NZ warming to soar and slump

Today, the NZ Herald announced:

New Zealand’s climate is forecast to warm by at least 1°C by 2050, while the average rate for the world has been put at more than 2°C.

via Warming likely boost to vineyards – NZ Herald.

The article said it was good news for wine. James Renwick was asked to comment and thought stonefruit and pipfruit wouldn’t suit warmer conditions and “other potential negatives included more floods and cyclones, sea level rises, and more plant and insect pests.” (There’s always someone with a gloomy view, isn’t there?)

But this move in temperatures is hard to reconcile with what we know.

Three times faster warming

First, NIWA told us that New Zealand warmed between 1910 and 2010 50% more than the rest of the world (NZ 0.92°C v. REST OF THE WORLD 0.6°C).

Second, David Wratt told us that in the future our warming would be LESS than the rest of the world, because of the ocean around us. When he said that, he had already issued his graph showing NZ warming was ALREADY 50% greater than the rest of the world. Well, all right, so our warming will slow down and the world will overtake us, right? Simple.

But this morning we learn the latest news, that over the next 37 years we’ll warm ANOTHER WHOLE DEGREE, at a rate 2.7 times FASTER THAN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

So, yes, the world will overtake us, but no, our warming won’t slow down.

In warming faster, we fall behind

That’s a GIANT increase in warming compared with 0.3°C — NIWA’s 11-station series proves it. But even with this prodigious warming, which nobody alive has experienced before, we will fall behind global warming.


So our rate of warming is now to increase enormously, way above recent experience, but then it will still be only half the rate of warming in the rest of the world.

Amazing nonsense.

Why is this happening? Can David Wratt explain why the rate is changing so dramatically? It cannot possibly be our emissions of carbon dioxide, because surely they are not about to triple, and while they continued rising steadily over the last 20 years, temperatures did not.

I’m not the only one bewildered by this — in Dunedin, Jock Allison is also scratching his head. He says it’s “of some wonderment” that NIWA claims we have warmed by 0.9°C in the last 100 years, faster than elsewhere in the world. He adds that NIWA’s corrections create much of this faster warming, and I must agree with him on that.

Yet, Jock says, we are expected to warm more slowly than the rest of the world to 2050, by which time the predictions are that the world will be warmer by 2°C. He says the situation’s ripe to put some serious bets on, but we’ll hardly live long enough to collect! What a shame. That reminds me:

Time is short

This accelerated warming had better get a move on, because it only has 37 years to get there, and it hasn’t started yet. Two degrees globally in 37 years from nothing is the same as 5.4°C over 100 years. Now that would be unprecedented.

The global temperature has just spent about 20 years mooching around going nowhere (depending on whose dataset you examine and who you talk to). Hard to believe it’s about to burst from the blocks and win the Olympic 100 metre sprint.

Hard to believe predictions of the desperate.

PS: Any mistakes are my fault. Please report them.

Visits: 104

11 Thoughts on “NZ warming to soar and slump

  1. Alexander K on 11/04/2013 at 10:06 am said:

    Both scientists are, IMHO, expressing their beliefs rather than making forecasts. To make the kind of forecast that have been made by both, I would expect sound and clear evidence of their ability to make accurate forecasts should be offered; it has not, and both individuals are being both unprofessional and dishonest in making them.
    I believe both scientists are grossly misusing their positions to give their pronouncements a spurious and unwarranted authority.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 11/04/2013 at 12:02 pm said:



    “A major study by Chilean and Californian researchers gauging the effects of climate change against global wine production over the next four decades found New Zealand’s potential growing area could rise by 168 per cent.”

    They could be wrong too.

  3. Mike Jowsey on 11/04/2013 at 1:05 pm said:

    In the same paper a few days ago, this nonsense:

    Planes flying across the North Atlantic could soon face much bumpier rides if the climate continues to change, new UK research suggests. The results of the Reading University study, published in Nature Climate Change, indicate that by 2050 passengers will be thrown around more often, and with more force.

    For filing in the complete list of things caused by global warming file.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 11/04/2013 at 5:44 pm said:

    Latest UAH & RSS Numbers
    April 8, 2013

    By Paul Homewood

    Both UAH and RSS are virtually unchanged. UAH is exactly the same at 0.18C, and RSS is up from 0.19 to 0.20C.

    Both are around or below the level they were in Nov/Dec.

    I thought we’d have a look at longer term trends today though. Using HADCRUT4 numbers, I have plotted the monthly numbers since 1979, with a 10-year running average.

    Within the last decade, temperatures have definitely flatlined. For instance, the latest 12-month average is 0.47C, and this compares with a figure of 0.49C for 2002.

    But, intriguingly, the longer term, 10-year average also stopped rising at the end of 2010, and has actually started to fall back. This is not clear on the scale of the above graph, but zooming in below illustrates it well.

    The amounts may be small, but the evidence is clear – the world has been getting colder in the last few years. This is not down to a single year’s figures, nor ENSO variations, as the 10 year span will even out such fluctuations.

    Perhaps we really should be worrying about global cooling again.

    # # #

    So much for the Foster and Rahmstorf script too.

  5. I certainly hope New Zealand wine production increases. In spite of living in Marietta, GA, I love saviouine blanc [sp?]. [Here, let me help: sauvignon blanc. – RT 🙂 ]

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2013 at 8:15 pm said:

    Tom Nelson comments on Carbon Brief article:-

    Carbon Brief

    “The research suggests that we’re in one of these so called hiatus periods at the moment. But what’s causing it? According to the new paper, understanding natural variability in the climate system could be key to finding out.” [Ya think?]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/04/2013 at 9:17 pm said:

      Turns out to be – except for the “manmade” assumption – state-the-obvious-science that everyone else knew anyway (as distinguished from could-science):-

      Natural fluctuation

      The new ‘hiatus’ paper suggests a reason why the oceans could suddenly start to take up more heat like this. It’s a natural cycle in the ocean known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).

      Over timescales of a decade or so, the IPO flips between a positive phase – which tends to warm the earth’s surface – and a negative phase – which has a cooling effect.

      The researchers found that over the 20th century, decades with faster warming are generally associated with the positive phase of the IPO. During these periods, manmade warming combined with a positive IPO leads to faster warming of surface air and surface ocean temperatures, with little heating of the deep ocean.

      The opposite occurs when the IPO is in the negative phase. During those periods, the cooling effect the IPO has on global surface temperatures slows manmade warming – leading to a slowdown in atmospheric and surface ocean warming, but rapid deep ocean warming. And that’s the situation we’re seeing now, the paper suggests.

      # # #

      They might also have a read of ‘The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle’:-

      Wonder how they’ll spin it when the negative phase of the 200 yr cycle really kicks in and their “manmade” warming turns to cooling (as has already started)?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2013 at 1:14 pm said:

      Dear Climate Realists

      It is with regret that due to recent changes in my personal life I will not have the time available to update this site until sometime in the future.

      I have made provisions to keep the site running so you can read the 10,000+ articles

      I hope the name “Climate Realists” remains a prominent irritation to supporters of AGW and that it is used by you wisely

      I bid you all farewell and look forward to the day when the supporters of AGW admit their mistake.

      There has been NO warming of the Earth due to “Man Made” co2. The warming can be atributed to 50 years of higher then average solar activity on the Sun that started in the 1950’s and ended around 2006.

      There WILL be more changes to our climate in the future due to our Sun becoming less active. This change is destined to make the Earth cooler, and NOT warmer. The reason AGW supporters have been misinformed about this issue is from political madness and the abuse of science

      In short we have seen extended Summers due to an active Sun and now face extended Winters due to a less active Sun….Pass it on!

      I Love you all …..please keep up the fight by calling yourself a “Climate Realist”, the term “Climate Skeptic” is not correct, as there is nothing to be skeptical about! It’s the Sun stupid;)


  7. Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2013 at 1:47 pm said:

    Dave Frame April 12, 2013 at 9:40 am

    Here’s something Myles actually did say on recent warming in Nature GeoScience a fortnight ago:

    [Paywalled – summarized here

    Quoting The Guardian article and graph:-

    “The climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years. Photograph: Nature Geoscience”

    # # #

    Unfortunately for Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, Dave Frame, Grant Foster, Stefan Rahmstorf, their 10-yr mean ends well prior to 2010 but since 2010 the 10-yr running mean has not continued the upward trajectory to 2013 from the end of their series and if anything is now on a cooling trend from the end of 2010 (from Paul Homeward article up-thread):-

    All they (Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, and Foster and Rahmstorf) did by using a 10-yr mean (and removing “exogenous” forcings as per F&R) was to postpone the inevitable.

    Dave Frame appears to be another who prefers living in the past where he can point to warming – but somewhat desperately and futile it would seem

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2013 at 2:10 pm said:

      Should be – “([or] [“]removing exogenous forcings[“] as per F&R)”

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation