New UNFCCC climate chief no worse than the old

Christina Figueres

On 17 May, 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced the appointment of Mrs Christina Figueres as the new Executive Secretary of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat based in Bonn, Germany. The appointment was endorsed by the Bureau of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). She replaced Yvo de Boer, who resigned in February, 2010, declaring himself “appalled” by the failure of the international community to reach agreement at Copenhagen on “fighting climate change”.

Yvo De Boer

The AP quotes Mrs Figueres as saying today in Beijing, China:

“Countries have felt a renewed urgency to address global warming given this year’s series of frequent and catastrophic disasters, including massive flooding in Pakistan, drought and fires in Russia, and mudslides and floods in China.”

Have they, indeed? First, how does she know this, or is she merely stating what she would like to hear? People I talk with confess no such feeling and acknowledge no man-made influence in floods and droughts. Forest fires are caused by lightning or arson and prolonged by lack of rain; they’re not caused by atmospheric warming of fractions of a degree, whether man-made or natural.

Second, what do these severe and tragic climatic events have to do with mankind’s emissions of CO2? It is not enough simply to claim a connection: in a scientific age one must provide evidence of a connection. So what is the evidence?

If there isn’t any evidence of a connection between humanity’s emissions and dangerous alterations to the climate, it follows that no action is required to reduce those emissions, nor need we suffer the huge expense of doing so.

Big money

The AP says further:

The goals for Cancun are less about reaching a binding treaty than moving forward on operational decisions on funding and technology transfer from industrialized nations to developing countries to deal with the effects of climate change, she said.

A key component would be implementing the transfer of billions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations to deal with the effects of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Rich nations had pledged to give $30 billion over three years, with an eventual goal of $100 billion by 2020.

Whew! That’s big money, by any reckoning — $10 billion per year. Note the wording: “implementing the transfer” of billions of dollars. If this is not about punishing the wealthy and giving to the poor simply to relieve their poverty, because of their poverty and because others are rich, you can dynamite my car. Other reasons for thinking so are that the failed Copenhagen treaty would have set up a world government to “enforce” mitigation actions, and organisations as diverse as the WWF and the World Bank Group talk about achieving “climate justice”.

An awkward focus on reason

Climate justice implies a crime has been committed and convicts us in the west of committing it. Since the justice will be achieved merely with a transfer of funds, it has nothing to do with “fighting” the climate. So climate change is just the latest excuse to punish those who earn excessive amounts of money and reward the idle governments of the poor.

Naturally, the governments of the poor support such schemes and begin to “report” signs that their living quarters are being destroyed by climate change: big business is an enemy, help us, help us!

Observe that first paragraph quoted above — “… less about reaching a binding treaty”. In other words, don’t be too concerned with dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on the science, it’s near enough — the evidence is piling up. Let’s talk about the money — and then give it to me.

So by the use of the term “operational decisions” the lovely Christina circumvents an awkward and unnecessary focus on “reason” and “evidence” and makes the paying of a king’s ransom sound already justified, agreed and under way. All that remains is to decide the bank account and raise a purchase order. Only…

We still want the evidence

Mrs Figueres refers to severe weather disasters in the hope that a sense of guilt will prevent us from asking awkward questions about the science for which she has no answer and get on with the job: our real purpose is shifting money to redress the “unnatural” balance between the wealthy and the poor — those who work and those who don’t. Not that I criticise the inhabitants of poor countries, only their lazy leaders: for what are they doing with the taxes they collect? Surely not improving the lot of their fellow citizens! Why our self-flagellating ruling classes don’t see the disconnect between third-world rulers and their citizens is a mystery.

It’s hard to argue with redistributing the wealth without appearing callous towards the poor. However if no scientific justification exists to “fight climate change”, it’s hard to believe it’s any reason to fight poverty. Because to hit one target, one doesn’t aim at another one.

So I call for reason to prevail; I call to know the evidence for a dangerous human intervention in the climate. As I’ve said before: there can’t really be any evidence, or we’d all know it by heart — because the activists would be ramming it down our throats.

The only reason they’re not ramming it down our throats is that there isn’t any evidence.

And if there’s no evidence then we should stop fighting phantoms.

And then we could fight some real problems.

Or what have I missed?

Views: 131

47 Thoughts on “New UNFCCC climate chief no worse than the old

  1. Mike Jowsey on 12/09/2010 at 8:57 am said:

    The world is warming and our children’s children are going to blame us for our excesses, so we therefore need to send billions of $$$ to Tuvalu, etc. This will not change the climate one iota, but will lock the inhabitants of those recipient countries into a vicious dependency cycle. It will also gain the UN much revenue from skimming the funds of which it intends to “implement the transfer”.

    But more importantly said transfer will absolve all us serfs of the guilt we must surely feel towards our beloved Gaia.

    No, Richard, I don’t think you missed a thing.

  2. Flipper on 12/09/2010 at 11:50 am said:

    Sorry Mike, you erred.
    Richard missed a wonderful precedent – the UN-IRAQ oil-for-food scam. I’m sorry, “humanitarian programme”.
    Wonder where Helengrad will fit into all this…….

  3. Yes, shame, but we don’t know how much is mere hot air to keep the electors quiet; time will tell. However, I suggest it’s more important now than ever before to keep up the pressure on the politicians in both countries.

    We need accurate analysis to overcome the lies they’re telling the people about the justifications and the results of their policies to tax “carbon” and confront this climate that bends so easily to our will.

    We need stories about the ETS, the CPRS, farming situation and options, forestry, the effects on the cost of living and the cost of the mighty bureaucracy that has been developed to manage this multi-headed monster.

    We especially need to write about the huge amounts of money heading for third-world leaders’ slush funds – err, sorry, overseas poor people. It’s never aimed at poor people at home, is it? Why not, I wonder? Perhaps so we cannot oversee the process easily.

    • Quentin F on 13/09/2010 at 12:06 pm said:

      Yes and we now have an earthquake to pay for (4 billion and rising!)

    • Richard C on 15/09/2010 at 12:24 pm said:

      Also there’s the opportunity cost of funds and effort diverted from sensible pollution mitigation.

      Geenies assume that skeptics are not concerned with the environment and air/ water quality – not so.

      I live near Port of Tauranga. Ships in port burn diesel but when they switch to bunker oil (what they burn off-shore) by mistake, the toxic effects down wind are all too apparent. CO2 I can live with, SO2 not so much.

    • Richard C on 19/09/2010 at 2:01 pm said:

      “We need stories about………….”

      Stories such as this proposal by the mad-science fringe to save the planet by……polluting the planet.

      From WUWT

      “Scientists at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology have taken a new approach on examining a proposal to fix the warming planet. So-called geo-engineering ideas—large-scale projects to change the Earth’s climate—have included erecting giant mirrors in space to reflect solar radiation, injecting aerosols of sulfate into the stratosphere making a global sunshade,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”

      Of course they use the CO2 distorted global climate models to justify their “experiment”:

      “The Carnegie scientists ran five simulations using a global climate model with different sulfate aerosol concentrations depending on latitude. They then used the results from these simulations in an optimization model to determine what distribution of sulfates would come closest to achieving specified climate goals. They then tested these distributions in the global climate model to assess how well the climate goals were met”

      Even Greenpeace opposes this approach. From Prison Planet:

      “However, when you consider the fact that the global warming mantra is a thin veil for eugenics and population control, it’s unlikely that the world’s elite care about one third of the planet’s population being unable to eat, in fact they would probably see that as a bonus.

      The known facts about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide are bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

      The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to mothball taxpayer funded research into the idea.

      The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.

      – Neurological effects and behavioral changes
      – Disturbance of blood circulation
      – Heart damage
      – Effects on eyes and eyesight
      – Reproductive failure
      – Damage to immune systems
      – Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
      – Damage to liver and kidney functions
      – Hearing defects
      – Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
      – Dermatological effects
      – Suffocation and lung embolism

      According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”

      Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.

      “If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

      Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr – has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”..

      The first comment at WUWT says it all (apart from the sinister eugenic connotations):

      Andres Valencia says:
      September 16, 2010 at 9:31 pm

      Is this for real?
      First, models substitute experiments, now models substitute common sense!
      Please keep it virtual, yes?

      And the model outputs are based on model input assumptions. Fourth WUWT comment:

      Mike Ford says:
      September 16, 2010 at 9:43 pm

      I got lost in the 3rd paragraph. The output of model 1 is the input to model 2. The output of model 2 is the input to model 3. This is science??????

      Except that the initial model 1 input assumptions do not replicate the climate drivers active over the last 200 years; they only assume that ACO2 is the major climate driver so they cannot even replicate the current observed condition. If they did incorporate the natural cycles – solar (not the Judith McLean version), 60 year, Milankovitch etc they might be able to take a stab at the next seasons weather (NiWA take note) and the Global Warming, sorry, “Global Climate Disruption” problem will have blown away in the last spring storm (Nick Smith take note).

      So, where does the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology get their funding?

      Answer, the Carnegie Endowment

      The Rockefeller Brothers contribute via Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Financial Services and The Rockefeller Foundation.

      And what does David Rockefeller believe?

      “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (New Zealand take note).

    • Richard C on 19/09/2010 at 5:47 pm said:

      Judith Lean, not Judith McLean – sorry again

  4. Flipper on 12/09/2010 at 3:28 pm said:

    So the UN ‘crats want billions from so called wealthy nations and they undertake to transfer it (Transfer payments. Wonder where I have heard that before? ) to the “less wealthy”. Puttfing aside the issue of the governance of those nations, in the imortal words from Tui: ” Yeah right”.

  5. Quentin F on 12/09/2010 at 11:04 pm said:

    That Mrs Figueres will get her come-upance from La Nina! Its started already and the pundits say its going to give the North Americans a real taste of winters to come! (see IceAge Now)
    I think we should all bow to the god(s) of the PDO!

  6. Andy on 13/09/2010 at 8:36 am said:

    The party will end when they run out of money.

    In Scotland, this appears to be already happening

  7. (not so) Silent on 14/09/2010 at 10:48 am said:

    Interesting in some of the post Oz Election comments its been pointed out that Abbott, who eschewed an ETS, got 700,000 more votes that Gillard.
    Yet many thought his policy would backfire and he would only get 15% of the vote let alone over 50%

  8. Quentin F on 15/09/2010 at 11:41 am said:

    We need a Jo Nova in NZ

  9. Richard C on 15/09/2010 at 12:03 pm said:

    The IPCC AR5 is just around the corner – 2013.

    With that in mind, may I suggest that folks here bone up on the state of play in climate modeling. NiWA did not commission their $23m supercomputer to play patience.

    To save a great deal of eyestrain and internet leg-work I have compiled a reading list:

    Reqd reading – cloud modeling (with a view to AR5)

    Bretherton, C.S., 2006. Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity.

    Wyant, M.C., Khairoutdinov, M. & Bretherton, C.S., 2006. Climate sensitivity and cloud response of a GCM with a superparameterization.

    Pincus, R., C. P. Batstone, R. J. P. Hofmann, K. E. Taylor, and P. J. Glecker (2008),
    Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation, and radiation in climate models

    Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing

    The two following links are from The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered

    Global Climate Models and Their Limitations

    Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing

    Steve McIntyre at CA noted that Bretherton (2006) which shows negative cloud feedbacks contrary to the positive feedback orthodoxy, was NOT cited in AR4 even though the paper must have been known to the authors.

    More pain can be avoided by visiting the comments in the lower part of this post at

    As you can see, tracking down the initialization data is fraught – finding the results (garbage out) is easy; finding the inputs (garbage in) is another matter entirely.

    I intend in the near future to turn my attention from NASA’s GISS ModelE AOGSM to the SP-CAM model that uses super-parameterization and returns negative feedbacks from clouds but meantime NASA GISS does provide ready access to the conventional ModelE.

    It would not surprise me if NIWA pulls down the code for one or more of the models then sets out to find some really alarming projections to keep up with the CSIRO, NASA GISS, UK Met Office etc. That should not be difficult given the prevailing IPCC RF methodology.

    To labour the point, the results of the AR4 models (IPCC “science”) are WHY NZ has an ETS. The results of the models are in turn a result of the simulation inputs. Are you familiar with the Radiative Forcing input datasets? I bet you aren’t and I bet Nick Smith isn’t either.

    Just one example: the solar inputs used by the models are sourced from the IPCC AR4 solar expert Judith Lean (yes, only one), they are highly contentious but what will be implemented in the models for AR5? Judith Leans solar spin-up datasets neglect the variation in cloudiness in the 80’s and 90’s (probably as a result of CRF – another climate driver hypothesis downplayed by the IPCC). Less cloudiness over that period meant more solar irradiance (TSI) let in to heat the oceans and subsequently more atmospheric warming. However, the warming was attributed by the IPCC’s RF mechanism to CO2 and extrapolated by the models to alarming levels in 2100.

    • Richard C on 15/09/2010 at 3:43 pm said:

      This blog post by William DePuccio at Roger Pielke Snr’s site should be added to the reading list.

      Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?

      It is specific to GISS ModelE and shows the divergence between projected and observed heat accumulation 2003-2008

    • Richard C: Thank you for your reading list. I will explore it.

    • Richard C on 15/09/2010 at 9:22 pm said:

      $12.7m super-computer sorry.

      “It would not surprise me if NIWA pulls down the code for one or more of the models then sets out to find some really alarming projections to keep up with the CSIRO, NASA GISS, UK Met Office etc”

      Yep, from NIWA’s website:-
      “This system (sic) the same platform as in use at the UK Met Office, and we will be using the Met Office’s Unified Model System to conduct weather and climate prediction research and operational hazards forecasting.”

      Note: the UMS is ONLY the atmospheric (A) module of the UKMO’s atmosphere-ocean coupled GSM (AOGSM). The two UKMO AO models used for IPCC AR4 evaluation were HadCM3 and HadGEM1

      Learn all about the UMS here (one snag, the module has trouble predicting the weather a season ahead – ask the Brits about the “barbecue summer”)

      The blurb touts the UMS as state-of-the-art but not so. It uses conventional cloud parameterization as far as I’m aware – old technology.

      Tech stuff| here:

      UKMO AOGSM works like this:
      “The coupled model runs asynchronously, which means that the atmosphere model runs first for some time then the ocean model runs for some time, taking turns. In the case of the model used in the experiment, the individual components run for one day at a time.

      Fluxes of heat, wind, and freshwater are passed between the ocean model and the atmosphere model at the ocean-atmosphere interface.” (seems to neglect physics at the interface but I could be wrong)

      UMS parameters here

      From the blurb:
      dtheta This has to do with the initial state of the atmosphere – what it looks like when the model starts in 1810. (this is the spin-up dataset probably including forcings i.e garbage in, GISS ModelE starts 1750)

      Forcings datasets are mostly sourced from specialist providers, solar from one, AGHG from another etc so much the same across models but vary for each IPCC SRES scenario. Still RF methodology so expect some warm weather ahead.

    • Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 12:43 am said:

      GISS ModelE starts at 1850 not 1750 – sorry.

      It is the IPCC definition of Radiative Forcing AR4 glossary of terms that starts at 1750.

      “For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value.”

    • Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 11:10 am said:

      UKMO will use HadGEM2 for AR5

      “Members of the HadGEM2 family will be used in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

      It’s an outlier in model comparisons but then is UM a better or worse predictor? Moot given none of then can predict 2010 temps (A1B is severe emissions mitigation i.e. price on carbon):

      “HadGEM2-AO is a clear outlier in the precipitation response for A1B”

    • Richard C on 15/09/2010 at 10:07 pm said:

      One more from Dr Roy Spencer just posted today, the comments are top-shelf too.

      Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive

    • Yes, this is thought-provoking indeed. Spencer certainly sounds credible, and if nothing else he holds the door open on the science — it might not be so settled at all!

    • Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 12:12 pm said:

      This is the best illustration and example I can find for someone new to climate model anthropogenic CO2 (ACO2) forcings datasets.

      For this graph, the author pulled in two CO2 datasets and spliced them together. Under “Data Sources” they are Law Dome Icecore and the recent Mouna Loa.

      Law Dome

      Mauna Loa

      This dataset and splice – looks like a hockey stick, is the same as that used in model simulation spin-ups for A1B runs but the values pre 2010 are similar across all IPCC SRES scenarios.

      For example, the table of Radiative Forcings (figure 2.4) in AR4 was compiled for 2005 where the ACO2 forcing is quoted as 1.66 Wm2 (1.49 to 1.83).

      To arrive at that value we select a corresponding empirical value from the Mauna Loa dataset
      MLO 2005 06 382.14 (this is concentration in ppm)

      GISS ModelE uses 379.800 for 2005 A1B and I’ll use GISS from now on to get Wm2.

      TAR provides Table 6.2: Simplified expressions for calculation of radiative forcing

      For CO2 F= (g(C)-g(C0)) which expanded looks like this:-

      F= 3.35 *( ln(1+1.2C+0.005C2 +1.4 x 10-6C3) – ln(1+1.2C0)+0.005C0)2 +1.4 x 10-6C0)3))

      This is Hansen’s “tweaked” formulation to try to make the RF methodology results closer to the observed condition. ModelE does not actually use this formulation but it can be used to readily calculate a forcing for any year. By my calcs for 2005:-

      B1 1.70 Wm2 (B1 is basically a no-change scenario)
      A1b 1.72 Wm2
      AR4 1.66 Wm2 (1.49 to 1.83)

      So my calcs using the GISS datasets are within the AR4 envelope

      I suspect there is a similar formulation somewhere to calculate solar forcing from the solar flux data.

      The blog post linked above and here: shows how ModelE arrives at the nett anthropogenic forcing (all GHG’s, aerosols, positive and negative etc).

      BTW, the post also blows away the AGW hypothesis – very important.

      From the post
      “Pielke’s test compares the net anthropogenic radiative forcing projected by GISS computer models (Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al.) with actual ocean heat as measured by the ARGO array. To calculate the annual projected heat accumulation in the climate system or oceans, radiative forcing (Watts/m2) must be converted to Joules (Watt seconds) and multiplied by the total surface area of the oceans or earth:

      [#1] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aearth) .80

      or, [#2] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aocean) .85

      Where Qannum is the annual heat accumulation in Joules

      Ri is the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance in W/m2

      P is the period of time in seconds/year (31,557,600)

      Aocean is the total surface area of the oceans in m2 (3.61132 x 1014)

      Aearth is the total surface area of the earth in m2 (5.10072 x 1014)

      .80 & .85 are reductions for isolating upper ocean heat (see below)

      Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system.

      Eq. #1, used by the GISS model, assumes that nearly all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (80%-90% according to Willis, U.S. CLIVAR, 1, citing Levitus, et. al.).”

      So there you have it – Climate Model Anthropogenic CO2 Forcings Datasets 101.

    • Richard C on 18/09/2010 at 12:48 pm said:

      Just to highlight that the CO2 dataset is a bogus contrivance.

      The modelers combine natural and anthropogenic CO2 concentrations to arrive at the anthropogenic forcing. The Mauna Loa uptick in the combined dataset provides the magnifier that is assumed to be a result of increased human emissions and assumed to be the reason for post 1958 warming!

      RT, this is relevant to the despicable graph in your “Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1” post What you see is just the Mauna Loa portion.

      Graphs that tell a different story can be found on the homepage of Global Warming Science (a link is incorrect on the left side graph and I have asked the site owner, Alan Cheetham, for links to the full-size graphs – might be useful for “Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 2” ?)

      And The Hockey Schtick homepage

      From another un-verifiable source:-
      This graph (A) illustrates that there is in fact no correlation between the spliced Law Dome icecore-Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations dataset of IPCC AGW theory and the Hadcrut3 temperature series. Even the revised warming model on the graph is doubtful IMO given the current PDO situation

      This graph (B) illustrates the divergence between the IPCC AGW models and actual RSS satellite observations

      Note the difference between the multipliers in the un-realistic extrapolations in (A) and the RSS trendline in (B).

      4.7 and 2.33 in (A) vs 1.05 in (B)

  10. Ron on 15/09/2010 at 2:04 pm said:

    we could also do with top bureaucrats like Lord Turnbull in the UK (recently retired, maybe that’s why he doesn’t need to toe the line….)

    he also wrote an excellent Foreword to Montford’s Climategate report

  11. Andy on 15/09/2010 at 2:21 pm said:

    Great reading list from Richard C!

    And it looks like the party may soon be over in the USA:

    Republican hopefuls deny global warming

    Report reveals all bar one of party’s 48 mid-term election candidates are sceptical about climate change

  12. Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 2:49 pm said:

    This email sent today:-

    Dr David Wratt,

    Chief Scientist, Climate, NIWA.


    As a layman, sceptical of the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major climate driver of our time, I have spent some time familiarizing myself with climate model developments and I note that NIWA HPCF will be utilizing the UKMO Unified Model.

    Among all the simulation runs I have seen, including model inter-comparisons, I have only come across one natural forcings only dataset (I have not yet chased down the results of that run and I’m not sure if I have access). This is not to say that there no others, just that if there are, that they are not published widely to my knowledge.

    I acknowledge the usefulness of investigating the various IPCC SRES scenarios but there does not seem to an alternative scenario that does not attribute the climate driving force to anthropogenic origin. Given the divergence of current model simulation results from the observed condition, whether temperature or ocean heat, is it not time that an alternative is investigated?

    An alternative scenario would be one that:-

    A) Removes the multiplier effect of anthropogenic climate forcing,


    B) Modifies the Radiative Forcing (RF) methodology and forcing datasets accordingly.

    What has NIWA got to lose by this? If it turns out that such a run returns results closer to the observed condition, NIWA will have taken the lead. Why not step outside the consensus for one scenario? Also, unless you do this, you are effectively disenfranchising a sector of society that is asking for balance in the scientific endeavour. There has been a multitude of simulations that assume the validity of the AGW hypothesis but I am only asking for ONE scenario simulation, even if that is only in the local regional context.

    I am convinced that the models are better than the results they are returning under the prevailing orthodoxy and there are some interesting evolutionary developments, particularly the super-parameterization of clouds, so why not seize the opportunity afforded by the advancements of the current model generation now that HPCF has the means?


    Richard Cumming

    • Richard C on 18/09/2010 at 11:06 am said:

      No response so far, I don’t think it got past the gatekeeper.

      I have since discovered that 19 simulations from 5 models were submitted to ar4. The simulations were unable to account for 1930’s warming and post 1970’s warming. The problem being that the as yet un-ascribed 60 year climate cycle is not incorporated in the natural forcings.

      So a natural forcings only simulation run by NIWA HPCF UM will be meaningless (as will any other run) until the model can replicate the 60 year cycle.

      The situation is explained comprehensively here:

    • Richard C on 18/09/2010 at 12:59 pm said:

      19 natural forcings only simulations – Bah!

  13. Quentin F on 16/09/2010 at 3:20 pm said:

    Challenging all AGW alarmists! Here from the big horses mouth god NASA itself!
    La Nina CHILLING the Pacific!

    • Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 6:11 pm said:

      Wow, the full size image shows the cooler water around NI NZ but the storm surge from the massive front that’s a-comin’ will probably lift levels and obscure the picture for a while. We’re certainly getting the rain that NOAA is talking about. I’d like to see the situation on that plot below the Australian Bight and the Southern Ocean. UNISYS shows cooler water there and isn’t that where the front came from?

      Not the “mild spring” that NIWA was predicting.

    • Richard C on 16/09/2010 at 8:01 pm said:

      Saw these comments on WUWT – They only come out at night: “The Dark Side of Climate Change” post

      Ian Holton says:
      September 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm

      You folks may be hot in USA, but……You might be interested to know that in most of central, east and SE Australia we have been getting lowest winter and spring temps in many areas for at least 10 to 20 years or more. Wettest for 10 or 20 years or more or much longer. The Murray River main river has been flooding. Water restrictions are being mainly lifted. Dams are filling or full. flooding has occurred in many areas. September so far is well below max temps in most areas, rainfall is already past the Sept mean in many areas. The Centre of Australian desert areas resemble the green pastures of England and are full of wildflowers. Salt Lake Eyre is good for boating, and at present Tasmania is suffering heavy snow and 130km/hr winds!
      Ian Holton says:
      September 15, 2010 at 5:34 pm
      Scan all these for details of Australias return to the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s weather this winter and spring!

      The details at that link really fill in the picture (not much fun in South America either).

      Also, from the post comments:-

      “Its darker than we thought!”


      “CO2 is more powerful at night.”

  14. Richard C on 18/09/2010 at 1:28 pm said:

    The goal[posts have shifted again – Global Warming Out, ‘Global Climate Disruption’ In

    Holdren wants to de-develop USA.

    White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’

    Also at the same site :-

    Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’! by James Delingpole

    WH Science Czar ‘Global Warming’ is ‘Dangerous Misnomer’ by James Lewis

    Eco-Fascists Call For Tyranny To Enforce Draconian Agenda by Paul Joseph Watson

  15. Richard C on 20/09/2010 at 8:49 am said:

    NZ Climate News

    Survey: Concern wanes over climate change

    “19.3% said the climate change problem effectively didn’t exist – up from 17.5%.”

    “45.8% agreed that climate change was happening and caused by humans – up from 44.2%”

    Farms, orchards bear brunt of storm

    “The alarm went off at 8.30pm on Saturday and that’s the earliest in the evening we’ve had an alarm go off since 1969,” (just prior to the 70’s “Global Cooling” scare

    Investigation into stadium collapse

    “Stadium general manager Nigel Skelt said it was an unusually large dump of snow which caused the collapse, and dismissed Mr Shadbolt’s claims.

    “I think they’re unfounded, in my professional opinion,” Mr Skelt told TV3.

    Former Invercargill Licensing Trust chairman Ray Harper, who was involved with the building 10 years ago, said it was a “freak circumstance” and there was nothing wrong with its construction.

    “Never in my life, in 80 years, have I seen Invercargill with so much snow,” the master builder told Radio New Zealand.

    The stadium used the best engineers and architects, he said. ”

    Or perhaps the “best” engineers and architects believe what they read in newspapers.

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

  16. Ron on 21/09/2010 at 12:25 am said:

    we’re getting some attention at WUWT

    and the ODT relays Reuters rubbish about 2010 being record hot year and walruses fleeing the ice melt (like they do every year).

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation