2018 was second equal hottest year on record, ‘alarming trend’ – NIWA

NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) say that 2018 was the second warmest year on record, and four of the past six years were in the top five warmest.

RNZ:  2018 climate continues ‘alarming trend’ – NIWA

Temperatures in 2018 continued to hit record highs, with scientists calling the year a continuation of an “alarming trend”.

January was a record high, but for the year it wasn’t a record.

The year as a whole was the second-equal warmest on record, along with 1998.

The average temperature was 13.41C, not quite reaching the high set in 2016 with an average of 13.45C.

NIWA principal scientist Chris Brandolino said four of the past six years were now in the top five of warmest ever recorded, which was extremely concerning.

“[The year of] 2016 was the warmest, 2017 was the 5th warmest. This year equal-second warmest and I think 2015 was the third warmest,” Mr Brandolino said.

“So four out of the past six years we’ve finished top five and unfortunately part of a long-term and alarming trend.”

Mr Brandolino said there were 49 locations which reached record or near record temperatures around the country.

Mr Brandolino said the warm weather was due to three main components – sea surface temperatures, air flow from tropic and sub-tropic areas and an increase in greenhouse gasses.

“The increases in greenhouses that we continue to see is warming in the background,” he said.

“In other words, we are seeing a long-term tailwind of temperatures. Our changing climate is acting as a long-term tailwind for high temperatures.”

@NIWAWeather:

January 2018 was New Zealand’s warmest month on record, recording a remarkable 3.1˚C above average.

The rest of 2018:

  •   6 months saw above average temps.
  •   6 months saw near average temps.
  •   0 months saw below average temps.

♨️ 49 locations observed record or near-record high mean temperatures.

❄️ 0 locations observed record or near-record low mean temperatures.

For minimum temperatures, 2018 was the warmest on record at +0.94˚C above average in New Zealand. Research has shown that historical warming rates have been larger for overnight minimum temperatures compared with daytime maximum temperatures.

This is a bit misleading stating ‘warmest year on record’:

Leave a comment

59 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  January 9, 2019

    It’s Alarming that the average tempersture was the same as 20 years ago?

    Reply
    • That’s not what they are saying.

      1998 had the second highest average temperatures on record. Four of the other top five average temperatures have been in the last six years.

      So 1998 was abnormally high, but now that sort of annual average is normal.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  January 9, 2019

        The average temperature across the whole year was no greater than 1998.
        Why?
        Supposedly heat was being released from the ocean back then but did sea level fall in consequence? Nothing I’ve seen claims that.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  January 9, 2019

          Of course current temperatures are higher, the previous decades temperatures have been adjusted down.
          Strangely even much more recent temperatures get ‘adjusted’.
          The reasons seem to be that hardly any place has the temperature taken in the same place over the decades.
          However the long periods of recording at remote coastal lighthouses
          Modern electronic temperature recording is effectively continuous as opposed to previously manually taking max and min only. Some say that induces an error as only temperatures that have been steady for 30 sec or so should be counted.
          In Australia their BOM has been caught out very recently as deleting ‘very low’ readings in some colder places as being ‘in error’

          I dont think this one is part of the climate record but Wellington famously didnt like its temperature on the TV news being taken from the Met service roof up in chilly Kelburn and instead had a more balmy weather station installed in some square in downtown. ( surrounded by buildings and paving)

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  January 9, 2019

            Follow up for the changing of ‘too cold’ data in Australia.
            “The BOM got caught this week auto-adjusting cold extremes to be less cold. Lance Pidgeon of the unofficial BOM audit team noticed that the thermometer at Goulburn airport recorded – 10.4°C at 6.17am on Sunday morning, but the official BOM climate records said it was -10.0°C. Either way this was a new record for Goulburn in July. (The previous coldest ever July morning was -9.1°C. The coldest day in Goulburn was in August 1994 when it reached -10.9°C).

            Apparently this was an automated event where the thermometer recorded something beyond a set limit, and the value put into the official database was the artificial limit.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 9, 2019

              Let’s round the degrees up to1.04 rather than .94 for ease of calculation.

              That’s .02 a week.

  2. David

     /  January 9, 2019

    Last Summer was just fabulous, one of the nicest ever but this year has been terrible in Christchurch where its been incredibly wet and overcast…Weather eh.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 9, 2019

      Ours is the reverse. Wet last summer and hot and dry this one. Yep, weather plus slow climate change.

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  January 9, 2019

        Climatologists despair when they hear ‘weather’ juxtaposed with ‘climate’. Weather is the mood, climate is the personality

        Reply
        • David

           /  January 9, 2019

          If Climatologists are going into states of despair I would suggest it could be aimed at their modelling which hasnt quite panned out, at all, ever, even close.
          If its cold its weather if its warm its climate. Anyway I am a luke warmist.

          Reply
          • “their modelling which hasnt quite panned out, at all, ever, even close.”

            Evidence of this?

            Ah, I had a look and came up against:

            The website you are trying to access is not available at this time due to a lapse in appropriation.

            NOAA.gov and specific NOAA websites necessary to protect lives and property are operational and will be maintained during this partial closure of the U.S. Government.

            https://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/

            Odd that websites have stopped dead over budget issues.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  January 9, 2019

              The staff that run their computer centres arent being paid/ are on leave.
              Not strange at all

          • From Skeptical Science:

            Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

            The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce.

            All models have limits – uncertainties – for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

            Mainstream climate models have also accurately projected global surface temperature changes. Climate contrarians have not.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

            Reply
            • David

               /  January 9, 2019

              https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

              Let me answer your link with one of my own. Look there is no doubt the climate is changing but no one has come even close to figuring out how or how much or with any certainty what effects that will have. I figure I will do my bit to look after our environment and that includes clean air etc but there is a sizeable amount of alarmists trying to use it to overthrow capitalism and they can buggar off.

            • That doesn’t look like a very balanced source.

              The New American is a biweekly publication of the arch-conservative John Birch Society.

              https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_New_American

              The John Birch Society (JBS) is an advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government. It has been described as a radical right and far-right organization.

              The John Birch Society has increasingly been linked to President Trump by political commentators such as Jeet Heer of The New Republic, who said Trumpism is really Bircherism.

              According to Politico, Trump’s lawyer and mentor Roy Cohn was deeply involved with the Society and its leaders.[70] Trump confidante and longtime advisor Roger Stone said that Trump’s father Fred Trump was a financier of the Society and a personal friend of founder Robert Welch.

              Trump’s Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was the speaker at the John Birch Society’s National Council dinner shortly before joining the Trump administration.
              Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who hosted Trump on his Infowars radio show and claims to have a personal relationship with the president, called Trump a “John Birch Society president” and previously claimed Trump was “more John Birch Society than the John Birch Society.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

            • Duker

               /  January 9, 2019

              Do you know the actual results of ‘model runs’
              It looks like a spaghetti soup on a graph, somehow they find a trend- which matches the result they want

            • Duker

               /  January 9, 2019

              “Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions.”

              Predictions AFTER Pinatubo eruption.
              Some one is confusing ‘hindcasts’ where you run your models after the events and say ‘Prediction is correct’

          • Climate change modelling recognised: Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences 2018 – joint winner William D. Nordhaus

            Prize motivation: “for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis.”

            William D. Nordhaus
            Prize Lecture: Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics

            http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/homepage.htm

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  January 9, 2019

              He got the Nobel for intergrating, not being right. Macroeconomics has been bullshit since the beginning of time, and combining it with climate science just compounds the error.

            • Duker

               /  January 9, 2019

              Which Climate change model did they use ?
              So many to chose from
              Well none actually as the award says ‘climate change DATA and technological change’

              I think Nordhaus was the one that came up with the idea of carbon taxation as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
              The award blurb is just a fancy way of saying that to fool the country bumpkins

    • In Dunedin last November I think was very wet but the weather since Christmas has been mostly quite pleasant, apart from a wet day on Sunday (but some rain is good anyway).

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  January 9, 2019

        Just looking at the NIWA temeratures for Dunedin show hardly any climate change for Dunedin from first 20 years of 1900’s to a more recent period

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  January 9, 2019

          Dunedin 1981-2010 average temp 11.07C- this what you would call Dunedins ‘climate’ over that period

          1911 year Dunedin temp 11.22C

          Reply
      • PDB

         /  January 9, 2019

        Dunedin is the oldest & most consistent (in terms of historic temp adjustments) of the original NIWA seven series;

        Average annual temps Dunedin (since records began)

        1909-28: 10.72
        1929-48: 10.52
        1949-68: 10.86
        1969-88: 11.09
        1989-08: 11.01
        2009-18: 11.42

        We’d need to see the 2nd decade of the 2009-2027 block to be sure that the recent 10 year increase doesn’t continue to outstrip historical rises. Of interest is the fact temperatures in Dunedin actually fell slightly on average during the initial period of ‘predominantly man-made global warming’ hysteria.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  January 9, 2019

          Should read ‘2009-2028 block’.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  January 9, 2019

            No such data for 2009-2028.
            We are only just past 2018

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  January 9, 2019

              No shit, Einstein! – probably why I could only give the last 10 years of info for 2009-2018 & why my correction refers to this statement: “We’d need to see the 2nd decade of the 2009-2027 block to be sure that the recent 10 year increase doesn’t continue to outstrip historical rises.”.

  3. acrossthespectrum

     /  January 9, 2019

    It has been dry inside all year here.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  January 9, 2019

      Dry Rot…a dangerous affliction for any wooden house.

      Reply
      • acrossthespectrum

         /  January 9, 2019

        @Corky Dry Rot…”a dangerous affliction for any wooden house”. You must have too much borer in your house Corky. Any idea where that’s coming from?

        Reply
  4. George

     /  January 9, 2019

    Interesting as to how the numbers always agree with the mindset.
    And never are the raw numbers published.
    Its ALWAYS the massaged data

    Reply
    • acrossthespectrum

       /  January 9, 2019

      @George,
      “Interesting as to how the numbers always agree with the mindset”.
      Yes we all find the numbers information or theory which fits our mindset.
      Then we call them facts 🙂
      Then we get all jumpy when someone finds other numbers information or theory
      which fits their mindset and dares to call their story fact 🙂
      I won’t have it I tell you I won’t have it 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Reply
  5. Corky

     /  January 9, 2019

    What happens when you politely criticise the cult of Climate Change? Well, if you are Jim Salinger you lose the plot and hang up. These are the type of nuts behind this climate change scam.

    https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2019/01/salinger-throws-his-toys-on-zb/

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  January 9, 2019

      Interestingly (like Griff) Salinger starts with the now well debunked ‘97% of scientists agree man is the main cause of global warming’ nonsense – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

      “The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

      The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

      Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
      This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.”

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  January 9, 2019

        WUWT
        ROFL
        Crank conspiracy blog.
        What you are not being told is Cook et al also asked the scientists to rate their own papers
        Guess what?
        The scientist also gave 97 % agreement rating their own papers.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  January 9, 2019

          Griff: “The scientist also gave 97% agreement rating their own papers.”

          Cook (2013): “we blanket emailed over 8,500 scientists. This resulted in 1,200 scientists rating the level of endorsement of their own climate papers, with 2,142 papers receiving a self-rating.” – hardly very representative when only 14% of scientists responded to Cook’s email & the sample wasn’t random but just those few scientists that could be assed responding.

          No doubt in this day in age when the money/ funding for climate scientists is dependent on their stating that man is the primary driver of climate (regardless of their true beliefs) then yes the consensus would be in favour – but not 97%.

          Reply
          • Griff.

             /  January 9, 2019

            Actually PDB that pretty much the number of replies you expect from an email survey .
            Then we have the fun bit
            No doubt in this day in age when the money/ funding for climate scientists is dependent on their stating that man is the primary driver of climate (regardless of their true beliefs) then yes the consensus would be in favour – but not 97%.

            Why are so many right wingers Conspiracy gibbering loony tunes ?
            ROFLMAO

            .

            Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  January 9, 2019

        Yep, Cook has been a liar for a long time and so have all those who have cited the 97% as though it was true and actually meant something. That includes a very large number of people you would have expected to have better knowledge and better morals.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  January 9, 2019

          Dear dear
          The Leggates Willie “coal fired” Soon1.The potty lord 2 and Tim “Raving loon ” Balls 3, paper has 6 cites.
          Cook et al 2013has almost a thousand.
          Because one is a load of codswallop and the other is well supported .
          lets look at the sort of cranks you believe eh boys.

          1 Documents Reveal Fossil Fuel Fingerprints on Contrarian Climate …
          https://insideclimatenews.org/…/documents-reveal-fossil-fuel-fingerprints-contrarian-c…
          Feb 21, 2015 – Scientist Willie Soon calls his papers ‘deliverables’ to fossil fuel executives, and grants a big coal utility pre-publication review and anonymity.

          2 First of five debunking lord Potty using his own words.

          3 Court judgement a libel suit against Tim ball is thrown out because
          “The Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views.”

          The judge also noted the article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies,” suggesting “a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”

          Nonetheless, on the question of “whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation,” the judge ultimately ruled Ball’s views ““lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.”
          Tim the crank from 7:50

          Gibbering loons batman.

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  January 9, 2019

            Well done Griff! Most straw man arguments in one post beating your previous record on here.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  January 9, 2019

              That is not a straw man argument it is pointing out pertinent documented facts . The logic error you actually think you want is Ad hominem not straw man
              it is valid to point out when Alan called Cook a lair.
              When it comes to climate science your authors are documented to be either wackos, bullshiters or fossil fuel industry shrills.

  6. Corky

     /  January 9, 2019

    ”Interestingly (like Griff) Salinger starts with the now well debunked ‘97% of scientists agree man is the main cause of global warming’ nonsense.”

    PDB, that’s also the first thing I noticed. It’s a pity the host wasn’t as well informed as us. He would’ve been able to make a complete fool out of Salinger .

    Reply
  7. FarmerPete

     /  January 9, 2019

    The great pity is that the temperature data set has been adjusted so often that the historical temperature record just cant be accepted as reliable.

    Reply
  8. Kitty Catkin

     /  January 9, 2019

    It’s blimmin hot here even now, high 20s inside with everything open and two fans, one a pedestal, going. It was over 30 outside earlier, and the sun was not on the thermometer. One wishes that one hadn’t looked.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  January 9, 2019

      You’re right Kitty – over the years I too have come to the conclusion that it does indeed get very hot in summer, much hotter than say July in this country.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 10, 2019

        Don’t you start with the sarcasm; I’ve had it from Missy over the drone issue.

        Reply
    • PDB

       /  January 9, 2019

      Summer 2017-18 was the hottest ever in NZ, interestingly it beat by 0.3C the previous record from…1934 – 35.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  January 9, 2019

        Of course 1934 – 35 would still be the hottest ever summer in NZ if NIWA hadn’t in more recent times adjusted down temperatures from the raw data for those years by about 0.5C

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  January 9, 2019

          We have already gone over this .
          I made you look like an idiot then
          Yet you still come out with the same old lies like some sort of nutter.
          Cranks and their religion eh.
          Niwa has a totally adjusted record using eleven long records for stations that have never been moved .
          Here . https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
          We have analysed raw data from these sites directly, making no adjustments to the numbers from the NIWA climate database. Taking all sites together and averaging the annual mean temperatures anomalies (difference from 1961–90 mean at each site) results in Figure 1 below.
          https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/large/public/sites/default/files/images/0009/99837/average_all_annual_0.jpg?itok=_MnOpatq

          You told a lie.
          You are a sad example of a RWNJ.
          Especially as this has already been shown to you

          Reply
        • Griff.

           /  January 9, 2019

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  January 9, 2019

            The only idiot is you (once again as I did back then) – the oldest series in NZ is the ‘seven-station series’ and that has seen a major downward adjustment for all early raw temperature measurements before & up to around 1970. Hence exactly as I mentioned.

            To confirm your idiocy (once again) the record summer heat of 2017-18 was measured by using the seven station series not the 11 station series.

            NIWA: Hottest summer on record. The nation-wide average temperature for summer 2017-18 was 18.8°C (2.1°C above the 1981-2010 from NIWA’s seven station temperature series which began in 1909). Summer temperatures were well above average (>1.20°C above the summer average) across all regions.

            Best you stick to what you’re good at Griff – having no argument and then abusing others as if it was their fault.

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  January 9, 2019

              Game – set – match to PDB!

            • PDB

               /  January 9, 2019

              Finally to add (as you’ve obviously forgotten since I last spanked you over the very same discussion) the 11-station is a newish system (2010 I think) that was only brought in by NIWA to counter criticisms of the historic changes made to the 7-station series.

              They first said they hand-picked the 11 sites because those sites had no site changes (as you also wrongly state above) & when that was proven to be incorrect changed it to “there have been no significant site moves for many decades.”

              The 11 sites are ‘cherry picked’ by NIWA to back up their dodgy changes to the seven-series and are also incomplete records. For instance between 1931-37 only three of the sites were in place & Invercargill didn’t have any readings until 1949. Molesworth only had spasmodic readings for 50% of the period covered & between 73-87 Ruapehu only had one reading.

              The 11-series is a joke – much like your posts.

            • Griff.

               /  January 10, 2019

              ROFL
              its a conspicy they adjust the data to fool us those nasty scientists
              look here is another group involved in the conspiracy.

              You are fooling your selfs with your loony tune conspicy nonsense
              you poor wee frightened nutters to afraid to see reality so they stick shier wittle heads under the blankies.
              ROFL

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 10, 2019

        I think that this one may break the record.

        Reply
  1. 2018 was second equal hottest year on record, ‘alarming trend’ – NIWA — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s