http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-african-skies/#comment-20226

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/response-to-hot-topic/

http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/index.jsp?cm_mmc=Affiliate-_-Text+Ad-_-Brand-_-Homepage&AID=3751250&PID=2798135&SID=hot-topic.com

or as a WUWT comment suggests, geoengineering to cool the CAGW planet!
However there are caveats that the source of this information is suspect (would Bilderberg publish their agenda on the internet?)

still, over 2000 comments shows it has touched a nerve.

It is also interesting to see the huge number of comments following Steve McIntyre’s inclusion in the New Statesman top 50.
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keeper

Despite their efforts let’s hope the MSM can be outflanked and integrity will prevail.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/really/#more-10414

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Examining Trenberth’s ‘The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later’ statement
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/examining-trenberths-the-heat-will-come-back-to-haunt-us-sooner-or-later-statement/

Maybe they’ve found Trenberth’s missing heat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/maybe-theyve-found-trenberths-missing-heat/

Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100920_oceanwarming.html

From the NOAA article:

“Sea level has been rising at around 3 mm (1/8 of a inch) per year on average since 1993″

NZ data
Bell 2000 – 1.3 mm per year
Hannah 2004 – 1.6 mm per year
IPCC AR4 Regional 1.7 mm per year

Looks like there’s a surge coming.

It ties in with ocean heat and PDO. I’ll give it a good read but meantime this is the relevant conclusion:

“…it continues to indicate that in New Zealand, at least, there has been neither a significant change in the rate of sea level rise nor any detectable acceleration”

I love your work, Richard!

I’m wrong, I checked today, its been modified and its a NIWA installation.

Long-term plot here:

http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/map/plot/archive?name=Moturiki%20%28Sea%20Level%29&width=800&height=400&start=1974-06-01&end=2007-04-11

Bell, Goring, de Lange 2000 doesn’t get a mention (Bell, Goring 1997 does) at NIWA and is at odds with the paper NIWA promotes: Hannah 2004 – behind a paywall but here’s the abstract:

An updated analysis of long-term sea level change in New Zealand

J. Hannah

School of Surveying, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

The original analysis of long-term sea level change in New Zealand is updated with a new and extended analysis. In this new analysis the original hourly sea level data have been re-examined to remove obvious errors that were still present, new data covering the period 1989–2000 has been added, and the sea level record for Wellington extended by the inclusion of recently discovered data covering the years 1891–1893. These new results indicate that relative sea levels in New Zealand have been rising at an average rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years – a figure that is not only within the error bounds of the original determination, but when corrected for glacial-isostatic effects has a high level of coherency with other regional and global sea level rise determinations. There continues to be no evidence of any acceleration in relative sea levels over the record period.

From NIWA page http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/pastclimate#ocean

“New Zealand has four tide gauges with records for 75 years or longer (Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton and Dunedin). Hannah (1990) used these data to calculate a rising trend in sea level of 1.3, 1.7, 2.3 and 1.4 mm per year respectively, giving New Zealand a mean of 1.7 mm per year. An update by Hannah (2004) confirmed that sea levels around New Zealand have been rising at an average rate of 1.6mm/year over the last 100 years.”

So, no acceleration of sea levels for the last 100 years. Just a hike in the trend from Lyttleton (Hannah 1990) and some difficulties in the measurements:

“The Difficulties in Using Tide Gauges to Monitor Long-Term Sea Level Change”, Hannah 2010.

http://www.fig.net/pub/monthly_articles/july_2010/july_2010_hannah.pdf

A development in computer modeling is climate-economics coupled models. Article here:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/green/collaborative-framework-for-modeling-climate-related-economic-data/14230

The model, CIM-EARTH here:

http://www.cim-earth.org/

This means that the AGW hypothesis is hard-wired into economic scenarios and risk assessments. A horrifying thought is that NIWA will get hold of this model and begin dabbling in two black arts.

I am certainly a proponent of risk assessments but when the only scenario investigated is the prevailing CO2-forced warming scenario then the risk element is lost. The economic impacts on fisheries, agriculture, horticulture, insurance, energy infrastructure, engineering, architecture etc of a cooling scenario are of greater significance right now and for the next 40 years than a warming scenario in 2100 (ask the Argentinians).

Even if CO2 does play a part in climate, the CO2 forcing implementation in the spin-up parameters of the models would be laughable if it wasn’t for the entire “precautionary” modification of global lifestyle behavior that is hanging on the frayed thread of model outputs.

Compare the historical CO2 measurements in this article with the spliced Law Dome-Mauna Loa forcing dataset that the models use:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28116

Garbage In – Grants Out.

But what economic use to society, is a model that uses flawed data as its basis?