NIWA’s new climate projections coming soon

The Herald managed a sneak peek at NIWA’s latest round of climate projections last week:

Scientists expect New Zealand’s mean temperature will rise by an average 1.8C by the 2080s. By 2100, there will be up to 70 more days with temperatures over 30C, and frosty days will also drop, by five to 20 days in the North Island, and 10-30 days in the South Island. Snowlines will rise and westerly winds will be 20 per cent stronger. Severe droughts are likely to occur up to four times as often, but heavy rain will be more frequent.

Full results will not be available until September at the earliest, but I’m breathing a deep sigh of relief because the new study – based on the global climate modelling used in the IPCC’s Fourth Report – confirms earlier work, and that’s what I used in Hot Topic. Brett Mullen told the Herald:

“You don’t really want to have to reverse what you were saying before, but there certainly were some differences from what we saw in the first assessment. I think we’re on a firmer basis now.

17 thoughts on “NIWA’s new climate projections coming soon”

  1. I think you have this in the wrong section. This should be under Climate Cranks.

    Scientists “expect” New Zealand’s mean temperature will rise by an average 1.8C by the 2080s.

    I “think” we’re on a firmer basis now.

    Afterall we all really know how accurate or how climate models really work. The IPCC have an agenda to push so they construct their models to achieve an appropiate output to suit their adgenda. Presto !! We’re all doomed………….lol !!

    Poor old Augie will be rolling in his grave.

  2. The IPCC have an agenda to push so they construct their models to achieve an appropiate output

    Wrong. That’s a common crank conceit, but it’s not true. The models are built to represent the physical processes occurring in the ocean/atmosphere system, and do a pretty good job at replicating what we see in the real world.

    The people with an agenda here are those who deny the science.

  3. Gareth, why are people who disagree with man made climate change cranks ? What makes the IPCC right and thousands of others wrong ? Why can there not be genuine balanced debate without name calling ?

    Let’s face it, this in nothing more than politics disguised as science. This has been going on know for over 20 years, some consensus.

    Gareth I truly believe you mean well however I also believe you have been suckered into just an all to familiar these days fear campaign.

  4. batnv, possibly the best indication that the “Cranks” are indeed politically rather than scientifically motivated is that there is no consensus amongst them on just about anything to do with the science, Solar influences, changes in glaciers, GCR’s, the heat island effect, how much CO2 levels have been influenced by Man, anything you care to name there is no consensus amongst the “cranks” – sorry on one point there is almost a consensus – It’s not Man that’s causing climate change – but if it is, it’s not important change, political, political, political.
    In comparison the IPPC position is fairly straight forward with strong agreement about observation and an increasingly narrow range of projections for any given emissions scenario.

  5. Gareth, why are people who disagree with man made climate change cranks ? What makes the IPCC right and thousands of others wrong ? Why can there not be genuine balanced debate without name calling ?

    I chose the term “crank” quite deliberately, because it seems to me that to deny the reality of the observations and the immense amount of scientific work that’s been done on the climate system requires a heroic disregard for the facts.

    A wise man once said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. I take the science and look at what it means for our society. I put the politics where it belongs, in the response – not the science.

    For instance, Andrew W (above) and I disagree on many things, but we both acknowledge we’ve got a problem. Those who think it’s all politically-inspired fear-mongering are (with all due respect to you, batnv) living on a different planet. The rest of us are trying to work out a solution down here on Earth.

  6. I have to confess that I just don’t get the whole “hidden agenda” thing on the side of the AGW “scientists”. Or, as batnv puts it, “politics disguised as science”

    For a start the overriding impression I have of scientists is that they just don’t think like that. And then, I have to ask if there really is that much research money to be worried about compared to say the commercial interests of the fossil fuel industry (keep in mind that there are always other things to research but there isn’t much to replace oil!).

    Perhaps batnv can enlighten me

    On the other hand we could try for a genuine balanced debate (about the science).

  7. Andrew H, So your saying that when it comes to science if you don’t agree with the mainstream theory, your a crank ? Sorry to see that you have been so easily programmed to think that way. The IPCC do not do the research themselves, they ‘review’ information provided to them and publish ‘carefully selected’ extracts from that information. And also, isn’t the IPCC membership melting away these days faster than a Greenland icesheet ?

    Gareth, I don’t think anyone on either side is denying climate observations just why they are occuring. Personally I have read, listened, watched a tremndous amount of material from both sides and formed my opinion based on both sides of the argument. If because I acknowledge climate change but not the politically inspired cause, makes me appear to be living on another planet then so be it.

    Andrew H, don’t no about a hidden adgenda but maybe a global carbon tax paid into the IMF and world bank. Stifiling of industrialising third world countries because the IPCC don’t want anymore CO2 emissions.

    So you trust the scientists, oh hang on, just the ones who tell you it’s CO2. And then the tired ol’ “Big Oil” argument. Wow you guys are amazing, the “cranks’ have an agenda but the IPCC doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

    And you really think if oil does run out (again debatable) that they haven’t already got an alternative, I doubt that very much. I suggest you be unbiased and go and do some more homework on this whole issue. The information is out there if can be bothered to look for and read it.

    Cheers all


  8. Bat, why do you think this whole thing is politically motivated? And why do you think that politics has somehow captured the whole of the earth sciences?

    I’ve got a brief section in HT on the history of climate science and our appreciation of the problem, from Arrhenius onwards. It’s particularly interesting to note that the IPCC grew out of the World Meteorological Organisation, and that the way that it works was explicitly designed (thanks to US input) to produce a conservative result. If you’d like more info, read Spencer Weart’s Discovery Of Global Warming, which is unrivalled as a resource.

    Global warming is a serious problem. The science – the best science we have, not the outpourings of a few (forgive me) cranks – tells us that it’s our fault. We have to do something about it. That’s the starting point for the real debate that New Zealanders need to have.

  9. Sorry, bat, but neither of those sites adds anything to the debate, because they deny the science. To believe what they write, you have to assert that every working climate scientist is a rabid left-wing environmentalist. That’s simply not true (in fact it’s insulting).

    You are clearly bringing your own political views to an assessment of the science. That’s a pity, because it leads you to underplay a very real problem. Your political perspective has its place in the debate on what we do, but you’ve got to get past this fantasy that climate science has somehow been captured by people who don’t share your views.

    A wartime analogy is useful when discussing this issue. Put yourself in Britain in 1938-9, before the outbreak of WW2. Looking at Germany, you can see them re-arming, eyeing their neighbours aggressively, demanding “lebensraum”. In London, Churchill warns the government that war is coming, but no-one wants to believe him. The position we’re in now is analogous. We can see the enemy – we can see how bad it could be – but there are still plenty of people prepared to deny the evidence and argue against the need for action.

    I repeat: the politics should be in the response, not the science.

  10. Gareth, are you indeed an idiot ? Did you not read what was written in those links ? Are you really that closed minded ? Maybe you just don’t like what you saw.

    What science is being denied ? That of the IPCC which you don’t question ? Who made them the science god ?

    “every working climate scientist” obviously not as the IPCC are the minority. Over 17,000 signatories to the Oregon Report. 80% of US Meteorologists don’t buy the hype !! Even Jarque Chirac said the only thing the Kyoto Protocol was good for was the first step towards a Global Governance.

    My political views have nothing to do with my view on AGW. That view is based on my own research of the topic. “A very real problem” in your mind maybe. The only fantasy here is AGW. You are quite free to form your own opinion, as are others, however you Gareth seem close minded to information that doesn’t fit your side of the arguement.

    Yeah the WWII analogy is a real doosy, a pre-emptive strike on Global Warming about as justified as the one on Iraq for the non-existant WMD’s. Just like Iraq, the intelligence is flawed, or should I say a bold faced lie. Wait, let me guess, you agreed with that also because hey, they would never lie to us would they. I mean why would they, they’re here to protect us from all that is bad, right ?

  11. Well, bat, so long as you maintain that the intelligence about global warming is based on “a bold faced lie”, we have little to discuss, and you have nothing to contribute to any debate about what we might do about it.

    We might agree about Iraq, though 😉

  12. batnv, Gareth and I have read the opinions expressed in those links many, many times, do you think those articles have something to do with the science of AGW??

    The claims about warming on other planets I address at the end of this thread.

    Paul Ehrlich was not even refering to AGW, he was talking about population growth and the limits of Earths ability to support that increasing population, your second link kinda gives that away if you read it.

    The Oregon petition was not signed by 17000 climate scientists as you seem to believe but by people who had a bachelors degree in science – of which there are millions in the US.

    Instead of trying to make us waste our time by linking to political sites, why don’t you try to learn some of the science?

    One place you could start:

  13. Wow, this is turning into an interesting discussion – even if it is about the politics

    Batnv raises the prospect of “Stifling of industrialising third world countries because the IPCC don’t want anymore CO2 emissions.”

    Stifling of third world countries suggests I right wing conspiracy to maintain the first world at the top of the economic tree….and to achieve that by duping the left wing climate scientist into concocting the IPCC and AGW. It’s brilliant…why didn’t I see it before.

    Peak Oil may be a bit off the hot-topic du jour…but no. I don’t think “they” have the replacement lined up. Why else would US foreign policy seem to be oriented around securing the last drops.

  14. You guys really need to get out there and see how the world really operates. Sorry to say guys but they don’t have our interests at heart only their own. Watch the excellent 3 hour doco called The Corporation.

    Watched a BBC tv doco during the weekend called The Green ??, sorry can’t remember the full title. It was about carbon offsetting. People starting up businesses to sell you carbon offsets to offset things like your air travel. Can even buy them with your ticket online at British Airways. And who said this was not an industry. :o)

    Andrew W, thanks for the ‘realclimate’ link. Have already looked at this site. However I would rather get my daily propaganda fix from FOX news. :o) As for the Oregon Petiton

    Can anybody please supply a list of the IPCC members ? Can’t find one but read they are to release one soon.

    Andrew H, so they don’t mind the third world countries industrialising ? Sorry but this is no conspiracy it is a fact. Check it out. Listen to an interesting interview that one of the Rockefellers gave recently about this.
    As for the oil there is still a very large sum of money to be made. A member of the US administration admitted in a video doco that the world will never see an energy alternative replacement for oil until the last drop has been extracted as their is still too much money to made.

    Gareth, you still never answered my previous question of why the IPCC is right an everyone else is wrong. I mean wasn’t it Micheal Mann one of their authors who created the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph ? And if there is a consensous on this, as they would have you believe, then why after over 20 years is there still so much debate ?



  15. Why is “the IPCC” right and everybody else wrong? Well, the IPCC reviews all the climate-related research done over the preceding six years, and provides an overview of that science. The IPCC process, as I said earlier, was explicitly designed to be conservative (in the sense of cautious), so as to avoid any rush to judgement. Over the last 20 years, and through four comprehensive reports, the scientific community has presented a compelling picture of the reality and workings of global warming and the climate change it brings. In other words, the IPCC represents the state of the art of our knowledge of the climate system.
    There are some people who disagree with the findings of that science, but very few are working climate scientists. Some are motivated by politics (as your link to right wing US opinion site demonstrates), others by – what? I don’t know, a desire to stand outside the mainstream? In any event, none of the so-called sceptics are able to make a credible case to undermine our current understanding of climate and climate change.
    What I would describe as “credible scepticism” is now limited to suggesting that any climate change will be relatively minor and benign – and indeed, that’s the view being pushed by many of the US political or corporate-sponsored sceptics. Unfortunately, the evidence (see recent posts on rainfall) suggests that things may be worse than we expect…
    Interesting you should raise the question of the hockey stick. Whatever the shape of the handle, there’s no doubt that the blade is sticking up a long way above any point in the last 400 years, and probably far longer.
    The debate is in the details, not in the broad outline of what’s happening and why.

  16. batnv: “I would rather get my daily propaganda fix from FOX news.”

    You said it, consider this though, no matter how much political thinkers want AGW to be real, or not to be real, what actually occurs will be a result of our actions and physics, the politics won’t alter the physics, so whatever your political perspective is, basing your views on the opinions of those who are politically motivated rather than on the science, if just living in a fools paradise.

    Did you notice that the wiki page supports my comment of the Oregon petition?

Leave a Reply