I’ve been busy

Business commitments have kept me from covering any climate topics for a while, but I plan to post an article or two at the weekend. There’s a paper on clouds by two Auckland researchers that has come to my attention and I may have time for further items.

So, my apologies, but I haven’t stopped either being interested in climate matters or spending time reading and writing about them. There’s a lot happening and some people have been quite excited at the extra realistic (sceptical) coverage of global warming.

I avoid getting excited because the great carbon-based wheel is now turning at a fair clip and will take a power of stopping. That’s no reason to slacken our efforts, but is a reason to raise the gaze to a slightly more distant finish line.

Views: 600

81 Thoughts on “I’ve been busy

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 8:00 am said:

    Yes it is exciting Richard.

    Roger Dewhurst asked this question at Hot Topic:-

    Roger Dewhurst February 12, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Which looks a better fit?



    This is my response that I will email to Roger and post at Hot Topic but because I’ve been in ‘Permanent Moderation’ it may be awhile before it appears (if it ever does)
    Roger, “Which looks a better fit?”

    Obviously the harmonics are a better fit than the IPCC projection but I think there’s a flaw in Scafetta’s long-term prognosis around 2040 here:-


    Reason being that the phases that we see, oscillate about a quadratic trajectory found in HadCRUT3 by Scafetta 2010. That underlying trend is extrinsically imposed and Wu et al 2007 found a similar trajectory using an intrinsically extracted EMD residual.

    Problem is that the Wu07 series ended 2003 and with the additional data since then the residual has transitioned to an INVERTED curve (still rising). The residual cannot be used for prediction purposes because as additional data comes in, the residual repositions and distorts until a new IMF is added (there are 7 IMFs in HadCRUT3/HadSST2 since 1850) and a new residual emerges.

    Wu et al 07 here (they term the series GSTA):-


    Scafetta 2010 here:-


    I’ve done 30yr and 162yr EMD analyses with up-to-data HadSST2 data along with a comparative 162yr 5th order poly (HadSST2.xls) that I’ve put in Dropbox ‘Public’ here:-


    The inverted trajectory only shows up in the 162yr analysis but the present inter-decadal oscillation that we are witnessing corresponds to IMF5 that is common to both 30yr and 162yr analyses. I think IMF5 is tracking the trends in the Nino 3.4 SST anomaly here:-


    It must be said that neither EMD IMF signals nor the Scafetta harmonics (two different concepts) necessarily mimic the data closely. This has confused some WUWT people because they are saying Scafetta’s model has failed already because the data is not closely tracking the harmonic oscillation.

    Also in Dropbox ‘Public’ above is CO2 vs GAT R2.xls where the Scafetta 2010 HadCRUT3 quadratic is plotted against the CO2 Keeling Curve (note that temperature leads CO2). You might also be interested in the GMSL analyses in ‘Public’.

    I don’t see the inflexion in the 162yr EMD residual as a sign of cooling but I do see it as an indication of a climate regime shift this century. It may be a precursor to a cooler regime but only time will tell as new data comes in.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 8:21 am said:

      This was the message returned when I posted at Hot topic:-

      Warning: Bad Behavior spam capture in /var/www/vhosts/hot-topic.co.nz/httpdocs/wp-content/plugins/bad-behavior/bad-behavior-wordpress.php on line 150

      Warning: Cannot modify header information – headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/vhosts/hot-topic.co.nz/httpdocs/wp-content/plugins/bad-behavior/bad-behavior-wordpress.php:150) in /var/www/vhosts/hot-topic.co.nz/httpdocs/wp-includes/pluggable.php on line 866

      Needless to say the comment has not appeared yet at HT but no problem, it got through Richard T’s “Bad Behavior spam capture” without interruption..

    • Andy on 14/02/2012 at 8:47 am said:

      I expect that I’ll be on “bad behaviour” too, since my recent discussion of the Glaciergate issue seems to have induced much foaming at the mouth. They seems unwilling to accept any criticism of their faith whatsoever.

      We are clearly seeing the signs of delusional cultists in action.

    • Andy on 14/02/2012 at 8:56 am said:

      If you’re interested, my last comment here, followed by Rob Taylor and bill,


      Quite funny really.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 9:26 am said:

      Bill certainly has a way with words (from an abstracted Leftest perspective).

      I note that Rob Taylor’s “elephant” has been responsible for a Jason-2 sea level fall from 2010.1714 of -1.97mm/yr.

      Must be an anti-elephant.

    • Andy on 14/02/2012 at 10:58 am said:

      Apparently I suffer from some kind of Aspergers syndrome.
      For those with an engineering or science background, this is known as “attention to detail” or “quality control”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 12:15 pm said:

      Also of a cyclical nature:-

      Doug Proctor: Climate Change is caused by Clouds and Sunshine

      Posted: February 13, 2012 by tallbloke

      This paper pretty much refutes co2 driven global warming. We all owe a debt of thanks to Doug Proctor, who has put a huge amount of work into this paper over the last months. Some of the images have suffered in resizing, so download the pdf for reference too. It’s a long read, but then, you didn’t really expect the issue to be resolved with a couple of paragraphs and a plot done with Microsoft Paint did you? 🙂

      Attribution of Variations in Maximum Temperature Records 1932 – 2010 Central United Kingdom, with Implications for Global Warming

      D.Proctor, P.Geol.

      Calgary, Alberta

      December 30, 2011


      Previously sourced and plotted data for averaged annual maximum temperature and hours of bright sunshine covering the period 1932 to 2010 for the Central United Kingdom were analyzed. Changes in the two relative to a stable period (1962 – 1973) amounted to increases of 0.98C and 108 hours in 2010.

      Three factors were found to be associated with all temperature changes:

      1. The duration of bright sunshine, such that C = 9.27E-3C X Sunshine hour – 0.10C. This factor was constant with time, but the changes in bright sunshine hours followed (with time) a quasi-sinusoidal pattern with indeterminate amplitude, but a peak-to-peak cycle of 62 years.
      2. A quasi-sinusoidal (with time) Pacific Decadal Oscillation-Atlantic Multidecadal Occillation-like variation, with a cycle length of 56 years and amplitude of 0.31C.
      3. A linear (with time), consistent increase of temperature, such that C = 9.53E-4 (Yr-1873) – 0.1425 C.

      The majority of temperature change was due to the sunshine duration factor. The PDO-AMO-like varying factor contributed the second most significant portion of the temperature change record, sometimes adding and sometimes subtracting from the temperature changes associated with increased/decreased bright sunshine. The third factor was tied to the PDO-AMO-like factor as a long-term warming, but added only a minor amount, 0.095C/century.

      The datum period 1962 – 1973 recorded a stable period of 1315.9 hours, i.e. a daytime cloudiness of 70.0%. From 1932 to 1948, and from 1980 to 2010, the Central United Kingdom experienced increased bright sunshine of about 42 and 108 hours, respectively. This is a bright sunshine increase of 3.2% gross and 0.96% net more sunshine for the earlier period, and 8.2% gross, and 2.5% net additional sunshine for the most recent period. Stated in the reverse, in the 1932-1948 periods when temperature rose 0.32C, there was 0.96% less cloudiness; in the 1980 – 2010 period, when the average maximum temperature rose 0.98C, 2.5% less cloudiness.



    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 1:33 pm said:

      Another timely natural cycle article this one on sunspot cycle length/El Ninos/oceanic oscillations,

      Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?

      Posted on February 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts

      Guest post by Matti Vooro

      I fully support the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 [linked] dated February 2012. The abstract reads:

      Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

      Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.

      I took the Annual sunspot numbers for each year since 1900 and noted the solar maximums and solar minimums. I also noted all the years around the solar maximums that had sunspot numbers over say 60-70. These solar active periods around the solar maximums can last as many as 3-5 years . Then I lagged the data by 9 years. Then I looked at the global temperature anomalies Hadcrut3gl for the all the actual years and noted the associated and lagged sunspot numbers. I then added and noted the El Nino active years using the ONI index.

      I discovered that global temperatures were rising during the years around the lagged solar active period around the solar maximum and they were down during the period around the lagged solar minimum. Also there were El Ninos at the beginning or during the lagged active sun or solar active or maximum period. In another words the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations] and ultimately contributes to the warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters and modifies the PDO spatial patterns or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America .

      Similar event happens in the Atlantic as indicated by the AMO. The longer solar cycles means fewer solar active periods or maximums and less heating 9 years later. A series of short solar cycles in a row will cause more frequent heating and the PDO and AMO will both turn positive or warm simultaneously causing what we now refer to as global warming. The extended global cooling happens when there are series of longer solar cycles with lower maximums. Co2 seems to have little or negligible effect on these large natural cycles. Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.

      Thus our long term climate is all in the cycles of sun lagged about 9 [ 9-11]years later in its effect and interacting with the oceans which then in turn affect our atmosphere 9-11 year later.



      I saw a Judith Curry quote somewhere to the effect that the GCMs must be trained with these natural cycles (astronomical and oceanic) because their omission explains their recent failure or something like that. I think it was in response the the WSJ Trenberth letter.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 2:05 pm said:

      I see a two-fold effect of the Pacific El Nino (there’s also an Indian Ocean trigger according to JAMSTEC AL https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/meteorology-001/), that being the upwelling mechanism Matti Vooro describes plus the warm water available in the Pacific Warm Pool above Australia to move back across to the east.

      If there’s a reduction in the upwelling warm water late this year due to the long sunspot cycle 23 and relatively little warm pool as we see here http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif (I’m sure it was much warmer last El Nino).

      Then your El Nino’s a fizzer Gareth, sorry.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 8:19 am said:

      Maybe NOT the “two-fold effect” I thought.

      Argo Data Confirms El Niño/La Niña Caused By Underwater Volcanoes

      Published by AJStrata

      Last week I postulated [Linked] that the El Niño/La Niña effect was not due to solar or atmospheric conditions, but actually caused by underwater volcanic activity along ocean ridges off the West coast of South America. To see whether my theory held water I decided to look into the Argo Float data to see if there it was showing a warm upwelling of water in this region. I apparently was correct.


      It is infeasible that El Niño can arise from atmosphere and sun alone by warming this mass of water. Neither air temp or solar radiance change enough to cause this phenomena.

      At this site you can watch animation of nearly 5 years of Argo data on the tropical region of the Pacific Ocean. It is fascinating and proves my earlier conclusion that the warm waters of El Niño arise from the eastern pacific and travel west – not the reverse as is the current (now defunct) theory


      Now some may ask why didn’t Argos detect the upwelling deeper (1000m)? The answer is in fluid dynamics. The hot spot is very narrow above whatever thermal vents are the source of this warming. The Argo floats are not very dense in this region. So the warm column of water upwelling has to spread out as it rises, making it more likely to be detected by the Argos floats. By the time it hits the surface the warm water really spreads out over top of the cooler layers below.

      As this March 2009 surface image shows there are two upwellings in the area, but the one off Costa Rica is missed at the lower depths (again likely due to the density of sensors being so low in this area). And there appears to be a 3rd upwelling off the coast of Peru.

      The activity of Nicaragua and Costa Rica is right along the Cocos Plate. The Peruvian region I highlighted in the previous post and is linked to the Pacific Rise. Higher volcanic activity in these areas clearly cause more warm water to rise and heat the surface, creating the conditions for El Niño. Lower activity allows the cooler currents to dominate, bringing on La Niña.


      Also at WUWT


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 8:55 am said:

      From the WUWT comments:-

      Martin Hovland says:
      February 15, 2012 at 7:28 am

      Megaplumes from the Carnegie Ridge cause El Niños?

      In 1988 we published a book on seabed features dealing with fluids leaking up from the sub-seafloor, including so-called hydrothermal vents. By 1988, the first ‘Megaplume’ had been observed in the East Pacific Ocean (see Anderson, 1987), over the Juan de Fuca spreading ridge. A large plume of anomalously warm water was discovered measuring 19 km across and about 1 km in height (above the seafloor).The top of the plume was about 1.3 km below the ocean surface. The enormous excess heat in the plume was estimated to represent about 10 billion kWh of energy. The venting, which terminated after about 10 days, was found to be equivalent to the yearly output from 2000 small (normal) hydrothermal vents. Based on this observation, we speculated that there may be a close link between mantle convection, and/or the subduction of heated ocean crust slabs, and regional ocean surface warming (Hovland and Judd, 1988, p. 258),.

      Thus, the main driver for for the El Niño would be hot water contained in the a-seismic Carnegie Ridge, located between Galapagos and mainland Equador. The warm water mass would be released as a 10-fold Megaplume due to a regional earthquake or some tectonic disruption. The erratic nature of the El Niño is also a reason supporting this hypothesis.

      – Anderson, I., 1987. ‘Megaplumes’ tips the balance in the oceans. New Scientist, 112, 1540/1541, 24.
      – Hovland, M., Judd, A.G., 1988. Seabed pockmarks and seepages: Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment. Graham and Trotman, London, 295 pp.

      For further information on Megaplumes see also:

      And on the Carnegie Ridge:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 1:45 pm said:

      A compendium of recent studies of the Kermadec Trench:-

      ‘The Kermadec volcanic region: An overview of geological discoveries from the last decade’


      ‘Submarine massive sulfide mineralization and hydrothermal activity along the Kermadec Arc, the world’s most hydrothermally active’

      Matthew I. Leybourne,
      GNS Science, Lower Hutt

      “The Kermadec intra-oceanic arc is ~1,220 km long, the result of subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Australian Plate. Attention has only recently been given to arc systems as locations of hydrothermal activity and formation of significant submarine massive sulfide (SMS) mineralisation, compared to the mid-ocean ridges. Exploration along the Kermadec arc began in 1998, followed by three systematic hydrothermal exploration cruises in which the entire arc was surveyed – NZAPLUME I in 1999, NZAPLUME II in 2002 and NZAPLUME III in 2004. Additional cruises have explored the Havre Trough, the back-arc to the Kermadec arc, as well as submersible, ROV and AUV studies on specific volcanoes. Our exploration along the arc has shown that the majority of the volcanoes and calderas are hydrothermally active, ranging from diffuse low-temperature venting to robust black-smoker style venting, with temperatures up to >300 °C and with associated SMS mineralisation. Incidence of hydrothermal activity varies from ~67% of the volcanoes along the southern portion of the arc, to ~83% in the central portion, to essentially 100% in the northern part of the arc.

      The primary exploration tool has been the mapping of hydrothermal plumes in the water column overlying submarine volcanoes”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 2:29 pm said:

      Megaplumes and Volcanic Gasses
      24 06 2011

      Well, a bit more “Settle Science”…

      Seems we’ve figured out that we really don’t know what is happening on the ocean floor in terms of volcanic venting of massive amounts of heat and gasses after all…



      Hydrothermal “Megaplume” Found in Indian Ocean
      Brian Handwerk
      for National Geographic News
      December 12, 2005

      Yes, that’s 2005, but I still like the article…

      An enormous hydrothermal “megaplume” found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth’s ocean systems, scientists report.

      The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

      “In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that’s been seen before,” said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.

      Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.

      The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.
      “I’d be surprised if in the next five years we didn’t experience a mini-revolution in terms of finding these [fields] in places where they are not supposed to exist,” said geophysicist Robert Reves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.


      “A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It’s like an atom bomb down there.”

      Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world’s known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.

      So we know we are substantially clueless about 90% of the global volcanic activity, that it has a massive energy and CO2 output, and that it varies in ways we do not ken. It stirs the ocean from great depth to much higher levels than we ever thought, and “is like an atom bomb” in terms of energy; but can run for years…

      Yeah, so much for “settled science”…


      How much CO2 do the sub-ocean volcanoes put out?

      How does it vary over time?

      With what isotopic structure?

      How much heat?

      Is it that added heat, or the pumping of deep cold water upward, or just the general increase in circulation rate that matters? And what does it do?

      “Climate Scientists” are just too damn ignorant to even realize the depths of their ignorance. Too filled with hubris and ego to see the truly interesting things we could be learning. And they have spent far too much time “sucking their own exhaust” to “wake up and smell the volcanoes”

      If the recent increase in volcanoes above the surface is matched, but 10 times over, below the surface, there is one heck of a lot of “something going on”. And just because it is out of sight, does not mean it ought to be out of mind.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 2:31 pm said:

      El Nino Tectonic Modulation in the Pacific Basin

      Leabourne and Adams


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 9:38 pm said:

      Map of known hydrothermal vent fields

      The map below documents all known hydrothermal vent fields. Use the pan and zoom controls to explore, and click on the points for details about each. Unconfirmed vent fields have so far mostly been detected only by the plume of smoky water that they emit — their dates of discovery will be revised to the date of visual confirmation, if and when they are visited.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2012 at 8:50 am said:

      Natural Climate Change

      The Debate on Global Warming


      Are Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases or Natural Geophysical Forcings the Cause of Climate Change? – The Real Story Behind Global Warming:


      Precedent Geo-Magnetic Jerks, Earthquakes, Episodic Hydrothermal Venting/Ocean Warming:





      Described as “an incredibly detailed analysis” by AJStrata – I’m inclined to agree.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2012 at 9:34 am said:

      Update To The Geothermal Basis For ENSO

      Published by AJStrata

      [See supporting studies including hot spot 200-240 km wide!]


      Galapagos hot spot

      Cocos and Nazca plates

      Carnegie and Malpelos Ridges

      Medusa Vent (335 degrees Celsius at opening)

      Juan de Fuca Ridge

      One commenter [Bob Tisdale WUWT? and same thread starting here] stated there was no proven association between ENSO and geological activity. The study I discovered actually had references to other studies that had done this work already:

      Increased seismic activity along the East Pacific Rise (EPR, Walker, 1988, 1995) and Juan de Fuca (Johnson et, al., 2001) ridges is known to precede increases in hydrothermal venting rates and corresponding SST temperature anomalies.

      Given all this supporting work (and there is more) I think we can conclude the following:

      1. The region in question is seismically active
      2. The region in questions is home to many hydrothermal vents, a hot spot and a spreading ocean ridge
      3. Studies do exist linking seismic activity to ENSO cycles
      4. The mega plumes discovered 100 meters down by the Argo data clearly form off the West Coast of Central and South America, and travel westward. And they are produced very regularly (not occasionally).
      5. The general flow of warm water is East to West (see here for animations at the surface, 100 m and 1000 m)
      6. Wind and waves can and do travel in different directions than the underlying currents
      7. The ocean floor is thin and cracked and we have a very limited understanding of how water and underlying magma interact on various scales.

      We know less about the deep ocean that we do about the Earth facing side of the Moon. We only discovered Plate Tectonics within my lifetime, hydrothermal vents within my children’s short lifetimes. We are just beginning to explore the ocean’s geological wonders, which cover an area 3 times the size of the land surface of this planet.

      All that is settled about science today is we still have a lot to learn, and what we know is still dwarfed by what we don’t know.

      This has ruffled established feathers at WUWT including luke-warmer Willis Eschenbach (gave me a couple of spankings, first and second) and Bob Tisdale above.

      But the oceanic geothermal/hydrovent climate factor is gaining momentum as I see and will take more than some WUWT comments (whatever the WUWT status of the authors) to stop it now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 9:37 am said:

      GEO NUCLEAR essays


      Earth’s Elemental Petrol Production

      Motive Force for All Climate Change

      Missing Geothermal Flux

      The Neutrino Effect

      Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste

      Unified Earth Science Theory


      Should point out that the geothermal flux is not actually “missing” but that where it is accounted for it is a an approx 0.09 W.m2 flux smeared over the entire surface of the earth.

      Except that in the major oceans (Pacific, Atlantic, Indian) there are concentrations of hydrothermal and volcanic activity in climate critical regions that make the 0.09 W.m2 flux look ludicrous e.g. one quote from up-thread re a megaplume discovered in the Indian Ocean “A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It’s like an atom bomb down there.”

      This activity is NOT stable and also a major source of CO2.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 1:46 pm said:

      ‘More evidence indicates link between El Niños and seismicity’

      Daniel A. Walker 1995

      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 (Figure 1), where large amounts of energy are released through submarine volcanism and hydrothermal activity. Now that another El Nin˜o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episode may have drawn to a close, it is time to examine additional seismicity and SOI values.

      Observed coincidences are often the basis for discovery, and reviewing the available data led us to note several. Two distinct phenomena—El Niños and earthquake swarms—seem to occur almost simultaneously in spite of their irregular recurrence rates and durations. Also, we found that what may be the longest lasting of the past six Niños coincides with the longest lasting and most anomalous episode of seismic activity, which occurred from 1964 through 1992 along the EPR from 15°S to 40°S.


      Cited 29 times (Google Scholar), 0 times (AGU EOS).
      Faux Science Slayer [linked] says:

      February 20, 2012 at 4:22 am

      The “Radiative Balance” is a completely FALSE matrix. Massive amounts of Earth’s variable fission energy are hidden in the liquification of super heated, high pressure gases at the undersea vents AND in the endothermic reaction of elemental atoms forced into elemental molecules and elemental compounds. This is understandable if you read “Motive Force for All Clmate Change” and “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” posted at the Faux Science Slayer website.

