A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand

[Crick]

Get to your knees and worship your deity.

 

[Saigon]

jc456 -

For gods sake - try and post with a little common sense, eh?

Seriously....go and look at the growth/retreat patterns of the glaciers, and then come back and correct the errors in your post.

 

[IanC]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

all of those points have been answered except 14 and 15 which are simply ad homs.

What Mullan actually says Climate Conversation Group

Critical debating points answered 8211 Part 1 Climate Conversation Group
Critical debating points answered 8211 Part 2 Climate Conversation Group
Critical debating points answered 8211 Part 3 Climate Conversation Group

 

[jc456]

Get to your knees and worship your deity.

good thing I'm an atheist.

 

[jc456]

jc456 -

For gods sake - try and post with a little common sense, eh?

Seriously....go and look at the growth/retreat patterns of the glaciers, and then come back and correct the errors in your post.

why don't you show that adding 120 PPM of CO2 matters.

 

[IanC]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."

did you even read any of the rebuttals to the rebuttals?

"
Point 8
Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38) deals with the correct application of the methodology described in Rhoades and Salinger’s 1993 paper.

At the very least, dFDB 2014 should have addressed the existence of Mullan’s paper, and explained why the application of RS93 in that paper is not preferable to their interpretation of it.

Debating point 8. The de Freitas et al. (2014) paper should have discussed the relevant literature, including Mullan (2012).

Rebuttal
Mullan (2012) is not relevant literature.

In our paper we are at pains to make clear that our aim is to follow RS93 exactly when performing our reanalysis, and that is what we did. Mullan (2012) suggests possible modifications to RS93 (using very long time periods) based on certain samples from the 7SS. It does not address an interpretation of RS93, but sets out the author’s personal perspective on what RS93 should have proposed.

Criticising or modifying RS93 in any way was not within our purview, so Mullan (2012) has no relevance to the journal paper.
"

so, does that make sense to you? why should the new paper dealing with Rhoades and Salinger’s 1993 paper comment on someone else's corrections to R&S? journal space is limited so you cannot argue every point in the literature, you have to stay on topic.

 

[IanC]

13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.

I like the answer to this one too.

"
Debating point 9. SST around New Zealand is warming faster than the 0.28°C/century shown in the de Freitas et al. (2014) paper.

Rebuttal
SST reconstructions are even more fraught with raw data problems than land-based records, especially in the Southern hemisphere. This is well known (Trenberth et al., 1992). There have been numerous attempts to improve this situation, but none have been successful to the point that anyone could state that a reanalysis of NZ land-based temperature records could be right or wrong based on SST reconstructions such as ERSST.

In our paper we draw attention to Folland & Salinger (1995), mentioning the difference, but we would never make the mistake of assuming SST trends are gold-standard records – especially in this part of the world. Indeed, the Hadley Centre (including Dr Folland) has now officially recognised that its previous assumptions regarding pre-WW2 adjustments to ship records have been mistakenly based.

We would also add that NIWA’s 0.9°C/century was as far above F&S (95) as ours was below it, yet NIWA at no stage withdrew their work due to incompatibility with an SST reconstruction.
"

so what do you think? should NIWA have withdrawn their work because it was incompatible to SSTs? hahaha

 

[IanC]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.

eh? why was Rhodes and Salinger93 the method of record when it was actually a students thesis in 81?

"
Changing positions
In late 2009, NIWA said in response to two Official Information Act (OIA) requests that it had not a single relevant paper to produce because the 7SS was based on Salinger’s thesis—which was copyright.

The answers from NIWA’s Minister to written Parliamentary questions were also clear that the 7SS adjustments were taken from the thesis, which had never been published but could be read in the reserved section of the Victoria University library. It was then disclosed that the actual calculations were not in the thesis but had been lost in a University computer upgrade during 1983.

After Salinger had been fired in April 2009, NIWA had no idea how the 7SS adjustments had been calculated. As a first step in filling the void, Brett Mullan embarked upon a six-week project of comparing Salinger’s 7SS spreadsheet with the thesis, identifying the dates, locations and causes of each of the 35 adjustments. By February 2010, NIWA was able to publish a “Schedule of Adjustments”, which the Coalition had been asking for. This was accompanied by a “Hokitika Example” that described an adjustment methodology and included actual calculations.

NIWA’s Minister (the Hon. Dr Mapp) tabled these two documents in Parliament on 18 February 2010 and promised a larger project that would extend the Hokitika rework to the adjustments at all seven stations. He said it would be peer-reviewed by BOM in Australia and the detailed methodology would be published in an international science journal by June 2012.

However, when NIWA came to file its defence to the Court proceedings in September 2010, they shifted their position markedly. They now said the 7SS had not been derived directly from the 1981 thesis, but from the 21+3 time series of 1992. This was strange because nobody had ever seen such a series and there was no evidence it had ever existed.

Discovery
NIWA’s discovery process was a classic example of the “blizzard of documents” trick. Barry Brill, NZ Climate Science Coalition chairman and solicitor for the NZCSET, was led into a mid-size room at NIWA’s Wellington premises where climate data spreadsheets were stacked 2-3 cartons deep around all the walls, to a height of about 5 feet. However, he found some cartons marked “Salinger” which he was told had been sitting in Jim Salinger’s office for untold years.

He finally came across one that seemed to relate to the MetService work. It was a total mess. There was no way in the world anybody could have found data relating to the seven stations, let alone identified the adjustments or the calculation techniques. The only reference to adjustments were updates done by Maunder and Finkelstein. The lack of adjustment calculations is unsurprising. Salinger92 says they “set the computers rolling” rather than do them manually.

Evidence
The claims that NIWA’s pre-2010 7SS adjustments were taken from the non-existent 21+3 series AND used RS93 adjustment techniques is ridiculous. The evidence is overwhelming:

1. The 7SS adjustments were spread over 1853-1975. The 21+3 work was confined to 1920-90.
2. The Rhoades & Salinger paper was published in November 1993. Salinger92, the internal MetService technical report, went to print before June 1992.
3. A couple of years later, Folland & Salinger (1995) (submitted 27/10/1994) uses the thesis as its source of homogenised data, not 21+3.
4. The 21+3 adjustments were allegedly computerised while RS93 requires manual work.
5. Salinger92 says the thesis was used in 21+3.
6. The Hokitika Example (taken from the contemporary 2009 7SS) clearly uses thesis techniques and makes no mention of RS93—this is the clincher

"
Critical debating points answered 8211 Part 1 Climate Conversation Group

 

[IanC]

typical climate science blundering about. East Anglia's CRU was almost as bad. "we lost the original data", the programmer pulling out his hair and complaining about the slipshod work in climategate's "harry_read_me" file.

 

[orogenicman]

Chris de Freitas - SourceWatch

Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He is a global warming skeptic, is listed as a contributor to the climate contrarian website ICECAP, and is listed as a Heartland Institute "global warming expert" and an advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition[1]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Controversies
• 2 Quotations
  • 2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
  • 2.2 External resources
  • 2.3 External articles
  • 2.4 References

Controversies
Under de Freitas's editorship of Climate Research (journal), several poor quality contrarian papers were published, that he had shepherded through the peer review process; half the journal's editors ended up resigning in protest at the lax editorial policies that had permitted these papers to slip through and the publisher's unwillingness to enforce suitably stringent ones. [2] De Freitas doesn't accept that extreme weather events are linked to human induced climate change [3]

yes, the climategate emails were very informative about how deFreitas could be smeared and removed from the Journal. and in fact was and was

when are you ever going to learn how to separate ideas from those who speak them?

It is important to know one's sources. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[orogenicman]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

Ian, you have not responded to any of these. Are you now willing to admit that neither deFreitas nor his supporters answered any of these Renowden observations?

And, btw, the 11 Station Series matches NIWA's 7 Station Series. It does NOT match dFDB2014.

really? you want to go through the list?

Ok. #1.

the NIWA said its dataset was based on Salinger and Rhoades93, a peer reviewed methodology. when it was shown that it wasnt, they then said it was based on Salinger's 1981 doctorate thesis. when asked for the thesis and number work up they said buy a copy. when the thesis didnt explain the dataset because the working figures were missing, the NIWA said everything was 'lost' when the university changed computers. no one was quite sure how Salinger's dataset got put on the official govt website or why it was distributed worldwide without documentation.

crick, you always side with authority even when there is clear evidence that there have been major screw-ups all the way down the line.

this NZ case is yet another clarion call for data to be present and available to public scrutiny. Steve McIntyre shouldnt have to spend his retirement prising data out of clenched fists to analyze climate science papers. it should simply be available, as most Journal rules say it should be.

McIntyre? Really? It isn't like anyone was wrenching his arm and making him look like a fool. He did that to himself.

 

[orogenicman]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Millions of years? That was over 600 million years ago, and that ice has been gone for at least 550 million years. Facepalm, dude. And guess what melted it? You guessed it - rising CO2 levels.

 

[IanC]

Chris de Freitas - SourceWatch

Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He is a global warming skeptic, is listed as a contributor to the climate contrarian website ICECAP, and is listed as a Heartland Institute "global warming expert" and an advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition[1]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Controversies
• 2 Quotations
  • 2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
  • 2.2 External resources
  • 2.3 External articles
  • 2.4 References

Controversies
Under de Freitas's editorship of Climate Research (journal), several poor quality contrarian papers were published, that he had shepherded through the peer review process; half the journal's editors ended up resigning in protest at the lax editorial policies that had permitted these papers to slip through and the publisher's unwillingness to enforce suitably stringent ones. [2] De Freitas doesn't accept that extreme weather events are linked to human induced climate change [3]

yes, the climategate emails were very informative about how deFreitas could be smeared and removed from the Journal. and in fact was and was

when are you ever going to learn how to separate ideas from those who speak them?

It is important to know one's sources. You didn't know this? Huh.

OK, post up the "quality contrarian papers" and we can discuss them and I will contrast them with some poor quality warmist papers, and we will see which ones had the bigger and more blatant mistakes. or are you just taking someone's word that bad papers were let through? and we can look at the climategate emails about how deFritas could be removed as well.

are you up for it?

 

[IanC]

Where are the rebuttals for the points stating:

1) That NIWA demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that the 7 Station Series (7SS) prior to the 2010 review was based on the 1981 Salinger adjustments.
2) That dFDB ignored all the work NIWA had done developing the 7SS.
3) That the paper is "essentially identical to an “audit’ of NIWA’s Seven Station Series conducted by the NZCSC, and which was offered as evidence in their trust’s attempt to sue NIWA." [The response to this was that it was Renowden's responsibility to prove the two were the same]
4) Being identical, it contains the same mistakes that were identified by the court during the failed suit [The response to this was a rant about whether or not such information was actually in the public domain]
5) The claim that RS93 calls for one and two year comparison periods when RS93 uses 4 year periods throughout.
6) That using the shorter periods very effectively reduces the statistical significance of the data on hand, effectively reducing the observed warming trend.
7) That no professional climatologist would use a period of less than four years for precisely that reason
8) That their methodology fails to make any assessment of maximum and minimum temperatures in the record.
9) That de Freitas et al infilled a month of data missing from may of 1920 with unrealistically warm data despite records showing all surrounding stations were experiencing records cold temperatures.
10) The faulty infill and excessively abbreviated comparison period also reduced the statistical significance of the station's deviation and eliminated a needed adjustment.
11) That the paper makes no reference whatsoever to the 11 Station Series (11SS) whose raw data needs no adjustments and shows a warming trend three times that dFDB2014 find, matching closely the 0.91C found by NIWA in the 7SS.
12) That dBDF2014 fails to address or even acknowledge " the issues raised by NIWA scientist Brett Mullan’s 2012 paper in Weather & Climate (the journal of the Meteorological Society of NZ), Applying the Rhoades and Salinger Method to New Zealand’s “Seven Stations” Temperature series (Weather & Climate, 32(1), 24-38), despite it dealing in detail with the method they claim to apply."
13) That the paper fails to make any reference to surrounding sea surface temperature data or data from surrounding islands, all of which support the original NIWA warming trend.
14) That de Freitas has no publishing history in the adjustment or homogenization of climate records.
15) That Dedekind and Brill have NO relevant academic experience and NO publishing record whatsoever.

Ian, you have not responded to any of these. Are you now willing to admit that neither deFreitas nor his supporters answered any of these Renowden observations?

And, btw, the 11 Station Series matches NIWA's 7 Station Series. It does NOT match dFDB2014.

really? you want to go through the list?

Ok. #1.

the NIWA said its dataset was based on Salinger and Rhoades93, a peer reviewed methodology. when it was shown that it wasnt, they then said it was based on Salinger's 1981 doctorate thesis. when asked for the thesis and number work up they said buy a copy. when the thesis didnt explain the dataset because the working figures were missing, the NIWA said everything was 'lost' when the university changed computers. no one was quite sure how Salinger's dataset got put on the official govt website or why it was distributed worldwide without documentation.

crick, you always side with authority even when there is clear evidence that there have been major screw-ups all the way down the line.

this NZ case is yet another clarion call for data to be present and available to public scrutiny. Steve McIntyre shouldnt have to spend his retirement prising data out of clenched fists to analyze climate science papers. it should simply be available, as most Journal rules say it should be.

McIntyre? Really? It isn't like anyone was wrenching his arm and making him look like a fool. He did that to himself.

show me three examples of McIntye making a fool of himself and I will show you ten for Mann and throw in a handful for Jones, Schmidt, Briffa, Hansen, or whomever you like.

 

[IanC]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Millions of years? That was over 600 million years ago, and that ice has been gone for at least 550 million years. Facepalm, dude. And guess what melted it? You guessed it - rising CO2 levels.

Shakun12 tried to show that CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the last Glacial Period. should we go over the mistakes, deceptions and equivical proxies again?

 

[orogenicman]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Millions of years? That was over 600 million years ago, and that ice has been gone for at least 550 million years. Facepalm, dude. And guess what melted it? You guessed it - rising CO2 levels.

Shakun12 tried to show that CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the last Glacial Period. should we go over the mistakes, deceptions and equivical proxies again?

You get events that happened 250 million years ago confused with, well, something that didn't happen 250 million years ago. Are you certain you want to subject yourself to more embarrassing discussion?

 

[IanC]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Millions of years? That was over 600 million years ago, and that ice has been gone for at least 550 million years. Facepalm, dude. And guess what melted it? You guessed it - rising CO2 levels.

Shakun12 tried to show that CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the last Glacial Period. should we go over the mistakes, deceptions and equivical proxies again?

You get events that happened 250 million years ago confused with, well, something that didn't happen 250 million years ago. Are you certain you want to subject yourself to more embarrassing discussion?

it seems to me that you should be the one who is embarrassed, by trying to deflect to obscure subjects. you got anything on NZ temp records other than ad homs against the authors of the paper?

 

[Crick]

Shakun12 tried to show that CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the last Glacial Period. should we go over the mistakes, deceptions and equivical (sic) proxies again?

I'd like to see that. What mistakes, deceptions and equivocal proxies do you believe you have found in Shakun et al 2012? You're not putting Watts up against Nature, are you?

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

• Jeremy D. Shakun,
• Peter U. Clark,
• Feng He,
• Shaun A. Marcott,
• Alan C. Mix,
• Zhengyu Liu,
• Bette Otto-Bliesner,
• Andreas Schmittner
• & Edouard Bard

Nature

484,

49–54

(05 April 2012)

doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received

16 September 2011
Accepted

01 February 2012
Published online

04 April 2012

Abstract
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

 

[orogenicman]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what is going away are NZ's glaciers - and I have to say that it appalls me that people simply ignore what they can see with their own ideas because their own political views find it too boring....

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

"While the glacier has always been dramatic in its advances and retreats, the rapidity of the present retreat is remarkable," he said.

Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.

The retreat began in 2008, and last year the ice thinned by about 70m behind the glacier terminal.

A colleague with a seismometer detected "ice quakes" - the ground shaking from an ice collapse - as a huge cavity formed beneath the glacier, eventually causing its surface to sink into it.

By January this year, a hole had formed in the glacier, putting an end to guided walks.

Tourists are now flown on to the ice by helicopter.The walk from the car park to the terminal face is now 3km.

Franz Josef Glacier s rapid retreat photos - National - NZ Herald News

Dude, the entire globe once was ice covered and has been melting for millions of years. you have no point!!!!

Millions of years? That was over 600 million years ago, and that ice has been gone for at least 550 million years. Facepalm, dude. And guess what melted it? You guessed it - rising CO2 levels.

Shakun12 tried to show that CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the last Glacial Period. should we go over the mistakes, deceptions and equivical proxies again?

You get events that happened 250 million years ago confused with, well, something that didn't happen 250 million years ago. Are you certain you want to subject yourself to more embarrassing discussion?

it seems to me that you should be the one who is embarrassed, by trying to deflect to obscure subjects. you got anything on NZ temp records other than ad homs against the authors of the paper?

The Permian extinction is hardly an obscure subject, and is totally germaine to the present environmental crisis we are in today. In fact, it is a warning to us all, even those of you with your heads in the sand. And I don't need to respond to the OP. It stands or falls on it's own merits (or lack thereof). You people repeatedly post from openly and admittedly biased sources who invariably are shown the errors of their ways, and yet after having done so , you folks pull out your Tampa cigars in a sort of victory dance "against the evil tyranny of liberalness", utterly blind to how stupid and callous you appear to the rest of the civilized world. I can't say what the outcome will be to your way of thinking, but you do have my sympathy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian -

Was the person/group involved in the court case from a science or a politics background?

If the answer is extreme right-wing politics, what do you think that tells us about the nature of denialism?

Yes, the data is a DENIER!!!

Good answer!!