That was a period of strongly increasing GHG, so there seems little correlation between them.

You say:

what climate forcings have led to NZ losing 60% of its ice mass over the last 150 years (Hoelzle et al, 2007)?

I presume by “Hoelzle et al, 2007″ you mean this paper:
“The application of glacier inventory data for estimating past climate change effects on mountain glaciers: A comparison between the European Alps and the Southern Alps of New Zealand.”
If so, then you have slightly mis-quoted the paper. The period was 1850 to the mid-1970s, a period when, according to Hansen (2005) there was little increase in climate forcing from GHGs.

Therefore, we can state with confidence that the climate forcing that led to NZ losing 60% of its ice mass was not greenhouse gases.

So what happened post-1970, in the era of increased GHGs? According to the same paper:

“In contrast [to the European Alps], all glaciers in New Zealand have overall experienced a positive mass balance and some have advanced strongly during the 1990s.”

You say: “what climate forcings have led to NZ losing 60% of its ice mass over the last 150 years (Hoelzle et al, 2007)?”

Some of it would have been rising temperature, some perhaps precipitation, insolation or topographical variations. Glacial advance and retreat is governed by mass, and therefore more strongly by precipitation and the rest than by air temperature, which itself is determined more by the temperature of the surface beneath it, whether water, land or ice, rather than by the trace gas CO2. If you meant to say so. Perhaps you weren’t considering CO2.

I guess you want me to defend the unspoken suggestion that rising temperature was caused by human activity. I don’t think I can. First, we need to isolate any anthro contribution from the natural warming associated with the inter-glacial and the LIA. I don’t know if that’s been done. But simply showing a rising temperature doesn’t imply an anthropogenic cause.

Your Wikipedia reference sounds less than authoritative about the causes of glacier retreat. It talks about glacier “health” although there’s no such thing. If a glacier disappears, who cares? It might expose the earth to some good use, otherwise it’s of no consequence.

Oops. RC’s right – this is way OT.

May I refer you to the relevant category of this blog for you to present your comment and for us to address it?

Polar regions, glaciers and ice

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/polar-regions-glaciers-and-ice-001/

[ad hominems deleted] you might read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Oceania_2

McAneney, Salinger et al. (1990) showed that sheltering can cause a daily maximum temperature increase of 1°C from establishment to 10m height over a 6 year period.

Abstract:

Climatological differences accompanying changing land use from traditional pastoral farming to fruit orchards were measured over a 6-year period. During this time evergreen shelter belts, which subdivide orchards into 0.5-ha blocks, grew from establishment to an average final height of nearly 10 m. The main result was a progressive reduction in the relative wind run at 6 m which was linearly related to shelter height with a slope of −6% m−1. In this humid coastal region, shelter did not appear to influence minimum air temperatures. On the other hand, significant increases in 09.00 h soil and maximum screen air temperatures amounting to around 1°C for 10-m-high shelter were measured. These modest temperature increases were also linearly related to shelter height.

Hessell found that although the foliage was cleared fairly regularly (Fouhy showed three cut-backs ten years apart [1949, 59, and 69]) from the immediate site, the site was affected by general growth in the Gardens surrounding it. There’s also the issue of the asphalt/concrete area in close proximity.

It was classified in the “A” category, which is the sites with known contamination problems. The “B” category were sites without known problems.

‘Wellington’s climate shows warming trend’

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7311522/Wellingtons-climate-shows-warming-trend

This must be what Gareth is on about but I think Salinger’s damage control will backfire when people see the unadjusted plot http://static.stuff.co.nz/1342728504/208/7314208.jpg and caption ‘Wellington’s climate records show a warming trend’

I suppose if you cock your head to one side and stand on one leg you might be able to see it in the unadjusted record but how much and so what? It’s not that there’s been a bit of warming that’s in dispute, it’s method (there’s an irony there) and magnitude.

Amusing too that both Kelburn and the Airport have plummeted since 1998 – excellent.

I thought that rather than coming “from anywhere but its counsel’s inventiveness”, the “rules” (as he puts it and what NIWA agreed to) came from all the citations in the audit and Bob D’s Affidavit.

I don’t think Counsel Justin Smith has been paying attention.