Govt Ignores Science in Rush to Ratify Paris Climate Accord

The NZ Climate Science Coalition just issued a press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Zealand’s rush to sign the Paris Climate Change Accord ignores science and will damage the economy, according to the chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Hon Barry Brill, himself a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Energy in a National Government.

“The claimed objective of the accord is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide that, it is claimed, cause rapid and dangerous global warming,” said Mr Brill. “The problem is that the world has not warmed as predicted by the climate models that the UN IPCC and the Paris Accord rely on to predict future temperatures. In most areas of science, if the model doesn’t fit the evidence, you discard the model. The Government’s climate advisers, it seems, choose to ignore the evidence.

“There can be no doubt world has not warmed significantly for the last 18 years. In fact, the IPCC itself admits that 111 of 114 computer predictions overestimated the temperature. 2015 was, according to some records, marginally warmer than 1998 – both were El Niño years. There is no sign of rapid dangerous man-made global warming in that! This El Niño will, almost certainly, be followed by a La Nina that will cause global cooling.

“Experts who study the sunspot cycles and other climate cycles predict serious global cooling. This is something the government should be taking seriously. History tells us that that cooling brings famine, disease and war. Previous warm periods brought prosperity.

“The government also ignores the fact that carbon dioxide is ‘the gas of life’. The recent increase has stimulated plant growth, brought trillions of dollars of benefit to agriculture worldwide and reduced desertification. The benefits to New Zealand are huge.

“If the Government chose to look at the science, rather than blindly following biased advice from people whose careers, reputations and funding depend on them continuing to support the myth of dangerous man-made global warming, it would keep its head down and sit on its hands or, better still, lead the world in pointing out that this is a massive hoax whose major effect has been to further impoverish poor people.

“Instead, the Government seems to be determined to squander billions of dollars of taxpayers hard-earned money in a futile effort to solve a non-existent problem,” Mr Brill concluded.

UPDATE 21 Aug 2016 1130 NZST

Scoop has the press release. It needs likes! Thanks.

24 Thoughts on “Govt Ignores Science in Rush to Ratify Paris Climate Accord

  1. Barry,
    If you review James Hansen’s seminal paper in 1981, you will find that the warming has been slightly more than predicted. The underlying assumptions of that paper have stood the test of time. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/crystal-serenity/
    Some references to ‘experts’ who predict serious global cooling would be useful, there don’t appear to be any in recent scientific literature.

  2. Mike Jowsey on August 19, 2016 at 4:40 pm said:

    Brill for PM!

  3. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 7:52 pm said:

    Simon

    >”If you review James Hansen’s seminal paper in 1981, you will find that the warming has been slightly more than predicted”

    Wow! Hansen et al predicted the 2010 El Nino peak – masterful. Since then the 2015 El Nino is 0.15 higher of course.

    BTW, the Tamino graph has 6 datapoints after 2010. Somehow he’s managed to slip in a 2016 annual mean that’s waaaaayyyyy higher than 2015:

    Tamino “NASA” (6 datapoints after 2010)
    https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/globtemp1.jpg

    NASA GISS LOTI (5 datapoints after 2010)
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html

    Not always a good idea to get your graphs from Tamino apparently.

    ************************************************************************************
    But ENSO neutral data tells a different story. At 2013 the LOTI anomaly is 0.66, 0.43 above 1980 by like-for-like data. So OK, Hansen et al looking good. Problem will be if LOTI returns to neutral (0.66) over the next couple of years i.e. LOTI will be stuck on Hansen et al’s 2010 prediction, corresponding to 2013 ENSO-neutral 0.66 for most of the 21st century so far:

    1980 0.27
    1998 0.63 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012
    2002 0.63 << 0.36 rise 1980 – 2002 (Hansen et al's 0.4 had already occurred here)
    2003 0.62
    2006 0.63
    2007 0.66
    2009 0.64
    2010 0.72 << Hansen et al 0.67
    2012 0.63
    2013 0.66 << ENSO-neutral
    2018 0.66 << ????

    Did Hansen et al predict this? I don't think so.

    Then there's the satellites and CO2-forced climate models:

    RSS TLT (blue) vs Models (yellow)
    http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png

    Hansen et al\s CO2-based 2010 pick is right in the middle of the CO2-forced models – fantastic prediction!
    But then after 2010 the observation data is outside the model band. The 2015/16 takes the data back in the band but a La Nina will take it out again.

    2013 is also lower than 2010 in RSS:

    1980 0.01
    1998 0.55 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012
    2003 0.438 << 0.428 rise 1980 – 2003 (Hansen et al's 0.4 rise had already occurred here)
    2005 0.428
    2010 0.584 << Hansen et al 0.41
    2013 0.432 << ENSO-neutral
    2015 0.364
    2018 0.432 ????

    Did Hansen et al predict this? I don't think so.

    At 2012, one-third of all human emissions of CO2 had occurred since 1998 but in either GISS LOTI or RSS TLT there was no commensurate rise in temperature. Hansen et al's 0.4 rise had already occurred by the early 2000s but since then CO2 has had no effect even though industrial emissions have been the highest in the industrial era.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 8:51 pm said:

    Simon

    >”Some references to ‘experts’ who predict serious global cooling would be useful, there don’t appear to be any in recent scientific literature.”

    You can reach this blog via the internet but can’t search it for scientific literature?

    Not as if there’s been no controversy in the news either.

    Physicist Predicts Global Cooling, Warming Alarmists Want Research ‘Silenced’
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/physicist-predicts-global-cooling-warming-alarmists-want-research-silenced

    Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale
    V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, E. Popova & S. I. Zharkov (2015) [See press release below]
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

    Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030
    Lomonosov Moscow State University Press Release 17 July 2015
    https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

    GRAND MINIMUM OF THE TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE LEADS TO THE LITTLE ICE AGE
    by Habibullo Abdussamatov | November 25, 2013
    Source: Published Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, October 2013, ISBN 978-5-44690-122-7, –246 p., in Russian.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf

    The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity
    S. Duhau, Ph.D, and C. de Jager, Ph.D., (2010)
    “Based on the above mentioned methodology and by using new data for the geomagnetic aa index we foresee that a Grand Minimum is immanent. Thus, a prolonged period of relative global cooling is forecasted.”
    http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html

    # # #

    For starters.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 8:56 pm said:

    >”You [Simon] can reach this blog via the internet but can’t search it [the internet] for scientific literature?”

    The information age wasted on some.

  6. Richard Treadgold on August 19, 2016 at 9:05 pm said:

    RC,

    Wow! Hansen et al predicted the 2010 El Nino peak – masterful.

    You can reach this blog via the internet but can’t search it for scientific literature?

    The information age wasted on some.

    You excel yourself, Rich. And you don’t go gently, do you? Devastating.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 11:20 pm said:

    For devastating I defer to Dellingpole:

    Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist

    “……speechette – which, naturally, his fanbois in the Q & A audience and on the panel found terribly impressive – on the subject of why current climate science is, like, totally accurate and amazing and unimpeachable.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/18/prof-brian-cox-gorgeous-lips-lovely-smile-crap-scientist/

  8. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 11:38 pm said:

    For masterful I defer to Dellingpole:

    “I’ve encountered this behaviour all too often myself from Cox’s pals – the ex-Royal-Society president, ex-Socialist-Worker salesman Sir Paul Nurse; the ‘comedian’ Robin Ince with whom Cox presents a radio show; etc – and it stinks. If, as they appear to imagine, the case for man-made global warming theory is such a slam dunk, well fine: just go ahead and demonstrate it, chaps, as proper scientists have done for centuries, through the medium of falsifiable evidence. I happen to think all three of the above are talentless, overrated, low-grade, lefty-activist tossers. But I’m sufficiently well versed in the rules of rhetoric to know that this is merely ad hom – a gratuitous playground cheapshot which though fun to toss into the mix contributes absolutely nothing to the scientific and political issues at stake. What disturbs me about Cox and his alarmist cronies – most of them heavily bigged up by the BBC, which treats them as unimpeachable authorities – is that they have become too grand to bother with the science any more and seek merely to belittle and marginalise their opponents. The worst example of this on the Q & A show was when Cox cynically and crassly sought to ridicule Malcolm Roberts by giving the impression that his arguments were so absurd as not to be worth debating. This ugly technique – the demagogue playing to the mob – is what Jo Nova calls Argument from Incredulity.”

    “Heavily bigged up by the BBC” – Just rolls off the tongue.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 9:19 am said:

    Simon

    >”If you review James Hansen’s seminal paper in 1981, you will find that the warming has been slightly more than predicted”

    But not in the Southern Hemisphere:

    GISS LOTI Southern Hemisphere
    1980 0.38
    1988 0.54 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012
    2002 0.56 << 0.18 rise to 21st Century from 1980, none after
    2003 0.52
    2005 0.55
    2009 0.59
    2010 0.55 << Hansen et al 0.78
    2012 0.50
    2013 0.55 << ENSO-neutral, 0.17 rise from 1980
    2014 0.58
    2018 0.55 << ????

    0.23 less rise than Hansen et al predicted and no rise at all in the 21st Century even though industrial emissions have been the highest in the industrial era.

    Obviously no CO2 effect in the Southern Hemisphere. Hansen et al were wrong.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 10:25 am said:

    Brian Cox flashed this GISS graph on Q & A (also linked upthread):

    Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data [Mouse-over for annual anomaly values] http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html

    Nothing like that in Southern Hemisphere as upthread of course.

    And apart from the estimate being merely “based on” data (i.e. not actual data), and that the 1998 El Nino relativity has been erased, there is a further eye teaser concerning the LOWESS smoothing (red line) at the end point 2015. In other words, the red line guides the eye but not the brain.

    Brains must be engaged in this exercise. Not a lot of that in Warmer World.

    2004 to 2011 is the “hiatus/pause” in the red line. After 2011 the red line hikes up abruptly due to the El Nino spike. 2013 (0.66) was ENSO-neutral, GISS appear to be assuming, given Gavin Schmidt’s 2016 prediction and reasoning (see Tweets below), that the red line will continue upwards to a new record high (anomaly 0.87+) as per 1998 in the graph rather than return to neutral (anomaly 0.66 ish) and a continued “hiatus”.

    I’m guessing, given the monthly data trajectory, that instead of continuing upwards what we will see in a couple of years is just a spike in the red line smoothing, but time will tell.

    Basically, what I’m getting at is that the LOWESS smoothing (red line) of annual mean datapoints 2011 – 2015 is no indication of the series trajectory from 2015 onwards. But GISS and their fan base like Cox, and his fans (“fanbois” – Dellingpole) are convinced the red line is, actually, the data trajectory. This series progression will be make or break between now and about 2018 for Schmidt and GISS given their posturing. We could see some “adjustments” of course. But then they still have the satellites to contend with.

    ***********************************************************************************************
    Schmidt Tweets (note the different anomaly baseline to GISS LOTI data upthread 1880=1889 vs 1951-2010) :

    Gavin Schmidt [email protected]

    “With Apr update, 2016 still > 99% likely to be a new record (assuming historical ytd/ann patterns valid).”

    Graph: Predicting the 2016 GISTEMP LOTI mean anomaly
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CicqT6wW0AEcVuB.jpg

    https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/731599988141248512

    And,

    Gavin Schmidt [email protected]

    “July data are out, and what do you know, still 99% chance of a new annual record in 2016.”

    Graph: Predicting the 2016 GISTEMP LOTI mean anomaly
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp6rnONW8AAEoW6.jpg

    https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/765237770839269378

    # # #

    With LOTI July now in at 0.83 C (Schmidt caught a break – small blip up from June as in satellites), the YTD LOTI mean only has to fall another 0.189 C over the next 5 months and Schmidt’s “> 99% chance” of a new record is toast.

    Remains to be seen but enough cooler La Nina months would do it. In terms of LOTI, I think Schmidt must be sweating despite his posturing.

    Huge potential for egg-on-face.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 12:16 pm said:

    Should be:

    Southern Hemisphere LOTI
    [1998] 0.54 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012

  12. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm said:

    Simon

    >”Some references to ‘experts’ who predict serious global cooling would be useful, there don’t appear to be any in recent scientific literature.”

    Two additions to the compendium:

    Zharkova, Shepherd, Popova and Zharkov (2015)
    Luedecke, Hempelmann, and Weiss (2013)
    Abdussamatov (2013)
    Duhau and de Jager (2010)
    Swanson and Tsonis (2009)

    Study: German Scientists Predict “Global Cooling Until 2080″ & 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual
    [Luedecke, Hempelmann, and Weiss below]
    http://principia-scientific.org/study-german-scientists-predict-global-cooling-until-2080-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual/

    H.-J. Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, and C. O. Weiss: Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long term instrumental and proxy temperature records, Clim. Past 9, 447 – 452 ( 2013 );
    http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf

    UW-Milwaukee Professor Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling
    Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UW – “Tsonis published a paper last March [see below] that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years.”
    http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/

    Swanson, K.L., and A.A. Tsonis, 2009. Has the climate shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L06711,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/pdf

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 1:03 pm said:

    >Zharkova, Shepherd, Popova and Zharkov (2015)

    Dr. Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. Image credit: Lomonosov Moscow State University.
    http://astronomynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/95684_web_Dr_Helen_Popova_527x621.jpg

    # # #

    I see your pretty Brian Cox Mr Warmy, and I raise you Helen Popova.

  14. Good gracious, Dennis Horne can think he can come in here and take a figurative dump on the carpet by giving us a couple of random links to ThinkProgress and The Guardian

    When you actually have something to say or explain, other than dropping your pants and squeezing out a big steaming log for us to sniff over, please do take the effort.

    I know it’s a little difficult for you Dennis because you probably have a busy weekend ahead congratulating yourself with all your sneerocrat chums

  15. Dennis N Horne on August 20, 2016 at 8:34 pm said:

    Keep sniffing, Andy.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 11:03 am said:

    ‘The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling’

    by David Archibald, August 21, 2016

    The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo. From that data set, this graph shows the heat loss since 2004 for the top 700 metres of the water column:

    [see graph]

    As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity. That is shown in this graph:

    [see graph]

    We might not care too much about the animals that live in the North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe. So what has that been doing?

    [see graph]

    As Figure 3 from Professor Humlum’s work shows, summer heating is penetrating to half the depth it used to 10 years ago and in winter earlier this year sub-8°C water was at the surface for the first time in more than ten years. That cooling trend is quantified in the following graph:

    [see graph]

    This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend:

    [see graph]

    Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:

    “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

    They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/the-north-atlantic-ground-zero-of-global-cooling/

    And,

    Claim: BRITAIN faces DECADES of savage winters driven by freak changes in global ocean conditions and a weakening of the sun.

    “The climate in the region including in London, Amsterdam, Paris and Lisbon could then cool a few degrees, relative to the warming conditions around the globe.”

    The warning comes just months after the Met Office warned Britain might be facing another maunder minimum period of cooling.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

    # # #

    Even the Met Office is in on this

  17. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 1:12 pm said:

    [Archibald] >”Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25″

    Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/clip_image010_thumb2.jpg?w=867&h=564

    Think of F10.7 radio flux as a proxy for TSI, for which we have no up to data data available. F10.7 1990 to present is this:

    F10.7 cm flux. Carrington rotation-averaged time series since 1990:
    http://users.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/fig107Series.jpg

    From Solar EUV radiation http://users.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarEUV.html

    The 2015 SC 24 peak was 2/3 of the 1990 SC 22 peak in 1990. The only factor that is supporting global climate this year is the oceanic heat sink and El Nino given insolation is down. Not so much support in the North Atlantic and Norway in particular. Archibald – “persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway” for example.

    Given the solar situation is a progression (apparently), we can expect crop failure in those parts for at least a couple of decades. But you wont read about this in IPCC climate assessments.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 3:56 pm said:

    A tale of two hemispheres.

    GISTEMP Zonal Means July 2000 – July 2016 L-OTI Anomaly vs 1951-1980 +0.61

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom7_2000_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png

    Effectively 16-yr smoothing of the 21st Century Zonal Means.

    Global Weirding

  19. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 12:43 pm said:

    From previous post thread:

    >”Somewhat hollow boast if he [Schmidt] cracks it [i.e. a successful “new record” annual mean prediction] given the El Nino heat from earlier in the year that he claimed for AGW/MMCC is already GONE – dissipated to space.”

    The Annual Mean is meaningless – only the latest Monthly Mean matters:

    GISS: Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature [mouse-over for anomaly]
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.html

    This Monthly Mean is the graph that tells the real story – not Schmidt’s Annual Mean or a YTD average of months. The annual mean retains the early year high El Nino temperature, the monthly mean doesn’t.

    So an annual mean “record” does not actually exist except on paper. The only data that actually matters is the latest monthly data. Currently the July anomaly is unremarkable.

    The above graph has mouse-over functionality because it is HTML. I really like this feature.

    The graph is available at:

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – Analysis Graphs and Plots
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#

    >> Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change
    >> Figure also available as a PNG, PDF, HTML, plain text, CSV, or Generate PNG of the visualizations current state.

    Select “HTML”.

    # # #

    I would add here that the concept of a “linear trend” is also meaningless – it is an ASSUMPTION.

    A linear trend means nothing if the latest monthly data is little different from the early 21st Century data. It isn’t. July (2016.55) is a rebound up to 0.84 but the same occurred 1998.45 up to 0.78, 2007.29 up to 0.75, and 2010.88 up to 0.88.

    After those last 2 rebounds the anomaly plummeted:

    2008.04 0.26
    2010.96 0.49

    2013 was an ENSO-neutral year, the range of monthly anomalies was:

    2013.29 0.53
    2013.88 0.81

    So there is still the very real prospect of similar plummeting over the next few months and a return to a steady state. All we are seeing is a massive oceanic heat release passing through the near-surface atmosphere. Once that heat has passed near-surface (dissipated) all bets are off for any scenario.

    Any recent “warming” will have well and truly GONE in reality – but still there on paper for the likes of Schmidt to fizz over.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 1:43 pm said:

    Re GISS “HTML” Monthly Mean graph.

    At bottom left there is a ‘zoom’ tool icon but it doesn’t zoom in and out as normally. To use it click on one corner of a box of the graph to view and drag the other corner of the box out to the extent required. Click the ‘home’ icon to return to the original view and click the ‘zoom’ again to turn it off.

    For example,

    Identify the following 4 datapoints BEFORE clicking the ‘zoom’ icon: 2013.04, 2014.71, 2016.55, 2014.13

    Click the ‘zoom’ tool icon then click the top left corner of a box that encloses 2013.04 (left extent of box) and 2014.71 (top extent of box).

    Drag down to bottom right enclosing 2016.55 (right extent of box) and 2014.13 (bottom extent of box).

    Click the ‘zoom’ icon again to turn it off and enable mouse-over to get the datapoint anomalies.

    A bit fiddly if it is not something you are used to but once you have got the box graph above it should be a doddle.

    The box above is most revealing because it puts the current July anomaly (2016.55) in context with the 2013 (ENSO–neutral), 2014, and 2015 monthly data.

    In the previous thread Simon made this comment

    Simon on August 23, 2016 at 5:21 pm said:

    “Don’t look too closely at the surface, you might not like what you find.”

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/nz-about-to-ratify-paris-agreement-will-they-ask-our-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1508239

    Well, I can’t look much more closely than the box above and what I find is the current anomaly (0.84) only a little above ENSO-neutral 2013.88 (0.81) and on the way down to the 2015 ENSO-neutral monthly data which is anything less than 0.81, range:

    2013.88 0.81
    2013.29 0.53

    0.66 is in the middle of the range and typical of 21st Century data.

    After looking closely at the surface data I have not found anything I do not like.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 3:38 pm said:

    GISS L-OTI 2016 July anomaly by latitude:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom7_2016_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png

    South of Dunedin NZ (45S) is either less then 0.5 anomaly or less than 0 anomaly. Auckland to Dunedin band (37S – 45S) is about 0.7 (Auckland) to 0.5 (Dunedin).

    For comparison, July 1998 looked like this:

    GISS L-OTI 1998 July anomaly by latitude
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom7_1998_1998_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png

    The Dunedin latitude band was about the same as 2016 (0.5) but the Auckland band was about 0.2 cooler. South of 45S was much warmer in 1998 than 2016. North of 45N was much cooler in 1998 than 2016.

    Because the temperature scale is different for each plot the 15S hump looks much more pronounced in 1998 but it is really not that much different to 2016. The big differences are south of 45S and north of 45N.

    The much cooler Antarctic in 2016 and much warmer Arctic is the big oddity relative to 1998.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm said:

    >”0.66 is in the middle of the range and typical of 21st Century data.”

    Average of all months July 2000 to July 2016: +0.61.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 6:40 am said:

    July 2016 anomaly is unremarkable in terms of “warming’ according to GISS L-OTI data.

    There were 3 months warmer in 2014 and 2 in early 2015:

    2014.38 0.87
    2014.71 0.91
    2014.79 0.86
    2015.13 0.87
    2015.21 0.91
    2016.55 0.84

    Perhaps remarkable in that July was COOLER than only 2 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation