JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

New Zealand – Where did that warming go?

UPDATED (below)

Think of this as a car crash. NIWA says: “The car’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with it.”

Then: “We can’t find the keys (actually we’ve lost the car)”.

Later: “We weren’t driving it”.

Finally: “The car doesn’t exist”.

There’s a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims New Zealand has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data, they found that the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answers and got nowhere, until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain or defend the adjustments.

Richard Treadgold was one of that team and wrote it up here.

The legal documents:

August 2010: The NZ Climate Science Coalition’s put together legal claims.

The NZCSC filed judicial review proceedings against NIWA, requesting the Court to:

• Declare the 7SS invalid
• Direct NIWA to prepare a valid replacement NZTR

September 14th 2010: NIWA “defended itself”

Treadgold colorfully summed up what happened when NIWA put out its defense.

NZCSC: “It’s faulty.” NIWA: “It’s not ours.”

How can this be the action of earnest, dedicated scientists — their answer to months of implied accusations of dishonest science? Having suffered, according to their supporters, attempts to smear their top scientists, how can NIWA respond by saying they don’t want to be held responsible?

They’re not defending the temperature record or the mistakes in it, they’re virtually saying: “You’re right, the dataset could be shonky, so we’re washing our hands of it.” Which gives us no confidence in the “science” they might have applied to it. What the hell’s going on?

…it gets worse.

NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.

And that little bombshell just does my head in. For how can they pursue excellence without using the best techniques?

NIWA denies there is any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although they’re happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR).

Specifically NIWA claims:

Point 7: “There is no “official” or formal New Zealand Temperature Record;”

(b) [NIWAs] website contains a page titled New Zealand temperature record (“NZTR”), being an informal description for a collection of different streams of climate information…

Point 8: “The NZTR is not a record and is not a public record for the purposes of the PRA”

It is a controlling public office in respect of the Database; and
(f) It is not a controlling public office in respect of the NZTR, 7SS, 11SS or Marine Measurements for the purposes of the PRA

The implications are far reaching (if a bit open ended)

I wondered out loud in an email to Tony Cox about what it would mean, he replied off the cuff:

The Defence, parts 7 and 8 are novel; the SOC is basically asserting either nonfeasance [not doing something which had to be done] or malfeasance [doing something wrong which had to be done]; the Defence is saying that nothing had to be done and wasn’t done.

This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?

In a nutshell, it appears that what it means is what we make of it.

I’m not sure if there is any legal agency with any power to enforce some action at this point (do enlighten me), but it sure could be a gift — though possibly only if the people of New Zealand (and their friends) decide to run with NIWA’s admissions and pursue this to the end.

All the documents, reports, contracts and parliamentary statements that relied on the New Zealand Temperature Record, are surely now begging to be challenged. All the people that mistakenly believed that the NZTR was more than just an unverified, unaudited, internal document, now need to reconsider where they stand.

Background information

From Quadrant:   Crisis in NZ Climatology and  NZ Climate Crisis Gets Worse

Links to the NZTR

7SS (7 station series) and 11SS (11 station series)

7SS only (one left click for a blowup)

Thanks to Bryan Leyland and Richard C

h/t to several other people who deserve to be named… (and I’ll do that as soon as I can find those comments).

Thanks Richard C for those extra links and Tony Cox for his thoughts.

UPDATE

Richard Treadgold explains on WUWT that legal action is ongoing. NIWA have essentially admitted the NZTR is wrong, and have promised to redo the graph they can’t justify. There is not much left for the court to adjudicate. NIWA have spent $70,000 on 5 or 6 scientists and taken months to do what the volunteers did (but presumably with extra special homogenization tricks as well). They have sent their new graph to the Australian BOM for “ratification”. (Ha ha) BOM adjustments increased Australian raw temperatures by 40%. Unfortunately, increasing nothing (0.06) by 40% is still bugger all. Wait and see if NZCSC need to press on to trial.

UPDATE: From the comments thread

From Richard C

Could Tony Cox clarify the legality please?

Is what he described here, the result of economic tort?

Second question for Tony Cox.

Can the fact that NIWA is displaying the NZTR (7SS and 11SS) on its website in support of its claims “that NZ has warmed during the past century”, be construed as a “passing off” of the NZTR as a “record” and even as a “high quality database”?

From Tony in reply

RichardC @ 5 & 7; the possible tort actions you describe have been largely superseded in most Western nations by the legislative equivalents of Fair Trading and Trade Practice Acts ; basically they codify misrepresentation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
New Zealand – Where did that warming go?, 7.8 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/233ty3m

61 comments to New Zealand – Where did that warming go?

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    It seems like NIWA is adopting the “Deny everything” defense. (Deny there was even a car). The onus is on the claimant to prove there was a car, that NIWA was driving it, and that the keys are still in NIWA’s pocket. It is going to be a long and trying process.

    Richard Treadgold and the NZCSC team have been pursuing this matter for over a year now – without any funding. They are doing a tremendous job of holding bureaucrats and scientist to account by asking clear and simple questions and cutting through the obfuscation that results.

    00

  • #
  • #
    mandarine

    More interesting reading regarding New Zealand…

    Meet New Zealand’s ETS: costly, corrupted and useless:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_new_zealands_ets_costly_corrupted_and_useless/

    AND

    Alan Jones talks to Rodney Hyde – New Zealand MP on the impact of an ETS:-

    http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneshyde120810.mp3

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Snow and bitter cold kill tens of thousands of lambs in New Zealand!

    SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/snow-hit-farmers-call-help-3795585

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    This is extraordinarily stupid. Anyone who has paid, been levied, fined or taxed on the basis of this [non-existent] record because a government, statutory body or private firm which charged the fee did so on the basis of this [non-existent] record could now sue for the recovery of the fee[s] they have paid. Class actions anyone?

    Could Tony Cox clarify the legality please?

    Is what he described here, the result of economic tort?

    FWIW, I left some relevant information at Jo’s (now redundant post) here (comments 20,21,22):

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/away-til-monday/

    Includes links to the Public Records Act 2005 and NIWA 2009 Annual Report (yes, that’s relevant).

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    I don’t think that going after NIWA with law suits is the important thing here. It is the laws and such that were produced on the basis of the temperature record; most importantly the unloved ETS. In the meantime NIWA is frantically producing another temperature series (I think that they are calling it the Eleven Station Series) to take the place of this “informal description for a collection of different streams of climate information” otherwise known as the New Zealand Temperature Record..

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Second question for Tony Cox.

    Can the fact that NIWA is displaying the NZTR (7SS and 11SS) on its website in support of its claims “that NZ has warmed during the past century”, be construed as a “passing off” of the NZTR as a “record” and even as a “high quality database”?

    00

  • #
  • #
    David, UK

    And so another brick in the alarmist wall crumbles. And yet amazingly – galvanised by Big (World) Government – the wall still stands.

    00

  • #
    JEM

    The question is how this will redound on those who put through the ETS, and whether there will be enough anger over this crap to take a bite out of the government.

    00

  • #

    Thanks, Jo, this is a good summary and it’s great publicity.

    You and your readers might be interested in a brief summary we’ve just posted, What’s left of the NIWA case.

    It should help those who haven’t been following events closely.

    Cheers,
    Richard.

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova sums this up pretty well. So well in fact I think I’ll let her (bold mine): [...]

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    JEM,

    I hate to be a pessimist, but I have to say that this is very unlikely to rebound anywhere at all. Most people in New Zealand won’t hear about this development (or if they do, it will not be heard accurately). The ETS does not seem to be widely acknowledged as being all that significant.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Richard Treadgold and the NZCSC team have been pursuing this matter for over a year now – without any funding. They are doing a tremendous job of holding bureaucrats and scientist to account by asking clear and simple questions and cutting through the obfuscation that results.

    Egats! It’s like journalism has come back after all these years.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    To demonstrate what is happening, let me use a parallel.

    Let’s think of Dr James Salinger as the tailor who inserted the “invisible suit of clothes” in to the closet of the Government of the day.

    The Government of the day was pleased to have this fine suit, because it allowed it to impress other countries with is sense of haute couture and emphasised New Zealand as a leader in style. It also raised the status of successive Prime Ministers in the process. (I note that one now has a very senior position at the U.N., whereas previous Prime Ministers from other countries do not — but I digress).

    It also suited the opposition of the day, who had a similar desire to be seen as a world leader, and saw the whole thing as a nice little earner, thank you.

    There was also the question of the “Style Critics” – the Green Party, who has the potential to make or break parliamentary majorities.

    So everybody was reasonably happy, and nobody wanted to rock the boat.

    Except that the tailor wanted to make ever more outlandish “invisible suits of clothes”, and kept on demanding that the Government wear them. In the end, enough was enough, and that particular tailor had to go (but not without a fight).

    The replacement tailor was, and is, a much more pragmatic fellow, who spoke up and asked why the Government wasn’t wearing any clothes at all.

    Well, you can imagine the embarrassment at this revelation, and not only in the Parliament, but in all of the Government agencies that should have questioned earlier, but did not for fear of being ridiculed by the previous tailor.

    The original story, on which this is based, makes little mention of the self-serving courtiers who went along with the King’s belief in the invisible clothes. But the fear in the New Zealand is that their fate was probably not a pleasant one.

    On a more serious note – this is actually a significant crisis for New Zealand, because as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand could suffer trade sanctions, or be censored in other ways, if it doesn’t continue to play by “the rules” as determined by the UN.

    Mandarine: #2

    Crisis in New Zealand climatology…..

    The above comment references a Quadrant article was written by Barry Brill, who just happens to be the Solicitor for The NZ Climate Science Coalition. I recommend that people read the article – it gives the analysis behind the legal action.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    New Zealand – Where did that warming go?

    Or, conversely. Where did that cooling go?

    NZ average temperature (unadjusted)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Richard C (NZ): #16

    Or, conversely. Where did that cooling go?

    Yes, and shock, horror, there is a clear and indisputable upward trend since 1945 – OMG we are all going to die … we will be drowned in the sea of statistical trivia. :-)

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    I am sure something like this would never happen in Australia… the BoM is clean as a whistle… surely? *cough*

    OK I tried to say that with a straight face. Perhaps BoM is a little bit more professional at covering up their mischief…

    00

  • #
    anthony cox

    RichardC @ 5 & 7; the possible tort actions you describe have been largely superseded in most Western nations by the legislative equivalents of Fair Trading and Trade Practice Acts ; basically they codify misrepresentation.

    00

  • #

    NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.

    And from the top of http://www.niwa.co.nz/ :

    NIWA is a Crown owned research and consultancy company, with a global reputation as experts in water and atmospheric research. Our mission is to conduct leading environmental science to enable the sustainable management of natural resources for New Zealand and the planet.

    So, in New Zealand you can do “leading environmental science” without applying the best scientific practices and techniques? Hmm, just like this side of the planet, e.g. NASA GISS.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    In regard to the Australian temperature record Ken Stewart has done some great work; what he believes is the first ever independent check on the official climate record of Australia. It is also the first ever independent check on the official record of an entire continent.
    check out
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-australian-temperature-re cord-part-9-an-urban-myth/
    and check out the link to part 8,
    his conclusion:
    One thing we do know:- the High Quality data does NOT give an accurate record of urban Australian temperatures over the last 100 years. BOM’s reconstruction of the temperature record is at best a guess. High Quality is an urban myth.
    Conclusion

    This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based. Problems with the High Quality data include:

    » It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
    » The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
    » Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
    » Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
    » The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
    » The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
    » The warming bias in the temperature trend is over 40%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
    » The trend published by BOM is 66.67% greater than that of the raw data.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    anthony cox @ 20

    RichardC @ 5 & 7; the possible tort actions you describe have been largely superseded in most Western nations by the legislative equivalents of Fair Trading and Trade Practice Acts ; basically they codify misrepresentation.

    Anthony, thanks for your response.

    Now, where did I stash those Acts…

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val @ 22

    So it bodes well for BOM’s “expert” audit of the “new” NZTR?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Richard at 24 as someone far more clever than I am (I think it was Warwick Hughes) said ‘it’s a bit like asking Dracula to audit the blood bank)

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    So the NZ Emissions Trading Scam (ETS) is based on fradulent data, as I suspected.
    Check out this article about the carousel fraud concerning the EU ETS.
    http://www.infowars.com/organized-crime-in-charge-of-eu-carbon-trade-europol-says/
    The wind industry I hear also is controlled by mafia gangs, anyone to confirm or disprove it?
    Big Oil supports AGW proponents not sceptics.
    http://www.infowars.com/big-oil-behind-copenhagen-climate-scam/

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val @ 25

    Ha!

    BTW, searched “Warwick Hughes” to update my ignorance – thnx

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    richard at 27, found it and here it is WSH (warwick hughes) Says:
    October 7th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
    I see Richard Treadgold commenting on recent developments in NIWA’s attempt to generate a new New Zealand Temperature Record NZTR. This official NIWA page highlights two series they have published over the years.
    I find it a bit amazing they so quickly back away from these – generate something new – which we have not seen – and then say it will be “peer reviewed” by the BoM. Talk about getting Dracula to audit the bloodbank.
    The Australian BoM can not even generate a simple climate dataset for use by the Australian Energy Efficiency Industry. Talk about the “tangled webs we weave”.
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=647#comments

    Have a read at his site; he has quite a bit about BOM; IT’S one of the categories on the left hand side – scroll down to reach

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    David @9

    I guess now that the wheels on the CAGW Trojan Horse are getting shakey( along with international trade in carbon credits as a defacto unit of exchange), the Global Government/Agenda 21 is opting for a Global Currency.

    I imagine the sting in any Tobin Style Global Tax will be easier then.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val @ 28

    This will probably come across as a naive and odd observation, given my disparagement of NIWA (all over the net).

    But after a quick scan of the BOM category at your link, I am perhaps less uneasy about NIWA than BOM.

    NIWA does some good work, including involvement in the ARGO project and their High Performance Computing Facility (HPCF) is now assisting the medical field with some amazing anatomy modelling.

    I have been privileged to gain email time with Dr David Wratt, Chief Scientist at NIWA re possible HPCF work using natural forcings (amongst other things – see comments). This is a snippet from his latest response:

    At NIWA we have to make choices about where to put our effort, and are focusing mainly on regional modeling and analysis for New Zealand and its surroundings. However this does include work on examining the relative influences of natural and anthropogenic forcings on temperature changes in our part of the world, in which we are collaborating with a scientist from the UK Hadley Centre.

    This may sound ominous but you never know.

    In the same vein, I made a series of comments, boring everyone except Ron (thnx Ron), culminating in this comment:

    [FYI Australian viewers, Gareth Renowden runs the NZ alarmist site - Hot Topic, and Gareth Morgan is an NZ alarmist economist - Youza!]

    At the risk of brow-beating, some thoughts on the state-of play re climate model uncertainty as the result of my solitary up-thread odyssey.

    Our worst nightmare is just around the corner.

    That is the cobbling together of climate simulation models and economic simulation models.

    Think Gareth Renowden – Gareth Morgan.

    If dear reader, you are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of discussion, complexity and concept in regard to climate models, then let me alleviate your pain.

    First, the significance of this development.

    Think of how globally: politicians, policy-makers and the public have been hoodwinked by the results of the climate models.

    Now consider that the next phase for IPCC AR5 will be policy built on the results of climate-economic coupled computer simulations with AGW hard-wired in.

    If this is news to you then you are behind the 8 ball and without further education you will be blind-sided when you first encounter the executive summary.

    Gareth Renowden is up to speed:

    Gareth October 5, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Yes, the models are run to equilibrium state with a prescribed atmosphere and other forcings, before being fed the trajectory chosen for study. This does not mean that the “parameters are hard-wired”, it means that the intial climate forcings are chosen to allow a stable “climate” within the model. The response to forcing from that state is prescribed by the physics in the model. If you want to argue about the radiation transfer code, then you need a different debate.

    AR5 modeling will use the latest versions of the earth systems models available, and also use new “policy relevant” scenarios. This means that they will (of course) produce projections that differ from AR4. That’s a good thing, not a sign of failure.

    Are you?

    Note Gareth’s obfuscation re AGW hard-wiring and the “good thing” spin (uncertainty has been increasing with each successive IPCC report).

    An example of the “earth systems models” he is referring to is here:http://www.cim-earth.org/
    which is an aforementioned climate-economic coupled model.

    You can rapidly get up to speed in the progression of the climate model uncertainty discussion and where climate science stands in the context of scientific and engineering simulation generally (not good) in preparation for the next onslaught on your senses, by reading the following two threads (posts and comments):-

    First from Climate Audit

    Curry Reviews Jablonowski and Williamson
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/03/curry-reviews-jablonski-and-williamson/

    Second from Climate Etc

    What can we learn from climate models?
    http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/

    Well, that’s your homework.

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    More at a later date on the distinction between IPCC prescribed RF methodology (ACO2 forced and Naturally forced) and alternative simulations using NON-IPCC RF methodology and NON-IPCC Natural forcing (big difference).

    I have already approached Dr David Wratt at NIWA in this regard (inserted in comments about 6 posts ago), he has acknowledged my approach and has said he will give a detailed reply but I have not heard to date. Given my non-entity status, I am not holding my breath.

    Undaunted, I’m off to search the web for glimmers of hope in the NON-IPCC RF Method/Naturally forced sphere of climate model simulations. This shouldn’t be difficult, it must only be a very small sphere.

    I have since joined the discussion at Dr Curry’s post and as you can see there (or at the Climate Conversations link above), I was not dismissed out-of-hand but that Dr Curry will be addressing my bone-of-contention (attribution) in about 2 weeks.

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    As I have suggested on WUWT blog I cannot see how NIWA’s abandoning of the NZTR will not result in class actions by every NZer (personal or company) who has ever invested money on CO2 reduction measures based on this 0.9 degree/100a warming trend.
    The only hope for NIWA is if they and BOM can quickly come up with a credible version that is just as dramatic but defendable.
    If the trend comes back as flat as the raw data suggests, I would think that every NZer would have a right to believe that they had been conned.
    I originally thought that NIWA was disowning the NZTR so that it could distance itself from litigation, but what I have read since makes me doubt that is possible.
    I am just desparate to hear some more detailed legal advice on this topic.
    This could cost the NZ gov millions (?billions)

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Incidentally legal eagles out there, could non-NZers theoretically join in on a NZ class action? My decision to install certain CO2 reduction measures was made in part because of the alarming numbers coming out of NZ.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Joanne – BIG news.

    joannenova.com.au has hit #40 in Taupo NZ

    Yes it’s true!

    Joannenova.com.au is ranked #154,950 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Compared with the overall internet population, this site’s users tend to be over the age of 45, and they tend to be childless men browsing from home who have incomes between $60,000 and $100,000. The site can be found in the “Nova, Joanne” category. Approximately 68% of visits to Joannenova.com.au are bounces (one pageview only). This site has a relatively good traffic rank in the city of Taupo (#40).

    “childless men browsing from home” – also a little sad

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Richard C (NZ)@33

    “childless men browsing from home” – also a little sad

    Could be worse, it could be:

    Catastrafarians browsing from the pub with Children in tow!

    That profile doesn’t match me on any of its’ points, apart from maybe accessing from home ( call me a traditionalist, but I think I should be doing that thing called work at work).

    00

  • #
    Ross

    MadJak # 34

    All it tells me is we shouldn’t take any notice of Alexa traffic ratings. ( Similar to to S&P and Moody’s !!!!)

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Ross,

    But Moodies have given Ar4 a Triple A super dooper rating. We should all sell them quickly overseas.

    /s

    00

  • #
    Peter P.

    Hey All, slightly off topic… I think 10 October from now on should be commemorated as Climate Fools Day, to remember the beginning of the end of the global warming swindle.

    A hundred years from now, children will remember and celebrate this day!

    Thank you 10:10. No Pressure!

    00

  • #
    Larry Fields

    Pardon my nit-picking, but I hate PDFs. Even when magnified, they’re often too hard on my aging eyes. Here’s a link to a more readable format for the Treadgold team report.
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm

    00

  • #
    TomFP

    @Richard #33
    Could have been worse still – “mindless children browbeating at home”, as seen in 10:10.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Good news I think.

    BoM have an equally shonky record of fixing the data to show serious warming. The warming required by the CSIRO to justify the half billion it received to research CO2 geosequestration. Not likely to get an unbiased opinion from this group. Can we sue BoM over it’s man made warming? Remember Mt. Isa? I would be happy to donate to a fund if legal action is possible.

    As for #33 Retired, yes. Old, sort of. Childless, heavens no.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    At least I’m well off.

    “who have incomes between $60,000 and $100,000″

    Apparently.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    On the news, one small CAGW protest in Victoria, that’s all I could see.

    If 10:10 wanted today to be a watershed, all they got was a small tinfoil hat sitting forlornly in a parched desert of disinterest (surrounded by numerous weddings).

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Richard C (NZ):
    October 10th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Joanne – BIG news.

    joannenova.com.au has hit #40 in Taupo NZ

    Yes it’s true!

    Joannenova.com.au is ranked #154,950 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. Compared with the overall internet population, this site’s users tend to be over the age of 45, and they tend to be childless men browsing from home who have incomes between $60,000 and $100,000. The site can be found in the “Nova, Joanne” category. Approximately 68% of visits to Joannenova.com.au are bounces (one pageview only). This site has a relatively good traffic rank in the city of Taupo (#40).
    “childless men browsing from home” – also a little sad

    Aren’t they rather the ones with more time on their hands, without child rearing responsibilities and/or other halves taking up all of their time and what’s left of their intellectual energies ?

    The few who have both the perspective to reflect on where societies heading, and some time & energy left to do it, but without the inclination to wade through all the bulldust to get there ?

    With it’s clear and accessible, no nonsense communication style, joannenova.com.au does it for them .

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    “Steve Schapel” (13), then why don’t YOU help spread the word by emailing the story to all your contacts as well as radio, other media outlets and politicians etc etc…….

    EVERYBODY has to do their bit in this war!

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    What did You do to Reduce CO2 ?

    MSM NEWS: From the UK Independent:-

    Green fatigue hits campaign to reduce carbon footprint

    Is the Environment now suffering from indifference, due to the zealotry with which ‘Green’ groups, politicians, Governments, and Institutionalised Science have pushed the CO2 lie ?

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Australia doesn’t need the Gillard Climate Committee, we need a Royal Commission into Climate Science and temperature records where all parties are under oath to speak the truth and risk gaol (jail for the US readers) terms if they get found lying.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    This gives me hope!! I have sent a final email and letter to BOM’s Dr Jones, seeking an explanation of their quality assurance on their adjustments, after that will have use other means. I will publish any results at kenskingdom.

    Ken

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Makes me think we might be best to wind up NIWA.

    Back to the car analogy it seems to me that looking at historic records is a bit like driving forward while looking only in the rear vision mirror.

    If I look at the trends I would have to say that there is very little we can learn from them (adjusted or unadjusted). What we need is better methods of predicting where we are going, and where we have been has very little bearing on where we are going. (Incidentally, I drove past Taupo on Saturday – neither single or childless – but the interesting thing was that when I left home I did not realise that the new bypass road had opened, making my prediction of the time it would take me to reach Turangi completely obsolete).

    Bottom line: I don’t think anyone can say definitively whether we have warmed or cooled – the records are too corrupted. But while we argue about it things are happening outside and there may be implications for how we live in the future (and I am not suggesting we can do a jot to alter those impending changes) we simply have to adapt.

    And after my experience of Saturday on the Tongariro River I would have to say a little bit of local warming could be in order. I inadvertently submerged my head in the water and experienced an instant ice cream headache. It took me two attempts to roll my kayak and I am very relieved I did not “swim”.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    “Makes me think we might be best to wind up NIWA.”

    Disagree.

    Take a look at NIWA’s activities on their Our Science page

    It’s (on the face of it) up with CSIRO’s equivalent page

    I think with some modification to their “consensus” science approach and abstinence from advocacy statements, they could live up to their mission:

    NIWA’s mission is to conduct leading environmental science to enable the sustainable management of natural resources for New Zealand and the planet.

    I’ve challenged (from atop my little soapbox) NIWA’s Chief Scientist, Dr David Wratt (See 30 up-thread) on the activities of the High Performance Computing Facility (HPCF) i.e. Why not step outside the consensus, break some ground, be a leader not a follower? What’s the point of “me too” science?

    The new HPCF is a fantastic opportunity to seize the initiative. But given the constraints, off-the-shelf UKMO UM package and reliance on the UK Hadley Centre, the elements of group-think and conformity will likely be the basis of approach rather than insidious impediment.

    It remains to be seen what the HPCF produces, but NIWA are on notice that we (the people) are not climate model illiterate and any black-box “trust us” pronouncements will be scrutinized intently with a background of the innermost workings of climate models and the latest relevant papers to refer to.

    Some of which BTW are:-

    Wyant 2006
    Bretherton 2006
    Douglass 2007
    Thorne 2007
    Pincus 2008
    Douglass-Christy 2008
    Pennell-Reichler 2009
    Christy 2010
    Clark-2010
    Spencer-Braswell 2010
    McShane-Wyner 2010
    MMH 2010
    Zhang 2010
    Knox-Douglass 2010

    Then there’s:-

    Earthshine
    Landscheidt
    and on and on.

    [The above list is just what comes to mind at present. Lurker suggestions for addition to the above lists would be most appreciated]

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 49

    The insignificant MMH10 in 49 being this:

    Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series

    Ross McKitrick
    (Corresponding Author)
    Department of Economics
    University of Guelph
    rmckitri@uoguelph.ca

    Stephen McIntyre
    Toronto, Ontario
    stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

    Chad Herman
    Manalapan, NJ
    chad.herman.us@gmail.com

    Final Revised version
    August 3, 2010
    In press, Atmospheric Science Letters

    Abstract
    We explain panel and multivariate regressions for comparing trends in climate data sets. They impose minimal restrictions on the covariance matrix and can embed multiple linear comparisons, which is a convenience in applied work. We present applications comparing
    post-1979 modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical lower- and midtroposphere. Results are sensitive to the sample length. In data spanning 1979 to 1999, observed trends are not significantly different from zero or from model projections. In data spanning 1979 to 2009 the observed trends are significant in some cases but tend to differ significantly from modeled trends.

    [The VERY REAL significance]

    Jeff Id | September 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm | Reply

    A reasonable position. The problem I have is the fact that people aren’t paying enough attention to this. AR5 is being assembled and here we have very clear evidence that models are substantially overestimating observations.

    As an engineer, I would immediately re-evaluate the data, methods and models. If you expect one result but get another, it means that your expectation or measurements are in error.

    I don’t believe it is possible for the satellites to be measuring that badly and yes I’m familiar with the instruments, calibrations, and many of the problems in the series.

    The regular confirmation of the sat data by radiosonde and the missing hot spot, evidence for positive feedback from Spencer and others, recent ground temperature trends. It’s all pointing to a much lower sensitivity than has been estimated.

    Not that some don’t find ways to conclude the opposite, but really it appears to me that CO2 is not be as strong an influence as models predict.

    Jeff Id | September 27, 2010 at 10:12 pm | Reply

    Judith,

    McKitrick McIntyre and Herman.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/

    It is a rebuttal to Santer et al. The primary rebuttal is still being actively blocked by believers who learned nothing from climategate. The main method replicated santer and then extended the data to recent times. This was a new statistical method to do the same thing.

    They found that modeled trends generally exceeded observed trends by 2 to 4 times. Not a small conclusion and it does deserve to be addressed.

    If the gatekeepers would get out of the way, the main criticism would be in print. I’ve read the criticism and some of the reviews, which can only be described as insane.

    But that is the politics of climate I suppose.

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Joe Veragio (#45)…

    Thanks for pointing to that interesting article.

    Some of the bias is again evident in the language used in the article. I was particularly amused by the term “resistance to saving the planet”.

    00

  • #

    [...] Posted by Seniorman Same here. S.M. BTW, just today I stumbled across this information… New Zealand – Where did that warming go? « JoNova Apparently the scientists were jinking with the global warming data in NZ as well. Here's a little [...]

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    I wonder if the writer of this article would want to change the last sentence?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/face-niwa-sacked-being-too-public-2673255

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Pete @ 53

    Editorial license?

    The writer was Tsehai Tiffen (TVNZ Queenstown reporter) FWIW.

    I like this bit:

    Salinger, whose work as a science communicator has earned him accolades and even contributed to a Nobel Peace Prize

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 54

    And this bit:

    “It’s not as though I’m doing bad science”

    True, he was too busy “communicating” to do bad science.

    00

  • #

    [...] just an unverified, unaudited, internal document, now need to reconsider where they stand…" New Zealand – Where did that warming go? « JoNova . __________________ . …just some thoughts from a nomadic plebeian Bio – [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] Sources: – New Zealand NIWA Capitulates on Temperature Record – Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate – Kiwigate: NZ government abandons datasets that showed warming – New Zealand – Where did that warming go? [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] This is the "quality" of science you ascribe to. Congrats you're a moron. New Zealand ? Where did that warming go? « JoNova Climate Conversation Group What’s left of the NIWA case? __________________ "Science [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] report that no one can find or replicate that will cost the nation a stack of money. NIWA is now potentially open to class actions. (Ironically, the Australian BOM has the job of “ratifying” the reviewed NZ temperature [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] report that no one can find or replicate that will cost the nation a stack of money. NIWA is now potentially open to class actions. (Ironically, the Australian BOM has the job of “ratifying” the reviewed NZ temperature [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] hard science when pinned down is the Alarmist’s standard fare. This is similar to the NIWA backtrack on their NZ temperature record – when facing a litigation case in court for inaccuracy, they simply said the data was not an [...]

    00