Herald obeys the clamour

Hopes end for levelheaded exemplar from once-leading opinion maker

The Herald nails its colours to the mast

The NZ Herald has finally burned any bridges it may have retained with decently sceptical climate scientists by publishing the above advertisement today pretending the obvious falsehood that the “science on climate change” is “settled”.

The announcement confirms it has shut down its brain, meekly tucked its trunk into the tail of the leading alarmist chatterers and shambled off with them, marching to their drumbeat and echoing their shrill clamour without thought. The Herald thus chooses to sell its product in the largest and least informed market and broadcasts a distinct lack of regard for the truth.

It makes me angry.

Because there is no scientific phenomenon by which carbon dioxide could dangerously warm the atmosphere in the face of strong natural negative feedbacks (it has not happened in 4 billion years even when CO2 levels were 1700 per cent higher than today), climate model forecasts for 20 years have not matched reality, and, for 20 years, the global average temperature has not risen. Polar bears are thriving since we stopped shooting them and ocean acidification is well within natural variability.

Views: 166

84 Thoughts on “Herald obeys the clamour

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 26/11/2014 at 10:01 am said:

    Basically, according to the Herald, all that matters in the world is the question:

    “Global [climate] agreement in 2015?”

    I would have thought other things matter but that’s just me.

    I used to read the Herald religiously years ago when choices were fewer, but not now, not even online. Others aren’t too apparently. I called in to the local bookstore late on Saturday and there were two big piles of Herald’s that nobody bought. Might be time for management to do some market research I think. That is an advertisement with very limited appeal.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 26/11/2014 at 10:28 am said:

    [Herald] – Science of climate change “now settled”

    Old news. That was settled in Rio back in 1992:

    ‘People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception’ – Dr.Tim Ball

    • Bulaman on 26/11/2014 at 6:21 pm said:

      Simon Upton sold us down the river in 1992 at Rio. He has gone on to make his living off the back of this. He is our version of Al Gore and should be in jail for economic treason.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/11/2014 at 7:44 pm said:

      >”He [Upton] has gone on to make his living off the back of this”

      One of many. A former corporate manager I worked under a while back is now a director of this outfit:

      E3 International – Partnering for low-carbon transformation
      Ethics [this one makes me laugh]

      We help leading companies to manage risks and capture opportunities arising from policy and market developments.
      Often breaking new ground, we focus on integrating sustainability with positive commercial outcomes

      Check out the 52 clients: http://www.e3international.com/clients/

      Top 15
      Anglo Coal
      Aurora Energy
      Australian Coal Association
      Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
      Australian Paper Industry Council
      Babcock & Brown Power
      BHP Billiton
      BlueScope Steel
      Carter Holt Harvey
      Cement Australia
      Cement Industry Federation

      Meridian Energy
      N M Rothschild & Sons

      The Italian Government (APAT)
      The Scottish Executive
      Scottish and Southern Energy plc
      Tomago Aluminium
      UK Department of Trade & Industry
      Visy Pulp & Paper
      Western Power

      Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market
      Sun, 22/03/200

      The bank connection is a very big deal in Australia, particularly renewable energy certificates (REC) and large-scale generation certificates (LGC). These were exposed to huge risk by Abbott’s Warburton review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET). The following traces LGC prices over 2014:

      ‘Banks exposed to big RET risks’ – The Australian July 14, 2014

      AUSTRALIA’S banks are holding nearly $900 million worth of certificates designed to stimulate investment in renewable energy generation as the price of those instruments becomes captive to the political debate over green energy schemes.

      Banks including ANZ, Macquarie Group, Westpac and Commonwealth Bank hold 5.9 million, or 20 per cent, of the 28.4 million large-scale energy certificates (LGCs) ­issued and yet to be ­redeemed under the Renewable Energy Target scheme, according to information supplied to the Senate.

      The holdings, which have come to light as the government attempts to repeal the carbon tax, could leave the holders exposed to wild fluctuations in market price owing to the political risk that the scheme will be watered down or scrapped. Both Labor and the Coalition went to the election promising to retain the RET introduced by the former Howard Coalition government. But the Abbott government has become increasingly critical of the scheme because of the hidden cost to electricity consumers and question marks over how effective it is in reducing carbon emissions.


      $33 down to $23 and back up to $31 over 2014.

      2015 volume weighted average market price for a LGC
      The Clean Energy Regulator has estimated the volume weighted average market price for an LGC for the 2015 year as $29.38.


      Who you gonna call? E3 International of course.

  3. Andy on 26/11/2014 at 11:10 am said:

    If the science is settled then maybe we can close down the universities and spend the money on something else

  4. Magoo on 26/11/2014 at 11:46 am said:

    The last few times I made an effort to write any comments in the NZ Herald’s articles on climate change they failed to materialise, even though they were on topic and polite. This leads me to the conclusion that the moderators are environmental activists and it’s not worth commenting there anymore (I gave up reading it ages ago). At least the moderators aren’t altering my links so they don’t work anymore, like they used to a few years ago – an email to the editor fixed that particular problem. These are the links I usually use (both from the IPCC).

    AR4, explaining the hotspot as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour:

    Followed by a link to the AR5 showing the mid/upper troposphere warming at a slower rate than the lower troposphere on all temperature records (Box 2.8, pg 197, Chapter 2, Working Group I, IPCC AR5):


    Nope, can’t have that published can we, people might find out what the IPCC report really says.

    • Alexander+K on 26/11/2014 at 3:25 pm said:

      I gave up hoping for unbiased climate science from the Herald long, long ago; Their political bias is totally Leftward too, to the point where I am surprised that any writer on the Herald’s payroll can actually walk upright.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/11/2014 at 8:06 pm said:

      >”I am surprised that any writer on the Herald’s payroll can actually walk upright.”

      Heh, you’re on a roll Alexander. I’m still chuckling from your last one:

      “Mark Lynas ……About as deep intellectually as yer average birdbath.”

      Looking forward to your next installment.

    • Simon on 02/12/2014 at 7:48 am said:

      It’s ‘left wing’ to socialise externalities rather than applying user pays for pollution. The science is apolitical.

    • Andy on 02/12/2014 at 7:57 am said:

      The science is apolitical.

      Ha ha ha….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2014 at 7:59 am said:

      What “pollution” are you referring to Simon? Not plant food I hope.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2014 at 8:57 am said:

      And what “science” are you referring to Simon? Not climate models I hope.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/12/2014 at 9:30 am said:

      No worse example of political overreach on pollution (real this time) and highly questionable “science” than the US EPA:

      ‘EPA Sneaks ‘Costliest Regulation Ever’ Over Holidays’

      Written by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller on 01 December 2014.


      The EPA’s proposed standard lowers the acceptable amount of ozone in the air from 75 parts per billion to a range of 65-70 parts per billion. The agency says this new standard is based on more than 1,000 scientific studies published since 2008, and will prevent from 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks per year, along with “preventing more than 750 to 4,300 premature deaths; 1,400 to 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 65,000 to 180,000 missed workdays.”


      But critics say the science behind the health effects of ozone is far from settled. EPA documents obtained by the blog JunkScience.com through a Freedom of Information Act request show that in 2007, the EPA exposed asthmatic people to high levels of ozone. The EPA claimed in the 2007 study that no human subject has ever suffered from any observed “adverse event” during an experiment.

      “Did any of the exercising asthmatic human guinea pigs experience any adverse health effect whatsoever from these high exposures to ozone?” JunkScience.com asks. “No.”

      “EPA has failed to disclose that its own careful controlled clinical experiments of exercising asthmatics exposed to exceedingly high levels of ozone experienced no adverse health effects whatsoever,” the blog continues. “And now EPA wants to impose what will be the single most costly regulation of all time on the American economy.”

      More recent human studies conducted by the EPA in 2010 and 2011 exposed people to high levels of particulate matter, diesel exhaust and ozone. No subject died during the tests, but one test subject developed a persistent cough after being exposed to high levels of ozone for 15 minutes in April 2011.

      # # #

      But the “science” is “apolitical” – yeah right.

  5. Andy on 26/11/2014 at 4:02 pm said:

    As RC suggests, there may be many things more pressing on peoples minds than climate change.

    Most things, in fact, such as:

    Ebola, Islamic State, Ferguson riots, NZ spy agencies, Kim Dot Com, Rugby

    Actually, Rugby, yes, that’s it.

    By the way, I was at Murrayfield to watch the ABs beat Scotland. Brilliant night out.

    And much more interesting than “climate change”

  6. HemiMck on 26/11/2014 at 4:19 pm said:

    Headlines we will not see in the Herald

    “Antarctic Ice much thicker than thought – Is Global cooling on the way?”


    “The sea level has been rising at the same rate since Archimedes was a boy – not cause by CO2”


  7. Alexander+K on 27/11/2014 at 9:16 am said:

    Thanks for the compliments, Richard C.
    I have an advantage (in my view) in that I acquired a helping of university education well into my adult life without the dubious benefit of acquiring any school qualification whatsoever and therefore have a fairly good nose for bullshit, politicking and bias.
    When I trained as a teacher as a ‘mature’ trainee, one of my Education lecturers shouted at me (I suspect I had challenged him once too often) that
    ‘your problem is that you are a divergent thinker!’
    In my wanderings through academe, I have always clung to this (paraphrased) quote:
    ‘I, too, have tried to be a philosopher, but cheerfulness keeps breaking through.’

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2014 at 9:59 am said:

    How the science of climate change gets settled:

    ‘Data Torture in Gergis2K’
    By Steve McIntyre

    […] Gergis et al 2012, very unusually for the field, stated that they intended to avoid screening bias by screening on detrended data, describing their screening process as follows:….[quote from paper]……

    Unfortunately for Gergis and coauthors, that’s not what they actually did. Their screening was done on undetrended data. When screening was done in the described way, only 8 or so proxies survived. Jean S discovered this a few weeks after publication of the Gergis et al article on May 17, 2012. Two hours after Jean S’ comment at CA, coauthor Neukom notified Gergis and Karoly of the problem.

    Gergis and coauthors, encouraged by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, attempted to persuade the Journal of Climate editors that they should be allowed to change the description of their methodology to what they had actually done. However, the editors did not agree, challenging the Gergis coauthors to show the robustness of their results. The article was not retracted. The University of Melbourne press statement continues to say that it was published on May 17, 2012, but has been submitted for re-review (and has apparently been under review for over two years now.)


    The PAGES2K Australasian network is the product of the same authors. Its methodological description is taken almost verbatim from Gergis et al 2012. Its network is substantially identical to the Gergis 2012 network: 20 of 27 Gergis proxies carry forward to the P2K network. Several of the absent series are from Antarctica, covered separately in P2K. The new P2K network has 28 series, now including 8 series that had been previously screened out. The effort to maintain continuity even extended to keeping proxies in the same order in the listing, even inserting new series in the precise empty spaces left by vacating series.

    Once again, the authors claimed to have done their analysis using detrended data:…..[quote from paper]…..

    This raises an obvious question: in the previous test using detrended data, only a fraction passed. So how did they pass the detrended test this time?

    Read their description of P2K screening and watch the pea:…….[quote from paper]…….

    Gergis et al 2012 had calculated one correlation for each proxy, but the above paragraph describes ~27 correlations: three lag periods (+1,0,-1) by nine gridcells ( not just the host gridcell, but the W,NW,N, NE,E,SE,S and SW gridcells, all of which would be within 500 km according to my reading of the above text.) The other important change is the change from testing against a regional average to testing against individual gridcells, which, in some cases, are not even in the target region.


    ‘PAGES2K and Nature’s Policy against Self-Plagiarism’
    By Steve McIntyre

    The description of the Australasian network of PAGES2K (coauthors Gergis, Neukom, Phipps and Lorrey) is almost entirely lifted in verbatim or near-verbatim chunks from Gergis et al, 2012 (withdrawn and under re-review), in apparent violation of Nature’s policy against self-plagiarism.


    # # #

    Unfortunately for Gergis et al we now have this:

    ‘Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming’

    Date: November 19, 2014
    Source: University of Gloucestershire

    Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.


  9. Bulaman,

    “Simon Upton sold us down the river in 1992 at Rio. He has gone on to make his living off the back of this.”

    Interesting, but I don’t recall it. Do you have some links where we could read about that, or should I just Google him?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2014 at 5:48 pm said:

      Simon Upton, Rio Earth Summit 1998, and since:

      UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

      The CSD was a compromise between those the UK and USA in particular who did not want anything and Maurice Strong and Norway and some developing countries who wanted to either transform the Trusteeship Council to an Ecological Security Council or create a Council of the General Assembly. It was infact a group of NGOs who came p with the compromise handing the suggestion for a function commission of EcoSoc to the great Malaysian Ambassador Razali who then sought and got G77 support for the creation of the CSD.

      The first CSD was held under his chairship and was addressed by the recently elected author of The Earth in Balance Vice President Al Gore. Much was hoped for the CSD in the follow up to Rio not least the delivery of the promised new and additional resources. Developed countries were going through a recession in 1992 (sound familiar ) and so said they could not provide funds for the delivering of Agenda 21 then but would in the future. Maurice Strong the Secretary General of Rio had estimated the cost of implementing Agenda 21 at $625 billion a year with $125 billion transfer from developed to developing countries. At Rio official development aid was around $60 billion it fell after Rio and did not return to that figure until 2002.

      One of the great successes of Rio was the nine chapters of Agenda 21 giving rights and responsibilities for stakeholders in helping governments make better informed decisions.

      The second cycle from 1998-2001 also had some successes this was under directorship mostly of the wonderful Joke Waller Hunter. In 1997 the idea of stakeholder dialogues was introduced by 1998 twelve hours of negations were set aside at the beginning of the CSD for an interactive dialogue with stakeholders on the key policy issues that governments would be negotiating. This second cycle aslo saw some substantive successors with the adoption of national co9nsumer guidelines on sustainable consumption first by the CSD and then by the GA. It also saw the first substantive discussion on tourism with policy recommendations relating to financial leakages and the first substantive work by the UN on sustainable tourism. On oceans the CSD set up a process in the UNGA under CSD rules to enable stakeholders to eb able to engage and by doing so enabled the UNGA to start to get used to stakeholder engagement in that body. Their was substantive leadership by the chairs of that era, Simon Upton (NZ), Juan Myar (Colombia) and Bedrich Moldan (Czech Republic).


      Simon Upton, New Zealand, OECD, green growth

      Simon Upton is Director of the OECD Environment Directorate.

      The OECD Environment Directorate provides governments with the analytical basis to develop policies that are effective and economically efficient, including through country performance reviews, data collection, policy analysis, projections and modeling, and the development of common approaches.

      He was previously Chairman of the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development, a body that enables environment and economics ministers, representatives of the OECD, World Bank, United Nations programs, World Trade Organization and individuals invited from business and civil society organizations to meet twice a year to tackle some of the more intractable problems that defy negotiated solutions.

      Simon Upton became a prominent figure in international environmental negotiations, chairing the 1998 meeting of OECD environment ministers, and the 7th Session of the Commission of Sustainable Development in 1998-99.


  10. Andy on 27/11/2014 at 5:10 pm said:

    RC – obviously reality is highly overrated in Dr Wright’s office

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2014 at 5:55 pm said:

      Reminds me of the Mythbusters tee shirt:

      “I reject your reality and substitute my own”.

  11. HemiMck on 27/11/2014 at 7:30 pm said:

    I would be a bit suspicious of the Salisbury Wharf Tauranga series above. There are a couple of discrete hikes that I suspect will not correlated with other places.

    Salisbury Wharf looks to be roughly where the cruise liners come in and the whole peninsular is a sand bank. There has been major dredging to enable larger shipping into the harbour.

    I would look to other sites as being more reliable.

  12. Andy on 27/11/2014 at 8:16 pm said:

    You can ring 0800 CLIMATE and ask them

    I haven’t received a terribly good welcome on previous attempts, I might add

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/11/2014 at 8:25 pm said:

      Good idea Andy. I’ll use the email contact: https://www.climatechange.govt.nz/contact-us.html

      Easier to make a clear simple case as above, with links to data, and then the response is in print.

      But no, I haven’t gained any traction at the MfE either, although negotiations were cordial (Dr Vera Power, Manager, Science and Evaluation).

    • Andy on 28/11/2014 at 9:23 am said:

      The full report is here

      It is pretty short on science. There is a nice picture of a flooded Christchurch which has nothing to do with SLR

    • Thanks, Andy! I was just about (finally!) to look for the report when your email came through. I want to see what they say about emissions and the concentration pathways. The latest science has it that our beloved Commissioner for the Environment claims sea level rise will be five times what it has been this century — without, of course, giving reasons for the acceleration. This deception is becoming serious.

    • Andy on 28/11/2014 at 10:10 am said:

      RT- I don’t think the report mentions RCPs at all. There is a lot of historical stuff. Positive feedbacks over the CO2 effect is presented as fact, and the IPCC only uses peer-reviewed sources she claims, apart from the 30% that isn’t peer reviewed that is

      Presentation – 8/10
      Science – 3/10

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/11/2014 at 11:05 am said:

      Wright’s opining is a good indication of how out of touch she is (I’ll send some of this to the MfE):


      “The warming of the planet following from rising concentrations of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has indeed become the big problem”

      [OLR is not decreasing, planetary energy has freely radiated to space..
      NOAA data:
      Graphed against temperature:
      Therefore, no problem]

      [DLR is not increasing. CO2 currently makes up about 6 W.m-2 of DLR (Wang & Liang, 2009) but DLR can be around 400 W.m-2 in the tropics 24/7. An increase of 1 W.m-2 from 2xCO2 will not make an iota of difference. Therefore, no problem]

      “…….as the atmosphere warms, more and more water evaporates and traps more and more heat”

      [But it rains first so it doesn’t. And the atmosphere has stopped warming anyway]


      “…..since about 1900, sea levels have risen by about 20 centimetres. There is
      a strong consensus among scientists that rising sea levels are largely a consequence
      of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
      atmosphere raising global temperatures”

      [IPCC attribution begins 1951 – not 1900]

      The end of the Holocene?

      “As described in Chapter 2, the periods of cooling and warming in the past have been
      triggered by small variations in the Earth’s orbit – Milankovitch cycles. These orbital
      variations lead to changes in the intensity of solar energy on different parts of the
      Earth’s surface. But now we are seeing a warming of the climate that has not been
      triggered in this way, but rather by deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels over
      the last 150 years.”

      [Milankovitch cycle is irrelevant to solar change over the last 1000 years – the de Vries cycle is]

      3.1 A new reason for a warming climate

      [Nope, same old reason – solar change. But not Milankovitch cycle]

      3.3 Rising temperatures

      “The plateau in surface temperature over the last few years is a result of natural variability”

      [Well yes, mainly ocean oscillations, but oscillating around the secular trend which is now turning down – Marcias et al (2014): http://www.sciencecodex.com/last_decades_slowdown_in_global_warming_enhanced_by_an_unusual_climate_anomaly-141430
      Therefore CO2 is not the driver of the secular trend]

      3.5 The start of the Anthropocene?

      “The warming of the climate that is now underway has not been triggered by a
      Milankovitch variation in the Earth’s orbit, but by the burning of huge quantities of
      fossil fuels and the loss of forests”

      [As if Milankovitch variations would be the cause over 100 – 200 – 400 years? No. Solar change in the bicentennial timescale is i.e. the de Vries cycle]

      4.4 How much will the sea rise in the future?

      [Already addressed]

      BTW, OLR, DLR, and the negligible effect of CO2 was the topic in a long thread here:

      ‘An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect’ By Robin Pittwood

      Had to chuckle, a warmy, posing as a sceptic, came in as “More Accurate Kiwi Thinker”, went out as “Frank”. Reminds me of samoht here at CCG.

    • Andy on 28/11/2014 at 3:14 pm said:

      I suppose it’s easy to ignore this report but eventually it feeds into public policy and makes life more difficult and expensive for those living close to the sea, through additional regulations and compliance costs

      Presumably this is the intention of the climate jihadists anyway. Anything that eats away at society and makes people more unhappy is on their shopping list

  13. Andy on 28/11/2014 at 9:02 am said:

    The worst case I heard of regarding SLR was an elderly couple in their 80s that were forced to leave their perfectly fine property that was 1 m above the high tide mark.

    This was somewhere in Australia.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 28/11/2014 at 12:51 pm said:

    Wellington Harbour MSL data:

    1989.7916 7228 (#1)
    1993.5416 6943
    2001.375 7222 (#3)
    2010.7916 6991
    2013.375 7224 (#2)

    Did anyone notice the 28.5cm fall in 3.75 years?

    Or the 27.9cm rise in 7.8 years?

  15. Andy on 28/11/2014 at 1:36 pm said:

    Jan Wright “live chat” (now finished) here:

    I think it’s great how they are using the ChCh earthquake as a propaganda tool for their SLR projections.
    Since my in-laws are still battling EQC over their flooded property (it floods every time it rains) perhaps they could claim “climate change refugee” status

    • Not a bad idea!

    • Andy on 28/11/2014 at 4:15 pm said:

      Yes, well we are running out of ideas as EQC and CCC don’t want to move on any decisions and we have a $400k rental property that is unusable and vacant right now.

      So if anyone wants to pimp us as “climate change victims” then I am up for it. The missus and mother in law can even turn on the tears on cue for Campbell Live

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 28/11/2014 at 4:23 pm said:

    Global OHC for Jul to Sept 2014:

    0 = 700m graph:

    Data (x10^22J):

    2014-9,12.117544 (-2.06 from 2013-12)

    Down 2.06×10^22J in 2014 from end of 2013

    Thomas November 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Yes well spotted indeed. The “Pausists” simply have no idea whatsoever of ocean dynamics.
    “Pausists” should be made put their nose to this:
    This is probably the best data we have on total ocean heat content and it looks ominous indeed.


    Pausists” don’t need to be made to “put their nose to this”. This “Pausist” has the link in his Bookmarks Toolbar i.e. it’s always on my nose. And “Pausists” know a lot more about ocean dynamics than Thomas thinks. All Thomas is looking at is solar accumulation at Grand Maximum levels. It will take decades to dissipate the energy but it will because the sun is going into recession.

    Thomas might look at the Basin data to end of 2013:

    2000.875 0.838
    2013.875 4.273 (+3.435)

    2000.875 2.818
    2013.875 3.828 (+1.01)

    2000.875 1.411
    2013.875 5.558 (+4.147)

    +8.592 globally 2000 – 2013, this of course after Josh Willis discarded ARGO floats that were “too cold” (UKMO EN3 says differently).

    Then Thomas might ponder just where, how, and why the -2.06 global fall has occurred so far in 2014 just as similar fluctuations have occurred from 2010 but no consistent rise.

    • Andy on 28/11/2014 at 8:48 pm said:

      Thomas seems to have a few problems with the English language, since he uses curious expressions such as “wired and wicket” to describe sceptics.

      Admittedly he is a German native speaker, but you would have thought working as a schoolteacher in NZ would help you overcome these hurdles

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 29/11/2014 at 8:32 am said:

    ‘New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2’

    The Hockey Schtick, November 27, 2014

    A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

    The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find

    “We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”

    Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

    The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).

    Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

    Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.

    Continues>>>>>>>[see graphs]

    ‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’

    X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)


    # # #

    30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response is a lot longer than computed figures e.g. 14 +/- 6 years, Abdussamatov (2012).

    There is corroboration elsewhere of a long lag, even Dr Kevin Trenberth states “10 – 100 years” in his essay ‘The Role Of The Oceans In Climate’. Evidence like the above just strengthens the case for a long lag which if we apply to the end of the Modern solar Grand Maximum around 2005 gives 2035 – 2045 for an atmospheric temperature response of any significance. 14 year lag gives 2019.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/11/2014 at 10:00 am said:

      30 – 40 yr solar-temperature lag is from a millennial cycle. An intermediate lag from bicentennial or multiples, or 500 yr periodicity, should be expected too e.g. 14+/-6 as per Abdussamatov or 15 – 20 years.

      I’m inclined to think 14 – 20 years is looking more and more likely i.e. expect a perceptible temperature drop, on average, around 2019 – 2025. Not long to find out.

      Speculation on a 30 – 40 yr lag, say 2035 – 2045 gets a bit mystic except to note that Abdussamatov’s worst-case prognosis has temperature falling past 2045, minimum from about 2060 – 2110.

      Which is diametrically opposite to the IPCC’s warming scenario. How that would be achieved, in contravention of thermodynamic principles, is also a bit mystic.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 29/11/2014 at 1:21 pm said:

    WCC backs sea level rise report
    Thursday, 27 November 2014, 1:28 pm
    Press Release: Wellington City Council


    27 November 2014

    WCC backs sea level rise report

    Wellington City Council welcomes the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright’s report into the challenges facing New Zealand due to sea level rise (Changing climate and rising seas: understanding the science.)

    Last month the Council released its own report, Sea Level Rise Options Analysis, to further understand and plan for the impact of climate change on Wellington.

    Wellington’s Mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, says these reports are an important step toward rising to the challenge of sea-level rise in Wellington and New Zealand.

    “These reports are a starting point for Wellingtonians to consider what is important to our city, what we need to think about and plan for the future. While WCC is an important leader in addressing climate change it’s an issue we can’t tackle alone,” says Mayor Wade-Brown.

    “Increasing the understanding of climate change is important. It helps individuals and business think about what actions they will take in relation to their property.

    “Wellington is continuing to reduce emissions and our energy use is comparatively positive. Wellingtonians use 58 Gigajoules of electricity per person annually. This compares with 81 gigajoules for an average European city and 228 gigajoules for an average Australasian city.”

    The WCC commissioned analysis looks at how the capital could be affected by rising sea levels over the next century. It broadly covers cultural, economic, environmental and social values, looking at the potential impacts for different scenarios.


    The Wellington City Council commissioned report Sea Level Rise Options Analysis can be found on the Council’s website site at:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/11/2014 at 2:06 pm said:

      Wellington City Council
      Sea Level Rise Options Analysis

      Report prepared by: Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, June 2013

      Page 10,

      Impacts of sea level rise
      A sea level rise of 1 m over the next 100 years is considered likely. Table A gives an
      indication of the scale of impact of a 0.6 m and 1.5 m sea level rise, the two scenarios
      considered in detail for this study that bound the 1 m value.

      Table A: City-wide impacts of sea level rise for Scenarios 1 and 2

      Scenario 1 (0.6 m sea level rise)
      Assets affected $0.4bn
      Residents potentially displaced ~150
      Area of environmental significance affected ~60 ha
      Cultural sites affected ~30

      Scenario 2 (1.5 m sea level rise)
      Assets affected $6.5bn
      Residents potentially displaced ~2,000
      Area of environmental significance affected ~100 ha
      Cultural sites affected ~120


      # # #

      2013.5 – 2050 (3.65 decades)
      @ 0.252m/century: 9.2cm (historical PSMSL)
      @ 0.6m/century,: 21.9cm
      @ 0.85714m/century: 31.29cm (Dr Jan Wright, MfE projection)
      @ 1.0m/century: 36.5cm
      @ 1.5m/century: 54.75cm

      At no stage in the report did Tonkin & Taylor consider the historical Wellington Harbour PSMSL data.

    • Andy on 30/11/2014 at 8:46 am said:

      In the Tonkin and Taylor report on SLR for CHCh they acknowledged the lack of any change in MSL for the last 10 years

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 9:08 am said:

      T&T’s WCC report explicitly states on page 16:

      2.1 Current projections

      “Sea level rise projections for the next 100 years are based on the outputs of global emissions
      models. These models assume a range of emissions scenarios.”

      2.2 Range of scenarios

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

      # # #

      No consideration for historical SLR. And their basis is being falsified by reality right now – let alone 2100.

      T&T gave WCC what WCC wanted, collected their fees, and everyone was happy. The ratepayers don’t know what’s going on but if they did they wouldn’t be happy.

      Dr Jan Wright is another being paid good money to churn out overblown bad advice.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 9:47 am said:

    The requirement for governmental deference to climate change is becoming a huge encumbrance. Check this out from San Diego:

    ‘Climate change lawsuits press county leaders’

    Officials defend their development plans as environmentalists win in court again


    In New Zealand it’s local and national govt that are setting the climate change-based agenda in respect to MSL at least

  20. Andy on 30/11/2014 at 10:54 am said:

    T&T report for Christchurch has this to say

    Note, there is variance within the long term trend of sea level rise and the latest data from New Zealand port tide gauges shows the mean sea level has remained relatively constant for the last decade (Hannah & Bell, 2012).


    (Page 9)

  21. This is great stuff, lads. I’m having to proofread right now but I hope to start putting together a rebuttal of Jan Wrong’s (love that pun) dangerous report later this afternoon.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 4:45 pm said:

    Dr Wright’s argument against solar change is the implication that solar only varies by the Milankovitch cycle.

    A bogus and laughable strawman but this is what she is feeding into policy. Here’s the Milankovitch cycle:

    “The Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.”


    Even the IPCC only refers to the Milankovitch cycle in terms of ice ages and then all they say (AR4) is:

    “Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles (Figure 1). These cycles change the amount of solar radiation received at each latitude in each season (but hardly affect the global annual mean), and they can be calculated with astronomical precision. There is still some discussion about how exactly this starts and ends ice ages, but many studies suggest that the amount of summer sunshine on northern continents is crucial: if it drops below a critical value, snow from the past winter does not melt away in summer and an ice sheet starts to grow as more and more snow accumulates”


    Dr Wright must be entirely ignorant of IPCC AR4 Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing, where the IPCC’s case against solar is nothing about the Milankovitch cycle. And also ignorant of the wide range of uncertainty in the variation of solar activity between the LIA and present, a time scale of only 400 years.

    I can only conclude that Dr Jan Wright is either totally inept or that she is intentionally deceitful.

    • Andy on 30/11/2014 at 5:08 pm said:

      I can only conclude that Dr Jan Wright is either totally inept or that she is intentionally deceitful.

      or those advising her are

    • I was about to say that. It’s likely she’s had a fair bit of advice from the Royal Society climate committee. (Still busy, might get some free time for blogging tonight.)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 5:46 pm said:

      I suppose if so one of them could be Dr Vera Power, Manager, Science and Evaluation, MfE.

      I’ve had “discussions” with Dr Power in the past, got no traction whatsoever. The only “science” Dr Power evaluates is IPCC science. I would expect that if Dr Power was advising Dr Wright then surely they wouldn’t both get it wrong on solar.

      But then these people are not necessarily dealing with facts nor are they necessarily familiar with the relevant IPCC discourse and citations, or the flaws in the rationale. Not that any would be explored anyway.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 7:16 pm said:

    ‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’

    by Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.

    NIPCC, September 24, 2014

    Summary 3
    Main conclusions and recommendations 7

    1. Introduction 9
    2. Over-reliance on a single authority: Inadequacies of the IPCC 9
    3. Deficiency of adopting IPCC emissions scenario RCP 8.5 as a basis for planning 7
    4. “Climate Change Science 101” (W&A, section 3.2.2) 11
    5. Global sea-level change 13
    6. Local relative sea-level change 16
    7. Inadequacy of computer sea-level simulations using homogenized data 18
    8. What is the measured rate of sea-level rise along the central NSW coast? 22
    9. Inadequacy of using an 18 year (1996-2013) baseline as a planning template 27
    10. What rate of sea-level rise should be used to inform Councils’ coastal planning? 29
    11. Good coastal management is not only about sea-level change 30
    12. Conclusions and recommendations 32
    References 33
    About the Authors 39
    About the NIPCC 44


    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 7:30 pm said:

      Page 8/9

      13. Three key guidelines for coastal planning are:

      # Abandonment of ‘let’s stop global sea-level rise’ policies
      # Recognition of the local or regional nature of coastal hazard
      # Use of planning controls that are flexible and adaptive in nature

      These recommendations apply just as much to the NSW shoreline as they
      do to shorelines anywhere else in the world. Coastal councils that ignore or
      override such basic principles of good environmental management do so at
      the risk of their ratepayers’ property and financial costs.

      To the degree that new planning regulations are based on experimental
      computer model projections (such as those reported by W&A, which are
      not validated predictions or forecasts), and cause financial damage to
      coastal property holders, legal culpability may apply.

      1. Introduction
      The issue of sea-level change, and in particular the identification of a speculative human contribution to
      that change, is a complex topic. Given the scientific and political controversy that surrounds the matter,
      the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils are to be congratulated for seeking fresh advice on the topic.
      The new report by Whitehead & Associates (2014; hereafter, W&A) aims to be comprehensive and
      contains important new information and conclusions. It nonetheless has three systemic defects.
      First, the analysis provided of the science relevant to coastal management is biased towards computer
      modelling of the speculative effects of sea-level rise, and largely ignores other important factors such as
      oceanographic and meteorological variability, and sediment supply, sources and sinks. Second, not all
      the scientific manipulations that were undertaken have been reported transparently, i.e. in such a way
      that other scientists can check and replicate the calculations. And, third, the authors of the report
      appear to have taken the opinions of global warming lobby groups at face value. No attempt has been
      made to undertake the type of critical due diligence analysis of global warming, and its putative links to
      sea-level change, that is required.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 7:37 pm said:

      Page 13,

      # This late 20th century phase of warming of c. 0.4O C forms part of a longer and more general
      warming that since c. 1830 has accompanied the earth’s passage from the inhospitable Little Ice
      Age (LIA) into the clement Late 20th Century Warm Period (L20WP).

      # The passage from the LIA to the L20WP represents the most recent warming limb of a quasiregular
      millennial rhythm of c. 1.5O C warming and cooling recorded in many palaeoclimatic
      records, and that is probably of solar origin.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 7:42 pm said:

      Page 15,

      Tide-gauge measurements indicate that global sea-level
      has been rising at rates up to about 1.8 mm/y over the
      20th century (Table 2)1, the rate decreasing somewhat
      over the last 50 years (Fig. 3),

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 8:10 pm said:

      Page 22,

      8. What is the measured rate of sea-level rise along the central NSW

      It is unfortunate that apparently simple questions such as the one posed in the heading can sometimes
      have complex answers. It is also the case that as knowledgeable readers peruse the W&A report their
      attention becomes sharply riveted when they come upon page 41 and Table 6. For there it is stated that
      the rate of recent sea-level change as measured by the Fort Denison and Port Kembla tide gauges is 3.3
      and 3.6 mm/yr rise, respectively.

      Figure 9. Mean sea level trend for Fort Denison, Sydney for the period 1886-2010 is
      0.65 millimeters/year (95% confidence interval of +/- 0.10 mm/yr). After NOAA (2014).

      How can this be? For virtually every recent official report or refereed paper on the topic has calculated
      rates of rise of 3 mm/yr;
      Fig. 6) (e.g., Munk, 2002; Houston & Dean, 2012; Houston, 2013; Jevrejeva et al., 2014) as one of the
      biggest unsolved problems in sea-level studies (Boretti, 2012a). For example, de Lange (2010) compared
      the long term tide gauge record from Auckland with the nearest satellite altimeter record from the
      nearby Outer Hauraki Gulf (Fig. 10). His results show that the satellite data require a ~60% downscaling
      correction in order for them to fit with the in situ tide gauge measurements.

      Page 24,

      Figure 10. Comparison of the long term Auckland sea level curve (1898-2006)
      and the nearest satellite altimetry observations from the outer Hauraki Gulf
      (1992-2009; University of Colorado). OLS regression between the tide gauge
      and altimetry data indicates that the altimetric data require a~60% baseline
      downscaling to best match the tide gauge record.

      OLS regression trends are superimposed for tide gauge and satellite (baseline
      shifted by 13.8 cm to allow comparison) data at the time of analysis (2010).
      New Zealand-wide tide gauge average for 1992-2009 indicated as blackdashed

      Note that the GIA was not applied by the University of Colorado at the time
      that this analysis was performed. Inclusion of a GIA adjustment would
      increase the deviation between the two trends shows. After de Lange (2010).

    • Andy on 01/12/2014 at 10:30 am said:

      Thanks RC ,I thought the link interesting, and at least one person (Noel) had the grace to thank me for it.
      The usual suspects refer to me as a sadist, narcissist and “troll” for posting these links

      Weird, I know

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2014 at 9:20 pm said:

    Andy, that NOAA Tides & Currents interactive map you linked to at Hot Topic is very useful – didn’t know about it.

    Wellington (same as PSMSL:

    Index map

  25. HemiMck on 01/12/2014 at 2:24 pm said:

    The 100 year historical trend is not really long enough to represent Wellington sea levels accurately.

    As evidenced by the several terraces round Pencarrow Head they are overdue for a discrete fall in sea level of several metres.

  26. Andy on 01/12/2014 at 3:01 pm said:

    Gareth Morgan was also pushing the SLR report on his blog and via Facebook. On the latter he opined about “ideologically driven climate change deniers” in referring to anyone who didn’t accept that SLR would suddenly increase 5 fold

    Seems like a great way to get people onboard when you have various investment products to sell to them.

    Chances of me investing in GM Investments = 0, now

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation