7 Jan 2010
Doubts are being raised about the significance of new figures showing the
past decade has been New Zealand's warmest on record.
Average national temperatures over the past decade were just a few
hundredths of a degree Celsius higher than in the 1980s, the previous
warmest.
A National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) statement
yesterday reaffirmed its statements that the decade was likely to be the
hottest recorded.
However, the new statement failed to include figures.
Weather forecaster Tony Trewinnard said it was doubtful a few hundredths of
a degree was such a statistically significant amount on which to base such
statements.
NIWA principal climate scientist James Renwick told The Press temperatures
at seven key stations over the past 10 years were one-tenth of a degree
above the 1971-2000 norm.
"The next warmest were the 1980s, about 0.07�C above that normal, so it's
only a few hundredths of a degree difference," he said.
Asked if the difference was significant, Renwick said: "Well, it is a very
small amount.
But, officially, it was warmer - the long-term trend is for warming."
Trewinnard questioned how NIWA could claim a long-term warming trend when
the 2000s were only marginally warmer than the 1971-2000 norm and the 1980s,
and when the 1990s were cooler than both those decades.
"There isn't a long-term warming trend by Renwick's own numbers,
nationally," he said.
"If you're comfortable with saying three-hundredths of a degree is
different, then that's fine, but are those claims really supported by the
data?
"It's like a political party claiming it leads in the polls when its lead is
less than the margin of error in the poll."
Three-hundredths of a degree difference in a decade was the same as 0.3�C
difference in a century, which was still 10 times less than some of the
international predictions of rising temperatures, he said.
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, nobody had ever thought about climate
change and global warming, but we just wanted to look at climate trends,"
Trewinnard said.
"If you had this data, I'm absolutely certain your conclusion would be that
temperatures were much the same for the 2000s as the other decades."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3210392/Doubts-cast-on-warmest-decade
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Too baaaad!
Ok, I read higher. Look at GISS, also higher, look at the Bilt, also
higher,
Greetz,
Q
--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
Sez who?
> Average national temperatures over the past decade were just a few
> hundredths of a degree Celsius higher than in the 1980s, the previous
> warmest.
>
> A National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) statement
> yesterday reaffirmed its statements that the decade was likely to be the
> hottest recorded.
>
> However, the new statement failed to include figures.
>
> Weather forecaster Tony Trewinnard said it was doubtful a few hundredths of
> a degree was such a statistically significant amount on which to base such
> statements.
Weather forecaster?
>
> NIWA principal climate scientist James Renwick told The Press temperatures
> at seven key stations over the past 10 years were one-tenth of a degree
> above the 1971-2000 norm.
>
> "The next warmest were the 1980s, about 0.07ºC above that normal, so it's
> only a few hundredths of a degree difference," he said.
>
> Asked if the difference was significant, Renwick said: "Well, it is a very
> small amount.
>
> But, officially, it was warmer - the long-term trend is for warming."
>
> Trewinnard questioned how NIWA could claim a long-term warming trend when
> the 2000s were only marginally warmer than the 1971-2000 norm and the 1980s,
> and when the 1990s were cooler than both those decades.
>
> "There isn't a long-term warming trend by Renwick's own numbers,
> nationally," he said.
>
> "If you're comfortable with saying three-hundredths of a degree is
> different, then that's fine, but are those claims really supported by the
> data?
Doesn't stop you denialists from claiming "2005 was not the warmest
year in the 48 US states, 1934 was" even though that difference was in
the hundredths of a degree.
>
> "It's like a political party claiming it leads in the polls when its lead is
> less than the margin of error in the poll."
>
> Three-hundredths of a degree difference in a decade was the same as 0.3ºC
> difference in a century, which was still 10 times less than some of the
> international predictions of rising temperatures, he said.
>
> "Suppose, for the sake of argument, nobody had ever thought about climate
> change and global warming, but we just wanted to look at climate trends,"
> Trewinnard said.
>
> "If you had this data, I'm absolutely certain your conclusion would be that
> temperatures were much the same for the 2000s as the other decades."
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3210392/Doubts-cast-on-warmest-...
How about a list of your qualifications, tturd packer...
usenet retard don't count.
De Bilt combined data from all four stations. not much differance is their.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
De Bilt adjusted data for climate change.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
WTF?
Please explain how those were found, is it simply
a matter of altering old data?
I would like to view the same for a couple of
other stations.
What other sockpuppets do you use, fucktard?