Russell misleads electorate

Greens Herald interview

Bigs up geothermal rise

The Greens’ co-leaders are demanding senior cabinet posts from Labour after the election. Judging by Dr Norman’s statements on changes in the global energy picture, they don’t deserve cabinet posts. In an interview on August 5 he mentioned geothermal energy, saying:

It happens to be the fastest growing electricity generation sector in the world  according to the International Energy Agency and it’s set to overtake gas as the second-biggest source of electricity in the world. This is the green economy. It is happening right in front of us.

Well, that revelation might be nicely timed for the election, but it’s dead wrong. I checked Norman’s reference, the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook for 2013 (download the Factsheets and the Renewable Energy Outlook).

Much of it reads like an advertorial, full of hope and wishful thinking about removing “fossil fuels”, but the report makes no reference to burgeoning geothermal generation. It contradicts Dr Norman in both his general anti-fossil-fuel optimism and his specific prediction for fast-growing geothermal power generation:

Coal remains the largest source of generation, with strong growth in non-OECD countries far outweighing reductions in OECD countries.

Oh, what a shame! Yet we must continue to shoulder our share of the burden and set a good example for others! No matter the cost. Think of the grandchildren.

Renewables overtake gas as the second-largest source of generation in the next couple of years and approach coal as the leading source by 2035. [emphasis added]

That’s pretty clear. Not just geothermal, but all ‘renewables’ including hydro, wind, solar PV, bio-energy and ‘other’. The renewables sector with the smallest growth to 2035 is ‘other’ so geothermal is very unlikely to rival coal — Norman’s a ninny.

In addition:

Natural gas expands the most in absolute terms of any source, increasing in most regions. Coal-fired generation rebounds in the short term in the United States, reversing the recent coal-to-gas switch, as gas prices recover from very low levels.

Real life is in charge, not the flinty-eyed green taliban.

Norman boosts the geothermal sector out of all recognition. Owns shares, perhaps?


Views: 185

39 Thoughts on “Russell misleads electorate

  1. Simon on 20/08/2014 at 8:44 pm said:

    Dr Norman is correct. Geothermal is the fastest growing industry but that is because it is coming off such a small base. In reality, it will never be a big player as there are limited opportunities. NZ is very fortunate in what it does have. Projects here have been delayed due to declining demand for electricity.

    • Andy on 21/08/2014 at 6:17 am said:

      Simon has a point. Several in fact. The Deloitte report on wind energy in NZ showed that geothermal and gas were cheaper than wind here.

      Also, demand is decreasing. On the radio this week, spokesmen from Meridian and Contact said that domestic demand is declining in NZ. Partly due to the mild winter and partly due to better energy efficiency in homes.

    • Simon –

      Geothermal is the fastest growing industry

      Do you have a reference for that?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/08/2014 at 5:02 am said:

      >”Dr Norman is correct. Geothermal is the fastest growing industry……”

      Not according to the IEA report RT linked to:

      Geothermal is a fast growing heat source in China (See page 208) but that’s about it (See Figure 6.17, page 229 – geothermal doesn’t rate as an item by itself).

      Geothermal (non)growth 1995 – 2009 is graphed against wind and solar here:

      If RT is correct (and you too Simon) that Dr Russell Norman was referring to geothermal then he (Norman) is dead wrong (and so are you Simon). If his reference was instead to renewables (which is 80% hydro), only then would he be correct as RT points out.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/08/2014 at 11:48 am said:

      >”Geothermal is the fastest growing industry” …..Do you have a reference for that?

      There isn’t one (and Simon doesn’t do facts). But here is 2 papers giving the development, state, and projections for geothermal energy:

      ‘World Geothermal Generation in 2007’

      Table 1: Total worldwide installed capacity from 1975 up to
      end of 2007 (estimated).

      Year, Installed Capacity MW
      1975 1,300
      1980 3,887
      1985 4,764
      1990 5,832
      1995 6,833
      2000 7,972
      2005 8,933
      2007 9,732

      Figure 1: Installed capacity from 1975 up to end of 2007
      and estimated to 2010.

      ‘Geothermal Energy: International Market Update’ [2010]

      In 2005, there were 8,933 MW of installed power capacity in 24 countries, generating 55,709 GWh per year of green power, according to the International Geothermal Association. IGA reports in 2010 that 10,715 MW is on line generating 67,246 GWh. This represents a 20% increase in geothermal power on line between 2005 and 2010. IGA projects this will grow to 18,500 MW by 2015, which based upon the large number of projects under consideration appears reasonable if not conservative.

      # # #

      Comparatively, wind (from Wiki):

      World wind generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006, doubling about every three years.

      ‘Wind generation-with semilog plot.png’

      It is not necessary to plot geothermal on semi log as it is with wind i.e. “Geothermal is [not] the fastest growing industry”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/08/2014 at 12:11 pm said:

      >”Figure 1: Installed capacity from 1975 up to end of 2007 and estimated to 2010″

      Same data graphed here:

      From Wiki, Geothermal electricity

  2. Andy on 21/08/2014 at 6:40 am said:

    The current data from em6live shows geothermal second to hydro for current supply into the NZ grid

    I would say encourage them, if it distracts them from their beloved wind turbines ( of which I saw many in Scotland last week)

  3. Andy on 21/08/2014 at 9:24 am said:

    Geothermal energy is relatively easy to exploit in NZ due to our proximity to tectonic boundaries. This has downsides too, of course.

    Iceland is another country that is geologically unstable and has abundant geothermal resources ((I think Iceland gets most of its energy from Geothermal)

    However, for the rest of the world, geothermal is a niche player. Unless there is some radical new technology, I find it hard to see how it could overtake gas as a player, especially with the shale gas revolution in the US and elsewhere.

  4. HemiMck on 21/08/2014 at 11:50 am said:

    The link you give to IEP? has all the data but is deliberately set up to disguise what is actually going on. Wikipedia is a little better but falls back on the same site.

    I intend to try to get into the World numbers but just quickly electricity generation is 14% of total energy consumption. The simplest way is to look at the electricity sector and the non electricity separately.

    The electricity sector (14%) continues to grow rapidly dominated by coal fired generation. The contribution of solar and wind (despite massive subsidies mainly in Europe) is trivial and growing at a slower rate that the sector. Hydro and geothermal are relatively small and pretty much static.

    The non electricity sector (86%) is growing rapidly and dominated by growth in coal. Biofuels are trivial and growing at a slower rate than the sector. Solar wind and hydro does not feature in this the largest component although geothermal for heat is a minor part.

    You do not get this impression from their headlines and graphs.

    The numbers for “renewables” become a nonsense when you combine solar, wind, hydro, geothermal generation (small), geothermal heating (larger), corn ethanol, wood, camel dung etc together and try to analyse growth.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/08/2014 at 3:20 pm said:

      >”The simplest way is to look at the electricity sector and the non electricity separately.
      The electricity sector (14%) continues to grow rapidly dominated by coal fired generation
      The non electricity sector (86%) is growing rapidly and dominated by growth in coal”

      Good distinction Hemi. There are complications too e.g. steelmaking example from Wiki:

      Steelmaking by Electric Arc Furnace
      (Includes thermal coal as electricity generation source or, for example, hydro – think Bluff Aluminium Smelter)

      A mid-sized modern steelmaking furnace would have a transformer rated about 60,000,000 volt-amperes (60 MVA), with a secondary voltage between 400 and 900 volts and a secondary current in excess of 44,000 amperes. In a modern shop such a furnace would be expected to produce a quantity of 80 metric tonnes of liquid steel in approximately 50 minutes from charging with cold scrap to tapping the furnace. In comparison, basic oxygen furnaces can have a capacity of 150–300 tonnes per batch, or “heat”, and can produce a heat in 30–40 minutes. Enormous variations exist in furnace design details and operation, depending on the end product and local conditions, as well as ongoing research to improve furnace efficiency. The largest scrap-only furnace (in terms of tapping weight and transformer rating) is a DC furnace operated by Tokyo Steel in Japan, with a tap weight of 420 metric tonnes and fed by eight 32MVA transformers for 256MVA total power.

      To produce a ton of steel in an electric arc furnace requires approximately 400 kilowatt-hours per short ton or about 440 kWh per metric tonne; the theoretical minimum amount of energy required to melt a tonne of scrap steel is 300 kWh (melting point 1520°C/2768°F). Therefore, a 300-tonne, 300 MVA EAF will require approximately 132 MWh of energy to melt the steel, and a “power-on time” (the time that steel is being melted with an arc) of approximately 37 minutes. Electric arc steelmaking is only economical where there is plentiful electricity, with a well-developed electrical grid. In many locations, mills operate during off-peak hours when utilities have surplus power generating capacity and the price of electricity is less.

      The real power P in watts (W) is equal to the apparent power S in volt-amps (VA), times the power factor PF: […] Example – What is the real power in watts when the apparent power is 3000 VA and the power factor is 0.8? Solution: P = 3000VA × 0.8 = 2400W

      [Obviously the electricity generation source will depend on the regional breakdown but “plentiful electricity” implies nuclear, coal, hydro, etc]

      Pulverized coal-fired boiler (thermal coal)
      A pulverized coal-fired boiler is an industrial or utility boiler that generates thermal energy by burning pulverized coal (also known as powdered coal or coal dust since it is as fine as face powder in cosmetic makeup) that is blown into the firebox.

      The basic idea of a firing system using pulverised fuel is to use the whole volume of the furnace for the combustion of solid fuels. Coal is ground to the size of a fine grain, mixed with air and burned in the flue gas flow. Biomass and other materials can also be added to the mixture. Coal contains mineral matter which is converted to ash during combustion. The ash is removed as bottom ash and fly ash. The bottom ash is removed at the furnace bottom.

      This type of boiler dominates the electric power industry, providing steam to drive large turbines. Pulverized coal provides the thermal energy which produces about 50% of the world’s electric supply.

      Steelmaking by Basic Oxygen, Blast Furnace, and Coke Fuel
      (Coking coal i.e. non-electricity – think Glenbrook Steel):

      Basic Oxygen
      The vast majority of steel manufactured in the world is produced using the basic oxygen furnace; in 2000, it accounted for 60% of global steel output.[3] Modern furnaces will take a charge of iron of up to 350 tons and convert it into steel in less than 40 minutes, compared to 10–12 hours in an open hearth furnace. [….]

      By 1970 half of world’s and 80% of Japan’s steel output was produced in oxygen converters.[3] In the last quarter of the 20th century basic oxygen converters were gradually replaced by the electric arc furnace. In Japan the share of LD process decreased from 80% in 1970 to 70% in 2000; worldwide share of the basic oxygen process stabilized at 60%

      Blast Furnace
      The iron making blast furnace itself is built in the form of a tall structure, lined with refractory brick, and profiled to allow for expansion of the charged materials as they heat during their descent, and subsequent reduction in size as melting starts to occur. Coke, limestone flux, and iron ore (iron oxide) are charged into the top of the furnace in a precise filling order which helps control gas flow and the chemical reactions inside the furnace. […..]

      The hot blast temperature can be from 900 °C to 1300 °C (1600 °F to 2300 °F) depending on the stove design and condition. The temperatures they deal with may be 2000 °C to 2300 °C (3600 °F to 4200 °F). Oil, tar, natural gas, powdered coal and oxygen can also be injected into the furnace at tuyere level to combine with the coke to release additional energy and increase the percentage of reducing gases present which is necessary to increase productivity.

      [Note: coke fuel is charged directly into the furnace as opposed to use of thermal coal above]

      Coke Fuel
      Coke is a fuel with few impurities and a high carbon content, usually made from coal. It is the solid carbonaceous material derived from destructive distillation of low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal. Cokes made from coal are grey, hard, and porous. While coke can be formed naturally, the commonly used form is man-made. The form known as petroleum coke, or pet coke, is derived from oil refinery coker units or other cracking processes. [….]

      Bituminous coal must meet a set of criteria for use as coking coal, determined by particular coal assay techniques. These include moisture content, ash content, sulfur content, volatile content, tar, and plasticity.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/08/2014 at 3:20 pm said:

      Why coal for coke or thermal?

      Energy Density
      The energy density of coal, i.e. its heating value, is roughly 24 megajoules per kilogram[94] (approximately 6.7 kilowatt-hours per kg).

      Energy densities of common energy storage materials
      Specific energy (MJ/kg)
      Uranium (in breeder): 80,620,000
      Thorium (in breeder): 79,420,000
      Coal: 24

      + + +

      Germany dumped nuclear electricity generation, went coal and renewables. #7 on the list of countries by steel production (therefore a major coal user with electricity generation too – see below):

      China #1 steel producer and #1 coal consumption by country. Germany #7 by coal consumption.

      I think coal growth (both non-elec and elec gen) could ultimately be traced largely to growth of cars/trucks etc as a result of new production by China and to the Germany’s nuclear-coal switch. Maybe other things too of course.

  5. HemiMck on 21/08/2014 at 10:37 pm said:

    Not much role going on for renewables in steel making.

    At the other end of the scale the energy usage in world terms for geothermal energy will I suspect usually include low grade geothermal heat.

    High grade superheated steam suitable for power generation over a long period of time is quite rare. Low grade heat suitable for warming houses is far more common but not transportable beyond a few kilometres.

    Low grade heat is in fact pretty common and often over rated.

    Take for example the Wairakei Prawn Farm. Brilliant idea, grow Malaysian pawns in the 22 C outflows from the Wairakei geothermal fields, throw in a bit of salt, maintain them at 22 C and sell mountains of Malaysian prawns to the world. And list a public company, they will love the idea. The initial problem of the prawns dying in their own excrement was solved by adding the right amount of chlorine. The business still exists as a minor local tourist curiosity. But they never approached the initial dream.

    The fundamental problem was that the seawater temperature in Malaysia is 22C

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/08/2014 at 5:15 am said:

      >”At the other end of the scale the energy usage in world terms for geothermal energy will I suspect usually include low grade geothermal heat.”

      Yes. Much domestic heating growth in China, not much else – see my reply to Simon upthread.

      Possible exception; redundant Malaysian prawn farm competition.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/08/2014 at 5:33 am said:

      >”Not much role going on for renewables in steel making”

      Not the non-hydro. But there is when hydro is included in the sector. 80% of it according to the Pear Energy link upthread (reply to Simon).

  6. Andy on 22/08/2014 at 6:51 am said:

    Did anyone watch the video? Toby Manhire asked some good questions for Dr Norman.
    Like for example, whether he would welcome the Chinese premier after his little Tibetan flag incident, his views on the Israeli embassy, and in particular the Green Party position on Climate Change and the fact that it is not highlighted as an election issue.

  7. HemiMck on 22/08/2014 at 10:25 pm said:


    You are absolutely right, no one is talking carbon, at least so far.

    And that despite 1000 experts recently predicting apocalyptic future weather caused by human kind (link deliberately not included). Quite who in human kind they don’t name – presumably not the experts themselves and it wasn’t me. But I digress

    The fact that it is not an election issue is great news in itself – hopefully the message is subtlety getting through that CO2 is not the driver of temperature and that the apocalypse predictors are of the same ilk as Nostradamis.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/08/2014 at 11:15 am said:

      >”CO2 is not the driver of temperature”

      No, still is apparently. Just “taking a break”.

      ‘Why Global Warming Is Taking a Break’

      TEHRAN (FNA)- The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years.

      ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

      Global warming is currently taking a break: whereas global temperatures rose drastically into the late 1990s, the global average temperature has risen only slightly since 1998 — surprising, considering scientific climate models predicted considerable warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. Climate sceptics used this apparent contradiction to question climate change per se — or at least the harm potential caused by greenhouse gases — as well as the validity of the climate models. Meanwhile, the majority of climate researchers continued to emphasise that the short-term ‘warming hiatus’ could largely be explained on the basis of current scientific understanding and did not contradict longer term warming.

      Researchers have been looking into the possible causes of the warming hiatus over the past few years. For the first time, Reto Knutti, Professor of Climate Physics at ETH Zurich, has systematically examined all current hypotheses together with a colleague. In a study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers conclude that two important factors are equally responsible for the hiatus.

      El Niño warmed Earth………

      Longer solar cycles……..

      Incomplete measured data……..(the models are right)

      Warming to recommence

      Despite the warming hiatus, Knutti is convinced there is no reason to doubt either the existing calculations for the climate activity of greenhouse gases or the latest climate models. “Short-term climate fluctuations can easily be explained. They do not alter the fact that the climate will become considerably warmer in the long term as a result of greenhouse gas emissions,” says Knutti. He believes that global warming will recommence as soon as solar activity, aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and weather phenomena such as El Niño naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.

      # # #

      Then, everyone will be talking carbon again.

      BTW. ETH above is Excuse #37 here:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/08/2014 at 12:53 pm said:


      “[Knutti] believes that …[anthropogenic]… global warming will recommence as soon as ….[natural phenomena]… naturally start returning to the values of previous decades.”

      What a goose.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/08/2014 at 5:21 pm said:

      >”BTW. ETH above is Excuse #37″

      Excuse #38

      ‘Atlantic slows global warming with temperature rises seen resuming from 2030’

      The Atlantic Ocean has masked global warming this century by soaking up vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere in a shift likely to reverse from around 2030 and spur fast temperature rises, scientists said.

      The theory is the latest explanation for a slowdown in the pace of warming at the Earth’s surface since about 1998 that has puzzled experts because it conflicts with rising greenhouse gas emissions, especially from emerging economies led by China.

      “We’re pointing to the Atlantic as the driver of the hiatus,” Ka-Kit Tung, of the University of Washington in Seattle and a co-author of Thursday’s study in the journal Science [Chen & Tung], told Reuters.

      The study said an Atlantic current carrying water north from the tropics sped up this century and sucked more warm surface waters down to 1,500 metres (5,000 feet), part of a natural shift for the ocean that typically lasts about three decades.

      It said a return to a warmer period, releasing more heat stored in the ocean, was likely to start around 2030. When it does, “another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue”, the authors wrote.

      Read more:

      >”soaking up vast amounts of heat from the atmosphere”

      Huh? How?

  8. Alexander K on 23/08/2014 at 3:46 pm said:

    The Greens are only very loosely connected with reality; Russell Norman will say anything that sounds vaguely academic and scientific to bolster the Green Taliban’s nonsense, but, as usual, his statements don’t make sense when one tracks down his source material and demonstrates Norman’s usual lack of veracity. But heck, when you’re marketing Unicorns, moonbeams and fairy dust, these people can say what they like as they know that a lie will be half-way around the world before the truth gets it’s boots on.
    Norman’s version of reality ranks right up there with Lucy Lawless’s views as an expert on climate and ecology.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 28/08/2014 at 8:44 pm said:

    ‘Costs of Australia’s renewable energy target ‘not justifiable’: review’

    […] The Greens said it was “no surprise that a review led by a climate sceptic has trashed the Renewable Energy Target” and that both options would destroy Australia’s renewables industry.

    “I’m glad this dangerous and ignorant report is finally public, so everyone can see it for the climate denier drivel it is. The outcome was determined long ago,” Greens Leader Christine Milne said.

    Read more:

    RET Review report here:

  10. Gary on 30/08/2014 at 9:01 pm said:

    From Australia, it appears the Australian BOM are miss leading everyone as well……
    THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.

    Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science.

    Dr Marohasy has analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.

    In many cases, Dr Marohasy said, temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.

    BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.

    It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.

    In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.

    Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.

    “All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.

    Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.

    Dr Marohasy said she had found examples where there had been no change in instrumentation or siting and no inconsistency with nearby stations but there had been a dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after homogenisation.

    She said that at Amberley in Queensland, homogenisation had resulted in a change in the temperature trend from one of cooling to dramatic warming.

    She calculated homogenisation had changed a cooling trend in the minimum temperature of 1C per century at Amberley into a warming trend of 2.5C. This was despite there being no change in location or instrumentation.

    BOM said the adjustment to the minimums at Amberley was identified through “neighbour comparisons”. It said the level of confidence was very high because of the large number of stations in the region. There were examples where homogenisation had resulted in a weaker warming trend.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2014 at 9:00 am said:

      Yes interesting development Gary but not just BOM, GISS and BEST have made similar adjustments by much the same rationale in the case studies of Amberley, Rutherglen and Bourke that have been the recent focus (see the Marohasy-Schmidt Twitter exchange at link below).

      I’ve been tracking the saga in Open Threads ‘Temperature Records’ starting at the thread header here:

      Along the way there’s been some minor wrongs by Marohasy, Nova, and Lloyd (The Australian) e.g. it wasn’t John Cook that was interviewed on ABC it was one of his fans (since corrected at the respective blogs) and BOM has made its algorithms publicly available (TR049, M&W09) contrary to a Lloyd claim. These have been picked up by Graham Readfearn at The Guardian and DeSmog:

      But those are mere side issues and the contention is not over the general homogenization process anyway, Marohasy is explicit about that. The contention is that very large adjustments have been made for no justifiable reason locally (as in article quote above) but on the strength of stations hundreds of kilometres away in different climate zones (GISS and BEST no different). In effect BOM has decided the the local Postmasters must have misread and incorrectly recorded the temperature 3 times a day for years on end so data had to be re-written some 70 years later i.e. the temperature was not what the thermometers were indicating back then, the temperature then was what BOM now says it was, local thermometers excluded from history – hence the Orwell, 1984 “propaganda” statements from Marohasy and others.

      Not the same as NZCSET v NIWA where the breakpoints were known and not disputed. Ironic that BOM can produce their methodology but it and their application of it is now in dispute. NIWA cannot produce their methodology and application of established method disputes their ad hoc method. And BOM reviewed NIWA’s 7SS.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2014 at 9:19 am said:

      Gary’s quote is paywalled at The Australian but there’s a bit more here:

      I like this bit by Lloyd:

      “Marohasy’s research has put her in dispute with BoM over a paper she published with John Abbot at Central Queensland University in the journal Atmospheric Research concerning the best data to use for rainfall forecasting. BoM challenged the findings of the Marohasy-Abbot paper, but the international journal rejected the BoM rebuttal, which had been prepared by some of the bureau’s top scientists.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2014 at 9:47 am said:

      Dellingpole weighs in:

      One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. “How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world’s temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?” their argument runs.

      Our answer: yes we bloody well are.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2014 at 10:58 am said:

      >”BOM has decided the the local Postmasters must have misread and incorrectly recorded the temperature 3 times a day for years on end”

      No, every 3 hours each day for years on end:

      Weatherman’s records detail heat that ’didn’t happen’ (Graham Lloyd at The Australian)

      AS a child, Ian Cole would watch his father Neville take meticulous readings from the Bureau of Meteorology thermometer at the old post office in the western NSW town of Bourke and send the results through by teleprinter.

      The temperature was recorded every three hours, including at night when the mercury sometimes plunged to freezing, and the data was logged in handwritten journals that included special notes to help explain the results.

      For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?” Mr Cole said. “At the moment they (BOM) are saying we have a warming climate but if the old figures are used we have a cooling climate.”

  11. HemiMck on 31/08/2014 at 2:29 pm said:

    I firstly got quite angry from reading the above and assumed that this was where Niwa developed their techniques. I went off to see whether this was a world wide phenomenon or just Australasian.

    I am not sure now. From this some adjustments are clearly warranted eg shifting from pm to am temperature readings.

    In New Zealand,s case of course, located where we are, there is no possibility that New Zealand has warmed at twice the world average. As we know, even IPCC doesn’t believe that. While I think we should start with the premise that they are not all fabricators, there are clearly big egos involved and also academic reputations at stake. Admitting that they over-cooked their adjustments is beyond them.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2014 at 4:12 pm said:

      >”From this some adjustments are clearly warranted”

      Yes, but that is not the issue of contention anyway Hemi. Either in the case of NZCSET v NIWA or the Marohasy/Abbot/Stewart/Jensen BOM/ACORN analysis. The notion that the issue is homogenization adjustments in general is a fiction and a strawman put up by those wanting to distract and disparage (or just don’t understand the issues). Jennifer Marohasy and Joanne Nova explicitly acknowledge the need for adjustments when appropriate – no contention.

      Look at the NZCSC’s ‘Statistical Audit’ of the 7SS; it is all about adjustment values; it is chock full of adjustments; they make numerous adjustments. How then can they be accused of not knowing the need for adjustments because the need is clearly understood and they make them where necessary?

      The NIWA 7SS issue is actually the basis by which adjustment methodology is applied to KNOWN breakpoints. NZCSC/NZCSET’s basis is Rhoades and Salinger (1993) i.e. established methodology. NIWA will not, because they cannot, provide the scientific/statistical basis for their series despite RT’s repeated calls for it and they assert that it is “internationally recognized”. This is because their method is/was ad hoc and arbitrary but HadCRU accepts their product for CRUTEM by default i.e. no questions, no audit, but “recognized” anyway.

      And it is NOT the site change adjustments (i.e. KNOWN breakpoints) that are contentious in the case of BOM/ACORN-SAT (e.g. Amberley, Rutherglen, and Bourke). The contentious adjustments have been made in ACORN-SAT when none are justified for any LOCAL reason (e.g. no site move or instrument change, no local change recorded) i.e. UNKNOWN breakpoints.

      I’ve made a comparison of the issues of contention, NIWA 7SS vs BOM ACORN-SAT (GISS, BEST, similar) at JoNova here (#25.2):

      >”…to see whether this was a world wide phenomenon or just Australasian”

      GISS and BEST adjust the Australian stations (Amberley say) similar to BOM so yes, it is “a world wide phenomenon”. See my link to ‘Temperature Records’ above for the Twitter exchange between Jennifer Marohasy and Gavin Schmidt from GISS. And the methodological basis for ACORN-SAT is Menne & Williams (2009) which is in respect to, and the basis of, the USHCN series but adapted for Australian conditions (it would be impossible to use it similarly for NZ – NZ is too small).

      >”I think we should start with the premise that they are not all fabricators,…”

      Yes I agree. There has been too-loose use of the word “fraud” at JoNova and Jo has cautioned against that. However, does it become fraudulent if both BOM and NIWA (and GISS and BEST and HadCRU which inserts 7SS for NZ and HQ for Australia) persist in holding out their respective series as valid when there is evidence to the contrary (ignored by the court in NZ)?

      I’ve laid out this aspect at JoNova here (#29):

      It’s about intent and acting on that intent as I see it.

  12. Andy on 03/09/2014 at 11:50 am said:

    Russel Norman is appearing tonight on the climate voter debate, with reps from most other political parties

    Live stream here:

  13. Alexander K on 03/09/2014 at 3:02 pm said:

    Russell Norman isn’t the sole misleader from the Greens – their decision to give a huge boost to the rate of the Basic Wage if they get their hands on the levers of Government, which, thankfully, is a huge if) defies both logic and economic rationality and would make it impossible for many to actually rise above the Basic Wage as they progressed in their working life. The Greens prove with every utterance on energy and economic policy that they have no idea of the realities of earning a living or creating a business enterprise. Inventing fairy tales is a natural outcome for sufferers of the Green affliction.

  14. Andy on 06/09/2014 at 9:09 am said:

    Russel Norman was having a conversation with himself about climate change at the minor leaders debate

  15. Andy on 09/09/2014 at 7:43 am said:

    Dr Norman also features in the Climate Voter “debate” which Gareth has kindly posted a link to the video of at his blog.

    If you fast forward to around one hour, Tim Groser has some succinct words for the “moderators” figures on fossil fuel “subsidies” and David Parker is more restrained but equally in disagreement.

  16. Alexander K on 11/09/2014 at 9:39 am said:

    I know this is OT, but I see ( reading the latest post at Climate Audit) that Prof M Mann is an almost-perfect role model for the Green party in that they appear to believe that, like Mann, telling porkies to promote their version of anything is OK behaviour. His outright untruths and his wildly-inflated claims fired off by his legal team, ranging from his dishonest claim to being a Nobel Laureate to claiming co-authorship of papers he had very little to do with are being unpicked with skill and tenacity by Steve M and learned contributors to Steve’s blog such as Jean S.
    Meanwhile, sea ice in Antarctic ice continues to expand and sea ice in the Arctic is at an above-average level for the time of year, dodging the much-vaunted but entirely imaginary ‘death spiral’ promoted so loudly a few short years ago.
    I am also amazed at the Green party’s sudden love of and for Enzed and its citizens in the run-up to this coming election. What became of the almost-palpable hatred of farmers, developers and anyone else who offended their Green and uber-socialist sensitivities?

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2014 at 10:13 am said:

    PR Week – Special report: climate change and communications

    “According to NASA, 97 per cent of scientists agree the climate is very likely to be warming due to human activity”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2014 at 10:25 am said:

      “The problem will not be resolved through logic but feelings and emotions.”

      – Tim Duffy, chair of advertising agency M&C Saatchi.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2014 at 10:30 am said:

      >”According to NASA, 97 per cent of scientists agree…..”

      Thus a lie gets halfway around the world before truth gets its boots on.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2014 at 10:54 am said:

      The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics
      Andrew Montford

      NASA? No: Cook, J et al. ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic globalwarming in the scientific literature.’ Environmental Research Letters 2013; 8 024024

  18. Andy on 03/10/2014 at 10:23 am said:

    Just as a general observation of the Greens, I watched the last of this year’s Backbenchers.
    Just about all the panel agreed (including Green MP Gareth Hughes) that the biggest issue in NZ is “child poverty”

    Climate change wasn’t even mentioned

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation