El Nino in NZ

While there is a general warming trend in NZ since records have been kept – see the NIWA mean NZ temp graph – El Nino tends to have a downward effect on NZ temperatures as you can see in the global picture. Which means that there is a logical connection to the onset of El Nino and the fact that we had a cold December in NZ. The cold December set the climate change deniers chattering but is not surprising. El Nino also results in warming in the US, which was hotter than usual in December (some places much hotter like New York where they had 20degrees celcius on Jan 6 when they normally have snow on the ground). And Oz tends to have droughts in El Nino.

14 thoughts on “El Nino in NZ

  1. That’s why it’s called “global” warming :-) It always amazes me when people write to the paper (and get printed) saying things like “ooh, it was cold at my place this morning, that must mean global warming is a load of rubbish”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. And *if* global warming causes more frequent and larger El Nino events, expect more of the same :-(

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. According to the Greens scorecard, one must accept that Global Warming is not only fact, but that it is man-made.

    Can I take it as read that any-time you mention Global Warming (or the increasingly preferred term “Climate Change”), you specifically mean “man-made” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as it is more commonly referred to?

    How important does AGW play in the scheme of things to the commenters here, since it seems it is hardly referred to as AGW, yet all the solutions are defined around man being the problem?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Well Tigger, you may have missed the recent debate on this point.
    You could start reading from here.

    IBest estimates are that around 80% of the global warming since 1750 are anthropogenic. The proportion must be much higher over the last couple of decades, since orbital solar forcing hasn’t made a sudden jump, and the rate of temperature change is increasing.

    On this blog, I think you can take it for granted that those who talk about “global warming” are in fact talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s not a case of “must accept”, it’s just the consensus of the science at this point. In any case, the contradictors haven’t provided any alternative explanations, so they tend to deny that current trends have any long term significance. Just a blip on the radar, you know.

    I may be misrepresenting the sceptics, perhaps they believe that climate science is too poorly understood to reach any conclusions at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Credit where it’s due :

    Bush said some sensible things about energy and climate in his state of the nation address!

    America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

    And it looks like he’s serious. I nearly died of shock.

    On a geopolitical note : his aim is to
    reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years — thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

    That can be read as an admission : well, we tried to secure our energy supplies in the Middle East, and we failed…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Alistair:

    A few points:
    “Best estimates are that around 80% of the global warming since 1750 are anthropogenic”

    Not sure whose “best” you are referring to but prob IPCC. Records up to relatively recently are so debatable that such a statement is *highly* arguable.

    “The proportion must be much higher over the last couple of decades”

    Completely unscientific – the word “must” usually has it’s origins in anecdote.

    “On this blog, I think you can take it for granted that those who talk about “global warmingâ€? are in fact talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming”

    Yes! and I wish people would use the term AGW to remove any doubt as to what they mean.

    “consensus of the science”

    This oxymoronic term can now be classified as a throwaway meaningless cliche. Even if you could have such a thing in scientific debate there isn’t one yet.

    And another point referring back to the original post here, no “denier” with half a brain would look at a single decade, let alone a single month and pontificate about the falsehood of global warming – that being an altogether different issue to AGW anyway. To suggest so is another example of attempts to trivialise, and mock people with serious intentions to highlight inconsistencies in the “science” used to support the concept of AGW.

    Puleeze!

    And please don’t let this degenerate into another unresolvable debate that has been had a zillion times before – OK I know I just made it more likely that will happen :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. on me summer holidays, I noticed that me in-laws friends had a standing joke where they blamed el nino for everything.

    No fish to be had? Bloody el nino! Refuse collectors didn’t call on normal day? Must be el nino’s fault! NZ cricket team are crap at batting? Bloody el nino! etc etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Makes a nice change from GW being blamed for all normal variations in the weather. The media sell it as the ‘truth” and deniers smugly grin and stroke their goatee while pulling on their anorak.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. Sparky said:
    “And another point referring back to the original post here, no “denierâ€? with half a brain would look at a single decade, let alone a single month and pontificate about the falsehood of global warming – that being an altogether different issue to AGW anyway.”

    Clearly the NZ “Climate Science Coalition” – our motley collection of climate deniers – have in your terms a significant deficit in the skull department. From a recent press release: (here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0701/S00011.htm)

    “This data suggests global warming might have stopped eight years ago, in line with what might be expected from the natural cycles of warming and cooling that are common features of climate” said Professor Augie Auer, chairman of the scientific panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

    “It comes two days after the statement by the NIWA National Climate Centre that New Zealand can expect cooler but drier than average conditions over the next three months. This prompts the question: how much more cooling will have to occur before NIWA will admit that global warming is not happening.”

    Credible denial is a difficult art – soon to be rendered impossible by events. One wonders what the NZ CSC will do then.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Find any outlier in the data set (if it trends in your direction), ignore any corrections to the instrumentation (if they trend away) and declare that all the other measurements are errors.

    That’s the CSC.

    Understanding the Satellites is probably most readably here:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements”

    .
    .
    .
    Greg… the warming doesn’t HAVE to be anthropogenic for us to seek to limit CO2 and Greenhouse to mitigate the effects. Some of us are more certain than others. I probably have a greater surety than you do that it is AGW and almost entirely that. I can’t even conclude that it is ALL bad, as on past history we’d be sliding towards the next Ice Age but what we’ve done and are doing, has no control in it at all and can only end badly.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Greg :
    >

    If you followed the link in my post, you would have found that I was referring to Hansen (he’s the Nasa guy) et al, 2005 : Efficacy of climate forcings
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_2.html
    A middle-brow discussion of this paper, by one of the authors, is here
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/planetary-energy-imbalance/

    As you’re concerned about my unscientific use of the word “must”, I suggest you consult this graph :
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/F_line.gif

    As to the unresolveable nature of the debate, Greg : let’s say we’re at the beach and we’re arguing about whether the tide’s coming in or going out. The debate is not unresolveable, we could put sticks in the sand and wait a bit.

    Those who had doubts, and have been watching the sticks for a few years, are mostly convinced that the tide has turned… Time to collect your gear before it gets wet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. Damn you Frog, using a sledgehammer to splat the spam…

    I had at least three posts that went down the tubes yesterday. It looks like anything that had HTML in it got automatically junked?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>