NZ about to ratify Paris agreement – will they ask our opinion?

Paula Bennett says the Government intends to concrete the Paris agreement into place by the end of the year.

She will “within weeks” announce terms of reference and the members of an expert group that will help implement our transition to lower carbon emissions. They hope our trading friends will be mightily pleased by our righteous eagerness to save the planet. Or so they imply.

New Zealand to ratify Paris agreement this year

The Government plans to ratify the Paris agreement on climate change by the end of the year, Climate Change Issues Minister Paula Bennett says.

The agreement was finalised last December and made available for signature in April this year. Ratification is the formal step that countries must take to be full participants and to ensure the deal takes effect.

“The Paris agreement is historic and changed the way the world thinks about climate change. Ratifying it early reinforces our commitment to this deal and our support for the global momentum to grow with lower emissions,” says Mrs Bennett.

Under the agreement, each nation is required to set an emissions reduction target. New Zealand committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

“This is an ambitious target that won’t be easy for New Zealand to achieve. All parts of society have a part to play in the transition to a lower emissions economy, from central and local government through to businesses, iwi and communities,” Mrs Bennett says.

“New Zealanders are already doing a lot of work to reduce our emissions, from being more energy conscious through to some of the exciting changes in agriculture.

“No matter how much New Zealand reduces its emissions, we will still feel the effects of a changing planet if other nations do not make significant changes.

“It is clear that we need to be better prepared to adapt to these changes, so I am establishing a group of technical experts to look at things like the effects on infrastructure and economic growth.”

Terms of reference and membership for the group will be released within weeks.

The Government plans to finalize ratification before the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in November.

The Paris Agreement and a National Interest Analysis will today be tabled in the House of Representatives for consideration by a select committee. The Government will then sign and deliver the ratification document to the United Nations in New York.

These two documents were tabled in the Parliament two days ago: the Paris Agreement and the National Interest Analysis. Nice that we’ve finally been given one of these—the ETS wasn’t treated with such respect. Mind you, I haven’t read it yet.

What transpires for the country will be determined by the membership of the “group of experts”, so picking them is crucial. Will the minister include  representatives of the country’s many highly-qualified climate sceptics or has she been required to stick with the activists from Victoria University and the Royal Society?

Why is the government keen to show “commitment to this deal” and “support for lower emissions” globally? What favours have we been promised in return? Are we simply trying to boost Helen Clark’s campaign for chief commissar (or whatever it’s called), knowing it will give the country a higher profile for several years?

This is for sure: all the spending on emission reductions will bring us nothing; all the income foregone for climate change will avail us nothing; all the zeal displayed for the Paris agreement will profit us nothing.

So we had better be very sure what we do, why we do it and above all who we do it with. That’s why I’ve volunteered to serve on the committee.

123 Thoughts on “NZ about to ratify Paris agreement – will they ask our opinion?

  1. Mike Jowsey on August 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm said:

    Good on you mate. I’ll second your nomination. But it’s rigged, doncha know. We need a Trump-like independent to cut through the PC BS. Lacking that, we are doomed to live in paradise lost.

  2. Richard Treadgold on August 19, 2016 at 6:31 pm said:

    Ha ha. Thanks! Yeah, but you’re probably right. 🙁

  3. Richard C (NZ) on August 19, 2016 at 11:10 pm said:

    >Why is the government keen to show “commitment to this deal” and “support for lower emissions” globally?

    a) Greenwash
    b) Virtue signaling
    c) Catering for the madness of crowds and their voting whims.
    d) A firm but misguided belief that violations of laws of physics is allowable in this case because climate scientists know what they are talking about.
    e) Combinations of a to d.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2016 at 5:58 pm said:

    DPRK News Service @DPRK_News

    “Mild Pacific storm season is attributed to benevolent climate policies of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un”

    https://twitter.com/DPRK_News

  5. Dennis N Horne on August 20, 2016 at 6:59 pm said:

    The science is as certain as science ever is. Man must try to reduce CO2 emissions. It’s true NZ’s contribution is negligible. It’s true what the big polluters like China do is beyond our control, and if they don’t reduce GHGs fast enough NZ is going to be faced with massive costs to combat sea level rise anyway.

    We can only do what we can based on the information we have. We need rational discussions. It’s going to be difficult.

    How are those who refuse to accept the science going to help?

  6. Dennis, if we are going to reduce CO2 emission by 30%, would you agree that the most efficient way would be to exterminate 30% of the NZ population?

    I have looked at a number of other options and the numbers don’t really stack up, so it looks like mass killing is the only way forward.

    Perhaps you can consult with Herr Thomas of Hot Topic who might have some practical experience in this area; he has expressed some desire to send people to camps etc

    Just a thought

  7. Dennis N Horne on August 20, 2016 at 8:39 pm said:

    So this is your argument.

    We cannot do anything.

    Therefore the science is wrong.

    So we don’t need to do anything; business as usual.

    On yer bike, Andy, and keep pedalling those circular arguments…

  8. No Dennis, I accept the science that catastrophic climate change is 100% certain (I don’t have any evidence but the local council agree and I don’t like to get offside with them because they empty my bins)

    Therefore we need to start a mass extermination programme. I propose a series of death camps near Ashburton (handy for rail and lots of room for the bodies)

    We can also burn the bodies in industrial size crematoria that could power the dairy factories in the area

    Don’t you think my idea has merit?

    Do you have better ideas?

  9. Another random link from Dennis, no explanation, no words

  10. Climate change activists suggest taxes that discourage childbirth

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/19/climate-change-activists-tax-discourage-childbirth/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

    See? My Malthusian ideas about extermination of the human race are quite trendy

  11. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 8:36 am said:

    Dennis

    >”The science is as certain as science ever is”

    Really?

    Please explain then Dennis, why the earth’s energy imbalance at TOA (the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria) is only 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless but theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing?

    And total theoretical forcing at TOA, including solar, was 2.33 W.m-2 as reported by the IPCC and obviously that’s increasing. The IPCC neglected to address the observations-theory disparity of course (too inconvenient perhaps – spoils the story).

    Doesn’t this indicate to you Dennis that the Man-Made Climate Change theory is dead wrong?

  12. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 8:48 am said:

    >”How are those who refuse to accept the science going to help?”

    That would be you Dennis.

    I accept the Scientific Method..

    I accept the IPCC’s science Dennis.

    I accept the IPCC’s climate change criteria.

    I accept the IPCC’s theory in respect to their criteria.

    I accept the IPCC’s observations applicable to their criteria.

    I accept there is a huge discrepancy between their observations in respect to their theory.

    I reject Man-Made Climate Change theory in accordance with my acceptance of the Scientific Method.

    This is my acceptance of the science Dennis. You apparently reject the Scientific Method. Why?

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 9:05 am said:

    Dennis

    Science and attribution are not one and the same.

    The IPCC divides their assessment report appropriately:

    Observations (objective science)
    Theory and criteria
    Attribution (subjective opinions)

    In the case of ocean warming for example, the IPCC make attribution by speculation – they merely “expect” in their attribution process on account of their theory but they have no observation science to support what they “expect”. They don’t even address their primary TOA criteria in their attribution process.

    Their attribution statement makes no recourse whatsoever to their primary climate change criteria.

    You’re confusing objective science with subjective attribution opinions Dennis.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 9:42 am said:

    Dennis Horne – >”So this is your argument.”

    We cannot do anything. Therefore the science is wrong.

    No Dennis. That’s YOUR spin but you have it back to front in typical Warmy air-heats-earth form.

    Our argument is this:

    The Man-Made Climate Change theory is provably wrong, therefore we need not do anything

    Do you see the difference now Dennis?

  15. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 10:44 am said:

    >”Please explain then Dennis, why the earth’s energy imbalance at TOA (the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria) is only 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless but theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing? ………And total theoretical forcing at TOA, including solar, was 2.33 W.m-2″

    >The Man-Made Climate Change theory is provably wrong”

    Discrepancy: 1.73 W.m-2 = 1.73 Joules per second per square metre of the earth’s surface.

    Earth’s surface area: 510,100,000,000 m²

    Excess energy introduced into the earth’s climate system by Man-Made Climate Change theory every second is therefore:

    1.73 x 510,100,000,000 = 882,473,000,000 Joules = 882.473 GigaJoules per second excess.

    Anyone still subscribing to Man-Made Climate Change theory has obviously not done the math.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 2:38 pm said:

    NASA EARTHDATA – 3. Missing heat

    ‘Scientists search the deep oceans to balance Earth’s energy budget.’

    by Laura Naranjo, October 13, 2015

    […]

    CERES Net Downward Flux
    This image shows net downward radiation flux at the top of Earth’s atmosphere in watts per square meter. Blues indicate regions losing heat; oranges and reds indicate where heat is building up. Averaged over the globe for the 2001-2005 period, 0.51 watts per square meter of energy are accumulating, which is causing the planet to warm. Data are from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES), which helps scientists understand Earth’s heat budget. (Courtesy R. P. Allan)
    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/media/ceres-net-downward-flux.jpg

    This radiation exchange is best measured at the top of the atmosphere, where sunlight enters Earth’s climate system, and where orbiting satellites can act like a proxy thermometer. Allan’s team used data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instrument, launched in 2000, plus data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), which extended the record back to 1984. These data, obtained from the NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, captured incoming and reflected sunlight and emitted infrared radiation over the recent period in which the rate of global surface warming has appeared to wane. “We found the heating rate, based on this long satellite record, hadn’t declined,” Allan said. “In fact, if anything, the heating rates have become greater in the 2000s than in the period prior to it.”

    If the surface warming has slowed, then where is this extra accumulating heat going? Air, land, and water absorb and release heat at different rates, and on vastly different time scales. For instance, on a summer walk along a sunny beach, the sand and air will feel quite warm, but the ocean will not. Large bodies of water possess more thermal inertia than land or air, meaning oceans will absorb heat more slowly, and will be slower to release that heat even when land or air temperatures cool. Complicating matters, different ocean layers store and release heat at different rates. Water temperatures near the ocean surface tend to be more variable, because there is a constant heat exchange with the air circulating above. Deeper ocean layers, however, exchange heat more slowly than surface layers and release that stored heat on much longer time scales. So to find the missing heat, researchers dove into the oceans.

    Answers in the ocean >>>>>
    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/missing-heat

    # # #

    1) From the image ‘CERES Net Downward Flux’ it is easy to see the “surface warming” is a solar-only action – GHGs play no part.

    2) The 2001-2005 energy imbalance (0.51 W.m-2) falls well short of the IPCC’s comparative theoretical net radiative forcing at TOA (1.72 W.m-2 – see below) The discrepancy has widened considerably since 2001-2005 which was covered by the IPCC AR4 WG1 assessment.

    This is how they explained away the discrepancy in AR4:

    TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing

    The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2. Improved understanding and better quantification of the forcing mechanisms since the TAR make it possible to derive a combined net anthropogenic radiative forcing for the first time. Combining the component values for each forcing agent and their uncertainties yields the probability distribution of the combined anthropogenic radiative forcing estimate shown in Figure TS.5; the most likely value is about an order of magnitude larger than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in solar irradiance. Since the range in the estimate is +0.6 to +2.4 W m–2, there is very high confidence in the net positive radiative forcing of the climate system due to human activity. The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m–2, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding.

    Figure TS.5
    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

    So they are saying that JUST the theoretical anthropogenic forcing range is +0.6 to +2.4 W m–2 and because that’s greater than solar and the lower bound is close to the imbalance the discrepancy is somehow reconciled.

    But the net forcing is Anthro+Natural i.e. Anthro +0.6 to +2.4 PLUS Solar +0.06 to +0.3. This makes the discrepancy even worse.

    Except the certainty in the solar forcing estimate is “LOW”. Firstly, solar forcing is the default i.e. solar must be considered first before anything else. The imbalance was 0.51 and the solar estimate was +0.06 to +0.3. Using the IPCC’s reasoning, the upper solar estimate accounts for 59% (0.3/0.51) of the imbalance.

    And given the “Low” certainty of the solar estimate, it is not out of the question that solar accounts for 100% of the imbalance. This is then confirmed by the ‘CERES Net Downward Flux’ data.

    The sun heats the earth’s surface in the tropics and the excess energy is dissipated towards the poles. GHGs play no part.

    This is axiomatic. Why was there even the thought of an IPCC assessment? It was completely unnecessary.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 3:01 pm said:

    >”This is how they explained away the discrepancy in AR4 [Technical Summary]”

    The AR5 Technical Summary is here:

    Report by Chapters
    Front Matter – 0.8MB
    Summary for Policymakers – 2.3MB
    Technical Summary – 18.1MB
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    18.1MB (sigh) AR4 was much easier. It only takes a paragraph or two to falsify the entire conjecture but I’ll have a look anyway.

  18. New Zealand committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030

    Is that 2030 figure correct? It is only 14 years away. I would have thought a 30% reduction in emissions in 14 years is close to impossible

    Should it read 2050?

  19. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 4:40 pm said:

    >”Earth’s surface area: 510,100,000,000 m²
    Excess energy introduced into the earth’s climate system by Man-Made Climate Change theory every second is therefore: 1.73 x 510,100,000,000 = 882,473,000,000 Joules = 882.473 GigaJoules per second excess.”

    This is incorrect. The surface area to be used in that calc is the area of the top of atmosphere – not the earth’s surface. I’ll correct this when I’ve got the TOA surface area.

    Meanwhile the AR5 Technical Summary says this:

    TS.2.3 Changes in Energy Budget and Heat Content

    The Earth has been in radiative imbalance, with more energy from the Sun entering than exiting the top of the atmosphere, since at least about 1970. It is virtually certain that the Earth has gained substantial
    energy from 1971 to 2010. The estimated increase in energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] × 10^21 J (high confidence), with a heating rate of 213 × 10^12 W from a linear fit to the annual values over that time period (see also TFE.4). {Boxes 3.1, 13.1} Ocean warming dominates that total heating rate, with full ocean depth warming accounting for about 93% (high confidence), and
    warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64%. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents each account for 3% of the total. Warming of the
    atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%. The 1971–2010 estimated rate of ocean energy gain is 199 × 10^12 W from a linear fit to data over that time period, equivalent to 0.42 W m–2 heating applied continuously over the Earth’s entire surface, and 0.55 W m–2 for the portion owing to ocean warming applied over the ocean’s entire surface area. The Earth’s estimated energy increase from 1993 to 2010 is 163 [127 to 201] × 10^21 J with a trend estimate of 275 × 10^15 W. The ocean portion of the trend for 1993–2010 is 257 × 10^12 W, equivalent to a mean heat flux into the ocean of 0.71 W m–2.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

    Key elements:

    1971–2010 Earth’s “heating rate of 213 × 10^12 W”

    equivalent to

    “0.42 W m–2 heating applied continuously over the Earth’s entire surface”
    “0.55 W m–2 for the portion owing to ocean warming applied over the ocean’s entire surface area.”

    Earth’s “energy increase from 1993 to 2010 is 163 [127 to 201] × 10^21 J”

    equivalent to

    “a mean heat flux into the ocean of 0.71 W m–2”

    This can only be solar-sourced as shown by the latitudinal breakdown upthread: ‘CERES Net Downward Flux’ at TOA 2001-2005 (0.51 W.m-2). Obviously GHGs play no part, irrespective of my incorrect calc (to be corrected).

  20. Dennis N Horne on August 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). I look some stuff from the ‘sceptics’ and I look at some stuff from the scientists.

    It has been known for ages CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy.

    Earth is warming.

    Only GHGs seem to account for that warming.

    Every informed scientist on the planet accepts that.

    If you think you have found a way to show that’s wrong, publish in a reputable journal.

    Or at least try to get some backing from recognised ‘sceptics’, like Lindzen. Let me know how you get on.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 6:13 pm said:

    >”This is how they explained away the discrepancy in AR4 [Technical Summary]”
    >”I’ll have a look [at the AR5 TS]

    The AR5 TS does not make a simple comparison of theoretical forcing to the observed energy balance as AR4 did. Instead, there’s a “Thematic Focus Element” (TFE) which includes graphs similar to Murphy et al (2009) and a long and internally contradictory explanation:

    TFE.4 | The Changing Energy Budget of the Global Climate System

    The global energy budget is a fundamental aspect of the Earth’s climate system and depends on many phenomena within it. The ocean has stored about 93% of the increase in energy in the climate system over recent decades, resulting in ocean thermal expansion and hence sea level rise. The rate of storage of energy in the Earth system must be equal to the net downward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere, which is the difference between effective radiative forcing (ERF) due to changes imposed on the system and the radiative response of the system. There are also significant transfers of energy between components of the climate system and from one location to another. The focus here is on the Earth’s global energy budget since 1970, when better global observational data coverage is available. {3.7, 9.4, 13.4; Box 3.1}

    The ERF of the climate system has been positive as a result of increases in well-mixed (long-lived) greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, changes in short-lived GHGs (tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour), and an increase in solar irradiance (TFE.4, Figure 1a). This has been partly compensated by a negative contribution to the ERF of the climate system as a result of changes in tropospheric aerosol, which predominantly reflect sunlight and furthermore enhance the brightness of clouds, although black carbon produces positive forcing. Explosive volcanic eruptions (such as El Chichón in Mexico in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991) can inject sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, giving rise to stratospheric aerosol, which persists for several years.
    Stratospheric aerosol reflects some of the incoming solar radiation and thus gives a negative forcing. Changes in surface albedo from land use change have also led to a greater reflection of shortwave radiation back to space and hence a negative forcing. Since 1970, the net ERF of the climate system has increased, and the integrated impact of these forcings is an energy inflow over this period (TFE.4, Figure 1a). {2.3, 8.5; Box 13.1}

    TFE.4, Figure 1 | The Earth’s energy budget from 1970 through 2011. (a) The cumulative energy inflow into the Earth system from changes in well-mixed and shortlived greenhouse gases, solar forcing, tropospheric aerosol forcing, volcanic forcing and changes in surface albedo due to land use change (all relative to 1860–1879) are shown by the coloured lines; these contributions are added to give the total energy inflow (black; contributions from black carbon on snow and contrails as well as contrail-induced cirrus are included but not shown separately). (b) The cumulative total energy inflow from (a, black) is balanced by the sum of the energy uptake of the Earth system (blue; energy absorbed in warming the ocean, the atmosphere and the land, as well as in the melting of ice) and an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature. The sum of these two terms is given for a climate feedback parameter α of 2.47, 1.23 and 0.82 W m–2 °C–1, corresponding to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5°C, 3.0°C and 4.5°C, respectively; 1.5°C to 4.5°C is assessed to be the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity. The energy budget would be closed for a particular value of a if the corresponding line coincided with the total energy inflow. For clarity, all uncertainties
    (shading) shown are likely ranges. {Box 12.2; Box 13.1, Figure 1}
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    As the climate system warms, energy is lost to space through increased outgoing radiation. This radiative response by the system is due predominantly to increased thermal radiation, but it is modified by climate feedbacks such as changes in water vapour, clouds and surface albedo, which affect both outgoing longwave and reflected shortwave radiation. The top of the atmosphere fluxes have been measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellites from 1985 to 1999 and the Cloud and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellites from March 2000 to the present. The top of the atmosphere radiative flux measurements are highly precise, allowing identification of changes in the Earth’s net energy budget from year to year within the ERBE and CERES missions, but the absolute calibration of the instruments is not sufficiently accurate to allow determination of the absolute top of the atmosphere energy flux or to provide continuity across missions. TFE.4, Figure 1b relates the cumulative total energy change of the Earth system to the change in energy storage and the cumulative outgoing radiation. Calculation of the latter is based on the observed global mean surface temperature multiplied by the climate feedback parameter α, which in turn is related to the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The mid-range value for α, 1.23 W m–2 °C–1, corresponds to an ERF for a doubled carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of 3.7 [2.96 to 4.44] W m–2 combined with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.0°C. The climate feedback parameter α is likely to be in the range from 0.82 to 2.47 W m–2 °C–1 (corresponding to the likely range in equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5°C to 4.5°C). {9.7.1;
    Box 12.2}

    If ERF were fixed, the climate system would eventually warm sufficiently that the radiative response would balance the ERF, and there would be no further change in energy storage in the climate system. However, the forcing is increasing, and the ocean’s large heat capacity means that the climate system is not in radiative equilibrium and its energy content is increasing (TFE.4, Figure 1b). This storage provides strong evidence of a changing climate. The majority of this additional heat is in the upper 700 m of the ocean, but there is also warming in the deep and abyssal ocean. The associated thermal expansion of the ocean has contributed about 40% of the observed sea level rise since 1970. A small amount of additional heat has been used to warm the continents, warm and melt glacial and sea ice and warm the atmosphere. {13.4.2; Boxes 3.1, 13.1}

    […]

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

    # # #

    There’s at least 3 major problems with this.

    See TFE.4, Figure 1 (b) “Storage” and “Storage plus radiative response”. They are explaining the discrepancy between theoretical forcing and observed storage by describing the excess as “radiative response” i.e. outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

    In the narrative, first they say – “As the climate system warms, energy is lost to space through increased outgoing radiation [OLR].”

    This is simply wrong – see below.

    Then they say – “The top of the atmosphere radiative flux measurements are highly precise”.

    But then they go off on a completely different tack – “Calculation of the latter [cumulative outgoing radiation] is based on the observed global mean surface temperature multiplied by the climate feedback parameter α, which in turn is related to the equilibrium climate sensitivity”

    So instead of using the “highly precise” TOA radiative flux measurements they revert to their theory.

    Problem #1 is: the “highly precise” TOA flux measurements do NOT show “increased outgoing radiation” (OLR) as below:

    Graph
    Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif

    Problem #2 is: OLR is unrelated to lower troposphere temperature:

    Diagram showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since December 1978 ( red line; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the global monthly average lower troposphere temperature (blue line; University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines are the simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010 (OLR) and January 2011 (UAH). Last diagram update: 13 February 2011.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA%20and%20UAH%20MSU%20since%201979.gif

    Problem #3 is: the fact that there is only a net SW solar flux into the surface – none other i.e. the only possible attribution for “Storage” in TFE.4, Figure 1 (b) is solar input. This can be seen in the AR5 earth’s energy budget at the surface (0.6 W.m-2 imbalance) and the latitudinal breakdown of CERES Net Downward Flux.

    Clearly, the IPCC’s AR5 explanation for their observations-theory discrepancy is bogus on at least 3 levels.

    The AR4 explanation (see upthread) did not go to the same contortions as AR5. I think the widened discrepancy must have caused some scrabbling around to find (superficially plausible) excuses in AR5.

  22. Dennis Horne accepts that catastrophic climate change is happening

    Woop woop woop

    Are you onboard for widespread extermination of the human species Dennis?

    Woop woop woop

  23. It must be hard for Dennis to “accept the science” and keep on living
    I don’t know how you keep going Dennis

    If you need some funds for your trip to the Dignitas Clinic please let us know; I’m sure we can arrange a whip around

  24. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 6:41 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”It has been known for ages CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy.”

    The theory has been known. But theory is not necessarily fact. Provably not as above.

    >”Earth is warming.”

    Yes, we know. But the atmosphere has not warmed this century (see last post thread for data) and the ocean warming can only be solar-sourced. And before the earth was warming (since the LIA) the earth was cooling (since the MWP). And before that warming, before that cooling, and so on. What caused the Laurentide ice sheet to melt Dennis? Vintage SUVs?

    But the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria is the earth’s energy budget at TOA – not temperature.

    >”Only GHGs seem to account for that warming.”

    “Seem”? You don’t “seem” very convinced Dennis. Actually GHGs overshoot wildly (we’re talking 100s of ZetaJoules here Dennis).

    >”Every informed scientist on the planet accepts that.”

    Well yes, every scientist on the govt funded Man-Made Climate Change gravy train certainly is “informed” as to where their bread is buttered. But there are defections when careers are not an issue any more. Case in point: Judith Curry. Scientists not on the gravy train do not accept that Dennis.

    Besides, science is not a democracy.

    >”If you think you have found a way to show that’s wrong, publish in a reputable journal.”

    IPCC reports are simply assessments and their subjective attribution is highly questionable. And they are not published “in a reputable journal”, merely a UK printer. Critiquing them does NOT require recourse to any journal. There are no rules to this Dennis.

    >”Or at least try to get some backing from recognised ‘sceptics’, like Lindzen. Let me know how you get on.”

    Heh. Lindzen’s a Lukewarmer you goose. He’s on your side. All he’s sceptical of is an impending catastrophe. Same as Spencer.

    If you really want to venture into the non-warmer non lukewarmer ‘sceptics’ lions dens then go somewhere like THS or PSI. Good luck in the latter BTW.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 7:09 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”If you really want to venture into the non-warmer non lukewarmer ‘sceptics’ lions dens then go somewhere like THS or PSI. Good luck in the latter BTW.”

    As for Lindzen and Spencer, Watts and Monckton are Lukewarmers Dennis. Here’s the latest in an ongoing spat between them and the Slayers (PSI):

    ‘How Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton Helped Prove Slayer Rationalism’

    Published on August 15, 2016, Written by Joseph E Postma

    http://principia-scientific.org/anthony-watts-christopher-monckton-helped-prove-slayer-rationalism/

  26. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 8:56 pm said:

    Correction

    >”Earth’s surface area: 510,100,000,000 m²
    Excess energy introduced into the earth’s climate system by Man-Made Climate Change theory every second is therefore: 1.73 x 510,100,000,000 = 882,473,000,000 Joules = 882.473 GigaJoules per second excess.”

    Should be TOA surface area = 4*Pi*R^2.
    Where R = Earth radius + atmosphere depth = 6,371 km + 120 km = 6,491 km

    TOA surface area = 4*Pi*6,491^2 km = 529,459,911,000 m²

    Excess IPCC energy: 1.73 x 529,459,911,000 = 915,965,646,000 = 915.97 GigaJoules per second.

    Actual earth’s heating: 0.6 x 529,459,911,000 = 317,675,946,600 = 317.68 GigaJoules per second

    The IPCC cannot argue “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature” (TS TFE.4,Figure 1 upthread) makes up the difference because outgoing energy (OLR) is already accounted for in the earth’s energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 at TOA).

    And OLR at TOA is NOT increasing as upthread. And OLR is unrelated to lower troposphere temperature as upthread.

    The IPCC case dissolves under scrutiny.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 9:41 pm said:

    >”Excess IPCC energy: ………915.97 GigaJoules per second. [1.73 W,m-2 increasing]
    >Actual earth’s heating: …….317.68 GigaJoules per second. [0.6 W.m-2 static]

    This century the actual warming is constant at 0.6 W.m-2, but the excess IPCC energy is increasing. Just from CO2 the theoretical forcing increase is:

    Theoretical CO2 dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

    Examples:
    Theoretical CO2 dF = 1.9 W.m-2 where C = 400ppm at 2015 and Co = 280ppm pre-industrial
    Theoretical CO2 df = 0.42 W.m-2 where C = 400ppm at 2015 and Co = 369.52ppm at 2000

    Actual TOA dF = 0 this century. Constant @ 0.6 W.m-2 2000 – 2010

    Theoretical CO2 forcing is therefore superfluous. What reason then for NZ to ratify the Paris agreement?

  28. Dennis N Horne on August 21, 2016 at 10:28 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). “What reason then for NZ to ratify the Paris agreement?”

    Simple. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. That is the consensus of the global scientific community.

    If you want to contest that, publish in a reputable journal.

    You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between scientific knowledge and scientific method.

    You need to show, using the scientific method, that the scientific knowledge is wrong. That requires showing where it’s wrong and or giving an alternative explanation for the phenomena observed due to global warming.

    This came up on kiwiblog:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
    Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

    There are thousands of scientists explaining bits of the science. Have a look at some. Forget the conspiracy stuff. Try to understand what they’re saying.

    Then maybe you might begin to understand where you are going wrong.

    I mean, it is possible you’re wrong, isn’t it? Or is that a fate reserved for everyone else?

  29. Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 10:45 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”If you think you have found a way to show that’s wrong, publish in a reputable journal.”

    Don’t need a journal Dennis, I’ve published on the internet:

    IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

    One of the 3 important notes in the introduction is this

    3) There is a discrepancy between the IPCC’s theoretical values and observational data which Chapter 10 did not address. Theoretical values were reported in Chapter 8, observational data was reported in Chapter 2. Unless a rock-solid explanation for the discrepancy is forthcoming from the IPCC, the discrepancy is fatal to the man-made climate change conjecture.

    As you can see upthread, the IPCC’s explanation in an obscure “Thematic Focus Element” (TFE) in the AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (not a main chapter note) is somewhat less than rock-solid:

    The IPCC cannot argue “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature” (TS TFE.4,Figure 1 upthread) makes up the difference because outgoing energy (OLR) is already accounted for in the earth’s energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 at TOA).

    And OLR at TOA is NOT increasing as upthread [see Graph: Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)]. And OLR is unrelated to lower troposphere temperature as upthread [see Diagram: OLR vs UAH].

    The IPCC case dissolves under scrutiny.

    This is not journal stuff Dennis, this is simple critique.

  30. Dennis N Horne on August 21, 2016 at 11:00 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). The scientific method involves publishing in a journal. If it’s a peer-reviewed journal climate scientists will read it and might take it seriously.

    Your work may then be verified or refuted.

    The only person you’re convincing on this blog is yourself. Not one scientist working in the field.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 12:46 am said:

    Dennis

    [Me] >“What reason then for NZ to ratify the Paris agreement?”
    [You] >”Simple. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. That is the consensus of the global scientific community.”

    Rubbish Dennis.

    The evidence for Man-Made Climate Change is not only not clear, the theory wildly overshoots observations in respect to the critical criteria. And climate science as per IPCC reports “incontrovertable”? Get real Dennis. AR5 is internally contradictory for starters. The AR5 observations actually falsify their attributions.

    >”If you want to contest that, publish in a reputable journal.”

    Not necessary as already laid out. The IPCC reports are NOT published in a journal. A simple critique of their assessment is adequate i.e. like-for-like, assessment vs critique. Don’t bother trotting this out again Dennis – it’s getting tiresome explaining its stupidity.

    >”You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between scientific knowledge and scientific method.”

    Rubbish again Dennis.

    Introduction to the Scientific Method
    The scientific method has four steps
    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

    1. The phenomenon observed is the earth’s energy imbalance measured at TOA.
    2. The Man-Made Climate Change hypothesis is formulated within the IPCC’s radiative forcing (Rf) paradigm which is in respect to the earth’s energy balance at TOA. The simplified mathematical relation for CO2 forcing at TOA is dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co).
    3. The hypothesis wildly overshoots new observations of the imbalance.
    4. 111 of 114 CMIP5 CO2-forced models do not reproduce 21st century temperature at surface.

    What is scientific knowledge based on?
    Scientific knowledge is based upon observation [1], and it is supplemented by experimentation [2]. Scientific research follows the scientific method [3], a four-step process that guides scientists in the accumulation of knowledge.
    https://www.reference.com/science/scientific-knowledge-based-9a05ad02a38494ca

    [1] The IPCC AR5 report has 2 critical observation chapters – Chapter 2 Atmosphere and Chapter 3 Ocean. These chapters falsify the TOA hypothesis (Chapters 2/8 ) and IPCC ocean attribution statement (Chapters 3/10) respectively.
    [2] CMIP5 experimentation has been a bust.
    [3] Back to the scientific method above.

    >”You need to show, using the scientific method, that the scientific knowledge is wrong. That requires showing where it’s wrong and or giving an alternative explanation for the phenomena observed due to global warming.”

    Already done in this thread, last thread, all over this blog, and in my previously linked article ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?’ You’re just not following Dennis.

    The IPCC fails to address the critical earth’s energy imbalance theory vs obs issue in their Detection and Attribution AR5 Chapter 10. They do explain but the explanation is hidden away in an obscure “Thematic Focus Element” (TFE) in the AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (not a main chapter note).

    The IPCC’s explanation for their theory vs observations discrepancy at TOA is provably a fallacy as I’ve shown upthread. This is simple critique Dennis. There is nothing complex about it although some legal analysis study and thermodynamics study helps immensely to identify the critical elements (I have both).

    And there is no necessity for an “alternative explanation” for the observed TOA imbalance phenomenon Dennis. The TOA imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) has already occurred at the surface (0.6 W.m-2 imbalance also). The surface imbalance is simply solar input predominantly to the oceanic heat sink. There is no other net downwards flux into the surface.

    This is easy to see in the IPCC’s cited earth’s energy budget (linked in ‘IPCC Ignores’ above):

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    The earth’s energy imbalance is self explanatory in that budget Dennis. GHGs are neither surface forcing nor TOA forcing. The only forcing is solar. There’s no GHG forcing at surface, net LW is (-ve) 52 W.m-2 OLR i.e. a cooling flux. And theoretical GHG forcing (“RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2” – IPCC) does not fit between surface (0.6) and TOA (0.6).

    BTW, the IPCC throws out ‘surface forcing’ because their criteria is TOA. But surface solar radiation (SSR) is by far the greatest forcing at the surface (think global dimming and brightening in the 20th century since 1920 and into the 21st).

    Upthread there’s a CERES map that clearly shows solar input heats the earth’s surface – GHGs have absolutely nothing to do with the latitudinal heating. Here’s the map and graph again:

    CERES Net Downward Flux 2001 – 2005
    This image shows net downward radiation flux at the top of Earth’s atmosphere in watts per square meter. Blues indicate regions losing heat; oranges and reds indicate where heat is building up. Averaged over the globe for the 2001-2005 period, 0.51 watts per square meter of energy are accumulating, which is causing the planet to warm. Data are from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES), which helps scientists understand Earth’s heat budget. (Courtesy R. P. Allan)
    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/media/ceres-net-downward-flux.jpg

    This is all self explanatory Dennis. The sun heats the earth in the tropics. The excess tropical energy is dissipated from extratropics and sub polar and polar regions. Some excess tropical energy is accumulating in the oceanic heat sink (0.51 W.m-2). This can only physically be solar forcing – Period.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 1:40 am said:

    Dennis

    >”The scientific method involves publishing in a journal.”

    No it does not Dennis. My response to this repeated nonsense from above:

    “Don’t bother trotting this out again Dennis – it’s getting tiresome explaining its stupidity.”

    There is no “publishing in a journal” step in ‘Introduction to the Scientific Method’ upthread.

    ‘Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, were not peer reviewed’
    “Peer review by anonymous unpaid reviewers is not a part of the Scientific Method.”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/

    Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to a chapel door i.e. the public domain – he did not seek prior review by the Vatican (natch). Now days I suspect he would use the internet. Same with our critique of IPCC dogma.

    And plenty of evidence that the IPCC gatekeepers block certain publications:

    Climategate Part Two: The Undermining of the Scientific Method
    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! -Phil Jones email Jul. 8, 2004
    http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup/

    Again (sigh), simply critiquing a public domain IPCC assessment does not require journal publication. You’re just making up an idiotic self-imposed rule Dennis. The purpose of investigation here at CCG (and every other sceptic blog) is to gain an understanding of the critical issues in IPCC assessments.

    The final arbiter of both assessment and critique is not “climate scientists” Dennis. I don’t give a toss what “climate scientists” say but I’m intensely interested in what the ongoing observations of climate are saying. Basically, the observations are saying the Man-Made Climate Change theory (in respect to TOA) is busted this century. Who cares what “climate scientists” say in that case. I certainly don’t. They’re wrong, the climate is right.

    The final arbiter is the climate. The IPCC concede, in both AR5 Technical Summary and Chapter 9 Evaluating Climate Models, that 111 of 114 CMIP5 models are not reproducing surface temperature this century. They even offer reasons WHY not. Two reasons being neglect of natural variation (which sceptics knew) and over sensitivity to GHG forcing (which sceptics knew too). It is readily apparent now that GHG forcing is redundant.

    You keep trotting out inanity here Dennis because you can’t follow simple plain text reasoning and facts laid out by calcs and graphics. You are out of your depth in other words. You can only cope with abstract superficial concepts, details elude you. Give up or get a grasp of the critical issues by intellectual effort.

    And watch the actual climate Dennis. Time is finding out the fatal flaws in the Man-made Climate Change theory subscribed to by your vaunted “climate scientists”.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 2:02 am said:

    Dennis N Horne on August 21, 2016 at 10:28 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ). “What reason then for NZ to ratify the Paris agreement?”

    Simple. The evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. That is the consensus of the global scientific community.

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/nz-about-to-ratify-paris-agreement-will-they-ask-our-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1507889

    Except what I actually said was:

    Richard C (NZ) on August 21, 2016 at 9:41 pm said:

    Theoretical CO2 dF = 1.9 W.m-2 where C = 400ppm at 2015 and Co = 280ppm pre-industrial
    Theoretical CO2 df = 0.42 W.m-2 where C = 400ppm at 2015 and Co = 369.52ppm at 2000

    Actual TOA dF = 0 this century. Constant @ 0.6 W.m-2 2000 – 2010

    Theoretical CO2 forcing is therefore superfluous. What reason then for NZ to ratify the Paris agreement?

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/nz-about-to-ratify-paris-agreement-will-they-ask-our-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-1507882

    So correcting Dennis in light of theory vs actual – “The evidence is [anything but] clear and the science [is not] incontrovertible. [The] consensus of the global [climate] scientific community [is wrong obviously].”

    Nice try Dennis but no cigar. Sorry.

  34. Dennis N Horne on August 22, 2016 at 4:37 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    I have explained to you what you must do if you want to persuade the scientific community: Publish.

    That is part of the scientific method. It allows the work to be reviewed, verified or refuted.

    Incidentally the scientific method is what working scientists agree it is. And all the great institutions and societies accept the science of climate change as good science.

    You don’t.

    Well, you have a problem. Not them.

    You can write as much mumbo jumbo on blogs as you like, nobody’s going to read it.

  35. Maybe Dennis would be better posting links to naked statues of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, like he does at Hot Topic

  36. Incidentally speaking of Hot Topic, my comment about Clinton being the most corrupt politician in US history got snipped as unsubstantiated

    Guess Gareth didn’t watch Clinton Cash or the other doco about all those mysterious deaths

    Anyway I digress ….

  37. I thought the scientific method involves making assertions or conjectures that could be tested or falsified

    I see little of that in climate science, which seems to be largely an exercise in looking for things that agree with AGW and ignoring evidence that counters it

    Anyway, it is pointless writing these words because no one will read them,
    As Dennis correctly points out

  38. Speaking of experts, I have a meeting with the Ministry for Environment this afternoon

    This may give me some more opportunities to insult people in person, as I did at our last community group meeting

  39. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 8:10 am said:

    Dennis

    >”I have explained to you what you must do if you want to persuade the scientific community: Publish”

    I don’t give a toss about the “scientific community” in regard to climate and the IPCC Dennis. I’ve already explained that. Public issues are for the public.This self explanatory critique is outside the “scientific community” in the public domain Dennis, If you cannot comprehend and have to plead “journal” that’s your problem.

    The IPCC published in the public domain, NOT in a scientific journal. IPCC AR5 WGI Technical Summary citation is this:

    2013: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

    I’m sure they checked spelling and punctuation at that “journal”.

    All they have done is put it all in the public domain Dennis, whatever subsequent critique takes place is in the public domain too. These are public issues not confined to climate science and the IPCC. If the IPCC can be simply shown to be wrong in a public forum (and they can) then their case is extremely limp don’t you think Dennis?

    And besides, as I’ve already pointed out, the final arbiter is NOT the “scientific community” – that happens to be the actual climate. All i have to do is point to a TOA energy imbalance that hasn’t budged this century despite all the IPCC prognostications and game over.

    TOA imbalance static – game over.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 8:29 am said:

    >”TOA imbalance static – game over.”

    This is in respect to the IPCC’s primary climate CHANGE criteria, which is (abbreviated):

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”

    And,

    [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    A valid CO2 forcing, by IPCC definition, requires the TOA imbalance to “CHANGE” in trend commensurate with CO2 increase in the atmosphere and the “forcing” derived from that. The imbalance trend has NOT changed this century, it is simply fluctuating and trendless (the IPCC concede that in WG1 Chapter 2). Certainly no “change” commensurate with CO2 forcing.

    Who out there in the emissions-taxed economy really needs to read this simple fact in a “journal publication”?

  41. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 8:38 am said:

    Dennis

    >”I have explained to you what you must do if you want to persuade the scientific community: Publish”

    The NZCSC published their statistical audit of NIWA’s 7SS in a journal (de Freitas, Dedekind and Brill 2014).

    Did that “persuade the scientific community”?

    No.

    Willie Soon publishes his work in scientific journals. Does he “persuade the scientific community”?

    No.

  42. I pointed out my maths for the 0.4/1.0m sea level projection at at recent community meeting and was told by council staff that it was “not helpful”

    In general, a display of utter contempt was forthcoming. One Ecan councillor said it was “weird” that the community should be involved in determining the makeup of a peer review panel. One councillor, David East, one of the good guys in my view, said that the experience of local knowledge by residents was perhaps of greater value than a newly minted post graduate with an expertise in computer modeling. This comment was met with widespread derision

    This is what we are up against, so simply asking people to publish isn’t very helpful

  43. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 9:01 am said:

    Dennis

    >”I have explained to you what you must do if you want to persuade the scientific community: Publish”

    The IPCC’s aim is not to ”persuade the scientific community”. Their aim is to persuade the world-at-large in the public domain. They published at a printer (Cambridge University Press) and have a dedicated website.

    The NIPCC’s aim is to offer an alternative climate assessment. They also have a dedicated website

    The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-nipcc/

    And,

    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science published in October 2013. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

    Foreward and Preface
    Executive Summary
    Chapter 1. Global Climate Models
    Chapter 2. Forcings and Feedbacks
    Chapter 3. Solar Forcing of Climate
    Chapter 4. Observations: Temperature
    Chapter 5. Observations: The Cryosphere
    Chapter 6. Observations: The Hydrosphere
    Chapter 7. Observations: Extreme Weather
    Appendix 1: Acronyms
    Appendix 2: Authors Directory

    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/#tabs-1-1

    All in the public domain Dennis. No “journal”. Anyone can read and make up their own minds.

    Note Chapter 3. Solar Forcing of Climate Dennis. The IPCC doesn’t have a chapter dedicated to solar forcing of climate – it’s not in their mandate.

  44. The MfE draft guidance doc on sea level rise claims that SLR is accelerating in NZ and that the anthropogenic signal is clear.

    Both statements are false

  45. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 9:46 am said:

    Also from NIPCC Publications page:

    In July 2014, Whitehead & Associates Environmental Consultants, in consultation with Coastal Environment and with funding from the NSW Government, produced a report for Eurobodalla Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council titled “South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Framework, Exhibition Draft.” A careful analysis of this report produced by a team of scientists assembled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) finds it does not provide reliable guidance to the complicated issues of measuring, forecasting, and responding to sea-level rise.

    The authors observe that wide variations in rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence in different locations around the world at particular times mean no effective coastal management plan can rest upon speculative computer projections regarding an idealised future global sea level, such as those provided by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Coastal management must instead rest upon accurate knowledge of local geological, meteorological and oceanographical conditions, including, amongst other things, changes in local relative sea level.

    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/other-nipcc-publications/

    Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report
    By Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.
    September 14, 2014
    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NIPCC-Report-on-NSW-Coastal-SL-9z-corrected.pdf

    1. Introduction

    The issue of sea-level change, and in particular the identification of a speculative human contribution to that change, is a complex topic. Given the scientific and political controversy that surrounds the matter, the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils are to be congratulated for seeking fresh advice on the topic.

    2. Over-reliance on a single authority: Inadequacies of the IPCC
    3. Deficiency of adopting IPCC emissions scenario RCP 8.5 as a basis for planning

    # # #

    Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils had a different frame of reference than Christchurch City council apparently.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 10:27 am said:

    The IPCC derive “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature” for TS TFE.4 Figure 1 because, as they put it, “As the climate system warms, energy is lost to space through increased outgoing radiation [OLR]”:

    TFE.4 Figure 1
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    TS
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

    They discard the satellite measurements of which they say – “The top of the atmosphere radiative flux measurements are highly precise”.

    CERES OLR graph upthread vs UAH but Kiwi Thinker (Robin Pittwood) got hold of the NOAA’s OLR data and graphed it vs UAH and RSS:

    NOAA OLR vs Average of UAH/RSS 1979 – 2012
    http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OLWIR-Temp-and-SB.jpg

    The graph has an increasing linear trendline imposed on it by Robin but since 2002/2003 there has been no OLR increase. Actually a decrease 2003 to 2012. Certainly no increase 1979 to 2000 either. that was a flat fluctuation too. The hike only occurred 2000 to 2003.

    This data is what the IPCC describe as “highly precise” but promptly discard in favour of their theory. But the OLR data contradicts the IPCC’s “inferred” OLR increase this century.

    Again, as upthread and modified, The IPCC cannot argue “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature” (TS TFE.4,Figure 1) makes up the discrepancy difference between theoretical TOA imbalance forcings and observed imbalance because outgoing energy (OLR) is already accounted for in the earth’s energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 at TOA). And OLR at TOA is NOT increasing this century. And OLR is unrelated to lower troposphere temperature as graphed.

    The IPCC case dissolves under scrutiny.

    They have no rock solid explanation for the TOA theory vs obs discrepancy.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 11:02 am said:

    RT apologies. The previous comment referred below is in the wrong thread. Delete it maybe? I’ll copy it into the next post thread where it is appropriate:

    Richard C (NZ) on August 22, 2016 at 10:54 am said: ‘The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling’

    ——————-
    Sure. Done. – RT

  48. Dennis N Horne on August 22, 2016 at 7:08 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) “And besides, as I’ve already pointed out, the final arbiter is NOT the “scientific community” – that happens to be the actual climate.”

    That is meaningless humbug, like the rest of your thoughts on the subject.

    Our best reality is the scientific consensus. Climate change isn’t just the balance of informed opinion of a few scientists today, it has a broad and deep agreement developed over many many years.

    It just doesn’t get any better than that.

    There is global warming and climate change as predicted. That is a simple statement of fact. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the global scientific community.

    The IPCC comprises experts who give an opinion based on the evidence after studying the literature. That is a common function of science. There are a huge amount number of papers covering the enormous amount of work being done by thousands of scientists around the world. Solar output is not ignored. Stupid notion.

    You speak about Carter, de Freitas and Soon. Whatever they published was immediately debunked. Quite simply, wrong. Rubbish. Rejected. By everybody who knew what he was talking about.

    Now I say to you again, and for the last time. Study the science and try to find out where you are wrong. Wrong because there is global warming and climate change. Due to man’s emissions of CO2.

  49. “Whatever the published was immediately debunked”

    How immediate? A nanosecond?

  50. The IPCC comprises experts who give an opinion based on the evidence after studying the literature

    Give an opinion? Don’t these “experts” publish their own material?

  51. I went to a meeting last night where an MfE guy (Dan) listened to the local community and asked for our feedback on the process, so we shouldn’t assume that they are not interested in engaging the public

    This was on coastal hazards, not the Paris agreement though

  52. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 9:24 am said:

    Dennis

    >”That is meaningless humbug, like the rest of your thoughts on the subject.”

    Sans actual rebuttal of anything. You’re way out of your depth on that aren’t you Dennis.

    >”Our best reality is the scientific consensus.”

    Our best reality is reality Dennis i.e. the actual climate. When the “consensus” is embodied in CO2-forced climate models the models are NOT reproducing 21st Century climate.

    >”It just doesn’t get any better than that.”

    Well no, the “consensus” doesn’t unfortunately. The IPCC admits CO2 forcing is at least excessive in their models, natural variation (MDV) has been neglected, and they are not modeling 21st Century reality. That’s about as good as it gets for the “consensus”.

    >”There is global warming and climate change as predicted. That is a simple statement of fact. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the global scientific community.”

    Again. We know Dennis. We also know it was warming BEFORE the IPCC’s anthro attribution period begins in 1950. And warming and cooling before that. The problem is the period after 1950 – sifting out an anthro signal from natural variation (MDV). That has not been done yet because MDV has been neglected and CO2 forcing is at least excessive as admitted by the IPCC (AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 and Technical Summary).

    >”The IPCC comprises experts who give an opinion based on the evidence after studying the literature. That is a common function of science. There are a huge amount number of papers covering the enormous amount of work being done by thousands of scientists around the world.”

    Exactly Dennis, a narrative interspersed with citations and graphs. That’s not a big deal, anyone can do that Dennis. The NIPCC did it too. Except the IPCC ignores an enormous amount of literature. For example the NIPCC has a dedicated solar forcing chapter (3) with a screed of citations. The IPCC doesn’t. I have an IPCC solar “expert” (Mike Lockwood) on email record giving the reason they didn’t consider Shapiro et al’s work of any consequence was because he “didn’t understand their methodology”.

    >”Solar output is not ignored. Stupid notion.”

    Didn’t say it was. Stupid notion if you think I did say that Dennis. TSI is the only “natural” forcing in the IPCC’s TOA forcing paradigm – of course that is not ignored, it is the default forcing. What I said was the IPCC throw out ‘surface forcing’. This is an undeniable fact Dennis (see below).

    There are 2 solar forcings Dennis, TSI at TOA and and SSR at surface. But TSI at TOA is the only solar forcing the IPCC considers. Anyone with a rooftop solar system will tell you about SSR due to cloudiness. Among others like Martim Wild, Ohmura (2009) studied global SSR over the 20th century and found an SSR forcing at surface far greater than TSI at TOA.

    Solar is the topic of the next post and thread Dennis – go there.

    SSR was covered extensively in the ‘Warmists more frantic’ thread – go there Dennis.

    For example this:

    Romanou et al 2007

    ”The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface [SSR] is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate”

    Wild 2009

    “While these models reproduce the overall twentieth century warming over global land surfaces well, they underestimate the decadal variations in the warming and particularly also in diurnal temperature range, indicative of a lack of decadal variations in surface solar radiation [SSR] in the models.”

    Wild and Schmucki 2010

    “Climate models and reanalyses are therefore not yet at a stage to provide regionally consistent estimates of decadal changes in SSR.”

    Ohmura 2009

    ”The magnitudes of the variation [1920 – 2000] are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively.”

    “The temperature sensitivity of the [SSR] radiation change is estimated at 0.05 to 0.06 K/(W m−2)”

    +12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.

    SSR explains 20th century warming without recourse to GHGs.

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/warmists-more-frantic/#comment-1505987

    But the IPCC rejects ‘surface forcing’ including SSR:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 TS 2.6 Surface Forcing and the Hydrologic Cycle

    “The instantaneous radiative flux change at the surface (hereafter called ‘surface forcing’) is a useful diagnostic tool for understanding changes in the heat and moisture surface budgets and the accompanying climate change. However, unlike radiative forcing, it cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change. Net radiative forcing and surface forcing have different equator-to-pole gradients in the NH, and are different between the NH and SH. {2.9, 7.2, 7.5, 9.5} “

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-6.html

    SSR is what heats the earth’s surface Dennis – but the IPCC reject SSR (‘surface forcing’).

    >”You speak about Carter, de Freitas and Soon. Whatever they published was immediately debunked. Quite simply, wrong. Rubbish. Rejected. By everybody who knew what he was talking about.”

    All bluster from you Dennis – not a single fact or citation.

    >”Now I say to you again, and for the last time. Study the science and try to find out where you are wrong. Wrong because there is global warming and climate change. Due to man’s emissions of CO2.”

    As you can see from above Dennis (citations Dennis, you don’t do citations do you Dennis?), I DO study the science and from the welter of literature it becomes perfectly clear that the IPCC’s case for CO2 is not only grossly deficient, it dissolves under scrutiny.

    The entire atmospheric-CO2-heating-earth’s-surface conjecture violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and is contrary to the earth’s energy budget at surface cited by the IPCC (no net LWIR flux down – only net SW).

    So the conjecture was falsified from the outset. But it will go on until reality (the actual climate) calls time.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 10:16 am said:

    Dennis N Horne on August 22, 2016 at 7:08 pm said:

    “Our best reality is the scientific consensus”

    This has to be a Warmy classic from the otherworldly virtual-reality world of Warmer World.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 10:23 am said:

    ‘Renowned professor exposes the money-making global warming gravy train’

    by Thomas Richard, Blasting News on August 22, 2016

    Shortly after Donald Trump reiterated his energy policies last week at a speech in Bismarck, North Dakota, the usual #Climate Change suspects crawled out of the woodwork to voice their opposition. Leading the pack was Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame, a climate activist and professor of meteorology at Penn State, who said that Trump’s energy plan and policies would be an “existential threat to the planet.” After Mann made his comments, more climate experts (who are also on the mainstream media’s speed dial) jumped on the end-of-days bandwagon: Kevin Trenberth, Jennifer Francis, Katharine Hayhoe, James Hansen, etc…

    But according to emeritus Professor Michael Hart, who published the book, Hubris: The troubling #Science, economics, and politics of climate change, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Why? Because climate change dogma has been turned into a grant-making gravy train that rewards the hysteria while starving out the doubters.

    The more Hart researched the global warming phenomenon, he quickly learned how the new regulations rolled out by the Obama administration and the United Nations are all backed up by shoddy science.

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/renowned-professor-exposes-the-money-making-global-warming-gravy-train/

    Read rest…

    The regulatory regime is here
    Confirmation bias
    The new moneymaker
    Ending the climate change nonsense

    http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/08/renowned-professor-exposes-the-money-making-global-warming-gravy-train-001076509.html

  55. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 10:33 am said:

    ““Our best reality is the scientific consensus”- Dennis Horne

    Reminds me of the Mythbusters tee-shirt:

    “I reject your reality and substitute my own”

  56. Dennis accepts the science that catastrophic climate change is real and irreversible

    So what is little Dennis going to do other than post links to articles about naked Donald Trump statues to Hot Topic?

    Is he sitting by his computer having a little giggle?

  57. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 9:24 am said:
    I DO study the science and from the welter of literature it becomes perfectly clear that the IPCC’s case for CO2 is not only grossly deficient, it dissolves under scrutiny. The entire atmospheric-CO2-heating-earth’s-surface conjecture violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and is contrary to the earth’s energy budget at surface cited by the IPCC (no net LWIR flux down – only net SW).
    Oh dear, you’re starting to sound like this guy’s uncle:
    http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/hendrix-uncle/

  58. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm said:

    Simon

    Dennis’ argument reduces to – “consensus” and “publish”. Now you pop up with – “comic strip”.

    Well, I can play this game too Simon. Your argument in now no more than “reduction to absurdity”:

    Reductio ad absurdum

    Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: “argument to absurdity”, pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance

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

    Have you got anything else in your box of tricks Simon?

  59. There is always the SkS escalator graph; that seems to get them in hysterics

  60. Some of your ‘proofs’ do fall into the reductio ad absurdum category Richard.
    The escalator is a great chart because it shows the absurdity of the ‘pause’ argument. It won’t be long now until a 2016 data point will make the pause even more ridiculous.
    I also haven’t forgotten that Richard still thinks that Gavin Schmidt has got it wrong and that 2016 won’t be the warmest year ever. I am expecting lots of hand-waving and pointing at satellite proxies of the lower troposphere. Don’t look too closely at the surface, you might not like what you find.

  61. The pause is absurd, yet it seems to generate a lot of papers about it

  62. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 6:39 pm said:

    Simon

    >”It won’t be long now until a 2016 data point will make the pause even more ridiculous.”

    Really? I don’t think so Simon. Just 5 months of data doesn’t make the pause go away, there’s a couple of years of La Nina to come yet.

    >”Don’t look too closely at the surface, you might not like what you find.”

    I’ve looked closely and I like it Simon:

    Latest GISTEMP July anomaly is 0.83. That’s only a little above the annual mean 0.66 that at 2013 was ENSO-neutral and typical of the 20th Century. The YTD average only has to fall another 0.189 over the next 5 months and Schmidt’s on a loser:

    GISS L-OTI Global
    1998 0.63 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012
    2002 0.63
    2003 0.62
    2006 0.63
    2007 0.66
    2009 0.64
    2012 0.63
    2013 0.66 << ENSO-neutral
    2016 0.83 << July anomaly and La Nina on the way
    2018 0.66 << ???? ENSO-neutral

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
    2015 annual mean 0.87
    2016 114 133 129 109 93 79 84 average YTD 1.059 and difference to 2015: 0.189

    And Southern Hemisphere is not exactly a scare story:

    GISS L-OTI Southern Hemisphere
    1998 0.54 << One third of all industrial CO2 emissions 1998 – 2012
    2002 0.56
    2003 0.52
    2005 0.55
    2009 0.59
    2012 0.50
    2013 0.55 << ENSO-neutral
    2014 0.58
    2018 0.55 < 99% chance” of a new record is toast. Any 2016 record would be meaningless by 2018 anyway because the data will be back flat after La Nina.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 7:19 pm said:

    >”The pause is absurd, yet it seems to generate a lot of papers about it”

    Considerable angst:

    ‘Tracking the Missing Heat from the Global Warming Hiatus’

    By Christina Reed  21 May 2015

    Despite indications that the Pacific Ocean is helping to take up the world’s missing surface heat, the heat doesn’t linger; oceanographers now find that heat has moved over to the Indian Ocean.

    https://eos.org/articles/tracking-the-missing-heat-from-the-global-warming-hiatus

    And, from NASA EARTHDATA – Missing heat

    ‘Scientists search the deep oceans to balance Earth’s energy budget’

    by Laura Naranjo October 13, 2015

    But after rapid warming in the 1980s and 1990s, the rate seemed to slow. Continued high continental temperatures were offset by curiously cool ocean surfaces. Yet most scientific evidence, and the inexorable increases in heat trapping greenhouse gases, indicated global temperatures should be climbing at a greater rate. This missing heat had to go somewhere—if not in the surface layers, where?

    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-resources/sensing-our-planet/missing-heat

    # # #

    The heat is in the ocean but it was never “missing” heat and it didn’t get there via “heat trapping greenhouse gases”. It got there via solar input and whatever superheat comes up from the sea floor – all 1,600,000 ZetaJoules of it.

    Ocean is the earth’s heat sink – atmosphere isn’t, it is a bit player; an energy transfer medium.

    ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’ – Kevin E Trenberth

    “An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years”

    http://www.oco.noaa.gov/roleofOcean.html

    Easy to see where the earth is heated. From NASA EARTHDATA above:

    CERES net downward radiation flux at the top of Earth’s atmosphere
    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/media/ceres-net-downward-flux.jpg

    The sun heats the earth, and ocean, in the tropics – Period.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 7:26 pm said:

    Should be, at end of GISS L-OTI Southern Hemisphere:

    2013 0.55 << ENSO-neutral
    2014 0.58
    2018 0.55 < 99% chance” of a new record is toast. Any 2016 record would be meaningless by 2018 anyway because the data will be back flat after La Nina.

  65. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 7:35 pm said:

    Doing something wrong. I’ll try again.

    Should be, at end of GISS L-OTI Southern Hemisphere:

    Southern Hemisphere
    2013 0.55 << ENSO-neutral
    2014 0.58
    2018 0.55 ???? ENSO-Neutral

    The Global YTD anomaly only has to fall another 0.189 and Schmidt's chance of a new record is toast.

    Any 2016 record would be meaningless by 2018 anyway because the data will be back flat after La Nina.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on August 23, 2016 at 8:00 pm said:

    >” It [ocean heat] got there via solar input and whatever superheat comes up from the sea floor – all 1,600,000 ZetaJoules of it.”

    ‘Jamaica Literally Sits on One of The World’s Largest Thermal Energy Source’

    NEWS EDITOR | May 15, 2016

    Scientists found the deepest known hydrothermal vents, some 5 kilometres down beneath the waves of the Caribbean in the Cayman Trough.

    “In a nutshell, the Mid-Cayman Rise displays perhaps the broadest range of mid-ocean ridge geologic processes all active in the same place,” said German. “It makes a perfect natural laboratory in which to study all kinds of aspects of hydrothermal flow.- Oceanus Magazine

    Less than one hundred and ninety (190) miles and within its territorial waters defined as its Exclusive Economic Zone, west of Negril Point between Jamaica and Cayman Island lies the largest spread of super-heated hot water vents in the world, capable of producing well over fifty two (52 GW) Gigawatts or some 52,000 Mega Watt of energy.

    The technology to develop and harness this vast source of clean renewable energy is available in the form of repurposing deep ocean oil rig platform.

    http://ace876daily.com/2016/05/15/jamaica-literally-sits-on-one-of-the-worlds-largest-thermal-energy-source/

  67. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 8:30 am said:

    Andy, the Editorial ends with this:

    “Removing less-than-robust details from those residents’ LIMs is the right thing to do. But once maps based on more rigorous research are produced, they should certainly be put on to land reports. Potential purchasers need clear, unequivocal guidance of all the risks that come with buying any property. Transparency is critical, as is an understanding that the risk, once established, does not disappear regardless of whether it appears in paperwork.”

    Except the review recommends “more than one IPCC scenario” and a further regular reviews. So what will be the “rigourous” scenario? There cannot be just one i.e. “unequivocal” is impossible.

    And still no mention anywhere of a default “no change in rate” scenario. That is the situation as it stands at present but no-one seems to want to know about it.

  68. Richard Treadgold on August 24, 2016 at 8:34 am said:

    Andy,

    Are you pleased with the process? How about the decision?

  69. I’m happy with the results to date.

    These include possible relaxation of the very restrictive building codes (via Independent Hearings Panel), the dropping of the original coastal hazards zones that was done last year (but not the “high flood management zone” which includes the coastal areas I am in) and this possible dropping of LIM tagging.

    This should give us some room to breathe.

  70. Richard Treadgold on August 24, 2016 at 8:48 am said:

    You and others have done a lot of work to bring it this far. Well done, you all.

  71. Simon Arnold from Kapiti deserves a special mention. He has been a wonderful ally

  72. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 8:54 am said:

    Should be

    “2016 114 133 129 109 93 79 [83] average YTD 1.059 and difference to 2015: 0.189”

    Schmidt’s prediction for 2016 was not just for a “new record” but for 2016 to be 0.2 C higher than 2015 (plus or minus).

    YTD to July 2016 is 0.189 C higher than 2015 with 5 more months to come in. So Schmidt is on track but ONLY if there’s no La Nina cooling in the next 5 months.

    Somewhat hollow boast if he cracks it given the El Nino heat from earlier in the year that he claimed for AGW/MMCC is already GONE – dissipated to space.

  73. Sorry about the misthread. I guess this needs a post of its own, which no doubt I need to write 🙂

  74. Richard Treadgold on August 24, 2016 at 8:58 am said:

    Yeah, great idea, and thanks for the offer!

  75. I’ll try to find some time..

  76. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 9:08 am said:

    Andy,

    >”I went to a meeting last night where an MfE guy (Dan) listened to the local community and asked for our feedback on the process, so we shouldn’t assume that they are not interested in engaging the public”

    The CCC process seems to be setting what in legal terms would be described as a “case precedent” i.e. the rest of the coastal councils, and MfE, will follow suit.

    Given the CCC process will not be resolved for some time yet this must leave many authorities, and the MfE, in a bit of a quandary, or limbo perhaps. I don’t see how any authority can make hard-and-fast pronouncements on sea level rise anymore. That includes the MfE.

  77. I do sense a little bit of history being made, so to speak

    MfE seem quite cagey about making hard and fast pronouncements on specific numbers with respect to sea level projections

  78. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 12:06 pm said:

    >”Somewhat hollow boast if he [Schmidt] cracks it given the El Nino heat from earlier in the year that he claimed for AGW/MMCC is already GONE – dissipated to space.”

    The Annual Mean is meaningless – only the latest Monthly Mean matters:

    GISS: Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature [mouse-over for anomaly]
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.html

    This Monthly Mean is the graph that tells the real story – not Schmidt’s Annual Mean or a YTD average of months. The annual mean retains the early year high El Nino temperature, the monthly mean doesn’t.

    So an annual mean “record” does not actually exist except on paper. The only data that actually matters is the latest monthly data. Currently the July anomaly is unremarkable.

    The above graph has mouse-over functionality because it is HTML. I really like this feature.

    The graph is available at:

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – Analysis Graphs and Plots
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#

    >> Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change
    >> Figure also available as a PNG, PDF, HTML, plain text, CSV, or Generate PNG of the visualizations current state.

    Select “HTML”.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 12:49 pm said:

    Simon, Whoever.

    I’ve moved GISS Monthly Mean anomaly discussion to the next ‘Govt Ignores Science in Rush to Ratify Paris Climate Accord’ thread:

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/govt-ignores-science-in-rush-to-ratify-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-1508406

    Seems more appropriate there.

  80. 0.84°C above the 1951-1980 mean is hardly unremarkable. It is surprising as the El Nino has well and truly passed. How can you explain the anomaly if “the only data that actually matters is the latest monthly data. “. Undersea volcanos? (see cartoon above)
    For a bonus point, what is the underlying trend of the charted data?

  81. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 2:13 pm said:

    Simon

    >”0.84°C above the 1951-1980 mean is hardly unremarkable. It is surprising as the El Nino has well and truly passed.”

    Rubbish. For July, the oceanic El Nino has only passed, in terms of SSTs, in regions 3 and 3.4. Not so much in 1+2 and 4 which were still positive:

    ENSO region SSTs
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif

    So the oceanic El Nino had not passed by July and the air temperature was still influenced by El Nino SSTs. The oceanic El Nino heat is still dissipating. It would not surprise me if there’s another blip up in August but once all the El Nino heat has dissipated from the atmosphere there’s only one way for the monthly mean – down to ENSO-neutral.

    The July anomaly is unremarkable, to see why go to the next thread here:

    [Warning: Extreme caution – very close look at recent monthly surface data]
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/govt-ignores-science-in-rush-to-ratify-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-1508416

    >”How can you explain the anomaly if “the only data that actually matters is the latest monthly data. “.

    Huh? The latest monthly data IS the latest monthly anomaly you goose. An anomaly is in respect to the climatological baseline. The latest data is a monthly anomaly from the baseline. On the way down from El Nino, July is only 0.18 above the typical 21st Century 0.66 anomaly.

    >”For a bonus point, what is the underlying trend of the charted data?”

    What is the underlying trend? A meaningless assumption as I’ve already commented because it ignores where the data is going now (down) and whatever “warming” was in the atmosphere early this year has all but GONE Simon. All you are looking at now in the past is a historical paper record but the intervening spike has GONE in reality. Even though it has GONE it will of course distort a historical linear trend (or any other trend). Look at current data and where it is going Simon. The latest monthly anomaly is all that matters.

    And take this discussion to the next thread.

  82. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm said:

    >”What is the underlying trend? A meaningless assumption as I’ve already commented”

    This being in the next thread here:

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/08/govt-ignores-science-in-rush-to-ratify-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-1508406

  83. Dennis N Horne on August 24, 2016 at 3:59 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    So, what goes on in your mind does not involve observations, thoughts and ideas. The climate enters directly as your view of reality.

    Really? How?

    Everything we know about the universe is an interpretation made by our brains acting on nerve impulses from the sensory organs.

    When a great many scientists around the world study a phenomenon over a long period, and state that their interpretations are broadly the same, we have a very important consensus view.

    Of course it is possible for a genius to show us a better interpretation.

    By publishing his view.

    And changing the consensus.

  84. What is the consensus?

    Can someone advise me what all these thousands of scientists agree on?

  85. Richard Treadgold on August 24, 2016 at 5:05 pm said:

    Wikipedia says:

    The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:

    1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
    2. “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
    3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.

    These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.

    There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report, the Oregon Petition, and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.

    So the temperature has gone up half a degree in 170 years, more than half the warming might have been caused by us, and unproven computer models project the warming to continue.

    If that is the scientific consensus, we’re all saved! On the other hand, if you have a better definition of a climate consensus, please describe it now.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 5:25 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”The climate enters directly as your view of reality. Really? How?”

    Well duh. The actual climate this century, in terms of temperature, is well below “consensus” expectations. The IPCC admits this Dennis (how many times do I have to say this?).

    >”When a great many scientists around the world study a phenomenon over a long period, and state that their interpretations are broadly the same, we have a very important consensus view.”

    Exactly. VERY important. Problem is: the “consensus view” has a problem – “Missing Heat”.

    Google search – missing heat 21st century
    https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?complete=0&hl=en&gws_rd=cr&ei=tyO9V5X4O4a60ATnsKH4Cw#complete=0&hl=en&q=missing+heat+21st+century+&btnK=Google+Search

    The heat is missing from the atmosphere (where the “consensus” thinks it SHOULD be), so the search for the missing heat has inevitably gone to the ocean (see articles upthread on this). But the IPCC has made ocean warming anthropogenic-attribution-by-speculation. They have no science whatsoever to back up their attribution claim. No citations. No observations. No evidence.

    After 25 years and 5 assessment reports, they still only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the anthro ocean warming mechanism. They could not find said fluxes in AR5 WG1 Chapter 10. The notion is a physical impossibility anyway, even just looking at the IPCC’s cited surface energy budget (see below), but they make an anthro attribution anyway.

    The root word of the word “speculation”and the word they use in their attribution, “expect”, is “spect”:

    Word Root Of The Day – #115 spect → see

    The Latin root word spect and its variant spic both mean “see.”

    17. speculate: to “see” something in a certain way that may or may not be factual

    http://www.membean.com/wrotds/spect-see

    So the IPCC “see” something [ocean warming] in a certain way [anthropogenic attribution] that may or may not be factual [turns out not factual].

    This is a monumental problem for the “consensus” Dennis. All the theoretical anthropogenic forcing at TOA (the “consensus”) says the surface SHOULD be warming more than it is. It isn’t, so the reasoning then is – “Well um, hmm. Where did the theoretical heat go? I know, it must have gone into the ocean”.

    This is where the bogus, unphysical, ocean warming anthropogenic-attribution-by-speculation comes in.

    Renwick and Naish (and Royal Society NZ – Ten by Ten: Climate Change) have been peddling this bogosity in their ‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change’ series:

    ‘Ten things you didn’t know about climate change’
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/81885264/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change

    #3 is:

    “93% of the heat from human kind’s global warming………….. has gone into the sea”

    This is provably false. Either by the IPCC’s own surface energy budget (below) or the physics of the AO interface.

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    This is scientific fraud Dennis.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 5:49 pm said:

    >”The actual climate this century, in terms of temperature, is well below “consensus” expectations. The IPCC admits this Dennis (how many times do I have to say this?).”

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary

    Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

    The observed GMST has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Box TS.3, Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one third to one half of the trend over 1951–2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04°C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11°C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in NH winter. Even with this ‘hiatus’ in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. {2.4.3, 9.4.1; Box 9.2; Table 2.7}

    Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5
    ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. {2.4.3, 9.3.2, 9.4.1; Box 9.2}

    This is highly problematic for the “consensus” because one third of all human industrial FF emissions were from 1998 to 2012. More since.

    But according to the NZ Royal Society, Tim Naish and James Renwick, the heat in question in the troposphere is only “[7%] of the heat from human kind’s global warming”.

    Dennis, do you see now how the “consensus” is tying itself in knots?

  88. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 6:47 pm said:

    >This is a monumental problem for the “consensus” Dennis. All the theoretical anthropogenic forcing at TOA (the “consensus”) says the surface SHOULD be warming more than it is. It isn’t, so the reasoning then is – “Well um, hmm. Where did the theoretical heat go? I know, it must have gone into the ocean”

    Their total “effective” theoretical radiative forcing at TOA (ERF), including GHGs solar aerosols LULUC, was 2.33 W.m-2 in AR5.

    Except the actual earth’s energy balance at TOA was only 0.6 W.m-2 according to AR5 Chapter 6 citation Stephens et al (2012), see Figure 1:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    Their theory-obs discrepancy accumulates to an astronomical number over a few decades when spread over every square metre of the TOA surface area. You can see this in the Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1:

    TS TFE.4-1
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg

    The accumulated theoretical GHG forcing is 1200 ZetaJoules just from 1970 to 2011. Their description of TFE.4-1 is this:

    TFE.4, Figure 1 | The Earth’s energy budget from 1970 through 2011. (a) The cumulative energy inflow into the Earth system from changes in well-mixed and shortlived greenhouse gases, solar forcing, tropospheric aerosol forcing, volcanic forcing and changes in surface albedo due to land use change (all relative to 1860–1879) are shown by the coloured lines; these contributions are added to give the total energy inflow (black; contributions from black carbon on snow and contrails as well as contrail-induced cirrus are included but not shown separately). (b) The cumulative total energy inflow from (a, black) is balanced by the sum of the energy uptake of the Earth system (blue; energy absorbed in warming the ocean, the atmosphere and the land, as well as in the melting of ice) and an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature. The sum of these two terms is given for a climate feedback parameter α of 2.47, 1.23 and 0.82 W m–2 °C–1, corresponding to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5°C, 3.0°C and 4.5°C, respectively; 1.5°C to 4.5°C is assessed to be the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity. The energy budget would be closed for a particular value of a if the corresponding line coincided with the total energy inflow. For clarity, all uncertainties (shading) shown are likely ranges. {Box 12.2; Box 13.1, Figure 1}

    Obviously the “consensus” has a massive energy budget closure problem. Highly problematic.

    They resolve their closure problem in 2 steps, both bogus:

    1) They invoke “storage” in the ocean. They include “land, atmosphere and ice” but obviously the major component is ocean heat content (OHC). Except it is physically impossible to attribute ocean “storage” rise to GHG forcing at TOA.

    2) Elsewhere in the TS they say TOA measurements are “highly precise”. But instead of using “highly precise” satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) they “infer” OLR from GMST which they say is increasing – “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature”. Except the “highly precise” OLR measurements contradict their assumption.

    Again. This is scientific fraud.

  89. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 7:34 pm said:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1:

    “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature”

    There is an insurmountable problem for the “consensus” here.

    The actual earth’s energy imbalance at TOA was stable and fluctuating about 0.6 W.m-2 2000 to 2010 according to AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 citation Loeb et al (2012), see Figure 3:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    Net TOA Flux
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    If OLR was actually increasing, as the IPCC assert, then if the TOA imbalance stays unchanged as it was 2000 – 2010 then this implies that TSI must have been DECREASING at the same rate as OLR was INCREASING when “inferred” from GMST 2000-2010.

    Well, here’s PMOD TSI:

    PMOD TSI
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:2000/to:2010/every:12

    And GISS L-OTI GMST,

    GISS L-OTI
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/every:12

    And Net TOA Flux again,

    Net TOA Flux
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    Obviously there is no relationship whatsoever, direct, inverse, anything, between Net TOA Flux, TSI, and GMST.

    Again (again), this “consensus” is scientific fraud.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on August 24, 2016 at 9:54 pm said:

    RT

    >”So the temperature has gone up half a degree in 170 years, more than half the warming might have been caused by us”

    I did a double take at this thinking – that can’t be right. But I did a decadal graph below with 120 sample smoothing (10 yrs x 12 months = 120) that shows that a 0.5 rise either from 1890, or 1910, or 1930, or 1950 to 2001 was all there was, give or take. But it was only just over half that from 1880.

    In the 2007 report as quoted it was only “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” i.e. 1951 – 2001 (call it 1950-2000). So maybe 0.25+ attributable.

    Except 1950 was a low point decadally. Here’s the graph:

    HadCRUT4 to 2001, 120 month smoothing
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:2001/every:120

    The 0.5 rise from 1950 to 2001 looks a bit silly. To 2000 it was only 0.4 rise from 1940 and only 0.25 rise from 1880 (plus a bit). So their 0.25+ attribution 1951 – 2001 is about the same as the entire decadal rise 1880 – 2001.

  91. Dennis N Horne on August 25, 2016 at 12:55 am said:

    Scientific consensus is a concept. It implies widespread and profound agreement amongst the scientific community about a phenomenon. I would say, for example, most informed scientists might look at this and wonder just how much evidence is needed to persuade a ‘sceptic’ there is man-made global warming and climate change. And realise of course, that more evidence is only more evidence of fraud. In their minds.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606

    “Averaged as a whole, the global temperature across land surfaces for June 2016 was 1.24°C (2.23°F) above the 20th century average—tying with 2015 as the highest June temperature in the 1880–2016 record. June 2016 marks the 34th consecutive June with temperatures at least nominally above average. The last time global land surface temperatures were below average in June was in 1982 (-0.05°C / -0.09°F).”

    “Australia’s mean temperature during June 2016 was 1.30°C (2.34°F) above the 1961–1990 average, the sixth highest June temperature since national temperature records began in 1910. Minimum temperatures were much warmer than average, while maximum temperatures were near average. The nationally-averaged minimum temperature was 2.22°C (4.00°F) above average—the fourth highest June minimum temperature on record.

    “The June 2016 mean temperature across the United Kingdom was 13.9°C (57.0°F) or 0.9°C (1.6°F) above the 1981–2010 average. The warmer-than-average value was mainly driven by extremely warm nighttime temperatures. The nation’s averaged minimum temperature tied as the highest since national records began in 1910. Regionally, England and Wales also had the highest (or joint highest) average minimum temperature since 1910.

    “New Zealand’s average temperature during June 2016 was 10.2°C (50.4°F), which is 1.6°C (2.9°F) above the 1981–2010 average—the third highest June temperature departure from average since national records began in 1909. According to New Zealand’s National Climate Centre, the cities of Christchurch and Dunedin had their highest June temperature on record.”

  92. Dennis N Horne on August 25, 2016 at 1:10 am said:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-flirts-with-1.5C-threshold-20260
    Flirting with the 1.5°C Threshold

    “1.5°C Threshold Closer Than We Think?

    “The dramatic global hot streak that kicked off 2016 doesn’t mean the world has already failed to meet the goals in the Paris agreement. Three months do not make a year, and it is unlikely that 2016 will exceed the 1881-1910 climate-normal by 1.5°C. This year is also in the wake of a strong El Niño, when higher-than-average temperatures would be expected.

    And of course, exceeding the 1.5°C threshold for even an entire year would not mean that global temperatures had in fact risen to that point, never (at least within our lifetime) to drop back below it as it’s too short of a timeframe to make that determination.

    “But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone. The day the world first crossed the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold for atmospheric carbon dioxide heralded a future of ever increasing carbon dioxide. So too, do the first three months of 2016 send a clear signal of where our world is headed and how fast we are headed there if drastic actions to reduce carbon emissions are not taken immediately.”

  93. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 6:21 am said:

    Dennis

    >”……..[big screed of GMST anomalies we already knew]…….”

    The “consensus” thinks, by their TOA radiative forcing theory, that the GMST anomalies (including NZ) you’ve quoted SHOULD be warmer than they were Dennis. Their “consensus” models (97% of them) say the same. Go to NIWA’s “Prediction” page and plot the “consensus” prediction for 21st Century NZ and you will find their prediction is TOO WARM relative to the observations you have quoted. Same everywhere else i.e. globally.

    The “consensus” has a massive energy budget closure problem. From upthread:

    “The accumulated theoretical GHG forcing is 1200 ZetaJoules just from 1970 to 2011” [IPCC TS TFE.4, Figure 1]

    As I’ve laid out upthread, the 2 steps the “consensus” take to close their massive budget deficit are bogus i.e. “scientific fraud”.

    Again,

    1) They invoke “storage” in the ocean. They include “land, atmosphere and ice” but obviously the major component is ocean heat content (OHC). Except it is physically impossible to attribute ocean “storage” rise to GHG forcing at TOA.

    2) Elsewhere in the TS they say TOA measurements are “highly precise”. But instead of using “highly precise” satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) they “infer” OLR from GMST which they say is increasing – “an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature”. Except the “highly precise” OLR measurements contradict their assumption.

    Easy to demonstrate both 1 and 2 are bogus (from upthread):

    Step 1 is bogus: IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1

    Step 2 is bogus: No relationship whatsoever, direct, inverse, anything, between Net TOA Flux (CERES), TSI, (PMOD) and GMST (GISS L-OTI).

    So the “consensus” now has to go to ocean heat to explain their excess energy “problem”. For example James Renwick and Tim Naish (from upthread):

    “93% of the heat from human kind’s global warming………….. has gone into the sea”

    By implication:

    “[Only 7%] of the heat from human kind’s global warming………….. has gone into the [troposphere]”

    Their theoretical GHG forcing at TOA is EXCESS energy Dennis (1200 ZetaJoules). The “consensus” knows this and to explain their energy excess “problem” they MUST invoke ocean heat and make a scientifically fraudulent anthropogenic attribution to ocean warming.

    And they MUST discard their “highly precise” (by their own assessment) OLR measurements at TOA and instead “infer” OLR from GMST. But their assumed relationship of GMST “inferred” OLR with actual TOA data is demonstrably false as upthread.

    If you can’t see from this that the climate “consensus” is scientifically fraudulent then you have absolutely no idea of the issues and are way out of your depth Dennis.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 6:55 am said:

    >”“But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone. The day the world first crossed the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold for atmospheric carbon dioxide heralded a future of ever increasing carbon dioxide.”

    Big problem with that is of course that anthro FF emissions growth has been dead flat for the last 3 years i.e. zero growth.

    But atmospheric CO2 levels saw record growth. Obviously a disconnect between FF emissions and atmospheric CO2. The record growth in atmospheric CO2 was due to natural factors i.e. an El Nino – not FF emissions.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 7:13 am said:

    Dennis

    >”Go to NIWA’s “Prediction” page and plot the “consensus” prediction for 21st Century NZ and you will find their prediction is TOO WARM relative to the observations you have quoted.”

    ‘Climate change scenarios for New Zealand – Downscaling to New Zealand’

    Prepared by David Wratt & Brett Mullan

    To identify likely future climate changes across New Zealand, projected changes from global climate models are statistically downscaled. This is a method for building in local spatial detail from information at the much coarser-scale available from GCMs. Historical observations are used to develop regression equations that relate local climate fluctuations to changes at the larger-scale. These historical observations are then replaced by the model changes in the regression equations to produce the fine-scale projections. Downscaled changes were prepared on a 0.05° grid (approximately 5km by 4km) covering New Zealand.

    The New Zealand downscaled projections follow the IPCC Fourth Assessment approach. That is, changes are relative to 1980-1999, which we abbreviate as “1990” for convenience. Changes are calculated for the two future periods 2030-2049 (“2040” for short) and 2080-2099 (“2090”). Thus, the New Zealand projections are 50 and 100 year changes, between the baseline climate (centred on 1990) and future periods centred on 2040 and 2090. Figure 2 provides a schematic for the time horizons of the climate projections.

    Figure 2: Schematic of time horizons for climate projections.
    https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/styles/large/public/sites/default/files/images/imported/0010/73495/schem_timehorizon_revised2_0.gif?itok=6qAq1S8o

    Note: Curve (blue line) shows smoothly varying climate parameter such as temperature or sea level, relative to a base level defined as the average over 1980-1999 (first horizontal red line), but denoted as “1990”. Future 20-year averages indicated by the other red lines at 2040 (2030-2049 average) and 2090 (2080-2099). Dotted orange lines show projection horizons used in the previous Guidance Manual (MfE, 2004), identified as the 2030s (2020-2049 average) and the 2080s (2070-2099 average). [Source: Figure 2.2, 2008 Guidance Manual, MfE, 2008]

    https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios

    # # #

    Plot that Figure 2 curve against NZ temperature from 1990 e.g. NIWA 7SS or BEST NZ, and the curve overshoots observations this century.

    1990 to 2040 can be approximated by a linear rise.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 7:53 am said:

    Now the “consensus” is claiming 1800s warming for AGW, but the “consensus” disagrees:

    ‘Human-made climate change started twice as long ago as we thought’
    By Cassie Werber
    http://qz.com/765172/human-made-climate-change-started-twice-as-long-ago-as-we-thought/

    To reach back into the 19th century, the researchers used a combination of climate modeling (where computers use collected data to construct a simulation of the climate as it was in the past) with a study of physical evidence from parts of the natural world that store information about climate: corals, tree rings, and ice cores. Their conclusion: the “time of emergence,” when significant signs of global temperature change start to appear, was in the 1830s, fully a century before we detected the increase in Arctic temperatures.

    “It was an extraordinary finding,” said Nerilie Abram, associate professor at the Australian National University and the study’s lead author, in a press release. “It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”

    Humans began burning coal to power steam engines back in the 1780s, and ramped up to intense industrialization by the mid-19th century. Evidently, this left its mark on the planet.

    And,

    ‘Human-caused climate change has been happening for a lot longer than we thought, scientists say’
    By Chelsea Harvey August 24
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/24/human-caused-climate-change-has-been-happening-for-a-lot-longer-than-we-thought-scientists-say/

    The findings are “further evidence that the climate has already changed significantly since the pre-industrial period,” said Ed Hawkins, a climate researcher at the University of Reading who was not involved with the new study, in an emailed comment.

    But some experts are saying that the research team should be ascribing more importance to this early 19th-century cooling effect in the context of the warming that came after it. Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University said he is “troubled” by the researchers’ suggestion that the planet may be more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.

    Mann said a lot of the warming observed in the early 1800s was actually just the climate naturally recovering from this unusual cooling effect, and not primarily caused by the influence of greenhouse gas emissions, which would not become a primary driver of warming until decades later.

    “There was certainly some anthropogenic warming prior to the late 19th century,” he worte in an email, pointing to some recent research he co-authored that supported this effect. “But the authors overstate how much, and how early, by incorrectly conflating early 1800s warming caused by the recovery from these eruptions with early greenhouse warming.”

    # # #

    They’ll be claiming the Medieval Warm Period for AGW next. Then the Roman Warm Period.

    But why didn’t they go back to the 17th – 18th Century Little Ice Age? And when, exactly, was their climate “normal”. Was it the 18th Century, or the 17th Century, or the 1st Century. When?

  97. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 8:12 am said:

    >”But why didn’t they go back to the 17th – 18th Century Little Ice Age?”

    Because…….

    Global temperatures began to increase 260 years before CO2 levels began to increase
    https://i2.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Moberg_CO2.png

    From David Middleton’s Debunk House.

  98. Dennis N Horne on August 25, 2016 at 9:09 am said:

    Richard C (NZ).

    Referring to my earlier two comments. Just read the words. Simple words.

    It’s clear there is global warming. A lot.

    That is explained by increasing CO2 and other GHGs. Nothing else.

    You can try to explain that it can’t be happening and you can complain some predictions have been wrong but nothing you say can make any difference to the simple fact that …

    tens of thousands of scientists working in the field and all the scientific institutions and societies on the planet are agreed, that, the evidence is clear and the science is incontrovertible.

    The basics are relatively simple to grasp, the complexity is more due to the amount of information, the scale, the time and the multiple interactions than any inherently difficult concepts, and it is simply beyond belief there is fraud on a massive scale or some giant conspiracy amongst scientists to enable politicians to tax or control the world … or whatever you claim or fear.

    But simple as it may be, it seems to be entirely beyond your grasp. For instance, this comment:

    Richard C (NZ) at 6:55 am said:
    >”“But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone. The day the world first crossed the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold for atmospheric carbon dioxide heralded a future of ever increasing carbon dioxide.”

    Big problem with that is of course that anthro FF emissions growth has been dead flat for the last 3 years i.e. zero growth.

    But atmospheric CO2 levels saw record growth. Obviously a disconnect between FF emissions and atmospheric CO2. The record growth in atmospheric CO2 was due to natural factors i.e. an El Nino – not FF emissions.

    is, as Wolfgang Pauli might have said, not even wrong.

    What sort of ‘connection’ do you think there is between CO2 emissions and levels in the atmosphere and oceans and the temperatures? The fact is we have emitted far more than enough CO2 to account for the increase from 280 to the present level of >400ppm. That is the crux of the matter. Half our CO2 has gone into the oceans. It can come out again. Into the atmosphere. So? Where’s the ‘disconnect’?

    Forget your elaborate workings. Start again. Listen to the scientists. They will explain the science.

  99. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 9:40 am said:

    Dennis

    >”It’s clear there is global warming. A lot.”

    Yes, we know Dennis (yawn). It started warming at 1600, 260 years before the start of CO2 rise (see graph):

    Global temperatures began to increase 260 years before CO2 levels began to increase
    https://i2.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Moberg_CO2.png

    >”That is explained by increasing CO2 and other GHGs. Nothing else.”

    WRONG. CO2 does NOT explain temperature rise 260 years BEFORE the CO2 rise at 1860. Solar change does. And now in the 20th to 21st Century theoretical CO2 forcing overshoots earth’s energy by 1200 ZetaJoules just from 1970 to 2011, let alone 1950 to 2016. In other words, CO2 forcing theory is superfluous.

    >”So? Where’s the ‘disconnect’?”

    Go back upthread and read Dennis.

    >”Forget your elaborate workings.”

    Heh, out of your depth Dennis? Hardly “elaborate”, these are simple deductions from the IPCC Technical Summary and available data. The issue is NOT in the troposphere anymore Dennis, the “consensus” case has moved to the ocean by necessity.

    The “consensus” has failed at TOA, failed in the troposphere, so now they have moved to the ocean:

    “93% of the heat from human kind’s global warming………….. has gone into the sea” – Renwick and Naish

    It is physically impossible to make this attribution Dennis. The IPCC makes an anthro ocean warming attribution but they have no science to support it – NONE.

  100. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 9:55 am said:

    Dennis

    >”So? Where’s the ‘disconnect’?”

    Here,

    First 2 graphs are the respective data, second 2 are the respective growth rates.

    Global energy-related CO2 emissions [“decoupling”]
    http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/29DWYXTrZh_6lsyFrYt7KwgL4io=/fit-in/1200×9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F27448%2Fco2emissionsdecoupling.png

    Recent Global Monthly Mean CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png

    Fossil Fuels Emissions Growth Rates
    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/slide12.png?w=639&h=479

    Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

    BTW, I grabbed these graphs from a recent comment of mine at JoNova:

    #12.1.2.1.1 Richard C (NZ) August 16, 2016 at 1:40 pm
    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/malcolm-roberts-on-q-a-right-now/#comment-1827086

    In other words, it’s not just here at CCG that you have to play whack-a-mole Dennis. You will have to chase me around a few other blogs too. If you can’t cope with “elaborate” workings don’t bother chasing me to 1000+ comment threads at Climate Etc for example.

  101. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 10:19 am said:

    Dennis

    >”Plot that Figure 2 curve [“consensus” scenario] against NZ temperature from 1990 e.g. NIWA 7SS or BEST NZ, and the curve overshoots observations this century. 1990 to 2040 can be approximated by a linear rise.”

    1.80 C/century – NIWA “consensus” scenario for NZ 1990 – 2040
    0.72 C/century – BEST 37SS monthly means for NZ 1970 – 2013

    Observations (BEST Monthly) vs “Consensus” (NIWA Scenario)
    Year, Month, Obs Anomaly, Obs Absolute, “Consensus” Absolute
    2012 1 -0.302 10.338 11.22332
    2012 2 -0.353 10.287 11.22482
    2012 3 -0.911 9.729 11.22632
    2012 4 0.38 11.02 11.22782
    2012 5 -0.1 10.54 11.22932
    2012 6 -0.252 10.388 11.23082
    2012 7 0.56 11.2 11.23232
    2012 8 0.822 11.462 11.23382
    2012 9 0.457 11.097 11.23532
    2012 10 -0.337 10.303 11.23682
    2012 11 -0.879 9.761 11.23832
    2012 12 1.128 11.768 11.23982
    2013 1 0.353 10.993 11.24132
    2013 2 0.108 10.748 11.24282
    2013 3 0.74 11.38 11.24432
    2013 4 0.959 11.599 11.24582
    2013 5 0.516 11.156 11.24732
    2013 6 0.373 11.013 11.24882
    2013 7 1.281 11.921 11.25032
    2013 8 1.558 12.198 11.25182

    Looks good for the “consensus” at 2013.8 but when both series are graphed from the 1990 baseline it is readily apparent that the 0.72 C/century observations trend is never going to track the 1.80 C/century “consensus” scenario trend out to 2040.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 10:48 am said:

    >”Global energy-related CO2 emissions [“decoupling”]”

    If the server at that link is unavailable the same graph of International Energy Agency (IEA) data can be viewed here at source:

    ‘Decoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed’
    https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html

    Not only have FF emissions “decoupled” from economic growth, FF emissions growth (flat) has “decoupled” from atmospheric carbon dioxide growth (record high).

    “Decoupled” in 2009 too. FF emissions growth went negative after the GFC but atmospheric growth continued positive as usual.

  103. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 11:21 am said:

    >”1.80 C/century – NIWA “consensus” scenario for NZ 1990 – 2040″
    >”0.72 C/century – BEST 37SS monthly means for NZ 1970 – 2013″

    Similar situation for sea level rise (SLR) around NZ.

    Also,

    -0.096C/decade – BEST-NZ 37SS trend in Monthly data 1.77 decades 1997 to Aug 2013 (end of file)

    BEST-NZ data
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/new-zealand-TAVG-Trend.txt

    Check out “Five-year Anomaly”

    1986 6 0.374
    1986 7 0.422
    2000 1 0.658
    2011 3 0.391

    No NZ warming July 1986 – March 2011 (24.67 yrs) by 5-yr anomaly.

  104. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 11:50 am said:

    >Check out “Five-year Anomaly”

    Didn’t go back far enough

    1972 10 0.384
    1972 11 0.412
    1972 12 0.391
    2000 1 0.658
    2011 3 0.391

    No NZ warming November 1972 to March 2011 (38 yrs 5 months) by 5-yr anomaly.

    The “consensus” scenario baseline is 1980-1999 centred on 1990 but those 2 decades were relatively cooler than back in the early 1970s (by 5-yr anomaly):

    1972 11 0.412

    1990 1 0.272
    1990 2 0.239
    1990 3 0.213
    1990 4 0.196
    1990 5 0.196
    1990 6 0.183
    1990 7 0.167
    1990 8 0.141
    1990 9 0.134
    1990 10 0.137
    1990 11 0.150
    1990 12 0.156

    2011 3 0.391

    So the “consensus” is projecting from a cool period in the late 20th Century relative to the early 1970s, about 0.23 C cooler mid 1990s. This gives the “consensus” an unfair, and misleading, advantage

  105. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 1:23 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”it is simply beyond belief there is fraud on a massive scale”

    Beyond belief? Get real Dennis. Scientific fraud abounds in many sectors, vaccine research for example. The end justifies the means for many when cash and careers are in the mix. And it’s not “massive” in climate science Dennis. There is actually relatively few authors driving IPCC assessment report chapters and a handful of overall editors who return for each new report.

    Scientific fraud can arise simply by scientists needing to produce a particular outcome in a controlled groupthink “consensus” environment, especially in commercially driven science. Not commercial but case in point #1 from climate science from upthread: Closure of the “consensus” energy budget where theoretical TOA forcing has blown out to astronomical proportions was a must to keep the MMCC theory alive. Case #2 Anthropogenic ocean warming attribution to keep the theory alive.

    Climate scientists are NOT qualified applied heat specialists. Much of their energy work is of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along variety without recourse to other, long established, disciplines. Consequently their closure process is blatantly flawed and physically erroneous.

    The difficulty though is drawing the line between honest error and scientific fraud. From article below –

    “By today’s standards, omission of data that inexplicably conflicts with other data or with a scientist’s proposed interpretation is considered scientific fraud”

    There are huge internal conflicts in IPCC reports and methods (e.g. closure above), results in one chapter and interpretations in another (e.g. ocean attribution). When this is occurring throughout a multi-authored report like IPCC AR5 WG1 then how can it be just honest error on the part of a few? Surely either there is gross incompetence throughout or there are many (or a few) engaged in manipulating the result (the means), from which is interpreted the all important attribution statement (the ends).

    >”or some giant conspiracy amongst scientists to enable politicians to tax or control the world … or whatever you claim or fear”

    That’s not what I claim but you are getting close Dennis. The scientists are simply “useful idiots”. The whole Agenda 21, WMO, UN FCCC/IPCC setup was originated by Maurice Strong and cronies:

    ‘Maurice Strong, the ‘NWO father’ of global warming and Agenda 21 is dead’
    http://www.disclose.tv/news/maurice_strong_the_nwo_father_of_global_warming_and_agenda_21_is_dead/125034

    But back to scientific fraud.

    SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

    SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. The term “scientific fraud” is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research. Behavior characterized as scientific fraud includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific research, or in reporting research results. Scientific fraud is unethical and often illegal. When discovered and proven, fraud can end the scientific careers of researchers who engage in it. Nonetheless, the substantial financial and reputational rewards that can accrue to scientists who produce novel and important re-search or who obtain certain desired results have induced some scientists to engage in scientific fraud.

    Policing of Scientific Fraud
    Fabrication of Data or Physical Evidence
    Misrepresentation of Experimental Results

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401803766.html

    If climate science was in the commercial environment e.g. pharmaceuticals, or professional sector e.g. seismic engineering or medicine, their science would be put through stringent scrutiny by independent oversight and regulation and when it all goes badly, end up in a court of inquiry or even a criminal court.

    If I can spot undue climate science manipulation in just a few comments in a blog thread, how could it possibly survive when specialists get stuck in as per commercial science?

  106. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 2:04 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”it is simply beyond belief there is fraud on a massive scale”

    This has to be one of the more naive statements I’ve come across Dennis.

    ‘Scientific fraud is rife: it’s time to stand up for good science’
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science

  107. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 2:29 pm said:

    >”Similar situation for sea level rise (SLR) around NZ.” [“Consensus” scenario vs Actual obs]

    >”By today’s standards, omission of data that inexplicably conflicts with other data or with a scientist’s proposed interpretation is considered scientific fraud”

    REPORT
    Wellington City Council
    Sea Level Rise Options Analysis
    Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

    2.2 Range of scenarios
    WCC recognises that sea level rise represents a long-term and dynamic risk, requiring new approaches to prepare and respond. WCC is following MfE guidance by focussing on sea level rise scenarios between 0.6 m to 1.1 m, understanding that a rise of around 1.0 m should be planned for over the coming 100 years.

    For this study no deduction in actual sea level rise from the 1980s to the present has been made.

    http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/environment-and-waste/environment/files/61579-wcc-sea-level-rise-options.pdf

    # # #

    At least T&T disclosed their omission.

  108. I just got back from a rather longer than expected deputation to the council over sea level rise and LIM memoranda.

    Watch TV3 News, RNZ and The Press for media info

  109. Well the Press don’t mess around, hot off the press…

    Residents threaten legal action unless council wipes erosion info
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/83529804/residents-threaten-legal-action-unless-council-wipes-erosion-info

  110. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 3:24 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”it is simply beyond belief there is fraud on a massive scale”

    Here’s how scientific fraud works in the IPCC Dennis. The Chapter authors are “gatekeepers” in the chapter review process. For example: anthropogenic ocean warming attribution in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    This was a comment on ocean warming in Chapter 10 by John McLean and the gatekeepers response:

    Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft – Chapter 10

    10-234 This claim is unsustainable [see IPCC claim reference at link]. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink.
    Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]

    Response: Rejected. The assessment of chapter 3 shows robust evidence for ocean warming and sea level rise from observations and section 10.4 shows robust evidence for this warming being anthropogenic.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch10_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

    There is no “robust evidence for [anthropogenic] ocean warming” in Chapter 3 or section 10.4. In fact, observations in Chapter 3 found no evidence whatsoever. Their earth’s energy budget at surface in Chapter 2 precludes any anthropogenic ocean warming mechanism i.e. not possible.

    John McLean is correct except for specifics, which are: maximum water penetration by DLR of about 100 microns (about the thickness of a human hair), most effective about 10 microns, corroborated in oceanographic literature and elsewhere e.g. medical laser physics here:

    ‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’
    http://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/index.html

    But the IPCC gatekeepers had to reject the actual AO interface physics so they could keep their anthropogenic ocean warming attribution alive, which in turn keeps their Man-Made Climate Change theory alive.

    This, along with their energy budget closure to account for a massive excess of theoretical GHG-forced energy, is one of the better(worst) examples of egregious scientific fraud at the IPCC.

  111. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 3:45 pm said:

    Andy. CCC are not going to concede without a fight apparently, unless the legal threat works that is.

  112. “CCC are not going to concede without a fight apparently”

    is certainly the vibe I got today despite strong support from at least 3 councillors

  113. By the way, we were supposed to be on at 9.30 am but got rescheduled and eventually came on after 11, then the Mayor took a longer than usual tea break, then had to leave for a “prior engagement”

  114. Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2016 at 4:06 pm said:

    Dennis

    >”it is simply beyond belief there is [scientific] fraud on a massive scale”

    Suggest you read the Climategate emails, specifically in respect to “Mike’s Nature trick”, “hide the decline”, and “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”.

  115. Yeah who cares about a few emails though? The USA might elect the most criminal and corrupt politician in the history of the country to the position of President, as detailed in the leaked emails, the various books and movies etc.

  116. Dennis N Horne on August 25, 2016 at 6:46 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Climategate was nothing more than a beat-up by the lying oil lobby. It’s all been explained perfectly satisfactorily and all the scientists fully exonerated after many many inquiries.

    I put your claims of omnipresent fraud in the same basket as the moon landing hoax and the WTC demolition explanation.

    You’ve convinced yourself CO2 is not causing warming and you can’t persuade any scientist working in the field or anyone who has much understanding of the science.

  117. “Climategate was nothing more than a beat-up by the lying oil lobby.”

    just like all those allegations against the Clintons are a beat up by right wing conspiracy nutjobs. Yeah really

  118. Dennis, just give me one name of someone involved with Climategate that was in the “lying oil lobby”. Anyone will do

    Climategate was predominantly about Mann’s Hockey Stick. A lot of the people involved in the FOIA requests that led to climategate accept the basic premise that CO2 causes warming

    What was more concerning than climategate was the coverups and the total lack of any attempt to rectify things, that has led to so much distrust in science as a result

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation