My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« NZ scientist at centre of Pachauri allegations refuses to talk | Main | NZ Science Media Centre embarrasses itself, again »

Comments

CM

>>>(Wishart's plot spoiler: note that temperatures 0.5C cooler than normal are described as "near average", while a decadal tally 0.1C above normal is described as "warm")<<<

Ian, that's not what it says at all. You're desperately spinning yet again.

It says that temps for most of the country were "within 0.5°C of the long term average". The word "within" indicates a range, because it's talking about a whole lot of places (some could be 0.3°C hotter, some 0.2°C cooler). Overall, if they're all "within 0.5°C of the long term average", it would be fair to call that "near average" overall.

It then talks about some specific parts of specific centres that were "cooler than average" by "between 0.5 and 1.0°C". No mention of "near average".

You're conflating the two on purpose. This is yet another example of misrepresentation. None of your fans will call you on it because they don't care about accuracy.

You should change "Wishart's plot spoiler" to "Wishart's misrepresentation" if you don't want to change the rest.

ZenTiger

It doesn't matter how you spin it, this puts it all in perspective, and the use of the phrase "warmest" is almost irrelevant:

The years 2000-2009 were a warm decade overall, with a 10-year average temperature of 12.6°C, 0.1°C above the 1971-2000 normal.

And the "warmest" decade overall?? They mean out of 4 don't they?

CM

>>>It doesn't matter how you spin it<<<

Um, I'm spinning nothing. I'm unspinning Ian's blatant 'error' (to be kind).

If you're going to claim 'misrepresentation' of someone else, the first thing to do is avoid misrepresentation yourself.

Yet another epic fail.

CM

Correction time again Ian. The clock is ticking......

W H Howell

"For the year as a whole, temperatures were near average (within 0.5°C of the long-term average)"
What doew CM not understand about this?
WH

Ian Wishart

CM seems to have difficulty comprehending ordinary English.

In NIWA's considered opinion, anything within 0.5C below normal is to be considered "near average", nothing to see, move on.

A 0.1 degree margin above normal however, over a ten year period, can be considered "warm"

I suspect the truth is 0.1 is inside the margin of error making the entire claim worthless.

CM

>>>In NIWA's considered opinion, anything within 0.5C below normal is to be considered "near average", nothing to see, move on.<<<

Where do they claim "0.5C below normal"? WHERE?
They don't say that. They don't specify where that 0.5C range (for most of the country) starts and stops around the normal. There is no implication that the range is entirely below normal. If "normal" is somewhere in the middle of that range, then calling it "near normal" is nothing other than correct.

Plus, if they were so hung up on producing a misleading assessment (being all completely unprofessional and corrupt) then they certainly wouldn't pick out things such as:

"but were between 0.5 and 1.0°C cooler than average in parts of Auckland, Waikato, Manawatu, southern Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, Wellington, Marlborough, inland Canterbury, and eastern Otago."

Again, notice how they add the word "cooler" after the range that time, whereas they didn't beforehand?

CM

>>>What doew CM not understand about this?
WH<<<

"For the year as a whole, temperatures were near average (within 0.5°C of the long-term average)"

does not necessarily equal

"For the year as a whole, temperatures were near average (all somewhere between the long-term average and 0.5°C less than that average)"

R2D2

CM,

Perhaps we are nit picking, the point isn't that this is part of a conspiracy, but that the author has an obvious slight bias, perhaps it is subconcious for him, for example,

"Heat waves occurred in January and the start of February; May was the coldest on record; October had its lowest temperatures since 1945; and August was the warmest August ever"

Heat waves : emotive, no mention of 'cold snaps' occuring, February is always the hottest month and often has heat waves

May was the 'coldest on record' but August was 'the warmest ever'

Subtle, yes, nitpicking I know, but a bias in the style nonetheless

CM

>>>Perhaps we are nit picking<<<

There is a big difference between "nit picking" and making an assumption just so you can wrap an existing argument around it. That's misrepresentation. Injecting meaning that isn't there.

>>>but that the author has an obvious slight bias, perhaps it is subconcious for him, for example,<<<

You've all decided he has a bias before you even start. That's why you all go off looking for it, and end up making sh*t up. It happens over and over and over again.

>>>Heat waves : emotive, no mention of 'cold snaps' occuring, February is always the hottest month and often has heat waves<<<

If the heat waves weren't records, another term is needed. The other month all had records attached, so they can be used in the description. See, there is an easy and simple and rational explanation that doesn't involve bias. You don't need to see conspiracy and bias everywhere you look. Because if you go searching for it, you'll find you end up creating it more often than not.

jaymam

Does anyone know how NIWA are defining "temperature" at a particular site? I'd prefer to use the temperature measured at 9am, but I suspect that NIWA are using "mean temperature" which could be many things but is probably the average of the lowest and highest temperatures for the day (a statistic that I hate). What else could they do in 1880 anyway? They would not have measured the temperature hourly back then.
Whatever it is, at some sites the "mean temperature" has increased by one degree over the 9am temperature in the last 40 years. This is rather important and I'd rather not ask NIWA for the answer.

CM

Why would you not want to ask them for the answer? That's the logical thing to do isn't it? You can then determine whether you believe them or not. But not even asking them suggests you've already decided they are corrupt or incompetent.

Fletch

I saw a segment on the news a few days ago (see link below). It was about campers in the South Island saying it's been the coldest, windiest weather in 35 years, and most of them are packing up and going home.

Yeh, it's really heating up, alright...

Link: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/wild-summer-sends-campers-home-3328752/video

CM

That's WEATHER, not climate. Nobody has claimed we'll not see record cold spells every again.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Ian Wishart

Believe it or not CM, we all understand the "weather, not climate" logic and agree with it.

It's just irresistible however, when global warmists point to a hot spell in Australia as "more proof of global warming", to return the favour.

Having said that, last winter in the northern hemisphere was a harsh one, and this winter is looking even worse in most places, so there are some climatic drivers in there, probably linked to the ocean and atmospheric oscillations that skeptics argue play a large role in climate (as opposed to weather).

CM

>>>Believe it or not CM, we all understand the "weather, not climate" logic and agree with it.<<<

I don't believe that. Why would anyone write crap they know to be nonsense and they know they'll be ridiculed for?

>>>It's just irresistible however, when global warmists point to a hot spell in Australia as "more proof of global warming", to return the favour.<<<

Link?
It's irresistible to spew out obvious idiocy? Well, if masichism is what you're into....

>>>Having said that, last winter in the northern hemisphere was a harsh one, and this winter is looking even worse in most places,<<<

In most places? Or just those where people live? In some places (Greenland, eastern Siberia and the Arctic ocean) it's been 5 - 10 degrees WARMER than usual. But because people don't live there, it doesn't make the news.

Look at the anomaly map here for the last week of December.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Where-did-global-warming-go-heres-where.html

Other than that northern band, most of the rest of the planet is WARMER.

Tell me, do you think it's more objective to just harp on about the places that have had some cold spells, or look at the wider picture?

>>>so there are some climatic drivers in there, probably linked to the ocean and atmospheric oscillations that skeptics argue play a large role in climate (as opposed to weather).<<<

The ocean oscillations are patterns. Phases. The oscillations between positive and negative values show no long term trend, while temperature shows a long term warming trend.

peter

Ian, Ian, Ian

You constantly are in error - looking at short term weather patterns instead of longer term climate trends - and this after a hot decade 2001 - 2009.

I found this for you and it does carry this message. Don't think anecdotally think longer term, think scientifically.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0114/1224262288555.html

CM

Peter, Ian knows full well what he's doing. He even admits it.

CM

2009 Hottest Year on Record in Southern Hemisphere

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/113/2

Nothing to see, move on.

The comments to this entry are closed.