IPCC created and controlled by activists

illusion in grey

Be in no doubt

A reader, Simon, made some interesting points when he commented on my assertion that scientists “incite” policy, saying:

The relatively recent trend of activism by individual scientists is solely because of the way their work is being misrepresented and their concern over the changing environment.

What he calls “concern over the changing environment” is the motivation for activism, so I’m glad we agree on that. But if they only looked more closely rather than satisfying their expectations at first glance they wouldn’t detect any change beyond the ordinary. Because no unprecedented climatic fluctuations have been reported. So why be concerned?

He refers to scientific activism as a “recent trend”, blatantly ignoring the fact that the whole climate scam was started by activists, and describes activism by “individual scientists” to imply they are few. In fact, they are thickly distributed throughout the UN, the IPCC, national and international scientific organisations and national governments, and their pronouncements and opinions are broadcast constantly.

How much more must they do before Simon notices them?

He is either deluded or his eyes are shut. Scientists everywhere get into policy, not just those who leave science to become activists. But not all scientists are biased.

The activism of scientists was well established when the UNFCCC was written in 1992 — even earlier, when the WMO and the UNEP set up the IPCC in 1988. Who could deny that their very purpose was climate activism, when the IPCC was prevented by its founding principles from investigating the truth of anthropogenic climate change. They were forced to take it as gospel and simply find evidence for it. Which is not normally considered a scientific approach.

Climate illusions

The opening paragraph of the treaty on the Framework Convention asserts:

that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.

From then and for ever, IPCC investigators have been prevented from examining the truth of those assertions. If they don’t accept them, they don’t get used by the IPCC. Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.

Definition of an activist

The IPCC’s first chairman was Bert Bolin, a meteorologist (in other words, a scientist), who “cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue [of climate change],” in the words of one commentator. A pretty good description of an activist, I would say. It’s been the same ever since.

Look among the ranks of lead writers, principal authors and other contributors to the IPCC reports and you’ll find many who hold full-time positions with WWF, Greenpeace and other activist organisations — you can be sure they’re not there because of their neutrality towards global warming. Donna Laframboise wrote “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” describing this and other defects of the IPCC authors and processes.

The current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is an activist of the first order and thoroughly involved in promulgating policy and an urgent need for policy.

In his address to the meeting of COP 18 last November he stated openly:

I would like to submit with due emphasis that knowledge from the recent work of the IPCC must drive and define decisions that need to be taken now to deal with the growing challenge of climate change.

Chilling new move

I have just come across this. It is perhaps not surprising to hear of a bold new initiative with the latest Assessment Report, taking the IPCC’s policy involvement to a completely new level, but it is chilling. They’re beginning to leave the heavily controversial science behind them to concentrate on policy. This is revolutionary. Pachauri announced it:

In the case of WGIII, an innovation in AR5 is the “Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning” chapter. This is important because while urban planning is referenced in AR4 there is no comprehensive survey on the role which urban planning can play in adaptation and mitigation. WGIII is also providing greater emphasis on social science aspects of mitigation measures. For the first time, WG III is going beyond the technical aspects and into the social science aspects. WG III AR5 Report is also providing greater focus on technologies, sectors and regions, in order for the distribution of risks and costs to be more specific, i.e, there is less reliance on averages. And finally, it is focusing more explicitly on mitigation options, costs, strategies and policy requirements, with a more integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

It could not be clearer or more stark. Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN? This is the very scenario Lord Monckton has warned us about since Copenhagen in 2009. If we let the UN take control, the world will indeed be damned. We must visit this again; now, moving on…

Activists in New Zealand, too

Here in New Zealand, public scientists active in the “fight” to restrict industry because of its emissions of carbon dioxide include (off the top of my head) David Wratt, Andy Reisinger, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Keith Hunter and Martin Manning. There are many others — I apologise if I left you out.

I was looking at the Antarctic Research Centre web site, which seems otherwise entirely focused on scientific topics and purposes, when I came across a “Policy” page. For anyone concerned about freedom, it, too, makes chilling reading, for they are fully involved in formulating public policy.

Policy

One of the main purposes of climate science is to provide reliable knowledge that can be used by society to make decisions concerning our relationship and responses to a climate system that is undergoing marked change. This involves:

• increasing our knowledge of the climate system and human interactions with this system (scientific basis),
• helping to understand the nature, scale and timing of climate change risk (vulnerability),
• helping to develop realistic climate change adaptation goals and strategies (adaptation), and
• helping the formulation of realistic climate change mitigation goals and strategies (mitigation).

The role of the ANZICE policy component is to help translate the relevance of the research findings for a policy audience.

To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity. Just look at what has happened to Greenpeace.

Nothing’s happening

People who believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming should stop saying the same things endlessly like a machine and start to notice the real world.

The climate has not been warming dangerously — it hasn’t warmed at all for about 20 years — sea level rise is not accelerating, colder northern winters are not caused by melting ice and the only sign of future dangerous temperatures is unproven computer models.

The climate scam is driven by activists, some of whom are scientists too.

188
Leave a Reply

avatar
27 Comment threads
161 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)NickMagoorealityrulesok Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes it’s true, you need to be wary of what you read in the media. That is exactly where you went wrong referring to businessweek.com and usatoday.com about AGW induced extreme weather, instead of the empirical evidence which proves conclusively on all fronts that there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for such a belief.

Considering what you just tried to pull above regarding extreme weather I think it’s hilarious that you’re accusing others of such things. Maybe you’re so blind that you’re oblivious to your own hypocrisy.

Richard T is right when he says – ‘You are, sir, incredible.’

Andy
Guest

So I am still waiting to hear which bit of “epistemic closure” you are referring to, RROK.

The issues around Lewandowsky’s papers are well documented. There are various claims against them.

He has been awarded a “merit” award by the Wolfson Foundation.

This suggests to me that the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation are completely clueless

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Epistemic closure: putting your faith in snake-oil charlatans like Bishop Hill, Delingpole, Watts, Tallbloke, Monckton and the rest, whilst distrusting those who actually do the science.

It’s a politer term than “batshit crazy, paranoid nutters”, but means pretty much the same thing.

Sure, I do pity you, but I pity your children more. I think of a German friend of mine, and the shame she felt that her father had been in the SS during WWII. He did have an excuse though – he was drafted.

What’s your excuse going to be? Think carefully, because your grandchildren will expect an answer.

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it – first as tragedy, then as farce”.

I guess old George Santayana saw you guys coming.

Andy
Guest

I don’t need to put any faith in anyone to see that Lewandowsky is a crook. The guy hardly merits passing a degree, let alone getting a professorship.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Any comment on the ‘extreme weather’ data RROK, or are you still placing your faith in Businessweek and USAToday?

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Careful, Andy, Lewandowsky could be surveying this blog right now, and adding your comments to his award-winning database.

Better put your best tinfoil hat on…

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

Yes, dogmatic belief is all that is required of faith-based science – even if you understand it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Oreskes and Conway do the end of the world’

“It’s extraordinary how this “massive campaign” by fossil fuel interests has gone almost entirely undocumented. There is, to the best of my knowledge, virtually no evidence to support the claim at all. It is something of an indictment of the standards in academia that this kind of conspiracy theorising goes unremarked and entirely unchallenged.”

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/29/oreskes-and-conway-do-the-end-of-the-world.html

And Lewandowsky strangely silent on this particular conspiracy theory too.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes that’s right, ‘faith is superfluous if you understand the science’. Let’s have another look at the science, see what it says about AGW extreme weather:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

Nick
Guest
Nick

Holland and Bruyère (2013) and Grinsted et al. (2012) show that Hurricane intensity and storm surges have increased in recent years in the Atlantic and is strongly correlated with temperature.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1713-0#page-1

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/14/1209980110.full.pdf+html

I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re Grinsted et al. (2012)

‘I Remain “Roughly” 18 Feet Tall’

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/i-remain-roughly-18-feet-tall.html

Re Holland and Bruyère (2013) – in their own words:-

“An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50%.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

Climate Science Articles of Faith: Doctrine

# Warming in the pipeline is unequivocal…….

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.”

Snow too.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Alas for the faithful deniers who parrot his pseudoscientific nonsense here, Watts is not any kind of scientist, but merely a failed meteorologist and paid propagandist for the pollutocracy, via Fox and WUWT. In short, a “useful idiot”…

“Watts admits “I’m not a degreed climate scientist” on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology.

Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Nick
Guest
Nick

Interestingly Pielke, Jr has co authored a paper that shows that the global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive with a p value of 0.06 which means there is only a 6% chance that this trend could have happened by chance.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

So we can see from various media reports, 3 peer reviewed papers and the WattsUp blog that extreme weather events of certain classes (including snow fall) are increasing.

Perhaps Magoo or Richard C would like to comment on why they believe this is happening?

trackback

[…] see how Cumming presents this paper (in a comment on the ironically titled post by Treadgold “ IPCC created and controlled by activists). He implies an abstract completely different to the real abstract (see table […]

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

A few problems with the Holland and Bruyère (2013) paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/on-holland-and-bruyere-2013-recent-intense-hurricane-response-to-global-climate-change/ Regarding Pielke Jr’s paper – did you actually read it? ‘Thus, in the context of climate variability, it is impor- tant to recognize that certain shorter time periods during the past half-century may indeed show significant trends (upward and downward) in TC landfall activity on de- cadal time scales (e.g., Callaghan and Power 2011). The NATL basin has been in an active period since about 1995, which some have attributed to the positive phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (Goldenberg et al. 2001). A linear trend analysis shows a significant upward trend in NATL activity (R2 5 0.13; p 5 0.011) during the past several decades (1970–2010); consideration of the longer period of 1944–2010 exhibits no secular trend in hurricane landfalls (and even longer periods show no increasing trend; see, e.g., Pielke 2009). Intense typhoon frequency has also been shown in the WPAC to be modulated by multidecadal variability (Chan 2008) on time scales of 16–32 years associated with the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and variability of the El Nin ̃ o– Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and no significant trend is found in… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

The data on the following page isn’t from Anthony Watts though, is it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

It’s what’s called empirical evidence and is from the following:

Dr. Ryan Maue, PhD
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The US Geological Survey (USGS)
The Austrian Central Administration For Meteorology (ZAMG)
Rutgers University
University of Regina
University of Colorado at Boulder
Florida State University
University of Alabama
University of California

Hardly the work of Anthony Watts is it, except that he collected the various the data in one place. What does desmog.com have to say about the institutions above, and do they they have something on your sources – Businessweek and USAToday as well?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hmmm, Ken’s not using TangledParachute for his climate change viewpoints any more? Perhaps he thinks more people will read it if he disguises it on a blog that discusses religion instead. Ironic considering the fact that AGW lacks any actual scientific evidence and needs vast amounts of faith as a result.

Andy
Guest

Ken writes

The easy copy and paste key commands on computers has a lot to answer for.

which is why we see the same article from Ken appear in several places.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ken obligingly propagates the HS article and paper in the manner of my expectation “the internet will do the rest”.

Although I wasn’t expecting Ken to be one of more helpful in the process, or even participate.

Thanks Ken.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From Quark Soup:-

‘Will CO2 Reach 400 ppm? (Probably Not.)’

[…] So is CO2 going to hit 400 ppm this year? (Technically that should be “ppmv.”) It already has in some northernly monitors, and of course it is already much beyond this in many cities, but will it make this number at Mauna Loa, the Yankee stadium of greenhouse gas monitoring?

It’s not obvious, and it’s looking a little unlikely.

Here are the recent weekly CO2 numbers from Mauna Loa: [graph]

comment image

and here is the one-year change for each week: [graph]

comment image

Lately, for whatever reason, the 1-yr change has been below average. Since last year’s MLO CO2 peaked at 397.13 ppm on 5/6/12, we probably need a 2.9 ppm annual increase (assuming the peak occurs on the same week, which isn’t always true), which based on the recent numbers isn’t looking likely [at least for the weekly published average].

>>>>>>>>

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/will-co2-reach-400-ppm-probably-not.html

# # #

Hmmm……… “for whatever reason”? I wonder what that might be?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

The problem with that though Richard is that nobody visits Ken’s websites. But still, it’s a nice gesture on his part I suppose – it’s the thought that counts.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Magoo,
Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.

I also see you have chosen to ignore the 1.89% increasing trend that is explicitly written on the graph you presented from Watts.

Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95%

The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.

Please remind me exactly what the point you were trying to make was?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events”James Taylor:- Decade-by-decade analysis of the last century by James Taylor:- ‘Don’t Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent’ When Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southern Louisiana last week, the storm provided a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong, damaging hurricanes. “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News. Normally, of course, the subjective global climate opinions of a mechanical engineer at an obscure Minnesota university wouldn’t be national news. However, global warming alarmists put Abraham forward as the point man for their self-proclaimed Climate Science Rapid Response Team. But hey, if Abraham is the best they can do, so be it. Abraham… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, Magoo and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media so I presume they will be along shortly to berate you.

In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.

[“and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” — Did I? Where? — RT]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.” Not so fast Warmy. “Climate change” has its own specific IPCC definition (and another at UNFCCC) but a report assessing “Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters” is not necessarily “climate change” by IPCC definition. The report assesses what “relationship” there might be between the two, but “extreme events and disasters” include “natural climate variability” and “socioeconomic development” so there are other considerations. Quoting the brochure at Magoo’s link:- “This Summary for Policymakers presents key findings from the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX approaches the topic by assessing the scientific literature on issues that range from the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events (‘climate extremes’) to the implications of these events for society and sustainable development. The assessment concerns the interaction of climatic, environmental, and human factors that can lead to impacts and disasters, options for managing the risks posed by impacts and disasters, and the important role that non-climatic factors play in determining impacts. Box SPM.1 defines concepts central to the SREX.” And,… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

My point is, Nick, that the Global Hurricane Frequency data prior 1978 is similar to that after 1978 – there is no long term rising trend in global hurricane frequency. You can choose to cherry pick a starting point & ignore the previous data to make it look like it’s unprecedented but the truth it’s not. ‘Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.’ Yes that’s right, a rising trend of 2-3 major hurricanes over the last 25 yrs. Hardly a significant trend don’t you think, especially when the long term shows no rising trend in hurricane activity? ‘Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95% …… The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.’ What’s your source for the second statement please? The long term data according to Pielke shows that there is nothing unusual with the hurricanes – no trend. Why just look at 1970 onwards? Re:… Read more »

Andy
Guest

If not having a degree is a handicap, then we would also write off Bill Gates as a has been

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” Opinion piece? The data source is here The National Hurricane Center http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml Hardly necessary for a peer-reviewed paper to analyze publicly available information. >”In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.” If ACC is not evident in US/Atlantic hurricane activity its not eveident:- Global Warming and Hurricanes An Overview of Current Research Results 1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity? Thomas R. Knutson Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised January 30, 2013 A. Summary Statement Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following: * Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity? * What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models? In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are: * It… Read more »

Andy
Guest

It’s not fair to say that Ken’s blog receives no visitors as his own site rankings list OP as number 27

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf

Start with table 7.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from”

Dispensed with truth completely now have you Nick?

James Taylor did provide the source of the data so why say (a lie BTW) he got it from somewhere else?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Start with table 7″

OK. From ‘Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.: Sober Analysis, Cool Graphics from Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger’:-
comment image

U.S. tropical cyclone damage adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth, 1900-2012 [Note – I am using a more updated graph than the one appearing in Addendum. Source: Pielke et al. 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900-2005, Natural Hazards Review, DOI: 10.1061/1527-6988, 9:1(29), updated 12/31/2012].

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/

“Hurricane damages keep going up and up, but that’s due to the ongoing rise in population and development in coastal areas. When hurricane damage is adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and inflation, there is no long-term trend.”

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.’

Ever seen this graph Nick?

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/vuwflag2.pdf

The same applies to your claim that your table 7 shows increasing major hurricanes. Comparing decades to each other as Richard C has done in his comment above is more accurate don’t you think?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes, but the audience consists almost entirely of only 3 people, with an occasional unsuspecting poor bugger making the mistake of clicking on it every once in a blue moon. The newbies soon discover their mistake and never return.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Sorry I forgot to mention, the publication of the site rankings boosts his visitor numbers for a short term when other blogs such as Whaleoil refer people there to look at the blog ranking stats.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…it [Table 7] shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.”

No it doesn’t. It shows AVERAGE number over different time spans i.e. not an apples-to-apples comparison that James Taylor made with decade-to-decade analysis.

The last Table 7 period 1995 – 2010 average 3.8 had 16 of which 7 were in 2005 (see Table 8a). There were 8 in 1950 (the record) and also 7 in 1961 but there’s no comparison of those in 15 year context to compare to 1995 – 2010.

“lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard T, you said “I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today” if you want to add Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources then I apologise for misrepresenting you.

Richard C, name calling is unnecessary. Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to.

Magoo, if you want to put me in the same class as Victoria University and the IPCC then I am flattered. Monckton’s accusation was met with hilarity as I recall.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

As your claims of increasing extreme weather are also met with hilarity. Really Nick, how far do you need to stick your head in the sand to ignore the multiple sources of data that show the extreme weather claims to be complete rubbish. Only an idiot would believe the extreme weather propaganda when confronted with the real world empirical evidence showing otherwise.

Next you’ll be saying there’s a tropospheric hot spot and that it’s been warming for the last 17 yrs. The reality of it all is that you’re just incapable of admitting you’re wrong, which is why you grasp at straws like ‘extreme weather’ in desperation – even the IPCC admits it’s bogus and their job is to promote AGW. It’s easier just to be honest and face the reality of the empirical evidence instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to say. Even if you could prove extreme weather, you can’t pin it on AGW because there’s no tropospheric hot spot to prove man is responsible. You have empirical data from multiple well regarded sources that prove you wrong on every front.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to” You really are prone to untruth aren’t you Nick? James Taylor was responding to this statement (also an untruth we note):- “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/ The source of James’ data is (quoting his article):- “The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information [hotlinked] on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC……..” The hotlink is to this page for “NHC Data Archive”:- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml Nowhere in James’ article is there a reference that “explicitly mentions the report [you] linked to”. Clearly Nick, you either a) have reading comprehension difficulties, or b) you just make up any old BS and miss-attribute that to be what the target of your disparagement (in this case James Taylor) said i.e. you are prone to untruth and therefore a liar. Which is it Nick? reading difficulty? or liar? And you say:- >”Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources” Are you actually implying The National Hurricane… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”[RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]” Are you condoning blatant lies (untruth) now RT? If Nick insists on propagating lies then he should expect to be called out on such and be referred to as a liar because that is exactly what he is. There is no personal abuse just statement of fact unless he retracts or clarifies that his wrongful statements are actually the result of a reading comprehension difficulty or suchlike.. Same goes for his activism. If he insists on an activist approach (a lying one at that on the face of it) on behalf of the anthropogenic global warming faction then he should expect to be called a Warmy or similar. There is no personal abuse just statement of distinction. He long ago abandoned his original professed stance of objectivity, now he’s just an activist on a mission. BTW I’m actually on topic on this except for no Nick-IPCC connection but his activism is the same as your activist-IPCC post. [An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence, but… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”[An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence,….” But an allegation of lying is a statement of fact when, by your standards, your own criteria is activated as above and as I did (see below). Unless Nick retracts or clarifies his wrongful statements as miss-comprehension or similar then he remains a liar and you are condoning it by your (rather dubious) moderation policy. >”….but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part.” I’ve called him a liar by your own stated criteria above having laid out your criteria of “reasoning and the presentation of evidence” here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195957 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195967 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195973 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196180 Having so far seen no retraction by Nick or explanation of miss-comprehension then on the face of it, Nick is a liar and you are condoning that by your moderation policy RT. >”By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]” Your moderation RT, in the face… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Richard C, I haven’t followed all the references from everyone, but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing. I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic. You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident. I never got around to responding to your disagreement about movement of thermal energy in the ocean. I remember I said some of the water warmed by the sun is moved at scales of days to decades or longer before its heat comes again to the surface, and this is confirmed by your comments. However, most of the energy rises to the surface that very day. My evidence for that is simple: the cold air after every night is warmed, as shown by every continuous temperature… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I haven’t followed all the references from everyone,…” Then you have not determined the facts and are in no position to make an assessment as to whether Nick is lying or not. >”….but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing” Firstly, the whole point of James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis in his article was to show that the assertions of major hurricanes increasing (e.g. the one you make by misinterpretation above) are entirely wrongful (lies, untruth, dishonest). This was noted by Magoo here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195985 I also (in addition to posting James Taylor’s analysis) addressed the wrongful interpretation here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195993 Secondly, Table 7 is NOT the source of James Taylor’s data as Nick states “This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.” i.e. Nick lied (and it doesn’t show what he asserts anyway i.e. he also misinterprets as you do and both of you propagate your misinterpretation). Then Nick states in a subsequent comment “Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”. James Taylor did not mention that report let alone explicitly i.e.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”….frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.” I’m not. Clearly, going by the above statement, and as Rob Taylor points out too, you are completely ignorant of ocean heating processes, mechanisms and circulation systems. All of the educational material and oceanographic papers presented and discussed on this bog have been a waste of time in your case. Even Gareth Renowden, Rob Painting et al understand ocean energy absorption and heat circulation far better than you do. They will make mincemeat of you if they get hold of your incredibly inept understanding, that being:- ”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.” So according to your application of that convention (convective law), energy that has been laid down by radiation path-length to a depth of 100 – 200m depending on water clarity, necessarily rises to the surface of the ocean in its various states of externally forced turbulence and thermal imbalances and gradients both internal and to the overlying air (not at all like a water pot on a stove element note) “within seconds or minutes”? Why… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo
Richard Treadgold
Guest

Thank you for your patience, Richard, but this becomes almost vexatious.

At least you no longer overlook my use of the word most in “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day.” You ask “how could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport.”

Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface. I guess you must consider the possibility that “most” could be anything from 51% to 99%. But you must have considered this yourself, since you bring a scientific bent to everything else you study here.

If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat. Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.

Andy
Guest

On the topic of activists, Bill McKibben is coming to NZ for a speaking tour in June.
Dates are at Hot Topic.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.” As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, the specific heat capacity of air is a fraction of the specific heat capacity of water and the amount of heat in each can be easily calculated if the respective temperatures are known. If “most” of the heat absorbed by the (tropical) ocean in one day were immediately released to the (tropical) atmosphere that same day, the tropical atmosphere would be far hotter than the observed temperature actually is, because (quoting following lecture linked):- “The upper 2.5m layer of ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above.” And, “Heat transport from tropics to polar regions” [Page 19] http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/as222d/lec9-07-atmos-ocean-sm.pdf But solar insolation is down to 100 – 200m, not 2.5m. The ocean therefore, acts as a “heat-sink” (a store or reservoir of energy) that is far more efficient in that capacity than land is. So “most” of the energy absorbed by the tropical ocean is not released to the tropical atmosphere. It is instead transported to where thermal gradient takes it (the air over tropical seawater is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be:-

“Clearly, [generally] ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).”

There are exceptions of course.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Schematic diagrams showing predominant global “Heat release to atmosphere/air” from the heat transport circulation belt occurs from the North Atlantic (2 regions), and a lessor loss occurs from the South Atlantic (1 region). All 3 regions of predominant loss are adjacent to either the North or South Pole.

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

But those diagrams however, do not reconcile with the heat gain/loss quantities in Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1:-

comment image

They calculate a gain in the South Atlantic and South Pacific with the major loss occurring from the Southern Indian (add south of Australia to that too), The next order of losses are almost equal across the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Mid-South Atlantic. The gains/losses are in units of PW where 1 W = 1 J/second i.e. enormous amounts of energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere every second.

The major heat gain on the other hand, is the even greater influx of energy to the equatorial/tropical Pacific. The next but lessor gain is to the southern tropical and equatorial Atlantic. None of the major oceanic heat loss regions are in the tropical zone of either Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface.”

Before you preach to me RT, with nothing to back your claim, no citation of relevant studies, no energy budget diagram i.e. hand-waving waffle, I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently.
comment image

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…this might cheer you up a bit RC”

Not really Magoo. I’m convinced solar cycles control climate from all the evidence and R.J. Salvador’s correlation just adds to that already very large body.

But as with the warming scenario of climate controlled by GHGs, the solar explanation will undergo the test of time in the very near future too just like any other scenario prediction. I certainly wont be cheered up if the solar cooling scenario is proved correct because the consequences are considerable to human well being, to put it mildly. I will however be satisfied that the solar explanation is the correct one when cooling is evident in non-La Nina conditions over the next few years i.e. from empirical observation.

That satisfaction, if realized, is what is colloquially referred to I believe, as “cold comfort” so any cheering up in that event would be bittersweet (to use another colloquialism). Hasn’t happened yet though but the early indicators are in-the-money.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…the early indicators are in-the-money” Like this one:- ‘Temperature change in a Nutshell’ Written by Ed Hoskins MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond) [See graphs] The UK Met Office long term Central England Temperature record has kept a continuous and consistent data set since the 1660s. It appears to be reliable and to have maintained its quality. It has not been adjusted as have so many other official temperature records. Although the CET record covers only a small part of the northern hemisphere, it has shown a consistent rise since the end of the little ice age in 1850 at a rate of about +0.45°C / century or about +0.67°C in the last 150 years. This rise accords well with other temperature records. However since the year 2000, diminishing solar activity in solar cycle 24, moving back towards little ice age patterns, appears to be having an real effect. So since 2000 the CET shows an annual temperature diminution at the rate of -0.49°C / decade or -0.59°C in 12 years: this negates ~80% of the entire CET temperature rise since 1850. Although this is a very short period, the extent of the climate change… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently” To assist, a description in words from Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000):- “Figure 1 shows the heat (actually, enthalpy) transports, across each hydrographic section (arrows) along with the residuals reflecting atmospheric heat exchanges (boxes). Residuals are accurately determined at middle and high latitudes, but are more uncertain at lower latitudes (for example, in the Atlantic Ocean) owing to an enhancement of the geostrophic noise there. Nevertheless, the total heating over the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans are well determined, respectively 0:7 ± 0:2PW (1PW = 10^15 W) and 1:6 ± 0:4 PW. No significant heat transfers are found in the Indian Ocean because of the large, uncertain, warm water inflow from the Pacific Ocean. This large warm water flux is the main heat escape from the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a northward heat flux in the South Pacific. In the southern Pacific sector, significant heating is found, in contrast with the sparse in situ observations, but in qualitative agreement with the recent re-analysis of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. Figure 3 shows the globally integrated heat fluxes compared… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Proportional allocation of solar radiation absorption in the tropics to atmosphere/ocean latitudinal transport from an educational resource:- 1.3 Latitudinal energy transfer Energy deposition is not uniform with latitude. Less solar radiation is deposited at high latitudes than low, and in the winter than in the summer hemisphere. A local equilibrium temperature can be computed at each latitude, but the resulting temperature distribution has a much steeper decline toward the poles than is observed. Thus, energy must be transported from the tropical regions toward the poles. Let us make a quantitative calculation of this eect for the case in which the sun is directly over the equator, i. e., at the equinox. The key issue is the actual versus the projected area of a latitudinal strip of the earth’s surface, as illustrated in gure 1.4. The actual area of the strip of earth’s surface illustrated in this gure is S = 2Rcos   R, while the projected area of this strip as seen from the sun is Sp = 2Rcos   Rcos . Assuming albedo A at latitude , the energy balance at this latitude is Fs(1 􀀀 A)Sp = T4 radS,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The flow of energy through the earth’s climate system’ By KEVIN E. TRENBERTH∗ and DAVID P. STEPANIAK National Center for Atmospheric Research†, Boulder, USA (Received 1 June 2004) (Symons Memorial Lecture: delivered on 21 May 2004) [Page 9] (b) The oceans […] The mixed layer on average involves ∼90 m of ocean. The thermal inertia of the ocean depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the mixed upper ocean layers and the deeper more isolated layers through the thermocline. Such mixing is not well known and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10 to 100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf # # # “fastest”: 10 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – tropics (expected) “slowest”: 100 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – high latitudes (expected) That 10 – 100 year lag is consistent with Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Usoskin (I think) and others I can’t recall right now. But is in no way consistent with “warm water rises… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Record number of days between major hurricane landfalls.

comment image

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

If, in respect to the tropical ocean say, “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”, then we should expect to see a diurnal SST and subsurface day-time maximum to pre-dawn minimum temperature fluctuation range of about 20°C (or more than 15) for day-time SST of about 30°C. But the largest observed diurnal fluctuation (variation) I can find in the literature is 3.5°C from Deschamps and Frouin (1984), in the Mediterranean Sea, and Stramma et al. (1986), near the Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS) mooring in the Atlantic. Diurnal warming can be on the order of 3°C or more in the Tropics under calm and clear conditions according to Fairall et al. (1996) and Soloviev and Lukas (1997). Clayson and Weitlich (2006) show typical fluctuations of 0.37°C and 1.48°C on successive days, see:- FIG. 1. Several days of SST observations from a TAO buoy, along with indications of the predawn and maximum SST and resulting dSST value for two of the days. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pne/pdf/clayson_weitlich_07_jc.pdf Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth…” That is not to say I’m also assuming that the daily solar radiation pass is actually the direct and only mechanism that heats the water to 20 C at 150m. My understanding is that NIR IR-A and SWIR IR-B absorption is most effective in only about the 10 micron to 10m depth range (also a little but minimal UV heating effect) and that is where most energy is laid down by radiation. That’s going by Hale & Querry (1973) primarily:- It’s the subsequent mixing and conduction/convection processes (“venting” as Trenberth and Stepaniak term it) that heat the water lower down in the main in my understanding and also the major cause of oceanic thermal lag along with water’s thermal properties, the radiative heating is all but exhausted at 100 – 200m depending on water clarity I think I recall i.e. there’s not equal amounts of energy laid down over the entire pathlength of radiation penetration therefore the effectiveness as a heating agent is not equal at every point on the penetration pathlength (I think I could dig up… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve given up trying to access the “information” James Taylor alludes to at the NHC Data Archive. I’ve looked at both the Atlantic HURDAT2 and NE/NC Pacific HURDAT2 databases in conjunction with the data description and nomenclature, “L” = Landfall, “I” = Intensity etc but can’t make head or tail of how to extract Cat 3,4, and 5 hurricanes. The information is there but I can’t retrieve it. Although Taylor doesn’t “explicitly mention” NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 in his article it does appear at the bottom of the NHC Data Archive page he linked to as:- Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Atlantic Tropical Cyclones * The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense Reports There is a decade-by-decade analysis of major hurricanes in Table 6 (not the Table 7 Nick points to) but the decade figures don’t match Taylor’s exactly, the 100 yr total is different (65 vs 70), and the average per decade is different (6? or 6.5? vs 7). It is not out of question that Taylor did use Table 6 as his data source but if he did it was incredibly sloppy transcribing. He may have just rounded 6.5 to 7 to… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Richard Treadgold
Guest

Penetrating questions!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, Yes I do, but Tair is not necessarily dependent on Tskin or SST (0.45m deep). See Chen and Houze Jr (1997) quote below for the diurnal air/sea heating process and Figure 15 (page 18) for the respective temperature profiles. It is not possible to conclude therefore that ALL of the warming occurring in the air each day is a direct result of ALL of the energy being released from the sea surface that arrived in the sea from the sun the same day after subtraction of horizontal transport to give “most”. >…then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat.” No I don’t. As for above and also, there is varying heat storage in a unit mass of surface water and transfer to lower depths (Cronin and McPhaden up-thread) which is not released to the air diurnally. Also, Chen and Houze Jr (see below) state “direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair”, meaning not all of the energy added to the air during the… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Hilary Ostrov has some thoughts on IPCC lead author Andrew Weaver and the role of the taxpayer-funded CBC in Canada

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Post Navigation