Reminder: your stubborn sceptical mind will be dissected this week

UPDATE 1600, Monday 20 July: Lecture cancelled – see below
Manukau Institute of Technology

Manukau Institute of Technology, Otara. Look for the theatre. Click to enlarge.

Come along and hear all about it

This is a reminder to readers in and near Auckland about the free public lecture next Wednesday to address the problem of sceptical minds stubbornly clinging to questions about global warming. Since there can be, by our definition, no genuine scientific questions unanswered by our mainstream climate scientists, there must be something in the mind interfering with the acceptance of climate change.

Can sceptics help themselves or do we have to help them? Can they ever put their denial behind them? Victoria University has a highly-skilled psychologist who will dissect their anti-social behaviour.

The official brochure asks: “If it’s so obvious, why doesn’t everyone believe in climate change?” But the brochure misses the simple truth—that it’s not obvious because it’s not happening. The denial is actually in those presenting this examination of denial. What is obvious to the open mind is that it’s easier to cast doubt on the sceptic than to produce non-existent evidence of dangerous anthropogenic warming.

I mentioned this extraordinary public lecture in Are you a scientist? a few weeks ago. I’ll be there; I hope to see some of you.

When and where

When: 5.30–8pm, Wednesday 22 July
Where: Manukau Institute of Technology Theatre, Newbury St, Otara, Auckland

Remember

If you would like to attend, rsvp by tomorrow, Monday 20 July, to rsvp@vuw.ac.nz with ‘Manukau lecture’ in the subject line or phone 04-463 5791.


Two Victoria University of Wellington academics will this month give a public lecture on aspects of climate change at the Manukau Institute of Technology. Climate change: beliefs, biases and measures will see Dr Marc Wilson from the School of Psychology and Professor Lionel Carter FRSNZ of the Antarctic Research Centre discuss how people think about the issue of climate change and aspects of the science underpinning the world’s changing climate.

UPDATE 1625, Monday 20 July: Lecture cancelled

I’ve been advised by Victoria University that the lecture has been cancelled. I rang them for details. They were wanting 40 RSVPs to go ahead but apparently they received only 20. It’s disappointing that we won’t hear the details of this theory explaining climate denial nor get the chance to question them, though they might look at it again next year.

154
Leave a Reply

154 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Simon

Speaking of Open Mind, here is a discussion of the latest revisions to the GISS surface temperature data: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/new-giss-data/

The latest revisions to the GISS temperature data are bilge, based as they are on a hurried official acceptance of the incompetent paper by Karl (2015) et al., which deliberately tried to erase the lack of warming over the last 20 years by subordinating good data with uncertain data (from an uncertain source unintended for such use). The scientific community should be up in arms over the whole sordid mess that is “consensus” climate science, and you shouldn’t give an inch to any of those “experts” who have made it or any who now smugly promulgate it. I reject the GISS temperatures, and all others simiilarly suborned; I reject all of the adjustments that have been made solely in order to give the false indication of significant global warming. I reject the pronouncements of any and all climate scientists, who I know to be incompetent based upon the overwhelming evidence I have uncovered and brought forward myself, in my own way (and peer-review can go to the devil; it has been a monstrous lie, unfulfilling of its purpose and highest responsibility, that got climate science into this mess). Shame on today’s “leading” scientists,… Read more »

Andy

In other news, Christchurch East residents are looking at challenging the council’s sea level policy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70315654/residents-challenge-coastal-hazards-assessment

Richard C (NZ)

GISTEMP was garbage before they adopted Karl et al.

Old version GISTEMP vs RSS vs HadCRUT4 from 2000:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

New version is laughable, as is the “independent” meme. But STILL doesn’t validate the climate models

There’s no CO2-forced warming.

Richard C (NZ)

We only have to look at GISS adjustments to NZ’s Gisborne Aero to know GISTEMP is garbage:

At 1963 the cumulative adjustment is 0.7
At 1968 the cumulative adjustment is 0.6
At 1972 the cumulative adjustment is 0.5
At 1975 the cumulative adjustment is 0.4
At 1980 the cumulative adjustment is 0.3
At 1982 the cumulative adjustment is 0.2
At 1986 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2001 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2002 the cumulative adjustment is 0.0

Nuff said.

Richard C (NZ)

>”but do at least have the effect of reducing a warming trend”

No. The adjustments introduce a warming trend.

At 1963 the adjusted values are 0.7 LESS than the raw data i.e the early data has been COOLED by 0.7 C.

GISS has been doing this all over the world, it is not atypical. Remember this is not a process like 7SS adjustments where disparate sites are being homogenized into one reference site for a location.

Gisborne Aero is just one site. It is not a location of sites like 7SS is at Masterton for example.

Richard C (NZ)

>”What reasons does GISS give for the adjustments?”

I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does, nothing forthcoming from GISS. Iceland’s Meteorologist asked and got talk-to-the-hand. I think the real reason is that GISTEMP is a political dataset (not scientific) for the politically motivated by the politically motivated.

I worked the above out for myself just with a bit of mental arithmetic for a start to get a “feel” for what was going on then just set to with a calculator. Didn’t bother with a spreadsheet. I’ve documented it in ‘Temperature Records’ starting at the following link..

What started it was a Paul Homewood post ‘Cooling The Past In New Zealand’ which included Gisborne Aero, see here:(note you will have to get to page 2).

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/temperature-records/comment-page-2/#comment-1283169

As you can see it’s not just Gisborne Aero, it is all over NZ. Note you might have to delete delete “http://” from the URLs to get to the GISS datasheets.

First thing of course is to compare GISS’s “raw” GHCN v3 with the Gisborne Aero data in CliFlo. I haven’t bothered to do this given the subsequent adjustments.

Richard C (NZ)

Simon, you might have followed the link above to ‘Temperature Records’ and seen that the GISS adjustments to Gisborne Aero bear no resemblance to the BEST adjustments to the same site. This I’ve found is the same for sites in Australia and South America, and other NZ sites.

Since you are a fan-advocate-proponent for both GISS and BEST, I’m wondering how you reconcile this discrepancy:

1) Are they both technically correct even given the disagreement?

If so, how do you explain this in technical terms?

If not, why are you so enthusiastic for both?

2) Or is the technique of one to be favoured over the other?

If so, which one? and why?

Richard C (NZ)

>“If it’s so obvious, why doesn’t everyone believe in climate change?” But the brochure misses the simple truth—that it’s not obvious because it’s not happening. Man-made climate change (MMCC) is not happening that is. Worse, the IPCC’s own Assessment Report actually holds the disproof of MMCC theory. Below is the simple disproof of MMCC theory (now my standard copy-and-paste), basically 2 short bullet points. AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution failed to address what is so obvious. Take this along to the lecture: **************************************************************************************** IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC FAQ AR4 box 2.1 – “What is radiative forcing”). 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is ocean heat accumulation. Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA. No need… Read more »

Andy

So they couldn’t be bothered with 20 people.

Were they on some kind of commission?

Andy

I’m not sure what the purpose of the lecture was, given that it is “free”

They could have made a YouTube video and saved all those airfares.

Or were they planning a bit of audience participation?

So many questions, we will never know

Andy

You mean I personally put them off? I know I can be off-putting, but I didn’t think my obnoxiousness had spread that far.

Now I feel paranoid… I shall hide

Mike Jowsey

A new scientific organisation and publishing vehicle for atmospheric science papers – set up by Anthony Watts and Joe deAleo: http://theoas.org/

Membership has 5 levels including Full Membership for dudes with degrees and Associate Membership for undegreed dudes.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Speaking of Open Mind”

‘Tamino (Grant Foster) is Back at His Old Tricks…That Everyone (But His Followers) Can See Through’

Bob Tisdale / 60 mins ago July 21, 2015

Or In a Discussion of the Hiatus Since 1998, Grant Foster Presents Trends from 1970 to 2010, Go Figure!

“The data clearly show that NOAA cannot justify the excessive warming rate during the global warming slowdown because the warming rate of the NOAA data is far higher than the dataset they used as reference.”

“Also see the note at the bottom of Figure 3. One of the bases for the following two posts was the failure of Karl et al. to include trend comparisons of their new (overcooked) sea surface temperature dataset and the night marine air temperature dataset they used as a reference for their changes:”

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset, and,

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/

Tamino’s “followers” include Simon apparently.

Simon

Poor old Bob has got things totally mixed up again: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/biased-bob-tisdale-is-all-at-sea.html
I wonder if the lecture would have covered cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger effect? Unfortunately those afflicted are the most likely to deny that they do.

Andy

I gave up reading the Hotwhopper article after the introductory sneering paragraph at how few qualifications has and how dim Bob Tisdale is

These sneering pompous jerks don’t win me over, however convincing their downthread arguments might be

Richard C (NZ)

Tisdale says: “NOAA used the night marine air temperature dataset (HADNMAT2) from the UK Met office as a reference for their new ERSST.v4 dataset. But the short-term warming rate of the new NOAA ERSST.v4 data during the global warming slowdown is much higher than the HADNMAT2 data. See Figure 1, which was first presented in my open letter to Tom Karl. That graph serves as the basis for my statements (1) that the recent update to the NOAA sea surface temperature data cannot be justified by the dataset that was used a reference for those adjustments, and, in turn, (2) that the NOAA adjustments are overcooked.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/ Silly Sou (Hot Whopper) say’s: “He’s wrong. HadNMAT2 wasn’t used as a reference in the way that Bob implies. It was only used for bias adjustments to ship sea surface temperatures.” http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/biased-bob-tisdale-is-all-at-sea.html Tisdale’s Figure 1 is this: ?w=720 However Silly Sou tries to spin this, HadNMAT2 is still the reference for NOAA ERSST.v4. Tisdale made a clarification anyway at Climate Observations: “The intent of this letter to present when and how the new NOAA sea surface temperature data differ during the hiatus from the night marine… Read more »

Andy

Wrong thread, but … http://www.nzcpr.com/fact-or-fearmongering/#more-15540 “Fact or fearmongering” quote: A case in point is the use of extremist projections of global warming sea level rise by local authorities: “The Ministry for the Environment recommends planning for future sea-level rise of at least 0.5m, along with consideration of the consequences of a mean sea-level rise of at least 0.8m (relative to the 1980–1999 average) by the 2090s”. When the Kapiti District Council ignored local data showing a long-accreting shoreline to follow that advice and put coastal erosion risk profiles onto Land Information Memorandum reports, property owners challenged the Council in court and had them removed. Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is about to make the situation worse by hiring NIWA to draw up coastal hazard lines for the whole country – based on the UN’s exaggerated claims of rampant sea level rise. If their report, which is expected to be available later this year, is used by the government to determine coastal policy, widespread controversy will result. In Christchurch, the coast is currently accreting, i.e getting bigger due to sediments. Yet the models predict that this will reverse in about 2050 and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Simon, a tip. If you want traction lay out your case rather than just link to blog posts i.e. elucidate the details yourself. Sure, link to someone else’s rationale (not that we are unaware of Tamino, Hot Whopper etc) but you don’t actually display any understanding by doing this.

Argument-by-blog-link doesn’t cut it Simon.

Richard C (NZ)

>”the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is about to make the situation worse by hiring NIWA to draw up coastal hazard lines for the whole country – based on the UN’s exaggerated claims of rampant sea level rise.”

The inept Dr Jan Wright again. There’s no evidence around NZ that the IPCC/MfE/NIWA predictions have any credibility whatsoever.

>”NZers need to be very concerned about this”

Yes, but why don’t they just download the tide guage data and plot it out for themselves?

Andy

Yes, but why don’t they just download the tide guage data and plot it out for themselves?

We can, but if you can’t insure your house and the council are pursuing a policy of “managed retreat”, mere data isn’t enough.

Legal action is the last resort, which is where it is heading, as I alluded upthread.

I did email RT about this last night and am not too keen to publish information on the subject until more is know. However, the Kapiti coast has a legal precedent and this is what will happen, I suspect.

EDIT – Christchurch City Council, like many local bodies, has some quite dogmatic and unmoveable staff.

Mike Jowsey

Simon, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/ is Bob’s reply to Tamino’s article, referenced in the hotwopper article.

“Grant Foster did not dispute the trends listed on my Figure 1, which he included in his post. Those trends showed, for the period of 1998 (a start year used by Karl et al. for trend comparisons) to 2010 (the end year of the HADNMAT2 data), that NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature dataset had a much higher warming rate than the HADNMAT2 data, which NOAA used as reference for their adjustments.”

Simon

HadNMAT2 was not used as “the reference” for ERSST v4. It was used to correct bias in ship sea surface temperatures only, around 10% of the measurements over the period that Bob plotted. The other 90% of measurements came from more accurate buoys.
This is the problem. Bob and Willis and Anthony and others at WUWT don’t understand the science as well as they think they do. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Richard C (NZ)

>”if you can’t insure your house and the council are pursuing a policy of “managed retreat”, mere data isn’t enough.” I made a hasty comment on the way out the door to to work, apologies Andy. What I meant was, make some stand directly to councils with the historical data which proves the IPCC’s predictions are rubbish. This has been done elsewhere in the world e.g. North Carolina where ordinances cannot now be based on the IPCC predictions. Shoalhaven council and some other (can’t remember) in Australia took the initiative on behalf of their constituency but when councils base policy on fantasy then it is contestable. The more people that contest the better. And the more people who know the data the more who are forearmed. If contesting directly with council is unsuccessful then legal action is about the only recourse left I suppose if reason doesn’t prevail. In the above quote it is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who is overriding councils (to a degree) so it is quite a fight. It is however the council that sets the ordinance whatever the basis of it. Legal action would be against council… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”It was used to correct bias in ship sea surface temperatures only, around 10% of the measurements over the period that Bob plotted” Still a reference Simon, and enough to skew the final result. The buoy data was adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make it “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. In other words, good data was adjusted to match poor data. The extra warming trend was then guaranteed because the buoy network becomes more dense over the last 2 decades. Rather more than “Bob and Willis and Anthony and others at WUWT” were into the details of Karl et al from the outset and saw the shortcomings instantly. The paper wont survive. And the non-ARGO Karl et al series (i.e. best data neglected) isn’t corroborated by sea sub-surface temperature or satellites or HadCRUT4 (HadSST3 – see below) anyway i.e. they have extra warming along only a sliver of surface which is dopey. [Judith Curry] – “In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy… Read more »

Andy

This is something specific to Christchurch which is not simply IPCC models as I understand. Not sure how this can be contested,

The predictions of coastal encroachment are based on the Tonkin and Taylor report which was commissioned by CCC.

It proposes a one metre sea level rise is likely and two metres cannot be ruled out.

They are pushing to make this national policy which will make many seaside properties unsaleable and uninsurable.

I should add that this CCC policy is very selective. Southshore is badly affected, but Northshore gets off, even though they are both close to sea level

Richard C (NZ)

>”The predictions of coastal encroachment are based on the Tonkin and Taylor report which was commissioned by CCC”

OK, same as the T&T report to WCC where T&T explicitly stated they had made no effort to ascertain the historical rate of rise and used IPCC/MfE scenarios instead. This is negligent and relatively easy to contest.

It’s the sedimentation study that is the difficult task. Did T&T do sedimentation modeling themselves or was that by some other outfit? I cannot see how just one sedimentation prediction for 2050, in this case a radical reversal, can be the basis of anything.

Andy

Coastal communities all around the world are facing the challenges of climate change and sea-level rise. Here in Christchurch, there is often confusion about our coastline, because it is currently accreting, with periods of erosion from storm events. However, the long-term trend is of a shoreline moving further inland, and this is the trend we need to plan for.

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/news-and-public-notices/coastal-hazard-report-released/

“The long term trend” hasn’t happened yet, and may never

Andy

This map shows the T&T projections for inundation for the Southshore spit, which is pretty much a writeoff as you can see
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/CoastalHazardReport2015/Tonkin-Taylor-Coastal-Hazard-Assessment-Report-2015-Appendix-D-Sections-7-8-9.pdf

It is a bit of a scandal that they have allowed rebuild projects to continue, at values sometimes over $1million, whilst not informing the public that these properties will be rendered worthless by council policy

Richard C (NZ)

I’m getting “file not found” for the Tonkin & Taylor Coastal Hazard Assessment Report 2015. This Stuff report is enough to go on though: ‘Residents challenge coastal hazards assessment’ – Last updated 05:00, July 18 2015 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70315654/residents-challenge-coastal-hazards-assessment >”Environmental engineers Tonkin & Taylor computer modelled the impact of a 40-centimetre sea rise over the next 50 years and a one-metre rise over the next 100 years and used that information to map out erosion and inundation zones across the region.” OK so it was T&T modeling based on IPCC scenarios, not the historical default i.e. this is negligent because the default is the risk unless the prediction can be proven valid – it cannot. >”Long-term Southshore resident and Burwood-Pegasus Community Board member Tim Sintes said he was worried the council was putting too much faith in the computer modelling and over-reacting to the predicted risks. Residents were worried its approach would make it difficult to get insurance and eventually force people out of the area, he said.” This is what I was getting at upthread. Tim Sintes does not realize what is going on because he is not familiar with the historical data. It… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”This is what Shoalhaven did by getting in the NIPCC (including Willem de Lange)”

Send this to Tim Sintes and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board:

‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’ – Sept 24, 2014

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.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NIPCC-Report-on-NSW-Coastal-SL-9z-corrected.pdf

Just substitute Tonkin & Taylor for Whitehead & Associates.

Andy

Tim does know what is going on. I met him earlier this week and he is pretty switched on

Richard C (NZ)

Only just got to work on time last night. Just pulled out onto the road and noticed a crowd at the beach. Turned out to be a southern right whale just offshore about 500m between the beach and Motutau Island. Quite spectacular, had to stop and watch for a while.

A pod had been down at Papapoa. A newspaper reported some guy estimating seeing a whale about “20 metres” off the beach, heh. It would have been grounded that close. People have difficulty estimating distances across water.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Environmental engineers Tonkin & Taylor computer modelled the impact of a 40-centimetre sea rise over the next 50 years”

40cm from 2015 is 80mm/decade or 8mm/year. Clearly, like Dr Jan Wright, these people have taken leave of their senses.

Richard C (NZ)

>”40cm from 2015 is 80mm/decade or 8mm/year. Clearly, like Dr Jan Wright, these people [T&T] have taken leave of their senses.”

Default rate is Lyttelton II 2.36mm/year

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Richard C (NZ)

I’d like to be able to access the Tonkin & Taylor Coastal Hazard Assessment Report 2015 because I suspect the Stuff reporting of it is wrong. I’m sure it would be similar to the T&T WCC report where the projection of 40cms begins 1990 for the 50 years 1990 – 2040 i.e. 200mm rise should already have occurred by 2015.

Instead, only 59mm rise has occurred since 1990.

Richard C (NZ)

>”200mm rise should already have occurred by 2015″

A little less because the projection curve is exponential. For the first 50 yrs a linear approximation is near enough though. After 2040 the curve really takes off but if the curve is invalid at 2015 it is invalid for 2040 and not worth considering for 2090.

It is the projection curve that CCC.govt is referring to with ““The long term trend” upthread. The actual long-term trend (the historical default) is only about 30% of the projection. Hence the angst.

Andy

Lyttelton tide data is here:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/259_high.png

Linked to from here
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/259.php

Eyeballing only – the change 1920 – now looks to be about 15cm

Richard C (NZ)

I keep saying in respect to Wellington which is essentially monotonic, has anyone noticed 180mm rise there?

Same for Lyttelton and vicinity except that PSMSL graph is less regular than Wellington. The 15cm rise had already occurred by about 1983, there was nothing from then until the data ends just after 2000.

Other tide guages around NZ that do have 21st century data (9 do, Lyttelton doesn’t) display a recent “hiatus”. Even Wellington is similar if you look closely at 2000+. Any notion of 80mm/decade since 1990 is absurd. Lyttelton SHOULD be up around 7250 by 2015. Unfortunately the data ends just after 2000 but 7250 is off that chart and not credible given all the other data around NZ.

I very much doubt that Lyttelton is the exception that conforms to the IPCC/T&T projection.

Andy

The “hiatus” in Lyttelton measurements is mentioned in the T&T reports.

CCC obviously have an agenda with regard to Southshore.

The government red-zoned the estuary side which has left the other properties exposed and without sea wall protection.

If the CCC and the government had worked together, they could have come up with a plan either to red-zone the entire spit (not such a silly idea) or to maintain it and provide sea walls to protect the area now that the houses with their own sea walls have been demolished

Instead, they have chosen this underhand way to get rid of people from the area with no consideration to their property rights

It is an absolute scandal

Richard C (NZ)

>”I’m sure it [T&T CCC report] would be similar to the T&T WCC report” T&T are milking this for all the fees they can get, as are others like Whitehead & Associates in Australia. They know they have a window of golden opportunity and they have a template they’re peddling around councils which is paying good fees. They’re in no rush to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Anyone who thinks the motives of consultants like this are entirely altruistic is naive in the extreme. I’ve worked for similar consultants and know how fees are “maximized”. They get away with it until they end up in court or suchlike. But so often consultants get away with disaster unaccountable. I can think of a couple of hydro projects in this category although in one the consultants folded eventually. Case in point: the Christchurch CTV building failure although in this case accountability is catching up: ‘CTV collapse prosecution pending’ http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/66304755/CTV-collapse-prosecution-pending My point however, is that the Christchurch central Police building designed by the MOW, which I also worked for, has just been demolished after surviving the earthquake unscathed. Difference being that 55kg of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

[JoNova] – “Curiously in this warming world, Wikimedia notes that the hottest temperatures (all 50°+C) were recorded from 1888 – 1930, and not since.”

“Presumably those old thermometers needed adjustment.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/humans-live-from-50c-to-40c-but-two-more-degrees-will-kill-us-panic-now/

No matter how much adjustment is made to compile temperature series, it is inescapable for the warmies that the records occur in the raw data – not the adjusted series. Thus the historical records cannot be expunged.

Must rankle.

Andy

The interesting thing about the Christchurch Sea Level issue and related issues is that it awakens a lot of people from their slumber.

Most people have lives to live, families to support, and jobs and communities to work with.

Us OCD types, (well me anyway) have lower levels of trigger to get us going.

If you are a non-climate nerd, just living your life, and then your life gets upturned by zealots, then it starts to get interesting.

The scales start to drop from your eyes and you realise that you have been fed a pack of lies

Christchurch citizens are a pretty stroppy lot anyway, after their dealings with EQC etc (see todays press on the graduate on $180k who was rude to all her customers)

We live in interesting and disruptive times

Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate Fraud: NASA’s Recent Global Warming “Corrections” Equal A +95.0°C Per Century Trend’ C3 Headlines How much has NASA’s GISS climate research unit increased global warming under the Obama administration? The earliest monthly global dataset that we have available from NASA is the one produced for the August 2005 reporting period. Overall, that dataset contains 1,508 monthly observations since the beginning of 1880. It seems that under Obama, NASA has conducted a global warming fabrications corrections effort, especially focused on the most recent decades since the 1970’s. Specifically, when comparing the newly adjusted NASA dataset to the one reported in August 2005, out of the 308 months spanning January 1980 through August 2005, NASA has warmed 302 months (only 2 months were cooled and 6 were left unchanged from the 2005 dataset). Of the total warming adjustments corrections applied to the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s (through Aug 2005) they average out to a bureaucrat-made warming increase of +0.08°C per month….. ===> that’s equal to a 96°C per century warming trend if NASA continues with a pattern of similar “corrections.” This NASA non-random treatment and purposeful changes of past empirical evidence is beyond just… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘Are Pope’s Climate Change Counselors Promoting Debate or Diktat?’ Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., Breitbart News on 23 July 2015. […] The United States was heavily represented at the meeting, with ten mayors present as well as California governor Jerry Brown. The bizarre thing about the American delegation, however, was the absence of a single member of the Republican Party, as if the Democrats spoke authoritatively for the United States as far as ecology is concerned. […list of Republican Mayors enacting eco policies….] Was it just dumb luck that kept Republicans away from the Vatican workshop, or was there some other agenda afoot? The mastermind behind the two Vatican climate workshops was progressive Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who has built up something of a reputation as one who likes to stack the deck in his favor, squelching opposing voices whenever possible. At a climate change meeting held in April this year in the Vatican, Sánchez notoriously purged the conference line-up of any “heterodox” scholars and silenced those who tried to make their unwelcome opinions heard. An egregious case of such purging came shortly before the April conference, when Sánchez “disinvited” French… Read more »

Andy

Apparently Jerry Brown thinks that humans face extinction unless we do something soon
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article27998554.html

The comment thread on the above is entertaining. Sacramento Bee readers do not hold their governor in high regard

Richard C (NZ)

[Brown] – “We are talking about extinction”

Ted Turner would have applauded that at the time he thought the optimum population of earth should be no more than about 300,000. Changed his mind since then, 1.5 billion or something now apparently. Turner didn’t seem to have the same complaint re CNN subscribers though.

Jai Singh is on to the hypocrisy in SacBee comments:

“Curiously enough, if one were dealing with actual science, there would be no place for the continuance of the socialist justice crapola. With mere human existence being a pollutive activity (remember this is supposed to be science), the existence and consumption subsidies for the sanctified ‘poor’ would have to go. The masses of breeding global ‘poor?’ With actual science, they would have to go as well.”

Richard C (NZ)

How Jerry Brown Became ‘Governor Moonbeam’ By JESSE McKINLEY MARCH 6, 2010 SAN FRANCISCO — On Tuesday, when Jerry Brown — California’s once and would-be-future leader — declared he was running to win back his old job, he brought with him more than questions about his age (71) and his record of political service (40 years and counting). He brought Moonbeam with him, too. For the uninitiated, ‘Governor Moonbeam’ became Mr. Brown’s intractable sobriquet, dating back to his days as governor between 1975 and 1983, when his state led the nation in pretty much everything — its economy, environmental awareness and, yes, class-A eccentrics. The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional. The term had a nice California feel, and Mr. Royko eventually began applying it when he wrote about the Golden State’s young, idealistic and nontraditional chief executive. He found endless amusement — and sometimes outright agita — in California’s oddities, calling the state “the world’s largest outdoor mental asylum.” “If it babbles and its… Read more »

Andy

In other news, our old friend Pachauri has been fired as boss of TERI after several sex abuse allegations:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/rk-pachauri-asked-to-step-down-ajay-mathur-is-new-teri-chief/

TERI, not a safe place for women
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/03/19/pachauris-teri-not-a-safe-place-for-women/

Richard C (NZ)

>”The mastermind behind the two Vatican climate workshops was progressive Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo” ‘Could Pope’s Edict On Global Warming Lead To Sunday Law?’ – January 3, 2015 […] Again, behind the public demand for enforced Sunday legislation is the Papacy, and Pope Francis is gaining traction not only in shaping the policies of nations, but he is also attempting to exert his influence and authority regarding the issue of global warming. He is scheduled to issue a papal encyclical this year with solutions to address the issue. It is reported that “in 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject [global warming] to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions. The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.”((http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing)) The purpose of this encyclical is to urge “all Catholics to take… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>“Pope Francis has lamented the abandoning of the traditionally Christian practice of not working on Sundays, saying it has a negative impact on families and friendships” It was never “traditionally Christian practice” until the government of Roman Emperor Constantine made it so and RC followed suit (along with most of Protestantism): ‘Constantine and the Sabbath Change’ Author: Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Publish date: Apr 23, 2010 Sunday actually made very little headway as a Christian day of rest until the time of Constantine in the fourth century. Constantine was emperor of Rome from AD 306 to 337. He was a sun worshiper during the first years of his reign. Later, he professed conversion to Christianity, but at heart remained a devotee of the sun. Edward Gibbon says, “The Sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.”i Constantine created the earliest Sunday law known to history in AD 321. It says this: “On the venerable Day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits:… Read more »

Simon

James Hansen’s latest paper examining the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

Andy

James Hansen’s latest paper examining the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading

Indeed, and this this is why the climate cultists at Christchurch City Council are forcing people to relocate against their will based on junk science

This is also why a large part of the locals who are capable of reading graphs and understanding what science actually is will take a more active part in taking these pseudo-scientists like Hansen to task

This is indeed an exciting time for us all Simon, I am sure you feel the exhilaration in the air.

Richard C (NZ)

>”the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading” If the CO2-forced model-based “possibility” was to occur it would already be evident – it isn’t so Hansen’s scenario is merely bedtime story fantasy. It might scare kids and credulous but that’s about all. Manhattan should already be inundated according to his previous predictions. Reason for the lack of human forced SLR boost being CO2 is not an effective climate forcing according to the IPCC’s own criteria: IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Hansen also says “The oceans will begin to boil……..”

That’s scary too if you overlook maximum SSTs, the boiling point of salt water, the inability of DLR to heat water, the cooling effect of net IR at the ocean surface, the miniscule effect CO2 change has on DLR, and so on.

Or, put another way, that is the bizarre prognostication of an alarmist nutcase who abandoned objective science long ago in a quest for a political lever.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Whiplash Warning When Climate Science is Publicized Before Peer Review and Publication’ By Andrew C. Revkin July 23, 2015 Who wins when a scary, but edge-pushing new climate study led by one of the world’s most prominent climate scientists makes headlines before it is either peer reviewed or published? Everybody, and nobody. Let me explain what I mean. Projecting a Coastal Catastrophe The study is “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.” The 66-page “discussion paper” (the authors’ description) was posted Thursday in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, the discussion forum of the European Geosciences Union journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. […] Everybody Loses So why does everyone lose? The signs of trouble were there from the beginning. Eric Holthaus, the blogging meteorologist at Slate, sought input from scientists on Twitter after posting his piece on Monday. He said: “Curious whether other climate scientists think Hansen et al’s decision to publish in discussion journal diminishes the study?” An anonymous blogger who writes knowledgeably on climate, known on Twitter as @ThingsBreak,* replied (this combines two tweets; the acronyms… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Hansen also says “The oceans will begin to boil……..” That’s scary too if you overlook maximum SSTs, the boiling point of salt water, the inability of DLR to heat water, the cooling effect of net IR at the ocean surface, the miniscule effect CO2 change has on DLR, and so on.”

I don’t think all the cold ice melt water inflow that’s predicted would add much to ocean heat either. Well, it’s not going to take it to boiling point is it?

Richard C (NZ)

‘Pope’s U.S. popularity plummets in polls’ Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 24 July 2015. […] The Gallup poll was done three weeks after the pope released his much-ballyhooed climate Encyclical, which denounced capitalism (free markets) and criticized humankind for turning the planet into a sewer. Critics say that much of his Encyclical was largely ghost-written by environmental activists and United Nations’ ideologues. Prior to the Encyclical’s release, the Vatican held a controversial climate summit, and invited people like pro-abortionist Jeffrey Sachs and population-control proponent Ban Ki-moon to speak. Even Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) and PASS, had difficulty trying to explain away why having Sachs and Ki-moon at the climate conference wasn’t antithetical to the church’s teachings and that abortion and population control were not part of the agenda. Sorondo even wrote in one communication to a pro-life group that no one mentioned abortion or population control, but that they did speak of “access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” As one pro-life group noted, “phrases such as ‘family planning,’ ‘sexual and reproductive health,’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are euphemisms… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Hansen reasserts “the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century” is the earth’s energy balance (+0.6 W,m-2) as per IPCC rather than global temperature:

https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/624410460821958658

Then he gets it wrong by saying “removing this imbalance requires reduction of CO2”.

As upthread, CO2 is impossible to invoke – it doesn’t fit:

# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).

# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).

# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc

Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.

IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this little problem, so does Hansen.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Impact of “Pause-Buster” Adjustment on GISS Monthly Data’ Guest Post By Walter Dnes: justthefactswuwt / 12 hours ago July 24, 2015 “As mentioned earlier, I had to extend the Y-axis in my graph, because the temperatures were adjusted upward. A quick analysis showed that the highest anomaly for almost every download (starting from 2007, obviously) was for the January 2007 anomaly. The only exception was the September 2012 download. It showed the March 2002 anomaly 1/100th of a Celsius degree higher than the January 2007 anomaly. The following graph shows the inexorable upward march of the March 2002 and January 2007 anomalies. Seven years ago in mid-2008, GISS told us that the January 2007 anomaly was +0.85. Today, they’re telling us that the January 2007 anomaly was +0.97. I wonder what they’ll be telling us seven years from now.” “This encouraged me to look at the lowest anomalies for each download. From my earliest available download, August 2005, through May 2015 the lowest anomaly was always for the month of January 1893. But in the June 2015 download, the January 1893 anomaly jumped up +0.17 of a Celsius degree, giving up the lowest… Read more »

Andy

There is a half page article in Saturday’s Press from Christchurch, on the sea level issue and an interview with Tim Sintes.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70226254/christchurch-coastline-under-threat

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects sea levels to rise another 30 cm or so by the middle of the century and up to a metre by the end of the century

If you check the IPCC AR5, Table 13.5 page 1182, the projections do not reach 1 metre. The highest number is 0.82 which is for RCP 8.5

In other words, Christchurch and other councils are using the worst case RCP scenario, and then taking the upper bound SLR projection for that scenario, then adding some on for good measure.

These figures may be plausible, but what is the probability of them occurring?

Richard C (NZ)

>”These figures may be plausible, but what is the probability of them occurring?” Extremely remote. Problem is in the byline (I think it’s called): “If scientists are to be believed parts of Christchurch’s coastline will be gobbled up by a rising sea over the next 100 years. Not everyone is convinced by their predictions.” Given the growing divergence between scientist’s predictions and tide guages the predictions have no credibility whatsoever i.e. these scientists are not to be believed: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects sea levels to rise another 30 cm or so by the middle of the century and up to a metre by the end of the century. That may not sound like much but New Zealand’s Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright says it will be disastrous for the millions of people in Bangladesh and other countries who live in low-lying river deltas. It will also put in doubt the continued existence of Pacific island nations such as Tuvalu and Kiribati. “In New Zealand the impact will be significant at a national level and potentially devastating for some land owners,” says Wright in her 2014 report Changing… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Just watched TV1’s simulation of Hansen’s (non peer reviewed) 3m rise scenario applied to Auckland. What a load of baloney, I bet there was plenty of LOL around the living rooms. Renwick wasn’t convinced either but he thinks it is just “a matter of time”. Some idiot councilor thought SLR was right on track with predictions – “I’m with Hansen” he said (duh). Fodder for the gullible, including our own Simon-the-Gullible. Political science by press release. “it seems that this study has gone out of its way to make the case, stretching credibility” — Dr Kevin Trenberth. The ONE News report is here (text differs markedly from video): ‘Simulation shows ‘unavoidable’ 3m Auckland sea level rise’ https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/simulation-shows-unavoidable-3m-auckland-sea-level-rise-q02974 >”Professor James Hansen, …………..now of Columbia University” Of course, where else? >”Hansen said he wanted to release the study early for public peer review so it could be available to those in power ahead of climate talks in Paris in December.” Yes, we figured that out for ourselves Jimbo. >“We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meteer sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century,” Of course you conclude that Jimbo –… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘NASA’s James Hansen gets dissed by global warming establishment!’

Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot on 24 July 2015.

“Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.”

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/nasas-james-hansen-gets-dissed-by-global-warming-establishment.html

Global Warming Establishment severs ties with Hansen on sea level rise scare study:

Warmist publication Mashable on James Hansen’s new sea level scare paper: “..red flag..study’s conclusions so contradict [UN IPCC] consensus views expressed last year.”

Mashable’s Andrew Freedman: ‘The godfather of global warming’s scary sea level rise prediction is getting the cold shoulder.”

NYT’s Andrew Revkin on Hansen’s sea level scare paper: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”

NYT: UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth on Hansen sea level rise paper: “Rife with speculation..many conjectures & huge extrapolation based on quite flimsy evidence.”

Michael Mann admits Hansen’s SLR estimates “prone to a very large “extrapolation error”

Andy

Michael Mann have a go at Hansen too?

Hilarious, I’m surprised he’s got time to look at this paper between taking people to court and blocking “deniers” on Twitter.

Simon

I don’t necessarily think Hansen is correct, there are a number of reasons why today is not exactly like the Eemian period. But, many scientists would agree that 5-9m of sea level rise is already ‘baked in’, the big question is how long it will take to get there. At current (linear) sea level rise we probably have time to adapt. We might really need that anticipated Maunder Minimum to give us sufficient time to sequester more CO2. The super storm idea is interesting but there is no evidence to date. Nowhere does Hansen say that the oceans will begin to boil.
I don’t think there is sufficient governmental will to genuinely keep below the 2 ◦C threshold, so all we do is hope that Hansen is wrong.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Nowhere does Hansen say that the oceans will begin to boil”

Not in that (non peer-reviewed paper) but he’s on video record as saying that (I think this is the one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8

Hence:

The Oceans Will Begin to Boil, Raves Global Warming Hoaxer
http://moonbattery.com/?p=6914

Quote of the Week – Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS, unhinged
“The Oceans will begin to boil…” – yes he actually said that, along with some other silly things. Watch this video:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/

Boiling Oceans and Burning Reputations with James Hansen
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/boiling-oceans-and-burning-reputations-with-james-hansen/

Richard C (NZ)

Simon. >”many scientists would agree that 5-9m of sea level rise is already ‘baked in’ ” Many people would agree that many scientists are ‘baked in’ too but the point is CO2 has nothing to do with SL. CO2 is accelerating but NONE of the tide guage SLR series are accelerating anywhere in the world. We keep hearing of the time when CO2 was similar to now but sea levels (and temperatures) were MUCH HIGHER, for example: What Does 400 ppm Look Like? The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come. Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Simon. >”I don’t think there is sufficient governmental will to genuinely keep below the 2 ◦C threshold” There is nothing any government can do to control the earth’s global average temperature by regulating CO2 emissions. CO2 is not an effective climate forcing. You keep avoiding this Simon (as does Hansen and the the IPCC). From upthread: Hansen reasserts “the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century” is the earth’s energy balance (+0.6 W,m-2) as per IPCC rather than global temperature: https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/624410460821958658 Then he gets it wrong by saying “removing this imbalance requires reduction of CO2″. As upthread, CO2 is impossible to invoke – it doesn’t fit: # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Many people would agree that many scientists are ‘baked in’ too”

Case in point:

‘Where’s Lewandowsky and Cook when they are needed to look at REAL ‘conspiracy ideation’, like murder plots from ‘big oil’?’

Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago July 25, 2015

Wow, this is just bonkers. [‘Climate scientist [Wadhams] fears murder by [Big Oil] hitman’]

“The three scientists he identified – Seymour Laxon and Katherine Giles, both climate change scientists at University College London, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for marine Science – all died within the space of a few months in early 2013.”

“Professor laxon fell down a flight of stairs at a New year’s Eve party at a house in Essex while Dr Giles died when she was in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London. Dr Boyd is thought to have been struck by lightning while walking in Scotland.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/wheres-leawandowsky-and-cook-when-they-are-need-to-look-at-real-conspiracy-ideation-like-murder-plots-from-big-oil/

Richard C (NZ)

‘Pope Francis appears to have run rough-shod over the Pontifical Academy of Sciences’ July 25, 2015 Robert iceagenow http://iceagenow.info/2015/07/pope-francis-appears-to-have-run-rough-shod-over-the-pontifical-academy-of-sciences/ ‘Steamy Encounters and the Elements of Trust’ – By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser July 22, 2015 […] The Pontifical Academy of Sciences The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) is an illustrious body of world-renowned scientists. As successor-body to the “Accademia dei Lincei” of 1603 and the “Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei” of 1847. Its current name and function was established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI. Inter alia, the PAS’ goals include: “Promoting the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences, and the study of related epistemological questions and issues.” For the PAS, just like for any other well-functioning organization, there is an underlying principle of trust. The big question of the day is if the PAS is living up to that principle. […] Moral Imperatives and Control The statement emanating from that encounter [““Mayors from around the world go to Vatican City to sign the Pope’s pledge on climate agreement.”] says “…effective control is a moral imperative for humanity.” I quite agree. With the many millions of dollars the Vatican’s dioceses have… Read more »

Andy

More on the Wadhams loony tunes in the Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174599/Have-three-climate-change-scientists-ASSASSINATED-astonishing-claim-Cambridge-professor.html

Presumably the lightening strike was actually a giant “laser beam” created by Dr Evil at a big Oil that struck down the unfortunate scientist.

Goodness me, whatever next.

Andy

Back on Tonkin and Taylor and CCC

The MfE (2008) guidance report suggests using a risk management approach to responding to sea
level rise and to consider a 0.5 m base value of sea level rise by 2090 relative to the 1980-1999
average sea level, with 0.1 m additional rise per decade thereafter. The MfE also recommends
that the consequences of a sea level rise of 0.8 m by 2090 should be considered and recommends
that scenarios above 0.8 m should also considered for planning beyond 2100 as well as for low
probability / high consequence considerations. We note that the MfE guidance report may be
updated to reflect the latest international science recommendations in the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report, which is due for final publication in 2014.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5006875e24ac21f35d8de8d2/t/537bec14e4b0b9e2ae4f82c5/1400630292916/Effects+Of+Sea+Level+Rise+For+Christchurch+City+Tonkin+%26+Taylor+Jan+2014.pdf

I don’t think they did update the report to take into account IPCC AR5. T&T seemed to get their advice from MfE, who get it from someone else, …

Richard C (NZ)

I’m in an ongoing email debate over my disproof of MMCC theory (see upthread) with Joanne Nova. This is where we are at: [Jo] Richard, The problem may be in the communication. Equations turn most people off. So do acronyms. It is like reading a foreign language. What is Sfc definition? We have to explain the point in words, we can use graphs, but only ones where people understand what is being graphed. Jo [Me] Joanne, I appreciate your criticism and certainly agree the problem is in communication but I have a simple case expressed in the most concise terms which correspond to the terms in the references. This is the science, it is “non reducible” as Monckton et al would put it. >”We have to explain the point in words,” I disagree (to a degree). There have already been screeds of words written but still nobody “gets it”. The IPCC has explained the point “in words” all we have do is refer to them and highlight the fact the IPCC is ignoring its own criteria. Hansen has taken the focus back to those words (IPCC criteria) in his “discussion” paper (see Twitter… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

[Jo] Richard, forgive me, I’m run off my feet. I’m just trying to help. These are all acronyms not words. W.m-2 TOA CO2 AGW/MMCC OLR H2O CH4 Sfc IPCC CERES AR4 FAQ CMIP3 PMEL/JPL/JIMAR etc etc Maybe some points are just too hard to describe? They might be right, but if the public doesn’t know the language we aren’t going to reach many people. Jo [Me] >”Maybe some points are just too hard to describe?” Jo the case I’ve defined is as simple as it gets (“non reducible”). If we don’t at least put the case out there then it will never be communicated. And the case is in IPCC terms and definitions. >”These are all acronyms not words.” Yes that list is but I repeat that my contra-case only uses 2 acronyms which can easily be expanded and are made clear in the referenced papers and Figures anyway >”if the public doesn’t know the language we aren’t going to reach many people” What you are basically saying is that the public wouldn’t be able to understand IPCC reports either if they actually bothered to read them but they have reached the majority… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Sometimes I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall – even with sceptics.”

Doesn’t help when we get a post at WUWT that creates all sorts of confusion in comments. Seems the purpose of the post is to eventually “hoist SkS on their own petard” in a following post.

Thing is, the rationale contains a massive error from the start (not picked up in comments yet – most turned off at first mention of “SkS”):

CO2 Contribution

Unfortunately, not enough exact parameters are given [by SkS] to allow the temperature contribution by CO2 to be calculated completely, because the effect of ocean thermal inertia has not been fully quantified. But it should be reasonable to derive the actual CO2 contribution by fitting the above formulae to the known data and to the climate model predictions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-1/

This assumes CO2 is the ocean heating agent – this is unphysical. Planetary thermal lag is in the solar SW => ocean mechanism, not LW.

Richard C (NZ)

[Me] >”Sometimes I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall – even with sceptics.”

[Jo] >”forgive me, I’m run off my feet. I’m just trying to help”

The background to this is from Jo:

David (my other half) is working full time on climate sensitivity, models, and unpacking the forcings and feedbacks. I have to focus on his work right at the moment. I am far behind on converting that into posts. :- (

These are what is “effectively redundant” as I’ve pointed out “You are run off your feet because you are dealing with a mountain of stuff which is peripheral to the primary critical criteria. Not completely irrelevant or immaterial but effectively redundant once the primary criteria is addressed”.

I get the impression Jo cannot run with a case that stops the MMCC conjecture dead because that would render all David’s work moot. The cynic in me is thinking Jo is working on a marketing exercise for David’s skills – I hope that isn’t so.

Mike Jowsey

Richard my friend, some simple advice from a simple cherry grower – do not use acronyms. Ever. Spell it out. Stop trying to sound all scientific by using scientific acronyms. Spell out each acronym – don’t be lazy. I cannot follow many of your posts because halfway through my brain tires of trying to solve your acronym puzzles.

Mike Jowsey

“I get the impression Jo cannot run with a case that stops the MMCC conjecture dead because that would render all David’s work moot. The cynic in me is thinking Jo is working on a marketing exercise for David’s skills – I hope that isn’t so.”
You see, even the acronym MMCC stops the flow of thought for me, albeit temporarily. It makes it hard to read mate. It is easier for you to type it all out – Man Made Climate Change – than for the reader to stop and check and wonder then check then remember then try and pick up your thread.
In Jo’s pressured case, even more so. She is trying to be polite. She is trying to get your point, but nerd-speak is the obstruction.

Mike Jowsey

Richard – an exercise for you: translate the following into Queen’s English…

# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al
2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).

# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as
net anthro).

# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc

Mike Jowsey

[Richard C]”What you are basically saying is that the public wouldn’t be able to understand IPCC reports either if they actually bothered to read them but they have reached the majority of people nevertheless. Our contra argument must also be in IPCC terms – mine is in every way.” I think this describes the frustration on both sides of the communication divide with respect to you and Jo (and your wider readership such as myself). I would be able to understand some, if not most of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, only because I know most of the jargon and acronyms only due to hanging around these shadowy corridors for so long. Most do not (know nor hang). “… but they have reached the majority of people”? Huh? Think again RC. Only alarmist headlines have reached the majority of people. And those headlines usually have no acronyms. So, no, our contra arguments must be in communicable terms in every way. (Headlines, or subtitles), with drill-downs where necessary to IPCC terms, just to show the minority scientific readership that your point is valid. Jo is not so scientific. Me even less so.… Read more »

Andy

To be also polite and constructive, I agree with Mike that acronyms are best avoided, and I still don’t quite get your central argument, sorry to be dense RC

The IPCC is the worst offender for alphabet soup, with terms like RCP, SRES, CMIP5 etc.

These terms cunningly disguise the fact that the AGW conjecture (anthropogenic global warming, ahem) is layers and layers of models and assumptions that are based on some very unproven fundamental premises

Furthermore, coming back to the sea level issue again, the projections of 100 years hence are based on our guesses of what the world economy will be like in 2100, which is somewhat absurd if you try to imagine the people of 1915 doing the same.

At the end of the day, it comes back to Feynmanns famous quote on the scientific method. You make a guess (I.e a conjecture) . You make some models based on that guess. If the models don’t fit reality, it is wrong, end of story.

Richard C (NZ)

Mike, read what I said to Jo: I’ve condensed all this into one clear concise reasoning (back 2 in thread). Yes by all means pad it out, add in the actual references and provide the acronyms in plain English but the essence remains the same. There’s no getting around it. >”Richard – an exercise for you: translate the following into Queen’s English…” OK, my response to Jo on this was: The equation could not be more simple. The 2 acronyms are equally simple and become clear in the Figures and captions linked below anyway: CO2 is impossible to invoke – it does not fit. If most people cannot grasp this from those 3 bullet points then there is something seriously wrong with our education systems. But the problem with the acronyms and equation is solved by the pictures below. I stand by that, This is as simple as it gets, if an intellect cannot grasp the problem then the intellect is totally out of their depth in just about aspect of man-made climate change except the most superficial e.g. polar bears, which is where the IPCC has caught the populace. But there are… Read more »

Andy

Thanks to RC for the explanation – I can now read the underlying papers again. I was scrabbling for a minute to understand what “Sfc” was, now it is surface, it makes more sense.

By the way, I would be more that happy to see “MMCC” disproved so that we can get on with more interesting things with our lives. No egos need stroking here, thanks

Richard C (NZ)

Andy. >”I still don’t quite get your central argument” It is not my argument Andy, it is the IPCC argument and Hansen has just reasserted it. The IPCC has set the primary critical criteria for climate change forcing agents. From upthread: …..the IPCC’s criteria (and Hansen’s), which is: FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html I suggest you read all of that box and possibly the whole page too Andy, not just what I’ve copied here. >”At the end of the day, it comes back to Feynmanns famous quote on the scientific method. You make a guess (I.e a conjecture) . You make some models based on that guess. If the models don’t fit reality, it is wrong, end of story.” Yes exactly. Except in this case the IPCC has… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”But don’t forget that the IPCC cites Stephens and Loeb”

Stephens et al (2012) does not occur in the Chapter 2 quote above but Chapter 2 does cite Stephens et al about four times in the context of global average energy budgets i.e. it is not as if they didn’t know about that paper.

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

>”International Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report [Five] Chapter Two.”

Andy

Changing tack for a minute back to ChCh sea level issues, the MfE report appears to be the guidance that Tonkin and Taylor are citing

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf

There is less certainty yet whether an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has begun.
Using reconstructed global mean sea levels from 1870 to 2004, a small acceleration of sealevel
rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year over the 20th century has been observed.

Simon

I found your ‘boiling oceans’ quote. He’s talking about Venus! Typical selective quoting without understanding the context. There is of course no reference to boiling in the paper.

Richard C (NZ)

>”And you might be surprised at the education of tradies like electricians and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians too.” When I started work I had a female friend (not my girlfriend) who was a mechanical engineering drafty qualified NZCE (Mech). I only got to Int NZCE (Mech) but I was in civil’structural engineering at the time and qualified with Draughting Technicians Certificate which is civil engineering based. She ditched ME and went on to be a radiographer taking X-rays and such. I ditched Civil and went on to Mech/Elec in electricity distribution and business (NZ Dip Bus). Point is, here’s someone who in later life you would never think has much of an understanding of physics but in all probability can run rings around you. And radiography deals with radiation of the ionizing kind. Downwelling longwave radiation is non-ionizing as is solar radiation. These people know more about radiation-matter interaction than any climate scientist. It is because climate science has not deferred to these types of specialties (Optics is another e.g. Dr Roy Clark ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’) that has left them clueless on critical physics, e.g. the physics of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”I found your ‘boiling oceans’ quote. He’s talking about Venus!”

Are you saying Hansen is only applying his runaway greenhouse effect notion to Venus but NOT earth?

Andy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8

at around 2:13, after a preceeding discussion of a runaway greenhouse effect, Hansen says the “oceans could begin to boil

… and that happened to Venus. i.e implying what happened to Venus could happen to Earth.

Richard C (NZ)

[MfE] – >a small acceleration of sealevel rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year over the 20th century has been observed.”

That is NOT an “acceleration”. An acceleration would be, for example, 0.013 mm per year PER YEAR.

0.013mm/yr/yr is an acceleration, 0.013mm/yr is NOT an acceleration:

“Acceleration, in physics, is the rate of change of velocity of an object. An object’s acceleration is the net result of any and all forces acting on the object, as described by Newton’s Second Law.[1] The SI unit for acceleration is the metre per second squared (m/s2).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Needless to say, MfE are all at sea (heh):

[MfE] – “There is less certainty yet whether an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has begun.”

There is TOTAL certainty that an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has NOT begun. The posited man-made boost has not materialized.

Andy

The posited man-made boost has not materialized.

but they state that rate since 1850 has increased over previous centuries (based on paleo??) yet this is entirely consistent with the rebound from the LIA. The period of anthro attribution to the IPCC is post 1950 does not show anything unusual in SLR changes.

We have to sift though this with a fine-toothed comb, meanwhile councils like CCC are planning for “managed retreat”

If I go to any of these council meetings, I might wear a full nuclear bacteriological and chemical warfare suit to show my solidarity with their approach to risk management,
comment image

Richard C (NZ)

>”There is TOTAL certainty that an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has NOT begun. The posited man-made boost has not materialized.”

The IPCC’s base date for man-made SLR is the average of 1980 – 1999 nominally centred on 1990 i.e. their predictions of a SLR acceleration begin 1990 and should now be observable – it isn’t.

Dr Jan Wright neglects to stipulate the IPCC’s baseline in her SLR report (and probably her next impending report too). The Commissioner is incompetent but on $300,000 pa.

Richard C (NZ)

>meanwhile councils like CCC are planning for “managed retreat”

Venice Italy governance has been unmoved for some time. It’s a feature not a bug to them apparently.

Holland unperturbed too.

Mike Jowsey

Richard c: # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). The energy imbalance at the Top Of Atmosphere is nought point six Watts per metre squared and trendless. Citations: Stephens and others two thousand and twelve, Loeb and others two thousand and twelve, International Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report Chapter Two. # 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). Carbon dioxide “forcing” is one point five metres squared and trending. Reference: International Panel on Climate Table of Forcings, same as net anthropogenic forcings. # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc The energy imbalance at the Top of Atmosphere is nought point six Watts per metre squared which equals the nought point six Watts per metre squared energy imbalance at the Surface. Watts are Joules per second. A Joule is “a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy transferred (or work done) when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Mike, >”Jo is not so scientific. Me even less so. Get your point across to the likes of Jo and I and your readership comprehension will expand, I submit.” Not so Mike. Joanne knows exactly what the latest science is (she posted on Stephens et al (2012) as soon as it was published) and is very scientific, particularly in scientific communication: Joanne Nova – Education Nova received a Bachelor of Science first class and won the FH Faulding and the Swan Brewery prizes at the University of Western Australia. Her major was microbiology, molecular biology. Nova received a Graduate Certificate in Scientific Communication from the Australian National University in 1989,[4] and she did honours research in 1990,[5] investigating DNA markers for use in muscular dystrophy trials.[1] Career For three years Nova was an Associate Lecturer of Science Communication at Australian National University.[6] For four[4] years, Nova jointly co-ordinated[7] the Shell Questacon Science Circus, which operates all over Australia. From November 1999 to February 2000, Nova was the host of the first series of 65 shows of Australian children’s science television show Y?[6] and worked for a short period on Space Cadets, a science… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

Quite so.

Richard C (NZ)

Mike. >”I think you are saying that at top-of-atmosphere the energy in versus energy out leaves about 0.6 watts per square metre in the atmosphere.” NO, NO, NO. There is simply less energy leaving the planetary system than there is entering it. Where the energy is sequestered cannot be ascertained without recourse to the surface budget too. >”At the surface the energy down and up leaves 0.6 watts per square metre at the surface.” YES,YES, YES. See 1. below for more on this. >”With an identical “imbalance” at both surface and top-of-atmosphere there is no room for any imbalance in between.” NO, there is no other imbalance than TOA and Sfc. The next step is forcing. >”Therefore any posited forcing of CO2 in between is invalid.” YES. You have it here. The posited “forcing” is there but it is ineffectual. 1.5+ trending is more than 0.6 trendless and the actual 0.6 forcing has already occurred at the surface anyway. >”If I have that right, I have a couple of dumb questions.” NO, not dumb. Now you are getting to what this is all about. >”1. What happens to the 0.6 watts – does… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”2. What exactly is the CO2 forcing?”

It is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit).

But in reality it is having no effect on the TOA energy budget whatsoever.

Richard C (NZ)

>”It is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit). ”

Not right – I’m in a rush to work.

It [CO2 forcing] is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget [into] accumulation.

A forcing, any real forcing, forces the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit).

Man of Thessaly

[Richard C] on sea level rise
> Venice Italy governance has been unmoved for some time. It’s a feature not a bug to them apparently.
> Holland unperturbed too.

Where do you get your information, Richard? Whether they are ‘moved’ or ‘perturbed’, I cannot say, but the Italian government has spent billions on a barrage intended to protect Venice from increasingly frequent flooding due to ongoing sea level rise and land subsidence. And the Dutch are planning for 0.65 – 1.3 m sea level rise by 2100.

Andy

The difference is that the Dutch are largely below sea level already and are quite happy to maintain dykes etc.

Meanwhile, the attitude in NZ is: we “might” experience large sea level rise so we should plan to abandon now because we don’t have any adaptation skills and anyway, Christchurch is munted so we need to give up on it anyway

That is how I and many Christchurch residents see it anyway, that potential SLR is a convenient excuse to give up on the worst damaged areas. Screw the property rights of owners and screw the communities.

National and local government, CERA, EQC and insurance simply don’t give a stuff.

Man of Thessaly

Andy: I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Both the Dutch and the Italians in these cases are spending billions on flood defences in view of an increasing risk. Do you think they’re wasting their money?

As far as Chch is concerned, you can reasonably assume that sea level rise will be the similar to the rest of the world (see IPCC AR5 FAQ 13.1) and might do well to consider one of the recommendations of the Dutch Delta Commission:

“The decision of whether to build in low-lying flood-prone areas must be based on a cost-benefit analysis. This must include present and future costs for all parties. Costs resulting from local decisions must not be passed on to another administrative level, or to society as a whole. They must be borne by those who benefit from these plans.”

Seems admirably sensible to me. Concerning property rights, compensation etc, we don’t have good precedent in NZ for this situation and it would be good to resolve it before the next street/suburb becomes unliveable. I’m all for socialised risk-sharing, but not bearing costs unnecessarily. And you surely can’t expect insurance companies to bet against the odds.

Andy

Christchurch is not planning for sea defences, unlike Holland. They demolished the estuary facing properties at Southshore during the red zone process, which has compromised the rest of the properties. The council will not build a sea wall because they (in their own words) say that sea walls do not work, and in the same sentence, the person concerned said that Sumner was in a better position because they have a sea wall.

(This is a verbal account of a verbal exchange, so don’t expect any links )

Therefore, based on RCP 8.5 which assumes unabated emissions for the next century, no technological progress whatsoever, and high climate sensitivity, all unproven assertions, and virtually no evidence based on empirical data of any existential threat to the community, the coastal suburbs of Christchurch have essentially been thrown under the bus by all the governing bodies, who are all too busy agreeing with each other and having endless meetings to actually bother taking any interest in the people that pay their wages.

Andy

I should add that the sea wall protection was previously provided by the private properties that were estuary facing. They are needed to prevent erosion from southerly storms that can have waves lapping onto properties, very occasionally. During our 15 years in the area, our street and property have not been flooded a single time, despite numerous flooding events in greater Christchurch, especially those near rivers.

Properties have been rebuilt in Southshore post earthquake, some projects costing a million dollars. Now they are struggling to get insurance from the same people who built the house.

Not much joined up thinking.

But then, most people haven’t even read the IPCC MfE and other reports that show that these projections are all guesses anyway. Just because other countries are doing the same doesn’t mean they are all right.

Richard C (NZ)

T Man

>”Where do you get your information, Richard? Whether they are ‘moved’ or ‘perturbed’, I cannot say, but the Italian government has spent billions on a barrage intended to protect Venice from increasingly frequent flooding due to ongoing sea level rise and land subsidence.”

Exactly, they are “unmoved” i.e. they are STILL THERE (duh!). Water inundation is a tourist attraction (“a feature”), tourists paddle around in the water when there’s flooding (SLR is the least of their problem). Tourists PAY for the experience. So of course the Italian govt is spending whatever it takes to keep Venice afloat (financially).

>”And the Dutch are planning for 0.65 – 1.3 m sea level rise by 2100.”

My statement “unperturbed” is in comparison to panic stricken Christchurch City Council. The Dutch actually seek out the risk of inundation (they are risk seekers) in order to live on land claimed from the sea. They plan, build, carry on unperturbed. But CCC are risk averse (in the extreme).

Andy

But CCC are risk averse (in the extreme).

This is actually a very good point, and some insight can be gleaned from the MfE report from which the Tonkin and Taylor derived much of their guidance

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf

1.2 Changing paradigms for coastal hazard management

This is heavily based on the RMA philosophy. It takes the approach that humans “meddling” in nature makes things worse.

I have a fundamental philosophical difference of opinion on this topic. My view is that by letting “nature takes its course”, especially in urban or sub-urban areas, things can become a lot worse.

Richard C (NZ)

T Man >”As far as Chch is concerned, you can reasonably assume that sea level rise will be the similar to the rest of the world (see IPCC AR5 FAQ 13.1)” Thank you T Man. You support our contention. FAQ 13.1 shows historical rates of SLR (tide guages). These are the DEFAULT rates of rise. The IPCC’s posited man-made “acceleration” to SLR has NOT materialized. You can plot out the data from any of the 9 NZ tide guages that have data spanning 1980 to present (the default) and you can plot the IPCC/MfE prediction from 1990 (baseline 1980 – 1999 average) against the default (as we have done here at CCG e.g. Wellington – see below) and it is immediately apparent that the prediction is already overshooting i.e. the prediction is WRONG. Dr Jan Wright’s scenario, derived from the IPCC, is bonkers. This unrealistic thinking is causing all sorts of policy distortion and unnecessary costs and loss of value to landowners. SLR planning, including Christchurch, should be in respect to the default rates of rise which are easily manageable. These rates have been there all last century but did anyone even notice?… Read more »

Post Navigation