Egg/face interface for Hide and the climate cranks

What was it Richard Treadgold and Rodney Hide were saying? Here’s Hide, speaking yesterday in Parliament:

So, before Christmas, I asked NIWA to disclose the adjustments and their reasons. They said they would. But they have just told the Climate Science Coalition they don’t have the record of the adjustments.

And here’s Treadgold and the NZ Climate Crank Coalition:

This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

Just to to provide a little balance, here’s NIWA, yesterday:

NIWA has added two new documents to its National Climate Centre web pages to outline how and why it made adjustments to its 7-station temperature readings in order to provide accurate and meaningful data to use in a time series of temperature information.

One document [PDF] lists all the adjustments made to the station records used in NIWA’s long term New Zealand temperature series, while the second [PDF] looks at one station, Hokitika, and explains in detail the rationale for that station’s adjustments.

I look forward to the prompt release of apologies from Rodney Hide, Richard Treadgold, Terry Dunleavy and the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition to NIWA, Jim Salinger and all the scientists involved in preparing and maintaining NZ’s climate records, but I won’t be holding my breath.

108 thoughts on “Egg/face interface for Hide and the climate cranks”

      1. I reckon it’ll come from the Hoktika data move from the township to the old Aerodrome for which there is no transitional data. As if that makes a blind bit of difference! But they will wait a couple of weeks so that everyone one will have forgotten what idiots they are, and it will appear as its “fresh” evidence of conspiracy and lying by the scientists.

        1. Well spotted. I reckon it might come a bit quicker than that, though.

          And funnily enough, that’s the most interesting part of the paper – especially the map showing spatial correlations around the country. Very neat bit of illustration of the principle being used.

          1. Yes I thought so as well! But probably too “clever” for the likes of them that do not wish to know. And yes you are right – i see Australis is muttering on about the Hokitika data on another thread already.

  2. Egg on the face Gareth ?

    I don’t think so…I think the yolk must be obscuring your vision…have you checked out the Guardian in the last few days ?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/08/case-for-climate-change-science
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails

    …and of course, this direct rebuttal to the grandly named “extended peers” such as yourselves…

    “……To have a political effect, the ‘extended peers’ of science have traditionally needed to operate largely by means of activist pressure-groups using the media to create public alarm. In this case, since the global warmers had captured the moral high ground, criticism has remained scattered and ineffective, except on the blogosphere. The position of Green activists is especially difficult, even tragic; they have been ‘extended peers’ who were co-opted into the ruling paradigm, which in retrospect can be seen as a decoy or diversion from the real, complex issues of sustainability, as shown by Mike Hulme. Now they must do some very serious re-thinking about their position and their role…”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/

    Ask around Gareth, next time you’re in the public bar just who has the egg on their face over AGW. It sure as hell isn’t Rodney…

  3. The difference between the climate change debate and other political battles is that (assuming the scientists are correct) actual climate change is going to keep on getting bigger. So even though the current round of slanging appears to have obscured the real issues (in just the same way as industry tried to disparage the scientists reporting ill-effects of smoking, asbestos, lead, etc), we will eventually get to the point where the reality of climate change will overwhelm the ‘noise’ of such baseless accusations.

    The evidence against smoking or asbestos is much less direct than that against CO2 emissions, yet nobody today seriously questions the ill-effects of smoking, asbestos, etc (well, nobody takes those people seriously…) even though many people do ‘rationalize’ their ongoing involvement with those substances whether as users or producers. The smear campaigns were eventually seen through. SO likewise for the current slanders against climate scientists – I expect that eventually it will be obvious to all but the most one-eyed where the real manipulation and dishonesty has come from. Whether there is any censuring in response (such as the prosecutions of tobacco and asbestos industries) is of course another matter – the people involved have no doubt calculated the balance between profits and risk of future consequences and decided to go for delay.

  4. Billy T, your statement re “smear campaigns” ignores the fact that it is a campaign now being adopted by an organ (the UK Guardian) which has been a vociferous campaigner in the past on behalf of climate alarmism.

    1. The Guardian continues to accept that the science is valid, and reports that the stolen emails have not changed that one iota. Glad to hear you now accept that position.

  6. You both rather miss the whole point. Sigh for emphasis…thanks Phil.

    Your line is “…while it is clear that mistakes have been made, none of those undermine the basic science of climate change that says the world has been warming and that CO2 probably has a lot to do with it. Which might well be true. But it is also a misunderstanding of the real damage that the scandals have inflicted … The real casualty is not climate science, but climate alarmism… ”

    And Gareth, alarmism is what this blog is all about. And if there’s no alarm, there’s … what exactly ?

    Or am I misreading you ?

    1. No “alarmism” here, Ayrdale, just an insistence that the evidence be taken seriously, not denied. What the evidence shows might be alarming (you make your own judgement), but pointing that out is not in itself “alarmist”.

  7. Mikh, this blog is about climate realism, as opposed to climate escapism, which you and your ever-more-marginalised ilk traffic in.

    AGW deniers remind me of an argument I once had, decades ago, with a smoker; confronted with the medical evidence linking smoking and cancer, he said it just couldn’t be true, because he had never heard of anyone lighting up a fag and immediately dropping dead of cancer…

    Denial is the first refuge of the weak and the addicted – grow up and face reality, because AGW is going to change your life, whether you like it or not.

  8. Mihk, still dont follow. Still warming, check. Still got human activities as the major forcing, check. Media/blog beat ups about supposed scandals have somehow reduced the likely impacts doing nothing about it?? What they have done has made it more difficult for governements to act which I think is basically criminal. No easy for future generations that will pay price to call the clowns to account.

  9. Rob, that’s simply pathetic, and you are resorting to evasion.

    What are “the likely impacts” Phil ? Himalyan glacier melts, polar bear extinctions and other crises have been well covered and found to be based on NGO propaganda. What exactly is urgent and pressing ?

    “What they have done has made it more difficult for governements to act which I think is basically criminal…”

    Basically criminal ? basically crap. Perhaps Dr Pachauri might fit into that criminal parameter quite well, and the good people at CRU, and of course Michael Mann are still under investigation, but you and other alarmists are still in blinkers, chained to the mast of the sinking ship.

    ” Now they (the green alarmists) must do some very serious re-thinking about their position and their role…”

  10. Sorry?? You somehow don’t believe that there will be impacts from warming?? Sea level isn’t going to rise? Disruptions to the water cycle aren’t going to happen? A system with more energy isn’t going to deliver more extreme event? Can you seriously believe this? It not like economists haven’t had a go at costing this.

    I would say that predicting impacts is hard, very hard. Regional variation is where models are at weakest and paleoclimate gives indications of rapid switching in both oceanic and atmospheric circulation which are extremely hard to predict. (eg imagine effect on NZ if antarctic current switched from east to west coast). The larger scale stuff that has been done (and yes, I would only be interested in the peer reviewed literature but just because its in grey literature doesn’t mean it might not be true) gives you no comfort at all. Trying looking at it as a risk analysis.

  13. “One document [PDF] lists all the adjustments made to the station records used in NIWA’s long term New Zealand temperature series, ..”

    I looked at this, but am I missing something?, because I cannot find the adjustments referred to, at least not how they were calculated.

    Can someone please tell me where to find these? , at least before they resort to calling me names?

    thanks

  14. And Phil, hope you’re still around…if AGW is such an acute emergency, why is arch catastrophist and Mandarin speaker Kevin Rudd, allowing this ?

    “MINING magnate Clive Palmer says his company has secured Australia’s biggest export deal with a $A69.39 billion agreement to sell coal to China.

    The Resourcehouse chairman on Saturday said the company’s proposed China First coal mine and infrastructure project in central Queensland had reached a 20-year agreement with one of China’s largest power companies, China Power International Development, the flagship company of China Power Investment Corporation (CPI).

    “This deal with CPI is Australia’s biggest ever export contract,” Mr Palmer said in a statement….”

    Are you there Phil…Gareth…Bryan anyone ?

    1. Umm, YOU call him a catastrophist while then accusing him of not acting like one?

      “Catasphrophist” is name-calling with absolutely no meaning at all. That the world is warming due to human activities presents a risk we have to deal with. Economic analysis published to date says it will be likely cheaper to deal with it now through emission reduction than pay for the consequences in the future. Is that your definition of a catastrophist?

      This is not to say there aren’t real risks of “catasphrophe” – ie civilisation threatening rates of change.

      Also, Mr Rudd has the weasel defense that emissions are the responsibility of the emitter. Australia is responsible to emissions due to the mining of coal; China has the responsibility for the emissions resulting in burning it.

  15. Yes, I’m here Mikh. I felt sick when I read that report as I do when I hear about Solid Energy’s plans for expansion, or read the Minister of Energy’s excited comments on drilling prospects. Sick because I fear that we will never move away from the exploitation of fossil fuels and because of what that will mean for the human future. Will that do for now?

  16. Although relax…breaking news just in…

    “…But China’s state-controlled Xinhua news agency reported that an official from CPID, a unit of major power producer China Power Investment Corp, had said the two companies had signed only an agreement of intent, and they had not yet started price negotiations….”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/clive-palmer-corrects-error-as-china-denies-price-talks-have-begun/story-e6frg9e6-1225828379658

    So, we have a real litmus tent here don’t we ? If K. Rudd, PM is concerned for the planet, REALLY concerned, he will stop this deal, wouldn’t you agree ? So if it goes ahead, it’s a sure sign that his concern is nothing more than a passing political whim.

    QED.

  17. Correct, Mikh. Rudd is part of the problem, not the solution.
    Greenwash rhetoric from politicians owned by corporations will get us nowhere, but neither will sticking our heads under the pillow and trying to pretend that there aren’t monsters under the bed when, in fact, there are:

    “The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or
    PETM, is associated with a rapid warming, a poleward expansion of subtropical biota, abrupt warming of the deep-sea, an abrupt increase in global weathering rates, and a carbon isotope excursion that seems to be best explained by a sudden emission of methane clathrates buried on ancient continental margins (methane is a greenhouse gas that is rapidly converted to CO2 in the atmosphere).
    This signal dissipated after about 200,000 years but may be the closest analog inthe geologic record to how the climate system might response to the current anthropogenic CO2 perturbation…
    The methane is produced by methanogenic bacteria that live off the organic material in sediment in predominantly anaerobic situations. Methane hydrates (or clathrates) are stable only when cold and under pressure. If the oceans warm, or pressure is reduced, the methane gas can be released. The carbon in such hydrates at present has an approximate value of 60%, and approximately 1,500–2,000 Gt of carbon would be required to produce the PETM.

    This amount is significantly less than the present-day known reserves of gas hydrates in the ocean…”

    (Source: ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PALEOCLIMATOLOGY AND ANCIENT ENVIRONMENTS, Springer, 2009).

  18. Mikh,

    To be known henceforth (lol ) as Palmer’s put (option). But China’s CPIH – the supposed deal holder, folks) – were not trained in aussie price-fixing.

    OTOH wiser minds may contemplate what it is that actual resource/commodity holding companies do. Best.

    No, I don’t see mikh answering that one. Too credulous, easily persuaded. His clue as he well knows is an R-word, a name, six letters, last being z.

    End of story.

  19. So Rob, in retrospect, now facing impending climate horror, what has gone wrong ?

    Why are you and others at this blog still having to push s*** uphill ?

    Believe it or not, you, Bryan and Gareth are not the only thinking people concerned for our future. We concerned people, who think about the future for our grandchildren are in the majority, so why do we have this impasse ? What’s gone wrong ?

    Up until I read the Australian article referred to above, I thought Kevin Rudd sincerely believed your point of view. So did you I bet, so you feel betrayed by him.

    But what if his belief was phoney all along and guided all along by redistributive politics and not science ?

    If that coal deal goes ahead, I will have my prejudices confirmed.

    1. We are having to push against ingrained vested interests spending a lot of money on FUD frankly who are successfully reassuring people like you that there isnt a problem.

      You can kid yourself that its all politics etc. but that just doesnt
      change the science. All you are showing is your inability to grasp it. Is Rudd a scientist? Why do you put so much stock on people who are unqualified to judge the case? Is reality dependent on public opinion? And do you seriously think that NZ so insular that what happens in the rest of the world wont affect our grandchildren?

      If you care about the life and lifestyles of your grandchildren, then at what point do you decide that maybe we have to act. What temperature? What amount of ice low? What rate of sea-level rise? Its fine to be skeptical but its best to ask at what point do you decide you have been taken as a sucker and act. I hope it is at a point where cost for the future isnt too high.

  20. “So Rob, in retrospect, now facing impending climate horror, what has gone wrong ?”
    Two words – evolutionary biology. Humans are primates that can run and talk, but most of our history has been in small bands of hunter-gatherers.
    As such, we have evolved to prioritise immediate, readily-discerned threats, such as a predator in the forest undergrowth.
    We also tend to defer to alpha males, who expend a lot of energy and guile rising to the top, and oppose any change in the status quo that might threaten their position.
    Global heating, although geologically rapid, is still very slow to register for most individuals, and action can always be deferred to another day, compared to less catastrophic but more immediate concerns.
    I do not expect any real action until climate disasters begin to hurt the cities of the developed world – which may be too late to stop feedback processes that take control quite out of our hands.
    NZ, buffered from the heat by the Southern Ocean, will become a very desirable property, and will likely be acquired as a refuge by the wealthy and powerful.
    We can expect to experience the “liberation from tyranny” that the people of oil-rich Iraq have just experienced…

  21. Well, don’t know about you Rob, but I think I’ll continue to enjoy life in paradise, rather than worry about it.

    As you say “…I do not expect any real action until climate disasters begin to hurt the cities of the developed world – which may be too late to stop feedback processes that take control quite out of our hands.”

    Neither do I. So why get in a lather about it? Why greenpeace stunts, dire threats of doom, why this blog, why this debate even ?

    Emergency over…for the time being.

    1. That’s right, Mikh, you just be a “good German” and do what you’re told – go to work, consume, watch TV and ignore the screams from the camps and all those box cars going in full and coming out empty…

      Global heating will make Auschwitz look like a tea party – what’s the matter with you, don’t you have children?

  22. Gareth says :

    “I look forward to the prompt release of apologies from Rodney Hide, Richard Treadgold, Terry Dunleavy and the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition to NIWA, Jim Salinger and all the scientists involved in preparing and maintaining NZ’s climate records, but I won’t be holding my breath.

    “One document [PDF] lists all the adjustments made to the station records used in NIWA’s long term New Zealand temperature series, ..”

    I looked at this, but am I missing something?, because I cannot find the adjustments referred to, at least not how they were calculated.

    Can someone please tell me where to find these? , at least before they resort to calling me names?

    thanks

    1. You have: a complete list of the sites and adjustments for the seven station record, and a detailed explanation of the methodology followed for the Hokitika station. If you wish to repeat the Hokitika exercise, or check the calculations for the other stations, the information is contained in the references already given. Everything is publicly available. You might have to do some serious stats work, and read a fair bit of the literature, but that’s how science is done…

      Note that Treadgold and the CSC were claiming that NIWA had “lost” the adjustments, and Hide was prepared to repeat that untruth without checking (or, apparently, without reading the press reports which appeared the previous week pointing out that information was going to be posted).

  23. It’s probably not a good idea to say “No!” to China if they want your coal. Look what happened to those countries that said “No!” to the US when they asked for their oil. (God help NZ if we find large amounts of oil on in our EEZ.)

    Best to work with the needy and to help them off their addiction.

  25. Gareth

    I presume this is a serious blog, although so far, I note that perhaps 80% comprises ad hominen attacks (both sides). I wasn’t asking you to criticise Rodney Hide and Co, nor was I seeking to defend them.

    I am sincerely looking for the procedure(s) by which NIWA adjusted the raw data for the seven stations. I have read NIWA’s decription of the technique’s and reasoning behind the Hokitika dataset adjustment. However, surely NIWA would have retained the others as well. I was surprised, given NIWA’s budget, and in order to (meritoriously) stave off the inevitable attacks, that they would have published the other 6 procedures at the same time as they for the Hokitika dataset. Imagine the trouble that would have saved.

    Anyway, for whatever reason, they didnt. It was surely inevitable that there would be many people, such as me, who would want to see the rest. I dont think it would be reasonable for a scientist to expect me to do the “serious stat work” etc that you refer to. The Hokitika description was adequate for me – I didnt have to do any work on it to see what reasoning lay behind the adjustments. Way I see it, the workings behind an engineers report, or the proof of a theorem etc should be retained, rather than required to be repeated by anyone who showed an interest. Imagine, Nash tosses out his proof and says, well, you going to have to eiether take my word for it, or duplicate my proof yourself because “that’s the way science is done”. Imagine an engineer’s report for a harbour bridge with no workings. The Council wants to see the working, the engineer says “well, I can only give you a few general hints, you going to have a serious amount of engineering work to do yourselves to understand/ justify my conclusions.”.

    However, unlike the NIWA staff, I dont work full time on this, and don’t get paid. So if , as you have said, you know which references outline the adjustment procedure for the other 6 stations, perhaps you could spare a few seconds to point me to these specific references to save me going through all the links and references in the NIWA release. It is not as though there is a link or reference entitled “The adjustment procedures for the other 6 stations”, and I wonder how many of your contributors, and others who are taking sides in the personal attacks etc, actually know if the other 6 procedures are detailed by NIWA, or whether they are simply taking the word of someone like yourself for granted.

    Thanks. I don’t want to put you to unecessary time and effort, but you indicated that you knew which specific links/ references would fgive me what I wanted. Just to confirm, the amount of detail in NIWA’s Hokitika explanation was about right for me, and I am seeking something similar for the other 6 stations.

    Thanks

    1. The procedure you are looking for is described in the papers that I have referenced. If you sincerely want to check NIWA’s working, please do so — but I’m not going to do that for you.

      You are mistaken if you think that NIWA have staff working on this all the time. These adjustments are only made once to historical data (in most cases a long time ago), and new data points are tacked on to the end as time goes by. To produce the detailed description of the adjustments, NIWA has had to have staff diverted from other (and more productive) work .

      I therefore have to ask why you think it is so important to dig so deep into NZ’s temperature record? Certainly no recent government decision would have been affected had the rise over the last century been 0.6ºC instead of 0.7ºC. And I haven’t noticed the government rushing to action because the 11 station record recently calculated shows warming of 1ºC since 1930. Even if someone were somehow to show that there’s been no warming in New Zealand (which is what Treadgold and the CSC were proclaiming in their original press release), it would make no difference to the question of whether or not there’s global warming. In other words, this whole affair is a beat-up of the worst kind — an attempt to muddy the waters, to make it harder for politicians to act.

      But I believe you when you say that you have a sincere interest in understanding the details of the NZ temperature record. And in order to do that, you can’t avoid doing a certain amount of work on your own account.

  27. I guess idle scientific questions I’d ask about all this are:

    1. If you want to make statements about NZ temperature trends what should you be measuring?

    2. Should you use the avaerage of selected point sites with no weighting, or should one try and weight to attempt to reflect the total land mass?

    3. How well does this set of stations and the use of anomolies go to answering question 1? The set of stations is strongly biased to urban areas, so shouldn’t the conclusion talk more about temperature trends in urban NZ?

    4. If you normalise anomolies, what do you do about their standard deviation?

    5. If you change the site or the method that you use to measure temperture, what is the error/uncertainty introduced in making that adjustment?

    6. Can you ignore the varience introduced by 5. when you subsequently fit trend lines to the data? Would a slightly more complex linear model that accounted for position in space (lat. long. height, distance to coast) and type of recording equipment give much more robust results?

    7. Having identified a trend in the average temperature of the NZ land mass (or not) what are our hypotheses for further investigation?

    1. Simon, you’ll find some interesting stuff in NIWA’s discussion of the Hokitika site adjustments, in particular the references to their “Virtual Climate Station” data set. I’m going to ask them some more about that, and may post about it some time (don’t hold your breath).

      Perhaps the best answer to your #7 is that the trend is interesting but not necessarily the most important thing we see in the data.

      The striking thing, to my eye, is the circa-20 year oscillation in the moving average. This is probably related to oceanic cycles (PDO/ENSO etc), but it underscores the variability in our ocean-dominated climate. NZ can move from “cool” to “warm” on a sixpence…

      1. Yes, the process of mapping a temperture grid is what needs to be done if one is to make statements about the NZ land mass, although there are risks of overstating the accurancy of measurements.

        You can see an example of this problem from the use of Auckland and Christchurch to adjust Hokitika 1894 to 1912. This process is fine if you are trying to improve estimates of temperatures at Hokitika, but if you then go on to use temperatures from all three locations to create an average then you’ve indirectly used the same information twice.

        One of the big issues in climate data and models is that spurious accuracy can be created in this way. The gridded “Virtual Climate Station” has data at a limited number of points, and as you move out from those points the uncertainity increases (reflecting how well models of regional climate can predict local variations in average temperatures).

        On your second point if you stick the average SOI over a year into the model in a couple of the data sets I played with you get a significant correlation at 95% confidence level (and incidently increase the time trend in part because the SOI seems to be slightly negatively correlated with time, but not significantly).

    2. These are complex questions that you would need to follow through a bit of literature to get on top of. I would start with Hansen et al, 1999 for whats done with GISS. Note too that you need to work with anomaly data – defining absolute surface temp is too hard.

      You might like to follow http://tamino.wordpress.com/ at
      moment too (Skilda, Gridiron games, and Combining Stations) for insights to the problems and processes.

      1. Phil I read through Hansen and the blog and it still leaves me with a deep unease.

        Developing the GISS requires interpolation of data and significant processing of it. Large errors build up through this analysis and no doubt for many purposes the benefits outweigh the costs.

        But it seems to me that if you are doing analysis of whether NZ (or the globe) is warming then less is more because, in the end, you only ever have the data and the theoretical models of climate you started with and no amount of statistical manipulation can add to that. The serious downside is that, as we see in the NIWA adjustments for example, the variance in the adjustments is ignored and the adjusted data then gets treated as clean raw data. I note Hansen doesn’t seem to report any confidence levels on his analysis.

        So for example if I were doing analysis looking at the warming issue I would treat changes in weather stations at a location as different data series within the analysis, and not use adjusted data. I note that Hansen argues for averaging the data on the basis that having two observations at the same location over-weights the observation. This only occurs because of the way he is handling the data.

        Similarly I see no difference in the complexity in dealing with raw temperatures versus anomalies in this kind of analysis. Hansen uses anomalies because he wants to make use of predictive models that suggest that anomalies are stable over a region. These predictive models are uncertain, and again I don’t see any attempt to quantify this uncertainty in the results i.e. new information is created from the original dataset without reporting the uncertainty around that information.

        I think this is something to worry about because I get the impression people think that having moved to anomalies they have a measure that can be combined and/or extended across a region willy-nilly. A glance at Figure 4 in the Hokitika adjustment paper from NIWA should put any such suggestion to bed (even though the correlation is with the Virtual Climate Station data, not the raw data).

        So in my view sticking with raw temperatures reduces the temptation to feel you can process data from different sites or extrapolate it without having regard to locational differences (and this seems to happen routinely).

        To perhaps expand a bit (I hope there isn’t a word limit on post size) it seems to me that if I were trying to make statements about what is happening to the temperature in NZ I would hypothesis a model (and for simplicity lets just assume a linear model) where:

        Average temp at a location L in year Y =
        Contribution from exogenous causes (including regional contributions) in Y + Local contribution at L in Y

        Now the first term will be a function of things like sunspot activity, CO2 concentrations, and moving into regional issues the southern oscillation and the ozone layer, and there will be lagged terms to complicate all this.

        The second term will be a function of Lat., Long. Height, perhaps we have well developed climate zone categorisations, instrument type, human activity intensity etc. I should note that if there is empirical evidence that anomalies are stable over wider regions this is just another way of identifying climate zone categories.

        Ideally time should not need to feature as a parameter and when fitted the parameters should make sense in comparison with experiments involving the way the atmosphere and climate work.

        I’d be interested to know if anyone has done this in NZ.

        Now to return to my earlier points:

        1. If you do the above it doesn’t matter if you use anomalies or raw temperatures in a properly specified model.
        2. The above modelling can take account of missing data, location changes and differences in instrumentation AND carry the variances created by these issues through to the parameter estimations for the overall model.

        I did have a play with the data for Campbell Is, Gisborne , Hamilton, Ruakura, Invercargill Aero, Palmerston N, Queenstown, Raoul Is, Tauranga Aero and Westport Aero 1950 – 2008 looking at how well Lat. Long and height, SOI and year fitted as a linear model to raw temperature, and got significance at the 95% level for all the parameters and the over all regression.

        1. Simon, firstly I would say temperature records like this matter for many purposes but I really think the NZ situation is storm in a teacup when you come to think of global situation for the question “are we warming”. GISS, RSS, UAH all show a warming trend over about the ESNO variability. Even more important, the long term integrators – global glacial volume, sea level, ocean heat content also show rising trend. With this in mind, I would be more interested if NZ record differed much from global situation. I’ll accept that global warming has stopped when the trend in sea level is zero or negative.

          The point of anomaly method is that surface temperature is too hard to define whereas anomaly is more robust. You say that empirical support for anomaly method is just evidence for climate zones, but this is exactly the point – the existence of climate zones make it possible to characterize large areas from a few points.

          You dont like the adjustment necessary for homogenisation, but note that if you only take stations with long records that don’t require adjustment, ( the 11 station record) you get even more warming. To me, this would suggest that methodology is reasonably robust. It would also seem completely pointless to try and infer anything from UNADJUSTED data as the wellington example highlights. Error estimates are indeed made (Allen and Gallo 2002) and Easterling and Petersen (various) for that process. Just remember that these are used for model validation.

          The kind of model you propose is called a phenomenological model by the way. These are interesting but also potentially misleading. (eg Scarfetta and West attempts which leave out important bits). The models used in climate change are physical models.

          I would also hasten to add since I have been accused of being a NIWA poodle that this is way out of my area of expertise ( petroleum modelling etc) – I am just well read. I have not studied the NIWA methods (no time and not interested since it was quickly clear that they were vastly superior to NZCSC attempt).

          1. Actually Phil I wouldn’t have thought your expertise in petroleum modelling would be a million miles away from the issues of temperature measurement. Let me draw a few analogies (making heroic leaps about what petroleum modeling entails) that might be helpful, but first a couple other things on your last comment.

            I’m not sure that introducing the esoterica of whether we are dealing with theoretical, phenomenological or empirical models helps us here. In practice we are dealing with very complex systems where observed phenomena (like temperature, or in your case the presence of hydrocarbons under ground) are both very difficult to measure in the first instance and then an order of magnitude more difficult to predict the presence of from theory.

            Theoretically derived subsystems may exist but I doubt that you, for example, try and derive the location of hydrocarbons from first principles.

            What we are dealing with here is the attempt to understand energy balances in a complex dynamic environment, and one way to do this is to divide this system in subsystems that are better understood and look at boundary conditions. The model I suggested was doing just this when I suggested looking at the surface temperature of New Zealand in terms of what was going on within NZ and what was occurring exogenous to it.

            But I should be clear I was really trying to think about how you might get a better view of the uncertainty surrounding temperature measurement and estimates per se, rather than get to the underlying models of how climate operates.

            Anyway I think I may not have described clearly enough why I am uneasy about the NIWA stuff (and I commented some time ago on Hot Topic that their attempts to simplify the science were counter productive and would come back and bite them). It isn’t that we shouldn’t make use of the information that NIWA uses to make adjustments, it is just how we should do this, and that we need to be much more precise about what we are actually claiming.

            To help understand the issues let me bravely make a couple of analogies between the problems of predicting the surface temperature of NZ and the quantity of hydrocarbons under it. I should note that I make no claims to knowledge of either, and we need to recognise that temperature is much more dynamic than hydrocarbon distribution, but in principle much easier to measure.

            Now if we go back in time there was a point where we had a very limited number of direct and indirect measures of the hydrocarbons. I’d like to use that situation as the basis for what follows.

            My first point is that if you had two measures at locations close together you wouldn’t simply average these to create a single measure at one of the points; you would make use of the richness of the additional data to provide a wider understanding of what was going and the uncertainties in the measures.

            Turning to your comment about the Wellington example, it isn’t at all clear to me why this can’t be treated as two separate observations. But much more important if you do decide you particularly want a long-term estimate of temperature at the Met Office going back beyond the actual observations, that good science would dictate that you’d report the uncertainty associated with the estimate and ensure this was incorporated into any subsequent use of that estimate.

            I assume you would do this when using observations from multiple locations to better estimate the hydrocarbons at one of them.

            My second point is you wouldn’t use the information you happened to have at locations where surveys have been done to generalise about our overall stock of hydrocarbons – particularly if you go back to a time where measures where rarer. The reason for this is it is pretty obvious that you would get systemic bias simply because surveys would have occurred where there was the greatest likelihood of finding the stuff. So it is with temperature recordings, you wouldn’t expect scientists to say that NZ is warming on the basis of observations that are, for example, largely urban (unfortunately NIWA has tended not to be particularly careful with their language on this account).

            So what would you do if you had to estimate the available hydrocarbons under NZ, and you had a limited number of observations? You might in fact say that you couldn’t do it with any accuracy – and this might still apply in some locations. If you had to do an estimate you would no doubt move to using secondary indicators like surface geology and known formations etc (is this right?) to give an estimate.

            But I am absolutely sure that you would put confidence limits around those estimates, as good science dictates.

            As I noted above, the basic purpose of my inquiry into this area is to understand whether this kind of work has been done in NZ in respect of surface temperature, and what it shows about the confidence (in the technical sense) we might have in the trends that are being reported.

            1. Simon, short answer- No – I dont know whether such an approach has been tried or whether it would be productive. I am not totally sure I understand what you are doing.

              Long answer. In terms of modelling, we had a scientist visiting from the NCAR team and it was interesting to look at differences and similarities. We have many of same issues in common: verification and validation, change control, module merging, FORTRAN hassles, access to supercomputers etc but e-science issues are different. They are relentlessly in the open source, in the public eye. We are completely closed-source and hold our secrets tightly. In terms of models, we are both dealing with physical models and both of use same methods for estimation of errors and uncertainty but we diverge quickly after that. Our models are inherently uncontrained, frequently parameterized and dominated by the uncertainities and the effects on risk. We can avoid many dynamical issues thanks to long time frame. They only deal with our issues when applying to paleoclimate.

              None of this relevant to your issue though. I am trying to understand your issue though. If you are trying to estimate average temperature for NZ at time t, then I agree that you could try piece approach, but the issue is to look for change over time. If you estimate a temperature from a station in city on top of hill and then compare it later with temperature from station by sea, then the change you observe is all about the change of station and nothing about climate.

              As Hansen discusses, you have be careful in discussing an average temperature. Consider a city (like Dunedin) with several stations – one by sea, one on top of building in city centre and one in a sheltered inner valley. Even if all stations were same – (same instrument, housings etc) determining an “average” temperature for the city would be daunting task, inseparable from the question of what you want it for. The rub is that to be meaningful, you have to compare like with like – ie adjust past stations to be comparable with current station.

              Research on homogenising networks is ongoing, and yes, of course determining the errors associated with adjustment is inherent in this research. You could look at latest methodology (I would assume GHCN has something like best practise??), redo NIWAs work in accordance with this, calculating errors as you go and then ask how does the NIWA record compare to best to date. Not a trivial exercise but one which I am sure NIWA is doing anyway. Looking at the long station records, snowline, etc. I would say the it would be wishful thinking to suppose that this would make warming in NZ (let alone globe) go away. Urban effects are I think overstated. UHI is real, and with a lot of research on it. It is also reasonably parameterized by average wind speed and city size. Thinking that you can get the magnitude measured from a calm megacity in US or Europe in Palmerston North or Wellington is laughable.

  28. Rob Taylor wrote …

    “That’s right, Mikh, you just be a “good German” and do what you’re told – go to work, consume, watch TV and ignore the screams from the camps and all those box cars going in full and coming out empty…

    Global heating will make Auschwitz look like a tea party – what’s the matter with you, don’t you have children?”

    As my anger subsides, I have to ask whether this is “fair comment”.

    I presume this blog has standards of conduct ?

    If so are these standards breached by Rob Taylor ?

    And Rob, if you’d care to take this up personally, please visit me at my blog, and we could arrange a quiet meeting.

    http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/

  29. Of course it’s fair comment – your attitude is exactly that of the “good Germans” who chose to ignore the obvious signs of impending mass murder. The Holocaust was over in about 10 years, but AGW will likely kill millions every year for centuries.

  30. Are you a blog moderator ?

    Bryan and Gareth need to comment on your hideous post, and as I say, if you would like to have a quiet discussion with me, I’d be delighted to hear you say that to my face.

    1. Robust debate is acceptable. You might not like Rob’s analogy, but you are not exactly a paragon yourself. As long as you’re polite to each other, you can debate away.

  31. Mikh, the consequences of AGW will indeed be hideous if apathy such as yours prevails over what the science tells us is in store.

    If that upsets you, I suggest you pull your head out of the sand and consider the interests of those who will inherit the unstable climate, droughts, disease, famine and war we are currently inflicting on them.

  32. I am not a paragon, because I like you, enjoy robust debate. Rob taylor’s analogy is not robust debate it is a disgrace.

    Gareth your personal acceptance of that analogy is a new low for you and by implication, this blog. By excusing the analogy with accomplices to Nazi butchers you demean yourself.

    And Rob taylor, I repeat once again my invitation to you, to say that to my face.

    1. Let me try to spell it out: we have a situation where the overwhelming weight of evidence tells us that we have a problem, that it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and that it can only get better if we take urgent action now. You actively campaign through your blog and comments around the web for inaction. Your analysis is up front at your blog:
      “Climatastrophe” and the economic bill that goes with it looks like another huge hoax, primarily designed to achieve global socialism.
      Objectively, this is complete bollocks, but we’ll let that pass for now. Global warming and the climate change it brings threatens the well-being of millions, perhaps billions of people over the coming century. You are not just passively letting this happen, you are actively campaigning to stop us doing anything about it.
      Your actions, in some small way, will make the future worse for us, our children and our grandchildren. In that context, Rob’s analogy looks at the very least apposite. And for what it’s worth, I fully expect (and hope) that when the changes begin to bite and the truth is inescapable, the architects of this campaign to do nothing will be held to account in the court of public opinion and perhaps in other courts as well.

      You can take your faux outrage and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

    2. Guess what Mikh,

      You don’t have to bring your awesome debating skills here if you don’t want to. I’m sure it would be to all our great detriment if you decided your feelings get too hurt by coming here. You’ve always got the echo chamber of your blog to snivel off to. (although we all know you need Hot Topic because the only people reading your blog are fools who already think what you think).

      But I have to agree with Rob. The stakes are high. People who, like you, stand in the way of positive action to mitigate the effects of climate change are actively working against the possibility of my kids having good lives. If you think this is nothing more than an intellectual debate simply because you currently don’t experience the consequences of the inaction you proselytize for then you need to reexamine the situation.

      All you bring to these debates are pedantic regurgitations of talking points you’ve read elsewhere on teh internet and each one you come up with is presented as some kind of mortal blow to science rather than the rubbish it is.

  33. So gareth, that comment is acceptable as “robust debate” is it ?

    This is robust debate Gareth. You are a pretentious fool, who allies with hypocritical politicians such as Kevin Rudd, about to sign off Australia’s biggest export transaction ever, coal to China, yet who like you, weeps crocodile tears and oozes hypocrisy over “global warming.”

    This exchange with you and the loathsome rob taylor won’t be forgotten.

    1. Small point: I’ve never “allied” with anyone, let alone Rudd. As Bryan has said, the coal deal being mooted is very bad news for everyone but the people making the short term profit. The rest of us will be paying the bill for decades to come.

      1. It’s more than bad news if you’re a self professed believer in AGW gareth. It’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.

        And “allied” is a loose term, used loosely to describe like minded people.

        1. Ah, OK. So you won’t object if I describe you as having allied yourself with Rodney Hide, Richard Treadgold, Inhofe, The Heartland Institute, Monckton and the rest of the denierati…

      2. The deal may not necessarily be bad news. Any coal that is extracted won’t actually be burnt for many years in the future. Within that time they may have discovered a viable and cost effective way of trapping and storing the carbon emissions emitted by any process that uses the coal. Now the probability of this might be low at this point in time but you can’t just state categorically that this is ‘very bad news’ without qualifying the statement.

  36. Well, this week has seen the disclosure of the full dataset for Hokitika temperature station – recreated by NIWA staff after the original documents/computer records were “lost”. That’s real progress, at last.

    I understand NIWA intends to drip-feed the datasets for the other six temp stations over the next couple of weeks. Then, with all the relevant information in the public domain, we can analyse the adjustments and debate their merits. Eventually, the world will know who was right and who wasn’t.

  37. Well now you have Wellington and Hokitika, do you still think the NZC”S”C method (dont homogenize at all) to get the result they want is correct? Give me a break. I’m still waiting for you tell me why you think the NIWA analysis must be suspect in face other data.

    1. Are you stuck in the 1940’s or something Rob?

      First it was the whole Nazi/Holocaust analogy then it was the variation of ‘What will you tell your (grand)kids about what you did in the War’. Next you will probably be telling us to watch what we say because ‘loose lip’s sink ships’.

      You do realise that this sort of apocalyptic doom mongering just turns people off. In fact I believe one of Tony Blair’s Science adviser’s suggested that the debate needs to move away from this sort of thing as it doesn’t help move forward to action.

  40. Gareth/ Phil Scadden

    You are not going to succeed in dragging me into a slanging match. I was merely trying to get access to the adjustment calculations for the other 5 or 6 stations. It seems I am not the only one who is unsure whether or not NIWA has delivered these appropriately (see comment by Australis).

    Phil Scadden, thanks for your civil attempt to point me to that link.
    I went there, but it seems that, to quote, “The methodology for adjusting for site changes in the NZ temperature record was published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Climatology in 1993.

    Reference:

    Rhoades, D.A. and Salinger, M.J., 1993: Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes. International Journal of Climatology 13, 899 – 913.”

    What I am looking for may or may not be there, I dont have time to look for it. It woiuld have been better I think if I could access it on-line, and the fact that I cannot (?) surprises me, in view of the ramifications of NIWA’s adjustments, and the amount of public concern/ debate over whether or not access to the adjustment calculations is either difficult or impossible.

    Thanks anyway Phil. I think I will leave this site to the slangers. I made a reasonable request; most of what I got back from Gareth was pugnacious and off the point.

    1. The point, old chap, is that you seem — how shall I put this politely? — to have too little time to do any research. And your tone and style is remarkably similar to one Richard Treadgold, who remains unwelcome here unless and until he issues a formal and public apology for smearing NIWA and its scientists.

  41. I couldnt agree more that online access to all science journals would be great but who pays the journals? NIWA cant just put up a PDF of it without journal permission. This is a methodology paper – what you would need if you were attempting a replication. For more general work on how this is done you might like to check Petersen and Easterling in goggle scholar – you might find something that isnt behind a paywall.

    Frankly, I would have thought the detail on Hokitika and Wellington would have shown that NIWA are at least a great deal more competent at this than NZC”S”C. Its not as if NIWA’s result is in discordance with other indicators so I am struggling to understand why all the doubt. It not like they havent got something more productive to do – unlike NZC”S”C it would seem.

  43. Mikh,
    Are you threatening someone on this blog?

    Your repeated propaganda and anti science drivel do pose a serious threat because dumbass politicians use your lies to support their idiotic status quo arguments. The danger that you pose is that public policy may be affected as a result. Just because you are wrong doesn’t make you harmless.

    I don’t think you are a Nazi (they were more organised and thier lies more cogent) but you are dangerously anti-social. You should not be surprised when people treat you as if you were a rebellious teenager or a crazy stranger. It is, after all, exactly how your own output portrays you.
    you.

  44. I don’t know if we should blame Mikh entirely, Joep; it must be hard for him, being possessed by the undead soul of a silly old bugger like Ayrdale…

  45. You guys win. Is insulting people, and baiting them into a slagging match with you the only way you can generate blog traffic?

    You are paranoid if you think, because I am looking for some information, I must necessarily be someone else with whom you are quarrelling.

    If my livelihood is threatened by an ETS, based in part on a report from NIWA, then I dont find it unreasonable to question the merits of their reports/ graphs etc.

    Besides, given NIWA’s prevarication, and other recent revelations abaout data manipulation, only a snout-in-the-trough would accept NIWA’s say-so based on describing only 2/7 dataset adjustments.

    Ah, what was the other thing….? oh yeah, Salinger et al won’t let NIWA put a pdf of his “methodology” on line? You guys work for NIWA or something?

      1. Socrates, NZC”S”C is NZ Climate Science Coalition – though the “science” is alleged – a lobby it would appear because their stuff isn’t published in the scientific sense. This brouhaha arose from NZCSC press release questioning the NIWA record and way of adjusting temperature measurement. Plenty more detail on this site but we had assumed you were asking about the adjustment because you had heard the allegations. (Where else did the comment about “the amount of public concern/ debate” come from?).

        If you interested in this question of homogenization of temperature records, then I would urge you to follow you the literature a bit (beginning with the Petersen and Easterling publications). There has been a lot of work over many years into determining good ways to do this and validating methodology. I sadly do not think it is possible to rush into a scientific debate without doing some background reading.

  46. .. btw, you also appear to be seriously obsessed with NZ”S”C, whatever that is.
    I’m not the slightest bit interested in your quarrel with it. You do know there are treatments for people like you, right?

    1. If you’re not interested in what the people actively campaigning against emissions reductions are doing, that’s fine, but it’s a bit rich to turn up here spouting the same nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

  47. Hang on, you guys got a point – this is fun! this is cool! You get to get even for having been a miserable little bullied kid. You get to challenge each other to cyber duels! Effing A!

    Now that you all grown up, nicely on the state tit, you letting it all hang out. Rebirthing, I think group-thinkers like you call it. This is your whole life, eh? And you have figured out that most people will react to your get-your-own-back bullying. Which of course is what you are looking for.

    Guy like me comes along, genuinely seeking information, next thing I am reduced to pretend street-fighting. Arrrggggh …. I like it!

    I think Gareth is paranoid, and attention-seeking. His site has minimal traffic, little of it discussing the science, the pitiful rest of it ranting by losers consumed with getting their own back on the world. He talks about hoping for the day when people like me who question his religion get Nuremburg’ed. Like he WANTS it to happen, while pretending he is worried about our kids.

    People like me, hoping for news which shows there is no catastrophe looming, should be hunted down and punished. You the Man, Gareth, you the Bomb! Maybe you lining yourself up as a state-salaried AGW Judge, or perhaps you going for something a little sexier, like executioner, hanging the “denierati” with wire. Finally finding satisfaction in life.

    Scadden is glued to the blog, pretending to be an open-minded scientist, running interference on behalf of NIWA, and possibly on the payroll for doing this. Either way, he surely has a secure job, a salary likely paid by the same people he is hell bent on messing around. Clearly, neither of these two would suffer from ETS taxes, or else they too would be hoping for the best, not for the worst.

    I wish to hell I had never stumbled across this blog in a sincere attempt to find the truth.

    You feel good now that I have finally been provoked into reacting in the manner you crave so desperately? Go to the hell you are wishing on the rest of us.

    2. Gee, what a lot of hostility! You asked questions, I tried to help. Sorry, I have no idea I was provoking you. Finding who I work for would be trivial. I think of myself as running interference for truth and science. For my part, I would like to wake up tomorrow and find AGW a bad dream but faced with the evidence before me, I think we are better off facing reality and paying now rather than risking generations to come. I also am not necessarily a fan of ETS – just whatever it take to get emissions down. Give us a better idea.

  48. Yep, certainly good fun for you.

    Reasoned response? you mean, like first-response to accuse me of being someone I am not? Like your alter ego Scadden assuming that my interest was triggered by reading the recent news? You guys are scientists, to be sure, with assumptions like that. Definitely reasoned responses all.

    Any idea how stupid you appear to a new visitor to your site?

    Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility that you are merely a populist stirrer – trying to cash in on AGW to make a name for yourself, like more than just a few others.

    I’ve done some research since I made the mistake of asking for help on your pitiful blog – it seems that there is a large body of opinion which considers you a complete dick. No doubt you will love this comment, living for it as you do.

    So I challenge you to leave it there, and I will do the same. But my money says
    you will not be able to resist that which you love more than anything else in life – another chance to take a cheap shot at someone who can’t hit you.

    I think you are probably a coward, but you could prove me wrong by not responding to this.

    Coward?

  49. Socrates, it actually doesn’t matter what anyone “thinks”, the existential issue is the radiative physics of the Earth’s atmosphere and the response of climate and biogeochemical systems to the almost unprecedented rapid forcing we humans have subjected them to over the last few centuries.

    If you are looking for “evidence” that AGW is a crock, I suggest you try the sites on the right hand side of http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

    If you want the science, a good place to start is
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

  50. Socrates, your name is poorly chosen. It’s clear, from the idiotic nonsense spouted by Treadgold and others – incapable of absorbing even the simplest facts – that the bar is set pretty low when it comes to the “sceptic” camp – but you have managed to set it even lower. You have perhaps even beaten mikh in a close-run contest.

  51. jeez, you guys are truly scary. A guy wants proof makes him a sceptic? Bloody hell. A true believer doesnt question anything, right?

    Of course I want to think AGW is a crock. Dont you? Or do you really WANT AGW? Like normal people want sex, you freaks want catastrophe.

    I’ve got no opinion on AGW. Bothers you freakos, eh, that someone can have no opinion on your God. Same way religious freaks fear agnosticism.

    Leave you freaks to your wet dreams. Promise you, I wont be reading any replies as I feel debased enough already by my exchanges on this site.

    Learned one thing, though, that is how freakishly dedicated you freaks are to your AGW god. Me, i really dont know about AGW – trying to find out, and obviously visiting his site is no help in that quest.

    Fascist Dicks.

  52. oh, one last thing…..

    Mikh, save yourself the angst, dont bother with these dicks anymore.
    Let them talk to themselves.

    You will never get cowards to front in person, you are merely falling into their snare to run up blog traffic.

    I’m out of here , take a shower, wash the stench off…

  55. Socrates, you are quite right. There is a degree of civility that makes dialogue between individuals stimulating.

    I think Bryan understands it, probably because he has a lot of confidence in his argument.

    Gareth, and the despicable rob taylr don’t, and that reflects on their lack of confidence and their own insecurities.

    I have invited rob taylor to a quiet tete a tete when he is next in Tauranga, to see if he has any moral fibre behind his abuse.

    rob t, you know where to find me, and I would be delighted to hear you repeat your Nazi/good German allegations face to face.

  56. Wow, the courageous “Mikh / Argyle” and “Socrates”, who are so sure of themselves that they have to cower behind pseudonyms!

    How about demonstrating a little moral fibre yourselves, guys – use your real names, as we do.

    Come on, prove that you have the courage of your convictions; why should I waste any time on anonymous wimps?

  57. For the would-be genocide enablers amongst us, such as Rodney Hide, Discount Monckton and their acolytes, here is a projection of where we’re headed this century (New Scientist, 28/2/09):

    “The last time the world experienced temperature rises of this magnitude was 55 million years ago, after the so-called Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event. Then, the culprits were clathrates – large areas of frozen, chemically caged methane – which were released from the deep ocean in explosive belches that filled the atmosphere with around 5 gigatonnes of carbon. The already warm planet rocketed by 5 or 6 °C, tropical forests sprang up in ice-free polar regions, and the oceans turned so acidic from dissolved carbon dioxide that there was a vast die-off of sea life. Sea levels rose to 100 metres higher than today’s and desert stretched from southern Africa into Europe.

    While the exact changes would depend on how quickly the temperature rose and how much polar ice melted, we can expect similar scenarios to unfold this time around. The first problem would be that many of the places where people live and grow food would no longer be suitable for either. Rising sea levels – from thermal expansion of the oceans, melting glaciers and storm surges – would drown today’s coastal regions in up to 2 metres of water initially, and possibly much more if the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica were to melt. “It’s hard to see west Antarctica’s ice sheets surviving the century, meaning a sea-level rise of at least 1 or 2 metres,” says climatologist James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “CO2 concentrations of 550 parts per million [compared with about 385 ppm now] would be disastrous,” he adds, “certainly leading to an ice-free planet, with sea level about 80 metres higher… and the trip getting there would be horrendous.”

    Half of the world’s surface lies in the tropics, between 30° and -30° latitude, and these areas are particularly vulnerable to climate change. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example, will feel the force of a shorter but fiercer Asian monsoon, which will probably cause even more devastating floods than the area suffers now. Yet because the land will be hotter, this water will evaporate faster, leaving drought across Asia. Bangladesh stands to lose a third of its land area – including its main bread basket.

    The African monsoon, although less well understood, is expected to become more intense, possibly leading to a greening of the semi-arid Sahel region, which stretches across the continent south of the Sahara desert. Other models, however, predict a worsening of drought all over Africa. A lack of fresh water will be felt elsewhere in the world, too, with warmer temperatures reducing soil moisture across China, the south-west US, Central America, most of South America and Australia. All of the world’s major deserts are predicted to expand, with the Sahara reaching right into central Europe.

    Glacial retreat will dry Europe’s rivers from the Danube to the Rhine, with similar effects in mountainous regions including the Peruvian Andes, and the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, which as result will no longer supply water to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Bhutan, India and Vietnam.

    Along with the exhaustion of aquifers, all this will lead to two latitudinal dry belts where human habitation will be impossible, say Syukuro Manabe of Tokyo University, Japan, and his colleagues. One will stretch across Central America, southern Europe and north Africa, south Asia and Japan; while the other will cover Madagascar, southern Africa, the Pacific Islands, and most of Australia and Chile (Climatic Change, vol 64, p 59)…”

    This will inevitably bring about a cull of the human population, as well as countless other species. a world of agricultural and ecosystem collapse will be a world of mass starvation, migration, disease and war.

    It would be a new Holocaust, but one that goes on and on for centuries; a world of madness and megadeath, suicide and cannibalism. It will be a global-scale version of this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Famine
    and this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road

    Wake up, you fools, is this really the future you want for your children?

  59. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Apologise? Why?

  60. And today’s question from the ACT party:
    9. JOHN BOSCAWEN to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Does NIWA maintain an up-to-date Schedule of Adjustments of all changes made to the raw temperature data which are used in calculating the official series “Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008”, published on the NIWA website; if not, why not?

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/2/f/3/00HOH_OralQuestions-List-of-questions-for-oral-answer.htm

  63. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » STOP PRESS: Wellington “altitude fix” was a lie – NIWA

Leave a Reply