It paid to be in Alexandra last year - with almost the same amount of rain falling there all year as Mount Taranaki experienced in one day.
NIWA's annual climate summary, released today, paints a picture of a slightly drier year for much of the country, but also with cooler temperatures.
Alexandra tops the list for the driest place in the country, with 378mm of rain falling all year.
Mt Taranaki had 336mm fall in one day on July 15 - the highest rainfall recorded anywhere in the country in one day last year.
"It would have been quite funny if someone from Alexandra was visiting someone up in Mt Taranaki - their entire annual rainfall fell in one day,'' Niwa principal climate scientists Andrew Tait said.
Alexandra was always a dry place, but Dr Tait said it was probably a bit drier last year, "but not by much''.
Despite Mt Taranaki recording the wettest day last year, the west coast of both islands recorded below normal annual rainfalls for the year.
Wanganui recorded its driest year on record.
"The coolness really came from having more easterly type airflows than what we normally get, and those easterlies coming off the water tended to be a bit cooler and cloudy and damper over on the eastern side, but over on the western side it tended to be a bit sunnier and warmer and drier.''
Doubtless the climate science boffins will still find a way to attribute a cooler-than-average year to Global Warming. Is it any wonder that people are sceptical?
34 comments:
So you think that unless New Zealand's average temperature breaks a new record each and every year climate change is some sort of myth? Did you come up with that scientific principle all on your own, or did a mentally challenged four year old help you?
Oh dear, oh dear more confusion about the difference between weather and climate.
The AVERAGE temperature is increasing but the term of "climate change" is now used more than global warming because it better represents the volatile nature of our weather patterns because of the warming.
China is actually gripped in the biggest freeze in almost 30 years but will probably suffer from a drought in Summer.
There are predictions that the Arctic ice will completely disappear in 2016 (only 3 years away) and the resulting effect on the jet stream will see even more volatile weather in Europe.
Even the World Bank is planning on dealing with the probable crises in developing nations because of Climate Change: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/nationals-head-in-sand-over-climate.html
I think, even among climate skeptics, there are few who are so clueless as to think a single datapoint is enough to test an idea.
Here is a NIWA ink to show how temperatures in the pacific region are generally increasing despite the odd drop. See figures 3&4 on the link: http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate#y140
You really are a terribly foolish, KS.
This is kind of bollocks because the issue is cause of change we don't like. If its us we can all run around and lament the age of comfort and ease we live in while doing nothing much because it will inconvenience us. If not, we are at the whim of bigger things than our egos. I think its not us to a material degree so will just live with the consequences, whatever they may be, in the view that we can't do nuch about it.
3:16
bsprout - can you supply references for:-
1 Increased volatility in weather patterns ………and not just something from the Guardian. The myth about increased number of tropical storms and that they are more has been debunked.
2 Artic ice completely disappearing in 2016. I find that statement utterly unbelievable.
If not I'll just take it as the usual bs we are fed by global warming (oops, climate change) alarmists. (btw, I think your name suits you remarably well).
they are more has been debunked.
That should read:-
they are more violent has been debunked
Anonymous, on my blogpost that I linked to I have links to the New Scientist and the World Bank.
A simple Google search will also find the following organisations support the prediction of increasing weather volatility:
-IPCC
-The US Global Change Research Programme
-American Association for the Advancement of Science
-Federation of Australian Scientific and Technical Societies
-United States National Research Council
-The Royal Society of New Zealand
-The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
-The African Academy of Sciences
-The European Science Foundation
-The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
-The American Geophysical Union
-The European Federation of Geologists
Just to name a few
As for the Artic ice melt projections it was reported in the New Scientist and an article in Euronews. Apparently a number of respected scientists have made this claim and Professor Peter Wadham of Cambridge University was one mentioned.
The organisations that appear to support deniers and skeptics appear to mostly set up by business interests rather than science. Fred Singer's name often appears as a leading science skeptic, but he is hardly at the forefront of scientific knowledge as he is now in his eighties and he also fought against the idea that tobacco smoking was harmful and against the idea that CFC's caused ozone depletion.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html
Over 90% of scientists now support the reality of man made climate change. If 90% of medical specialists predicted that a particular behaviour would cause serious health issues I wouldn't keep doing it because 10% had doubts, it just isn't logical.
bsprout wins
The IPCC bprout? Surely you jest. Or have you conveniently forgotten Climategate?
@ The Adjudicator - be fair; bsprout is a teacher, so he doesn't have anything else to do during the holidays. Some of us have to work :-)
bsprout - I asked for respected references to your two claims. This usually means a published article by a respected journal that has had the opportunity to be reviewed. A reference to your own blog is not one. If you have links in your blog then please save me the time and cut and paste the relevent links. A list of organisations is not proof. Even the British Met Office has now declared that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
Quoting extreme events as evidence is just the level of argument that I'd expect from an alarmist; extreme events happen all the time and , believe it or not, new records get set but these are only those that have been recorded in the very short period that we have been recording them.
NIWA is not a resource that can be trusted having been caught out altering data.
So I repeat:- give me a reference that there is an increase in extreme events and that the Artic sea ice will be gone by 2016.
What Anon @9.40 said. BS prout is an accurate nom de plume.
There is still no proven link between: trace gasses in the atmosphere, manmade intervention, and gorebull warmening/climate change/whatever it's called today. Before the warmeners get all hot and bothered fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg The CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperature - not the other wat around.
For every warmener science factoid (normally of dubious provenance - Mann/Pachauri/UEA et al) there are opposite scientific findings from valiant individuals who do science in the face of political and emotional rhetoric.
You can see here that BS prout is quickly reduced to name calling - 'deniers' etc. rather than sticking to the discussion.
I probably shouldn't, but, just for the fun of it:
KS, Why do you think "climategate" invalidated the IPCC findings?
Paranormal,
There is lots of evidence for the fact extra greenhouse gases (or any other forcing) lead to extra warmth. Let's imagine there wasn't -- can you tell us how adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere would manage to make no difference? If you position denies basic physics it may need to be reassessed.
Anonymous, what I was referring to was the collective understandings of respected science institutions. Those understandings are made up from hundreds and thousands of peer reviewed papers. One paper from one individual may support what we are discussing but surely it is the weight of accumulated evidence that is more important.
Documents such as this Iowa climate statement carries more weight than one paper because it is a collective view based on their individual research. http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/images/main_slideshow/ICS_drought2012FINAL.pdf
I would be interested in anything you can produce that is as compelling.
KS, Climate Gate is just a fabrication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
I know I shouldn't challenge individuals faith in their religion - but I will.
Are you serious? Despite Climategate and all the other evidence of collusion, vested interests, dodgy science/data, and peer pressure/bullying you still take the IPCC report seriously? The faith is strong within you young padawan.
Basic Physics Mr Winter? I think you may need to reassess your position. Evidence doesn't seem to back you up. No evidence of global warming for the last decade but a 9% increase in a trace gas over that time.
Please also re-read my post to understand what I was saying. There is no proof of a link between the three issues. Yes the climate is changing, but there is no proof of a link between climate change, trace gases, and mans emmissions. There are plenty of theories - none that have yet been proven.
Anon@3.16 sums it up well.
Paranormal is High Priest in his local Deniers Church. His faith is rock-solid. All non-believers are Damned and Paranormal knows no fear when it comes to dealing with Infidels. He smotes, he dispatches Scientists and Rational Thinkers to the Pit of Sulphurous Despair. All fear Paranormal! He knows where you live!
(Wait til he calls you Watermelons, or declares that you are from the Liarbore camp - devastating rhetoric from the High Priest/Grand Skink).
Collective "understandings" of "respected" science institutes does not have any scientific validity and gross exaggeration about hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles does not cut it either. All I want is any proof to back up your statements that there is an increase in severe weather events and the the Artic sea ice will be gone by 2016.
On one side we have scientists whose work is based on evidence and ethical codes and their reputations based on peer reviews. On the other side we have industry interests whose livelihoods are based on profits generated from unsustainable resources.
On this blog there appears to be great distrust of scientists who are supposedly motivated by greed and money (I actually don't know many truly wealthy scientists). However there is much trust placed in in the fossil fuel industry who largely pay the wages of the 5% of scientists who question the mass of evidence on climate change.
I recommend all the skeptics here read "Merchants of Doubt" so that you can see who is really holding back action on climate change and spreading doubt on solid science. http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org
The very same organisations and scientists who supported the tobacco industry and safety of CFCs are largely behind the denial of climate science. And it is denial when the weight of evidence pushes beyond what normal skepticism could accept.
Paranormal,
I asked a simple question. Greens house gases trap heat (effectively), yes? If they do that, then how come adding lots more of them to our atmosphere won't cause warming? Answer that and I'll have a go at a few of yours.
Oh dear, Anonymous, you just haven't understood what have been attempting to explain, there is no proof that the Summer ice will disappear by 2016, just lots of evidence that it is possible. There is no one paper I could find you that would conclusively prove that climate is becoming more volatile because of climate change just lots of agreement from science institutions that the weight of evidence supports it.
Scientist tend to be conservative in their predictions (they are not dealing in certainties) and what we are finding is that the rate of change is actually occurring faster than the predictions.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-faster-than-predicted
If you want to wait for conclusive proof before you demand action it will be too late.
BSprout - So in essence you are talking BS. You made the following comments:-
the term of "climate change" is now used more than global warming because it better represents the volatile nature of our weather patterns because of the warming.
and:-
There are predictions that the Arctic ice will completely disappear in 2016
You can back up neither statement and have resorted to verbal dribble…
there is no proof that the Summer ice will disappear by 2016, just lots of evidence that it is possible…..but you cannot provide the evidence.
There is no one paper I could find you that would conclusively prove that climate is becoming more volatile
Here is a list of papers that prove that there is no increase in climate volatility. Go to the link attached for the web addresses for each of those listed below.
Floods – no increase in frequency, less intense
Extreme weather events – no trend
Global precipitation – no trends
Rate of sea level rise – deceleration over 80 years
Weird weather – no trends
Forest fires – decreasing frequency
Tropical Pacific sea level rise – fell
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/27/another-paper-shows-that-severe-weatherextreme-weather-has-no-trend-related-to-global-warming/
Anonymous, I visited the site you linked to and while there are links to some seemingly reputable papers much of the content is suspect. Can you find a link to a truly reputable scientific site? I'm sure you can find papers that question conventional science but the fact is that such work still represents the minority. It is important to have people challenge mainstream science, because that makes it more robust, but if you put all your weight on scientific outliers then you are in dangerous territory.
BS - now you are really being an arsehole. Firstly Anthony Watts is a reputable climate scientist, not one of the rag-tag bunch you listed who don't have a climate scientist amongst them. Secondly, for someone who has quite plainly shown that all they can do is regurgitate propaganda, any comment you make about 'suspect content' can only be ignored.
Like all 'believers' of anthropogenic global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it, when challenged your argument has no substance. It is quite simply a load of nonsense, you know it, we know it and you know that we know it, so just give up.
Anthony Watts is a reputable climate scientist,
No. He is a retired meteorologist.
From Wikipedia - Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere…….
Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate, and are explained by the science of meteorology. Those events are bound by the variables that exist in Earth's atmosphere; temperature, air pressure, water vapor, and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Different spatial scales are studied to determine how systems on local, regional, and global levels impact weather and climatology.
Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.
Sure he was a meteorologist, but meteorologists are also part of climate science. He has also published a significant paper exposing what is wrong with temp stations and recordings in the US. I'll accept his credentials as a climate scientist.
Well, it's not actually about credentials, but even so, he's not a climate scientist. His paper (this one) doesn't "expose what is wrong" with temperature stations, in fact, it says "the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications."
If you are referring the paper he was spiruking last year, I believe that is yet to be published?
Helen Clarky - is that you Robert Guyton?
It is really interesting you reflect what I think of the leftist green mafia. Is it the reminder of the disgraceful underbelly of climate science that drives you? If all your argument amounts to is sarcasm, then carry on, for whatever it is you get out if it. BTW I do have a great respect for science and scientists. However I don't have any respect for the pseudo-science of those scientists who have abandoned their scientific ethics to continue the charade that is AGW/claimant change/ or whatever it is called now.
Robert Winter – I am aware there is a theory about ‘greenhouse gasses’ trapping heat. There is one greenhouse gas that does this effectively – water vapour. Otherwise – the theory has not been proven to show that carbon dioxide and other similar trace gasses retain heat in the atmosphere, particularly when the atmosphere mainly consists of a very stable gas. In fact, as I noted above, the evidence of the past decade shows completely the opposite. For theories to hold true, they have to be proven across a range of situations. For gases to have a warming influence, then they would be more of a driver in climate. However, it seems that sea surface temperature is a more consistently provable driver of climate and weather.
That's David Winter, Robert's another bloke, no relation.
Anyway, you are just flat out wrong on most of this.
Co2 was shown to be a greenhouse gas in the 1860s, subsequent measurements have all confirmed that observation.
Water vapour is one part of the greenhouse effect, but when you add more water to the atmosphere it rains, when you add more CO2 its effect (if not the particular molecules) will persist for thousands of years.
The evidence that CO2 (and other GHGs) trap warmth in our atmosphere is just as well established, we can measure this by comparing the wavelength of radiation escaping earth.
I can't imagine what Nitrogen has to do with anything, but let me know. Similarly, if you want to point to evidence that sea surface temp is a long-term driver of climate I'd be happy to see it (though it's hard to imagine how that would work, given ocean cycles generally move energy around, rather than add secular trends).
So Mr Winter - please explain how over the last decade we have a decrease in global temperatures whilst we have an increase in CO2. We have all these grand claims that have yet to be backed up by observable proof.
I would also respectfully suggest you don't know as much about the climate as you think you do. Not that I or anyone else on the planet does - but that's my point*. You have your Gorebull Warmening THEORIES that have yet to be proven. “Consensus” is not proof – it’s not even science. What we do know from the ice records is that CO2 increase follows warming.
It has been known since 1910 that Sea Surface temperatures have a significant effect on climate. Long term weather predictions are based on Sea Surface temperatures. El Nino and La Nina are driven by unexplained changes in ocean currents. Don't believe me - do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-surface_temperatures
http://www.weatherlogistics.com/seasonalforecast/?tag=unseasonably-cool-sea-surface-temperatures-in-the-north-atlantic-ocean
http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/
*BTW that's what pisses me off so much about the whole climate change/gorebull warmening bullshit. It is a political agenda that scientists have used to channel funding into dodgy science and avoided any further study into areas that might disprove their pet theories. We have so much more to learn and we are not addressing it.
Disclosure - I have worked for companies that created and sold computer modelling of natural phenomena.
Paranormal,
You keep spinning out these lines. But you haven't told me how we can add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere without warming the environment.
The trend in temps for the last 10yrs has been flat (the sign flips from one dataset to another) - but that would only be a problem for climate science if we had thought CO2 was the only driver of climate. Of course we don't and, as you say, SST and solar radiation and vulcanism all contribute to climate patterns over the short term.
Your comment "explain how over the last decade we have a decrease in global temperatures whilst we have an increase in CO2" is like asking
"please explain how a child can be "grwoing" if that child is shorted when measured in the evening than they are in the morning"
BTW, if you look at the last 5 years the trend is strongly positive. Which just goes to show what slicing and dicing temp series can show.
The issue is you have assumed the pseudo science is correct whereas we are yet to see conclusive proof that:
1) So called greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the atmosphere and
2)a trace element added at marginal levels can have the huge impact you beleive is possible. (This feeds into the nitrogen issue I raised above - a huge stabilising factor in the atmosphere.)
No, Paranormal,
I accept the evidnce that CO2 is a greenshouse gas, an that its effect can be observed in the atmosphere.
I also believe the standard calculations as to how much warmth that will add to the atmosphere, all else being equal, and the the neasurements of how large feedback are likely to be.
Once you have those in place (and they really are well settled) you need some counter-acting force to prevent warming from our emission. You haven't provided one. I can't for the life of me see why nitrogen will do anything (it's not a greenhouse gas, but it is subject to thermodynamics). So, tell me what's going to stop Co2 we release from warming the planet.
Post a Comment