26

Oh dear looks like that Global Warming thing up and disappeared

by Whaleoil on November 3, 2009

I was just looking through the Climate Summary  for October from NIWA and some startling facts are contained within it.

It seems that according to NIWA it was the coldest October in 64 years, with all-time record low October temperatures in many areas with exceptionally late snowfalls and record low October temperatures were recorded on the 4th/5th of October in most North Island locations, and on the 9th of October at many South Island sites.

Record or near-record low October temperatures were experienced in many locations, with temperatures more than 2.0°C below average throughout eastern and alpine areas of the South Island, as well as in the lower half of the North Island. Temperatures were below average (between 0.5°C and 1.2°C below average) elsewhere.  Overall for New Zealand, it was the coldest October in 64 years (since 1945), with a national average temperature of 10.6°C (1.4°C below the long-term October average).  Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years.  Record low October temperatures were recorded on the 4th/5th in most North Island locations, and on the 9th at many South Island sites.[quote]

….Unseasonable snowfalls characterised October 2009. An exceptionally heavy snow event on the 4th/5th in the Hawkes Bay and Central North Island was estimated to be the worst in October since 1967, stranding hundreds of travellers, closing roads, and resulting in heavy lambing losses. Many locations in the North Island experienced record low October temperatures on the 5th.  Snowfall was also observed in Taranaki, Waikato and Rotorua on the 6th, for the first time in about 30 years around Rotorua. Snowfall also affected Otago and Canterbury on the 8th/9th, with many sites observing record low October temperatures on the 9th.

The full report can be read here. But essentially October 2009 wiped out entirely the entire warming of the planet in our part of the world in just one month. October sure make predictions by the IPCC of an increase of half a degree look positively encouraging and something to be aimed for not mitigated against.

Tagged:

Related posts

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Oh dear looks like that Global Warming thing up and disappeared | Whale Oil Beef Hooked | Gotcha! -- Topsy.com

  • Rimu

    This is stupid. Local weather conditions and global climate are different things

  • Origen

    It's doubly stupid. You can't draw any inferences whatsoever about long-term climate change (ie over centuries or millenia) from one month. That's fifth form statistics.

    The fact that Whale thinks you can speaks more to his understanding of climate change than it does to the validity of the theory.

  • mediatart

    But Whale they still say the last decade 'was the warmest on record' because they are going back and revising the previous temperatures ( pre 1950s)down
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_Gl…
    They are doing the same with ocean levels on the small pacific atolls, they all ways point to the 'trend' but when you check the actual data( which would be like if the water was coming in the fale) no trend.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

    Rimu,Origen you two thick pieces of wood……..are you two the same person or tree hugging green climate worriers.Nothing stupid about how false the climate myth is.It has got you frog fuckers all worried about nothing……………

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    Touche billhicks. Sadly however we will be lumbered with an ETS all the same

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    NZIER report just out has the green mafia drawing their swords. It says NZ is too focused on emissions. I agree. Even if CO2 was to blame for climate change, and those who state it is are not even kindergarten chemists, and NZ cut its emissions to zero % of the worlds output (ie it disappeared off the map) it would not make an ounce of difference.
    When will these has beens admit the game is up. We all know CO2 does not influence climate, that it is in fact the other way around. If it weren't going to hit us all in the hip pocket, I wouldn't care less what the green loonies had to say. But these dangerous socialist pricks are going to destroy the NZ economy, and we will find out too late that it was for nought.

  • Origen

    Wow – great comeback billhicks! Don't respond with argument, analysis, logic, or evidence; just shout abuse!

    Honestly, the arrogance inherent within the climate change denial mindset is breathtaking.

    When was the last time you challenged the scientific consensus on general relativity in physics? What about Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? Never? Funny that.

    So why then do you feel so entitled as to challenge a scientific consensus with equal support? The real truth is that you are arguing from a position of astonishing ignorance, and that climate scientists are not the bumbling idiots you seem to think.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

      No one said climate scientists were idiots, most smart people even agree with climate change, heck it always has and always will. The point of difference, is that those who would have us pay hefty taxes, do so using the flawed argument that CO2 is to blame, our production of it is the reason its influence is becoming more significant, and we must act now.
      Read my lips CO2 is not was not never has been and never will influence global temperatures. It is influenced BY climate change.
      Man you muppet puppets make me sick.

      • Origen

        I was responding to billhicks, who said "Nothing stupid about how false the climate myth is". So clearly he doesn't agree with climate change, and my point was valid.

        Nonetheless Chiefsfan, by dismissing the scientific consensus about the impact of CO2 you are still maintaining a position which isn't believed by 98% of climate scientists. That must take some arrogance, given that presumably you're not a climate scientist yourself.

        My question was simple: what gives you the belief that you are in a position to deny the scientific consensus?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

          Fair point on the first paragraph. However where does this 98% of climate scientist figure come from.
          Why is it that any global temperature change either up or down over the last however long you wish to look back over (your choice), has been succeeded by not preceeded by changes in CO2 levels. I might not be the brightest bloke, but to my understanding of chemistry, this is explained simply thus. As the earth has warmed (at different stages since time began) the single biggest emitter of CO2 has been the ocean as the solubility of CO2 is reduced in water as temperature rises, thus almost 1000 years after the earth has warmed (given waters high specific heat capacity, thus its slow warming) the CO2 levels rise, and vice versa as the planet has cooled.

          Fairly basic stuff I would have thought. All the ice core sample data has shown this. Bearing in mind the IPCC predictions are based on a model, which can easily be manipulated. What has happened in the past can not, it has happened it is fact.

          Yes climate changes, hell the polar bears survived the Holocene maximum several thousand years back when temperatures were warmer than today.

          I am over the alarmist warmist crap, based wholly and solely on the assumption that CO2 for a start and of that the small amount that is made made causes climate change. It is nothing more than a LIE.

          How bout we consider the big ball of fire 109 times the diameter of earth, maybe its got something to do with the climate

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

          While I'm at it mr 98% of climate scientist bollocks. I am sure there was a time when more than 98% of scientists agreed whole heartedly that the earth was at the centre of the universe, yet Coopernicus had the balls to disagree.

          Once upon a time it was a common belief that when men impregnated women, the passed the baby to the mother at the time of conception, and she merely carried it.

          History is littered with plenty of other examples where a mad few opposed the common view. Just because 98 out of 100 people hold a view that a certain thing is true, does not necessarily make it so.

          Three cheers for the brave souls who challenge the established belief

          The noble field of science has more greatly advanced and enriched by those who have questioned, than by those who have not.

          I would say one scientist who is prepared to question is worth 1000 who simply tow the line. In this day and age where research funds are political, it is easier and more expedient to be the latter I would suggest.

          • Origen

            OK, evidently my memory failed me – it's not 98% of climate scientists who believe in AGW, it's 97%. This was established by a study from the University of Illinois – http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/…

            "Fairly basic stuff I would have thought."
            If you find it basic, how basic do you think thousands of climate scientists who have devoted their lives to their work would find it? Do you really think they're that ignorant? How would you feel if someone with no training or knowledge in your specialist area of expertise had the gumption to say you were wrong?

            As for your second post, the situations you describe (such as the heliocentric model and beliefs about reproduction) are completely incomparable – there was no such thing as science being practiced when those beliefs were held, and thus no such thing as scientists. The Geocentric model and the like were based on philosophy and religion as opposed to testing and evidence.

            I'm all for challenging beliefs when they're not based on evidence. The Geocentric model clearly fits that bill. Climate change does not, being as it has been established over decades using the scientific method.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

            Unless I am mistaken all the nuff nuff's behind <a href"http://www.350.org/">350.org and Al Gore et al tell us CO2 is to blame. This CO2 stuff is the root of the problem and must be eliminated. How then is it that CO2 levels have always risen after temperature change not before it. If the reverse were true, I'd be signed up already that's for sure.

          • mediatart

            And the same 'online survey' – only 64 % of meteorologists believing in AGW.
            Not that they know any thing about the weather and climate ?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/billhicks billhicks

      Being on a earth not like you Origen the earth has tectonic plates,a massive ocean that has a current that takes 10,000 years to circle the coast lines of the moving continents,wind that starts in the tropics and with the earths rotation moves over the planet as it spins,a moon that effects our tide and (annette king)the sun that spews heat and solar radiation,volcanoes that put toxic gases into the atmosphere,eathquakes and fucking snot gobblers like you that effect OUR lives.YOU have spent to much time reading climate models of make believe computer models.If you want to save this planet WOODY turn your computer off and go live in a tree….Maybe a waNUT tree……………………

  • Moondoggy

    Odd!

    When it's colder it's "a local weather phenomenon that is a separate issue to global warming" but then when it's hotter it's like "OMFG it's just like the IPCC says, we're all going to simultaneously drown and cook".

    They rave on about "the science" but really, the whole approach to this global warming is done in a totally unscientific manner….

  • petal

    Yeah… Cam… weather and climate. Not the same thing. Time to read up, sorry.

    That said, I've been staunchly against AGW ***theories/models***

  • Inventory2

    Origen – it's stupid time seven! Seven of the ten months so far this year have been cooler than the monthly averages. And it's not a phenomenon unique to New Zealand. The real stupidity is from those who continue to insist that the world is getting warmer when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  • peterkar

    For a more considered view of things, take a look at http://www.mickysmuses.blogspot.com, where my little brother acts as a voice of sanity amidst you AGW/Climate Change religious nutters.

  • emmess

    From the CNN article

    >> Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has >>human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    >>About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

    Any fool knows number 1 is true – no dispute there
    Number 2 – What is significant? 10%,25%, 50% Hard to answer

    >>The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in >>climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

    Well duuuhh their livelyhood depends on it

    >>Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 >>percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

    Roughly in line with the general population
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-gl…
    Not surprising to me

  • zork

    If there is global warming then the globe (earth) must keep warming up. There should not be any cooling because that would be called global cooling. NZ makes 0.02 of the emissions of the now pollutant C02, NOTHING we do will matter, forget about it, move on. If you wish to pay the Tax then do so, I shall not.

  • Doug

    Climate change scepticism grows in United States.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article….

  • coge

    The biggest problem with climate change beliefs, is that you cannot qualify as a scientist unless you subscribe to them. Thus, over the years, they all start to say the same thing. Totally subjective.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    Origen must be having trouble digging up actual evidence to show that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have have been followed by increases in temperature and thus caused said increases in the earths temperature anytime over the last 100,000 years. Unless he/she can, he/she has nothing to say that is worth listening to.

    The Australian govt is about to dip its fingers in to aussie taxpayers pocket big style http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/kevin-rudds-7b-un-wr... Plonk Key wants to do the same in NZ, protest action is urgently required. This is scary stuff

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Chiefsfan73 Chiefsfan73

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19200071058…
    join now and lets get moving against the scourge of ETS