Like alarmists everywhere ahead of Paris, Gareth “Running Man” Renowden flees honest inquiry. He’s happy to allow readers to make any wild predictions they like about global warming, but ask for details and he deletes your question. What’s he afraid of?
When a question I left recently at Hot Topic under The Age Of Resilience starts tonight did not appear, I left a second asking where it went. The replies exemplify the mischief and dissimulation so commonplace at Hot Topic.
The reader nigwil says: “Regardless of what the report says, the sea is going to rise, probably by as much as 2 to 5 metres by 2100.”
I say: “Really? Let me address the minimum sea level rise (SLR) of 2 m you say we should expect by 2100. There are 84 years left in which to achieve this, remembering that we’ve had 27 mm since 2000 (1.8 mm/yr × 15 yr). The ocean has 1973 mm to go, which at the current rate will require 1096 years. When will the acceleration begin? When will it reach the 23.5 mm/yr required to achieve 2000 mm by 2100?”
If the rate does not reach 23.5 mm/yr by 2017, the rate of acceleration thereafter must be even greater, yet it requires some extraordinary event even to achieve 24 mm by next year—it’s a whopping 1300 per cent more than last year. Still, if it’s not achieved soon, the prediction cannot come true.
So it’s a reasonable thing to ask, in my opinion. It’s also restrained, there’s no abuse and the arithmetic makes sense. It’s a genuine inquiry. When it failed to appear on the HT blog, I asked about it and received an answer:
I posted a reply but where did it go?
[It was deleted. Your misrepresentations already have enough exposure at your “CCG” without HT having to give them additional exposure. GR]
So I tried again: “But surely, Gareth, you jest?” But he was unbending:
[Nope. You want to indulge in tortuous, incomprehensible and long-winded ramblings, but you have a blog already devoted to that. Stay there, please, unless you are willing to apologise to the NIWA and other NZ climate scientists you have maligned over the years. Oh, and you could pay back some of the taxpayers money you so egregiously rorted by folding your “Education” Trust. Until then, your presence is not welcome here. GR]
So he blusters away. But he still hasn’t answered my questions and he’s using bombast and blather to justify it. Like this.
NIWA climate scientists have never wanted an apology. In fact, they responded to our public and Parliamentary criticisms by reconstructing the NZ temperature record, which by any measure is an outstanding victory for us. It directly recognises the Coalition’s work as contributing to a more robust national climate record. Not many people can say they’ve helped the country’s leading scientists achieve a better result, although Renowden is too mean-spirited to acknowledge this.
Listening to their apologists at Hot Topic, you’d think NIWA’s scientists could do no wrong, but they’ve been guilty of losing work paid for by taxpayers. They also refused to answer our questions about their work. It was this obstinacy which eventually forced us to seek help in the courts.
Renowden resurrects appalling fabrications that he himself invented to demean our civil suit against NIWA. But as regular readers know, I have many times patiently explained that forming the NZ Climate Science Education Trust was required to meet the expectations of the Court. A non-existent body cannot appoint an agent or open a bank account, much less bring a suit to court.
As to his malicious accusation of “egregious rorting”, dissolving the trust was no fraud. Nobody predicted the damages Justice Venning suddenly awarded against us, because never before had a group of New Zealand whistle-blowers, challenging the actions of a government body, been required to pay costs. It was unprecedented in a hundred and seventy-three years of New Zealand legal history, and thus we were entirely unprepared to pay nearly $90,000. All we could do was dissolve the Trust, but Justice Venning’s cold-hearted ruling creates a grim precedent that will forever threaten honest citizens seeking answers from powerful public bodies.
Although the taxpayers weren’t defrauded, they might have hoped to reap an unexpected windfall—and remember we were simply asking how they did things; how brutal might NIWA’s response have been had we asked them for money?
NIWA is not a conventional government department but a state-owned enterprise, required to earn a profit for the benefit of its one shareholder, the Crown. This invests it with the flexibility and legal protections of a private company and the bounty of the public purse.
But there’s this propaganda benefit, too, which Renowden plugs at every opportunity. When the Crown enterprise was waiting for the money granted by the Court, we were no longer dealing with an ordinary company: we suddenly discovered that we were actually “defrauding” the taxpayer (where did he suddenly come from?). Yet NIWA engaged top-of-the-line Queen’s Counsel to defend a civil suit against their commercial activities by using public funds.
By what perverted legal logic can NIWA at once hide their actions behind a veil of commercial confidentiality, enjoy the status of a respected government authority and protect all this by spending public funds? They have it both ways, so how can anyone call it to account? And how can it be seen as open or transparent when it refuses to answer its critics?
The legal barriers around a Crown enterprise are sensational—a formidable public-private partnership in law and custom that bulwarks it against honest inquiry yet grants it the full defensive power of public resources. Justice should run the other way, for it should defend the private citizen against powerful government authorities that stray from fairness. Here the court not only failed to defend us, but by its inequitable ruling on costs colluded with NIWA’s efforts to crush us and it succeeded.
It’s disappointing to see Renowden running from my straightforward inquiry about predicted sea levels, since his own claims of urgency that we must save the earth gave rise to it. If he cannot justify urgency, there is no need to act quickly. But if he doesn’t know when the sea will begin its dangerous rise, it is scarcely urgent, and if the beginning is a long way off, the dangerous rise he predicts (two metres by 2100) cannot occur.
We do not believe him. Even the IPCC predicts only about 450 mm by 2100, and their worst-case scenario, RCP8.5, will produce, by their guesswork, only 1000 mm. To double that requires good evidence, which we are entitled to know; to quintuple it to 5000 mm is witless.
Sceptical people don’t go along with everything the IPCC expects us to swallow. When reasonable questions go not merely unanswered but brazenly ignored, reasonable people will treat these baseless “predictions” with scorn.
By the way, for the sea level to rise by five metres at the current rate of 1.8 mm/yr would require over 2700 years. But of course those brainiacs at Hot Topic have calculated that already, right?
Visits: 206
Talking of running and hiding.
Who ran and left taxpayers paying the bill for an idiotic Court case against NIWA.
Who hid behind a sham Trust to avoid paying court ordered costs?
“because never before had a group of New Zealand whistle-blowers, challenging the actions of a government body, been required to pay costs….”
…because never before has a group with persistent ignorance of basic high school grade physics wasted public resources in such a quichottian way as you and your small fellowship. You have persistently failed to comprehend very basic science despite the fact that many people made efforts to educate you.
It is a shame indeed that you did not have the decency to pay up for the damages your silly quest has caused for the taxpayers and it is many people’s belief that your entire so-called “climate science education trust” was simply set up as an instrument to evade personal responsibility for the damages that you probably all along new you were causing to the taxpayer. Man up and pay up!
Richard Christie,
So you want to answer my questions about sea level rise, then?
Thomas,
“persistent ignorance of basic high school grade physics”
You must know that our application for a judicial review of NIWA’s actions was not based on physics and that Justice Venning said unequivocally that he would not rule on questions of science. So don’t talk rubbish.
As for “your entire so-called “climate science education trust” was simply set up as an instrument to evade personal responsibility for the damages that you probably all along new you were causing to the taxpayer.”
Please read the post. It clearly explains in terms that even you ought to understand why the trust was created. It was not for evasion of costs. We paid our own costs. It also explains how the “taxpayer” is an artificial element of the commercial entity called NIWA. Perhaps you would explain why the legal position with state-owned enterprises is so ambivalent. Is it, perchance, to keep them extra protected for the benefit of the Crown? So how, pray tell, can we call them to account?
Everyone is entitled to their day in court. But if you lose, you pay your dues.
In answer to your question, current global average sea level rise is about 3mm/yr with an acceleration of around 0.013mm/yr/yr. This would suggest a sea level rise of around 30cm by 2100. The big question is whether that acceleration will continue to increase. People like James Hansen argue that it will. I don’t know, and I’m not sure that anyone really does know for sure. Either way, several metres of sea level rise will almost certainly occur if CO2 stays at or above current levels. The question is whether it will take decades or centuries to occur.
Simon,
“But if you lose, you pay your dues.”
Please read the post. “Nobody predicted the damages Justice Venning suddenly awarded against us, because never before had a group of New Zealand whistle-blowers, challenging the actions of a government body, been required to pay costs.”
Simon,
“current global average sea level rise is about 3mm/yr with an acceleration of around 0.013mm/yr/yr”
I’ve seen these figures somewhere, but I’d appreciate a reference, please. For both the 3 mm/yr and the acceleration. Whether it continues certainly is “the big question”, isn’t it? What people are like James Hansen?
“You must know that our application for a judicial review of NIWA’s actions was not based on physics and that Justice Venning said unequivocally that he would not rule on questions of science. So don’t talk rubbish.”
Precisely and finally you accept it. Your argument that the NZ climate record was wrongly represented by NIWA was never based on Physics! So your thinking is then based on what? Voodoo? 🙂
“I’ve seen these figures somewhere, (3mm/y current rise, derivative about 0.013mm/y) but I’d appreciate a reference, please.”…. Come one Richard, how can you rabbit on publically about matters of climate change when your active knowledge of the science is so poor? You should have a library of relevant research and keep track of the science.
Perhaps this will assist you to find some relevant papers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
If you take a civil suit out against another party and lose, then you should expect to pay their legal fees. There is nothing unpredictable about that. I was surprised that damages was only $90,000. That would not compensate for the wasted time by NIWA staff in preparation for the case. That is a cost that the tax-payers of New Zealand bear.
Wikipedia can be a useful resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Sea level rise is a subject that I have been taking some interest in.
A widely cited paper in NZ (cited in Tonkin and Taylor reports) is Hannah and Bell (2012)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007591/abstract
and also Church and White (2011)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1
Both report a secular trend over the last 100 years of around 1.7-1.9mm a year, based in tide gauges
The satellite data reports higher values of 3-3.2 mm a year that seems hard to reconcile with the tide gauge data.
Hannah and Bell discuss how multi-decadal variability ( a subject dear to Richard C’s heart) influences SLR, and how they filter out these signals to obtain the secular trend. Given that Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) has a periodicity of 20-30 years, shorter term periods to infer changes to the secular trend should be treated with caution.
Having said that, Simon Holgate in the UK reports a decrease in SLR trend over the latter half of the 20th C
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf
Richard Christie:
‘Talking of running and hiding.’
So you don’t agree with running and hiding Richard? Great, then you can answer this, something I’ve seen both you and your buddy Simon persistently run away from:
http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html
And before you start quoting Sherwood and Chung latest papers on the subject, please be aware they’ve both been debunked due to the fact they incorporate data during times when the Earth’s temperature hasn’t been rising.
Simon,
No, not as private citizens against the government, as I already explained. This was unpredictable. NIWA is not just another commercial body, as I already explained. The judge didn’t award damages, but costs, and it was according to a standard scale used by the courts to assess costs.
See, when you claim the taxpayers “must bear” NIWA’s legal expenses, you shift NIWA’s status from commercial entity or any “other party” to government department. But it’s inequitable that NIWA should enjoy all the benefits of both, yet remain unanswerable for the duties it owes to them. If the taxpayer is out of pocket, that’s tough. So NIWA should have answered our simple questions instead of making a federal case out of it.
Ah yes, just what was expected, more running and hiding from Richard Christie & Simon. Perhaps they should consider who is running and leaving taxpayers paying the bill for an idiotic falsified scientific theory that has failed a vital empirical test. I can guarantee Richard Christie, Simon, or any other promotor of global warming won’t be refunding the taxpayers of NZ, even though they are fully aware of the fatal flaw in the theory they’re too stubborn to admit is a failure.
Magoo,
👍
Sorry, that’s hard to discern; it’s a thumbs-up.
Richard Christie
>”Talking of running and hiding. Who ran and left taxpayers paying the bill for an idiotic Court case against NIWA. Who hid behind a sham Trust to avoid paying court ordered costs?”
Except Venning was negligent i.e. he didn’t carry out his judicial duty which was to determine the facts (not the science). He did not consider the key evidence which was the ‘Statistical Audit’ as presented by affidavit.
And now Venning and NIWA are looking like clowns because the ‘Statistical Audit’ has now entered the peer-reviewed literature as de Freitas, Dedekind & Brill (2014). Plenty of interest worldwide too:
‘de Freitas temperature study reaches top 5% of 3.67M scientific papers’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/07/de-freitas-temperature-study-reaches-top-5-of-3-67m-scientific-papers/
NSCSC vindicated, no thanks to the NZ court system (and one low ranked Judge in particular).
Thomas
>”….never before has a group with persistent ignorance of basic high school grade physics wasted public resources in such a quichottian way as you and your small fellowship. You have persistently failed to comprehend very basic science despite the fact that many people made efforts to educate you.”
What ARE you on about Thomas?
What “basic high school grade physics” is there in the NZ 7SS exactly?
I see in the de Freitas et al (2014)/NZCSC ‘Statistical Audit’ the homogenization and adjustment methodology of Rhoades & Salinger, but I don’t see any physics – none::
‘Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes’
D. A. Rhoades and M. J. Salinger
Article first published online: 29 NOV 2006
DOI: 10.1002/joc.3370130807
International Journal of Climatology
Volume 13, Issue 8, pages 899–913, December 1993
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370130807/abstract
Abstract
Methods are presented for estimating the effect of known site changes on temperature and rainfall measurements. Parallel cumulative sums of seasonally adjusted series from neighbouring stations are a useful exploratory tool for recognizing site-change effects at a station that has a number of near neighbours. For temperature data, a site-change effect can be estimated by a difference between the target station and weighted mean of neighbouring stations, comparing equal periods before and after the site change. For rainfall the method is similar, except for a logarithmic transformation. Examples are given. In the case of isolated stations, the estimation is necessarily more subjective, but a variety of graphical and analytical techniques are useful aids for deciding how to adjust for a site change.
Where’s the “basic high school grade physics” in that Thomas?
Or have you redefined physics all by yourself?
I should point out too that despite FOI requests NIWA have been unable to cite an equivalent methodological basis for their 7SS series i.e. they made their series up as they went along. And as the NZCSC have demonstrated, their results cannot be replicated by the scientifically appropriate methodology.
In other words, NIWA’s 7SS fails the most basic scientific test, the scientific method, And it is not a physics issue as you mistakenly, and ignorantly describe in your rant Thomas.
[Simon] – “30cm by 2100.” i.e. 300mm
[nigwil] – “2 to 5 metres by 2100” i.e. 2000 – 5000mm
I’m getting a mixed message here = of an order of magnitude. CO2 works in a very mysterious way apparently. Do we just pick any number that just seems “right” to our respective mindsets?
That approach is what I’ve always known colloquially as a Wild Arsed Guess (WAG). Seems to be the scientific post-normal normal now.
Remember what the Court of Appeal said:
[15] In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the Judge was wrong to refuse the trust a reduction in [the trust’s] liability for costs on public interest grounds. On the contrary, we agree with him that the trust did not act reasonably.
It seems likely that the Trustees are liable for the debt even after the Trust is wound up.
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/debts-and-lies-are-generally-mixed-together
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/i-dont-know-this-law-it-probably-exists-only-in-your-heads
>”[Simon] – “30cm by 2100.” i.e. 300mm
[nigwil] – “2 to 5 metres by 2100” i.e. 2000 – 5000mm
…….Do we just pick any number that just seems “right” to our respective mindsets? That approach is what I’ve always known colloquially as a Wild Arsed Guess (WAG).”
We could defer to the latest peer-reviewed literature of course:
TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE
Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein, Eyal Frank, Yaniv Reingewertz (2015)
http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/pdf/Tide%20gauge%20%20location.pdf
But that doesn’t meet Stephen Schneider’s criteria obviously:
So it looks like nigwil’s WAG wins then.
Magoo said:
Yes, +1. Simon in particular, viz.:
Well, the IPCC constructed the experiment. Here’s how it goes:
There is only one very small theory-experiment-result that matters in climate science and the IPCC stipulates it explicitly. Then THEY, the IPCC, ignores that science and 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).
# 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), Co = 280ppm C = 400ppm)), IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble 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, -11 W.m-2 Southern Ocean). 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 to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
Game over.
No formal hypothesis for man-made climate change (AGW) has ever been written but one can be inferred from the IPCC’s own criteria:
“Man-made climate change theory posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with anthropogenic forcing.”
Obviously it doesn’t so will Simon “happily modify [his] opinion” as any self-styled paragon of integrity would?
Nah.
‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix
Published 25 August 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 8
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024;jsessionid=37254F5660276B2283AEDF59E6C78B60.c1
Abstract
3. Results
3.2.2. MME-based sea level spatial trend pattern over altimetry period
3.3. Discussion and conclusion
# # #
So. Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
No.
Unless it’s just that latitudinal strip north of the North Island, New Zealand, in Fig 7 as per 3.2.2.. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions do appear to be kicking in right there. The models are bang on for that patch.
Uncanny really. That negligible industrial CO2 emissions in the Southern Hemisphere have such a pronounced effect in the middle of the ocean north of New Zealand but the same from China, Korea, Japan, has no effect on the Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean whatsoever (Eastern NH Pacific is already flat).
Or is it that the anthropogenic “forcing” from China, Korea, Japan, teleconnects with the SH ocean where the sea level rises accordingly? Odd mechanism. So much to learn about this phenomenon.
RC, that ( H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix) is a really interesting paper, thanks
Note that Christchurch residents are now having problems getting insurance, thanks to SLR projections
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/72096980/coastal-hazard-zones-generating-insurance-problems
I suspect that ‘Hot Topic’ was named to enable its creators to drop hot topics and run when their their silliness caught up with them.
I was also taught that freedom of speech and thought that were gifted us by the Enlightenment and are a two-way street – the denizens of Hot Topic seem to know little about hot topics such as truth, justice and the meaning of liberty.
Andy, re Hannah and Bell (2012) and Palanisamy et al (2015).
These are two complementary papers, the latter introducing the model mean (“MME”) to compare apples-to-apples i.e. the MME and the secular trends of observations in both papers are MDV-neutral too.
I think it is important to keep the spatial picture of satellite SLR firmly in mind when looking at the difference between MME and MDV-neutral observations in Palanisamy et al Figure 7 i.e. the observations before “filtering” and differences. For this I find the AVISO Mean Sea Level Trends map instructive. Linked many times before but useful here again:
Regional MSL trends from Jan-1993 to Dec-2014 (mm/year)
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
The MME manages to get the zero trend (no SLR, even some fall) right across a vast swathe of the Eastern Pacific in the NH off the West Coast of North America (see Figure 7 “0” anomaly contour lines compared to AVISO). Great. Except that leaves an attribution conundrum – how is actual zero sea level rise to be attributed to CO2 forcing when CO2-forced models mimic the zero rise?
Now down to the SH. The CO2-forced MME matches AVISO across the latitudinal band northeast of NZ but not to the east of NZ where the actual SLR trend is exactly the same – another attribution conundrum. The MME has up to 1mm/year greater rise than AVISO in that region but not further north where conditions are exactly the same, how so?
But I think the big surprise is that the MME trends across much of the Pacific and the eastern SH in particular (-0.5mm/year anomaly difference) are so much less than actual on an apples-to-apples basis.
This indicates to me that in the models are completely wrong and cannot be cited for any anthro attribution in the Pacific until they are rectified (as for air temp too) i.e. all the red in Figure 7 is overestimated and all the darker blue is underestimated by the MME. The Palanisamy et al authors skip this little problem.
Until these major discrepancies are reconciled the MME is meaningless rather than it just being a matter of time for the “anthropogenic sea level fingerprint” to appear – it never will in these models.
>”I think the big surprise is that the MME trends across much of the Pacific and the eastern SH in particular (-0.5mm/year anomaly difference) are so much less than actual on an apples-to-apples basis.”
This is really weird. If AVISO is flat there, then a -0.5mm/year anomaly difference effectively means the MME has sea level FALLING across a huge area of the eastern South Pacific at -0.5mm/year (-5mm/decade).
Starting to get comical too.
>”If AVISO is flat there, then a -0.5mm/year anomaly difference effectively means the MME has sea level FALLING across a huge area of the eastern South Pacific at -0.5mm/year (-5mm/decade).”
To clarify. This is an area of “low internal variability” so the residual Alti-IPO/ Alti-IPO-EMI model trends should not differ from AVISO.
>”If AVISO is flat there, then a -0.5mm/year anomaly difference effectively means the MME has sea level FALLING across a huge area of the eastern South Pacific at -0.5mm/year (-5mm/decade).”
There is much more to this.
The AVISO chart from the AVISO Mean Sea Level web page has coarse resolution i.e. what I term as “flat” is coloured green but it is actually a range of about +2mm/yr to -2mm/year.
Palanisamy et al Fig 1 (a) has the same AVISO chart but at finer resolution i.e. the eastern Pacific just south of the equator has a trend of -2mm/yr (-20mm/decade), so it certainly is not “flat”, it is falling markedly. This is quite a revelation.
Palanisamy et al Fig 7 has a MME anomaly of -0.25 to -0.5mm/year (-2.5 to -5mm/decade. Therefore, if the actual trend is -2mm/yr (-20mm/decade) then although the MME also shows falling sea level, The MME trend is not showing the extra -15 to -17.5mm/decade that the observations exhibit for total -20mm/decade i.e. a huge shortfall.
Around New Zealand Palanisamy et al Fig 1 (a) has 0 – 2mm/yr. Fig 1 (b) has the IPO contributing 1mm/yr.
Therefore, at least half of the satellite SLR around NZ is attributable to “internal variability”. Figure 2 (a) and (b) and Figure 4 show this. This leaves no more than 1mm/yr SLR which accords with Beenstock et al (2015) tide guages.
The dishonest, “green” activists can’t answer simple questions about the science that will rob the poor of a decent life, health, education and work, in addition to cost trillions.
Facts be damned! It’s all about the money ..
https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/facts-be-damned-its-all-about-the-money/
[Palanisamy et al] – “However in the Pacific Ocean east of the Australian continent between 20°S and 40°S latitudes, we can observe that the Alti-IPO and Alti-IPO-EMI trend patterns are consistent with that of the CMIP5 MME. This indicates the possible sea level response to external forcing in this region.”
[Me] – “So. Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean? No. Unless it’s just that latitudinal strip north of the North Island, New Zealand, in Fig 7 as per 3.2.2..”
[Me] – “Now down to the SH. The CO2-forced MME matches AVISO across the latitudinal band northeast of NZ but not to the east of NZ where the actual SLR trend is exactly the same – another attribution conundrum. The MME has up to 1mm/year greater rise than AVISO in that region but not further north where conditions are exactly the same, how so?”
I’ve got this wrong.
I thought Palanisamy et al were stating in respect to Figure 7 as per the top of the 3.2.2. paragraph (see quote ipthread) but further down the paragraph they changed to Alti-IPO (figure 2(a)) and Alti-IPO-EMI (figure 4). They dropped the figure references thereafter as above.
The “0” anomaly northeast of NZ in Figure 7 just means no change in the MME, not that it conforms with the observations. I should have been looking at Figure 2 (a) and (b) which are captioned thus:
At this point Palanisamy et al seem to be making a giant stretch for a relatively small area of ocean (much less than I mistakenly thought at first). All I can see in non-IPO Figure 2 (b) is an area northwest of NZ in the Tasman Sea that matches both AVISO Figure 2 (b) and the MME in Figure 7 at about +0.25mm/year rather than out northeast in the Pacific Ocean. I think Palanisamy et al might be clutching at straws.
Irrelevant to the bigger picture in the Pacific so not worth any further consideration that I can think of except to correct my error.
>”To clarify. This is an area [eastern South Pacific] of “low internal variability” so the residual Alti-IPO/ Alti-IPO-EMI model trends should not differ from AVISO.”
No difference of note. This can be seen in Figure 2. (a) Altimetry [AVISO] and (b) 2D reconstruction-based Pacific Ocean sea level spatial trend pattern without IPO over 1993–2013.
Bigger point being, this is also an area of significant sea level FALL (-20mm/decade) and that there is a large model trend shortfall of -15 to -17.5mm/decade.
[Andy] – “RC, that ( H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix) is a really interesting paper”
Agreed. They’ve let a cat out of the bag somewhat.
I was actually on the phone to John Hannah this morning (Of Hannah and Bell) with a colleague in CCRU
It was an interesting discussion. He agreed with much of us. Was a little bit cagey about satellite data. He suggested that we need to frame the debate in terms of risk assessment, which I agree with, but this is difficult when the SLR projections have no probability distributions attached.
He said that the Auckland tide gauge is the best long term record in NZ.
He had started looking at SLR in the 1980s when scary scenarios were offered up. Since then the tide gauges have been chugging along linearly at 1.7mm/year.
It would be good to dig out some of these early reports.
Dave Frame at Hot Topic on RCP8.5
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46800
At last someone who can say how it is.
>”[John Hannah] Was a little bit cagey about satellite data.”
Understandable. Given that I suspect that he probably ranks RCP scenarios even lower.
>”He suggested that we need to frame the debate in terms of risk assessment”
Yes, that is the most responsible approach and I agree totally. A large corporate enterprise will have short, medium, and long-term plans that are reviewed periodically. Part of the review (assessment) is a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. I’ve participated in one of these. Risks are essentially threats.
North Carolina (and Netherlands to a degree) are a good practical starting example to my mind. To recap from ‘Sea level lunacy’ thread:
I’ve added “ongoing” because the NC risk assessment process is now an ongoing 5 year review (as any sensible planning should be depending on the relevant time horizon).
Upthread from that link is the NC and Netherlands policy links, downthread is Washington State’s sea level rise legal implications and the Urgenda climate change case in the Netherlands.
The risk scenarios are just what I’ve cobbled together from NC and Netherlands.
>”this [risk assessment] is difficult when the SLR projections have no probability distributions attached.”
I assume you are referring only to the IPCC RCP scenarios which in the above (1) to (4) scope of possibilities make up only (3a,b,c) i.e. those cannot be assessed in isolation if the probabilities are to total 100% say.
So force the issue Andy. Assign your own probabilities to the scope of possibilities. To date the largest probability must be assigned to (1) until such time as there is credible evidence of of an “anthropogenic fingerprint” from papers like Palanisamy et al (2014).
Obviously item (4) is just to acknowledge that the possibility exists rather than to assign a risk so the probability is minimal, say 1%. Similar for item (2) except it is a very real possibility rather than a risk.
So for CCRU the assessment is something like this (there’s one more RCP but can’t recall):
80% (1) Projection at no accelerated rise
9% (2) sea level rise will decelerate
10% (3) sea level rise will accelerate
(3a) IPCC RCP2.6 5%
(3b) IPCC RCP4.5 3%
(3c) IPCC RCP8.5 2%
1% (4) sea-level will fall
100% total
As of now there is no reason not to expect more of the same despite all the hype, hence: 80% (1) Projection at no accelerated rise. This will raise hackles, as will only 10% assigned to (3), but you have to put your case in these terms and then the haggling begins.
John Hannah is dead right, this is the approach. Any business graduate knows this why not CCC?
I’m not getting a lot of traction with Dave Frame at HT despite his views on RCP8.5
>”Dave Frame at Hot Topic on RCP8.5″
Although he’s very much wedded to RCPs, if not 8.5.
I was just looking at his other comment (abridged):
Dave Frame September 18, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Mike Kelly doesn’t have any professional expertise in the area of climate change science. I don’t think he’s as clear about this as he should be.
Mike makes some poorly justified claims in his article, among which are:
“It is 25 years now since climate model predictions have been made, and the vast majority have been overestimates, some gross overestimates, of temperature change.”
Yes some models run a bit warm. But the projections they made back in the early 1990s were much closer to reality than the prediction of “no change” that sceptics made at the same time. So yes models are imperfect, but (a) not as imperfect as climate sceptics and (b) models do capture the aggregate features of observed climate change, and they seem to do so for the right reasons.
“The atmosphere is a complex, tightly coupled, highly non-linear multi-component system which is rapidly changing and it is also chaotic. Predicting its future properties in 35 years is like trying to predict the shape of a particular rain cloud in 35 minutes as it scuds over the sky on a windy day.”
No. Global mean surface temperature (gmst) seems to be linearly related to cumulative emissions of CO2. The minor wiggles which characterise variability are chaotic; but the forced response (in gmst) is remarkably linear. It’s more predictable than Mike’s layman’s description portrays.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46798
# # #
Incredibly naive, ill-informed and wrong from Dave IMO. And a strawman there too. I could dissect but can’t be bothered except to say if he persists with those lines, especially if he ventured into a sceptic blog, he will be taken apart at the seams eventually.
“Some models run a bit warm” ? The IPCC says, in different language of course, that 111 out of 114 are too warm in respect to the hiatus.
He made similar comments at the anthropocene talk I went to, on the models
Anyway, I’m trying to get Dave onside with CCRU, at least in helping build a sensible sea level policy for NZ, so I don’t want to nitpick on these details.
>”So for CCRU the assessment is something like this (there’s one more RCP but can’t recall)”
RCP6.0 is the other.
Dave Frame – “Basically, the area somewhere in the range of RCP4.5 to RCP6.0 is probably a reasonable starting point for business as usual,”
OK, so let’s do that except RCP2.6 is still the first that would be identified by 5 year reviews if an acceleration ever occurs and can be measured i.e. it is impossible to say that any acceleration, if any, is anything more than the lowest scenario to start with:
80% (1) Projection at no accelerated rise
9% (2) sea level rise will decelerate
10% (3) sea level rise will accelerate
(3a) IPCC RCP2.6 4%
(3b) IPCC RCP4.5 3%
(3c) IPCC RCP6.0 2&
(3d) IPCC RCP8.5 1%
1% (4) sea-level will fall
100% total
>”RCP2.6 is still the first that would be identified by 5 year reviews if an acceleration ever occurs and can be measured i.e. it is impossible to say that any acceleration, if any, is anything more than the lowest scenario to start with”
I’ve still got this wrong. The paths are tangled so the lowest number is not necessarily the first in 5 years time (2020):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentrationnl.png/600px-All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentrationnl.png
It might be possible to say the lowest initially is RCP6.0, then 2.6 and 4.5, then 8.5. After that the order changes except for 8.5.
Equal probability initially might be better given the assessment should be reviewed at 2020:
80% (1) Projection at no accelerated rise
9% (2) sea level rise will decelerate
10% (3) sea level rise will accelerate
(3a) IPCC RCP2.6 2.5%
(3b) IPCC RCP4.5 2.5%
(3c) IPCC RCP6.0 2.5%
(3d) IPCC RCP8.5 2.5%
1% (4) sea-level will fall
100% total
At 2015 however, none of the IPCC scenarios are having a discernible effect on sea level even though there is an uptick in all 4 after 2010. Not in the Pacific Ocean at least but that’s the world’s largest..
Dave Frame September 18, 2015 at 3:21 pm
“North Carolina’s approach is dumb. It is foolish to refuse to consider a foreseeable hazard because it collides with one’s politics or because some aspects of its scientific heritage are more uncertain than one would like.”
# # #
Dave doesn’t know the NC law and policy and is not conversant with their latest assessment apparently. He’s going on heresay and he’s wrong.
NC does consider “a foreseeable hazard”, # (3) upthread. All they did was stipulate a 30 year time horizon, 5 year reviews, and the addition (from above) of:
(1) Projection at no accelerated rise
(2) sea level rise will decelerate
(4) sea-level will fall
Dave’s argument can be used against him in respect to (1), (2), and (3).
I think people’s judgement of the NC policy is probably clouded by the “liberal” US media’s misrepresentation of it.
You know, the usual Jon Stewart/ John Oliver sneering, that kind of thing
Dave Frame September 18, 2015 at 3:36 pm
” (I actually think SLR raises some really interesting policy patterns and issues, that people haven’t explored as much as they might have. It’s something I’d like to write about sometime soon.)”
# # #
Rather more than just “really interesting” policy issues Dave, the legal implications have already been written about:
‘The Legal Implications of Sea Level Rise in Washington’
Erin Crisman-Glass, Attorney at Law
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/waccia/chrismanglassfinaldraft.pdf
2. Governing Legal Principles…………………………………………………………..18
2.1 The Public Trust Doctrine……………………………………………………18
2.2 The Law of Accretion and Erosion………………………………………… 20
2.3 Unconstitutional Takings……………………………………………………20
2.4 Substantive Due Process…………………………………………………….22
>”I think people’s judgement of the NC policy is probably clouded by the “liberal” US media’s misrepresentation of it.”
Yes unfortunately. I read a Yahoo News headline that NC had “banned” rising seas.
Nothing is further from the truth. NC have done exhaustive studies of their coast which has varying rates of SLR for disparate reasons.
>”I’m not getting a lot of traction with Dave Frame at HT despite his views on RCP8.5″
He did shut Thomas down which is reassuring:
Dave Frame September 18, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Thomas wrote: ” The reference to the IPCC’s RPC 8.5 and the 1.0 m is under today’s knowledge conservative, not worst case.”
“I don’t think this is true at all. RCP8.5 is pretty out there. It seems to require something like (1) high global population growth even though we now have a better idea about how to reduce this in welfare enhancing ways; (2) a mysterious reversion to global GDP growth rates not seen since the pre-industrial period; (3) a deep commitment to meeting future energy demand, such as it is, through fossil fuels. All of those are odd; and none are business as usual (TFR has been falling decade on decade; global GDP growth remains well above pre-industrial levels; etc). As for SLR – it is uncertain. But it would be silly to plan on the basis of a burn-it-all scenario, because this is not a plausible scenario.”
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46813
The other guys carried on regardless with their irrational fears. It would be amazing how all the hype has inflicted minds if we didn’t account for credulous and gullible tendencies. Either that or their political ideology overrides any physical science as a matter of course.
A mix of both perhaps. Kiwiano for example:
Kiwiiano September 18, 2015 at 3:29 pm
58 metres – how much sea levels would lift if we burn all fossil fuels
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment#ixzz3m4kmjzPD
“The West Antarctic ice sheet may already have tipped into a state of unstoppable ice loss, whether as a result of human activity or not,” said Anders Levermann, a researcher at Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “But if we want to pass on cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Calcutta, Hamburg or New York as our future heritage, we need to avoid a tipping [point being reached] in East Antarctica.”
# # #
One of Stephan Schneider’s “scary scenarios” being “offered up”.
Mt Maunganui has an altitude of 232m for perspective.
SimonP September 18, 2015 at 9:01 am
According to that Stuff article Tonkin & Taylor are suggesting planning for a 40cm rise over 50 years and 1m over the next 100 years. That is consistent with what the science is saying.
Regardless, it would seems imprudent to build that close to the coast with the risk of storm surges and tsunami. Parts of Chile had 4.5m high tsunami waves yesterday…..
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46792
# # #
Even after Andy has explained it all he still doesn’t grasp the difference between science and “storylines”. Mind you, neither does T&T apparently.
The tsunami risk is another issue altogether. I don’t see insurance companies refusing cover in tsunami red zones in this neck of the woods and this in respect to multi-million dollar properties, Gareth Morgan’s included.
I’ve said in another thread with accompanying Tauranga tsunami risk map that people are falling over each other bidding for tsunami red zone property. Apparently that’s a risk they are very willing to buy rather than sell (weird, I know).
This is a glaring contradiction. A very real possibility (tsunami) is discounted but a highly uncertain possibility (RCP8.5) is regulated. People are totally unconcerned with the real risk, why regulate a fantasy?.
But I happen to concur with SimonP to a degree – I prefer a bit of freeboard and a sound foundation. A natural tsunami barrier is good too. With White Is. smoking in the distance I’m actually mindful on the beach of how long I’ve got to get to higher ground if it blows and I’ve stayed back when the beach was evacuated once during a tsunami alarm (fizzer). I’ve also seen rogue waves swamp people that were not keeping a wary eye on the tide. A 9 year old boy was swept away last Christmas by a rogue wave and drowned.
The sea is a very powerful force when it is given a shove. I think I have healthy respect for that.
One thing I picked up from the Palanisamy et al paper is that IPO and PDO seem to be the same thing. This wasn’t clear from my discussions earlier today
i.e Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation == Pacific Decadal Oscillation
IPO == PDO
As usual, I am happy to be corrected on this assumption
Jailed for scientific dissent?! 20 climate scientists call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot on 17 September 2015.
Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them.
Letter reproduced in full: Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
Here>>>>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/jailed-for-scientific-dissent-20-climate-scientists-call-for-rico-investigation-of-climate-skeptics.html
Scientists ask Obama for RICO investigation to end climate debate
Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 17 September 2015.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/scientists-ask-obama-for-rico-investigation-to-end-climate-debate.html
# # #
Not inconceivable that Obama gets this going by executive order. Also worth memorizing that list of “scientists”. Trenberth has certainly sold his soul for “the cause”, he’s entered a new phase now. I thought at one time that he might be the first to crack, not so. He’s firmly planted on the dark side and getting darker.
Comments at the first link above speaks for me:
# GR82DRV 2015-09-17 19:09
I really don’t like using the term, but sometimes it’s appropriate:
Intellectual Nazism
When you can no longer manage a debate, arrest those with whom you disagree. These people disgust me. They dishonor their country, and they dishonor science.
[Trenberth is an ex-pat New Zealander]
The next step is sending dissenters to the Gulag for “re-education” under the pretence of mental illness
It happened not that long ago, even though memories are short.
>”One thing I picked up from the Palanisamy et al paper is that IPO and PDO seem to be the same thing.”
There is a subtle distinction and respective definitions in the paper:
2. Data and methods
2.1. Satellite altimetry sea level (1993–2013)
Can’t say this distinction is fixed in my mind yet, I (erroneously) think of it the the other way round with different timeframes i.e. PDO Pacific-wide, IPO North Pacific, the latter I thought a shorter phenomenon. Completely wrong and backwards I’ve learned from Palanisamy et al.
Turns out the IPO is the Pacific-wide big deal – not the PDO. That’s one of the benefits of this paper: a much better understanding of the Pacific fluctuations (on my part I mean). I’ve still got to fix all this in my mind due to previous misunderstanding so this paper has been very helpful in that respect.
As modeling papers go I think this one is very good (even given John Hannah’s implied caveat) and very informative. Seems honest and objective to me too, except perhaps for one big stretch in one small paragraph.
It’s a paper that the CO2 side would prefer receives no airtime at all. But a paper that sceptics should get very familiar with and be able to cite on demand. Tricky name Palanisamy unfortunately, I haven’t quite got it yet. I’m thinking Sarah Palin-is-amy meantime.
I saw you cite the results at HT Andy. No-one rose to the bait danggit. Would have been fun.
>”It’s a paper that the CO2 side would prefer receives no airtime at all.”
About the only place I can find that even cites the title is in this very long list (19 up from bottom):
New research – August 2015 Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 1, 2015
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/new-research-august-2015/
Ari Jokimäki is an SkS guy. The irony being that the paper title fits his blog title quite well if you don’t know the conclusion:
[Paper] – Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
[Blog] – AGW Observer – Observations of anthropogenic global warming
I think it will come as a shock when Ari learns that the results of the paper are not what the paper title might suggest. And I don’t think he will feature it at SkS either. Best keep it as quiet as possible.
‘World court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, says Philippe Sands’
International Court of Justice ruling would settle the scientific dispute and pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, says high-profile lawyer
Philippe Sands QC says a court ruling would carry more weight with public opinion than science alone.
Adam Vaughan, Friday 18 September 2015
False claims from climate sceptics that humans are not responsible for global warming and that sea level is not rising should be scotched by an international court ruling, a leading lawyer has said.
Scientific bodies such as the UN’s climate science panel have concluded that climate change is underway and caused by humans, Prof Philippe Sands QC told an audience at the UK’s Supreme Court. But a ruling by a body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would carry much more weight with public opinion and help pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, he said.
“One of the most important things an international court could do – in my view it is probably the single most important thing it could do – is to settle the scientific dispute,” Sands said, on the eve of a three-day conference on climate change and international law in London.
“A finding of fact on one or more of these matters [such as whether climate change is man-made], or indeed on other pertinent matters, would be significant and authoritative and could well be dispositive on a range of future actions, including negotiations.” Scientifically-settled questions such as whether climate change is even happening are still being challenged by “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”, he said.
More>>>>>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/18/world-court-should-rule-on-climate-science-quash-sceptics-philippe-sands
# # #
>”False claims from climate sceptics ……………….. that sea level is not rising”
Heh. QC he may be but on this he is an ignorant dunce.
>”“A finding of fact on one or more of these matters [such as whether climate change is man-made], ………, would be significant and authoritative”
Heh (again). I say bring it on. I think Philippe Sands would be a bit disappointed (to say the least) with the facts that are found. They could start (and quickly end) with the IPCC’s primary TOA climate change criteria in respect to theoretical anthropogenic forcing. Something the IPCC neglected in their fact finding exercise.
That would certainly be “significant and authoritative”, and game over in very short time too.
extended world war
From Homeland Security Newswire 24 Feb 2009, September 16, 2015 by admin
If we do not deal with climate change decisively, “what we’re talking about then is extended world war,” Lord Nicholas Stern, the eminent economist, said. What Lord Nicholas was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict. “Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is,” the British economic thinker said.
If negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be “disastrous.” It would “transform where people can live,” Stern said. “People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases”
http://climatechangepredictions.org/uncategorized/3853
Wow! Scary scenario!
RICO!
by Judith Curry, Posted on September 17, 2015 | 254 Comments
You have signed the death warrant for science. – Peter Webster
[…]
I am familiar with all of these names, and know a few of them fairly well. The list includes several members of the National Academy of Science, and numerous IPCC authors. Apart from Trenberth and Robock, as far as I know, none of these individuals have made previous public/political statements about climate change. In fact, one of them told me (say a decade ago), that he had worked hard to keep his head below the radar and stay out of all the politics and the fighting. Another (Mike Wallace) wrote a jacket blurb for Roger Pielke Jr’s latest book The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change (note: Pielke Jr was one of the Grijalvi 7).
My first reaction was that this was some kind of joke, or that some of these individuals didn’t know what they were signing. The document originated from the Institute of Global Environment and Society, of which Jagadish Shukla is President (and first signatory, and presumably the instigator). So it seems that at least the 6 individuals associated with the IGES knew what they were signing.
The quote from Peter Webster at the start of this post was included in an email that he sent to one of the signatories. The (anonymous) response:
“After reading Senator Whitehouse op ed in the Washington Post, I thought the senator should be supported by the scientific community. Similarities with the tobacco industry are compelling. This is just a small step for me to get engaged with social/policy relevant issues.”
Forgive them (?)
Well, that letter reflects, at best, a great deal of naiveté by the signatory. Perhaps some of them had their arm twisted by the instigators/advocates, and were just trying to be collegial.
To paraphrase the other JC:
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Dear signatories of this letter:
I will try to clarify here what you have done, and why it is wrong.
First, you have been duped by the Merchants of Doubt book/movie. See my previous blog post Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme, which includes reviews by other social scientists.
Continues with Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth >>>>>>http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/17/rico/
>”I saw you cite the results at HT Andy. No-one rose to the bait danggit. Would have been fun.”
Ok, the link helped Andy:
>”“your” paper focusses on one specific ocean region that is the subject of a significant cyclical spacial variability of SL.”
Well yes, that was the entire rationale of the paper. They removed the variability in order to detect an anthropogenic “fingerprint” – they couldn’t.
>”The study makes no attempt to discredit the external (anthropogenic) forcing of global SLR”
Why should it? External (anthropogenic) forcing of global SLR is the premise of the paper, the title of which is: “Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?”
All they have done is investigate the premise in respect to the planet’s largest ocean. Seems reasonable.
>”So I am unsure why you even bring this study up. It makes no statement whatsoever that brings into question the antropogenic forcing of the observed and predicted global SLR trends.”
He missed this first up:
Abstract – Palinisamy et al (2015)
In other words, the emergence of the catastrophe is postponed until a later date.
Rob Taylor exhibits an extreme form of cretinism by ignoring the paper I just cited and then claims that the low lying atolls are losing their livelihoods due to the thing that does’t exist, according to the science, and then claims that the people of ChCh are NIMBY’s
Such is the life of the Social Justice Warrior
It will come as a shock to most of these warmies when they finally discover that SLR is, to date, natural.
Taylor having not seen the Fig 1(a) AVISO chart, will also be blissfully unaware that on the other side of the Pacific sea level is falling at -20mm/decade. I wonder how he will reconcile that with:
East Pacific sea level fall is a process of sea level rise caused by anthropogenic climate change apparently. What an amazing process that is.
I just came back from a public meeting with our local Labour MP Poto Williams which was quite encouraging as she is now supporting our group to have the coastal hazards part of the district plan scrapped. There was also a councillor who has turned in our favour and apologised to the group for not understanding the impact on the community
It’s kind of interesting when the Social Justice Warriors at HT seem to be proxy supporters of Gerry Brownlee and the National Party.
“Christchurch NIMBYs” wouldn’t have gone down well
Anyway, NIMBY means not in my back yard. I think it is the government and CCC that don’t want US in their back yards, so they are the NIMBY’s
It’s a funny old world. Almost the perfect “social justice” brain implosion for the climate activists
NOAA Data Tampering Since Last Year
Posted on September 18, 2015 by tonyheller
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/09/noaa-data-tampering-since-last-year/
Well on the way to the 2 C limit just on adjustments alone – no CO2 needed.
I think we need strong adjustment mitigation and adaption policies if the 2 C limit is to be avoided.
“I just came back from a public meeting with our local Labour MP Poto Williams which was quite encouraging as she is now supporting our group to have the coastal hazards part of the district plan scrapped. There was also a councillor who has turned in our favour and apologised to the group for not understanding the impact on the community ”
That’s very positive Andy, owing in no small part to your efforts regards research and communication I’m sure.
I have played some role Mike, but there are a lot of people in the group that have put far more work into the bigger issue and for far longer and at greater cost.
It is quite mind boggling how the people of Christchurch have been treated over the earthquake recovery and beyond.
It is good, however, to be part of a group that is actually working in a positive way for the community, and I have met some great new friends in a very short space of time.
Revelations from the CO2 laser community (who know a bit about CO2). Note this – “the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion”
***************************************************************************************
Gloria Swansong September 18, 2015 at 2:23 pm [From WUWT thread]
At about 22 minutes, Dr. Happer shows the “xylophone effect” on a CO2 molecule.https://youtu.be/gMdYmAo08O4
Here is an email exchange between Dave Burton and Will Happer concerning the issue of “re-emitting” a photon v. collisions with other molecules in the air, mostly N2 of course:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
A portion of their discussion:
After hearing Will’s lecture, Dave asks:
1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).
Did I understand that correctly?
Will replies: [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]
Dave: You didn’t mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too?
[YES. I CAN’T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.
Dave: So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)?
Will: [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]
Dave: In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True?
Will: [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]
HS comment: Whether the true delay is microseconds to minutes makes little difference, since a 12 hour night can easily erase & reverse this “radiative heat trapping,” with no net effect on a daily, annual, or multi-decadal basis whatsoever.
There can only be one and only one 33C greenhouse effect: 1) the 33C Arrhenius radiative GHE, or 2) the 33C Maxwell et al gravito-thermal GHE, otherwise the greenhouse effect would be double (66C) that observed. Clearly, overwhelming evidence, such as the above, favors the gravito-thermal GHE by lightyears.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/why-greenhouse-gases-dont-trap-heat-in.html
Climate, Oil and RICO: Some Questions and Answers
Here are some questions and answers about a letter to the US President, Attorney General, and science advisor with a proposal to investigate fraud related to climate science. This page represents my own thoughts, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the other signers.
-Barry A. Klinger
What are we asking the government to do?
I recently signed a letter, Shukla et al. (2015), which urged the US Attorney General to use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to investigate “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The letter referred to an Op-Ed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse making the case that since the climate campaigns of the fossil fuel industry “are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking,” and “since Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise,” there is a good possibility that the fossil fuel industry is guilty of similar practices.
Do we think that climate change is settled science? Should climate contrarians have free speech?
First question: no. Second question: yes.
I think there are many open questions regarding global warming. See A Skeptics Guide to Global Warming for a discussion of “settled science.” In general, scientists, policy experts, and interested citizens should be free to say whatever they want, even if they disagree with me and even if they disagree with most scientists in their field.
A RICO suit like the one we propose would be very narrowly focussed on whether companies were engaged in fraud in order to continue selling a product which threatens to do harm. I’m not a legal expert, but I think that anyone not selling a product or service can not be punished for fraud, so the vast majority of people opining on climate are not even theoretically threatened by such a case. Even for an oil company, the standard for finding fraud is quite high. According to the RICO judgement against the tobacco companies:
Generally, a plaintiff must prove five elements by “clear and convincing evidence” to prevail on a fraud claim. See e.g., Armstrong v Accrediting Council Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., 961 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D.D.C. 1997). They are: (1) a false representation, (2) in reference to a material fact, (3) made with the knowledge of its falsity, (4) with the intent to deceive, and (5) on which action is taken in reliance upon the representation. ( p. 1564)
What do we want to do to climate contrarians?
No one is trying to throw anyone in jail. If I understand the case correctly, the final outcome of the judgement against tobacco companies was to order them to stop denying known harms of smoking and to publicize the falsity of their fraudulent statements. I expect that a case against fossil fuel companies, if it ever did prove fraud, would result in a similar judgement.
Should free speech apply to all sides of a debate?
I sympathize with the fear that the legal system could be inappropriately applied to squelching the free speech of scientists. I would strongly oppose a widening of the scope to anyone unrelated to the efforts of a company selling a product (for which there is a lot of case law about commercial exceptions to free speech).
However, I don’t recall climate contrarians coming to the defense of Michael Mann when he was subject to ideologically-based legal harrassment from then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as well as from Republicans in Congress. Apparently there are some who believe it is the return of the Inquisition to investigate a giant corporation but a good deed to investigate an individual scientist.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/rico.html
# # #
OK, so their target is only the oil and coal companies basically, turns out according to Klinger. But is this a unanimous understanding among signatories – I doubt it.
In respect to the five elements of “clear and convincing evidence” as applied to oil and coal companies and falsity, deception, etc, what EXACTLY has any oil company disseminated i.e. what is the evidence specifically? And which oil company or companies?
I don’t know of any oil or coal company making contentious public statements about the science of climate change, let alone any that where false or deceptive.
Why is it that the warmist world is always upside down? Surely they would start with the evidence, make it public, then call for an investigation. But no, it appears they are calling for an investigation that hunts for evidence because there is “good possibility” there is apparently. There is equally good possibility there isn’t if none has actually been produced to date.
It is not even as if oil companies a big emitters – they’re not. Not even close. Oil companies have little or no reason to even engage in the alleged activity. It is downstream users that burn the oil – not oil companies. Big Industry is the emitter that has most to lose – not Big Oil. Cement for example.
These idiots are barking up the wrong tree, or just barking. Their conflation with tobacco, a completely different set of facts, speaks volumes.
Maybe it would be the best thing that ever happened if a RICO investigation was carried out on the oil companies. It would shut down the innuendo because it would deal with facts. Facts that I suspect would backfire on the instigators.
It may just be a bluff for publicity but if the bluff was called I think there would be some red faces.
>”Generally, a plaintiff must prove five elements by “clear and convincing evidence” to prevail on a fraud claim. ………………They are:
(1) a false representation,
(2) in reference to a material fact,
(3) made with the knowledge of its falsity,
(4) with the intent to deceive, and
(5) on which action is taken in reliance upon the representation”
>”In respect to the five elements of “clear and convincing evidence” as applied to oil and coal companies and falsity, deception, etc, what EXACTLY has any oil company disseminated i.e. what is the evidence specifically? And which oil company or companies?”
I don’t what the alleged fraud is or by whom but here’s some of the innuendo:
‘How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most agressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming’
By Jeff Goodell | January 6, 2010
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/as-the-world-burns-20100106#ixzz3mGs54kSf
>”Misleading studies” and “outright deception”.
OK, now these specific examples have to be produced. Then the fraud criteria applied.
Good luck.
Presumably the same criteria can be applied to those that claim the sea level rise is accelerating (personal correspondence from Christchurch city council) when the papers that they cite claim the opposite.
Given that there is a class action starting against EQC, it would be interesting, but expensive, to drag our local council into the courts too, especially as they are trying to wipe out $9 billion potential equity in coastal property values.
>”Presumably the same [fraud] criteria can be applied to…..[CCC say]
Yes it can be applied but I think it would fail on (3) and (4):
(3) made with the knowledge of its falsity,
(4) with the intent to deceive
Fraud is very difficult to prove. In the CCC’s case, and MfE, etc, their actions are not fraud (IMO) because it is simply ignorance of the facts i.e. they are without “knowledge of its falsity” but they carry on regardless but with no “intent to deceive” (actually they are trying to avoid negligence as below)
CCC’s actions are not negligence either: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence
They probably claim to be exercising duty of care because failing to do so means “the foreseeable likelihood that [their] conduct will result in harm”. But that is where 2 – 2.4 below come in:
‘The Legal Implications of Sea Level Rise in Washington’
Erin Crisman-Glass, Attorney at Law
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/waccia/chrismanglassfinaldraft.pdf
2. Governing Legal Principles…………………………………………………………..18
2.1 The Public Trust Doctrine……………………………………………………18
2.2 The Law of Accretion and Erosion………………………………………… 20
2.3 Unconstitutional Takings……………………………………………………20
2.4 Substantive Due Process…………………………………………………….22
I think these principles are directly applicable to the CCC i.e. this is the relevant law, albeit US law – not fraud or negligence.
>”CCC’s actions are not negligence either”
Possibly is in respect to omission (to determine the facts) and harm (LIM “tagging”, loss of value etc). Needs a Lawyer to sort that out and I’m not one. Again, CCC’s counter would be that their actions were specifically to avoid charges of negligence for not taking, as they saw it, appropriate action (despite their ignorance of the facts). I don’t think you have to be a Lawyer to see that. Negligence might be more appropriate than fraud but equally difficult to prove IMO.
Crisman-Glass is a Lawyer who should be followed as above I think, and she doesn’t invoke negligence. She would not have been aware of the CCC situation of course but it seems to me that what she has laid out applies directly to CCC even so i.e. CCC should be shown the Crisman-Glass essay so they know the legal implications (I’m assuming they don’t) – post it to them Andy.
And put it up on the CCRU website/Facebook so that as many people as possible know about these implications and understand them.
CCC personal correspondence claims that SLR has accelerated to 5mm a year, based on some short term fluctuation they picked up,from a paper somewhere.
MfE claim SLR has accelerated to 3.2 mm a year based on comparing ride gauges to satellite.
All the Tonkin and Taylor reports dating back to 1999 state that the SLR rate in NZ is 1.7mm a year. This is the rate quoted in Hannah and Bell. This is the rate stated by John Hannah when we called him last week.
It is quite clear. The SLR rate for NZ is 1.7mm a year, across the country. Hannah is clear about this.
If I can do due diligence on this in a matter of days, for free, why can’t my elected representatives do the same?
Macro joins in the chorus that ChCh only have themselves to blame at losing their democratic rights because ChCh Central voted national in the last election.
Herr Thomas says “puke” at the ChCh residents, and the psychopath Rob Taylor starts prattling on about Pacific Islands that aren’t sinking.
The lack of empathy from these eco-fascists is quite startling, but not surprising given their self-loathing hatred of the West and of humanity in general.
I do encourage these local eco-fascists to turn up at the next public meeting and state their lack of empathy in public, especially to the lady who burst into tears at the last one.
The NZ SLR is less than the global average, presumably because we are isolated from large land masses. But is it reasonable to assume that will always be the case? Possibly, but I’m not so sure. There appear to be some radical changes in circulation patterns going on, e.g. the increase in sub-Antarctic polar winds and the deceleration in the Gulf Stream, which will mean the future is not like the past.
Christchurch City Council are “sure” that we will have one metre of SLR by 2100
They keep repeating it anyway, in the hope that everyone gets the message
Andy: “Christchurch City Council are “sure” that we will have one metre of SLR by 2100. They keep repeating it anyway, in the hope that everyone gets the message”
Really? Can you provide a reference for that? Or have they in fact decided that it’s a sensible level to plan for? There’s a big difference, you know. (And they are planning for 1 m by 2115, not 2100)
They have an infographic in their coastal hazards booklet that shows 1 metre by 2100 (or maybe 2115, lets not quibble)
There is no mention of the assumptions, uncertainties or constraints
They keep repeating the one metre message at every opportunity. Like, for example, when it is mentioned that EQ damaged land slumped by 50cm, they say we had 50 years of “climate change” in a day.
Of course, they are not actually certain that one metre is a fact. It is a political propaganda exercise
Nobody’s quibbling – it is 2115. You’ve read the T&T report. That’s the 100-year time frame required by the Coastal Policy Statement.
“There is no mention of the assumptions, uncertainties or constraints”
The CCC website http://www.ccc.govt.nz/environment/land/coast/coastal-hazards/coastal-erosion-and-inundation/ captions this diagram as “projected potential sea level rise”. Doesn’t sound like they’re claiming any certainty.
“Of course, they are not actually certain that one metre is a fact. It is a political propaganda exercise”
Nobody is certain how much sea level will rise by 2115. There is no way to know. But you do have to decide how much to plan for. How would you go about it?
For a start, I would engage the public with a proper consultation process. I wouldn’t try to fast-track it via emergency CERA legislation, as CCC have done. In fact, Mayor Dalziel didn’t want it to become public knowledge. She told Tim Sintes not to tell anyone about it. It was only when Tim spilled the beans to the Press that the story got out.
CCC have made the submission process incredibly difficult and hard to understand, with a very short timeframe. It’s only with the help of lawyers with CCRU that we have managed to get submissions in an intelligible form that the public (and I) can understand, and to get the submission period extended to October.
It is only CCRU that have reached 500 people in public meetings and 900 people via Facebook. CCC have run public meetings but they have been very poorly attended
This is an absolutely scandalous misuse of public policy. We want a proper consultative process and round table dialogue with all stakeholders, preferably at national government level. This of course does not mean that we shouldn’t have a coastal policy, because it is required by law. We just want a fair say on how it is implemented.
People are already being affected by this. Insurance is being declined, and resource consents have been put on hold. Apparently we need a coastal engineer to assess the building plans for any new build in the hazards zone, which can add at least $20k to the build cost, with no guarantee that the consent will be granted.
Andy,
Great comments, thanks. But:
Man of Thessaly
Do you think so? For one hundred years hence? That’s hardly likely, certainly highly speculative and guaranteed to fail. Do you recall what mankind faced in 1915?
Please don’t be stupid, it doesn’t suit you.
Why the sneering, Richard? Yes, New Zealand law requires that councils plan for coastal hazards, including the effects of sea level rise, over at least one hundred years. Why did you think all the councils are doing it?
MoT is correct that NZ law requires council plans for coastal hazards. That is not the point of this issue
The point is that the proper consultation process has not been gone through, and CCC are actively pursuing a process of “Managed Retreat” because , it is assumed, they don’t want to meet their insurance and other obligations
People’s lives are being ruined and this comes at the end of 5 years of earthquake and insurance hell for these people.
It is simply wrong. That is all.
There is a precedent for this case in Kapiti which is summed up in this newspaper article
http://www.coastalratepayersunited.co.nz/files/06-media/02-press-clippings/LIMrethink-guru.jpg
CCC should have known about this and taken their decisions into account before recklessly pursuing their current path.
I’m sorry, MoT, I stand corrected. I didn’t know that requirement on local bodies. I take Andy’s comments on the present matter seriously, too. However, my opinion of anyone requiring public funds be spent on guessing events a century away stands, even if it’s the government. It will always be ill-advised, except perhaps for a very general look at possibilities. But to prepare land to be red-zoned or consider sea level rise to the nearest metre—we really should not be doing that. It’s nuts.
To give an example, there is an elderly couple in Southshore whose house was badly damaged in the earthquakes.
They have spent years negotiating with insurers to get the rebuild. They have submitted building plans, and were about to get their house demolished and the rebuild started. In the meantime, they have been living in a house with much of the gib board missing.
The other week, the council contacted them to say that the rules had changed and the building project was suspended pending review
This is simply unacceptable. The people here have had a gutsful.
Simon
>”The NZ SLR is less than the global average, presumably because we are isolated from large land masses. But is it reasonable to assume that will always be the case?”
Take a look at Palinisamy et al (2015) Figure 1(a) which is AVISO satellite observations
Figure 1. (a) Observed altimetry based sea level spatial trend pattern
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024;jsessionid=37254F5660276B2283AEDF59E6C78B60.c1
New Zealand is in one of the yellow 0 to 2mm/year SLR areas i.e. entirely consistent with what John Hannah has given Andy (1.7mm/year). Now look at all the other yellow around the Australian land mass. And down toward the Antarctica land mass where there is 0 to -2mm/year SL FALL. To the east there is SLR of 2 to 4+ mm/year.
Point is, the global average (certainly the Pacific) is skewed by the relatively small red/black area north of Australia.
If you look across to the eastern Pacific there is a vast area where sea level is FALLING up to 40mm/decade next to the South American land mass.
And Palinisamy et al find that NONE of the yellow, orange, red, or black areas exhibit an anthropogenic “fingerprint” i.e. it is all natural and CCC’s worst of worst case assumptions (RCP8.5) is not yet even detectible after 25 years (1990 is the IPCC base date).
Yet as Andy relates, CCC are persisting with a claim that that SLR has accelerated to 5mm a year but I’m not sure whether in respect to global or NZ. The CCC are certainly dead wrong in respect to NZ, and wrong by global average too. There is no alternative “out” for them. Wrong is wrong. Period.
MoT
>”Nobody is certain how much sea level will rise by 2115. There is no way to know. But you do have to decide how much to plan for. How would you go about it?”
The most responsible way as North Carolina are doing. With a 30 year time horizon and 5 yearly reviews until you reach 2115. Simple. And no Wild Arse Guessing involved, the reviews pick up any change in whatever direction.
The alternatives i.e. ALL the possibilities, that NC have regulated for review are:
(1) No change from historical rates
(2) sea level rise decelerating
(3) sea level rise accelerating (the IPCC alternative)
(4) sea-level falling
To date the only valid alternative from the first review is (1). The situation is exactly the same in New Zealand. Next review 2020.
MfE are also claiming SLR is accelerating.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise
>”MfE are also claiming SLR is accelerating.”
[MfE] -“Over the period from 1993 to 2010 the rate of global average sea level rise increased to approximately 3.2 mm per year.”
This is another wrongful dissemination about SLR. It is, in fact, untrue.
3.2mm/year is global average satellite observations. Satellites measure what tide guages don’t and vice versa. Concatenating satellite data to tide guage data is simply wrong. Tide guage data did NOT stop at 1993, it continues to the present but NOT at 3.2mm/year.
The Satellite data is skewed by the relatively small area north of Australia as I’ve shown to Simon upthread. 3.2mm/year is certainly not typical of the global oceans. One look at Palinisamy et al (2015) Figure 1(a) upthread confirms that in respect to the Pacific.
And global rates are irrelevant to local conditions. 3.2mm/year has no relevance whatsoever to anywhere in New Zealand or anywhere in the east Pacific along the entire coast of North and South America.
I suspect too that the Chileans on the coast who have just been broadsided by a 4.5m tsunami are really not that interested in SLR right now, whether the -20mm/decade FALL in their region or the global average whatever it is.
>”How would you go about it?” “The most responsible way as North Carolina are doing”
Sea Level Rise Assessment Report
2015 Update to the 2010 Report and 2012 Addendum
MARCH 31, 2015 | DRAFT
Prepared by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=dd00328d-67d4-4f39-9e8c-6585cae50577&groupId=38319
For the law see Assessment Report: Appendix B. General Assembly of North Carolina: Session 2011, Session Law 2012-202, House Bill 819
Excerpts from North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) Sea-Level Rise page, Assessment Report, and law from Appendix B, starting here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/09/sea-level-lunacy-slammed-by-sir-tipene/comment-page-1/#comment-1357985
>”I suspect too that the Chileans on the coast who have just been broadsided by a 4.5m tsunami are really not that interested in SLR right now”
Same should be said of ChCh after a couple of EQs, but the CCC have decided an imaginary far off spectre is of greater import at the present time.
El Niño and La Niña will Exacerbate Coastal Hazards Across Entire Pacific
By Newsroom America Feeds at 11:00 am Eastern
Summary: The projected upsurge of severe El Niño and La Niña events will cause an increase in storm events leading to extreme coastal flooding and erosion in populated regions across the Pacific Ocean, according to a multi-agency study published today in Nature Geoscience
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The projected upsurge of severe El Niño and La Niña events will cause an increase in storm events leading to extreme coastal flooding and erosion in populated regions across the Pacific Ocean, according to a multi-agency study published today in Nature Geoscience.
“This study significantly advances the scientific knowledge of the impacts of El Niño and La Niña,” said Patrick Barnard, USGS coastal geologist and the lead author of the study. “Understanding the effects of severe storms fueled by El Niño or La Niña helps coastal managers prepare communities for the expected erosion and flooding associated with this climate cycle.”
The impact of these storms is not presently included in most studies on future coastal vulnerability, which look primarily at sea level rise. New research data, from 48 beaches across three continents and five countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, suggest the predicted increase will exacerbate coastal erosion irrespective of sea level rise affecting the region.
Researchers from 13 different institutions, including the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales and the University of Waikato (New Zealand) analyzed coastal data from across the Pacific Ocean basin from 1979 to 2012. The scientists sought to determine if patterns in coastal change could be connected to major climate cycles. Data came from beaches in the mainland United States and Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii.
Although previous studies have analyzed coastal impacts at local and regional levels, this is the first to pull together data from across the Pacific to determine basin-wide patterns. The research group determined all Pacific Ocean regions investigated were affected during either an El Niño or La Niña year. When the west coast of the U.S. mainland and Canada, Hawaii, and northern Japan felt the coastal impacts of El Niño, characterized by bigger waves, different wave direction, higher water levels and/or erosion, the opposite region in the Southern Hemisphere of New Zealand and Australia experienced “suppression,” such as smaller waves and less erosion. The pattern then generally flips: during La Niña, the Southern Hemisphere experienced more severe conditions.
The study also investigated the coastal response of other climate cycles, such as the Southern Annular Mode, which has impacts at the same time in both hemispheres of the Pacific. The data revealed that when the Southern Annular Mode trended towards Antarctica, culminating in more powerful storms in the Southern Ocean, wave energy and coastal erosion in New Zealand and Australia increased, as did the wave energy along the west coast of North America. Other modes of climate variability, such as the Pacific North American pattern, which relates to atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific, are linked to coastal impacts that are more tightly restricted to the northern hemisphere.
Linking coastal erosion to natural climate patterns, such as El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode, can be challenging.
“Shoreline behavior can be controlled by so many different factors, both locally and regionally, that it’s been difficult to isolate the signal until now. However, utilizing the many years of data we were able pull together in this study enabled us to definitively identify how the major climate drivers affect coastal hazards across the Pacific,” said Patrick Barnard. “This will greatly enhance our ability to predict the broader impacts of climate change at the coast.”
A co-author of the paper, Professor Andrew Short from the University of Sydney, says forecast increases in the strength of El Niño and La Niña weather events driven by global climate change means coastal erosion on many Australian beaches could be worse than currently predicted based on sea level rise alone.
More>>>>>>(but not much)
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/519460.html
# # #
>”The projected upsurge of severe El Niño and La Niña events” ?
>”forecast increases in the strength of El Niño and La Niña weather events driven by global climate change” ?
How does this work, exactly? And where did all this come from, exactly?
>”How does this work, exactly?”
El Niño and La Niña weather events are driven by solar input after wind and cloud changes i.e. natural variability not “driven by global climate change”.
I see University of Waikato (New Zealand) involvement. What does Willem de Lange say about this?
Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’
Leader of 20 scientist effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO revealed as ‘Climate Profiteer’! ‘From 2012-2014, the Leader of RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.
George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla ( jshukla@gmu.edu) a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.
Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed.
“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/20/update-leader-of-effort-to-prosecute-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/#ixzz3mPKNQCyQ
# # #
Small wonder they don’t want the gravy train brought to a halt.
“This is another wrongful dissemination about SLR. It is, in fact, untrue”
Yes and I keep trying to make this point. All the data from tide gauges shows 1.7mm a year at a constant rate, uniform for NZ.
Replacing the latter period with satellite data is just wrong, as you say Richard C.
It is a bit like having two bathroom scales. One you use for the entire year, that shows the same weight everyday. The second you use for the last month shows a higher weight. The first scales still show the same weight.
Any normal person would realize that you hadn’t put on weight.
The government scientist would tell you that you were putting on weight and needed to go on an immediate government diet and also take nutrition reeducation.
I’ve been doing a bit of research into the urban planning aspect of climate change (wondering how ChCh fits into the picture – ChCh is part of the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities network – 100RC – which has given the council a million dollars to fund a Chief Resilience Officer)
UCCRN is the umbrella organisation, related to ICLEI
They have a new report , ARC3-2 which is comping out at the Mayor’s summit at COP21 in Paris in December
ARC3-2 is like the IPCC AR5 reports specifically for urban planners
The video in this link explains some of the background.
http://uccrn.org/resources/video/
The emotionally crippled commenters at Hot Topic seem to completely misunderstand the whole ChCh saga.
When you have zero empathy for humanity, I suppose this isn’t surprising.
Here is the infographic of the CCC one metre projection again for those that didn’t see it last time
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/environment/land/coast/coastal-hazards/coastal-erosion-and-inundation/
Note the following
So the CCC statement implies a constant rate of SLR that “isn’t expected to remain constant” which is in direct contradiction with the MfE statement that SLR has increased to 3.2 mm a year, and also in direct contradiction to personal correspondence with CCC which claims an acceleration to 5mm a year
Jan Wright says 30cm of Sea Level rise by 2050 is “inevitable”
http://www.3news.co.nz/environmentsci/30cm-sea-level-rise-inevitable-commissioner-warns-2014112711#axzz3mQl2kaiF
That is 30cm in 35 years, 0.85 cm a year, which is 5 times the current rate of 0.17cm a year
Of this, she is 100% sure, despite there being no sign of acceleration in the tidal gauges.
All good material for the court case ….
[CCC] – “The rate of sea-level is not expected to remain constant, it is predicted to increase significantly from about 2065”
But only IF the man-made climate change conjecture is valid – it isn’t as per the IPCC’s own criteria (TOA energy balance).
>”Jan Wright says 30cm of Sea Level rise by 2050 is “inevitable”. That is 30cm in 35 years, 0.85 cm a year, which is 5 times the current rate of 0.17cm a year”
Yes , Nov 2014. That is/was in respect to Wright’s inept report that Richard T dissected in 2 parts:
Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 1
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/commissioner-wrights-wrong-part-1/
Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 2
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/02/commissioner-wrights-wrong-part-2/
Wright is hopelessly out of her depth with sea level (heh), but is apparently worth $300k pa anyway. She failed to stipulate the IPCC’s base date (1990), leaving readers to assume, erroneously (as per your numbers Andy), that her prediction was for the 35 years 2015 – 2050 instead of from 1990. I graphed it in respect to Wellington Harbour and Richard T included the graph in Part 1:
Wellington Harbour Sea Level: PSMSL Historical vs Wright Projection
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png
A more absurd scenario would be difficult to manufacture.
Thanks again for the context Richard C.
You really have to wonder about the intelligence of our media and the people that feed them information, but then they all bought that “clock” story.
>”All the data from tide gauges shows 1.7mm a year at a constant rate, uniform for New Zealand”
Is this an average of the long running sites Andy?
The reason I ask is because Wellington Harbour from 1945 is 2.5mm/year as per graph from upthread:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png
This is also the rate given on the NOAA Tides And Currents MSL map. I chose Wellington for that graph because: a) the Wellington City Council/Tonkin and Taylor report omitted, explicitly, to ascertain historical SLR and to demonstrate that it can be done easily at home, in detail, for free, and b) it is central to NZ, and c) it is greater than global average (and NZ average?) and therefore not “cherry picking”, and finally d) it looks like good data on the face of it.
Maybe I got some detail wrong about Wellington. John Hannah mentioned on the phone that Wellington records were compromised by a “long term seismic event” and that Lyttelton and even Dunedin had issues
So his claim was that Auckland was the most robust tidal records in NZ
>”but then they all bought that “clock” story.”
Bought from Radio Shack originally looks like. Also fun is VW vehicle emissions test cheating on the US EPA. Nice bit of tech smarts I thought but they’ll get fined for it.
I read in the local rag of a women who runs a business on both sides of the Tasman and runs the same model Range Rover in each country. She says the NZ spec version is “faster” than the OZ spec but didn’t know why. It’s because the OZ emissions regs are much tighter than NZ. I had an OZ spec Holden with an Opel motor once that was asthmatic until I got the garage to bypass the emissions control gear. Ran much better after that.
OZ bikers have been known to punch a sharp rod up exhaust mufflers on Harley Davidsons with similar results. This because of noise regs. Just chain noise on some old bikes will go over limit.
>”I had an OZ spec Holden with an Opel motor once that was asthmatic”
It was crazy,. The exhaust side was a tuned extractor setup that I’ve never seen as standard on any other car. Extractors are usually after-market that I know of. Then on the intake side the OZ regs demanded the engine couldn’t breathe, which defeated the purpose of the extractors somewhat.
Stuff regurgitate the latest John Abraham regurgitation of the latest Lew Paper to prove the “pause” doesn’t exist.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/72314615/global-warming-pause-theory-is-wrong
Which has already been shown to be a load of, erm, Lew paper
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/9/16/another-lew-paper.html
But then we don’t expect much from a media who think that a kid who puts a second hand LED clock in a lunch box is an electronics genius and that thousands of young men streaming into Europe with iPhones screaming Allah Akbah are genuine refugees.
Hint to media. Find someone with IQ higher than room temperature to run your stories.
[Abraham] – “You would think that with 2014 the hottest year on record and 2015 almost certain to exceed that, and 2016 to potentially set yet another heat record, people would use common sense to conclude that global warming continues.”
Yawn. It isn’t continuing as predicted by the CO2 forcing conjecture. We should be seeing 2 tenths of a degree per decade at least (3 tenths from the models) but nope. Just hundredths from the tortured-to-confess surface datasets.
But temperature is a secondary consideration. The primary criteria, according to the IPCC, is the TOA energy imbalance (which follows from the surface imbalance). CO2 is not forcing the earth’s energy imbalance therefore it is not forcing surface temperature (confirmed by model overshoot).
So all of John Abraham’s huffing and puffing about “hottest year on record” is meaningless, irrelevant, and of no consequence. But you would NOT expect people, including John Abraham, to use common sense to see that because it requires familiarity with the IPCC’s FAQs.
[Abraham] – “You would think that with 2014 the hottest year on record and 2015 almost certain to exceed that, and 2016 to potentially set yet another heat record, people would use common sense to conclude that global warming continues.”
On which record? This one ends 2014.33 but 2014 was never going to be a record because no El Nino (came close to a Weak La Nina – see below):
WoodForTrees Temperature Index
Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
The records in that WoodForTrees index were 3 El Nino years, 1998, 2005, and 2010 (see below). Here’s a NASA article from 01.24.06:
>”2005………… has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino”
2005 was actually a Weak El Nino year but the 2005 ONI was sustained for about the same time as 1998, 2002, and 2010:
El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities Based on Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
2005 certainly had the help of an El Nino despite NASA’s (read Hansen’s) propaganda. And Abraham’s (read NASA’s) “2014 the hottest year on record” makes no sense given the 2014 ONI when compared to 2010.
[NASA 01.24.06] – “2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years.”
The GISTEMP version displayed by woodfortrees contradicts this entirely:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2006
2002 warmest, then 1998, then 2005. NASA GISS have no credibility whatsoever.
Temperature Trends over Germany from Homogenized Radiosonde Data
Margit Pattantyús-Ábrahám and Wolfgang Steinbrecht (2015)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00814.1
Fig. 9. Monthly mean temperature anomalies for (top)–(bottom) the 100-, 300-, and 500-hPa levels at (left) Lindenberg and (right) Schleswig. Black: original data. Green: homogenized data. Blue: results for the German grid point of the RICH dataset (Haimberger et al. 2012b). Red: average result for the German stations in the HadAT2 dataset (McCarthy et al. 2008). Magenta: average result for the German grid points of the MSU dataset (Mears and Wentz 2009a,b). For plotting, all time series were smoothed by a 12-month boxcar average.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2015/15200442-28.14/jcli-d-14-00814.1/20150708/images/large/jcli-d-14-00814.1-f9.jpeg
500hPa is about mid troposphere.
Review of climate change documentary Thin Ice
BY IAN WISHART, author of Totalitaria and Air Con, September 23, 2015
“It’s touted as an award-winning documentary on climate change, but if that’s true I’d like to know whether the judges were the three wise monkeys. Here’s why: the Thin Ice documentary made by Victoria University of Wellington and Oxford University in the UK is littered with factual errors and misleading statements.”
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17280/review-of-climate-change-documentary-thin-ice/
I actually just read that, quite good, and it’s only 7am.
Richard C and I need to get a life!
‘Strange New Climate Change Spin: The Hottest Year Ever Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?’
By William M Briggs Published on September 23, 2015
There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.
Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.
Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.
There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.
Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try.
Claim Number One: This Year Will Be The Hottest Ever
[…]
Claim Number Two: Natural Variation Caused A “Pause”
The American Meteorological Society is, or rather was, the preeminent organization for those who study weather and climate. Its official organ is known as BAMS, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. BAMS is used to impart news items of interest and the like, but it also publishes review articles on the state of science.
Now the AMS has, like nearly all other government-money-dependent scientific organizations, given up all pretense of physics and has instead embraced politics as its raison d’etre. So far removed from its original mission is the AMS that they are publishing a BAMS review article by two non-scientist ideologues and one scientist who writes mostly about politics. The title is “The ‘Pause’ in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science.”
The authors are Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist who specializes in gimmicked surveys, Naomi Oreskes, a historian who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and James Risbey, a real climatologist who spends much of his time wondering why everybody doesn’t agree with him (he has more than one paper with Lewandowsky and Oreskes on this theme).
The point of this new paper is the same as all of Lewandowsky’s works. He wants to paint detractors of The Consensus as crazy or oil-industry stooges. For these authors, and for many, the mere fact that government-funded scientists have said a problem with the atmosphere exists and that only government can solve it is more than sufficient proof of the contention. Any who disagree must be doing so out of ignorance, insanity or evil intent. That their position on the science might be wrong never occurs to them.
And they are wrong. Their claim is that the (satellite) observed non-increase in global temperatures over the past two decades was caused by any or some combination of these: “natural variations,” El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, “random” or “routine fluctuations” and the like. They say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.
Do you see the fallacy? They use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because EFCOD global warming is true no matter what. It used to be in science that when a theory made predictions even as fractionally lousy as EFCOD global warming, it was quietly removed from service. But global warming can’t be dropped. There is too much riding on it remaining in force.
And this is not the only or even the worst fallacy. Having faith in lovingly created but failed theories is an error, but it is an understandable human foible. No one wants to disown his child, no matter how ugly. Our response to a scientist who doesn’t want to give up his life’s work should be pity, not condemnation.
But making statements physically impossible is not forgivable, not for those who call themselves physicists. The real blunder is this. Scientists claimed to understand how the atmosphere worked. Based on this understanding, they said that “disruptive,” “dangerous” global warming would soon be upon us. It didn’t happen. What went wrong? El Niño, they say.
But El Niño, “natural fluctuations” and the like are not things separate from the atmosphere. They are part of the atmosphere. These things are nothing more than human-labels given to particular measures of the atmosphere. El Niño is not a primary cause, it is an effect, an observation. “Natural fluctuations” means “what the atmosphere does.” Thus it is a tautology, an observation empty of scientific content, to say “what the atmosphere does” caused “what the atmosphere did.”
These “routine fluctuations” and the like are part of what the scientists said they already understood. They are not alien entities that arrive unexpectedly and upset theory; they are, or should have been, an integral part of EFCOD global-warming theory. These things are the atmosphere, they are the climate.
It is thus clear that scientists who blame these phenomena for their failings don’t know what they are talking about. They said they understood the atmosphere, and here is proof they did not. So why should we continue to believe them when they say, “The time to act is now”?
We now see that the word “pause” is a terrible misnomer, a circularity. It states what it seeks to prove. To say there is a “pause” is to claim that we know why the atmosphere is doing what it is doing. But if that were so, then the models over the past two decades would have made successful predictions. They made atrocious predictions, and they are growing worse. That means to say there is a “pause” is equivalent to we know global warming is there because we can’t see it.
It is well past the time to move on from EFCOD global warming and return to doing real science.
https://stream.org/climate-change-spin-hot-hottest-year-ever-inside-global-warming-pause/
# # #
>”They [Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and James Risbey] say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.”
This is blatantly untrue and false i.e. a lie.
What they are referring to is an MDV-neutral spline through GMST:
1895
1925
1955
1985
2015
But the EFCOD profile, as implemented by the GCMs, departs from the MDV-neutral spline after 1955 and by 2015 is WELL ABOVE the observed GMST spline.
Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are crooks, liars, and con men and women.
No comments under the Briggs Stream article but it is reproduced at WUWT. I left my comment above here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/when-messaging-collides-with-science-the-hottest-year-ever-inside-a-global-warming-pause/#comment-2033541
No-one in comments prior at WUWT “sees” the blatant Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey lie, or if they do have not said so.
Hopefully the penny will drop there now but I’m not holding my breath.
>”No-one in comments prior at WUWT “sees” the blatant Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey lie, or if they do have not said so.”
This was at comment count 61 i.e. 61 people at WUWT, of diverse stripes e.g. sceptic, lukewarm, warm, who had read the article (maybe), haven’t got a clue what this is all about.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) approximated the most recent couple of decades of the MDV-neutral spline up to 2010 that Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey refer to, and the IPCC cite F&R11 in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution in support of a similar claim (lie) to what Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey are making.
Except F&R11’s residual is not CO2-forced i.e. it does NOT conform to the CO2-forced Model Mean. Worse, their residual goes through 2010 when it should go through 2015.
In other words, the IPCC are complicit in disseminating the same lie that Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are touting.
Finally! At comment count 71 Dr Norman Page turned up:
Dr Norman Page September 23, 2015 at 3:44 pm
Many posts on WUWT keep on showing that the GCMs for a variety on different reasons are useless for climate forecasting. Yet most bloggers ,like the establishment academics,seem unable to give up their preoccupation with this naive reductionist approach and move to an entirely different way of forecasting – using the obvious 60 and millennial cycles so obvious in the temperature data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/when-messaging-collides-with-science-the-hottest-year-ever-inside-a-global-warming-pause/#comment-2033572
But still I don’t think Dr Page actually “sees” the Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey lie.
Got a bite from one tjfolkerts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/23/when-messaging-collides-with-science-the-hottest-year-ever-inside-a-global-warming-pause/#comment-2033676
Negotiations continuing.
There’s been about another 3 or 4 posts at WUWT so the herd has moved on. No-one except tjfolkerts (tj is still hanging in there) has learned anything from the detail I’ve presented. Amazing.
WUWT is pretty much useless in this respect. Similar with other blogs except perhaps Climate Etc where posts are few and certainly here at CCG i.e. important stuff doesn’t get immediately gazumped by trivia.
The climate debate would be over if the critical issues were addressed en masse, but no, not at WUWT. They all have to move on to the new, but non-critical, story.
I’ve posted a falsification of man-made climate change theory at JoNova, see superstitiously unlucky comment #13 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-survey-nearly-one-third-in-us-say-climate-change-a-total-hoax/#comment-1748081
Not one to be superstitious, I hoping #13 will be the lucky one.
There’s also an interesting post by David Evans on the use, or misuse, of partial derivatives in climate models.
>”There’s also an interesting post by David Evans on the use, or misuse, of partial derivatives in climate models.”
In that (part 4) he writes:
This is about the only thing that has really got my attention. In part 3 he states:
Ok, fine. This is the IPCC’s climate change criteria and TOA energy budget imbalance. Except when I emailed Joanne suggesting she apply the IPCC’s observations and theoretical CO2 forcing to the IPCC’s criteria above she baulked. She said she was tied up with David’s series and besides, acronyms and jargon.
Well, given the maths involved in David’s series, Joanne’s acronyms and jargon reasoning doesn’t hold up. She was simply avoiding the critical issue in order not to detract from David’s series.
I’ve now got 7 + 6 = 13 green ticks and 1 reply so can’t grumble too much. There will be other “eyes” too. But thing is: in my comment in the ‘Climate change is “total hoax” ‘ thread linked upthread, from the IPCC’s cited observations I give essentially the same thing in respect to reality rather than the models (but introducing G in this case, instead of just a bullet point).
Observations:
G = 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
Followed by the theoretical:
G = 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), C 400ppm Co 280ppm, IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
And the obvious conclusion:
Joanne and David could have cut a long story short, so why didn’t they?
David Evans seems to allude to the energy imbalance / climate model mismatch in his 12 min video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
So I agree, why bother with periferal issues until we can get this sorted?