Awards costs to NIWA
Mr Justice Venning has released his judgement in the case between the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) and NIWA.
All three of NZCSET’s requests to the Court were declined. Costs were awarded to NIWA.
I’ll have more to say when I’ve read the judgement in full. In the meantime, Scoop has a story with a number of links.
James Renwick has been admirably quick with a press release from a small group of scientists but he entirely mischaracterises our suit:
Scientific analysis and discussion is carried out through the peer-reviewed literature. The basic science of climate change (global warming) has been established for well over a century, and almost all scientists active in climate research agree that human activity is causing the climate to change. For a small group of scientists to appeal to a court of law to find otherwise is bizarre.
I have evidence, having corresponded with him, that James can read, but did he read what was clearly stated in the judgement? The facts are that our three causes of action concerned the New Zealand temperature record, not any global record, and we discussed only the New Zealand climate, not the global climate. We never discussed the causes, magnitude or future course of global warming.
In repeating this lie about what we said he makes it well-nigh impossible for even a well-informed member of the public to assemble anything but a wrong-headed view of our actual intentions.
In doing so Professor Renwick corrupts his position of influence.
UPDATE 8 Sep 2012
Jo Nova comments on the decision.
The Stupid just keeps on giving.
No, not going away, sorry David
Since you’re trumpeting this sentiment and with a bit of luck, or a heads-up to this website, Venning J will become aware of this attitude and intransigence when determining the level of costs.
Richard Christie, what a timely entry. I was commenting this morning that I was looking forward to your next appearance. I have a challenge for you.
But first your comment:-
“Venning J will become aware of this attitude and intransigence when determining the level of costs”
Costs are NIWA expenses, what is said on this blog has nothing to do with that. This has been covered extensively here already. It is a “scandalising the court” charge that attracts a penalty if proven. The leeway in precedent for that is very much in favour of the accused so don’t get too fizzed up about this. Besides, we don’t know what the appeal situation is yet.
Now the challenge.
I’ve started a list of those who cannot (or will not i.e. default) offer a rebuttal of substance (validity and therefore success) to the following series and I challenge you with it:-
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC. Quoting Part 2:-
“The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Note that the paper is in the form of a hypothesis for which you will have to provide a credible null. Do I add your name to the Defaulters List Richard Christie? Or have you got something that upholds the IPCC RF science?
LOL`
Please add me to your defaulter list, I’m happy to be in such good company.
(along with NASA, the Royal Society and every major scientific institution on the planet).
“Please add me to your defaulter list” – OK, the Defaulters List to date is now:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
BTW Richard, NASA uses the bogus IPCC CO2 forcing simplification courtesy of Hansen so they probably haven’t even heard of the Hottel/Leckner curves. The Royal Society and “every major scientific institution on the planet” are equally in the dark to the science of radiant heat transfer and the engineering solutions that have developed from it and been widely implemented.
But in their case I don’t think ignorance is an excuse.
The contest (in terms of scientific and engineering validity) is this (from J Eggert’s references):-
Eggert/Leckner/Hottel
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
Versus IPCC
v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”. This equation is also quoted in the fourth assessment report along with two other curves of similar shape and magnitude.
Note the word “simplified” in NOAA/IPCC Table 1 ‘Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing’. Note also the lack of recourse to any heat transfer texts or papers in the NOAA reference.
Here’s the Leckner vs IPCC graph that by your default you fail to address
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
Note that even prominent sceptic David Archibald mistakenly presents Willis Eshenbach’s graph of the “logarithmic” effect of CO2 (the IPCC version) as the definitive CO2 forcing curve at WUWT here:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Problem being, it’s not a logarithmic effect at all as John Eggert explains in Part 2 of ‘An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming’:-
This is the primary issue of the CAGW/CC debate Richard, all other issues are subordinate to it including temperature records. If it’s not resolved satisfactorily in favour of the IPCC (a null to Eggert’s hypothesis) then the entire “climate change” edifice crumbles.
But you default in the face of the challenge – doesn’t bode well for “the cause” does it?
But you default in the face of the challenge – doesn’t bode well for “the cause” does it?
Again, LOL.
I’m not a climate scientist. Are you?
I do what most intelligent people do in regard to matters outside my expertise, I go to the experts for their consensus conclusions.
On climate change that means the IPCC, no matter how hard you wish it were otherwise. If, or when, the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific institutions change their stance I’ll be happy to go with them.
You, on the other hand, trawl the internet for argument to confirm your a priori bias.
Now, you’ve lost this recent court case, lost it resoundingly.
In the words of M Cullen, eat that.
Or, make my day and continue with your ranting against Venning and the judgement, let every body know how you haven’t learnt a thing from the process and are dead set to have another go and again waste everybody’s time, money and patience. Carry on doing this before Venning determines costs.
“I do what most intelligent people do in regard to matters outside my expertise, I go to the experts for their consensus conclusions………..On climate change that means the IPCC”
“On climate change”? That’s the problem Richard, the IPCC are NOT the experts in radiative heat transfer so how can they be experts in climate change? You’ve made the incorrect attribution and subscribed to the invalid CO2 forcing methodology.
Didn’t you see the following in my last comment?
***********************************************************************************************************
The contest (in terms of scientific and engineering validity) is this (from J Eggert’s references):-
Eggert/Leckner/Hottel
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
Versus IPCC
v http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ IPCC equation for “forcing”. This equation is also quoted in the fourth assessment report along with two other curves of similar shape and magnitude.
Note the word “simplified” in NOAA/IPCC Table 1 ‘Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing’. Note also the lack of recourse to any heat transfer texts or papers in the NOAA reference.
*************************************************************************************************************
Climate scientists, by huddling in their blinkered cocoon, have failed to defer to the experts in radiative heat transfer and consequently the world’s govt’s and their populace have had the wool pulled over their eyes. But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science and the real experts are gradually coming out of the woodwork. An engineering design for a furnace for example using IPCC RF methodology would be a substandard solution.
The appropriate expertise will win out in the end but it wont be generalist climate science, it will be specialist heat technologists.
BTW, you STILL don’t understand costs even after my explanation? Was I not clear enough?
Costs, correct me if I’m wrong in this respect but I expect that NIWA will submit their expenses to the court.
The court will then approve or otherwise and make the final order.
Climate scientists, by huddling in their blinkered cocoon, have failed to defer to the experts in radiative heat transfer and consequently the world’s govt’s and their populace have had the wool pulled over their eyes. But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science and the real experts are gradually coming out of the woodwork. An engineering design for a furnace for example using IPCC RF methodology would be a substandard solution.
The appropriate expertise will win out in the end but it wont be generalist climate science, it will be specialist heat technologists.
Well , you be sure to get back to us when this all comes to pass.
But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science
Of course, for years people have been making the observation about the alternative reality you guys inhabit. Tell us something new.
“Costs, correct me if I’m wrong in this respect but I expect that NIWA will submit their expenses to the court.
The court will then approve or otherwise and make the final order”
Exactly (depending on an appeal), this negates your previous comments about what is being said about the judgment outside the courtroom because it has nothing to do with NIWA’s costs (expenses). Costs are recieved by NIWA, a scandalizing the court penalty (extremely remote) is received by Courts of New Zealand – NIWA don’t get a whiff of that.
“Well , you be sure to get back to us when this all comes to pass” – Happening now Richard – that’s the challenge i.e. the cat is out of the bag.
“But there’s a whole other world operating outside climate science” [you quoting me] “Of course, for years people have been making the observation about the alternative reality you guys inhabit” [your response] – You don’t consider heat engineering and the science that underpins it to be actual reality then Richard?
Found that tropospheric hot spot yet Richard?
Well then, as I said, fine by me if you just carry on dissing the competence of the authority that will ultimately determine the level of costs the plaintiff will pay.
Good grief you STILL don’t get it Richard. I can see by you haven’t taken up the challenge, your critiquing ability is abysmal.
Costs are SOLEY NIWA expenses – nothing else, no penalties, no bonus for judgment criticism, and even then depending on appeal.
I’m not a physicist but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid. In matters outside of my expertise I am happy to give more weight to the experts in the field over a lay-person with a spreadsheet. The High Court usually does too.
I see that Arctic sea ice is now out at 6σ from the mean. That’s Black Swan territory, except that it was predicted.
“I’m not a physicist” – Neither are climate scientists unfortunately
“but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid” – Thank you Simon, you see John Eggert’s thrust then and that the IPCC’s methodology is invalid
“In matters outside of my expertise I am happy to give more weight to the experts in the field over a lay-person…” – May I point out that John Eggert is hardly a “lay” person, just Google John Eggert, P.Eng, Eggert Engineering Ltd. Scroll down to Quality Assurance and NI 43-101 Compliance in this report for example:-
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/capstone-completes-minto-mine-phase-vi-pre-feasibility-study-159401425.html
And I see that BEST corroborates a NH sunspot/temperature correlation that blows away CO2:-
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/10457-tattoo-this-its-the-sun-stupid
“but I suspect that assuming that CO2 is a static black body is not valid” – Thank you Simon, you see John Eggert’s thrust then and that the IPCC’s methodology is invalid
Actually I’m not quite correct here, that is the thrust of Norm Kalmanovitch, P Geophysics Calgary Alberta Canada in his paper ‘HANSEN MARS CHALLENGE’ A challenge to Hansen et al 1988:-
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
Just another case for the IPCC CO2 forcing parameter being invalid. They’re lining up to challenge the IPCC orthodoxy, these guys.
On another thread I discussed what an ad hominem logical fallacy was. Richard Christie’s post above is a perfect example of such an argument. It is flawed because it never addresses someone’s argument, but attacks the person who made it.
It is always assumed that a person resorting to an ad hominem has automatically lost the argument, because they are simply unable to counter the other person’s position.
Now I have no idea who AGC is, nor would it matter if all of the ad homs above were true (after all, we all have our own political views, and these should be irrelevant in this debate, and none of the links Richard Christie mention are in any way unusual).
The issue at hand is the tropospheric hotspot, lack of. Richard Christie just lost that argument.
Richard Christie:
Are you saying that nobody has ever asked you that question? It certainly is addressed to you: “Found that tropospheric hot spot yet Richard?”
So let me be the first to ask you then.
How do you, Richard Christie, explain the lack of the predicted tropospheric hotspot?
How do you, Richard Christie, explain the lack of the predicted tropospheric hotspot
Dunno. I haven’t the foggiest.
I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not even a scientist.
I go with the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific institutions, they do or at least interpret the science. But I’ve been through this already.
Since we’re on the question thing, here are some interesting ones.
Who’s paying the bill for the total failure in court?
What are the chances that the big money backers, if any, will cut the expendable front line adrift and won’t cough up?
Can you trust Barry Brill?
Who is on the Trust Deed?
This commenter has been banned from the CCG for persistent ad hominem attacks against his fellow conversationalists and for disregarding online anonymity. Richard Christie, if you want to say anything, email me privately. I’ve removed the worst of Christie’s abusive remarks and what seems to be personal material and I’ll remove any more that comes to my attention. I’ve left the more thoughtful remarks and questions that, though they reveal his attitudes, hurt nobody. Christie is the first commenter on the CCG who refused to respond to polite requests to avoid abuse and was thus banned, so I guess it’s an historic day. But it doesn’t make me proud. When conversation descends to the peurile hurling of insults does it mean intelligence predominates? Is a civilised society wise to value the routine practice of hatred, small-minded bigotry and a refusal even to listen? – RT
Hi Richard C,
Your link shows that the suns irradiance is at it’s lowest point in 20 years. Could you please clarify the point you are trying to make?
“Your link shows that the suns irradiance” – Nope, SUNSPOT/temperature correlation
But timely of you to turn up Nick, I have a challenge for you that I’ve made to several others recently but no-one has risen to it (although Simon’s interest seems piqued, he may yet come up with something but his reasoning so far actually supports the hypothesis).
I’ve started a list of those who cannot (or will not i.e. default) offer a rebuttal of substance (validity and therefore success) to the following series and I challenge you with it:-
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 1: Scientific Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 2: Layman’s Discussion
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-2-for-laymen.pdf
And here,
An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming
Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-3-summary.pdf
The key point being the bogus “oversimplification” by the IPCC (actually a simplification of a simplification). Quoting Part 2:-
“The IPCC equation assumes a “logarithmic” or log relation between forcing and CO2. The path length curve more closely resembles a „log log‟ relation between forcing and CO2. That is the IPCC model is an oversimplification that results in overestimating the impact of CO2 at higher concentrations”
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Note that the paper is in the form of a hypothesis for which you will have to provide a credible null. Do I add your name to the Defaulters List Nick? Or have you got something that upholds the IPCC RF science?
All other climate change issues are subordinate to this one Nick (including Arctic issues). Unless some-one comes up with a credible null, the climate change edifice crumbles. The hypothesis you have to address is now, by default of AGW, the climate change hypothesis-of-right.
The Defaulter List so far is:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Richard C, you surely must be deranged.
Richard C,
I would prefer it if you stuck to peer reviewed literature but this is clearly important to you so lets have a look. From the first pdf:
“Note that the area below 273K is a projection beyond Leckner’s curves and
may be in error.”
Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible.
Also your claimed sunspot/temperature correlation is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature. It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking.
“Richard C, you surely must be deranged” – Nick doesn’t think so, he’s taking on the challenge you defaulted on Richard Christie. Only he and Simon have done so (poor Ken couldn’t (or wouldn’t) understand the challenge – do you?
“I would prefer it if you stuck to peer reviewed literature” – Bzzzt wrong. The point of a hypothesis is that someone posits it (Eggert has) and YOU provide the null (if you can) – that’s the review Nick. Besides, the AGW hypothesis was never peer-reviewed because there never was one.
“Since most of the atmosphere is below 273K I suggest that Leckner’s curves are not applicable, which means Eggert’s analysis is not credible” – Wrong again, The Eggert rationale is this (from Part 1):-
So 273 is a proxy for the atmospheric range 293K to 216K that takes account of pressure and suffices. Eggert then goes on to apply the curves to the atmosphere in Atmospheric Path Length.
Eggert could have presented “thousands” of curves (from Part 2):-
But one is sufficient for the purpose of exposing the IPCC oversimplification of these curves (a simplification of a simplification). Worse, the IPCC make NO recourse to the literature of the radiant heat transfer work of Hottell and Leckner, which is (from Eggert’s references):-
i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves –>> note the year.)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com)
And as Eggert puts it in Part 1:-
The IPCC does not defer to that mature science.
Nice try Nick (kudos for your attempt) but not even close to upholding the IPCC RF methodology (providing a null to Eggert’s hypothesis). Until you can come up with something substantial, you’re on the list Nick:
The Defaulter List to date is now:-
Martin Lack
Simon
Rob Taylor
Ken Perrott
andy (Not Andy)
Richard Christie
Nick
“…your claimed sunspot/temperature correlation” – it’s an apparent correlation Nick, just like CO2 but better. Show me a better CO2/temperature correlation
“…is a misrepresentation as it only deals with daytime highs. This is not the same as global temperature” – Soon and Briggs are just following the lead of Meehl and van Loon at NCAR. From the article:-
“It is well understood that the increased greenhouse effect predominantly increases temperatures at night. Choosing to only look at day time highs is cherry picking” – Not according to the scientists active in this area.
I was merely countering Simon’s alarm which I assume from his position he attributes to CO2. If he is only going by apparent correlations, he has to look at the best (Ha!).
In my view the court should have been presented with and considered evidence that 25.5% of temperatures in the Seven Station series and 16.2% of temps in the 11 Station series recorded before Celsius metrication in 1971 were logged as whole Fahrenheit degrees (i.e. x.0F).
Combined, they averaged 22% of New Zealand Fahrenheit temps recorded as .0, and this compares with 30% in Australia’s ACORN series and 31% in its HQ dataset.
The .0F raw data findings, which have been ignored, suggest consistent rounding with a probable downward bias that raises questions about the validity of the NIWA record before 1971 … http://www.waclimate.net/round/new-zealand-temperatures.html
Eggert:-
“….the science of radiant heat transfer has matured to the point where engineering solutions have been developed and widely implemented”
See:-
RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987
Abstract An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.
http://www.engr.uky.edu/rtl/Papers/Viskanta_Menguc_1987.pdf
[Warning: 64 pages and 334 references]
“An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4″
4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces,
Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be
published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington,
D.C.).
“Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64″
64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer–
1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing
Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).
“The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.
There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″
48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer–
1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds),
Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
Washington, D.C. (1986).
51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass
TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heot
Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E.
Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp.
489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101
11983).
“Radiation accounts for about 40 % of the total heat transferred to the cylinder, but the radiation from gases (CO2 and H20 ) is only 20 % of the total radiation, with the rest being soot radiation”
Amazing to find what the IPCC DOESN’T defer to when you start digging.