Pacific Ocean.
5. Although Dr Salinger invented a remarkable adjustment "methodology" which has been neither published nor replicated, he and it are out of the picture. NIWA have ignored him and done something else. Exactly what they've done we wait to see.
Cheers.
Richard Treadgold
You wrote a piece on WUWT last October, here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/
Is that posting still OK? Also, it looks like the raw trend from the 1850's to present shows no significant warming trend, but if the series is truncated to remove data before 1900, the warming trend, such as it is, is optimised? Is that not a tad mischievous?
To prevent conflating the two separate issues of scientific method and a conclusion of warming or cooling, this point should be made absolutely clearly:
Neither the NZCSC nor the CCG disagree with NIWA on the conclusions they draw, either from the original temperature series or from the review, of cooling or warming.
There was and is no basis for doing so, since the science of the old series was incomplete. As witness to that, they consistently refused, and in the end admitted they did not know how, to describe each adjustment made to the thermometer readings and the reasons for them.
So, not understanding the changes, we could not assess their accuracy - nobody could. Now that we have a new series, the game starts again - but they have yet to provide the error margins and a proper peer review!
Until then, we can comment on the science in only a general, circumstantial way.
Don't be fooled when warmists attack us for forcing a review which "shows" the "same" warming as before. No such thing was challenged by us and no such thing has yet been demonstrated. This review is a giant step forward, because you can see, in each station review, detailed graphs and other information that was totally absent in their previous offering. NIWA didn't even declare they had made any changes until we pointed it out!
Of course, the independent examination can only begin when the review is complete. I wonder when that will be?
Our victory was in forcing the review, not "proving" lack of warming. It was the lack of solid science that caused NIWA to stumble and thus forced the review.
The science's the thing!
Cheers.
Pharos,
Sure, if you're talking about the post I wrote that's appended, it looks all right to me.
Mischievous is the correct conclusion, remembering that the truncation was performed by NIWA on their adjusted data.
There's no trend in the raw data. Even if the raw series is truncated to 1910, there's still no significant trend.
Cheers.
Pharos,
The pre-1910 data is incomplete and unreliable; the Coalition scientists have said so for a long time. The unreliability is the likely reason it's finally been discarded by NIWA. So we really oughtn't to talk about truncation and mischief.
Cheers.
If you look at www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108934/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series.pdf , which FergalR claimed proved that NZ's temperatures were not rising the graph on page four shows the exact opposite and almost no difference between the old and the revised versions.
So where's the conspiracy? Where's the smoking gun? Where's the fraud and corruption? The evidence that the world is really cooling?
Come to think of it, where's the evidence that NZ isn't warming?
Try the graph on page seven for proof that it is, slightly more if anything than the rest of the world.
Not only that the whole report is peer-reviewed by the Australian authorities.
It took me, a non-expert, about five minutes examination of this report to discover all this.
You guys just make stuff up; making hysterical claims that on investigation turn out to be misleading trivial or in this case simply a lie.
This happens every time you claim something.
I don't know which is more appalling, your dishonesty or your ignorance.
You need to learn how to cross check information before posting. Your Scoops source is merely based on a press release from a "skeptic" group.
"Climate Science Coalition Vindicated
Monday, 20 December 2010, 9:50 am
Press Release: Climate Conversation
Climate Science Coalition Vindicated"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
This has little credibility unless backed up by a reliable source, like the NIWA itself. It's webpage, as others above have noted, seems to contract the claims you are reproducing. Thus you get a F in Journalism 101. Better luck next time.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record
For those of you who were quick to jump on the bandwagon, this is a chance for you to learn a great lesson. You now know not to trust the reliability of this blog and that is it always important to be skeptical and check the facts for yourself. You also can see the phenomena of confirmation basis at work in yourself. It is important to be self critical and double check especially those claims that you WANT to believe.
Now, it may turn out that the NIWA will issue statement confirming the Scoops claim. I cannot rule that out and I shall keep an open mind. But, until that happens you should be skeptical about the veracity of the claims Scoops has made.
macsporan,
You don't read what I write. You say:
Please show me where I use the words conspiracy, smoking gun, fraud, corruption, "the world is cooling" or "NZ isn't warming"?
Feel quite free to comment on what I actually said.
The "proof" you cite of warming is not scientific. Do you know why not? HINT: it's mentioned in what I wrote earlier.
When looking at the graph on page 4, which FergalR apparently used, what words of mine led you to mention it to me? You should take that up with FergalR, I think. Did I mention that graph is unscientific so far and "proves" nothing (neither warming nor cooling)?
The peer review by the BoM is the weakest offer of support short of outright rejection I can imagine. Have you read it? (Page 13 of NIWA's review.)
We don't "make stuff up." But if you think so, you should make at least some attempt to mention and to refute the incorrect statements instead of merely blustering. I find it quite hard to argue the points you don't describe.
You make, probably, an accurate statement in describing yourself as a non-expert; however, you don't mention the field in which you're a non-expert. Would you mind if we hazard a wild guess? Is it logic?
Cheers.
::waiting with baited breath for this yet another controversy to be resolved::
nothing has been clean and dry in climate science since I've been keeping up with it these 3 years.
Meanwhile in Australia, it is possible to pinpoint the influence of UHI at certain locations.
When that is removed, there are a number of well known locations that show no evidence of warming or cooling for upwards of 150 years.
woodentop: "...this still means some kind of explanation is required for the earlier increased warming rate and the later reduced rate since c.1960, when the radiative effects of GHGs should have been kicking in most strongly."
A poster above at Dec 21, 2010 at 11:15 AM has provided NIWA's explanation for this with a link.
Interestingly, in the light of claims about the passage in the NIWA PR: "...the ideas, methods, and conclusions stood up in terms of scientific accuracy, logic, and consistency", below is the conclusion to the BOM letter.
"In general, the evidence provided by NIWA supports the homogeneity corrections that have been applied to the temperature record to create the ‘seven station’ series. ...It is also clear that a number of significant adjustments (as identified by NIWA in the reports) are clearly required for the raw/composite station series owing to inhomogeneities which would otherwise artificially bias results."
A good deal of the fuss over NIWA's and other countries' temperature series has been over adjustments to raw data. Unsurprisingly, NZCSC glosses over the above support for NIWA's methods.
On a technical point, it is dangerous to look at temperature trends over spans of either 50 or 100 years.
That is because there is a 60 odd year zigzag moving through the climate records.
Starting at 50 years ago, 1960 was close to the low point in 1975.
Starting at 100 years ago was close to the low in 1911.
It is better to start in 1878, which gives you a peak to peak measurement (1878 to 2008, with the 1943 peak in between).
Brendan H,
You say:
I hope you've noted where the list of qualities comes from. It's from the BoM letter, where they're explaining the objectives of their peer review. But they do not affirm that NIWA's review passes those tests.
All they say is:
So the limited data provided by NIWA supports - but does not prove or justify - the corrections made. That is a feeble endorsement. Then they say:
All they say is that they've noticed the need to make adjustments; that's a world away from saying the adjustments are well-made. You say:
It's not surprising this should be so, since one can only tamper with a temperature series when taking the readings or making adjustments. But your next comment is priceless:
Support? Is that what you call it? We say it's weak to the point of flabby. That support belt is a single notch short of falling off. When NIWA provides the confidence intervals and publishes the methodology in a peer-reviewed journal, then we might see about support. Until then, they haven't done enough to earn support. There are holes, deficiencies, missing pieces. These are not requirements the CSC is placing on them, never satisfied, always looking for something to moan about. NIWA just haven't done all they said they would.
They're scientists; they're paid to do the science properly.
We'll applaud them when they do.
When that is removed, there are a number of well known locations that show no evidence of warming or cooling for upwards of 150 years.
Dec 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM | AusieDan
Evidence? Is this supported by official data and if so what is the authorities view on why that is the case? That sounds more of a potential smoking gun than the current state of play with NIWA which looks 90% spin so far.
Richard,
You might be interested in what an alarmist has to say about your continued challenges with getting anything out of NIWA here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperatures-a-dea.shtml#comments
Regards
Mailman
Mailman,
Wow! What a battle! Thanks for letting me know. This gives me something to get my teeth into next year.
Thanks for your tireless efforts! You're doing a tremendous job over there. Paul Briscoe is a fine adversary, but he's got confirmation bias coming out his ears and he's not listening closely to what we're saying. He's made several 'corrections' to the history of events.
He must stop thinking we're challenging the NIWA conclusion of warming. Although we doubt it, and we point to the lack of warming in NIWA's own graph(s) since 1960, we're actually asking NIWA what adjustments did you make and why. That's all. Now they've given us a new graph we start again examining the nuts and bolts of the science. We're waiting for the confidence intervals they promised, like the good scientists they are.
If you need information or I can help at all, just drop me a line.
Cheers.
@Mike - "Climate Science Coalition Vindicated" - This has little credibility unless backed up by a reliable source, like the NIWA itself. It's webpage, as others above have noted, seems to contract the claims you are reproducing. Thus you get a F in Journalism 101. Better luck next time.
But the Climate Science Coalition has been vindicated NIWA's claim that NZ has warmed is unsubstantiated. and the NIWA site seems to confirm and not contradict that claim.
You may find this interview interesting...
"Salinger doesn't feel critics' heat"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/3575763/Salinger-doesn-t-feel-critics-heat
""No, I'm not worried, because my research is based on facts, and I reach conclusions," the 62-year-old says confidently."
He emits a slight chuckle when sceptics such as Hide and the Climate Science Coalition are mentioned: "Science is about facts, not beliefs. I like to look at the facts and see what they say – if people want to attack me as a person, that has nothing to do with my science. It doesn't worry me."
He believes the critics are driven by agendas: "You can actually trace links with quite a few of them back to the oil industry."
"This whole group are trying to accuse me, and my overseas scientific colleagues, of fraud," he continues.
"Well, there is going to have to be a hell of a lot of people involved in this `fraud' ... They're trying to say the International Panel On Climate Change is a fraudulent activity, and in fact it's a very thorough process."
What am I not getting here? The "new" graph and "old" graph are almost entirely identical as far as I can see. How is this a victory?
I'm an AGW sceptic, but I'm also sceptical that this story is anything more than spin.
James Evans, you and I agree: I am a skeptic, see very little changed, and wonder about the presentation of the story.
James Evans and Suramantine,
Thank you for raising doubts about the "victory" we announced. Of course, you're standing solidly on the ground prepared for you by NIWA, who themselves continue to ignore what we've actually said. They rigorously refute the argument about the temperatures, when our argument is about how the temperatures were determined.
We said: "What changes did you make?"
They said: "You should not claim that adjustments are not required, when everybody knows they are required. For instance, altitude adjustments are required in Wellington." I challenge anyone to search the latest review and discover altitude adjustments in Wellington; they were never made.
We said: "Why did you make the adjustments?"
They said: "The methodology is published, look here and here and here. Replicate the adjustments yourselves."
We said (after weeks of searching): "The methodology is not contained in those documents. What is described depends so much on operator decisions it's impossible to replicate Salinger's adjustments."
They said: "We told your scientists all this years ago in an email. You know this by now, you're troublemakers."
We said: "We've found the email. It doesn't contain what you claim it does. Publish it so everyone can see what it says." They never did.
In short, NIWA's defence of the old series was relentless,so their decision to replace it with anything at all betrays their defeat. They could not, in science or simple logic, continue to support it.
That, for a part-time, unpaid group of sceptics, is a victory.
Whether the graph shows warming or cooling is not relevant; we don't care what it shows, we just want it to be trustworthy. We'll examine the science behind it in good time — although it's not complete, as they still must furnish the confidence intervals. And the "peer review" it's had so far is not worth much when you actually read it. Basically they agree that adjustments are required and NIWA's evidence "in general" supports them. They say nothing at all about the methods, logic, consistency, etc, mentioned by NIWA's CEO.
Cheers.