Comments on: Help NASA Find the Lost City of Wellington NZ

By: dennis ward

dennis ward — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:43:02 +0000

If your children were going on a plane journey and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 10% chance of the plane crashing would you let them get on it?

And if a whole bunch of flight engineers said there was a 90% chance of it crashing, what kind of person would allow their children to get on it then?

Hello?

By: William

William — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:54:19 +0000

Don’t worry, Wellington, NZ is still around. Google found it for me and if Google says it’s still around then it must be.

By: ZZMike

ZZMike — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:42:08 +0000

I visited there once, a long time ago. My mother was born in Wellington.

It’s certainly sad to hear of such a fine city disappearing. Maybe they’ll find underwater remains.

Another effect is that the Russains shut down their monitoring stations in Siberia, some time ago when they ran out of money. Or maybe it was volunteers to man the stations.
It would be interesting to see if somebody could plot their data up to the last known.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:34:31 +0000

The vegetation on the Chathams is very low, most less than 5m high. It is also swept by strong winds, as befits its position as a solitary speck in the Southern ocean and it has about 600hrs sunshine a year. There has been a weather station on the island since before World War 2.
There is also a weather Station at Raoul Island a speck halfway between NZ and the equator.
The Chathams might have more trees but there is nothing substatial year. Its population is about 750. As these sites have weather that is dominated by the surrounding oceans, surely they would be ideal candidates for analysis of whether global warming is occurring.

As it is unlikely that the weather site locations have moved significantly in their lifetimes, there should be no need for adjustments. What does their raw data show, or is AGW only a north Atlantic effect?

By: Philip_B

Philip_B — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:14:59 +0000

You just cant take one part of the earth (in this case NZ) and use it to justify anything significant. You have to look at the TOTAL picture.

Mmm! The SH is half the planet. The highly populated zones in the NH have no correspondence in the SH. In particular, the 38 to 60 degree zones in the NH with a population of a couple of billion people has no correspondence in the SH. All we have are obscure islands nobody has ever heard of (apologies to New Zealand). You may find these obscure islands insignificant but they represent as much of the Earth’s climate (record) as Europe, N America, Russia and most of China combined.

By: Philip_B

Philip_B — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:01:45 +0000

Campbell Island was a sheep farm until 1931 and the last sheep weren’t removed until the 1980s. As a result there has been substantial growth of shrubs on the island (since the sheep were removed) and as a post today at Watts Up With That shows shrubs cause significant warming. Chatham Islands have programs to remove introduced grazing species and regrow native forest. Revegetation could well be the cause of the observed warming.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.01029.x

By: paul

paul — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:55:06 +0000

Hi Dennis. You must be new here. Take the time to read not only current auditing but also past topics. Do not underestimate the ability of some of these people to know what they are talking about and remember the mind is like a paratute, open it and you’ll find it works better. This is not a denialist site, this is a site where enquiry is undertaken and people exchange ideas and knowledge. Your rant will do little good because you are not really saying anything. Many medicines have been withdrawn owing to a very small number of problems discovered after a licence was granted. So the climate models are fallible because they are designed by humans, but so what, it doesn’t prove anything. It does. It proves they are questionable and that is the whole point.

By: dennis ward

dennis ward — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:34:00 +0000

Mark W

Yes it definitely IS cherry picking.

Why not mention all the many temperature stations where global warming IS definitely showing up and where any ‘mistakes’ have been on the ‘low’ side rather than the ‘high’ side?

Where are all these examples?

You just can’t take one part of the earth (in this case NZ) and use it to justify anything significant. You have to look at the TOTAL picture.

Climate science, like all other science, relies on data from human beings, who are fallible and machines that can malfunction. To suggest that this proves ANYTHING is just ridiculous.

Do you ignore medical science and stop surgeons from operating because one surgeon makes an error?

You must be getting really desperate to stoop to these low tactics.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:32:26 +0000

Re # 72 David Wratt

There are many, many sites in New Zealand with few temperature adjustments (if any) needed, over part or all of their terms. It seems a truism that adjusted sites show a warming trend greater than unadjusted sites in a majority of cases. That is, the adjustment process appears to be a major component of what is taken as warming and put to the public.

Do you agree with this or do you not? Evidence?

I have been following similarities with Australian data since the early 1990s so I speak with some experience.

By the way, given the abundance of sheep in the NZ countryside, can you please report suspect results as Baaa graphs?

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:35:26 +0000

Oh, nevermind. Doh. #34 (140272)in this same thread has the link to the NZ data.