Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
14 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)

“We [the warmists] find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.”

We (the sceptics) find the maximum warming has been reached for 10.1 years, with a 10% probability that it will continue for 6.6–30.7 years and a 90% probability it will cool after 6 years

Richard C (NZ)

Here’s the falsehood (the BIG LIE): “Global temperature rises in response to the CO2 forcing, but with a lag of about a decade due to the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the ocean. The maximum temperature is reached when the ever-decreasing rate of warming in response to the increase in radiative forcing is balanced by the slowly decreasing magnitude of radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2.” # # # Oceanic thermal inertia is the “heat sink” characteristic of the sun => ocean => atmosphere system. The sun heats the ocean – not CO2. When solar input increases (as it did LIA – 1958, Max 1958-2005) the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up. On a millennial timeframe, the lag is 30 – 40 years: ‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’ X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014) • SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years. • The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation. • The millennial variation of SSN led that of T… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“Solar forcing from [MWP to] LIA to Present (compare to Shapiro et al above):

Richard C (NZ)

>”Problematic because there was no CO2 forcing MWP – LIA” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements Date: 12/06/2006 Statement of Dr. David Deming University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy Climate Change and the Media —————————————————————————————————————————————————————– Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor’s degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

From the HS article:

Below are two graphs that both show temperature changes over a 51 year period. Both use exactly the same format for displaying the data. One chart shows the period 1885 to 1946 and the other chart shows the period 1957-2008. One, it is agreed by everyone, is caused by nature and one, it is claimed by some, is unnatural:


Can you tell which is which?

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

In a similar vein at WUWT:

‘Another excuse for ‘the pause’ – the oceans ate the heat’


Keywords: “heat drawdown” (The Trenberth Factor)

Otherwise known as multi-decadal ocean cycles.


Can you tell which is which?

I would guess the right-hand graph is the earlier period, because I seem to recall the lowest temperature reached in about the 1880s was less than anything recorded in the 20th century. Apart from that, though, they’re remarkably similar. This is excellent. That the scientists did not publicise it earlier was surely an oversight.

Richard C (NZ)

>”I would guess the right-hand graph is the earlier period,”

No, the right-hand graph is the later period. You can see the 1998/99 El Nino. The series from 1885 is here:


1885 to 1946 vs 1957-2008

The Hockey Schtick got it wrong too:

“The answer is that the chart on the left is for 1957 – 2008 and is considered by the climate alarmists to show unprecedented warming. What do you think?”

I think it is very difficult unless an inordinate amount of time is spent immersed in these graphs (as I do).

Of course the MfE depicts it thus:


Source: UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

No, the right-hand graph is the later period.

Ah! Thank you. It’s a clever selection of data.

Richard C (NZ)

[Gareth Renowden] – “Solid Treadgold, easy action (NZ still warming fast)”


BEST-NZ 37SS unsmoothed monthly anomaly 1997 – Aug 2013 (1.77 decades):

-0.096 C/decade

What’s he talking about?

Richard C (NZ)

>”What’s he talking about?”

His usual guff. That’s the title of his response to your “debating points” post:


But bow he thinks NZ is “still warming fast” is something I cannot answer.

Richard C (NZ)

Do we really need all these people at COP20 ? Provisional list of participants New Zealand H.E. Mr. Timothy Groser Minister for Climate Change Issues Government of New Zealand H.E. Ms. Jo Tyndall Climate Change Ambassador Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ms. Anna Broadhurst Lead Adviser, Climate Change Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr. Timothy Breese Policy Officer Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr. Alastair Cameron Senior Analyst Natural Resource Policy The Treasury Mr. Roger Dungan Senior Policy Officer Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ms. Maya Hunt Senior Policy Analyst International Policy Ministry for Primary Industries Mr. Christopher Insley Advisor to Climate Change, Iwi Leadership Group Ms. Sarah Lovegrove Deputy Head of Mission New Zrealand Embassy Santiago Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr. Paul Melville Senior Policy Analyst International Policy Ministry for Primary Industries Mr. Dylan Muggeridge Analyst Climate Change Directorate Ministry for the Environment Ms. Helen Plume Principal Analyst Climate Change Directorate Ministry for the Environment Ms. Michelle Podmore Senior Legal Adviser Legal Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ms. Maria Jesus Prieto Arriagada Policy Advisor New Zealand… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Advancing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
Draft by the Co-Chairs
11 November 2014

Non-paper on elements for a draft negotiating text 1
Updated non-paper on Parties’ views and proposals1 2
11 November 2014

Richard C (NZ)

10. Agrees that achievement of the aggregate level of ambition indicated as necessary by
the scientific findings assessed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change through nationally determined contributions requires:

(a) Implementation of contributions by each Party beyond any commitment or
action currently undertaken by it under the Convention or its Kyoto Protocol;

(b) Mobilization of increasing levels of financial, technological and capacitybuilding
support for developing country Parties, in particular those most vulnerable
to the adverse effects of climate change;

# # #

“Scientific findings” of AR5 being the model failures.

Richard C (NZ)

(a) Calls on developed country Parties, other Parties included in Annex II to the
Convention and other Parties in a position to do so to provide additional resources to
the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Technology
Mechanism and the Adaptation Fund so as to enhance the efforts of these
institutions, in accordance with their respective functions and mandates, to support
developing country Parties in implementing their pre-2020 actions, in particular on

# # #

‘Japan paid for coal-fired power plants with Green Climate Fund money’

CCD, 04 December 2014

Japan loaned $1 billion to build new coal-fired power plants with money allocated to fight global warming. Only in the ever-growing global-warming cottage industry does an organization create a slush fund and not attach any rules governing how it should be used.
The AP reported Monday that Japan included $1 billion in loans for new coal plants in Indonesia in the climate finance it reported to the United Nations in 2010-12. Japan says those plants are cleaner than older coal plants, though they pollute more than other energy sources.


Richard C (NZ)

42. Also agrees that future high-level engagement on enhanced action within the
UNFCCC process should provide for contributions from and dialogue with senior
representatives of subnational authorities and other non-State actors;

# # #

It takes 18 personnel already at national level, how many at subnational level?

Not to mention the creep.

Richard C (NZ)

37. Agrees that effective implementation of enhanced action requires the engagement and contribution of the broadest range of actors and therefore invites: (a) Parties to further incentivize, in accordance with their national circumstances, climate actions by subnational authorities, including cities, by establishing effective regulatory frameworks and financing mechanisms needed to address barriers and leverage investment; (b) Subnational authorities, including cities, to scale up and replicate the existing ambitious policies, measures and action highlighted during the technical examination process; # # # Hence, ‘Cities in Climate Change Danger, Warns Captain Planet’ By Jeffrey Marlow, 12.05.14 Cities: ground zero for climate change Cities have been getting a lot of love these days, as home to more than half of the world’s population and sites of revitalization, innovative governance strategies, and cultural vibrancy. But urban locations may also be ground zero for climate change, both as perpetrators of a warming atmosphere and as victims of its multi-tiered effects. So says Dr. Marshall Shepherd, a professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia and a leading voice in climate science circles. “Cities are where things are most rapidly heating,” he says, “and they also… Read more »


I am (almost) rendered speechless by the knowledge that our tiny nation requires a contingent of olympian proportions, all no doubt with very expensive and specialised educations, to attend a pointless meeting in a place that is both exotic and expensive to travel to and stay at to address a problem that does not actually exist. No wonder it’s so bloody hard to acheive a practical level of funding for Primary and Secondary schools from the finite pool of State funds when said pool is being drained by such stupidly pointless junkets. I have long harboured the suspicion that there are many employed in Wellington who we could find something more useful/productive for them to do, although I suspect that many of these individuals have skill sets that are so far in the realms of ‘Yes Minister’ scripts that it may be practical just to pension them off. I think that various opportunities must exist for them, such as I found when I was new to the workforce (in the mid-fifties) such as grubbing thistles for cockies, separating dags from wool in the back of freezing winter woolsheds for the same cockies. Not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”a contingent of olympian proportions”

18 of them x 10 hrs a day x 10 days x $50 per hr = $90,000 + airfares + accommodation + expenses.

And there’s all the staff sitting on their backsides back in NZ. And the preparation began a year ago.

100 people x 40 hrs x 50 weeks x $50 = $10,000,000

Post Navigation