But really, how much warming was there in New Zealand?

Roger Andrews has investigated the warming in New Zealand over the last 100 years and is published at Tall Bloke. He happily confirms the NZCSC audit of NIWA’s 7SS.

I especially like his comment:

An argument can in fact be made that if adjustments this large are needed to make the raw records “correct” then the raw records were far too heavily distorted to have been used to begin with.

h/t – Bob D.

6 Thoughts on “But really, how much warming was there in New Zealand?

  1. Please read the thread at TB. They are having problems posting here.

    There are some interesting comments re. John Christy and SST data.

  2. Alexander K on November 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm said:

    This comment mirrors my own thoughts about the almost-universal need that officialdom has exhibited, which is to alter the historic record in pursuit of any particular agenda. If installing updated equipment used in monitoring our environment is installed on a site, that event should be noted as a part of history and If a site is shifted, that too should be noted but not used to induce changes in records made at the the previous sites; records are historical references and should be left untouched, any changes should be noted in the record and left at that, otherwise the history that we thought was written for us to study at a later date becomes a giant fiction in itself.

  3. Alexander K on November 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm said:

    This comment mirrors my own thoughts about the almost-universal need that officialdom has exhibited, which is to alter the historic record in pursuit of any particular agenda. If installing updated equipment used in monitoring our environment is installed on a site, that event should be noted as a part of history and If a site is shifted, that too should be noted but not used to induce changes in records made at the the previous sites; records are historical references and should be left untouched, any changes should be noted in the record and left at that, otherwise the history that we thought was written for us to study at a later date becomes a complex fiction unrelated to historic reality in itself.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2012 at 4:53 pm said:

    GHCN put to better use than in BEST I have to say.

    I wonder how NIWA will bat away independent series that corroborate NZCSET?

    BTW, keep an eye out at Niche Modeling over the coming weeks. David Stockwell informs me that he is compiling a series too although not specifically NZ I don’t think (perhaps it’s Australasia). It will be similar to BEST but different methodology (don’t ask me, wait for David’s write up). That will probably be his input rather than enter the NZCSET v NIWA fray.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2012 at 5:16 pm said:

    For easy reference, here’s the map and graphs.

    Station Location Map

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2qlao0m.png

    Unadjusted from 1882

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2ec0mrm.png

    Adjusted from 1882

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/b8utx.png

    GHCN – NZCSET – NIWA comparison from 1909

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/29kz685.png

    10 year running means GHCN – NZCSET – NIWA trend comparison

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/347z98z.png

  6. ClimateCyclist on November 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm said:

    Cooling was not just in New Zealand – it was worldwide.

    The evidence of planetary effects on climate has been around for years. We can see a ~1,000 year cycle (previously mentioned in WUWT posts) and a 60 year cycle which was rising for 30 years prior to 1998, but is now declining, offset in part by slight rising in the 1,000 year cycle as it approaches a maximum. .

    Hence the last 14 years of world climate records clearly indicate that there has been no net warming since this time in 1998. That is, there has been no net accumulation of energy in the Earth system – probably a slight loss in fact. So net radiative imbalance at TOA must also have been in accord with a cooling climate, not a warming one.

    But all those energy diagrams and models “predicted” carbon dioxide would cause extra warming. If this fails to happen in 14 years, it can also fail to happen in the next 600 years, by which time I predict the world will be back at a minimum similar to the Little Ice Age.

    The reason the energy diagrams are wrong is because they assume (and clearly indicate) dual heat flows between the surface and the atmosphere. They imply that radiation always transfers heat in the same direction. They assume that, if the net heat transfer is from hot to cold, then all is OK. But the two processes they assume happen are independent. A heat flow by radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface does not force a greater flow of radiation out of the surface which is due to the surface being warmed more. Any such preliminary warming, no matter how infinitesimal, would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The only possible correct physical explanation is that which I have summarised starting on p.47 of Joseph Postma’s October 2012 paper. My reasons for such are also therein.

    Unless and until scientists understand when and by how much radiation transfers heat, they will continue to fumble with hypothetical, invalid concepts which mislead the world with their carbon dioxide hoax.

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>

Post Navigation