      There is an ongoing private email exchange currently among the worlds top Earth scientists and i will produce additional articles adding to this already well documented process in the near future.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 10:49 pm said:

      The comment’s been dug out of the spam trap at Hot Topic and is now blinking in the light of day.

      My time of penance is over.

    • Andy on 16/02/2012 at 2:29 pm said:

      where is it?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 2:38 pm said:

      My reply to Roger Dewhurst is here:-


      I’ll still have to comment via the spam trap I guess but I won’t be spending much time there anyway.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 9:14 am said:

    Rob Painting at Hot Topic a while ago said something like “the trend of Tuvalu sea level rise is 3.7 mm/yr”. This comes from Table 4 of the report linked below.

    What Rob didn’t point out was Figure 6. 95% Confidence Intervals for linear mean sea level trends (mm/year) plotted as a function of the year range of data. Based on NOAA tide gauges with at least 25 years of record.

    The Tuvalu station quoted was less than 18yr span at the time of the 3.7mm/yr trend and the 95% Confidence Interval for that span is about equal to the trend (> 3mm/yr).

    The bigger picture is this:-

    From South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project: Pacific Country Report

    December 2010


    Table 5. Sea level trends for additional Pacific Forum data holdings on the Joint Archive for Sea Level (Span 10 yrs and greater).

    SPAN (years)
    TREND (mm/yr)

    Fd St Micronesia

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Nauru

    Rep. Marshall I.

    Rep. Marshall I.

    Rep. of Belau

    Rep. of Belau

    Fd St Micronesia

    Solomon Islands

    Papua New Guinea

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati

    Rep. of Kiribati


    Cook Islands

    Cook Islands


    Fd St Micronesia

    USA Trust

    Fd St Micronesia

    Rep. Marshall I.

    Pago Pago
    USA Trust

    The mean trend for datasets that span more than 25 years is 1.3 mm/yr. Data from JASL as at March 2011.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 9:48 am said:

      Here ’tis (abbreviated and I got it wrong – turns out it’s worse than we thought):-

      Dappledwater January 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Bryan Leyland -”When the facts change, I change my opinion”

      How about you make on good on this? We’ve shown that your recent article in the Dompost was rubbish.

      Sea level at Tuvalu has risen by 5.1mm per year since the mid-twentieth century. You claimed otherwise. You were wrong – the peer-reviewed scientific literature refutes your falsehoods.. You have not changed your opinion.

      Sea level rise has accelerated over the last few centuries. You claimed otherwise. The peer-reviewed scientific literature refutes your falsehoods.. You have not changed your opinion.


      I don’t know where he got “Sea level at Tuvalu has risen by 5.1mm per year since the mid-twentieth century” from (I think he may have made it up – no citation).

      Global sea level may have “accelerated over the last few centuries” but so what? There’s no antropogenic signature in that. TOPEX/Poseidon/Jason-1/Jason-2 linear trends are:-

      1.85 mm/yr (prior to 1998 El Nino and consistent with tide guages)

      3.7 mm/yr (1998 El Nino to beginning of 2005 – big thermosteric boost)

      1.7 mm/yr (post 2005, back to tide guages long-term trend).

      No anthropogenic signature there either.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 9:35 pm said:

      Yacky dacky doo. I’ve found where Rob Painting (Dappledwater – Hot Topic) got “Sea level at Tuvalu has risen by 5.1mm per year since the mid-twentieth century” from.

      Quoting dana1981 at Skeptical Science:-

      What the science says…

      Between 1950-2009 sea level at Tuvalu rose at the rate of 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year. This is almost 3 times larger than average global sea level rise over the same period


      Becker (2011) [linked] has examined sea level rise in the western tropical Pacific Ocean using a combination of tide gauges, satellite-based measurements, ocean modelling and GPS, and found that the region is experiencing sea level rise much larger than the global average. At Funafati Island, the study authors found that between 1950-2009 ‘total’ sea level, which also accounts for the rate of island subsidence or sinking, rose at 5.1 (±0.7) mm per year, almost 3 times larger than the global average over the same period.


      Idjits, the lot of them.

      Table 5. Sea level trends for additional Pacific Forum data holdings on the Joint Archive for Sea Level (Span 10 yrs and greater).


      23 [yr span]
      0.9 [mm/yr sea level rise]

      5.1 – 0.9 = 4.2 mm/yr, rate of island subsidence or sinking

    • Mike Jowsey on 20/02/2012 at 9:41 am said:

      The subsidence surely must be due to the extra weight of all those gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. We’re all doomed, I tell ya!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2012 at 4:46 pm said:

      Update to my dispute with Rob Painting (SkS) at Hot Topic re sea levels at Tuvalu:-
      Richard C2 March 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm

      “-10% of this ‘total’ sea level rise at Tuvalu is due to land subsidence”

      OK, so using Becker, the ACTUAL long-term sea level rise to 2009 was 5.1 – 0.51 = 4.6 mm/yr

      But there’s more recent data from SEAFRAME (that has to be purchased as I understand) but can be seen plotted in Fig 11 page 27 here:-


      Since the ’98 El Nino to June 2011 (last 13 years reported) there’s been no 4.6 mm/yr rise, in fact it’s been flat or as Fig 13 page 29 indicates, falling since mid 2006 (last 5 years reported). You might like to highlight the same period in Fig 1 of your SkS post for your readers because it shows the same.

      The falling trend since 2006 is consistent with the trend in HadSST2 BTW (falling since 2005)

      The crisis seems to have eased somewhat and Bryan Leyland is vindicated.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 11:38 am said:

    Nelson, Goddard, Morano, Watts etc (not letting a chance go by) are having fun with “Children won’t know what…….” headlines during the cold snap. A web search of the phrase turns up the variations.

    e.g. Children won’t know what olives look like

    AGI) Rome- Polar temperatures in central and southern Italy are affecting 100 million olive trees. This Mediterranean plant needs a relatively mild climate to survive, even in the winter, and above all it needs to avoid huge temperature spikes, according to Coldiretti. The Italian farmers’ association has raised the alarm on the dramatic effects of the ongoing cold snap on the country’s most traditional tree, one which also represents the local Mediterranean diet. Temperatures below 10 degrees, claims Coldiretti, wreak havoc on olive trees and exponentially increase the damage to the food and farming industry

    Posted by Tom at 5:52 AM


    Not much fun for the olive growers though.

  4. There is no systematic causal relationship between carbon dioxide levels and climate change simply because the greenhouse conjecture is not based on real world physics.

    Prof Claes Johnson has proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation* that energy in radiation only gets converted to thermal energy if the peak frequency of the radiation from the source is above the peak frequency of the radiation from the target.

    This essentially provides a mechanism which explains why the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies for radiative heat transfer, as it does for heat transferred by conduction.

    There seems no plausible alternative explanation for the observed Second Law, so I suggest we all heed what Johnson has deduced mathematically, being as he is, a Professor of Applied Mathematics.

    It is not the net radiative flux (or even its direction) which determines whether (and in which direction) thermal energy is transferred. For example, if the emissivity of two bodies is very different, there can be more radiative flux from the cooler one. But all that flux will be scattered by the warmer one and not converted to thermal energy. Only the flux from the warmer one (no matter how weak) will be converted to thermal energy in the cooler one. This “ensures” that the Second Law is valid in all cases because it depends
    on peak frequency which is proportional to absolute temperature – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

    Thus the IPCC “backradiation” cannot affect the temperature of the surface and there can be no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.

    * http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html

  5. Alexander K on 15/02/2012 at 8:08 am said:

    Nice to see the discussion up and running again.
    Andy SI followed the link you provided to the Renowden circus and I chortled at Bill’s dismal level of scientific knowledge, his totally unfounded massive self-regard and his following of the various CAGW mantra. He and his sycophants reminded me of the teenage buffoons I had to guard the Boys’ toilets against while on playground duty in a very strange Comprehensive school in London. Your patience is admirable,but have you not discovered yet that arguing with idiots is singularly unproductive?

    • Andy on 15/02/2012 at 8:52 am said:

      Yes I am wasting my time at HT, but it’s interesting to see what passes as polite conversation over there.

      I am chastised for hogging too much space, then when I go away they want me to come back and defend some strawman arguments.

      Roger Dewhurst is getting most of his comments snipped now (I know because I get the email notification but the comment disappears). I’ll probably end up there too before long.

      Oh well, better things to do with my time….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 10:20 am said:

      Please go back Andy, I’m dying to know where Rob Taylor’s “melted 4.3 TRILLION TONS of ICE in only 8 YEARS” went.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 11:08 am said:

      The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons


      Trillion may mean:

      Either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):

      * 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; 1012; SI prefix: tera-) for all short scale countries
      * 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million; 1018; SI prefix: exa-) for all long scale countries


      “4.3 TRILLION TONS of ICE” may mean either:

      * 4,300,000,000,000 ………………(0.0004% of total hydrosphere)
      * 4,300,000,000,000,000,000…….(307% of total hydrosphere)

      I think its VERY important that we know which of the SI units Rob is using.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 1:25 pm said:

      The statement originates from NASA USA, a short scale country:-

      Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

      The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level.


      Antarctic ice sheet: 30 million km3 of ice
      Greenland ice sheet: 2.85 million km3 of ice

      Total ice sheet volume: 32.85 million km3 (neglecting other)

      One metric tonne of water has a volume of one cubic meter

      One cubic kilometre of ice has a mass of 1,000,000,000 metric tonnes.

      Total ice sheet mass: 32,850,000,000,000,000 or 32,850 trillion tonnes

      4.3 trillion tonne 8 yr ice melt is 0.00013% of total ice sheet mass (4.3/32,850*100).

      One gigatonne is one billion metric tonnes ( 1 Gt = 1 x 10^9 tonnes or 1,000,000,000 tonnes)

      How much does one Gigatonne of melted ice (1 km³ of water) raise the oceans?

      The oceans occupy 361 million square kilometers ( 361 x 106 km²) of the Earth’s surface.

      If one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) is spread evenly over the entire 361 million square kilomters, the thickness of the new layer of water will be given by:

      1 km³ / 361 x 106 km² = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns.

      Or, in terms of gigatonnes:

      1 Gt x (1 km³/Gt) / 361 x 106 km² = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns / Gt

      That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!

      How many gigatonnes of ice must melt to raise the oceans one millimeter (10-3 meters)?

      The number of gigatonnes of water that must be added to the oceans to raise the sea level 1 millimeter is given by:

      1 mm / (2.78 microns / Gt) = 10-3 m / (2.78 x 10-6 m / Gt) = 360 Gt


      NASA says 12mm have been added to sea level by 4.3 trillion tonnes of ice melt.

      12*360 = 4,320 Gt = 4.3 Tt – correct!

      Using Jason-1/2 trends, sea level rose 23.9mm from 2003 – 2010.1714 at 2.6mm/yr then fell 5.4mm at -6.7mm/yr to end of 2010 giving the rise for the 8 yr period of 18.5mm at 2.5mm/yr, 12mm of which was ice melt – fine.

      What exactly is exceptional about this?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 3:07 pm said:


      (0.0004% of total hydrosphere) should be (0.0003% of total hydrosphere)

      4.3 trillion tonne 8 yr ice melt is 0.00013% of total ice sheet mass (4.3/32,850*100).

      Should be

      4.3 trillion tonne 8 yr ice melt is 0.013% of total ice sheet mass (4.3/32,850*100).

      At this rate 0.14% of the ice sheets will be gone by 2100! (4.3/8 = 0.54 0.54*88 = 47.3 47.3/32,850*100 = 0.14).

      Adding about 132mm to sea level.

      This is traumatic.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 4:03 pm said:

      So if the ice melt component to total sea level rise ratio of the 18.5mm rise over the 8 yr period is 12 : 18.5 and the ice melt contribution to sea level rise over the next 88 yrs is 132mm at the study period rate, total sea level rise x by 2100 will be:

      132/x = 12/18.5

      132/x = 0.65

      x = 132/0.65

      x = 203mm or 20.3 cm

      IPCC Scenario B1 (LEAST CASE)

      * Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm]

      I think Rob Taylor’s “elephant” is coloured pink, has wings, is imaginary, and likely the result of hallucinogen inhalation. He should get some fresh air.

    • Andy on 16/02/2012 at 10:54 am said:

      Rob has given this link as his source to the news of “trillions” of tons of ice being lost


    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 12:35 pm said:

      That article (all spin) doesn’t mention the “4.3 trillion tonnes” (also makes an error stating 1.8mm/yr ice melt contribution to SSL – actually 1.48). The article links to the original paper (paywalled):-

      ‘Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise’

      * Thomas Jacob,1, 5
      * John Wahr,1
      * W. Tad Pfeffer2, 3
      * & Sean Swenson


      The abstract states:-

      “Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise”

      One gigatonne is one billion metric tonnes ( 1 Gt = 1 x 10^9 tonnes or 1,000,000,000 tonnes)

      148E9*8 = 1.184E+12 = 1,184,000,000,000 = 1.184 trillion tonnes.

      That’s “excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs”.

      The NASA article states:-

      “………..the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

      The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level.”


      “About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons”


      385E9*8 = 3.112E+12 = 3.112 trillion tones + 1.184 trillion tonnes = 4.296 trillion tonnes.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 12:29 pm said:

      New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows “no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet”
      A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010) based on regional atmospheric climate modeling
      J. T. M. Lenaerts, M. R. van den Broeke, W. J. van de Berg, E. van Meijgaard,and P. Kuipers Munneke

      Received 17 January 2012; accepted 21 January 2012; published 21 February 2012.

      The modeled SMB is in good agreement with ±750 in-situ SMB measurements (R = 0.88), without a need for postcalibration.

      Here’s the money quote:

      [15] We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the results from Monaghan et al. [2006]. The estimated SMB
      trend, integrated over the ice sheet, equals 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2


      Scientists Determine Modern Greenland Glacier Retreat Not Unique, Part of Natural Melt Cycle

      “…the researchers were able to create a history of ice loss for Helheim [Glacier]…Two pronounced calving maxima are observed: one during the past 10 years, the other in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The long-term calving increase is probably due to a shift from the Little Ice Age conditions, which were characterized by low air temperatures and strong polar-water influence…”Our analysis indicates that the recent increase in calving activity observed at Helheim Glacier is not unique but that a similarly large event occurred in the late 1930s/early 1940s. These two episodes occurred at times when the temperature of the Atlantic-water source was high (positive/warm Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation phase) and the polar-water export was at a record low (even if fluctuating).”…”“Our study provides evidence that Helheim Glacier responds to changes in [natural] atmosphere–ocean variability on timescales as short as a few years.”
      Rapid response of Helheim Glacier in Greenland to climate variability over the past century

      * Camilla S. Andresen,1
      * Fiammetta Straneo,2
      * Mads Hvid Ribergaard,3
      * Anders A. Bjørk,4
      * Thorbjørn J. Andersen,5
      * Antoon Kuijpers,1
      * Niels Nørgaard-Pedersen,1
      * Kurt H. Kjær,4
      * Frands Schjøth,6
      * Kaarina Weckström1
      * & Andreas P. Ahlstrøm1

      Journal name:
      Nature Geoscience

      Published online
      11 December 2011


      The hits just keep on coming…

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 1:10 pm said:

      For some reason the Greenland seasonal melt departure (SMD) only started to plummet around 2000, see Fig 2 here:-

      Figure 2. Snowfall, runoff and surface mass balance for the period 1958 – 2011 simulated by the MAR model.


      2011 melting in Greenland

      Year 2011 Greenland melting remains well above the (1979 – 2010) average; close-to-record mass loss

      M. Tedesco1, X. Fettweis2, T. Mote3 , N. Steiner1 and J. E. Box4

      We combined spaceborne observations and model outputs to provide an analysis of melting in 2011 over the Greenland ice sheet. The combination of the two approaches allows us to portray a more complete picture and to overcome limitations of the approaches taken separately.

  6. Peter Fraser on 15/02/2012 at 11:22 am said:

    I have been amused by the media’s continued use of the term “cold snap” How long does a cold snap last until it becomes a cold period or indeed a cold winter?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 12:08 pm said:

      You’re not the only on Peter:-

      Tragedy unfolding in Europe – Is U.S. media trying to ignore it?

      “The cold snap in Europe, which began in late January, has killed hundreds and brought deep snow where it hasn’t been seen in decades,” says this article in the Seattle Times.

      …….it’s that “cold snap” thing that bugs me.

      Did all of the world’s journalists go to “cold snap” school?


  7. Can somebody please post the most convenient URL(s) with docs etc summarizing the NZCSC court action(s?) against NIWA – many thanks. Perhaps with a timeline.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 7:16 pm said:

      Warwick, I’m not the one to answer (not assoc and not expert) but with Richard T busy, here goes (you probably are on to all this anyway).

      From http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=14&Itemid=47


      Posted 31 August 2011

      “We have filed an Amended Statement of Claim, adding a cause of action against the “New 7SS” (NZT7) resulting from NIWA’s 2010 Review. A copy is attached (here ). Clause 38 and all the following material are new allegations”

      “(here)” is http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/amended%20soc.pdf

      AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-005092
      UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Part 30
      of the High Court Rules

      TRUST a trust registered under the Charitable
      Trusts Act 1957, having its registered office at

      that is wholly owned by the Crown and a Crown
      Research Institute, having its principal place of
      business at Auckland

      1 July 2011

      There was a hearing for Plaintiffs appln for orders of discovery and further particulars set for 6 July 2011 but I don’t what has happened since the Amended SOC pleading to put together a timeline.

      Barry Brill reports:-

      “The Coalition needs to file all its affidavits by 20 January [2012], and NIWA will have until late February to respond. We should then belatedly discover what the real defence is (if any). The case will then be set down for trial”.

      That’s all I know, hope it helps.

    • Sorry I was no help with this, Warwick. Richard C has done it well. We await NIWA’s response.

  8. Andy on 16/02/2012 at 9:22 am said:

    For those following the Heartland document leak saga, Heartland have issued a press release here


    Note that they are claiming that the documents may have been altered, and some may be completely fake.

  9. I have just posted some NIWA court documents – incl two affidavits from July 2011.

    “Surprising wording in NIWA affidavit re BoM’ work – filed in New Zealand court case”

  10. Andy on 17/02/2012 at 10:31 am said:

    Funny how this page on DeSmogBlog is now offline

    It had the quote to the alleged fake document on it.
    Mashey and Cindy Baxter at Hot Topic are claiming that he fake document is irrelevant, because it “looks like” the others (?) but the DeSmog page that references it is now gone.


    • Mike Jowsey on 18/02/2012 at 6:36 am said:

      Sorry Andy I didn’t realise you had already started a thread on this. I was surprised that there was apparently a deafening silence on Conversation, but happily I was wrong. Have posted a comment under open thread Controversy and Scandal here:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 8:35 am said:

      I posted one in Controversy and Scandal too Mike:-

      “Fake, fake, fake, fake.” – Seinfeld-ism


      But here is a good place to air some views. I’m wondering given HI’s donor structure, whether they will be able to use donor funds to take court action in view of the breach of confidentiality. Weren’t HI negligent in their security?

      I haven’t read all the articles that you linked (and leaving hypocrisy and duplicitousness aside) but I get the impression that the warmist/sleftists think (or at least want everyone to think) that HI (and conservatives generally) are against science and teachers teaching science because they equate “the cause” with science when the complete opposite is the case at HI.

      Needless to say “two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” was the dead giveaway that ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy’ was fake because it’s warmist mindset and language projected into HI’s strategy – duh!

      Searching “Restoring the Scientific Method” Heartland turned up this:-

      Does the Heartland Institute Understand the “Scientific Method”?

      by Chris Mooney

      My latest DeSmogBlog post [linked] is about the Heartland Institute, which is holding a conference in D.C. entitled “Restoring the Scientific Method.” What do they mean by that? Prepare yourselves:

      The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

      The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.

      Let’s just say that this caused me to get rather….critical. Of absolutely everything they are saying here, which is wrong in so many ways it is hard to count.


      That summarizes the division I think.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 10:30 am said:

      Joe Bast puts the HI case (H/t bill at HT)

      I say “authored” and not “reported,” because this story is filled with false assertions, innuendo, and outright lies. I will break it down, from the top.

      Actually, we’re trying to make the “teaching of global warming” much more rigorous by replacing propaganda and agenda-driven rhetoric with real science.

      Actually, we’re sharing the real opinions of real scientists on the causes, consequences, and likely future trajectory of climate change, and of economists and other policy experts on what should be done about it, if anything. And of course principals and teachers are biased… most are liberal Democrats, and large majorities of liberal Democrats believe in man-made global warming.

      The lamestream media have censored us, completely refused to report on our activities, and now they report a “rare glimpse” of what we’re up to?

      Our mission is not to “undermine climate science,” and even a superficial examination of our corpus of work should persuade anyone with half a brain that we are sincere. Our mission is to report climate science (and economics) more objectively than the environmentalists and left-wing nuts who are using the issue to support their legislative agendas.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 9:26 am said:

      From the comments under the Mashey Smog article:-

      “I think that we are all enjoying a well-deserved moment of euphoria right now”

      Fake, fake, fake, fake.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 10:07 am said:

      Also at Smog this Brendan De Melle article (including embarrassing Koch Update but no Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy is fake Update):-

      14 February 12
      Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

      We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more.

      Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. [Update: Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute’s climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that “…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”]

      Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.

      The January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy [linked] states:

      “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”


      Lies, like nakedness, show it all to the world: “Well, here I am….”

      The link to ‘2012 Heartland Climate Strategy’ goes here:-

      January 2012
      Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy


      If it “disappears” leave a note and I’ll arrange delivery of it.

      Meet the man, assistant DeSmogger Brendan De Melle, who took a whole hour to get the documents online from the time received. Speed is more important than fact checking in journo-lism I suppose.

      [See photo]

      An entire hour. No rush to judgement by this guy.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 10:23 am said:

      From the Mashey Smog article:-

      “Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts


    • Andy on 18/02/2012 at 1:18 pm said:

      Donna Laframboise has had a parody of Soggy Bog up for a while now


    • Andy on 18/02/2012 at 1:38 pm said:

      Pielke Jr, via Bishop Hill

      If the faked document happened to be produced by a climate activist or scientist (as some are already suggesting), then the leaked Heartland documents will go down in history as one of the more spectacular own goals in the history of the climate debate (with the consequences proportional to the stature of the faker). The faking is likely to overshadow whatever legitimate questions may have been raised by the release of the documents. Imagine what would have happened if the UEA hacker/leaker had made up a few emails to spice up the dossier.

      Pretty much sums up my thoughts

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 2:47 pm said:

      The big Climategate – Fakegate difference the warmist-left misses probably intentionally and then claiming hypocrisy is:-

      Climategate => Public Money

      Fakegate => Private Money

      Just stating-the-obvious for the record here.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2012 at 9:16 am said:

      In any event, here’s the obvious fact that DeSmog and ThinkProgress ignore. Government-funded research is subject to freedom of information laws; the internal deliberations of privately-funded research and advocacy groups are not. As we know from the climategate emails, Phil Jones and the gang at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) stonewalled FOIA requests for years to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methodologies. That was a bona fide scandal.

      Leaking the CRU emails — whistle blowing — was the only way to (a) produce documents responsive to valid FOIA requests, and (b) expose CRU’s willful evasion of FOIA.

      There is no analogy between climategate and the theft of the Heartland documents because (1) Heartland has no legal obligation to share its internal deliberations with the public, and (2), unlike collusion to evade FOIA, strategizing about fund raising is not a crime!


    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2012 at 8:00 am said:

      “When we find out who did this – and we will find out – they will absolutely need a lawyer”

      – Heartland’s Director of Communications, Jim Lakely

      “Basically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

      – The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle,

    • Andy on 19/02/2012 at 1:13 pm said:

      Bishop Hill on the NZ Science Media Centre’s involvement in this


    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2012 at 2:23 pm said:

      WebCite was useful in that case. I’ve saved a certain page to my home disk but now it’s at WebCite too.

      I’ve just read ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy’ in it’s entirety (verbosity level vvvvv….). What a load of piffle. Reads more like a ‘Year-in-Review’. A genuine strategy document (verbosity level v) is focussed on the big picture in specific future timeframes, or at least the few I’ve seen and been involved with have been and that’s been in my academic study as well. That Memo is tactical.


      Next project is Mashey’s ‘Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax
      SEPP, Heartland, CSCDGC, allies & DONORS’


      Smog’s Valentine’s Day Massacre has turned into a severe case of own-foot-shooting.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2012 at 3:24 pm said:


      John Mashey February 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Private individuals can give money to others to do what they want, but 501(c)(3) public charities must follow certain rules. It ought be very clear from Fakery that no science was being produced, other than occasional work at CSCDGC that was then over-interpreted.



      John Mashey February 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Kiwi names on p.3: well, yes, I thought that might be fun.
      Read the 501(c)(3) tutorial (section 0.6), especially the items coded IRS-?E and IRS-10F, combined with pp.63-64.
      (See also p.55 where Heartland says no tracking necessary since “Friends”)

      The read might draw inferences about the likely effects of:
      a) Heartland sending $ to foreign non-charities. NO-NO
      b) Foreign non-charities engage in clearly non-exempt activities (the IRS-?E codes). NO-NO
      c) Some of those involved in the NZ non-charities show up and make comments that repeatedly support the non-exemptness.
      Already gone, but nice icing on the cake. When reading “puppets,” I sometimes had to hold back from commenting, lest I spoil the fun.
      But all that’s on the record now.

      It is very likely that neither the non-charities nor Heartland understood the US tax implications. Of course, if NZ citizens got money for a non-charity and spent it, without declaring income … well that’s for Kiwis to sort out.



      [NYT] The documents raise questions about whether the group has undertaken partisan political activities, a potential violation of federal tax law governing nonprofit groups. For instance, the documents outline “Operation Angry Badger,” a plan to spend $612,000 to influence the outcome of recall elections and related fights this year in Wisconsin over the role of public-sector unions.

      We are doing educational programs on Wisconsin’s collective bargaining reform, which is obviously within our 501(c)3 designation.


      And some science produced (just climate mind you),

      Climate Change Reconsidered

      This 880-page rebuttal of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), three years in the making, was released in June 2009 by The Heartland Institute. Coauthored and edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Craig Idso, Ph.D. and produced with contributions and reviews by an international coalition of scientists, it provides an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.


      Might come back to this later depending on what transpires.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 8:27 am said:

      Occurred to me that John Mashey must be at least a little irritated.

      Here he is after spending oodles of hours on the excruciating detail of his 213 page report ‘Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax’, mulled over how to cram as much innuendo into the title of it, had to apologize to his wife for his commitment…….

      Only to be trumped by a fake 2 page document unthinkingly authored by a colleague on his own side.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 9:46 am said:

      mustakissa February 20, 2012 at 8:01 am

      It’s actually sad John… you doing all that work, and then some sleazy Raymond Chandler character pre-empting you by impersonating a Board member, getting sent a load of stuff most of which you had to painstakingly compile; and then, as one Slashdotter put it it, spending a free afternoon and a sixpack to hack out a Summary for Dummies, taking care to insert those gorgeous sound bites that went around the world before anybody thought of doubting them…

      But, those are the ways of the world… it’s not a “story” without good guys, bad guys and spectacular action. And the good news is, Heartland have met their match in the art of pulling off a news story 🙂


    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2012 at 8:44 am said:

      The way they got the information was blatantly illegal. Somebody on the left side of the aisle registered an email address with the name of someone on Heartland’s Board of Directors, and then emailed a member of the administrative staff at the Institute asking that information be sent. The administrator complied, whereupon the fraudulent email account was deleted, and the information was blasted out to enemies of the Institute.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 8:13 am said:

      Heartland issues legal notices

      The Heartland Institute has issued legal notices to at least two of those who have been engaging in dubious tactics after the faking of the strategy memo became clear.

      Firstly there is DeSmog [linked] and secondly there is Greg Laden [linked], the blogger who was the subject of considerable interest [linked] among Tallbloke’s legal team a few weeks back.

      …we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 10:26 am said:

      Some perspective.

      From Renowden’s ‘What becomes of the broken Heartland?

      The Guardian reports that John Mashey’s massive effort to analyse the links and financial flows between Heartland, Fred Singer and the Idso family firm, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), is leading to calls for an IRS investigation of Heartland’s charitable status. The funds sent to Australia and New Zealand over the last five years seem to be in clear breach of IRS rules1, and likely to cause Heartland and the recipients considerable embarrassment.

      Looks like US$115 – 180,000 per year sent to East Asia and the Pacific – I’m sure the IRS will work VERY hard on that.

      And the US Auditor General might even drop the file on the multi-million dollar loans to now defunct renewable energy start-ups by the Obama administration.

      Then there’s:-

      Published on Thursday, November 21, 2002 by the New York Times

      Exxon-Led Group Is Giving a Climate Grant to Stanford

      by Andrew Revkin

      Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.

      Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were “vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world.”




      Auto.com/Bloomberg News
      October 26, 2000
      Internet: [1]http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc26_20001026.htm

      LONDON — BP Amoco Plc, the world’s No. 3 publicly traded oil company, and Ford Motor Co. said they will give Princeton University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP said it will give $15 million. Ford, the world’s second-biggest automaker, is donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change. Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.

      London-based BP said it plans to give $85 million in the next decade to universities in the U.S. and U.K. to study environmental and energy issues. In the past two years, the company has pledged $40 million to Cambridge University, $20 million to the University of California at Berkeley and $10 million to the University of Colorado at Boulder.

      So much for Big Oil funding the sceptics.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 6:05 pm said:

      “,,,,,,the US Auditor General might even drop the file on the multi-million dollar loans to now defunct renewable energy start-ups by the Obama administration”

      Just to put a figure on it,

      $3.9 Billion In Federal Funds Went To 21 Green Energy Companies Owned By Five Obama Officials


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/02/2012 at 11:21 am said:

      Open Letter To Heartland From The Don’t-Do-As-We-Do Climate Team

      2012/02/17 Maurizio Morabito (omnologos)

      [The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE]

      I’ll believe the sincerity of the Open Letter to the Heartland Institute when, say,

      * Mann’s twitter account will display a little less bile and won’t say incredibly stupid stuff like “[Climategate] was a crime against humanity. It’s a crime against the planet“
      * Schmidt will allow discussion on RealClimate, instead of focusing on “simply deleting all of the attempts to draw attention to [whatever he dislikes to talk about]“
      * Overpeck will come clean on the trouble of normalizing proxy reconstruction in a misleading way for policy makers
      * Dear Kev will explain why Wolfgang Wagner had to apologize to him of all people, when resigning about publishing a paper that wasn’t retracted;
      * Santer will clarify how exactly to tell the “human fingerprint” in global warming
      * Karoly will apologize about personally attacking a climate scientist himself
      * Bradley will clarify why he kept his concerns very private on a very public HS matter

      After all, these are climate scientists that keep writing the patently-untrue, such as passing as “fact” this total fantasy

      Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems.

      that is contrary to the latest IPCC assessment.

      No surprise there.


      All hot-linked

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 8:08 am said:

      Bryan Walker at Hot Topic:-

      The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

      by Bryan Walker on February 21, 2012

      It was clearly never Michael Mann’s wish to be embroiled in the public controversy that has been manufactured by the denial industry around his and his co-authors’ work. He’s a scientist first and foremost……


      Steve Milloy at JunkScience.com:-

      Climategate 2.0: Mann works with Environmental Defense Fund to edit, place op-ed

      Posted on November 25, 2011 by Steve Milloy | Comments Off

      EDF is the PR firm for Climategaters.

      From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Apparently at the request of the Environmental Defense Fund, Michael Mann drafts an op-ed in response to an op-ed in USA Today by Nick Schulz (TechCentralStation.com). Mann send his draft to Environmental Defense Fund lawyer Annie Petsonk for review and placement:


      Milloy again:-

      Mann ‘Open Letter’ to Heartland Traced to Union of Concerned Scientists

      Posted on February 19, 2012 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment

      Michael Mann’s open letter to the Heartland Institute was compiled into PDF format by Aaron Huertas, the self-described “press secretary” for the radical Union of Concerned Scientists.”


      Andy Scrase at Hot Topic:-

      andyS February 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm

      Thomas, I know not of The Other Things. Perhaps you could provide some real or faked evidence to support your thesis.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 9:43 am said:

      Daily Kos: Book review: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

      Imagine a place where you and your family are threatened, your employer pressured by the most powerful people on earth to fire you, your email hacked and posted by the usual suspects in accusatory snippets, and where a mysterious letter containing white powder mixed in with tons of traditional hate mail land in your inbox. A suspected communist sympathizer during the McCarthy era, or a Muslim in the wake of 9-11? Nope. All because you helped make one of the most important scientific discoveries in a generation.


      “Fake but Accurate,” as Dan Rather once said and NYT quoted (and CBS posted it’s defense at Daily Kos)


      Revkin wins the fake-but-accurate race? ‘The Dan-Rather-esque ‘fake but accurate’ defense of the memo from teaching science’

      ‘When presented with the fact that he may have published a fake memo, Revkin wrote: ‘looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.’ — ‘It sounds like he is saying that while the memo is faked, it may have been someones attempt to summarize real Heartland documents. Fake but accurate!’


    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 10:04 am said:

      Recent Comments

      * The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (1)
      o radishman: Mans work has been proven wrong many times the mans a cheat Even…

      radishman February 21, 2012 at 9:04 am

      [Snipped: see comment policy. GR]


    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 10:20 am said:


      Climate denial in the classroom

      February 20, 2012 Los Angeles Times


      Heartland officials say one of the documents [the crucial one] was a fake, but the curriculum plans were reportedly discussed in more than one. According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, among other things, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”

      That is a lie so big that, to quote from “Mein Kampf,” it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

      On one side of the “controversy” are credentialed climatologists around the globe who publish in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals and agree that the planet is warming and that humans are to blame; on the other are fossil-fuel-industry-funded “experts” who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truths.


      Despite an intense campaign to discredit his work, Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which shows that temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century soared to their highest level in 1,000 years, has been validated repeatedly


      These are facts, not philosophical or religious dogma.

      Another fact: Sophisticated climate models [written in FORTRAN as Tom Nelson points out] show that things are going to get a lot worse.

      It’s bad enough that we’re gambling our children’s futures by doing so little to fight this problem; let’s not ask their teachers to lie to them about it


      “Fake but Accurate,”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 3:14 pm said:

      Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

      By ANDREW C. REVKIN Dot Earth

      February 20, 2012, 8:06 pm

      Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.

      Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:

      The Origin of the Heartland Documents

      Peter Gleick

      Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

      At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

      Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

      I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

      The Heartland Institute had already signaled that it plans to seek charges and civil action against the person who extracted its documents under a false identity. Foreshadowing today’s events, on Friday, Ross Kaminsky, a senior fellow and former board member at Heartland, posted a piece on the American Spectator site naming Gleick as an “obvious suspect.” Now they have their man.

      I won’t speculate on how the legal aspects of this story might play out.

      Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

      One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

      The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 3:27 pm said:

      “The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document”


      “Fake but Accurate”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 5:02 pm said:

      Preliminary Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession


      Some understandably pointed comments but……

      “We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow”

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation