Listen to us: we control the weather – listen

A conference is under way in Auckland. The Climate Change and Business Conference has brought together the great and the good from New Zealand and overseas. Yesterday and today, these fine people are lending their personal dignity to the completely senseless notion that we control the weather.

Propaganda doesn’t come in any more blatant form than this, when an idea of no value is propagated by eminent speakers. But is anyone listening?

There are scientists, diplomats,  academics, public policy experts, journalists and others striving to save the world from catastrophic man-made warming. Though it hasn’t really been warming and the only sign of catastrophe comes from unverified climate models claiming to predict the weather in a hundred years.

They are right this minute discussing how our key trading partners are responding to the Paris climate treaty, how national targets are being set, what the policy responses are, the economic tools being developed or implemented, the implications of these for national and international markets, and where new business opportunities are likely to arise.

They’re treating it quite seriously. So it strikes me as extremely odd to find, in their programme posted online, that they’ve completely misconstrued the meaning of the Paris climate treaty.

They describe COP 21 as “setting a new global mandate” to “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions” to ensure “global temperature does not get above 2 degrees Celsius”. They say the agreement “has created a new paradigm” that “will require changed practices” at the global, country and local levels. The conference will help to explain “the evolving rules framework arising from the Paris agreement” and the likely implications for New Zealand.

But none of these things are necessary because they’ve read too much into the treaty. The Paris agreement requires nothing from the signatories. If countries implement more of their planned emission reductions they will incur expenditure that will achieve precisely no change in the weather, because the total amount of man-made warming over the last hundred years, according to the IPCC’s best guess, is about half a degree, and that’s too small for any noticeable effect on the weather.

Notalotofpeopleknowthat examined the Paris agreement and identified what countries had actually agreed to in order to save the world. They agreed to just two things:

  1. Submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (stating their emissions reduction target) every five years.
  2. Provide a GHG stocktake every five years, commencing in 2023.

Which won’t save the world and, as Paul Homewood notes, even those undemanding tasks are not binding, since there’s no provision to fine or otherwise punish any country that fails to meet its targets. A paper tiger, this treaty.

The worthies now sitting in Auckland earnestly considering how cities and companies will meet their “duty” to change the weather really ought to put their time to better use. Just doing their homework would be a damn good start. If they had noticed the emptiness in the heart of the treaty and therefore the uselessness of pulling it apart to guide policy, how many of them would still brazenly have splurged their organization’s funds on tickets to Auckland?

Is anyone listening?

— h/t Andy Scrase

179 Thoughts on “Listen to us: we control the weather – listen

  1. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 11:33 am said:

    >”just like the gregarious locust”

    Had to look THAT up.

    Scholarly articles was helpful … pheromone system of adult gregarious desert locust- ‎Torto – Cited by 102

  2. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 11:42 am said:

    Folks say Maggy’s gone smelly
    I’d say not on your nelly
    No longer troubled with menses
    She’ll come to her senses
    Teaching climate science on the telly

  3. I need to check my underwear daily for signs of “climate science denial”
    I hope it washes out.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm said:

    The Oracles of Warmer World

    Schneider’s case, most untoward
    We need more scary stories, Stephen cried
    Between us all let’s save the world
    But then he died

    Mann’s hockey stick was all the rage
    We’re doomed, that Yamal tree implied
    Now just a ghost of bygone age
    Turns out he’d lied

    Dirty Dennis joined the The Cause
    Warner Warmer ever Warmer, he implored,
    Insistent always despite the pause
    At least he’s tried

    And so on……….

  5. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 12:56 pm said:

    Oracle – In classical antiquity, an oracle was a person or agency considered to provide wise and insightful counsel or prophetic predictions or precognition of the future, inspired by the gods. As such it is a form of divination.

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

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm said:

    Alzheimer’s is great for Warmies, every day is warmer and they meet so many new people.

  7. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 1:48 pm said:

    There was an old denier called Richard C
    Said warming stopped for a cuppa tea
    Unfortunately for him
    He was rather dim
    Flooding sent him back up his tree

  8. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 2:07 pm said:

    SuperMandia – The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”

    Michael E Mann’s hero

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 2:31 pm said:

    Dennis, the Global Warming Grinch

    The Grinch: [shouts] Hello?

    Echo: Hello.

    The Grinch: How are you?

    Echo: How are you?

    The Grinch: I asked you first.

    Echo: I asked you first.

    The Grinch: Oh right, that’s REALLY mature, saying exactly what I say.

    Echo: …Saying exactly what I say.

    The Grinch: I’m an idiot!

    Echo: You’re an idiot!

    The Grinch: [whispering] Alright fine! I’m not talking to you anymore! In fact, I’m going to whisper! So that by the time my voice reverbarates off the walls, and gets back to me, I won’t be able to hear it.

    [pause]

    Echo: You’re an idiot!

  10. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm said:

    Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…



    bitter”
    Barman: “Why the long pause?”
    Climate Scientist:

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 2:33 pm said:

    Climate Scientist: (sobs)

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 3:37 pm said:

    Dennis walked into a bar, and said “Ouch!”

  13. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 4:19 pm said:

    Poor old Richard C’s
    Mind we need appease
    Taken leave of his senses
    ECT soon commences
    Doctor, if you please

  14. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 4:33 pm said:

    Richard C set the bar too low
    About the height of a little po
    Over it he did trip
    What a silly willy drip
    Causing it to overflow

  15. Interesting article from Bob Tisdale (more interesting than Dennis’ retarded, Baldrick-like poetry anyway):

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/the-divergence-between-surface-and-lower-troposphere-global-temperature-datasets-and-its-implications/

  16. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 5:20 pm said:

    Magoof. Always on the lookout for crap science…

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/14/climate-scientists-published-a-paper-debunking-ted-cruz

    Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz
    Earth’s atmosphere is warming faster and more in line with models than Ted Cruz and his witnesses argued
    Former Republican U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz speaks during the third night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. John Abraham. Friday 14 October 2016

    A new study has just appeared in the Journal of Climate which deals with an issue commonly raised by those who deny that human-caused climate change is a serious risk. As I have written many times, we know humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. We know this for many reasons.

    First, we know that certain gases trap heat; this fact is indisputable. Second, we know that humans have significantly increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Again, this is indisputable. Third, we know the Earth is warming (again indisputable). We know the Earth warms because we are actually measuring the warming rate in multiple different ways. Those measurements are in good agreement with each other.

    Of course there is other evidence too. For instance, ice loss across the globe is widespread: in the Arctic, the Antarctic ice shelves, Greenland, and from land glaciers. Sea levels are rising as warm water expands in volume and as melt waters flow into the ocean. We are also seeing changes of weather patterns and climatic zones shift. The point is, there is a whole body of evidence that proves the climate is changing and the change is caused largely by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Over the years, contrarians have looked for evidence that the climate either isn’t changing or the change is not as fast as predicted. Their findings have often been used in the media to suggest that human-caused climate change was not something to worry about. But we’ve seen, over and over and over again, that these contrarian arguments don’t hold up.

    Repeatedly, mainstream scientists have taken these claims seriously and discovered they were just plain wrong. In some cases, the contrarians have made simple arithmetic errors (like mixing up a negative and positive sign in their equations), while in others, they have made more fundamental errors. But regardless, they have been wrong time after time. But whenever they are found to be wrong, they just go and find some new piece of evidence that once again calls into doubt our understanding of the human-climate link.

    One contrarian argument has appeared repeatedly over the past few years, even at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce held by Ted Cruz in 2015. The claim was by well-known contrarian John Christy. Christy claimed that the mid-troposphere temperatures (temperatures in approximately the middle of the atmosphere) are rising three times faster in climate models when compared with measurements. Another related claim is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the troposphere (lower part of the atmosphere) for 18 years.

    Now, both of these facts, even if they were true, would not prove much. We know the Earth is warming because of measurements in oceans, underground, and at the Earth’s surface. But it would open a question as to why the atmosphere is behaving differently.

    The recent paper just published looked at these two claims. The authors found errors in the analysis that, when corrected, debunked the contrarian claims. Let me explain some of the science.

    First, these atmospheric temperatures are measured by satellites which can “see” the temperature of gases in the atmosphere. It works differently from a thermometer but regardless, such measurements are possible. These measurements have a lot of uncertainty.

    First of all, as the Earth warms from greenhouse gases, the upper part of the atmosphere should cool down. A simplistic but appropriate description is that greenhouse gases hold the heat down toward the Earth, making the upper atmosphere cooler. Since the satellites see both the upper and lower parts of the atmosphere, the cooling upper region may contaminate the measurements of the warming lower part of the atmosphere.

    A second source of uncertainty is that the satellites themselves are not perfect. When satellites are launched, they orbit the Earth for a number of years until they are replaced by new satellites. The data, which goes back to 1979, is actually stitched together from multiple satellites in sequence. No two satellites are completely identical – sort of like no two thermometers will give exactly the same temperature. These differences have to be rectified and are another source of error.

    Additionally, the satellites change while they are in orbit, in particular they lose altitude and their orbiting time drifts (the time they pass certain global locations drifts later and later in the day). Both of these facts contaminate the measurements and must be accounted for. There are other accuracy issues as well that space doesn’t permit discussion, but you get the point.

    So, this recent paper did a few things. First, they took the contrarian argument that the mid-troposphere temperatures have been rising at only 1/3 the rate predicted by models. They found that Christy’s team neglected the contamination of the cooling in the upper stratosphere. When they applied this correction, they found that Christy’s claim was incorrect. Differences between modeled and observed warming rates were much smaller, and had known explanations.

    Next, the authors asked whether it is true that there has been no warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in the past 18 years. They found that for five of the six groups that provide satellite temperature analysis, this claim was also incorrect.

    Finally, they asked whether it is true that the temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are in disagreement in models and measurements. Their result is that when temperature changes in different layers of the atmosphere are compared, one of three satellite records is in close agreement with the climate models.

    While this paper largely debunks the most current contrarian mainstay, it doesn’t answer all of our questions. For instance, exactly how accurate are these satellite measurements and how can they be made better? Do the models capture all of the thermal processes which are occurring, especially in the middle and upper layer of the atmosphere? Why does there appear to be a small difference in the satellites and the model predictions in the middle of the atmosphere? Is this difference important?

    These questions can be answered, but a prerequisite is a continuation of high-quality data from satellites. This means a continued commitment to launching new measurement satellites as the current fleet ages.

  17. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm said:

    Divergence between Bob Tisdale and Proper Analysis
    Posted on October 14, 2016

    Bob Tisdale has a new post at WUWT about a supposed “divergence” between temperature at Earth’s surface and in the lower troposphere.

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/divergence-between-bob-tisdale-and-proper-analysis/

  18. Maggy Wassilieff on October 15, 2016 at 5:46 pm said:
  19. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, dear boy:

    All Tamino has done to claim Tisdale is wrong is ignore the empirical data – much like you do with the IPCC’s data dear boy.

    Re: Santer, Meers, et al – they make a few adjustments to the data here, make a few adjustments to the data here and, HEY PRESTO, the desired result. So called ‘scientists’ keep repeatedly trying to rewrite the empirical data to fit their unfounded faith in the tropospheric hotspot, but their desperate attempts are always ignored by the IPCC for the ‘crap science’ that it is.

    The science is settled regarding the empirically confirmed tropospheric temperatures, & has been for many years now – those who reject the empirical data are just ‘deniers’ dear boy. The radiosondes and the satellite data all agree – it’s a consensus. Torturing to data to achieve a predetermined outcome is just desperation dear boy.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

  20. Dennis N Horne on October 16, 2016 at 6:52 am said:

    UAH has been cooking the satellite data for years. The only time it hasn’t shown warming is when it didn’t allow for the position of the satellite. Basic errors others pointed out.

    Thermometers are showing Earth is retaining more energy, as the Greenhouse Effect predicts. Temperatures up, ice vanishing.

    Nobody knows how the ice sheets will break up, but break up they will. The more the temperatures go up, the faster that will happen and the more sudden will be the sea level rise.

    It’s happened in the past and it’ll happen again.

    That’s science for you.

    Denial is for dreamers.

  21. Dennis N Horne on October 16, 2016 at 7:02 am said:

    Here’s to those with a loose screw
    Climate Conversation has a few
    They can’t see past their nose
    Sometimes we do come to blows
    But ’tis easy to show theirs beliefs untrue

  22. Richard C (NZ) on October 16, 2016 at 9:52 am said:

    >”Thermometers are showing Earth is retaining more energy, as the Greenhouse Effect predicts.”

    Thermometers where?

    At near-surface all thermometers are measuring is diurnal temperature (max/min) and the heat transfer along the gradient from surface up. Daytime heat isn’t “retained” at night. Sure we have climate regime changes but when we look at NZ and OZ meteorological data back in the 1800s there is little difference to now. Just 2 warm periods separated by a cool period.

    Similar;y the latest El Nino heat wasn’t “retained” either. Just dissipated to space. Thermometers detected the the transient temperature spike and then it was all over – no heat “retained”. Even the IPCC has most of its theoretical GHG-forced energy dissipating to space. They have the residual, by scientific fraud, going into the ocean.

    So it’s all about the ocean and attribution of ocean heat accumulation. The troposphere is a negligible heat sink and a transfer medium from surface to space anyway. Impossible for GHGs to be the ocean heating agent because the only net flux into the ocean is solar. Excess solar heat in the tropical ocean about 24 W.m-2 which must be dissipated towards the poles.

    The sun heats the ocean in the tropics – Period.

    A small change to surface forcing e.g. cloudiness or wind, and the heating changes. All part of the El Nino/La Nina processes over the short term, And given only a 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance currently, long term OHC change since the LIA is easily accounted for.

    Theoretical GHG forcing is far in excess of the imbalance and blowing out rapidly. But the IPCC’s GHG radiative forcing theory is in respect to TOA observations. Total failure there.

    Been all over this before of course but some refuse to accept the facts and go into blind denial.

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

    >”Sure we have climate regime changes but when we look at NZ and OZ meteorological data back in the 1800s there is little difference to now. Just 2 warm periods separated by a cool period.”

    From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/Image1.gif

    From: Are we feeling warmer yet? [See unhomogenised series trend 0.06°C/century since 1850]
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm

    MfE Figure 8.1: New Zealand average surface temperature, 1853–2006
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/pubs/7.4_0.jpg

    From: ‘Environment New Zealand 2007’
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/environment-new-zealand-2007-chapter-8-atmosphere/introduction

    Dean and Stott (2009) Figure 1. Annual global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT3v dataset (thick gray line) and annual mean temperature from the seven-station New Zealand temperature series (thin black line). The New Zealand temperature series is also shown after having a 20-point low-pass filter applied (thick black line).[1853 – 2006]
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2009/15200442-22.23/2009jcli2715.1/production/images/large/i1520-0442-22-23-6217-f01.jpeg

    From: ‘The Effect of Local Circulation Variability on the Detection and Attribution of New Zealand Temperature Trends ‘
    S. M. Dean National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand
    P. A. Stott Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
    (2009)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2715.1

  24. Richard C (NZ) on October 16, 2016 at 10:27 am said:

    >”Been all over this before of course but some refuse to accept the facts and go into blind denial.”

    Most recently in Page 1 of this comment thread:

    Exhibit A of the IPCC’s failed theory
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/10/listen-to-us-we-control-the-weather-listen/comment-page-1/#comment-1519236

    IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (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

    And,

    IPCC Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing:

    IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report – Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
    Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing

    The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive. Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than
    during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is 43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}

    Due to increased concentrations, RF from WMGHGs has increased by 0.20 (0.18 to 0.22) W m–2 (8%) since the AR4 estimate for the year 2005. The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2. The majority of this change since AR4 is due to increases in the carbon dioxide (CO2) RF of nearly 10%. The Industrial Era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2, and CO2 is the component with the largest global mean RF. Over the last decade RF of CO2 has an average growth rate of 0.27 (0.24 to 0.30) W m–2 per decade.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

    And,

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

    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

    An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations
    Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews
    (2012)
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html

    # # #

    Game over.

  25. Dennis N Horne on October 16, 2016 at 7:08 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) is his C C name
    Climate denial is his little game
    ‘Bout science he hasn’t got a clue
    Makes one after ‘nother big booboo
    A laughing stock he soon became

    More CO2 more warming more ice lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Settled science.

  26. Richard Treadgold on October 16, 2016 at 8:04 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    More CO2 more warming more ice lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Factual question: Where has it warmed enough to melt ice enough to notice? I note that most ice exists where the temperature is many degrees below zero, while the amount of human-caused warming is of the order of half a degree since 1950. But you must know of somewhere it’s been measured?

  27. Richard Treadgold on October 16, 2016 at 8:10 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    UAH has been cooking the satellite data for years.

    You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts; don’t tell lies. Please cite evidence for this – you must have it.

  28. Dennis N Horne on October 16, 2016 at 11:04 pm said:

    http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated
    The RSS Middle Tropospheric Temperature Now V4.0 : Carl Mears : Friday, March 4, 2016

    This change to the RSS air temperature TMT product represents a major upgrade. There are 4 important changes to the methods used to construct the dataset.

    Datasets used for comparison in this post and the V4.0 paper are available as below:

    University of Washington Data: Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu, 2015: Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies. J. Climate, 28, 2274–2290. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

    NOAA STAR Data: Zou, C.-Z., and W. Wang (2011), Intersatellite calibration of AMSU-A observations for weather and climate applications, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D23113, http://dx/doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016205.

    University of Alabama, Huntsville Data: No relevant paper has been published.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    University of Alabama, Huntsville Data: No relevant paper has been published.

    Still cooking.

  29. Dennis N Horne on October 16, 2016 at 11:09 pm said:

    Denying loss of ice? Seriously?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
    Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year. (Source: GRACE satellite data)

    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
    Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.4 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

  30. I now live on a glacial moraine at 750m above sea level, so I can attest to the loss of ice

    Where I live used to be a glacier

  31. Maggy Wassilieff on October 17, 2016 at 10:17 am said:

    We are doomed…no-one is listening

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/16/after-trillions-of-dollars-and-13-climate-conferences-co2-emissions-reach-new-record-high/#comments

    I live on the seafloor (albeit 70m above present sealevel). I’m preparing sandbags.

  32. Dennis,

    Your info on the new RSS temperature record is all very interesting, but you still haven’t answered RT’s question of how has ‘UAH has been cooking the satellite data for years’ dear boy. It’d be great if you could answer it so we can all be as informed as you.

    Dr. Spencer has an article on the RSS v4 vs. UAH6. The comparison between the various satellite & radiosonde records is quite interesting, and the update at the bottom also raised an interesting point:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/comments-on-new-rss-v4-pause-busting-global-temperature-dataset/

  33. Richard Treadgold on October 17, 2016 at 10:41 am said:

    @Dennis,

    University of Alabama, Huntsville Data: No relevant paper has been published.
    Still cooking.

    Rather than make us read a couple of papers just to discover the temperature change, please tell us what they are. Also, just a suggestion, but if you quote the precise statement you’re responding to and why, it’s easier for us to see who you’re correcting and it doesn’t become a guessing game.

  34. Richard Treadgold on October 17, 2016 at 10:48 am said:

    @Dennis,
    Denying loss of ice? Seriously?
    Actually, no. I asked for evidence of the temperature changes—which should be in your summary in the other answer. Ice can decline for reasons other than rising temperature, but you knew that. I’ll check the figures you cite here, but other studies I’ve looked at (if these are different ones) have always shown ice reductions that are minuscule compared with the mass of the entire sheet, and would require thousands of years to remove it all.

  35. Richard Treadgold on October 17, 2016 at 12:31 pm said:

    @Dennis,
    The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
    Yes, these figures are consistent with what I’ve seen—I wrote a post on them last April. The gigatonnes of ice mean nothing until you provide some kind of context, which I do in my post (figures repeated below).

    I note that, oddly, for Antarctica NASA quotes 134 Gt in the text but only 118 Gt in the graph. But it’s near enough for government work.

    The proportion of Antarctica and Greenland running off each year is incredibly small, from 0.0004% to 0.011%, respectively, while in Greenland every year 1778 Gt of precipitation occurs. That’s six times what NASA claims is lost mass. Below I also have a go at the Antarctic precipitation.

    Time for ice to vanish

    Annual loss according to GRACE

    Antarctica: 118 Gt (118 km3) – NASA
    (0.0004% of all Antarctic ice)
    Greenland: 303 Gt (303 km3) – NASA
    (0.011% of all Greenland ice)

    Antarctica: 225,000 years
    Greenland: 9,400 years

    For a meaningful comparison, I calculated the mass of annual precipitation over Greenland. It turns out to be quite a bit.

    Average annual Greenland precipitation
    821 mm – Climate Data

    Area of Greenland
    2.166 million km3 – Wikipedia

    Volume of Greenland precipitation
    1778 km3

    Mass of Greenland precipitation
    1778 Gt (1,788,000,000,000 tons)

    Divide 1778 km3 by 303 km3 (the annual ice loss) and you find that every year nearly six times the claimed annual ice loss falls on Greenland as rain, snow and hail. The Greenland ice sheet will be with us for many thousands of years—the great Antarctic ice sheets much longer, for they’re losing less from a greater supply.

    Average annual Antarctic precipitation

    Snowfall is difficult to determine
    about 200 mm per annum

    Area of Antarctica
    14 million sq. km – Wikipedia

    ∴ volume of annual snowfall = 2,800,000 km3
    or (please check this) = 2.8 Pt (since 1 km3 H2O = 1 Gt H2O)

    So the activists are trying to alarm us about an annual loss of 118 Gt of Antarctic ice. But every year 2,800,000 Gt falls as snow. That’s nearly 24,000 times more than the supposed loss.

    Yes, these are scientists; yes, they deserve respect; yes, they deserve to be listened to. And we deserve to think for ourselves and to ask them: “what are your reasons for not mentioning this?”

    If this is wrong, let me know.

  36. Richard Treadgold on October 17, 2016 at 12:43 pm said:

    @Andy,

    I now live on a glacial moraine at 750m above sea level

    That’s about 2500 feet in the old counting. You must have a whale of a view! Even through all the snow.

  37. We have a great view and we also had snow mid week last week, which facilitated some cross country skiing on the golf course behind my house

  38. Richard Treadgold on October 17, 2016 at 10:42 pm said:

    Amazing.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 11:18 am said:

    TrustPower (TPW) was supposed to delist Friday but still trading, Tilt Renewables (TLT) and New TrustPower (TPX) to begin trading yesterday. Short of calling their investor relations I have no idea what’s going on. They might have got cold feet, TPW last close yesterday was $7.270. The balance day price was:

    EPS 0.306 * PE 26.7 = $8.17

    From calcs upthread
    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/10/listen-to-us-we-control-the-weather-listen/comment-page-1/#comment-1518946

    Today: High Bid $7.110, Low Offer $7.230 (Say $7.17 for convenience i.e. $1 difference from above).

    That’s a $1 per share loss of wealth to TPW shareholders since balance date and before demerger. Total loss to shareholders since balance date: $315,751,900. But 52 weeks ago $6.936 so a 52 week gain of $0.334 or $105,461,135.

    Market sentiment is more the reason for the sagging price than the demerger I think. Genesis and Contact are similar:

    Trustpower Limited Ordinary Shares (TPW)
    https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/TPW

    Genesis Energy Limited Ordinary Shares (GNE)
    https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/GNE

    Contact Energy Limited Ordinary Shares (CEN)
    https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/CEN

    Launching Tilt Renewables into this market would be fraught with the risk of a price crash I would have thought. Especially given Tilt was not a saleable entity in the first place. New Trustpower would benefit from being rid of Tilt is my guess but until the demerged companies are listed there is no way of knowing.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 12:02 pm said:

    S&P/NZX All Energy (G10)

    The S&P/NZX All Energy comprises members of the S&P/NZX All Index, considered the total market indicator for the New Zealand equity market, classified within the energy sector of the Global Industry Classification System (GICS®).

    Value 1,297.870 Movement ▼-6.04
    Percentage ▼-0.46%

    30 day graph
    https://www.nzx.com/markets/nzsx/sectors/G10

  41. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm said:

    >”TrustPower (TPW) was supposed to delist Friday but still trading, Tilt Renewables (TLT) and New TrustPower (TPX) to begin trading yesterday. Short of calling their investor relations I have no idea what’s going on. They might have got cold feet,”

    Holdup seems to have been a “date for final court orders” in respect to demerger and the “South Australian Transmission Event” going by the latest TrustPower announcement yesterday:

    Update South Australian Transmission Event and Demerger

    10:25am, 17 Oct 2016 | GENERAL NZX Announcement 17 October 2016

    Trustpower is pleased to advise that the suspension of the electricity market in South Australia has been lifted and the Spot Market has resumed normal operations. The operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms during the suspension have also been lifted.

    The Trustpower Board has resolved to resume the demerger process and Trustpower will be seeking final court orders at the earliest opportunity. Once a date for final court orders is known an updated demerger timetable will be published.

    Vince Hawksworth, Chief Executive

    https://www.nzx.com/companies/TPW/announcements/290932

    # # #

    >”operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms”

    Is this the future of wind once the grid reaches wind saturation limit?

  42. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 12:22 pm said:

    >”operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms” Is this the future of wind once the grid reaches wind saturation limit?

    Frequency issues, read here:

    How much wind power can a grid handle?
    Could Australia end up with synchronous failure across states?
    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/how-much-wind-power-can-a-grid-handle/

  43. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 10:05 pm said:

    Big Oil: The Oil Market is Bigger Than All Metal Markets Combined

    Chart of the week http://www.visualcapitalist.com/size-oil-market/

    USD1.7 trillion per year at current prices. But for perspective, in 2015 the dollar value of world merchandise trade was USD16.0 trillion, in 2008 16.1, 2009 12.5, 2011 18.1. In other words, the fuel is transporting goods of far greater value. And that value now is no more than a decade ago in 2008 and 2.1 trillion less than 2011.

    >”COP21 [the Climate Change and Business Conference says], “has created a new paradigm” that “will require changed practices” at the global, country and local levels.”

    Might be a good idea to look at actual oil consumption in that case:

    ‘A Surprising Look at Oil Consumption’ – by Ron Patterson 11/24/2015

    The EIA publishes oil consumption numbers for all major nations. However they have data for most nations only through 2013. They do have data for some nations through 2014. Nevertheless a lot can be gleaned from just looking at those consumption numbers. If oil consumption numbers are growing year after year, then there is a good chance that nation is growing economically. But if oil consumption numbers are continually declining year after year, then it is more than a little silly to say all is well, economically, with that nation. Or that is my opinion anyway. [Ron Patterson is not alone on this but shipped merchandise and electricity are other measures. GDP is nuts]

    First, who’s oil consumption is increasing year after year, or who’s economy is booming? All charts below are consumption as total liquids in thousand barrels per day. Some charts are through 2014 while others are through 2013. Whatever the last year is on the yearly axis is the last year for that data.

    Important: All charts are consumption, not production.

    No doubt the Middle East is booming. The reason, most of them are oil producers and oil, for most of this chart anyway, the price of oil was increasing. They had lots of income, their consumption was increasing every year as was their economies. [That was then]

    Saudi Arabia, by far the Middle East’s largest consumer, has increased consumption every year since 1995.

    One third of all total liquids consumption is in Asia and Oceania. The area has experienced tremendous growth in oil consumption.

    And Asia and Oceania’s largest consumer is China. China has increased oil consumption 6.5 percent per year since 1985. [Driven by massive debt, and see below]

    Most of the rest of the world has not seen the consumption boom that was experienced by the Middle East and Asia & Oceania.

    This chart dates only from 1992, the first year after the break up of the Soviet Union. Russian consumption declined by almost 2 million barrels per day to 2.5 million barrels per day during the next 6 years. Russian consumption later recovered but is still almost 1 million barrels per day below the FSU breakup point.

    The combined consumption of the rest of the former Soviet Union nations declined by over 52 percent over the next 8 years and has not yet recovered.

    Most of the rest of the world has seen a serious decline in consumption in the last decade.

    Consumption peaked for Europe in 2005 and 2006. The largest drop was in 2009. For Europe we only have data through 2013. Europe’s oil consumption is down 13 percent, 2006 to 2013.

    Germany is Europe’s largest economy. Germany’s oil consumption started to drop in 1999 but has leveled out since 2007. Germany’s oil consumption is down 18 percent since 1998.

    France’s oil consumption has been dropping since 2006 and really took a dive in 2014. France’s oil consumption is down 17 percent since 2001.

    The UK peaked in 1996 then again in 2005. Oil consumption in the UK has dropped by just over 17 percent since 2005.

    Spain’s oil consumption started dropping in 2007 but leveled out in 2014. Spain’s oil consumption is down 25 percent since 2007.

    Pity poor Italy. Her oil consumption peaked in 1998 and has dropped 36.4 percent, over one third, since.

    US held peak oil consumption at around 20,700,000 barrels per day from 2004 through 2007, dropped in 2008 and 2009 but has leveled out since then. US consumption in 2004 stood at just over 19 million barrels per day, down about 8 percent since the four year peak period. The recession has not hit the US nearly as hard as it has hit Europe.

    Mexico has fared better than Europe as well. Their peak consumption was in 2007 at 2,173,000 barrels per day and had declined by 9.5 percent by 2014.

    Japan has been in the doldrums for almost two decades. Their oil consumption peaked in 1996 at 5,704,000 barrels per day. They recovered slightly in 2012 but dropped again in 2013 and 2014, reaching a low of 4,297,000 barrels per day in 2014. That is a decline of almost 25 percent.

    The EIA has OECD monthly oil consumption data through April 2015. As you can see OECD Europe has not improved much, if any at all since 2013.

    Total OECD oil consumption may have a slight uptick in the last two years.

    And last but not least, China has peaked, or so says the Japanese financial holding company Nomura. This chart is China oil production, past and predicted.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/a-surprising-look-at-oil-consumption/

    # # #

    Sooo…….. what exactly is the “new [COP21] paradigm” for oil? They better hurry because there’s already been an economic shift going on for years.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2016 at 11:16 pm said:

    >”But if oil consumption numbers are continually declining year after year, then it is more than a little silly to say all is well, economically, with that nation. Or that is my opinion anyway. [Ron Patterson is not alone on this but shipped merchandise and electricity are other measures. GDP is nuts]”

    Shipping is about stuff, and tracking stuff seemed like a far more attractive way of getting a handle on “the economy” than economics
    By Lambert Strether
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/david-harvey-and-capitalist-hypertension.html

    What Electricity Consumption Tells Us About The State Of The US Economy – An Update
    by Tyler Durden
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-26/what-us-electricity-consumption-telling-us

  45. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2016 at 9:00 am said:

    Lomberg in WSJ:

    Even more insidiously, doom-mongering makes us panic and seize upon the wrong responses to global warming. At a cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, the Paris climate agreement, recently ratified by China, is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty. It will slow the world’s economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources.

    This will achieve almost nothing. My peer-reviewed research, published last November in the journal Global Policy, shows that even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century—at a cost of more than $100 trillion in lost GDP—global temperature rise would be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F (0.17°C).

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/17/un-paris-climate-deal-is-likely-to-be-historys-most-expensive-treaty-cost-of-between-1-trillion-and-2-trillion-annually/

    # # #

    The world’s economic “growth” has been down for years – forget about meaningless GDP – but the weather didn’t change.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on October 19, 2016 at 9:12 am said:

    ‘India to more than double coal mining by 2020’ – JoNova

    Good news. India plans to add more fertilizer to the global air which will help feed the world. There is no charge.

    India will become the world’s number 2 miner of coal by 2020, overtaking the US. There are plans to ramp up from mining 634 million tons to 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020. That’s only 3 years away. China’s total coal use doesn’t even fit on this graph. As best as anyone can guess, China uses 3.7 billion ton each year.

    How’s that ground breaking, world leading Paris agreement going?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/india-to-more-than-double-coal-mining-by-2020/

    # # #

    Obama’s US “war on coal” negated.

  47. Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. John Christy expose Dennis’ ‘Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data’ by Santer et al. paper for the cherry-picking failure that it is:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/new-santer-et-al-paper-on-satellites-vs-models-even-cherry-picking-ends-with-model-failure/

    It would appear the desperation is getting unbearable amongst the alarmists.

  48. Richard Treadgold on October 19, 2016 at 11:27 am said:

    Brilliant. Thank you.

  49. “How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes”

    They’ll be consulting animal entrails & consulting the oracles to see what influence climate change has on solar flares, super novas, and black holes next. The Guardian readers really are a pack of Frank Spencers:

    “Hmmm, Betty, climate change has done a whoopsie in the corner”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlV786BZ8Rw

  50. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 1:56 pm said:

    Bill McGuire trying to spruik some book sales again.

    Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes – £9.83

    I might read it if he paid me £9.83 but it would have to be a rainy day with all communications down and no other books to choose from. Kevin Trenberth subscribes to this idea to a degree. I have him on email record. Atmosphere-earth “friction” apparently.

    Nothing at all to do with all that molten magma.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 2:04 pm said:

    >”Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes – £9.83″

    But I mention sea floor hydrovents at Hot Topic and they think I’m unhinged. Turns into “mysterious” undersea volcanoes. Never mind that scientists believe that some 80 percent of all the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place in the ocean and super-heated water from hydrovents can reach 400C.

  52. Richard Treadgold on October 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm said:

    @Andy,

    “How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes”

    and @RC,

    Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes – £9.83

    This sounds reasonable to me, that the pressure of the atmosphere reduced by many gigatonnes during a severe storm, the mass of seawater during a flood tide or the gigatonnes of rainwater in a monsoon might be the straw on the camel’s back and trip an incipient crustal movement. No problem with that at all, considering we’ve detected small earth movements apparently triggered by mere fracking.

    But when the allegation is made that man’s activities are the cause of these earthquakes through climate change, the question becomes: “what’s the magnitude of man’s involvement?” If that’s not quantified the allegation is reduced to no more than an exercise in fear inducement.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm said:

    RT >”the pressure of the atmosphere reduced by many gigatonnes during a severe storm”

    The conventional as yet unproven conjecture is a rapid change of pressure in terms of hours that releases friction. Even then a fault has to be on the verge of slippage anyway.

    Invoking climate change over several decades as per McGuire is a huge stretch of credibility i.e. there’s already the rapid pressure changes from storms going on and a definite connection hasn’t been proved yet (we’re talking about 750 earthquakes a year just in the US alone). What’s climate change going to do over decades to pressure? Can’t be anything rapid.

    Kevin Trenberth says this (personal email):

    “Wrt El Nino and seismicity, the main link is more likely the other way. The effects of seismicity and ocean vents are negligible but El Nino causes substantial changes in winds and surface wind stress that creates torque on the earth, part of which changes ocean currents, so if there is a link it is more likely causal from El Nino.”

    This is a long way removed from McGuire’s ideas and El Nino is a natural event anyway but Kevin’s action is El Nino => air stress => seismicity not direct El Nino => seismicity as below. And just random thoughts by Kevin on this to be fair. I had sought his opinion on these papers:

    ‘More evidence indicates link between El Niños and seismicity’
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/EO076i004p00033-01.shtml

    ‘Seismic predictors of El Niño revisited’
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/99EO00202.shtml

    ‘El Nino Tectonic Modulation in the Pacific Basin.’
    http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/papers/Leybourne_Oceans_Fin.pdf

    There’s a NZ GNS connection in there somewhere but can’t remember how it goes without reading them all again. I think Leybourne Jnr worked at GNS or something.

    James E. Kamis has had a series of articles on this at Climate Change Dispatch. His is a plate climatology theory. For example:

    Emerging 2015 El Nino Fueled By Deep Ocean Geological Forces
    http://www.plateclimatology.com/emerging-2015-el-nino-fueled-by-deep-ocean-geological-forces/

    How Geological Heating Refuels El Niño
    http://climatechangedispatch.com/how-geological-heating-refuels-el-nino/

  54. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 6:05 pm said:

    Should be:

    “but Kevin’s action is El Nino => air stress => seismicity not direct El Nino => seismicity [or seismicity => El Nino] as below.

  55. Long term pressure via El Nino/La Nina perhaps (minimally), but in the case of extreme weather I think it would let go anyway. It would happen with or without El Nino/La Nina or extreme weather events.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 6:49 pm said:

    [Trenberth] – “The effects of seismicity and ocean vents are negligible”

    [Kamis] – “The 2014-2016 El Niño “warm blob” was created, maintained, and is now being partially recharged by massive pulses of super-heated and chemically charged seawater from deep ocean geological features.”

    [Walker] – “In 1988, evidence showed a correlation between the five extreme lows in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) from 1964 through 1987 and episodic seismic activity along the East Pacific Rise (EPR) from 20°S to 40°S. This area contains one of the Earth’s most rapidly spreading ridge systems where large amounts of energy are released through submarine volcanism and hydrothermal activity”

    CO2-centric atmospheric climate scientists will never concede to geologists over this. For them the atmosphere drives everything. Ask Roger Dewhurst, geologist (NZCSC), about this.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 6:50 pm said:

    The previous links to the Walker papers referenced upthread no longer work and the papers are paywalled now. But here are the abstracts:

    More evidence indicates link between El Ninos and seismicity D. A. Walker (1995
    https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-017b3fe1-3c1c-336f-8600-d5985637b057

    Seismic predictors of El Nino revisited D. A. Walker (1999)
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248818443_Seismic_predictors_of_El_Nio_revisited

  58. Richard C (NZ) on October 21, 2016 at 7:23 pm said:

    Magoo

    >”Long term pressure via El Nino/La Nina perhaps (minimally), but in the case of extreme weather I think it would let go anyway. It would happen with or without El Nino/La Nina or extreme weather events.”

    Geological evidence upthread has El Nino geologically (seismically) driven rather than seismicity being El Nino driven.

    But in respect to extreme weather events, yes, seems sensible that geological forces gazump atmospheric pressure change hands down. The seismic forces are so great a mere atmospheric pressure change is negligible I would have thought. But there is some literature to link some specific events (see below) but it’s not as if they are talking about anything major.

    ‘How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes’

    By EVAN LEHMANN of ClimateWire November 20, 2009

    New evidence (pdf) shows that atmospheric low pressure systems can prompt the landslide [Slumgullion Landslide in the San Juan Mountains of Southwest Colorado] to lurch downward. Pressure drops when warm daytime air results in low “tides,” or when fast-moving storms race onto the scene. The effect on landslides and earthquakes only occurs when the pressure plummets suddenly, causing underground water and air to shoot toward the surface.

    That reduces friction between grinding subterranean plates, or under a landslide that’s been held immobile by abrasive dirt and rocks.

    “Slides, earthquakes, glaciers, volcanic eruptions — all of these things involve soil sliding on soil, or rock sliding on rock,” explains William Schulz, a research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey and the author of a study published this month in the journal Nature Geoscience. “And sliding is resisted primarily by one thing, and that’s friction.”

    Typhoons can make plates slip

    The same conclusion was reached by scientists in Taiwan this June. A study (pdf) published in the journal Nature described how low pressure accompanying typhoons sparked small earthquakes along the fault between the Philippine Sea Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The scientists note that they make “a definitive connection between fault slip and changes in atmospheric pressure.”

    Importantly, both studies say weather impacts can accelerate an earthly act that was bound to happen sooner or later. In other words, low pressure is not the cause of an earthquake, just the trigger.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/20/20climatewire-how-storms-can-trigger-earthquakes-28304.html

    Big leap between individual extreme weather events and climate change in this though, I’m not buying that. Extreme weather events are nothing new.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation