Antarctica Melting FASTER!

reply to post by masqua


The article states that the ice is Melting due to AGW. So where are the facts backing up that the ice is melting from Man Made Global Warming?

Some questions, have ice bergs floated off the coast of New Zealand before that just hasn't been documented? Has Ice melted from Antarctica before now?

That is the truth of the matter, you have to figure out if it has happened before and figured out why it has happened before. The fact of the matter is the e-mails are important because the article links the cause of the Ice Melting due to Global Warming.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
But simply stating that the Ice is melting we are all going to die, and it is all Humans fault isn't going to cut it. I want to see the data methods and have it all explained by the scientist that blame it on humans. However, the people that blame it on humans refuse to release the data and methods. That isn't going to cut it.

We are all going to die?

Well, maybe... Nothing like alarmist statements. I never said that, by the way. I'm more concerned about dwindling potable water, global food production and rising sea levels than I am about desertification and milder weather north of the 49th parallel.

Why be concerned about rising sea levels? Consider the percentage of populations that live in areas at risk of flooding. If memory serves, it's about 30 %. It's no wonder that the greatest cities on the planet are sea ports.

Even if it takes 50 years for the high tides and storm surges to make New York, London, Los Angeles, Amsterdam etc. look like New Orleans, then we should be preparing NOW, not waiting for it to happen.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

Some questions, have ice bergs floated off the coast of New Zealand before that just hasn't been documented? Has Ice melted from Antarctica before now?

That is the truth of the matter, you have to figure out if it has happened before and figured out why it has happened before.

good question.

I started searching for articles with key words 'New Zealand, icebergs and frequency' and found only a few hints that they have increased from highs recorded in the 30's.

What would be really fine is a graph showing such frequecies over recorded ship sightings. I'm going to keep looking for that.

reply to post by masqua


Well I wasn't stating that you were saying we are all going to die.

The fact remains though, how do convince people to move from the coast and how far inland to move if there is no solid evidence to do so. How do we even know it is a threat?

You can't expect 70% of the worlds population to just up and move, not to mention the economics involved in it all and also the fact that we don't even know if is going to happen.

Ice bergs in the oceans are like Ice Cubes in a glass of water, when the ice cubes melt the water level actually lowers, because the ice cube displaces more water than the liquid.

They say it's better to be prepared than not to be, but in this particular instance you are talking about moving Billions of people and the infrastructure. Where are people going to get the money to do this and what are the problems associated with this move and lots of other problems.

Folks - this thread is now irrelevant, the debate is OVER...

here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Attention all Gore-ites: Your point is now moot, the jig is up - you have been lied to, it is CLEAR now from the evidence (hacked emails) that even the Scientists that were PAID to help support Gore's Global Warming Scam agree that the science doesn't support it !! Don't Forget, we are STILL being told that Man Made Global Warming is going to destroy us all...Anyone still clinging to this HOAX is either irretrievably ignorant, irretrievably ego-driven to the point where they can't admit they were wrong, or being paid to support the agenda of this SHAMELESS, GREEDY Bastard Politician and his clan (remember, we're told that this is the single, undeniable greatest threat to mankind in history!).

Remember, you Gore-ites, the "deniers" aren't saying that there isn't climate change happening - just that it isn't MAN MADE, the science supports that and nothing else.

The Proof is there, and cannot be denied - NO FURTHER DEBATE IS REQUIRED, so this will be my last word on the subject.......

I'M CALLING HOAX ! :-)

Peace

You might be able to find some iceburg data through this link.
www.natice.noaa.gov...
The records go back to 1976 I think and show quite a few iceburgs that do float around the open oceans,

In a published paper and BYU study the increase in icebergs could be explained by two factors. First, tracking technology had gotten better; fewer ’bergs were going unnoticed, pushing the count higher. Second, historical records kept by sailors showed that huge litters of Antarctic icebergs are born every 50 to 60 years and that in conclusion the increased iceberg count was unrelated to climate change. But Long was quick to clarify: “This result does not mean global warming is not occurring, only that the iceberg count couldn’t be used as evidence.”
magazine.byu.edu...

It also says that there is less glacial ice now than 3 decades ago and that the rate of melt is accelerating, melting at a clip consistent with the theory of human-induced climate change.

Maybe occuring from Larger Ozone holes, warmer waters, hotter climate, more CO2, manmade polutions, whatever the cause it still seems as though the ice fields are melting and are decreasing in size for longer periods each year, which all adds up to big changes the world over if continued to do so.

Originally posted by masqua
Why persist in looking at emails when evidence is floating by New Zealand?

that's a classic non-sequitur.

what on earth do you expect? ice accumulates through precipitation, we know that much, there are two ways to remove it again, (actually three if you treat sublimation separately), it can melt or vaporize or it can break off to form icebergs.


let's be clear it can only grow so high, obviously. i think i've posted that already but i am at this moment not sure in which thread.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Well I wasn't stating that you were saying we are all going to die.

That's good. Never thought that was an issue to begin with. For certain, though, desertification and rising sea levels will cause people to move.

The fact remains though, how do convince people to move from the coast and how far inland to move if there is no solid evidence to do so. How do we even know it is a threat?

Exactly right. If sea levels rise as much as some 'computer models dictate, then we might have a problem at some future time. Not much of an incentive to plan for new ports at higher elevations, is it?

The problem with rising sea levels is not so much the slow rise, but the effects of tides and storm surges ala New Orleans. If one looks at places like Holland, which was twice flooded during the twentieth century, it's a very real threat. London is protected by flood gates on the Thames, but how effective would they be if, as some say, sea levels rise by 15 feet (or so) over the next 25 years (also a 'guess')?

How well are New York, Halifax, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Hong Kong and all the other large port cities protected? Should we be looking at the sea level with a worried eye and contemplating what to do about it?

You can't expect 70% of the worlds population to just up and move, not to mention the economics involved in it all and also the fact that we don't even know if is going to happen.

True. That's why it's important that we look at the actual sea level tables and see what they say.

BTW... I believe it's only about 30% of the worlds populations that are at risk. When discussing economics, consider the effects if ports are no longer able to function because the infrastructure for loading and off-loading ships is destroyed by a storm surge (like what happened in New Orleans).

Ice bergs in the oceans are like Ice Cubes in a glass of water, when the ice cubes melt the water level actually lowers, because the ice cube displaces more water than the liquid.

That would be relevant if the ice originated from shelves over sea water. What I collected in the previous post was the increased movement of ice from glaciers which are on land. That ice WILL raise sea levels as it breaks off into the sea. The difference between the Arctic ice cap, which is mostly on water and the ice from glaciers (mountain ranges, Greenland, Antarctica) is on land. What are the statistics on receding glaciers and the fresh water that flows from those various mountain ranges into the worlds oceans?

They say it's better to be prepared than not to be, but in this particular instance you are talking about moving Billions of people and the infrastructure. Where are people going to get the money to do this and what are the problems associated with this move and lots of other problems.

I wonder about that too...

sp

[edit on 25/11/09 by masqua]

[edit on 25/11/09 by masqua]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

You can't expect 70% of the worlds population to just up and move, not to mention the economics involved in it all and also the fact that we don't even know if is going to happen.

Very true. The government couldn't even get New Orleans residents to move, even though they lived in an area near the Gulf six feet BELOW sea level!

I don't know where this 70% population-at-risk comes from, I pegged it at around 30% myself. Besides, most people will get evacuated before storm surges, high tides and tsunami hit coastal regions. At least I HOPE they have time to evacuate. Thing is, the port facilities can't just move in a few hours.

So, let's forget about people for a sec and think just money instead:

Possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets, report says
London, England (CNN) -- A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry.

The value of infrastructure exposed in so-called "port mega-cities," urban conurbations with more than 10 million people, is just $3 trillion at present.

The rise in potential losses would be a result of expected greater urbanization and increased exposure of this greater population to catastrophic surge events occurring once every 100 years caused by rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

www.cnn.com...

That sea levels are rising is fact. How much and how soon is dependent upon melting glaciers.

reply to post by atlasastro


Antarctica will probably see some major melting over the next few years, and sea levels will go up, no doubt. Extreme weather on land is already becoming more common. It seems all the planets in the Solar System are experiencing changes in weather. The balance for optimal weather conditions on earth is pretty delicate... we should probably prepare for all types of weather. And if you know your region is susceptible to an "any day now" scenario... I wouldn't procrastinate in preparing for that day. But I guess a lot of people on ATS are on it.

1st post!

[edit on 25-11-2009 by nostra-thomas_00]

i think there is no global warming causing anything i think its just natural occurrences that have been going on for millions of years we all know the landscape changes over these millions of years its gotta be just a normal occurrence

Antarctica doesn't even exist! It's a hoax! Have any of you actually been there?

reply to post by masqua

There was an iceberg sighting from the shore in 1931. There was another in 2006. This recent iceberg has not made it that far. It's started breaking up and probably won't last long. We are just getting into Summer here after all.
Here's an article regarding the 06 berg.

Iceberg off New Zealand becomes tourist mecca

We’ve been monitoring these things for such a short time, it’s impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible,” Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacier expert, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.

(from the article)

I guess "facts" won't stop some people though.

The South Island of NZ (my home country ) is sparsely populated, especially the southern and western coasts. And south of NZ is not a very common shipping route. So even if icebergs came up here frequently, they would very rarely get spotted.

Also something just bought to my attention on WUWT.
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one

This is NIWA's graph showing NZ temperature
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd1c9c84472e.jpg[/atsimg]
The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/578b94c48513.jpg[/atsimg](pic may be too big. See link for full pic)

This is big. It's not only CRU that have some answering to do. NIWA have made strong adjustments to the raw data without explanation. Early temperatures have been adjusted down by as much as 1.3 degrees, then they are adjusted up to create a warming trend. As you can see, the raw data show's a relatively stable trend, in stark contast to the 'adjusted' data.

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

This will be interesting. It may have a fair bit of relevance to this thread since we probably have the closest reliable temperature recording network to Antarctica. What are the alarmists going to say if the raw data does indeed prove to be accurate?

I think we are going to see a huge interest in getting "real" data from recording stations around the world, rather than fudged data. This will be hard in some places since places, seeing as CRU have 'lost' some of the real data with only adjusted data available. These are interesting time's in the realm of climate science indeed.

Originally posted by atlasastro
.......................
Which brings me to a very interesting point.
WHY are there NO WHISTLE BLOWERS.
Why are there no "Insiders", upset scientists that have missed out on their slice of the GRANT GOODIES TRAIN.
There are NONE. NOT ONE.
No tales of data manipulation, cheating, fraud in order to get cash!
No cash trail of fraud!
No leaked GOVT. memos pressuring scientists to conform.
Scientist have come out against Politicians in the Past.
.....................

Wow...well, obviously you haven't been studying this topic for very long....

I posted three scientists who say the IPCC is politicizing Global Warming/Climate Change...

In the past I have posted several other scientists who have been fired, or lost funding for doubting Anthropogenic Global Warming...

there have been SEVERAL REAL scientists who were part of the IPCC reports and have come forward to say Global Warming/Climate Change is a political tool, and ther eis corruption in the IPCC....

But according to you "noone has come forward to show there is cheating, manipulation, etc"?....

reply to post by nostra-thomas_00


Thanks for dropping by and welcome to ATS. You picked a sticky topic to get you feet wet in, that is for sure.

I too think that the Antarctic will see a lot more melting.
When we head out of Solar minimum I think it will be interesting to put it mildly, CO2 absorption by the Oceans is in decline and we are pumping out more than ever. Biomass is picking up the slack but we are also hacking away massive chunks of it annually. So we risk seeing greater volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Time will tell.

Thanks again and congrats on your first post.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Show the fraud dude.
Not the politic games EU.
The charges thrown at these scientist is fraud.
Show it.

Link the research that was published that is fraudulent.

People may have been sacked for disagreeing, but that does not make the research wrong or fraudulent.
Nor does it make them whistle blowers, just pissed off ex-employees.



[edit on 26/11/09 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


Oooh so now the scientists who have come forward to say what the IPCC is doing are "pissed off employees"?...

First you claim "why hasn't there been noone to come foward to say there was fraud, etc" and now you change your tune and you claim "they are just pissed off emplyees".....

I could show you the erroneous data posted by Hansen, AGAIN, as real evidence when he, nor the other scientists who collected the data, decided to just post it without verifying the data just because it showed "dramatic warming." This is not the first time James Hansen has done this...

August 15, 2007
NASA's global warming misinformation needs full retraction
Christopher Alleva

The news blackout on the erroneous NASA temperature data has been partially lifted by the Toronto Star. More than anything their story was driven by home pride in a local man, Steve McIntyre, who single-handedly exposed the vaunted American Space agency's mistakes and errors.

Drudge is linking this story so more pressure is building on the media to lift the blackout.

NASA quietly corrected the data last week. The media blackout has been going on for the better part of 5 days. Expect the blackout to continue for sometime to come. Many reporters and editors are on vacation. Global warming stories written before they left to take advantage of the heat of August have probably been shelved for the time being.

On their return, reporters and editors will have to face a tricky dilemma: how to row-back on their coverage admitting the error and mistake while protecting the reputation of the their biggest global warming cheerleader, NASA's James Hansen. In October 2005 Hansen embarked on yet another publicity blitz breathlessly claiming 2005 was "on track" to surpass 1998 as the warmest year. (In the revised data 2005 doesn't even make the top 10)

To reinforce the point, the WaPo reporter Juliet Eilperin threw in another uncorroborated study claiming the Arctic ice cap is shrinking dramatically and the Gulf of Mexico's temperature was the highest ever, well at least since 1890 and this was causing the hurricanes (think Katrina).

www.americanthinker.com...

BTW yes that is from a blog but this story should be known by now to be true...

I could show you the Wegman research into Mann's MBH98 and MBH99 or the House meeting where Wegman, among some others shows some of the flaws of the data published by Mann and used by the IPCC for many years to spread fearmonger among the people.

0-www.gpo.gov.library.colby.edu...

I could show you the review papers from Prof Lindzen, and from many other scientists who disagree with the AGW, and have shonw, and come forward about the "politization, and corruption" in the IPCC...

These guys have also shown the same thing...

www.marshall.org...

And BTW...

Landsea's frustration is not an isolated experience. MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, another past IPCC author who is not participating in the fourth report, has written: "My experiences over the past 16 years have led me to the discouraging conclusion that we are dealing with the almost insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice bowl." (Lindzen's "iron triangle" consists of activists misusing science to get the
attention of the news media and politicians; the "iron rice bowl" is the parallel phenomenon where scientists exploit the activists' alarm to increase research funding and attention for the issue.[5]) And Dr. John Zillman, one of Australia's leading climate scientists, is another ex-IPCC participant who believes the IPCC has become"cast more in the model of supporting than informing policy development."[6]
And when the IPCC is not ignoring its responsible critics like Landsea and Lindzen, it is demonizing them.

www.aei.org...

There are several other REAL SCIENTISTS which people like you like to dismiss and claim to be only "pissed off employees" but of course you have no evidence for your claims, you just try to discredit anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you....


[edit on 26-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Oooh so now the scientists who have come forward to say what the IPCC is doing are "pissed off employees"?...

Once again you are seeing things in your head that are not there, EU.
You said this: "I posted three scientists who say the IPCC is politicizing Global Warming/Climate Change... ".
The IPCC dispute is political and has nothing to do with fraud.

My pissed of Employees comment was in relation to this comment.
"In the past I have posted several other scientists who have been fired, or lost funding for doubting Anthropogenic Global Warming... ". Which has nothing to do with the IPCC.
Again, how you see things is beyond me.
Again I will ask you to show where the FRAUDULENT PUBLISHED WORK IS.
Just link it bro.
Should be easy.

First you claim "why hasn't there been noone to come foward to say there was fraud, etc" and now you change your tune and you claim "they are just pissed off emplyees".....

Well they could be pissed off. Show me where the Fraud was in relation to these Employees being sacked, that they blew the whistle on. Just show it. Again, this should be easy. I mean they blew the whistle on FRAUD, did they not?
Because my comment was on whistle blowers on scientific fraud. Cooking the books to get funding or due to political pressure. READ MY POST. HERE IT IS AGAIN FOR YOU.

That would be scientific fraud.
That is why there is a review process.

Grants are a competitive business.
As is science.
What would you do if you found out that one of your competitors for grant money, money that you could use for your own research was cooking the books?

I am guessing you would tell someone.
That is what the review process if for.

Which brings me to a very interesting point.
WHY are there NO WHISTLE BLOWERS.
Why are there no "Insiders", upset scientists that have missed out on their slice of the GRANT GOODIES TRAIN.
There are NONE. NOT ONE.
No tales of data manipulation, cheating, fraud in order to get cash!
No cash trail of fraud!
No leaked GOVT. memos pressuring scientists to conform.
Scientist have come out against Politicians in the Past.

Just point out the Fraud EU.
Should be easy. I mean you claim you have whistle blowers, we can tie in the funding, we will have the Fraudulent work because it is PUBLISHED.
Just point it out bro.

I could show you the erroneous data posted by Hansen, AGAIN, as real evidence when he, nor the other scientists who collected the data, decided to just post it without verifying the data just because it showed "dramatic warming." This is not the first time James Hansen has done this...

What do you mean "Posted".
Do you mean that he released data before checking it? But was found to be erroneous, and it was then corrected and fixed. I know how stupid that is, Because I know this has happened, but the trends they comment on are observed and noted by other research and findings. If you can point out a trend of errors as being the norm for all Published Climate Science, then correct them EU. I mean it all must be wrong if Hansen is an Ass.
Can you point out in any field of science where there is perfection EU. Evolution has had errors too. I guess that theory is a hoax too. Doctors make mistakes and they do stupid things. What a freakin money grabbing scam Medicine is hey EU.

August 15, 2007
NASA's global warming misinformation needs full retraction
Christopher Alleva

OMG, its a blog, it has to be certain proof of fraud.....or it is certain that they interpret it as a certainty, because they are certain that they want to be! certain.www.sourcewatch.org...

You really crack me up with your hypocrisy EU. On this thread you criticize those who use and the site websites itself, RealClimate.Org, for being linked to Politics and here we have your very own Right wing Echo Chamber Blog.
Awesome stuff dude. Top Shelf, I am surprised you haven't gone for Heartland or the Centre for Public Policy, or Marshall( :lol I had to come back and add the lolz because you give Marshall a plug).
Why not quote mine Fred Singer. Anyway, lets look at the issues you are right to raise.

The news blackout on the erroneous NASA temperature data has been partially lifted by the Toronto Star. More than anything their story was driven by home pride in a local man, Steve McIntyre, who single-handedly exposed the vaunted American Space agency's mistakes and errors.

Not the dreaded GISS scandal. EU is this all you have to prove there are whistle blowers?
Seriously, this is it?
Errors. Exposed. Where is the fraud. No whistle blowers but McIntyres intelligent work of exposing an Error.

But was it a Global Scam EU?
No. It was just the data for the USA. One country.

The figures related to temperature readings in the US, which scientists at the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Science had failed to adjust in light of readings from other sites.

Did it change the Global trend of data showing warming EU?
No. It did not.

Did they fix the error EU? Yes.

Back to your Political Blog opinion Piece on a Mistake. Geez, God damn those Humans at NASA making a mistake.

NASA quietly corrected the data last week. The media blackout has been going on for the better part of 5 days. Expect the blackout to continue for sometime to come. Many reporters and editors are on vacation. Global warming stories written before they left to take advantage of the heat of August have probably been shelved for the time being.

What Media Blackout. I read a tonne of stuff about this. So did You I bet.

On their return, reporters and editors will have to face a tricky dilemma: how to row-back on their coverage admitting the error and mistake while protecting the reputation of the their biggest global warming cheerleader, NASA's James Hansen. In October 2005 Hansen embarked on yet another publicity blitz breathlessly claiming 2005 was "on track" to surpass 1998 as the warmest year. (In the revised data 2005 doesn't even make the top 10)

Well, thisis just funny. The Blogosphere went into melt down. Opinion pieces exploded from the sceptics in the MSM. Nasa hung its head in shame. And the plethora of science kept rolling on in in relation to the Issue was smeared wholesale. Again.

To reinforce the point, the WaPo reporter Juliet Eilperin threw in another uncorroborated study claiming the Arctic ice cap is shrinking dramatically

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.thestar.com...
www.popsci.com.au... Yeah totally uncorroborated. I love it.

and the Gulf of Mexico's temperature was the highest ever, well at least since 1890 and this was causing the hurricanes (think Katrina).

Yeah, we all know warm water in the Gulf has nothing to do with hurricanes. Hurricanes are caused by solar winds and Volcanoes. Right EU!

www.americanthinker.com...

BTW yes that is from a blog but this story should be known by now to be true...

The stroy is true, but there is no fraud, there was no whistle blower. There was an error but the opinion piece and the innuendo from you are not.
There was no fraud.
There was no insider whistle blower who exposed a deliberate fraud.
It was an Error.
McIntyre did a great job and is evidence that there is a genuine and valid need for AGW scepticism and that it is indeed active and vigilant.
But how many time EU have we seen incidents like these?

You seem to ignore the fact that the Skepticism is as highly motivated by politics and funding itself. Where is your objections and dismissals of Skeptics due to these facts. You seem to liberally apply a smear on AGW for similar habits.
Skeptics have exagerrated as much if not more than Hansen ever has.
Skeptics have twisted, spun, lied and manipulated Data far in such quantities it is almost impossible to refer to any with much intergrity.

One of the most oft sited sources of Skepticism is the Oregon Petition. A Total and Utter fraud.
Where are your standards Now EU.

I could show you the Wegman ......among the people.

Seen it bro. A million times. There was no fraud. You infer it was to insight fear, yet the fear is from YOU. That it is a scam, fraud, a NWO false flag, a tool for a World Govt. A tax scam etc. etc. So which one is it that I should be afraid of EU?

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable. [5].

They essentially say that there is not enough data, a paucity of Data, of the past that makes it impossible to verify his claims. It does not say he was wrong.
It also criticized the method that made the prediction possible because it smoothed out known warm periods.
But! He was wrong.
climateprogress.org...






[edit on 26/11/09 by atlasastro]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Also something just bought to my attention on WUWT.
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one

This is NIWA's graph showing NZ temperature
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd1c9c84472e.jpg[/atsimg]
The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/578b94c48513.jpg[/atsimg](pic may be too big. See link for full pic).

This second "raw" data Graph was made by these people-www.climatescience.org.nz...

This is big. It's not only CRU that have some answering to do. NIWA have made strong adjustments to the raw data without explanation.

No it is opportunistic smearing on the back of the CRU hack.

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.
Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.
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.
NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

www.niwa.co.nz...

They went to NIWA site. Used the official graph and were given access to the raw data. Made their Own graph and then compared the two graphs with their own running commentary that draws conclusions that the data was manipulated purely to show a warming trend. Their own graph, with NIWA's graph. CSC(climate science coalition does not provide the raw data to show how they got their graph either? WTF, so when a political group makes a graph it is ok and cool and we just believe them, but when scientists do it, give the raw data etc. etc., it is fraud?).

The fact that NIWA makes the raw data available to groups like this is significant. It also makes the data available to the Public.
So they have nothing to Hide. Are Hiding Nothing. They are unafraid to show raw data and how it is used.

This will be interesting. It may have a fair bit of relevance to this thread since we probably have the closest reliable temperature recording network to Antarctica. What are the alarmists going to say if the raw data does indeed prove to be accurate?

The alarmists have said nothing. NIWA has said they are accurate. A political group has said they are adjusting it just to show warming.
Here is the leader of the group responsible for the press release attacking NIWA.
www.sourcewatch.org...
He is the co-author of the anti IPCC paper called the Manhattan Declaration.
If you would like a study on fraud. Then look at it.
It is an example of the poor science Dunleavy advocates. Considering he has published this graph, I think it is relevant that we site his other Material.
Don't you?

I think we are going to see a huge interest in getting "real" data from recording stations around the world, rather than fudged data.

What we are going to see more off, is smear campaigns like this.



[edit on 26/11/09 by atlasastro]