Doctoring climate change

The court decision has been welcomed by the expected opponents, such as Renwick (who manages to fabricate our statements even when we write them down and file them with the High Court), NIWA (whose publicity, er, I mean legal team made mincemeat out of logic and science) and Hot Topic (but then Renowden wouldn’t know a climate scientist from an astrophysicist).

Now they’re joined by doctors eager to fight climate change, in Doctors Welcome Decision On Treacherous Temperature Case.

Hear the twisted science and scurrilous lies

The reference to “treacherous” has a nasty effect, doesn’t it? And it means there must be some treachery, right? Well, actually, wrong. Despicably, they don’t justify it.

The “press release” simply repeats twisted science and scurrilous lies we’ve heard a thousand times before. Laking says:

Health risks of climate change start with injury from heatwaves and storms, more tropical illnesses, and ultimately threaten collapse of food supplies and political insecurity from crop failure, coastal inundation and ocean acidification.

Can’t he see that he’s claiming all those calamities will be produced by “Health risks of climate change”? He can’t be serious. But to drive home his point about disaster he adds:

Global food prices are already rising with the extreme drought affecting half of the United States.

Don’t be fooled by this: climate change didn’t produce the drought, and food (or corn) prices were already rising because the Greens have forced so much of it to be turned into ethanol for cars.

So much for stupid science. He moves on to

the NZ Climate Science Coalition and their wealthy backers, apologists for the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel and mining industry.

We are not wealthy, members are all unpaid volunteers, and we have no links with the tobacco industry. Look at the “proof” listed beneath the press release. Like saying we’re “linked” to the bus company because we rode on one.

“Still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”, says Dr Laking.

These are plain lies, Dr Laking. You would do more of value with your time by providing proof of the global warming scare. Which would be a world first, because nobody else does.

But this is from the medical association or something, isn’t it?

No, this is the never-heard-before “New Zealand Climate and Health Council”, represented by this George Laking, an oncologist. The “council” goes by the Maori title “OraTaiao” which seems to have something to do with the health of the Earth.

Looking around their heroically sparse web site, we find their mission is about saving us from climate change, which is a “real and urgent threat to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.” The web site promises to “honour Maori aspirations” (whatever they are, but apparently nobody else’s) and to “uphold the principles” of the Treaty and it expresses “unity” and “caring” with Maori words to demonstrate their sincerity.

This is not the Medical Association with its 5000 members – it’s a tin-pot affair that only started, according to its web site, less than three years ago. This muck-raking attempt to deprecate the Coalition won’t impress anyone beyond their half-dozen members.

275 Thoughts on “Doctoring climate change

  1. Perhaps you could in the meantime apologist for quoting regional studies on medieval temperatures as if they were global/hemispheric. You have gone really quiet on that one.

    I have gone quiet, you’re right. I’m breathless at the sheer stupidity of your comment.

    OK, I’ll make a deal with you. In the thread “The Unstoppable MWP” there is a link to a site, that contains papers from “1094 individual scientists from 627 research institutions in 46 different countries”, all showing a MWP from places all over the globe. Global, get it? There are other sites, but that’ll do as a start.

    So what I would like you to do is refute every one of those papers, because that’s the only way you’ll be able to convince anyone that the MWP wasn’t global in extent.

    Even you must understand that if all regions on Earth show a warm period around the same time, it is acceptable to consider the warm period “global”.

    Or maybe not, with you I’m never sure.

  2. Not going to apologise then? Why am I not surprised. You will just try to bluff it out by selecting only those regional studies that suit your ideological preference and argue that they are therefore global/hemispheric.

    One has only to look at the scatter in the global/hemispheric reconstructions to see how easy it is to cherry pick like that.

    But it’s not honest, is it?

  3. You misunderstand the passage. It starts out by defining the basic conclusion, and makes some passing comments on whether or not it is plausible, supported by other evidence, etc. Then it goes into a scientific breakdown of the certainties, concluding with the statement I quoted.

    You have quoted the definition, not the conclusion. The conclusion begins “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that…”

    Don’t forget that the NAS committee was just as political as the House committee. They were appointed by opposite camps, yet they agreed on their findings, as I showed above.

    The Mann saga is over, even the IPCC has dropped Mann’s hockey stick graph.

  4. Not going to apologise then?

    Have you dealt with the papers from the 1094 scientists yet?

    Better get moving, I suspect it’s a lot of work.

  5. Bob, go and read that old post of mine. I basically wrote it to counter that old lie that the IPCC “has dropped Mann’s hockey stick graph” They actually just incorporated his data into a graph showing subsequent data producing the same story. (I guess you will clutch at the straw that the iconic figure was in the AR3 summary but not the AR4 summary. Perfectly natural to highlight different things in summaries at different times. The facts are that it was in the body of the AR4 report.

    You guys will grab at anything like a drowning man.

    Have a look at this “Hockey stick”

    http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nrc-hs.jpg

    It was produced by the authors of the NRC report. Basically confirms Mann doesn’t it?

  6. Ken,
    Read Steve MyIntyre’s blog to understand the many flaws with Mann’s methods, and you’ll begin to realise why all those hockey sticks are incorrect. Or you could read the summary in Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.

    If, after that, you can come and argue the technical reasons why you still follow Mann, then well and good. But if all you’re looking for is summaries by cherry-picked groups that make you feel better about the whole sorry saga, then you’re on your own.

    Start with the centering problem, and work on from there. It’s actually not that difficult to understand. Then move to the R-squared issue. Again, not rocket science.

  7. and the Bristlecone Pine

  8. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 8:40 am said:

    “..this is just bafflegab. I can’t make any sense of what you write.”

    What? You’ve played your “denier mantra” card Ken. You can’t (or don’t want to) understand English? Can’t (or don’t want to) understand the science of global warming? Can’t (or don’t want to) click on 3 links? Can’t (or don’t want to) offer a critique of substance that rebuts?

    You’ve got nothing Ken.

    The ‘Defaulter List’ update therefore is:-

    Martin Lack
    Simon
    Rob Taylor
    Ken Perrott

    But at least you TRIED Ken (even if you couldn’t understand the challenge) – I’ll give you that.

  9. A good model fits the data. If there really was a asymptotic level above 200 ppm where CO2 forcing no longer occurs it would be pretty apparent. I guess CO2 can’t be likened to a felt tip pen on a window pane after all.

  10. Getting the topic back onto health and climate, I can recommend Roger Pielke Jr’s book “The Climate Fix” which has a lot to say about some of the WHO reports and their rather dubious attribution of anthropogenic climate change to health issues

    For example, they claim that diarrhea has increased by a certain percentage (can’t remember the exact figure) because of “climate change”

    There are also well-documented cases where incidence of Malaria is ascribed to AGW.

  11. And the Bristlecones, yes. 🙂

    Come on Ken, show us that you are actually prepared to do some homework for once.

    Explain to us what the centering problem is. You don’t have to agree that it’s a problem, just explain it to us, so we know that you understand the issues, even a little.

  12. There are those in the climate establishment who criticise Mann too (Richard Muller springs to mind)

    I think it is worth saying that the existence of the MWP and the issues around the Hockey Stick don’t actually invalidate the AGW hypothesis, although they might reduce its impact.

    Andrew Montford made this point in the Hockey Stick Illusion.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 9:21 am said:

    “If there really was a asymptotic level above 200 ppm where CO2 forcing no longer occurs it would be pretty apparent”

    It IS pretty apparent Simon, that’s EXACTLY the issue.

    If you look at Figure 2 ‘Emissivity at 0°C, After Leckner’ on page 6 pdf of Part 1, it is readily apparent that CO2 forcing no longer occurs on the Leckner CURVE ΔF =q-q0where q0 =q(278) {path length curve}

    But it does (erroneously) occur on the IPCC oversimplification LINE ΔF = αln(C/Co) {IPCC Curve}

    Hence the (IPCC) root of major international economic upheaval (including the NZ electricity generation sector) is bogus and the manufactured “moral crisis” is non-existent.

  14. Yes, but the CO2 in the atmosphere is constantly in flux.
    There are hundreds of papers using ice core samples, tree rings, and geological data that show CO2 and temperature moving in tandem. As an example, here is a nice study which can determine when glaciers retreated from the Pukaki basin and it correlates well with CO2 increases.

  15. Bob – have a look at this figure

    It’s Figure 6.10, page 467, Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate,The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), WG I The Physical Science Basis.

    So much for your claim ” The Mann saga is over, even the IPCC has dropped Mann’s hockey stick graph.”

    It’s just another denier/contrarian/crack mantra, repeated again and again in the echo chamber that is the denier ghetto.

  16. Again, this centering problem arises from mistakes made by McIntyre and McKitrick. Those mistakes have been pointed out by Mann and his co-workers, and by others (eg. Von Storch and Zorita (2005), Huybers (2005) and others. Wegmann was unable to reproduce M&M’s results until he conferred with them and then adopted their mistaken approach. (Wegmann did not confer with Mann so couldn’t get the correction)

    Meanwhile, as Mann points out “All of these confirmations of our findings took years to work their way through the system of scientific publication. In the meantime, the McIntyre and McKitrick claims became a staple of denialists and contrarians.”.

    Again, something repeated ad nauseum in the echo chamber of the denier ghetto.

  17. So Ken, what IS the centering problem?

  18. Ken, they’ve dropped it from the prominent position it used to hold. It’s now stuck in the middle of the technical section.

  19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ikKLGUhNs
    Analysis of Earth’s geologic record can reveal how the climate has changed over time. Scientists in New Zealand are examining samples from the rocky landscape once dominated by glaciers. They are employing a new technique called surface exposure dating, which uses chemical analysis to determine how long minerals within rocks have been exposed to the air since the glaciers around them melted. Comparisons of this data with other climate records have revealed a link between glacial retreat and rising levels of carbon dioxide in the air, findings that are informing scientists’ understanding of global climate change today.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 11:28 am said:

    “….but the CO2 in the atmosphere is constantly in flux.”

    So what? It’s the FORCING POWER of the CO2 that is actually in and being added to the atmosphere that is at issue. The IPCC oversimplification assumes (as do the models using the IPCC RF methodology) that there is forcing power above 200 ppm but clearly that’s not the case.

    EVERY other CAGW/CC issue is subordinate to this single solitary point-of-difference, nothing else matters until this issue is resolved. At this juncture the IPCC case doesn’t have leg to stand on.

    “There are hundreds of papers using ice core samples, tree rings, and geological data that show CO2 and temperature moving in tandem.”

    Yes, and temperature LEADS CO2 but again, this issue is subordinate to the Leckner vs IPCC forcing issue.

    “As an example, here is a nice study….”

    I don’t see your link. Meantime here’s a nice study showing “some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures, taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project”:-

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/10457-tattoo-this-its-the-sun-stupid

    The clincher is these plots:-

    http://i.imgur.com/tW99Y.jpg

    This correlation is far and away better than any tenuous CO2 correlation ever will be.

  21. But there is an interesting psychological issue here – to do with the group thinking here and the lengths you guys go to to immunise yourselves against the scientific realities out there. You are like cowboys who have circled there wagons to protect yourself from the truth.

    Michael Mann has not been discredited. He has been attacked politically and has survived all such attacks intact. In fact he has come back fighting, realising how similar these attacks are to the McCarthy hysteria.

    Sure you can find the normal critiques which are common among honest scientists (Mann’s over confidence that the temperatures of the 90s were greater than anything seen in the last millennium (true now but not completely true in the 90s) or his desire to push back his assessment beyond 1000 years (he now has more data to overcome that objection). While those critiques give dishonest people some cherry picked ammunition it doesn’t change the overall assessment of his work, or the value of paleoclimate studies. Mann has very high standing in the scientific community.

    Similarly you guys work had to discredit the IPCC (playing the man and not the ball again). This enables you to ignore the best source of information available and supplant it with continual enthusiastic links to denier blogs and cherry picked individual studies. Sure the IPCC reviews are inevitably dated and conservative. But they are authoritative and that’s why the IPCC was set up – to give governments access to reviews and summaries of the entire scientific literature. That’s why we consult the IPCC reviews to get an overall picture of whether the medieval period had higher temperatures on a global or hemispheric scale. Not relying on cherry picked individual and regional studies.

    This silly group-think and self isolation in a denialist ghetto explains why you end up making mistakes like the recent court action. For people like Dedekind to suggest that their opinion was sufficient to dictate what was “official scientific methodology” was just stupid and no wonder was laughed out of court. This from a guy who could not see the need for adjustments when weather station sites changed! A guy who even Treadgold was so embarrassed about he had to keep him “anonymous” until the court case!

  22. But there is an interesting psychological issue here – to do with the group thinking here and the lengths you guys go to to immunise yourselves against the scientific realities out there. You are like cowboys who have circled there wagons to protect yourself from the truth.

    I believe similar sentiments have been expressed at The Team.
    The term “circling the wagons” certainly has been used frequently to describe the behaviour of the UEA scientists

  23. So Bobb, “The Mann saga is over, even the IPCC has dropped Mann’s hockey stick graph.” becomes ” It’s now stuck in the middle of the technical section.”

    How can you sleep straight at night. Mann’s work has been kept and added to by other supporting work and you somehow want to suggest this as proof that he has been discredited.

    You guys are not used to facts are you?

  24. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 11:35 am said:

    OK, I see your link in the following comment, The commentary says this:-

    “…a link between glacial retreat and rising levels of carbon dioxide in the air”

    What EXACTLY is the “link”?

    Again, this is subordinate to the issue of actual CO2 forcing at levels above 200 ppm and there are numerous issues such as this but the core issue cannot be escaped Simon – what is the actual forcing power of CO2 above 200ppm?

    Ans – negligible.

  25. Andy, group think and circling the wagons are general human problems. We all have that tendency and ideology enhances it. It’s part of human nature.

    One thing I enjoy about honest science is that it is done in good faith. We critique each other’s work but we play the ball, not the man. That helps us overcome some limitations.

    That doesn’t happen here, does it.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 11:46 am said:

    “You guys are not used to facts are you?”

    Huh? Isn’t “facts” what ‘The unstoppable MWP’ post is ALL about?

    “…1094 individual scientists from 627 research institutions in 46 different countries…”

    Seems to be some agreement too.

  27. Simon – I haven’t read the study. The Tasman Glacier is retreating, there is no doubt about that.
    However, there are glaciers in NZ that are in advance.

    The Franz Josef was advancing until 2008, but since then has been retreating, and as the article linked suggests, this has been attributed to global warming.

    So when glaciers advance, it is a natural cycle. When they retreat, it is global warming.

  28. That doesn’t happen here, does it.

    Well I disagree of course. We may have a “position” but at least we try to come up with references and arguments to support it.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 11:58 am said:

    “Sure the IPCC reviews are inevitably dated and conservative. But they are authoritative”

    “authoritative”? By what authority Ken?

    The IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed (even though 3 Judges thought they were in the US EPA decision) and I refer you back to the Leckner vs IPCC CO2 forcing issue and challenge (that you were unable to even understand), The IPCC has butchered (doctored) the science and they’ve been found out by crowd-source peer-review by specialist experts from outside climate science (climate scientists being generalists).

    Therefore it’s only a subjective authority Ken. Objectivity, scientific integrity and empiricism (i.e. scepticism) takes no account of subjective authority.

  30. See?
    “denier ghetto”, that’s a good one.

  31. Oh gosh it gets better. “Michael Mann has not been discredited ”
    ROTFL
    Ken, you are very special . Done any surveys for Lewandowsky lately?

  32. This denier ghetto is a noisy rabble.

    152 comments and counting.

    Maybe someone should pay Ken’s place a visit. He might be getting lonely.

  33. Bob, just to wet your apatite

    Whet your appetite.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm said:

    Definitely Mangled Phrase Week. Although in Ken’s case, Mangled Phrase Lifetime.

  35. So Ken, what IS the centering problem? We still would like you to show us you understand something.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:

    “…the existence of the MWP and the issues around the Hockey Stick don’t actually invalidate the AGW hypothesis”

    Exactly Andy, without the AGW hypothesis those issues have very little significance except scientific ethics and technique. But in the context of the hypothesis they loom large.

    However large though, they are still subordinate to the Leckner vs IPCC CO2 forcing issue which is the nub of AGW.

  37. Bob – I take it that your attempt to divert the discussion shows you cannot refute my points about Mann and the current scientific understanding of the global/hemispheric temperatures at medieval times. You have given up?

    Andy, yes the local denier ghetto is a noisy rabble – perhaps a psychological over-reaction to the recent legal loss and the upcoming financial problems. Embarrassment perhaps?

    Mind you – I love to give a little stir from time to time – not that it seems to teach you guys anything.

    Richard and David – you are displaying the psychological problems I referred to – specifically playing the man rather than the ball to immunise yourself against the science.

    Richard and Andy – my mangled phrases also seem to provide you with a bit of childish fun. I admit the Freudian slip with apatite (a research topic of mine) but you missed my own pointed joke with foul. (1:1?) Otherwise I blame the frustrating Apple spell check on my iPad and the failure of the editing function on this blog. (To be absolutely honest my age may also have something to do with it.)

    Never mind – I am sure your problems with understanding are not due to my crappy spelling.

    Well, I think that settles every outstanding issue.

    Have a good weekend.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm said:

    “…immunise yourself against the science”

    You are the one doing that Ken. What is your critique of Leckner vs IPCC CO2 forcing science (the most important AGW issue of all)?

    Or do you prefer to “immunise yourself against the science”?

    And retain your place on the Defaulters List?

  39. And runs away avoiding Bob D’s questions.
    Thats Ken for you .

  40. Ken:

    You have given up?

    Not yet. I believe in you, Ken. I believe that with a little hard work you can begin to understand what we’re talking about.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm said:

    “And runs away avoiding Bob D’s questions.” – and mine David.

    Have you noticed that Ken will ONLY debate on issues that have no direct connection with the science of AGW whatsoever, despite his song-and-dance?

    And then he has the audacity to accuse us of “immunis[ing ourselves] against the science”. Ken’s playing field has a definite tilt in the direction of superficiality, subordinateness and inconsequence; a field in which he waffles verbosely, proving nothing that upholds AGW.

  42. Richard – you are really childish, aren’t you? What a pathetic comment.

    I entered the discussion to make two points. That Bob’s treatment of the mediaval period was dishonest because he used individual regional studies. Quoting Hendy and Wilson for example was quite inappropriate as their investigation was of caves in New Zealand. Yet Bob was pontificating on hemispheric/global temperatures.

    The second point was the cowardly and desperate ad nominen attacks on Michael Mann. McCarthyist attacks.

    On both issues I think Bob ended up retreating as I countered all his arguments. He went as far as attempting to divert the discussion on to statistical techniques – a clear case of avoidance.

    I don’t know why you got involved and must admit to not following your comments as I find such interventions inappropriate and in your case completely silly.

    Your silly ad nominee attacks on well regarded scientists like Mann and on the IPCC are clear example of “immunization.” Why would any open minded person dscredit such credible and authoritative sources and then resort to quoting denier blogs as evidence? Only to avoid the real science.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm said:

    “Only to avoid the real science” – and still you do Ken. Completely immunized aren’t you.

    As I said, your playing field has a definite tilt in the direction of superficiality, subordinateness and inconsequence; a field in which you waffle verbosely, proving nothing that upholds AGW.

    BTW, do you understand “the challenge” yet Ken (“real science wrt to AGW)?

    Or is it still to be avoided at all costs as part of your immunization strategy (i.e. run like h***)?

  44. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm said:

    “ad nominee attacks”?

    You don’t have to rush before Mangled Phrase Week ends Ken, you’ve got a lifetime of it left.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 7:33 pm said:

    Avoiding the challenge is a “clear case of avoidance” isn’t it Ken (to use your surprisingly but happily non-mangled phrase).

  46. Quoting Hendy and Wilson for example was quite inappropriate as their investigation was of caves in New Zealand

    So regional studies have no value?

    Global studies( of whatever stripe) are the aggregation of regional and local studies.

    If regional studies show a phenomenon such as the MWP across many regions simultaneously, or separated by time, then either way it has scientific value.

  47. NASA animation of temperature data from 1880-2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE&feature=youtu.be

  48. and your point is?

  49. that it’s getting warmer Andy and it’s probably not worth going to court to argue otherwise.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 9:28 pm said:

    Here’s the Leckner vs IPCC graph that you’re studiously avoiding Ken (Caution:check your immunization levels before clicking):-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    Note that even prominent sceptic David Archibald mistakenly presents Willis Eshenbach’s graph of the “logarithmic” effect of CO2 (the IPCC version) as the definitive CO2 forcing curve at WUWT here:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Problem being, it’s not a logarithmic effect at all as John Eggert explains in Part 2 of ‘An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming’:-

    The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations. The IPCC reports discuss the impact on forcing of doubling CO2. This is because they believe the relation is logarithmic.

    So you see Ken, the IPCC have fooled a lot of people including luke-warmers (e.g. Eschenbach) and sceptics (e.g. Archibald). And it seems Anthony Watts has been taken for a ride too. So if you finally do realize you’ve been duped, don’t feel too bad – you’re in good company.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on September 14, 2012 at 9:39 pm said:

    “it’s getting warmer” – No, it got warmer (past tense). Now there’s stasis (present tense)

    “it’s probably not worth going to court to argue otherwise” – Nobody did. NZCSET 7SS trend +0.34 C/century 1909 – 2010.

    Now, about that Leckner vs IPCC CO2 forcing challenge……

  52. It’s getting warmer.

    Holy cow is that really the beat you can do Simon?

    Science by PowerPoint.

  53. Ken:

    On both issues I think Bob ended up retreating as I countered all his arguments. He went as far as attempting to divert the discussion on to statistical techniques – a clear case of avoidance.

    Wow. Just Wow. As both Andy and I have pointed out to you, Simon raised the tired old argument that the MWP was only a NH phenomenon, and I quoted several (but by no means all) papers to show him that the MWP has been noted in studies in New Zealand, South Africa, South America, and Antarctica. Therefore it CANNOT be said that it was a purely NH feature.

    Get it? If you want more studies, there are hundreds. Follow the links we all pointed you to. If you can refute all those studies, well and good, and we can continue this conversation. Until that time, please don’t make a fool of yourself by claiming that everyone is retreating before your mighty intellect.

  54. Rob Taylor on September 15, 2012 at 11:04 am said:

    I admire your persistence, Ken, but fear you are wasting your time here.

    When faced with such schoolboy howlers as “the sun is the hottest thing for miles” (R. Treadgold) and “Ignorance is acceptable” (Bob D.), it is obvious that this site is not intended for rational discussion by those for whom physical events must have physical causes.

    It is, instead, a support group for those for whom the global environmental crisis is not a human-caused problem with human-created solutions, but is, instead, a vast conspiracy and / or a doom laid upon the world by immutable “natural cycles”.

    Ignorant, fearful and angry, they turn to each other for solace in a world they are unable to comprehend through science.

    Meanwhile, reality awaits:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/arctic-sea-ice-smallest-extent

  55. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2012 at 11:21 am said:

    “Meanwhile, reality awaits:” – it sure does Rob, here it is:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    The bogosity of the IPCC CO2 forcing curve just waiting to get headlines in the climate change debate. You can avoid that reality now Rob (it’s not a headline grabber in an alarming sort of way) but it will gain traction eventually – then you’ll have no choice but to address the issue.

    All other issues in the climate change arena are subordinate to this.

    Note too, that John Eggert presents a hypothesis. This – in view of the conspicuous absence of an AGW hypothesis – now becomes the default AGW hypothesis that will have to be null for AGW to survive.

    Good luck with that null Rob – you’re going to need it.

  56. No, I won’t bother further, Rob. I think I have made my points about the duplicity of using regional paleoclimate studies to “disprove” conclusions from hemispheric/global ones. And about the hysterical ad hominen attacks on Michael Mann as a way of avoiding his well accepted science.

    I made a similar point to yours in Internet silos become ideological ghettos

    You know what they say about wrestling with pigs – they enjoy it and you just end up getting dirty.

    As you say reality awaits.

  57. Rob Taylor on September 15, 2012 at 11:40 am said:

    I love the cartoon, Ken, and your quote ably sums it up:

    “If I believe the Earth is flat, (the Internet) puts me in touch with legions of fellow flat-Earthers and reams of pseudo-science to support that belief. As importantly, I never have to be exposed to any contrary views and can find total refuge in my community of flat-Earthers.

    “The Internet, therefore, offers me the opportunity to have a completely closed mind and, at one and the same time, fill it full of nonsense disguised as fact.

    In a brand new way, therefore, the Internet democratizes not just individual opinion, but legitimizes collective ignorance and spreads a bizarro world of alternative reason.

    When this occurs, prejudice and bias is reinforced and the authority of real science and evidence is undermined, or even more likely, never presented”.

  58. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2012 at 11:42 am said:

    This contest (in terms of scientific validity) is this (from J Eggert’s references):-

    Eggert/Leckner

    i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)

    ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)

    Versus IPCC

    v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”. This equation is also quoted in the fourth assessment report along with two other curves of similar shape and magnitude.

    Note the word “simplified” in NOAA/IPCC Table 1 ‘Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing’.

    Note also the lack of recourse to any heat transfer texts or papers in the NOAA references.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2012 at 11:44 am said:

    Team hug?

  60. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2012 at 11:55 am said:

    “I won’t bother further” – Come on Ken, you haven’t stepped up to the “real science” plate yet (CO2 forcing).

    Too hard? Or just your “immunization” strategy kicking in?

    Same goes for you Rob.

  61. hysterical ad hominen attacks on Michael Mann

    I had to laugh at this one. Do you understand what an ad hominem attack is? It’s where you attack the person not what he says, or his science in this case.

    The “attacks” on Mann have always been about his science. I have seen very few sceptics try to dismiss him based on his funding, or check his links with “Big Oil” or try to write him off because of his politics, affiliations or any other such nonsense.

    It’s all about his error-riddled science. Exactly the opposite of an ad hominem attack. But no doubt you’ll argue even this point, and exit stage left, claiming the victory. 🙂

  62. Rob Taylor on September 15, 2012 at 4:45 pm said:

    Indeed, Bob, climate “sceptics” rightly fear Michael Mann because he is a high-profile climate scientist who doesn’t take any crap from the pollutocrats’ “useful idiots”, e.g:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/rebuttal-a-scientist-defends-climate-change-findings-652989/

  63. This is probably superfluous now that Bob seems to have backed away from hs claims that Mann’s work has been discredited and the IPCC has dropped his “hockey stick” figure. But just to reinforce the information I provided here is something from Mann himself in a letter to the Bismark Tribune (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-wrong-about-scientists/article_7f2c58ea-fed9-11e1-a86b-0019bb2963f4.html):

    “An individual named Charlie Bullinger did a grave disservice to your readers by engaging in defamatory personal attacks and making false statements about me and other climate scientists in a recent letter published in your paper.

    Bullinger falsely claims that the “Hockey Stick”— work of my own published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years — was “removed from the latest IPCC reports to Congress because it was disproved by professors who teach statistics.”

    Every part of that statement is wrong: (a) The IPCC, first of all, is an international commission — it doesn’t report to “Congress”; (b) The Hockey Stick “did” appear in the most recent IPCC report (see Figure 6.10 of the report, the “Hockey Stick” is http://bit.ly/zKaJss, and (c) The “Hockey Stick” most certainly has NOT been “disproved.”

    The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate”, New York Times, June 22, 2006, among many others). Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by other groups summarized in the most recent IPCC report shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer timeframe.

    It is precisely these sorts of attacks, manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change-deniers and spread by those such as Bullinger who credulously regurgitate their dishonest talking points, that led me to write my recent book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” about my experiences at the center of this ongoing smear campaign.

    Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by individuals like Bullinger, should consult scientist-run websites like http://www.realclimate.org and http://www.skepticalscience.com, and scientifically-based books on the topic like my “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.”

    (Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meteorology at Penn State University, and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.)”

  64. Michael Mann spends so much time writing letters to newspapers and lawyers you wonder how he manages to get any work done

  65. John Cook is a scientist?
    [David, this is poisonous stuff. Leave the people alone and stick to the topic. You accuse others of the smearing you yourself are practising against them. – RT]

  66. Rob Taylor on September 16, 2012 at 10:33 am said:

    David, you are simply pathetic.

  67. Dan Pangburn on September 16, 2012 at 10:46 am said:

    As determined by the annual average of the five reporting agencies, average global temperatures have been flat for over a decade. GISS anomalies, as they report here, are fairly close to the average:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.

    How much more time will it take for some Warmers to realize that they must have made an egregious mistake?

  68. Dan, you should really look at the data you quoted above. Look at its variability.

    At the 95% confidence level this data indicates a warming/cooling trend in the range from -1.6 to +1.6 degrees per century.

    In other words the natural variability is so great that it is impossible to measure the sort of trends usually found when only 10 years data is used.

    THIS IS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

    Hence the fallacious [abusive term removed] argument that warming has stopped. The data doesn’t show that because any trend is hidden in the natural variability in such a small time range.

    Usually no significant trend can be picked up with data from less than 17 or 20 years. That’s why climate scientists use time scales of 30 or more years when talking about trends.

    Your argument might appear convincing to someone who does not understand statistics and the effect of variability. But scientifically it is naive and just wrong.

    [abuse removed]

  69. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm said:

    Wonderful Ken, so it’s still warming according to you. BUT WHAT’S THE CAUSE?

    Take up the challenge Ken (you know what I mean) and you discover that it’s not CO2.

  70. So anyone who uses data that spans a period of less than 17 years to make an inference is dishonest and politically motivated?

    Fine, let’s start making a list shall we?

  71. Rob Taylor on September 16, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:

    That’s right, Richard. [ad homs deleted. Rob, your comments are a waste of time – whatever you’re aiming to achieve, it might be more useful to refute his arguments. – RT]

  72. Rob Taylor on September 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm said:

    Hi Andy,

    As you are probably the only denizen of this site who knows what a climate forcing is, perhaps you could explain it, in simple terms, for the climatologically challenged?

  73. Andy and Richard. This is a discussion between me and Dan. I have corrected his mistaken conclusion. Let him get back to me with his side of the story. He originally raised hi argument on Open Parachute but ran away when. Responded there.

    Oh, by the way Andy. Thanks for quoting my comment on dishonesty and political motivation regarding this denier mantra. Treadgold appears to have deleted it. He seems a bit riled up and sensitive these days. [In the context your comments were abusive – you presumed to know people’s motives and accused them generally of dishonesty. Kindly answer Andy’s question about it. – RT] Actually you all do.

    Wonder why?

  74. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm said:

    “David, you are simply pathetic” – RT, this is a blatant content free ad hominem attack.

  75. Treadold – if you want to enter a discussion – please do so. [Thanks for the invitation. Accusation of dishonesty removed. Perrott, I don’t know what you’re talking about, be specific. And spell my name correctly. – RT]

    This is a matter of integrity.

  76. Yes, it is. But quite justified, so I’ve removed the comment that gave rise to it, thanks.

  77. That’s it Treadgold. You have obviously lost your rag with the recent defeat.

    I cannot participate in a discussion where a hostile person continually censors and alters my comments. It violates my integrity and shows complete lack of any respect on your part.

    Dan, if you wish to question my response to your comment please do so at Open Parachute – perhaps where you made the original comment.

    Rather endorses my comments about ideological ghettos doesn’t it?

  78. Ken,
    You want respect? Give it.
    Again, be specific about your allegations towards me.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2012 at 2:40 pm said:

    “…..perhaps you could explain it, in simple terms, for the climatologically challenged?” – Not just Andy doing the explaining and not just the climatologically challenged trying to decipher the IPCC version.

    It’s a moving target as John Eggert explains:-

    Forcing seems to be the difference obtained by subtracting Heat Absorption at 278°C from Heat Absorption at any particular temperature. The IPCC AR4 shows 3 different estimations of forcing. The IPCC report asserts that the equation ΔF = αln(C/Co) is most accurate, where ΔF is forcing, α is a constant, value 5.35, C is the concentration of CO2 and Co is some arbitrary initial value, in the case of climate models, 278 ppm. This definition may not be accurate. The reader is encouraged to consult the IPCC summary reports to try to decipher the meaning of forcing.

    The IPCC asserts that the equation ΔF = αln(C/Co) is “most accurate” – yeah right. And this simplification of a simplification is what all international punitive carbon tax structures are based on. What a con job.

  80. Isn’t it bizarre that Ken still doesn’t understand what he’s seeing. While lecturing others he fails to see the simple error in his analysis.

    Let me explain (to everyone else – it’s pointless talking to Ken, as we know).

    The world is supposed to be warming at 0.2°C per decade. This result comes from James Hansen himself, and is unstoppable, because of the “warming in the pipeline”. Even if we reduce our emissions to zero, this transient warming would still occur.

    All well and good. Now Ken has just told us that the zero trend we see currently has 95% confidence intervals of 0.16°C per decade. So we write it as 0.0±0.16°C/decade.

    What Ken completely fails to understand is that this tells us that the prediction is invalidated. Immediately, and flat-out. For if we had been warming at the predicted rate, we should have seen 0.2±0.16°C/decade. Even 0.05±0.16°C/decade would have been sufficient, as 0.2°C/decade still falls within that interval, but right now the prediction has been excluded at the 95% confidence level.

    Sorry Ken, them’s the rules.

    Now of course, Ken has completely mangled his numbers, as usual. Let’s go look at the IPCC gold standard of temperature measurement: HadCRUT3.

    The current 15-year trend is 0.007±0.03°C/decade, or 0.07±0.3°C/century, if you will. Note that it clearly excludes 0.2°C/decade.

    The 10-year trend is -0.09±0.05°C/decade, or -0.9±0.5°C/century. Note that not only does it exclude the possibility of 0.2°C/decade warming, it excludes all warming completely.

    So we can say with 95% confidence that the world has cooled in the past decade.

    Both of these results are conclusive: the 0.2°C/decade warming hypothesis has been excluded. This proves at the very least that there is no “warming in the pipeline”.

  81. Every single one of those years were warmer than the 1950-1980 mean. The climate is a non-linear system which is affected by other inputs (sun, ENSO, Lorenz butterflies, etc). No-one ever said that the warming would occur at a linear rate.
    Everyone here seems to conveniently ignore the Arctic sea ice coverage which is now 6 standard deviations away from the mean. Something has seriously changed. Watch this extra play merry hell with the jet stream and Northern weather over the next year.
    If 2012 turns out to be a record hot year, you will have to restart your counter, then there will have been no warming for the last 0.15 years.

  82. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm said:

    “If 2012 turns out to be a record hot year” – unrealistically speculative at this juncture or as Steve Goddard puts it “2012 is shaping up to be one of the coolest years of the last fifteen”:-

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/smithsonian-goes-full-stupid-on-global-warming/

  83. If 2012 turns out to be a record hot year, you will have to restart your counter, then there will have been no warming for the last 0.15 years.

    As Richard C has pointed out, this is extremely unlikely.

    In order for us to accept the hypothesis that there has been a zero trend over the past decade we will have to average an anomaly of 0.58°C over the rest of 2012. This is of course possible, but bear in mind that the average anomaly for the year to date has been only 0.4°C.

    Of course, if this unlikely possibility did happen, all we would concede is that it is statistically possible that we had a flat trend over the past decade, forget warming.

  84. Bob, I am more than willing to discuss these details with you – they are straightforward enough.

    [If you want to discuss grievances, email me privately (you’ve got my address). You’ve stated your position here already, so there’s no need to hijack these threads to repeat it. If you are really as willing as you say you are, please keep to the topic. – RT]

    Perhaps at Open Parachute or Open Parachute @SciBlogs. I will ensure you aren’t censored there. [Bob wasn’t censored here. – RT]

  85. Rob Taylor on September 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm said:

    Richard, you want respect? [I have more self-respect than to want the respect of arrogant blowhards like you. – RT]

    Then try reading a basic text on climate before bloviating on the subject to the dim, dyspeptic and deluded coterie of fools who apparently have little better to do [Perfectly disgusting, Mr Taylor.]

    I think that about covers it…

    TTFN

  86. See Richard?
    I reckon you are too soft with these guys. Its your blog but frankly their pomposity deserves pricking big time. And laughing at them is the best way to do it.
    Lets face it, they are pretty funny the way they behave.
    regards
    David

  87. Andrew W on September 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm said:

    And there was me not long ago thinking that at least in NZ the climate debate can actually be debated between those on both sides, on blogs representing both sides.

    I think it’s a pity you’ve abandoned the principle of free speech Richard. In my experience banning and editing comments usually reflects poorly on those doing the editing, if comments are genuinely abusive I’d argue to leave them up, if it is genuine abuse, that just reflects on the commenter.

  88. “abandons free speech”

    Brilliant, it doesn’t get any better then this.
    “Children should be seen and not heard” was the old saying.

    The children have been naughty, they need some “time out”

  89. You show no understanding of what’s occurred, Andrew. I haven’t abandoned any principles – in fact I’ve upheld them. I haven’t deleted any contribution to the climate debate, I have removed abusive and (believe it or not) sexually explicit remarks. Yes, such comments reflect badly on the speaker, but they lower the tone, debase our standards and encourage further comments of a like nature. I will always delete them. In that way, I contribute mightily to keeping the climate debate here in New Zealand free and open.

    I do hope you notice when sites such as Hot Topic, Skeptical Science and Real Climate ban honest commenters only because they question the topic. You should go there, too, and express your objections.

  90. RT – you might want to see this comment which will no doubt get snipped, but it gives you an idea of where things are at
    (offensive language warning)

  91. Yes, I know, David. I can see how you interpret my response as soft. But I want to leave the door open, allow others, or even the present antagonist, to return and walk through it again. Just recently Ken Perrott visited again after a long absence. He knew I wouldn’t harbour a grudge against him personally.

    In the long-term view – decades, or longer – if our campaign is to succeed, if those wavering are to believe what we say, or even if those against us are to change their minds and join us, someone, somewhere, must keep a door open for them. If we display unceasing scorn, disrespect, mockery, repugnance, even hatred (as many of the alarmists do towards us), they couldn’t come near us. So our efforts must be doomed. I will not strive with no hope of reward; even a remote chance is better than none.

    I wish all those who comment here could understand this and remove the remaining traces of frustration from their voices. But I won’t complain, because they are in fact so very remarkable in their restraint. I get frustrated, too, and lash out; it’s only human. But the plan is always to keep the door open.

    Even our children misbehave – but we don’t stop loving ’em.

  92. Yeah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the plug, but that’s a disgusting response you received. I’ll go read the editorial now. Sounds like I might have to feature it.

  93. Richard – I think Andrew understands very well and his comments were right to the point.

    I stopped coming here some time ago after you deleted one of my comments.

    No, it was when you found a mistake in NIWA’s data and blamed it on the CCG. But you were unintentionally blaming your heroes at NIWA, and Jim Salinger. – RT

    Similarly I won’t come again because you are doctoring, censoring, amending my comments. This makes any discussion of the science impossible.

    Patent nonsense – I only remove abuse, and you’ve offered more than most. I won’t leave rubbish lying around because it’s a bad influence. If you don’t like it, don’t leave it. I’ve never changed anyone’s argument on the science, and you cannot produce evidence that I have. But do try.

    I don’t mind the childish abuse I get from your colleagues (and you) – they tend to provide support for points I make. And a bit if such banter is to be expected.

    You have the nerve to complain of childish abuse after saying “This makes any discussion of the science impossible”? You hypocrite. Look around the blog, you twit.

    A cowardly and dishonest aspect of your censoring is that you then will sometimes misrepresent what you deleted.

    Prove it.

    It goes with the territory I guess.

    Not at the CCG.

    I believe this last time I have been able to contribute usefully on issues like the cowardly attacks on climate scientists like Michael Mann, the status of his iconic research in the IPPC reports and the naive ignorance of statistics behind the temperature has not increased in the last 10 years denier mantra.

    Yes, you did. Most people disagreed with you, but you made some points.

    I realise that is why you have vented your anger by manipulating comments but the points were made nevertheless.

    So if I remove the lie that I have “manipulated” comments, I will have “manipulated” your comment. If I don’t remove it, you will have got away with “manipulating” the truth (by telling a lie). Oh, the dilemma!

    Informative discussion is no longer possible. Mind you it sometimes felt like casting pearl before swine as the few partisipants in these debates here are well immunized against the scientific facts.

    Informative discussion is possible only when it’s informed, Ken. Though that’s always possible, when it’s not informed, it will be refuted.

    One advantage of dealing with these issues on my own blog is that I can guarantee no censoring or malicious amendment. The audience is generally more open minded and free ranging discussion is encouraged.

    Not in my experience, but you’re always welcome here. Didn’t we welcome you back?

    Richard I think you don’t understand the role of blogs and Internet discussion. Your loss not mine as it only calcifies your blog into another denier ghetto.

    Thanks for your advice. You just can’t resist those insults – but never mind, when you want to discuss climate science, you know where we are.

  94. One advantage of dealing with these issues on my own blog is that I can guarantee no censoring or malicious amendment. The audience is generally more open minded and free ranging discussion is encouraged.

    The laughs are coming from all directions today.

  95. The audience is generally more open minded

    Uhh, no.

  96. Andrew W on September 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm said:

    Sadly many blogs are never going to change policy in that regard, you’ve made it clear this one included, I can list several on the “sceptic” side that can be included in your list, so it’s pot meet kettle.

    Still, I’ll stick with my view that showing the comments, visible but maybe with strike out is the better policy. In a way I think the deleting of comments is more insulting to other readers as than the abusive comments themselves, it sends the message that you believe you’re better able to decide on the comments value than they are.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on September 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm said:

    “I think the deleting of comments is more insulting to other readers as than the abusive comments themselves, it sends the message that you believe you’re better able to decide on the comments value than they are”.

    Andrew W. Go to the Lewandowsky post and this piece of reporting in particular:-

    Lewandowsky’s Cleansing Program

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/personal-message-to-stephan-lewandowsky/#comment-117477

    “Today, Lewandowsky (who is being assisted by an SkS squadron) liquidated every single comment by Fuller on the entire blog, leaving rebuttals to Fuller in place without the protagonist. This is different from not approving the blog comments: it’s an after-the-fact cleansing of Fuller from the blog”

  98. Andrew W,

    You seem strangely obtuse about this. You don’t acknowledge my point about having standards, nor do you respond to the matter of the other blogs that ban people for disagreeing.

    I don’t like your assertion that I delete comments on the science. That’s never happened. As to better judging their “value” – what value lies in personal insults and abuse, pray tell? You deliberately misread my point.

    For clarity, are you saying that comments that lower the tone, debase our standards and encourage further comments of a like nature, or are even sexually explicit, should be allowed to stand?

  99. The comments I’ve seen deleted here are what I would describe as either offensive or designed to start a flame war, and I admit I tend to rise to the bait too soon so these kind of comments are generally unhelpful.

    I haven’t seen any comments deleted because they don’t fit with any world view. Correct me if I am wrong.
    This is more than we can say for RC, SkS and various other “consensus” blogs

  100. Andrew W on September 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm said:

    “You seem strangely obtuse about this.”

    I think I’ve made my points clearly, the more gross a comment the more contemptible the commenter appears, and I doubt the people reading your blog are as sensitive as you imagine.

    “You don’t acknowledge my point about having standards”

    Unfortunately I’ve yet to come across a blog covering a controversial subject that enforced “standards” evenhandedly, unless those standards were precisely laid out in the comments policy. Without that comments policy “standards” quickly become “double standards”.

    “nor do you respond to the matter of the other blogs that ban people for disagreeing.”

    I said: “Sadly many blogs are never going to change policy in that regard, you’ve made it clear this one included, . . . so it’s pot meet kettle.”
    What further response do you seek? “I think they’re such naughty bloggers”? Well OK, if that makes you happy:
    I think they’re such naughty bloggers.

    “I don’t like your assertion that I delete comments on the science.”

    Good for you, I wouldn’t like me for making such an assertion – and I didn’t make any such assertion. Interestingly that’s one of the criticisms of you that Ken made: that you claim people said things they did not.
    Censoring comments evolves in to something that’s a lot like cherry-picking data, you’ve decided to only let through the bits that suit your agenda.

    “As to better judging their “value” – what value lies in personal insults and abuse, pray tell? You deliberately misread my point.”

    They have a great deal of value in that they enabling people to assess the value and worth of the commenter.

    “For clarity, are you saying that comments that lower the tone, debase our standards and encourage further comments of a like nature, or are even sexually explicit, should be allowed to stand?”

    If someone I didn’t agree with was doing such a thing, I certainly would, what you describe is the comment of an arsehole, and everyone reading the blog would know they’re an arsehole. Inevitably the people doing the censoring use that power for their own purposes, a Labour politician using the tactic you describe against the PM would be a gift for National, it’s the Labour politician whose comments hit the policy target who is the one National would want to be kept out of the spotlight.

  101. Andrew, do you think this comment is helpful?

    Note that the moderator has now starred out the expletive. I guess the message remains the same.

    I find it surprising that you wonder why you are losing the PR war.

  102. Andrew W on September 17, 2012 at 9:31 pm said:

    Andy, It makes my point, Cyclone sounds like an a***hole.

  103. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on September 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm said:

    ‘free ranging discussion is encouraged.’

    I don’t think so.

  104. Andrew W,

    Hmm.

    “Sadly many blogs are never going to change policy in that regard, you’ve made it clear this one included, . . . so it’s pot meet kettle.” …

    Good for you, I wouldn’t like me for making such an assertion – and I didn’t make any such assertion.

    Your comment “so it’s pot meet kettle” means exactly that. But you are mistaken. I have not banned anyone because they question the topic. Those other sites did.

    I can see where you’re coming from in wanting to leave comments as they are sent. But I disagree. You can do it on your blog, I won’t complain.

    But I won’t leave rotten food lying around the front yard. It repels everyone but scavengers.

    I must mention this: “They have a great deal of value in that they enabling people to assess the value and worth of the commenter.”

    Why would you want to do that? It’s like admiring the ovens for the insight they give into Hitler’s wickedness. Or perhaps, more accurately, admiring the Nazi’s anti-Jewish propaganda for the same reason. But the concept is monstrous – filth is filth, it has no value. And in the climate debate, the worth of the commenter doesn’t matter, we want to know what they contribute to the debate.

  105. Andrew W
    “Unfortunately I’ve yet to come across a blog covering a controversial subject that enforced “standards” evenhandedly, unless those standards were precisely laid out in the comments policy’

    Not true.I remember you posting on Ponekes blog where no comments were deleted and everyone was treated fairly. You still got dealt to though.
    Kiwiblog seldom deletes but issues demerits. Many others are the same.
    I think Richard T is VERY tolerant and that is certainly in contrast to other blogs. Especially the ones of the “left”. Have you seen the sewer that is “The Standard”?
    Hot topic is just a nest of rudeness and nastiness. Those guys are just crazy zealots.
    So no Andrew W, you are wrong. Again.

  106. Andrew W on September 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm said:

    “Not true.I remember you posting on Ponekes blog where no comments were deleted and everyone was treated fairly.”

    So what you’re saying is that Poneke didn’t need to use editing and deleting comments to enforce standards.

    “Kiwiblog seldom deletes but issues demerits. Many others are the same.”

    David, you quote me, but it seems you fail to understand what I said. Kiwiblog does have a comments policy, and David admits his rulings on comments are subjective, now, in my opinion there are double standards at Kiwiblog and also at The Standard, right of center commenters get away with comments at Kiwiblog that would not be tolerated at The Standard, and left wing commenters get away with comments at The Standard that would earn demerits at Kiwiblog.

  107. Dan Pangburn on September 19, 2012 at 12:16 am said:

    Ken,
    Your myopic use of statistics has misled you.

    Back away from the recent data and look at the big picture. Temperature has been accurately measured world wide since about 1895. Graphs of average global temperature are extant. Look at any of them closely and you will see rapid (year to year and even month to month) random fluctuation with s.d. of about +/-0.1C about the trends. Thermodynamics/heat transfer with knowledge of the huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 30 times everything else) absolutely prohibits such rapid fluctuation in average global temperature. Thus the random fluctuation must be an artifact of the measuring process and the trends are the meaningful metric.

    Apparently you didn’t find my stuff at Climate Realists. I can’t give the link directly because it trips the spam trap but you can find my equation, which calculates temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy using only one independent variable (as I described above in my Sept 12 post), at http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/ . If you can work past Greenfyre’s sarcasm to my response you will find the link to all of my stuff that has been made public over the years at Climate Realists.

    The determination that it has stopped warming is primarily because the flat temperature trend for more than a decade is consistent with that determined by the equation which has demonstrated to be 88% accurate for 116 years…and counting.

    Here’s the Climate Realists’ link. – RT

  108. Andrew W on September 19, 2012 at 4:40 am said:

    “Thermodynamics/heat transfer with knowledge of the huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 30 times everything else) absolutely prohibits such rapid fluctuation in average global temperature.”

    Good grief, are you unaware of the effects of El Nino on surface temperatures?

    “The determination that it has stopped warming is primarily because the flat temperature trend for more than a decade is consistent with that determined by the equation which has demonstrated to be 88% accurate for 116 years…and counting.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

  109. Dan, as already mentioned it is impossible to discuss your claims here because Treadgold s amending and altering my comments. I am happy to discuss them at Open Parachute – so what about making your comment there – perhaps where you made your original claim at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/new-zealand-climate-change-denial-defeated/#comment-29697

    It’s pointless attempting it hare

  110. Ken,

    it is impossible to discuss your claims here because Treadgold’s amending and altering my comments

    You’d try the patience of a saint, you peculiar, arrogant, vexing little heckler. As you know, I don’t snip comments which are on the topic. Nor have I altered any pertinent comments from you or anyone else. But I have snipped your personal abuse, and I’ll do it again, if I must.

    This is the second or third time you’ve made this false allegation about my altering comments. Do it again and I’ll snip it. As I’m confident you are fully aware, Mr Perrott, you can talk here all day about climate science — just don’t abuse anyone!

  111. Dan Pangburn on September 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm said:

    Andrew,

    You have been fooled.

    Look a little closer at that graph. Notice that it is for LAND temperature. Land covers only 29% of the planet and land temperature responds much more rapidly to changes in the rate at which energy is stored by the planet. Notice also that the graph ends in about 2010. The last downtrend on that graph starts in about 2001 and ends in 2010. That last downtrend has continued. The longest temperature anomaly downtrend line prior to 2001 is for a CO2 increase of 13% of the 1800 to 2001 CO2 increase. Since 2001 the CO2 has increased more than 25% of the 1800 to 2001 increase.

    Also, the graph begins in 1973. Thus it does not show the temperature DOWNTREND from about 1941 to 1973. Or, for that matter, the UPTREND from 1909 to 1941.

    If you could bring yourself to look at my stuff you might not be so easily fooled. Is there something about my equation calculating the temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88% that you do not grasp? Or that the equation ‘predicted’ (the quotes are because the actual sunspot numbers were used) the temperatures since 1990? (Although not made public yet, when calibrated to conditions prior to 1965 the equation ‘predicted’ the 2005 trend-temperature within 0.06C)

    The physics is real and the math does not lie.

  112. Andrew W on September 19, 2012 at 8:41 pm said:

    Look a little closer at that graph. Notice that it is for LAND temperature. Land covers only 29% of the planet and land temperature responds much more rapidly to changes in the rate at which energy is stored by the planet.

    So what you’re saying is that this “escalator” doesn’t work on the global surface temperature record?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif

    Dan, I’m simply not interested in your unpublished theories on climate change, and I’m well aware of the shape of global surface temperature graphs since around 1900, and the explanations for the changes in the trend. (principally global dimming mid century due to unfiltered emissions from coal burning in Europe and N America, something likely now occurring again as a result of China and other growing Asian economies repeating that practice).

  113. Richard C (NZ) on September 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm said:

    “I’m well aware of the shape of global surface temperature graphs since around 1900”

    Including this profile?

    http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    Are you attributing the change of trend at 2003 to “unfiltered emissions from coal burning…….occurring again as a result of China and other growing Asian economies repeating that practice”?

  114. Andrew W on September 19, 2012 at 9:22 pm said:

    “Including this profile?”

    Yeah, though I keep a closer eye on this one:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    This page mentions signs of dimming over China, too soon to quantify the degree to which this might be affecting global temperatures. I should have said “possibly” rather than”likely”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Recent_reversal_of_the_trend

  115. Dan Pangburn on September 19, 2012 at 10:01 pm said:

    Ken,
    My response above to Andrew also applies to you.

    The link to Climate Realists that RT added to my post gets you part way there. Scroll down until on the left side you see “Articles by Climate Realists and Topics” and then move the slider at that location to find Dan Pangburn. Click on my name to see briefs of my articles. Click on the pdf link(s) to see the full article(s).

    These articles reveal the story of what I had discovered through November of 2011. Work since then has corroborated the findings.

    Historically reported temperatures consistently exhibit an s.d. of about +/-0.1C about the mean trend. One of the three main drivers of average global temperatures is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. Sunspot number prediction until 2020 is pretty good so temperatures from now to 2020 will have a decline trend of about -0.065C/decade with an s.d. of about +/-0.1C. After then depends on what the sun does. If the sun goes quiet, the decline will steepen to about -0.11C/decade with an s.d. of still about +/-0.1C.

  116. Rob Taylor on September 19, 2012 at 10:56 pm said:

    Dan, if you really think you have something, then submit it for peer-review at a reputable professional journal.

    Otherwise, nothing personal, but you’re just another crank on the internet.

  117. Dan, could you send that comment to me at Open Parachute (see above) and I will consider it there. [Falsehoods removed, heckler. – RT]

    You are quite wrong with your rejection of the stats and I am happy to discuss that with you – but not here.

  118. Richard C (NZ) on September 20, 2012 at 8:27 am said:

    “nothing personal, but you’re just another crank on the internet”

    contradiction in terms – (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave’ is a contradiction”

    oxymoron – a rhetorical device or figure of speech in which contradictory or opposite words or concepts are combined for effect.

  119. Richard C (NZ) on September 20, 2012 at 8:44 am said:

    Since AR4 Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008 found that soot (BC) has a greater effect than had been thought:-

    “The BC forcing of 0.9 W m–2 (with a range of 0.4 to 1.2 W m–2) … is as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as CH4, CFCs, N2O or tropospheric ozone.”

    Thing is, if the IPCC botched CO2 forcing they’ve probably botched soot forcing the same way.

    More here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117654

    Also, CO2 and soot in combustion chambers

    RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
    R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117639

  120. Richard C (NZ) on September 20, 2012 at 10:10 am said:

    Dan re “Sunspot number prediction until 2020 is pretty good so temperatures from now to 2020 will have a decline trend of about -0.065C/decade with an s.d. of about +/-0.1C”

    Found your articles: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

    Sunspot article: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5513

    Conclusions of the Natural Climate Change Verification

    PDF file ‘Corroboration of Natural Climate Change’ (another “keeper”)

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2010/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf

    ‘Verification of Natural Climate Change’

    What you’ve developed is an empirical model along the lines of Scafetta’s but in that case Nicola has assumed a continuing rise in the underlying quadratic trend of HadCRUT3. I’ve done EMD analyses of HadSST2 which a while ago did show a rise in the residual similar to the quadratic. However, with the most recent SST data a negative inflexion in SST is revealed that because EMD is very sensitive to additional data in the signal extraction process, the EMD analysis extracts what a quadratic curve fit does not.

    Therefore I think Scafetta’s forecast is erroneous and the SST inflexion imparts more credence to your ‘MEASURED AND PREDICTED TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES’ on page 12.

    But Dan, you didn’t tell us that ‘Corroboration of Natural Climate Change’ wasn’t just about sunspot influence! What caught my eye was this:-

    Dan Pangburn, P. E. (Licensed Mechanical Engineer), Life Member of ASME.

    Education:
    MS in Mechanical Engineering, Heat Power option which included 13 semester units in heat transfer, 9 at graduate level including a 3-unit course in radiation heat transfer.
    Experienced in computer modeling including:

    1. The sole writer of a General Purpose Heat Transfer program which sets up and solves steady-state and transient problems of heat transfer by conduction, convection and radiation in three dimensional structures. This code runs on a personal computer.

    2. The sole writer of an internal ballistics program to calculate all variables including pressure, projectile acceleration, velocity, etc. during gun firing. This code also runs on a personal computer

    In view of that, could you please comment on the following series and hypothesis by Professor John Eggert:-
    ************************************************************************************************************
    The Eggert hypothesis:-

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels are at a point where increasing them further will have no impact on climate. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. This contribution reaches a maximum at a specific level of CO2 at which point there is no further impact. In simplistic terms, you cannot get blacker than black. Controlling CO2 emissions will have no impact on climate

    The basis for it:-

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 1: Scientific Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 2: Layman’s Discussion

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf

    And here,

    An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
    Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
    ************************************************************************************************************
    The key point being the “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-

    “The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”

    I think John Eggert and Nasif Nahle reached an impasse over this issue at Tallblokes that I don’t know was ever resolved so I would value your input Dan.

    Also you might be interested in what I found by following John’s references and posted in ‘IPCC Science’ here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117639

    I refer mainly to the references listed from the following paper that the IPCC doesn’t defer to:-

    RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
    R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation