Comments on: No global warming in New Zealand

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:48:58 +0000

They prolly have too many adjustments to make before it makes the hot-hot category. This could take time, as they are under scrutiny by certain folk, and they need to take care to hide the decline.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:12:20 +0000

Are NIWA a little reticent this year in reporting 2011′s average temperature?

They made a song and dance of 2010′s 13.1, perhaps 2011 was not running “Hot Hot” (in the words of NIWA’s Georgina Griffiths).

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:23:50 +0000

Well, yes, I get a lot of those, and mostly the anti-spam software reels them in, but this was sufficiently ambiguous I thought I’d keep the door ajar. He’s got two days.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:18:35 +0000

Matt might be one of those drone-bot-things. Note he refers to nothing in the article. He could post the same comment at a hundred skeptic blogs, just to fly the flag for The Cause. Don't expect a reply - he is a fly-by troll.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:42:52 +0000

Matt, if you’re serious and not merely promoting Menace Records, accept this assignment: within two days, state what is misleading in this post and describe why, citing sources.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:20 +0000

Awesome, I love AGW denialist websites. Thanks for pontificating misleading drivel.

Please keep it up!

By: Doug Proctor

Doug Proctor — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:45:15 +0000

Barry,

Thanks for the connection!

Every time an area shows non-IPCC profiles (especially when, like NZ, the differences are astounding), the rest of the world has to be “warming” even more than the IPCC average for the homogenized profile to be mathematically correct.

There are something like 156 countries providing the Land Station GISTemp record, in a proportionality to their surface area, of course. If you chop the data off one country at a time when the data is so different from the trend, I wonder when you get the IPCC-reductio-ad-absurdum result that shows the area of silly data.

By: Barry Brill

Barry Brill — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:37:51 +0000

Doug

See press release by Warwick Hughes in 2006, pointing out that the (homogenised) HadCRUT grids covering New Zealand showed very little warming:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0608/S00030.htm

Warwick has since discovered a Climategate 2 email, suggesting that Salinger persuaded CRU to change its figures to match his 7SS. I think this was about 2007.

I understand GISTemp data shows virtually no warming in our part of the world.

By: Doug Proctor

Doug Proctor — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:00:55 +0000

Thanks, Richard. Your comparison will be interesting. The HadCru profile of Iceland has changed so much, it MUST be different from the Iceland profile of their own data. In fact, the majority of local HadCru histories must be different from their originating national data by now unless the national data is revised to match the HadCru data. Only two groups (Jones and Hansen) seem to be constantly revising history.

How would it look if on one side of the page you showed (for example) how Estonia sees their history, and on the other, how Jones/Hansen see it? For page after page? Could be awkward.

Where the heating event is, is a question for me. If we were to take the GISTemp fully integrated and averaged data, and dropped out the Arctic portion, for example, what would that do? And so on and so on. The math is simple: a 0.7C rise over the entire world can be generated by a 3.5 C rise over 20% of the globe, or 72* – 90*. Just the Arctic, everything else stays the same. Which is what I have heard claimed about the Arctic. But then I’ve also heard that other parts of the world are warm. Which means that one or the other is wrong.

The lack of global warming to global warming seems weird.

By: Jim McK

Jim McK — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:40:48 +0000

I find it embarrassing that our government could publish this as so-called science.

The IPCC graph is clearly wrong on numerous counts apart from being deceptive. And the history of discoveries regarding climate science apparently stopped in 1987.