Climate Conversation Group

Jo Nova created this iconic cartoon of the shaky evidence for CAGW.

This is in response (slightly delayed by an Easter break) to the list of “proofs” produced by Gareth Renowden, at Hot Topic, in answer to my request of Sir Peter Gluckman, the PM’s scientific advisor, for evidence of a human cause for anticipated dangerous climate change, more properly referred to as the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory.

On 17th April, I wrote:

I would remind Sir Peter that evidence is required to establish the following key factors in the global warming debate — evidence that has not surfaced so far. We have been looking for evidence to show:

1. The existence of a current unprecedented global warming trend.
2. That the greenhouse effect is powerful enough to endanger the environment.
3. A causal link between human activities and dangerously high global temperatures.
4. That climate models have a high level of skill in predicting the climate.
5. A causal link between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and global temperatures.
6. A causal link between global warming and the gentle rise in sea level.

In response to this, Gareth claims “there is plenty of evidence to address every one of his points” and presents some attractive and interesting graphics in support. I’ll comment on what he says to each point.

1. The existence of a current unprecedented global warming trend.

GR: “…is [the current warming] unprecedented…? Well, no.” Read more… »

What are you hiding?

The attractive image from the cover of NIWA’s report of their review of the national temperature record. But the presentation of the actual contents are amateurish, even shoddy — no authors, no page numbers. What the “Table of Contents” refers to as the “Australian Bureau of Meteorology peer review” is nothing more than a one-page covering letter. Why hasn’t NIWA published the real peer review? What could they be hiding?

NIWA’s temperatures unscientific, had to be ‘reconstructed’

The NZ Climate Science Coalition, with the assistance of the Climate Conversation Group (CCG), published the report Are we feeling warmer yet? in November, 2009.

It revealed that the official NZ temperature record compiled by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) owes all of its warming trend to adjustments made to the actual thermometer readings. So, naturally, we asked NIWA what those adjustments were and why they were made.

We were surprised to encounter a ferocious denial of wrongdoing and a trenchant resistance to answering our questions. To be fair, we had insinuated that NIWA scientists might have manipulated the figures.

Warmists even mislead Parliament — does anyone care?

Anyway, NIWA persisted in ill-advised attempts to persuade the Coalition that our questions had already been answered in the scientific literature. But after considerable pressure in the media and after the ACT Party raised numerous questions in the Parliament, NIWA undertook early in 2010 to “reconstruct” the New Zealand temperature record.

That was a tacit agreement by NIWA that our reservations about the scientific validity of the official New Zealand temperature record were well founded. In other words, NIWA effectively admitted that they could not validate the record as it then stood. Because if they could have validated it, they would not have spent good (taxpayers’) money on reconstructing it.

This was a victory for an unwavering scientific scepticism in the face of determined bullying from members of a warmist establishment, prepared to resort even to misleading the Parliament. Read more… »

I’ll be out of town over Easter, visiting the latest grandchild who is to be christened. I expect to be back to the computer on Tuesday night, but don’t expect much out of me until later in the week. If anything crops up, feel free to use this “Easter” thread or use the famous Open threads set up by Richard C.

Good luck to you all.

Richard Treadgold.

Panorama taken in 1902 of Albert Park towards the south. It’s obvious here that the trees are very young—most are little more than shrubs. For perspective, see the figures standing by the fountain and on the path to the very left. Click for larger version.

The official New Zealand Temperature Record is made up of historical temperature readings (raw data) and NIWA’s adjustments. Both of those components are unreliable.

The 169-page Report on the Review of NIWA’s “Seven-Station” Temperature Series, or the Review Report (RR), published by NIWA in December 2010 devotes very little space to that bane of climatologists — the urban heat island (UHI) effect. It has been long recognised that air temperature readings taken in towns and cities are affected by the heat absorption of concrete and tarseal surfaces; by exhausts of vehicles, aeroplanes and air-conditioners; and by structures which deflect wind and confine humidity.

Because a “heat island” is not representative of the wider region or country, most climatologists try to give them a wide berth. Wikipedia says that “the temperature difference between urban areas and the surrounding suburban or rural areas can be as much as 10°F”.

A similar enemy of the climate archivist is “shelter” — trees or structures which interfere with the thermometer’s normal exposure to wind or sun, and thereby cause distortions.

The mean temperature impacts of both UHI and shelter are typically gradual, but non-linear. They are hard to detect and almost impossible to correct. Most climate archivists simply omit any sites suspected of being contaminated by UHI/shelter. Read more… »

Sir Peter Gluckman wants to see the evidence. So do we.

How quickly the climate debate changes

From the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee comes an announcement with the heading:

Release of an important report on the relationship between evidence and policy formation

It begins:

One of the key challenges for all governments is how to make the best use of evidence in both policy formation and policy evaluation.

It’s reassuring to hear that the PM’s science advisor is prepared to look for evidence. At least in relation to global warming, it’s not an instinct he’s been noted for. He tells us he’s released a report, Towards better use of evidence in policy formation, and I’d like to read it.

Until I do, I would remind Sir Peter that evidence is required to establish the following key factors in the global warming debate — evidence that has not surfaced so far. Read more… »

Tuvalu. Still there. Defying predictions of evacuation! Defying predictions of inundation!
Defying shonky science!

Bad luck, Helen

In 2005, the UNEP (now headed by ex-NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark) predicted at
least 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

A map setting out the areas predicted to be at risk in several ways from global warming was available at the UNEP/GRID-Arendal web site.

A well-researched story by Gavin Atkins of Asian Correspondent posted at Watts Up With That yesterday explains how that map was taken down in a fumbled attempt to cover up the existence of the UNEP prediction.

Silly people. Everything has been resurrected at WUWT through the magic of the Internet and sits there now, quietly mocking both the original prediction and the inept cover-up attempt by our premier international agency — you know, the one with ambitions to rule the world.

The latest update to the story says a UCLA professor has just repeated the prediction, but for 2020, not 2010, and presents no evidence for it. Nuts.

Tuvalu survives

The 11,600 inhabitants of the low-lying Pacific island state of Tuvalu were several years ago offered a home in New Zealand.

How many have taken up this offer? Have their islands disappeared? None. No.

Any members of the MSM reading this? Bear in mind that this failed prediction is what we call a fact so it is held to be true regardless of what we might want to believe.

The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project (SPSLCMP) hasn’t been running for long and didn’t contribute to the new paper mentioned below, but we ought to remember that this Australian project exists. It constantly monitors sea level and other metrics in the countries named above and issues monthly reports. The warnings we hear from various island communities and environmental groups about rising sea level driving people from their homes — potentially very alarming — turn out, in the light of these scientific observations, to be alarming only for their despicable lack of disclosure of the truth. Yet their alarming statements are never questioned by the mainstream media. TV1′s Pacific reporter, Barbara Dreaver, is surely the leading wide-eyed journalist to misreport sea levels and subsequent social suffering, though she’s not the only one.

Accelerated sea level rise debunked

A new analysis finds evidence of a weak deceleration in mean sea level rise in the Australasian region from 1940 to 2000 in four very long-term tide gauge records.

It brings long-term confirmation to what the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project (SPSLCMP) has been reporting for about 10 to 15 years — slow, non-alarming sea level rise. Read more… »

Bolivia needs a strong dose of reality juice

Their new president is foisting a native religion on the rest of the world and the UN is supporting him, no doubt because of the leverage it offers in the global warming scam. But he would be well advised to sort out his own country’s growth towards maturity and balance before hastening to educate the rest of us.

Reported by Canada.com yesterday (h/t Marc Morano):

UN document would give ‘Mother Earth’ same rights as humans

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to “dominate and exploit” — to the point that the “well-being and existence of many beings” is now threatened.

Just imagine the strength such a “treaty” would give to the global warming alarmists and their intention to tax modern industry out of existence. The story continues: Read more… »

To the Editor
Climate Conversation

14th April 2011

If the Combet carbon tax can make millions of Australians richer, why not double the tax and make us all rich?

We are not fooled by official offers of bribery. The money we get from Canberra is the money we sent to Canberra, less freight charges both ways.

Viv Forbes

The banner from Judith Curry’s blog. Click to visit.

Judith Curry draws a radical conclusion from this radical paper. The authors claim that climate forcings from both human influence and natural variation are likely of similar magnitude, which is the first time since the IPCC was created that the climate establishment has expressed that possibility. Then they admit that telling the difference between them is difficult (the science is not settled). That’s the second time that’s been said (the first time was in an early IPCC report). Since “human influence” has become a hot-button code word for guilt, perhaps the guilt might now subside. Finally, Judith has a plea for the IPCC authors: “No more ‘unequivocals’ or ‘very likelys’ in the AR5, please.” Amazing — you must read this and share it with everyone you know or don’t know. It’s sober and persuasive evidence that a tide is turning — a belief in dangerous warming no longer holds a trump card in climate studies. Make the politicians face this new scientific reality or they’ll go on for years with their ETS and carbon taxes – h/t Barry Brill

Separating natural and anthropogenically-forced decadal climate variability

– by Judith Curry. Posted on April 7, 2011

The issue of separating natural from anthropogenically forced variability, particularly in context of the attribution of 20th century climate change, has been a topic of several previous threads at Climate Etc. The issue of natural vs anthropogenically forced climate variability/change has been a key issue of contention between the climate establishment and skeptics. There are some encouraging signs that the climate establishment is maturing in their consideration of this issue. Read more… »

We can now reveal that in trying to prove significant but unjustified warming, NIWA’s temperature shenanigans are pitting it directly against NOAA, the US climate giant, in a delightful dataset dustup. Guess who comes out of it with a bloody nose?

and the winner is… well, never mind: the loser is science

(Nobody’s won yet.) Now here’s more of the saga…

The ‘Seven-station Series’ (7SS) constructed by NIWA scientists claims a 20th-century warming trend for New Zealand of 0.9°C. The warming arises entirely from their in-house adjustments to the raw thermometer readings and they’re now very keen to find some corroboration for that warming.

Why are they so anxious to vindicate the 7SS? Because they’re finding it almost impossible to achieve. This conclusion of warming is an orphan — it contradicts all other official temperature records, going back decades. Read more… »

Rhoades & Salinger (1993).
When a document achieves this lofty status, should those who revere it believe it?

Rhoades & Salinger (1993)

The late Michael Crichton declared that ‘global warming’ had become a religion, with the IPCC reports comprising its bible. The central dogma of the religion rests on the global temperature record, which ‘proves’ recent global warming. It has a bible of its own, largely written by CRU’s “hockey team” — those conniving, partisan, anti-sceptical scientists of Climategate infamy.

Above and beyond everything else it might be, a bible inspires belief. That is the natural result of the veneration a bible gains by long use. And you don’t ignore something you venerate.

Around the world amateur, unpaid investigations reveal that recent warming trends don’t really exist. In fact, they are largely created by “homogeneity adjustments” to the actual thermometer readings. Read more… »

NZ wind turbines. New Zealand lies in the teeth of the “Roaring Forties.” But the winds are shifty. A new British study shows the real-life failures of wind turbines to deliver on over-optimistic green promises. It surely forecasts a shift in public opinion on wind farms.

A happy coincidence this week revealed at once the folly of Britain’s growing reliance on wind turbines and the wisdom of the NZ government’s apparent preference for fossil-fuelled power generation.

First, a new study sheds light on the failure of British wind farms to live up to expectations. Second, a leaked report shows the National-led government apparently plans to go all out for oil, coal and mineral wealth, not wind farms. Hurrah.

In James Delingpole’s article “Official: wind farms are totally useless“, we learn the facts of two years of British wind generation. James explains that there are five oft-repeated claims by wind operators and Government representatives that:

“Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
“The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
“Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
“The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
“Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

But statistics from two years of operation, analysed by Stuart Young using publicly available data, reveal alarming discrepancies between these slick promises and the actual performance of the British wind farms: Read more… »