NZ temperatures in 2011

January 12th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

NIWA have released:

The nation-wide average temperature for 2011 was 12.8°C, 0.3°C above the 1971–2000 annual average, using NIWA’s seven-station temperature series which begins in 1909.  2011 was the 17th warmest year since 1909, based on this 7-station series.

17th warmest. Some extremes though:

The highest recorded extreme temperature of the year (41.3°C) occurred at Timaru on 6 February (a new all-time high temperature record in the area).

Ouch. Also of interest is how each month compared to the norm for that month:

  • Jan +0.3
  • Feb +0.7
  • Mar +0.0
  • Apr -0.4
  • May +2.2
  • Jun +1.5
  • Jul +0.1
  • Aug -0.5
  • Sep -0.7
  • Oct +0.3
  • Nov -0.2
  • Dec +0.2

May was a scorcher.

The highest mean temp was 16.7 in Leigh and lowest was 7.6 at the Chateau, Mt Ruapehu.

Most rainfall was 9.49m at Cropp River and least was 0.39m at Clyde.

Nelson had the most sunshine with 2487 hours (6.8 hours a day) and Franz Josef the least at 1598 hours (4.4 hours a day).

 

Tags: , ,

33 Responses to “NZ temperatures in 2011”

  1. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    Yeah, been there on some of that. Some points:
    1. If you pick a small enough time period (1 month) you get more variation. That’s statistics. +2.2 for May is just normal variation
    2. Same effect if you pick a small area

    On the actual trend, I’ve looked before at the 7 stations. One of them is in Wellington, Karori. Has a large car park right next door to the thermometer. It has a bunch of adjustments to the temperature time series, all of them went in the direction of increasing the apparent warming. No adjustment for UHI, apparently Wellington is considered not to have UHI.

    I did some analysis on that, and interestingly enough windy days show less warming trend than non-windy days (i.e. windy days in 1900 v’s windy days now show less warming than still days in 1900 v’s still days now). My hypothesis is that this shows UHI as a partial cause of warming – windy days in Wgtn have less susceptability to UHI (the wind blows in new air from the sea).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,102 comments) says:

    This is a worry. I hadn’t realised how hot it was – this global warming really seems to sneak up on you.

    Better start drinkies at 3.30pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    These numbers are as meaningful as phone numbers picked at random from the telephone directory.

    Waste of taxpayers money producing them – why don’t we spend just that money on morris dancers, just as useful

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Factor in the La Nina cycle and you get a better idea of where we are.

    2011 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD with a La Nina weather pattern:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50c2346e-1a70-11e1-ae4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jCB4ZrXJ

    Walk into the light.

    Be alarmed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ZenTiger (419 comments) says:

    Walk into the light.

    You deerstalkers are always saying that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    “Normal science progresses through the collection of observations (or measurements), the conjecture of hypotheses, the making of predictions, and then through the usage of new observations, the modification of the hypotheses accordingly (either ruling them out, or improving them). In the global warming “science”, this is not the case. ”
    http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming

    And especially for you Scott (like Luc Hansen you seem to have an unskeptical acceptance of anything posted on Skeptical Science): http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. SteveO (76 comments) says:

    Seven stations? Really? You can get the average temperature of a chain of lumpy islands 2000 km long from just seven stations? I assume this is because there are only seven stations that have continuous readings for the last 100 years but wouldn’t it be better to use a 60 year record from 200 stations (to pull some random numbers from nowhere)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (12,617 comments) says:

    17th warmest.

    That will make the incompetent Greenie Nick Smith happy and shouting to speed up the ETS implementation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. db.. (78 comments) says:

    7 stations !!? Garbage in, get garbage out.

    db..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    Scott; The financial times? – your argument was better off with wikipedia. At least those links worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gazzmaniac (2,266 comments) says:

    Enjoy the warm period while you can (if indeed it is warming). Statistically over the history of the Earth the temperature has been up to 20 degrees cooler. I’d rather have 2-5 degrees of warming than cooling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Fatnuts, sorry ’bout the link. Here’s the original source of the story from the Swiss based World Meteorological Society:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/archive/news_november_2011_en.html

    Glad you were open minded enough to look though. Here’s an excerpt:
    :arrow: “Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Thanks for the link RightNow.

    So you think that a website that openly proclaims “our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint” is going to produce an objective review of the facts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    “So you think that a website that openly proclaims “our stringy universe from a conservative viewpoint” is going to produce an objective review of the facts?”

    Yes, I think Lubis Motl is trustworthy. You probably don’t, so you probably won’t read the whole list and assess for yourself, but that doesn’t affect me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. fatnuts (164 comments) says:

    Scott, would you expect any other conclusion in a press release from an organisation created by the IPCC?

    And where does it say 2011 was the hottest on record?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jimbob (639 comments) says:

    The Sun just reached a peak in the last couple of years, it is all down hill by the end of this year. The funniest weather stations are the ones they put at airports, right behind were the planes warm up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    “The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.”

    Currently Northern + Southern hemisphere sea ice extent is 181,000 sq km above the 1979-2008 mean.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

    What next? The glaciers are retreating? Yes, they are. And they have been for 200+ years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wat dabney (3,434 comments) says:

    Interesting chart comparing predictions made by the alarmist’s computer models with actual measured (ocean) temperature changes.

    http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming

    Basically, completely wrong.

    With the emphasis on “completely.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,402 comments) says:

    I would bet these figures ignore the facts about urban warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Fuck me chasing bullshit links that you guys post is a waste of time
    My mobile broadband is only running at dial up! And I am chasing links to bullshit like a graph with no name no citations as to were the data came from,

    Who the fuck is some random blogger

    grow up boys

    Link to stuff that is science
    wiki is far more reliable than this shit
    lobbyists are not scientists they are paid to present spin not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    “The 40Mb animation at the left shows the 2007 dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice throughout the year. Multiyear sea ice is older and generally thicker ice – sea ice that has survived at least one melt season (shown in brighter white)” http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ .

    Shit I track down your graph and find this on the web site
    Ha Ha HA HA idiots and bull shit links

    who is the bright spark that posted this graph

    you are

    Full of shit

    or an idiot

    your choice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    RightNow says:- “Currently Northern + Southern hemisphere sea ice extent is 181,000 sq km above the 1979-2008 mean.”

    Okay, we’ll start with the Antarctic. The sea ice area has trended up in the last thirty years. Agreed. Strange when you consider the fact that the Southern Ocean has warmed by 0.17 deg C per decade (faster than the global average of 0.1) in that time and the air temperature has also risen 0.6 deg C.

    The reason? Changing currents. (I hear you gaffaw, but let’s face it – this is one of the few ‘signs’ that appears to be going the other way)

    BUT: The Antarctic land ice has been steadily decreasing:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif

    The land ice is a far more important factor in the Southern Hemisphere, because the sea ice virtually disappears in summer, so the real indication of climate change is in the land ice volumes.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    As for the Arctic…. Well the writing’s on the wall. If you can’t read it, perhaps you need a new pair of glasses:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png

    Adding the two hemispheres’ sea ice together is meaningless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Freezing air carries very little moisture
    As the antarctic warms it has more snow further inland this increases the total ice load on land feeding the glaciers=more ice
    In the arctic .There is more fresh ice in the extent of frozen ocean.Fresh ice melts quicker in the warmer air. =less ice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Interesting theory Griff, but NASA satellite measurements have shown a steady decrease in Antarctic land ice. Have you read this article?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RWood (18 comments) says:

    A few points. +2.2C for May – whole country averaged over many stations – is the highest on record. Not “small” at all. The Wellington temperature record comment is nonsense, and the site is not in Karori. That poster has already had his thesis smashed in an extremely long thread at Hot Topic, and doesn’t need refuting again here. Some moron posting over there thought the Molesworth station mentioned at one point was Molesworth St in Wellington! He was trying to cite UHI distortion, an old canard that has been accounted for long ago. One day one of these dopes may actually come up with some brilliant new piece of science that will confounds the experts – I’m not holding my breath!

    There are dozens/hundreds of present and former temperature stations in NZ, and they all show the same thing – an upwards trend.

    The trouble with climate trolls of the kind posting here is that they’re not just annoying – they are simply pig-ignorant on the subject and haven’t a clue of what they’re talking about. Try a brain surgery discussion next time – your chances of saying something valid would improve!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Scott you are correct I followed your link
    It has links to/scientific papers for all the information
    valid and quite interesting thanks

    I guess that makes me an idiot :oops:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    Yeah, there’s this about that Antarctic ice Scott: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-298

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    RWood – link to the thread here. Kindly point to the smashing.
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-warming-real-record-robust-sceptics-wrong/

    What I got was lots of wagon circling, only small amounts of real engagement, and lots of “you’re not a climate scientist so you must be wrong.” But no actual looking at the temperature record.

    And you’re right, Kelburn, not Karori. My bad for loose language. Care to engage on the actual point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    PaulL…

    you’re not a climate scientist so you must be wrong

    So as their bloggers. Gareth Rowden is a taro grower (yep, a farmer) and a writer of children’s bed-time stories. He acted as if he knows shit about climate science. He is some kind of born again Rasputin of climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    nothing changes the fact that New Zealand and the surrounding ocean areas have warmed, by the amount claimed.

    Thanks for the link PaulL. Little wonder RW didnt supply it. Nothing can change the facts from what he wants them to be.

    Justin Maxwell had a great comment at the very end of the thread,

    In short, I’m somewhat disgusted by the faith-based dismissal of his findings, by those who would (presumably) argue that science is at the heart of the question. I am supremely disappointed that PaulL felt he had to set out his overarching opinions in order to ‘defend’ his data based research – and that I also felt that that would be ‘helpful’ at the outset – data is data, method is method, and the moment we start to analyse those based on an understanding or inference of an ‘agenda’, we do science a great disservice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. NZGroover (13 comments) says:

    I have to class myself as a skeptic. Taking data like this and trying to make it evidence of CAGW is rediculous. Most CAGW skeptics that have taken the time to look at the facts believe the following;

    1. The earth is warming. Most evidence points to this. It’s part of the Earth’s natural cycle.
    2. Man may be contributing to this in part, but in a minorway.

    The Catasrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming debate is far from settled science.

    I’m being a little over simplistic but the CAGW models do not agree with observations therefore they must be flawed. How can we possibly make decisions worth trillions of dollars that will profoundly effect every living being on the planet on flawed analysis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NZGroover (13 comments) says:

    Kimble data is data, method is method

    What if the data is wrong and the methods are flawed, don’t tell me this has never happened in scientific research before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    NZ Groover says:- “The earth is warming. Most evidence points to this. It’s part of the Earth’s natural cycle.”

    Which cycle are you referring to?

    >>”Man may be contributing to this in part, but in a minorway.”

    Why do you think this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    What if the data is wrong and the methods are flawed…

    Um, then you can discredit the conclusion by pointing this out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.