Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The Return Of The Survey & "Flat Earthers." Tuesday 17 March, 2015. St.Patrick BCD

The Return Of The Survey & Flat-Earthers.


By Special Request for Allan and Ngati Porou Friends

The Greatest Story Never Told




Breaking News of Interest

Watch the Video:



The Survey - Completed

Before I start the processing of the data in this latest and final survey on the question of Climate Change as it relates to the Greater Wellington Region, I can reveal that a total of 63 residents of this community participated in this final survey, one less than the two surveys carried out in February this year ...


So, in the meantime, to allow me time to produce my usual high quality pie-charts and stuff ( after I have found my color pencils and my sharpener) ...I would like, as a special thank you to make ... 

A Special Dedication to all my supporters who offered me their kind words of support and encouragement, so very necessary for me to complete this self-imposed assignment ... and without which I would have long given up!

"On My Own" - But I had some great company along the way, didn't I?  8-)  -from Les Miserables (composed by Claude - Michel Schonberg, 1980)


Specially for the Aspiring young Ukulele player.  Please don't throw it all away - UKE ON

"Sweet Caroline" - music and tabs available from



What's in your beer and your food? - foodbabe.com




Note:  You may be interested that thanks to the Foodbabe (Vani) I decided to do a little investigating myself, since I occasionally enjoy a glass or two of Tui beer, a good kiwi beer and all, and gave them a call on their 0800 number.   In response to my query whether they used caramel  color in my favorite beer, and after referring them to the foodbabe.com website, they e-mailed me shortly afterwards and informed me they do indeed use caramel in their Tui range of beers, but it was of a modified safe form ( yeah, right ! )  I thanked the spokesperson representative for the information, and assured them I would now be looking for an alternative beer, unless they removed the caramel and simply used roasted barley for color ... and I would be keeping them up to date in my quest to find a safe beer.  


Our Caramel Is Safe - Yeah, Right!

Lion Nathan was next, and in reply to my request about Speights ( because I thought I would support the Mainland this time) they informed me they too use caramel in their Speights beer, but not in their Steinlager Pure or Classic beers. or the Mac's range, or Stella Artois and Beck's beers .... so it looks like it may be back to Mac's for me....but then I forgot to ask about the ingredients in their beers 8-(


Also rang up Watties and DYC Vinegar - they all use caramel in their products, but was informed DYC do not use it in their Apple Cider Vinegar, and Watties do not use it in their Tomato Sauce, but in their Barbeque Sauce.

And today, Monday 23 March, 2015 gave  Sanitarium another call on their 0800 number and finally got through, and asked why they were using caramel III color in their Marmite, being that I was a Marmite lover on my toast for many years.   I mentioned the  www. foodbabe.com  website and the dangers associated with using it in our food and drink.   The usual story ...  it's been approved, with no health risks by Government and food regulating authorities ... gives the Marmite its dark color. 

I informed that I had switched back to honey on my toast, and unless they removed it, Marmite was a thing of the past. 


[Caramel I II III is a known carcinogen - as studies in mice and rats (!) have shown ...ref foodbabe.com ] 


 READ THE LABELS - print is usually too small - on purpose?


Back To The Survey - Update

In this 3rd and final survey I decided to lay my cards on the table, and call the 'spade what it actually is ... a spade,' introduced the two questions I had chosen for the survey, with the statement that ... "Climate Change is normal, has been going on at least ever since mankind first appeared on the earth, we've always adapted, and as one person commented, outside the survey, 'it's been around ever since the dinosaurs, roamed the earth.' "  

With that introduction, first question posed was:

Q. 1.     Do you think the GWRC (Greater Wellington Regional Council) should be worrying us about a problem that does not exist, since as I stated Climate Change is normal, (notwithstanding that the GWRC having already adopted their Climate Change Strategy Plan - in draft form, and still inviting our comments on their plan, submissions of which close on the 10th April, 2015,) and which, no doubt will be costing us, as ratepayers, on achieving virtually nothing?

Results for Question 1:


Number of Individuals surveyed = 63


 YES .................     6

 NO   ..................  48

 NOT SURE ......   9


Q.2.   An article appeared in the Hutt News, January 7, 2015, stating that the GWRC had agreed to adopt a climate change policy at its meeting last month ... spokeswomen Judith Aitken was quoted as saying, "If we stand for nothing , we fall for everything."    The article concluded with Judith Aitken saying  that the reality of climate change science had increasingly become accepted and absorbed by the community at large.     


"The opportunity for flat-earth protests to be taken seriously is now significantly reduced."

*               *               *               *                 *                  *

Do you consider Judith Aitken's remark, calling anyone who disagrees with the GWRC's climate agenda, (and after they have invited your opinion) that is someone who believes climate change is normal, a flat-earther ("flat-earth protests"),  unprofessional and inappropriate?

Result for Question Two:

YES ...................   58

NO  ....................     5

TOTAL  ............   63

Pie Charts to follow with concluding remarks ....


Not long now .... but in the meantime, in case you've all forgotten what one looks like, and to keep your hand in ...


UPDATE:  I have completed all the sums ( percentages, angles, whatever, but colored pencils need to be sharpened still ) necessary to construct these two fine pieces of artwork and science, to be posted sometime today (Sunday 22 February, 2015)    [I should mention that I don't possess a compass, protractor, etc., and have found by trial and error that a  few simple paper folds and a dinner plate seem to do just as well, in case you were wondering how on earth I produce such masterpieces... 8-)]


Update:   If I stopped posting all these plurry updates I probably could have colored in half a dozen pie-charts by now.... and had time to make a rhubarb pie for my dinner tonite ... Mmmm rhubarb pie .... 8-(

Sunday Family Amusements on a Rainy day:

Since it's such a wet rainy type of Sunday, I thought you might all like to help me do this pie-chart thing, and if I give you all the raw data, all you will need is some colored pencils, and we can have a fun competition seeing who can come up with the most original pie-chart that is representative of the data supplied...while having fun in an educative fun sort of way....

Raw data:


Yes     ......  6/63 (9.52%)      [ 9.52 x 3.6 = ? deg]      (34.27 deg) is correct answer ... did you get that right?)

No     ....... 48/63 (76.19%)    [ 76.19 x 3.6 = deg]      (274.28 deg)

Not Sure .... 9/63 (14.29%)    [14.29 x 3.6 = deg]        (51.44 deg)


That is all meant to add up to 360 degrees of a circle 8-) if it doesn't come close , let me know.... you will need all those angles to complete your very own pie-chart and you can color it in any way you like....

Q. 2.

Yes .... 58/63 (92.06%)      [92.06 x 3.6 = 331.42 deg]

No ..... 5/63 (7.94%)             [7.94 x 3.6 = 28.58 deg]




Question 1 - Climate Change Is Normal

Question 2. Judith Aitken's Flat-Earth Protests


Now, since you are all probably too busy looking for your colored pencils to color in your own special pie-charts, and haven't had time to check what's happening to the weather, I have downloaded the latest forecast for you all to save you all that hassle...  


"Rainy Days and Mondays" - Carpenters (close enough)


Survey Review - But first By Special Request

Drone Flyover of Avonside Red-Zoned Christchurch - Then and Now 


Filmed on  Mar 21, 2015 in the remains of Avonside, Christchurch.  It was an amazing flight.   I tried to keep it as simple as possible to let the footage do the talking.

The map in the bottom left throughout the video is satellite photographs obtained from Google Earth Pro.   It gives a wee bit of context as to what used to be on the ground beneath the drone.


It's incredible how peaceful and quite the place is.

Society literally packed up and left.   Very few houses remain.  [my emphasis] 

The clusters of long buildings had signs on the fences signalling asbestos removal.

The roads leading off Avonside Drive were cordoned off, but of course, that's no barrier for a drone.


The drone used is a DJl Phantom 2 Vision +   I flew no higher than 80m during the shoot, and no occupied property was flown directly over the top of.


Post production was done on Sony Vegas Pro 13.


Credit goes to Cold Play for the music.   Their song "Fix You" is what you hear in this video.


Thanks for watching.  Like and subscribe for more.   - Jimmy Ryan



The Climate Change Survey Review



That's a mouthful ... but just a gentle reminder to bring those things up after I have said a few words about the survey ... but in the meantime, an important video which is not necessarily in the order I intended,  which relates to matters outlined in the above heading ... I now present it in case I forget to as we move through it all ... then the preview!


[without realizing it, I have inadvertently addressed the headline in reverse!  The Climate Change Treaty in Paris this year, (December 2015) is drawn to our attention in this important video]


Lord Monckton interviewed by Alex Jones on the Global Warming Con - July, 2014



The Review

I'm going to start out by quoting from Judith Aitken's press release  Upper Hutt Leader, 7 January, 2015, in which she said the reality of climate change science had increasingly become accepted and absorbed by the community at large.   And then she goes on to state that those who oppose the GWRC plans are flat-earthers ...  

 "The opportunity for flat-earth protests to be taken seriously is now significantly reduced."

Well, Judith, that's not what I found on the ground, as I sampled a population in the GWR .  I conducted three suveys in Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt, on the 23/24 February, 2015, 27 February, 2015 and 17-20 March, 2015 , the results of which are documented on this blog.


In spite of your claim that the community at large ( you haven't given us any idea of the size population you arrived at your conclusion, unless it was the 85 respondents to your first submission request in 2014, which is hardly a fair sample to make such a sweeping claim, is it not, given that the population of the Wellington Region must be something like 400,000 - hardly the  'community at large'?) had become increasingly accepted of the reality of climate change.


Well, that is not what I found, using a similar sample ( n =64 ), I found in the very first survey, when asked "Should We Protect The Wellington Region from Climate Change?"

 I got a whopping 97% YES, the remainder NOT SURE or NO.


 *         *         *         *         *         *         *


The second survey, in answer to the question, "Do You Know What The Impacts Are Of Climate Change On This Region?" told a different story, with the level of confidence in their knowledge of the topic dropping drastically, with ...


YES   40.62%, NO  20.31%, and NOT SURE  39.06%.


Indicating that the 'increasingly accepted and absorbed' on the matter of climate change was not evident in this population, and certainly clashes with your 'accepted by the community at large' claim ...


*            *            *            *             *               *


In the final survey, briefly outlining the fact that climate change was normal with accompanying graphs and diagrams, to back the claim, and that there was no need for the GWRC to be worrying us about a non-existent problem, which in any case  would undoubtedly cost us all as ratepayers etc., to achieve virtually nothing. 


 I asked the question: "Do You Think The GWRC Should Be Worrying us About a Problem (Climate Change) That Does Not exist and Will End Up Costing Us (Ratepayers) To Achieve Virtually Nothing?"

YES      9.52%


NO     76.19%


NOT SURE   14.29%


What a huge swing, when you actually tell people the truth! 


Note:  at least between 6 and 8 people required no proof on my behalf that climate change was normal ...(about 12% of my sample of n=63 in the survey.)  They simply knew it apparently based on common sense, sadly evident today...


The first survey was based around what the GWRC were "telling" the public at large that somehow Climate Change was a problem, something to worry us about..."How Do We protect the region from the Impacts Of Climate Change?"   ... was the headline we were being getting feed!


On an unsuspecting and basically ignorant public on such matters of climate and climate change, let alone the weather, the results of my first survey could hardly be called surprising ... and my second and third survey tell  the real story about 'widespread acceptance of your "Climate Change"Plans!






DO YOU CONSIDER JUDITH AITKEN'S REMARKS TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL AND INAPPROPRIATE?   [sorry, about the CAPS ...tried to change to lower case , but BLOGGER being difficult again ... so I am leaving 'well alone' .... bit like the 'Climate' ... 8-)]


YES     92.06%   ( Unprofessional and Inappropriate)


NO         7.94%    ( she's allowed to say what she wants, as one respondent said 'cause she's a politician!')      


Indeed, a politician, and not a woman presenting the real science of climate change, rather, instead ignoring the facts presented to her [submissions].... so why, the question begs, is she fronting up as the spokeswomen for GWRC CCSP????


Perhaps she is taking a leaf out of the past disgraced and recently dropped 'like a hot potato' on criminal charges, U.N. IPCC Chairman Railway Engineer , Pachauri, and who had to admit around 2012 that there had been no global warming for 17 years... "it's a tragedy... indeed"


IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’

Rose _16yrs_HARDCRUT4

Graphic from the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.

The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).


Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.


The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.


“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.

“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.

“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.


Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.


At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.


Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.


What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.



And since he has no idea about the climate ...oh, well what's 'good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander '... and Watts the latest on Railway Engineer, Pachauri ? Oh, Oh ... not looking too flash, eh, he doesn't look a happy chappie does he now.... too much lying ... not good for you, pi korry!


And if that's not a portent of what's to come in this in this continually 'spiralling down' account of one of the biggest fraud perpetrated in the name of "science' on a largely ignorant an gullible public, I don't know what is .... actually there is a bigger fraud ... now running for just on 58 years, and counting! 



Out on bail, IPCC’s Pachauri’s downward spiral continues: Resignation from the Indian Climate Council

Pachauri’s withdrawal from public life continues


Story submitted by Eric Worrall

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has today accepted Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation from the Prime Minister’s climate change council.

According to the Indian Express;

“R K Pachauri, who has been accused of sexual harassment, has resigned from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change as well, a government statement today said.

“The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has accepted the resignation of R K Pachauri from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change,” said the one line statement.

The Council decides on broad policy guidelines on climate change, and is headed by the Prime Minister.”



The BBC reports that an Indian court has granted Pachauri bail, while police investigate claims of sexual harassment against the beleaguered former head of the IPCC.


“An Indian court has granted interim bail to former UN climate change panel head Rajendra Pachauri, who is facing charges of sexual harassment.


The court order bans him from leaving India or entering his office while police investigate the allegations.


A female researcher has accused him of sending her inappropriate calls, emails and texts and physically molesting her.


Mr Pachauri, who resigned from his post on Tuesday, denies the accusations. He is currently in hospital.

His lawyers say he is receiving treatment for a heart condition.”




We obviously wish Pachauri a speedy recovery from his heart condition. Perhaps a withdrawal from public life is for the best, the last few years, as head of the IPCC, have obviously been very difficult for Pachauri. Once the police investigation and court case is over, Pachauri may have the personal space he needs, to pursue other interests, such as his interest in writing pornographic fiction.



Need I say more?     And this is all from a part of her "community at large" who now appear to be not so enthusiastic about the GWRC claims on climate change and the spokeswoman fronting up for them!


Before we start at that beginning ... (actually I think I have sort of started somewhere in there) ... how about time for a quiet interlude, since "We Have Only Just Begun?":


*              *             *             *             *             *             *

 Let's Start At The Very Beginning (of the headline) - A Very Good Place To Start! [And that would have to be NIWA and NZ Met Service next on my shopping list .... 8-) ]

2.  NIWA & N.Z. Met Service - 'Bending the Data/Fraud'

But First Some Essential Background Reading/Viewing Behind The Scene For Those Who Have Not Been Keeping Up, And Unfamiliar With The Politics Behind Climate Science

Alex Jones Talks With Lord Christopher Monckton On Climategate 1/5


2/5 Climategate - Alex Jones/Lord Christopher Monckton

 3/5 Climategate continues ...

 4/5 Climategate continues ...

 5/5 Climategate continues ...



But NIWA and N.Z. Met Service wouldn't risk tarnishing their Image By Fiddling with the Raw data and Misrepresenting the Science, now....would They?     Don't Bet on It !



New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation


NZ average temperatures, 1853-2008, per NIWA







Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.


At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.


However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

N.Z. unadjusted temperatures, 1853-2008, CSC

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

Climatic Research Unit (Photo courtesy CRU)

Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.


The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.


UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.


Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.




More On NIWA's Climate Chief Wratt  - Watt's In A Name RAT?   "CSC Really Really "PISSES ME OFF!"


- See more at: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html#sthash.9QQAcJsB.dpuf


*             *             *              *             *            * 

  'Best Scientific Knowledge' (GWRC) - Yeah, Right!


Blog by Georgina Griffiths - N.Z. Met Service

[In which she claims 2014 Warmest on Record ... and 14 of the 15 hottest years have occurred this century! ( looks like N.Z. Met Service are in on it also ... 'collecting the data the old fashion way, fudging the numbers to hide the decay')]


*           *           *           *          *           *           *

World Meteorological Day 2015: climate knowledge for climate action


Each year on 23rd March, National Weather Services around the globe celebrate World Meteorological Day.  This marks the establishment of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on this day in 1950. WMO is the global co-ordinating agency for meteorological and hydrological activities, formed because weather simply doesn’t limit itself to national boundaries.  World Meteorological Day is an occasion to commemorate the work that national meteorological and hydrological agencies undertake 24 hours a day, 365 days per year – work that produces weather forecasts and warnings to help keep our communities safe.  The recent passage of Cyclone Pam near Vanuatu and past New Zealand are timely reminders of these efforts.


Collecting weather data …


The routine collection of weather data is one part of MetService’s international responsibilities under the Global Observing System (GOS). Worldwide, weather agencies take observations of pressure, temperature, wind and rainfall around the clock. Data come from ships, buoys, weather balloons and land-based weather stations, and are transmitted via the WMO Global Telecommunication System (GTS). This is a world-wide stream of data used as input into global weather forecast models. The better we can “start off” (initialise) the global computer models as to the current state of the atmosphere, the better the future state will be predicted – and the more accurate the weather forecast will be for your place.


In New Zealand alone, hundreds of weather stations from Stewart Island to Cape Reinga tell us how wet, warm, or windy it is every hour, as well as measuring pressure and humidity. Weather balloons are released twice daily at several locations around the country. Recently, MetService has collaborated with the U.K. MetOffice to enable kiwis to share their local weather data on the ‘Your Weather’ section of metservice.com via the ‘Weather Observation Website’ (WOW) system.


… for climate knowledge, too


This year, the theme for World Meteorological Day is ‘climate knowledge for climate action.’ This is a timely focus. Globally, 2014 was the warmest year on record and fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have occurred this century. But how do we know this? That’s right – we looked back at historical weather data.


Think of climate as the sum of all the weather. If you smooth out all of the edges looking at things longer-term (from a climate perspective), it is possible to more clearly understand what is going on. Climate patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode are more ‘visible’ this way, including their effect on New Zealand wind, rain and temperature.

Reanalysis data’ is a very important tool for scientists trying to unlock the physical mechanisms behind our climate – trying to understand why we had a wet month, a warm year, or an active Cyclone season. Reanalysis datasets input historical weather data from around the globe into the same climate model, and extend it back over time. The relationships found in the past can help us forecast the future – this is the basis of seasonal climate predictions. For example, El Nino springs tend to be very cold in New Zealand, due to frequent southerly airstreams over the country. When we know an El Nino spring is coming, and in the absence of other major climate factors, the odds are that we’re in for an unusually cold spring.


Global temperature data (departure from normal), based on three different reanalysis datasets.    The data all tell the same story – a rapid increase in global average temperature since the 1960s.
[Global temperature data (departure from normal), 
based on three different reanalysis datasets.
The data all tell the same story – 
a rapid increase in global average temperature
since the 1960s.]

There are many examples of when historical weather data helps put things into climatic context. For example, people have asked, “is Cyclone Pam the worst Tropical Cyclone to hit the South Pacific?”.  The answer relies on good data being available.  Since Cyclone Zoe (2002) and Cyclone Pam (2015) both reached an estimated minimum central pressure of 890hPa, it looks like a tie.  And although satellites provide a relatively short record, their data can also help answer questions about Tropical Cyclone frequency. No increase in Tropical Cyclone numbers has been observed in the South Pacific over the last few decades since reliable satellite data have been available.

Number and intensity of cyclones in the South Pacific 1969-2014

Peter Lennox, MetService Chief Executive, is New Zealand's Permanent Representative with the United Nations World Meteorology Organization.
Peter Lennox, MetService Chief Executive, is New Zealand’s Permanent Representative with the United Nations World Meteorology Organization.

MetService also contributes to international climate activities directly.  MetService CEO Peter Lennox is New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the World Meteorological Organization.  In addition, MetService has supported several major climate initiatives in New Zealand recently.


MetService and NIWA have collaborated to achieve official Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Reference Upper Air Network status for the NIWA atmospheric research station at Lauder in Central Otago.


This is only the fourth upper-air site to be certified in the world, and the first in the southern hemisphere. Well-calibrated atmospheric observations are crucial to documenting climate and climate change. The standard network of upper-air meteorological observations, and also weather satellites, provide good coverage – but high-quality observations are needed against which these standard observations can be calibrated. The pairing of Lauder observations and Met Service’s Invercargill radiosonde data will achieve the necessary calibration.

NASA's super pressure balloonAnd NASA’s super pressure balloon is awaiting lift off at Wanaka, being delayed due to adverse winds associated with Cyclone Pam. Designed to drift eastwards at an altitude of 110,000 feet (‘near space’), NASA expects the super pressure balloon to circumnavigate across South America and then South Africa, on its potentially record-breaking flight. 


Depending on the stratospheric wind speeds, the balloon should circumnavigate the earth every one to three weeks. The flight goal is to exceed the current super-balloon flight record of 54 days, and to maintain a constant float altitude. If the balloon test is validated, this opens the door for relatively inexpensive atmospheric research. You can track the balloon here.



 Hide The Decline

 Hide The Decline II! - NIWA/N.Z. MET SERVICE


 Fraud is a Crime


So, According to Georgina Griffiths 2014 was the 'warmest year on record globally.'  ... Really?

But, Georgina, how could you be so unaware of the fact that there are many scientists out there, who simply do not agree with you, and who know that science is not based upon consensus, and cannot be said to be settled, as you climate alarmists keep trying to tell us? 

Let me introduce you to one, and then let you decide whether you are still prepared to stick to your story in the face of the following report? 


Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record ... but we're only 38% sure we were right 

  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record
  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
  • Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all 
Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admits there's a margin of error

Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admits there's a margin of error


The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.


In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.


The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.


Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.


As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount. 


Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.


*          *          *          *           *           * 


                                  NO, IT WASN'T  ... 

 by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley  I  January 20, 2015


Nature trumpets  "2014 was the hottest year on record," citing the Japan Meteorological Agency, the World Meteorological Organization and NOAA.   


However,  NOAA and several other principal terrestrial temperature datasets - which are anyway subject to measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties and have been repeatedly revised in a questionable fashion over the past year to show ever greater warming rates - have not yet reported their December 2014 values.


The two satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - have both reported.   Figure 1 shows the mean of the monthly anomalies on the two datasets since the beginning of the record in January 1979.



It is at once apparent from the graph that 2014 was not "the warmest year on record."  Several previous years had been warmer, including the El Nino years 1998 and 2010.    In fact, some 70% of the years since the last Ice Age were warmer than today.


Figure 1 also shows that the rate of global warming since 1979 is the equivalent of just 1.3 Celsius degres per century - hardly anything to worry about.


Since 1990, the year when the IPCC first predicted how temperatures would evolve in the short to medium term, the measured rate of global warming - this time taken as the mean of all five principle global-temperature datasets - has been just under half of the warming the IPCC had predicted with "substantial confidence" that year (Fig.2)


According to the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming - at all - for 18 years 3 months, notwithstanding ever-more-rapid increase in CO2 concentration (fig. 3).   The Nature article incorrectly state4s that the hiatus in global warming "began around 1998" - in fact, it began in 1996.

The Nature article also says "High temperatures in California in 2014 helped drive widespread drought there."  However, Hao et al.  (2014) show a decline in the global land area under drought over the past 30 years (fig. 4)

The Nature article continues:  "The warmth in 2014 is also notable for another reason: the absence of El Nino."   Here, too, Nature has it wrong.  Weak but definite El Nino conditions prevailed in the last six months of 2014.   One might more plausibly argue, therefore, that the absence of record temperatures in 2014 was startling given the El Nino conditions, the ever-rising CO2 concentration, and the exaggerated predictions of the "consensus" climate models.

Nature admits, grudgingly, that there has been a "slowdown" in global warming over the past decade and a half, from the 1950-2012 average of 0.12 C deg/decade to 0.05 C deg/decade.   However, Nature incorrectly attributes the "slowdown" to the notion that "the warming temperatures have been collecting in the bases of oceans instead."

This notion, advanced by a small group of climate scientists each taking it in turn to be the lead author, so that the idea seems to be (but is not) widespread in the literature, can be verified in the simplest manner.

Though the 3500 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the oceans measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication the temperature change is converted into ocean heat content change in Joules, making the change seem larger.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change is highly revealing.   It shows how little change has really been measured.

The increase in ocean heat content over the 94 ARGO months September 2005 to June 2013 was ................

 10 x 10 (to the power of 22) J = 100 ZJ = 100,000 XJ (Fig. 5).   Sounds big and alarming.

Figure 5. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, from NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory; http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5?3M HEAT CONTENT. 

There are 0.65 Xm (cu m) in the upper 2000 m of the oceans.  Each cubic meter of ocean water weighs 1.033 tonnes.   To raise 1 tonne by 1 kelvin requires 4 MJ of heat energy.   Thus, to raise 0.65 X cubic meters x 1.033 tonnes per cubic meter = 0.67145 Xte of upper-ocean water by 4 MJ per tonne requires 2,685,800 XJ.   Then the 100,000 XJ of ocean heat content increase in the past 94 months represents a total ocean warming 0.037233 K, equivalent to less that 0.0475 K per decade.


Accordingly, even on the quite extreme NODC ocean heat content record (Fig. 5), the change in mean ocean temperature in the upper 2000 m in recent decades has been less that 0.05 K per decade - which is precisely the change in air temperature that nature will concede has occurred in the past decade and a half.   Therefore, there is no need to look any deeper than the upper or "mixed" 2000 m of the ocean.   The abyssal layer - which has scarcely been measured - is in any event mostly very cold - often as little as 4 Celsius degrees.


The ARGO bathythermographs show much less warming than NOAA would like us to believe.    Each buoy has to measure 300,000 cu. km of ocean - the equivalent of taking a single temperature and salinity measurement in the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year and expecting the results to be reliable.


The truth - not that any of this will ever be explained in Nature - is that we do not have a sufficiently-resolved record to know whether the ocean is warming at all:  but the simplest guide to whether the ocean is warming is to study whether the air ( 1000 times less dense than the ocean) is warming.   If the air is not warming, as it has not warmed for at least a decade, then the ocean is not warming either.


The Nature article says that the warming of 0.05 Celsius degrees in 2014  "should chasten climate science sceptics who have used the past decade's temperatures to deny that climate change is happening."    On the contrary, those who have repeatedly tampered with the terrestrial temperature record and have relied chiefly on the tampered results for their assertion that 2014 was the"the warmest year on record" should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.


But they won't be.   Their strategy is now clear:  cut worldwide CO2 emissions even though this is plainly unnecessary, and then - when temperature fails to rise as predicted - assert that the absence of global warming that would have happened in any event is attributed to emission cuts.   On this daft basis, the world's governments make policy at taxpayers' expense.





Georgina Griffiths ( N.Z. MetService Blogger), according to Lord Christopher Monckton, 'you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself,' and I entirely concur with his conclusion.


And that could be equally said of the rest of the perpetrators and promoters of this fraud, notably Judith Aitken (GWRC), NIWA, U.N. IPCC, the U.N. AGENDA 21 PLAN, and all their 'hanger-ons,' the latter of which I will shortly be exposing as we head down that 'rabbit-hole.'


If We Had Some Global Warming 


What Some People Think About Climate Change


And What Other People Are Thinking ...

Climate change proved to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

October 23, 2014

Jason Taylor



John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.


Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.


In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.


“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.


“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).


“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”


Tags: ,







Climate Change Models-Lord Christopher Monckton/Willie Soon/David Legates/Matt Briggs

New Study: new climate change model finds IPCC model predictions too hot [January, 2015. Vol 60 No.1 Science Bulletin]


Here is a report on a new study on global warming, from Phys.org.


They write:

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletinpredicts no more than 1 °C warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.

When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:

Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.

[…]The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.

[…]The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.

So what are the specific errors in the IPCC model?




Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –

The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.

Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 °C of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 °C – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.

Though the complex models say there is 0.6 °C manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come. There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 °C global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.



Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”

I think it’s a credit to the scientific enterprise that they grilled this paper with peer-review, and then allowed it to stand, even though if it becomes widely-known and accepted, it will dry up their grant money. They rely on a crisis in order to obtain research money, and what this new, simpler model shows is that there is no crisis. It’s bad for the scientists’ wallets, but good for science as a whole. Respect++.




How do we protect the region from the


Greater Wellington Regional Council wants

your views on our draft climate change strategy


submissions close

10 April






 Genesis 8:22 and Climate

The Science is not settled, we are still learning about how CO2 and water vapour affect climate ... the debate goes on ... one thing is certain ... climate is normal, subject to change with certain limitations, and requires no input on our behalf for it to continue to self-regulate as it was set up to do so..." All the days of the earth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, night and day, shall not cease."- Genesis 8:22.