Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 1

Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science

Private prejudice

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, published a report last month, Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science (pdf, 2MB). While reading it I marked more than a hundred places where her evidence or reasoning is questionable. This post discusses some of those.

The commissioner’s errors cause concern—just as errors from any prominent public servant1 cause concern—and her agitation for policy change means she sides with environmental activists against at least half our population, and possibly even three-quarters of our population—those who are not persuaded that global warming is a problem. You can see that this arises directly from her personal views, Continue Reading →

  1. Dr Wright is highly paid. The Vote for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in 2014/15 provides for an annual remuneration of $296,000 in a total departmental budget of $3,258,000.

Save the planet: give us your money

Josh on IPCC climate standover

IPCC climate talks 2014

The latest climate talk-fest has again degenerated into the poor countries (I mean the developing nations) nakedly demanding large sums of money from the leading countries (sorry, the developed nations) to save them from the horrendous consequences of global warming caused entirely by the leading nations’ appalling development of advanced sources of energy – h/t Len Mills.

Herald obeys the clamour

Hopes end for levelheaded exemplar from once-leading opinion maker

The Herald nails its colours to the mast

The NZ Herald has finally burned any bridges it may have retained with decently sceptical climate scientists by publishing the above advertisement today pretending the obvious falsehood that the “science on climate change” is “settled”. Continue Reading →

Prosperity beats climate change

A really sensible and balanced note is sounded by a leading alarmist blogger. Is some common sense emerging after all the name-calling?

Mark Lynas writes yesterday:

Climate campaigners 350.org recently had an ‘India Beyond Coal’ day of action, supported by assertions such as this:

Our excessive dependence on coal threatens a future where we can pull millions of Indians out of poverty. Rising costs of coal, reduced availability, excessive deforestation, negative health impacts and the climate crisis are strong reasons to begin the transition towards renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Continue Reading →

Ocean, not CO2, caused past climate change

oceans

Len Mills tells us of a study showing past climate change was caused not by atmospheric carbon dioxide but by changed ocean circulation releasing heat into the atmosphere.

Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere, but in a new study published in Science, a group of Rutgers researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating the earth’s climate. Continue Reading →

Wind alone cannot keep the lights on

Len Mills sends us a study of wind farms reported in the Daily Mail. It emerges that their real production history falls a long way short of the breathless claims some make for them.

I too wish to save the world, but not by using wind turbines, because they’ll ruin us first. They’re expensive, ugly, short-lived, noisy to the point of ill-health, ugly, kill bats and birds, they stop generating if there’s too little or too much wind, they demand lots of rare metals and they’re ugly.  Continue Reading →

Warmth is good; cold is the killer

Once again, Viv raises a basic mismatch between green alarmism and reality. This time he puts the fear of ‘warm’ to his blowtorch (so to speak) and makes a good case for heat. – RT

For decades green extremists have been spreading doomsday forecasts of global warming.

But where do we find the greatest abundance of life on land? Follow the equator around the globe—the Amazon, the Congo, Kenya, Indonesia and New Guinea—all places where it is warm and wet. Continue Reading →

Climate research needs redirection

• Guest post •

Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on climate research, especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the driver of weather or climate. Continue Reading →

DiCaprio recaptivated, oh, the dated fiction, how it palls

The facts, DiCaprio, the facts. We’ll all perish? All humanity?! Perish the thought.

Leonardo DiCaprio has once again been completely captured by the IPCC misinformation campaign on global warming. A few days ago he addressed the United Nations conference on climate change to echo in their own chamber their self-created myths. This is my message to Mr DiCaprio.

In addressing world leaders at the United Nations, you claimed humankind has been pretending that global warming is a fiction. What a strange belief. Continue Reading →

Greens have a plan

Details are scarce, but we’ll pay $1 billion

Greens voting logo

The Greens sent an email yesterday offering some kind of a national development plan so we vote for them in the election. Russel Norman says:

Yesterday I announced the first of the Green Party’s economic policies to build a smarter greener economy that benefits every New Zealander.

At the centre of our plan is an additional $1 billion of government investment in research and development, including tax breaks for business.

Continue Reading →

Modern journalism meets a lion of a man

hyena handler of Nigeria

While sceptics learn to laugh at themselves

A Harley biker is visiting Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lions’ cage.

Suddenly, a lion grabs her by the jacket and tries to pull her inside, in full view of her terrified, screaming parents. Continue Reading →

IPCC clouds the issue

clouds

In researching the post about the list of sceptical scientists I was set on a new course and discovered a couple of interesting facts in the TAR. The narrative describing the list referred to three statements from the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. The first is:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

The rise of 0.6 °C was unexceptional, but I wondered at the 0.17 °C because it represents a rate of recent warming nearly three times higher than earlier. Continue Reading →

Salinger incites Grimes

So June was warm—what of it?

Gareth Renowden, known here as Grimes the shambling truffle grubber, makes the breathless claim that “winter warmth during June” has broken a 140-year-old NZ record. However, he fails to mention his real thinking—that the world is igniting because of our filthy CO2. No doubt he hopes we’ll draw that conclusion anyway, after all the brainwashing we’ve had about it. And of course we do.

Has Grimes found evidence of global warming in New Zealand? And would that be in the same way as Lemon and Paeroa is considered world-famous in New Zealand?  In other words, it’s not global warming in any scientific sense? Continue Reading →

New paper says CO2 not a greenhouse gas after all

Promoted from comments

This would change everything

Bulaman said “Bula. Check the latest over at Chiefio’s” so we did. The Chiefio says:

It looks like the only thing with black body radiation is a real black body and that transparent things, like gasses, are not quite the same. In particular, CO2 likes to heat up instead of emit a photon. Continue Reading →

TV3 on thin ice over glacier

Who wants to write a letter?

Once again, Campbell Live runs an alarmist piece on disappearing New Zealand glaciers.

Tonight they featured a climate scientist from Victoria claiming “climate change” is affecting the Franz Josef glacier. It has retreated over the last few decades.

Apparently it’s a “problem”. Actually, listening to the reporter’s tone you’d think it was a tragedy. Loss of a national icon and all that. Continue Reading →

Curbing Fallow’s emissions and correcting his maths

Brian Fallow

The Herald explains that Brian Fallow is its Economics Editor, but he belly-aches and pontificates about climate change more than anyone.

I suppose he must be an economist, since he’s divertingly keen to discuss all kinds of fascinating financial and structural details of transforming New Zealand society but little concerned with evidence that might justify it.

The result is he carps noisily on a ruinous, indefensible crusade. He insists the country spend time and tax “adjusting” to a “low-carbon” economy, though he freely admits we won’t thereby affect the climate even minutely.

Worse, he won’t say why we should do it. Not really why — not scientifically, plausibly tell us the necessity for it.

Let me highlight this error of judgement by rebutting a couple of his latest points. Continue Reading →

Herald no help

Bryan Leyland started the following letter, I finished it and the Herald refused to publish it.

Smell any smoke?

Dear Sir,

Jill Whitmore says, “Right now, we are all standing around saying ‘I smell smoke’ and doing nothing about it.”

But it’s not true that we all smell smoke. Many scientists and informed observers want real evidence of a fire. I’ve been asking for years but so far the best “evidence” comes from uncalibrated computer models that predict fire in a hundred years.

It’s a bit early to join a bucket line. Continue Reading →

Flooding island lies

Anti-science, pro-cash

Once again a national leader makes the false claim that his low-lying island nation is about to be flooded because of “climate change”. It’s not hard to show that he’s telling great big porky pies.

An article was posted on the Responding to Climate Change (RTCC) web site recently (h/t – Richard Cumming). I found the Marshall Islands government press release it was based on and in which the Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, Philip Muller, said the king tides were the latest in a series of increasingly serious and regular climate impacts. Continue Reading →

Refute the nonsense

…see it as propaganda

…then starve it of light

I thought religion was dead — for practise only behind closed doors in the privacy of one’s home — then Gwynne Dyer thunders on the pages of the Herald with a rant about “the gods of climate.” Setting an unequivocally moralistic tone, he threatens divine punishment for our sins! Thoroughly unscientific. Amazing.

Dyer often mindlessly repeats all manner of misleading science about global warming, but this time he gives the science a staunchly moral cast. Well, how else to instil a proper sense of guilt? Continue Reading →

The boring climate

Why you won’t see headlines as climate science enters the doldrums

Posted on November 4, 2013, at Watts Up With That

Guest post by Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University (elevated from a comment on a WUWT thread: RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years).

This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past (if not the remote past), the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours). Continue Reading →

Lawrence Solomon mocks models

via Lawrence Solomon: Model mockery | Financial Post.

Top economist, a true believer in global warming, proves predictions of catastrophe are meaningless

All predictions of global warming doom and destruction rest on meaningless computer models, say climate change skeptics such as Freeman Dyson, America’s best known scientist, and Antonino Zichichi, Italy’s best known scientist. They and other skeptics looked at models touted as reliable and declared them meaningless.

Now these unabashed skeptics are joined by an unabashed true believer in rising sea levels, greater climate variability and other perils associated with global warming: Robert S. Pindyck, a physicist, engineer and Professor of Economics and Finance at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. Continue Reading →

Climate denial undeniable, so no rest yet

After extended time off to cope with a family bereavement and its aftermath, let me present insights from someone else. Perspicacious and humorous, resigned yet adamant.
Yesterday, by email to a climate forum I subscribe to, a scientist posted penetrating comments on the state of climate change understanding. The comments are too good not to circulate, so, without revealing his identity (because I haven’t asked his permission), here they are. He was responding to a radio broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) by one Tony Eggleton.

Yes, I know, we all want to listen to yet another alarmist DAGW broadcast like we want to volunteer for washing-up duties.

But this one by retired geologist Tony Eggleton, of the Australian National University, broadcast on the ABC’s premier science programme Ockham’s Razor, is worth listening to from end to end in order to understand the immensity of the task of re-education that still lies ahead of us. Continue Reading →

Shift the house or shave the door?

caption

When the house settles and the door jams, it’s easier and cheaper to shave the door. Preventing the ground from moving just to make the door close is overdoing it.

That’s a realistic metaphor for man’s response to global warming. The alarmists would persuade us to interfere with the soil at ruinous expense to stop the house from moving, but simply shaving the door compensates perfectly well for small kinks in the house.

A new paper, Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective? from Lord Monckton of Brenchley is a startling analysis showing that governments around the world are overdoing their response to the “threat” of global warming and could help bring a much-needed sense of perspective to the debate.

Intense pressure from the United Nations, assisted by modern Luddites in Greenpeace, the WWF and others, doesn’t conceal the inconvenient truth that global warming is too small for concern and its mitigation too expensive to contemplate. Continue Reading →

WMO misquoted—but who will correct it?

Yesterday, Steven Goddard at Real Science posted a startling headline: United Nations Says That Cooling Temperatures Indicate Unprecedented Warming. But I think Steven has been deceived by Bloomberg.

Steven quoted an article at Bloomberg.com:

The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.

When I read this, I didn’t demur so much over the alleged doubling of sea-level rise (double the minuscule and you still have very little — little enough accuracy, for sure) or the large increase in heat-related deaths (no period was given; it sounded like, and seems to be, scare-mongering driven by highly variable data).

But I raised my eyebrows at the claim of “rapid warming” this century. Continue Reading →

Strike three for TVNZ

Sorry, I’ve been trying to post this for a week. – Richard Treadgold

Wrong, but no apology

TVNZ now admits to me that its press release was wrong in claiming that Dr Renwick blamed the recent drought on global warming.

But TVNZ don’t apologise to us or the New Zealand public — or even to Dr Renwick. The Corporate Affairs Department is entirely absorbed in explaining their mistake, rather than caring that they made it.

That’s the third strike against these public relations masters.

Un – be – lievable. Continue Reading →

Climate delegates in dark

Expect no wisdom

UNFCCC Climate Change Conference

The thirty-eighth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 38) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 38), as well as the second part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2-2) is taking place at the Maritim Hotel from 3-14 June, 2013 in Bonn, Germany.

via Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2013.

According to the Irish Times, the eleven-day conference has 670 delegates from 176 countries and is working towards a global agreement in 2015.

The CFACT video posted earlier today has drawn criticism. It shows interviews with nine delegates, asking if they knew of the lack of warming since 1997. Most of them confess complete ignorance about the lack of warming but one or two actually dismiss it, saying it’s unimportant. Continue Reading →

We won’t be dissuaded from our global goal

No global warming for 16 years — hardly significant

Delegates to the United Nations, naturally, are well informed in their chosen field, right?

Wrong. Listen to these ones.

Far from having nothing to worry about because the world is in good hands, Kiwis have everything to worry about because chumps and cretins are now permitted to wander the corridors of power.

What will you do about it?

Warmists finally admit temperature is not warming

caption

At The Daily Blog two weeks ago Renowden complained (emphasis mine):

What we object to, Andy, is not the obvious behaviour of the surface temperature record, but your continued conflation of temperature with warming. Stop claiming that “warming has stopped”, and we can move on to talk about ice melt, rapid Arctic warming, and the impact on northern hemisphere weather patterns instead of indulging in silly semantics.

At last! How wonderful. For years we’ve been saying it’s not warming — the readings aren’t going up! Can’t you see that? We suffered these stupid explanations that there’s no stasis, we still have warming, in fact (some said) warming has accelerated. Continue Reading →

Strike two for TVNZ

caption

A few days ago I reported on TVNZ’s naughty porky after James Renwick’s March interview. I have since been in correspondence with TVNZ and have news.

In their reply TVNZ have made an amazing error. Like a careless schoolboy failing to read the exam directions, someone didn’t read my letter properly. They’ve given a response that annoys me and will surely displease senior managers. Continue Reading →

Painting wanting rebuttal

At The Daily Blog on May 15, 2013, at 8:13 pm, while discussing The irrelevance of the rabid right, by Gareth Renowden, I asked a question.

What is the evidence for warming?

Rob Painting replied:

  1. Accelerated warming of the ocean. The ocean soaking up about 93% of global warming. See Levitus (2012), Nuccitelli (2012) and Balmaseda (2013).
  2. Accelerated ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. Shepherd (2012).
  3. Accelerated ice loss from mountain glaciers worldwide. See the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).
  4. Ongoing heat uptake by the land surface (up to 2004 at least). See Huang 2006.
  5. Ongoing sea level rise (it’s not currently accelerating due mainly to the deposition of heat into the deeper, colder ocean layers – thermal expansion reduces with lower temperature). See the AVISO website.
  6. The poleward migration of tens of thousands of animal and plant species, and up mountainsides too, to escape the warming.
  7. Continued intensification of the global water cycle. Westra (2013), Durack (2012).
  8. The increased blocking of longwave radiation by CO2 – as observed by satellites. Harries (2001), Philipona (2004).

That’s an impressive list of evidence, so I want to thank Mr Painting for his trouble. I’m sure he would prefer to be rebutted if there are any faults in his evidence, rather than continue in his ignorance, so if you can contribute to an understanding of these pieces of evidence, I encourage you to comment below.

Let’s put together a convincing critique. Bear in mind that even if we don’t like it it’s not necessarily wrong, so we need to provide solid evidence. After warming, we should examine attribution.

Hmm, sounds as though I want my own AR5. Ok, why not?

First impressions

My first thoughts include these:

  1. Doubtful, but I’m unfamiliar with the three papers.
  2. Magnitude?
  3. Magnitude?
  4. Magnitude, period?
  5. Magnitude? If it’s about 1.5 mm/yr then it has little anthro component.
  6. Magnitude, period? I doubt it was established that migration was motivated by excessive heat.
  7. What does this mean?
  8. How was “blocking” concluded rather than less energy being emitted?
  9. Why does he silently deprecate the use of the best temperature-sensing device we have, the thermometer, in favour of remote proxies?

So it was all quite learned discourse, but at the end he stoops to a gratuitous insult like any head-banger:

The question is, why do people like Richard Treadgold pretend as if this stuff has never been explained to them before? Anterograde amnesia perhaps?

Nasty, but all he’s doing is trying to avoid a too-close examination of his excuses for confiscating my self-drive motor car and overseas air travel.

Global warming less than we thought

Don’t have time to look closely, but here’s a taste of good news.

*abridged* New research from Oxford University shows the rate of global warming has been lower over the past decade than it was previously.

The paper, “Energy budget constraints on climate response”, to be published online by Nature Geoscience, shows the estimated average climate sensitivity – or how much the globe will warm if carbon dioxide concentrations are doubled – is almost the same as the estimates based on data up to the year 2000.

Continue Reading →

Climate porkies from TV One

What appeared to be a startling development in the important topic of global warming started with Dr James Renwick on Sunday 17 March, 2013, in an interview aired on TV1 at about 11:17 am. Susan Wood introduces it by describing the current severe drought.

TVNZ issued a press release a few hours later, stating: “Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought,” even though that was not a faithful reflection of the interview.

The NBR followed up the same day with an article in which they make an identical statement: “Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought,” which suggests that the NBR obtained the statement from TVNZ.

Rodney Hide picked up the story (which is how I discovered it) a week ago with an article in the NBR criticising Renwick for blaming global warming for the drought.

My initial post supported Rodney’s article in the NBR and I defended him when he was lambasted by Gareth Renowden.

It was a startling story, since reputable scientists say that you cannot blame this or that specific weather event on global warming. Although warming might increase the frequency or ferocity of an event, warming alone cannot create one. But the statement was corroborated by the very broadcaster which interviewed Renwick. They should know. So it appeared to be true.

This is just not so

Because the statement was outrageous, I was sceptical, but after reading the transcript and studying the video, I thought that taking that meaning from it was plausible and I wrote a post carefully explaining my reasoning.

There was a clamour of dissent until Andy suggested someone contact James Renwick. Good idea, I thought, and I emailed him.

Within half an hour, James politely confirmed that he never blamed the drought on global warming: “This is just not so.” It’s good to hear him say that, actually, but we must deal with the fallout.

So, I apologise to Dr Renwick for misquoting him so badly — that is, over a statement so disastrously incorrect. And I am asking TVNZ for an explanation.

Our public broadcaster has told a very naughty porky.

Renowden a scaring warmist

I haven’t seen much lately of Gareth Renowden’s climate writing, although I came across him burbling recently about US activist Bill McKibben.

Today I read Renowden’s post at The Daily Blog complaining about Rodney Hide’s NBR article. In it, Rodney criticises Dr James Renwick for comments Renwick made during this interview for TV1’s Q+A programme.

Nasty stuff

In the Daily Blog post, Renowden is distinctly combative, immediately smearing Rodney as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘rabid.’ It’s nasty stuff, but Renowden seems inured to the dirt he shovels. There was nothing in Rodney’s article to deserve this treatment. It’s unclear why Renowden bothers with such an “irrelevant” commentator but comparing Rodney with a mad dog is as outrageous as it is patently untrue.

In the end Renowden shreds his own credibility by inviting Rodney to join the warmists, claiming rather feebly ‘we need all hands on deck’ — as though the rabidly irrelevant would chance his welcome.


James Renwick has confirmed by email that he did not blame global warming for the recent drought. 10:00 pm 16 May 2013


Disagreeing further with Rodney’s article, Gareth makes a point I cannot ignore: “There’s been no warming for 17 years, apparently. Tell that to the Greenland ice sheet, or the Arctic sea ice. Tell that to the warming oceans. Global surface temperatures may not be shooting up as fast as in the recent past, but heat continues to accumulate in the climate system. Rapid climate change is here, now.” Continue Reading →

For real striving, give up the driving

Comments here from someone who shall remain nameless (thanks a lot, Andy!) forced my twice-yearly drive-by glance at Hot Topic, finding again that its unending invective, rancour, impatience, embarrassing ignorance and sheer mindless chatter is all too irksome.

But a recent post by Renowden calls for comment. He talks about Bill McKibben.

Bill McKibben — that most thoughtful and interesting of climate campaigners — is bringing his very successful Do The Maths campaign to New Zealand next month [June], and will be speaking in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. Bill’s argument is straightforward:

The maths are simple: we can burn less than 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide and stay below 2°C of warming — anything more than that risks catastrophe for life on earth. Continue Reading →

Climate forecasts fulfilled or what?

Earlier today someone mentioned to me that a Guardian article confirmed the remarkable claim that climate models correctly predicted the evolution of this century’s temperatures. By implication, either they predicted the hiatus or the hiatus hasn’t occurred. I was intrigued.

It turns out the article came from a paper (actually a letter), Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March.

All I can access at present is the abstract and a single page (through ReadCube) but I can see some things to question, and I’d like to ask readers to help give some understanding of it.

The hiatus could falsify the DAGW hypothesis, so weakening the hiatus strengthens DAGW. It’s important we understand it correctly.

UPDATE 13 Apr 2013 11:55 am

Professor Mike Kelly, of Cambridge University, has kindly sent me a copy of the paper, saying he would review it for us. Reading through the extra page (two pages that change everything!), I find it packed with questions and comments.

Abstract

To the Editor — Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming. However, their evaluation is challenging for two reasons. Continue Reading →

Snip-it

Are current temperatures hotter than ever?

Not so far

Scissors

Was there a Medieval Warm Period somewhere in the world in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested? This question is of utmost importance to the ongoing global warming debate, for if the Medieval Warm Period is found to have been a global climatic phenomenon, and if the locations where it occurred were as warm in medieval times as they are currently, there is no need to consider the temperature increase of the past century as anything other than the natural progression of the persistent millennial-scale oscillation of climate that regularly brings the earth several-hundred-year periods of modestly higher and lower temperatures that are totally independent of variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

via CO2 Science.

The CO2 Science web site thus introduces a literature review of temperature studies around 950–1400, known traditionally as the Medieval Warm Period.

The review concludes that the findings of the 24 studies examined suggest “there is nothing that is unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current level of Earth’s warmth, which further suggests that the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may not have had anything to do with concomitant 20th-century global warming.”


The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was founded by Dr Craig D. Idso (the present chairman), Dr Sherwood B. Idso is its President and Dr Keith E. Idso its Vice President. Craig and Keith are brothers, Sherwood is their father; each is a respected scientist with an impressive publication record.

h/t WUWT, who includes this handy comparison:

NZ warming to soar and slump

Today, the NZ Herald announced:

New Zealand’s climate is forecast to warm by at least 1°C by 2050, while the average rate for the world has been put at more than 2°C.

via Warming likely boost to vineyards – NZ Herald.

The article said it was good news for wine. James Renwick was asked to comment and thought stonefruit and pipfruit wouldn’t suit warmer conditions and “other potential negatives included more floods and cyclones, sea level rises, and more plant and insect pests.” (There’s always someone with a gloomy view, isn’t there?)

But this move in temperatures is hard to reconcile with what we know. Continue Reading →

Simple arithmetic

For all of its apparent complexity, the threat of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) formulated at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 is based on a very simple assumption:

When X = 560, Y = ECS

where

X = atmospheric concentration of CO2e in parts-per-million
Y = the increase in temperature since pre-1880, in °C
ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) = 1°C plus the ultimate net effect of feedbacks

X is taken from the Mauna Loa observatory and Y is provided by five published temperature series, neither being deeply controversial. The sole debatable element is ECS, the assessment of which is described in Wikipedia: Continue Reading →

The science is settled: no warming

Published at Quadrant Online on March 26, 2013

The planet is no longer warming. The brief warming episode of the late 20th century completed its course in the mid 1990s, and is now extinct. These are now uncontroversial statements. They are based on hard data which has been available for many years on the websites of many official agencies. But somehow those agencies found ways to interpret the data differently, and to continually sidestep the elephant in the room.

Continue Reading →

How the IPCC writes its own ticket

Published at Quadrant Online on March 12, 2013

The end of this week (March 15) marks the cut-off for scientific papers if they are to be cited in the Working Group I contribution to the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due in 2014. Unless the papers are published or accepted for publication the report cannot refer to them. The final expert review of the draft document ended on November 31, 2012, some 15 weeks ago. But according to IPCC procedures, the draft document can still be modified to accommodate new papers.

Newspapers

This is an adopted article.

You might reasonably wonder what’s going on, especially when the IPCC claims that its report is comprehensively reviewed by experts. To borrow the catch phrase beloved of ads for “miracle” knives and so much of the other schlock merchandise sold on late-night TV: but wait, there’s more! Continue Reading →

Aust. Climate Commission plumbs new depths

Published at Quadrant Online on March 6, 2013

Just one day after the IPCC Chairman claimed that global warming had stopped happening 17 years ago, the Australian Climate Commission rushed out a press statement (February 23), “The Earth Continues to Warm.”

Clearly, there is a lack of consensus here. Are these diametrically-opposed views between leaders in the field of climate change? Not at all. On closer inspection, it all turns out to be that well-known sleight-of-hand which Americans call “bait and switch.” Continue Reading →

Notes on ocean “warming”

I don’t have much time for research or writing these days, more’s the pity. So I must make do with snippets when they’re available. My favourite oceanographer made a few comments the other day on the ocean “heating” being discussed in the blogosphere. I’d like to pass them on.

He made some interesting and helpful remarks for the benefit of those of us not intimately acquainted with oceanography. However, to quieten the discussion which was threatening to get out of control he said pointedly, “I don’t have time to waste on Skeptical Science distortions.” We must hope that doesn’t make John Cook feel too inadequate. Continue Reading →

Give us the bodies

Habeas Corpus – late Middle English: Latin, literally ‘you shall have the body (in court)’ (oxforddictionaries.com)

Raveena Aulakh

A heart-string-tugging humanitarian piece was published in the Toronto Star last weekend. It concerns the plight of some 250 million climate change refugees expected worldwide by 2050 and was entitled Climate change forcing thousands in Bangladesh into slums of Dhaka.

Rising sea levels could flood 17 per cent of Bangladesh and create between 20 million and 30 million refugees, experts say. The Star’s environment reporter Raveena Aulakh recently travelled to the country to look at how climate change is affecting one of the world’s most densely populated countries and its people. Continue Reading →

Cooking up warming

Among the difficult, arcane arguments entangled in the doctrine of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), the simplest, most immediate and most understandable is that a general warming leads to dangerous climate change. First warming, then dangerous changes. Nobody seems to argue with that — not openly, anyway.

But we find lots of talk about “climate change” that has nothing to do with warming, as though we can have one without the other, which in turn means that humanity can be criticised for “damage” they have no hand in. In these ways warmists work to alarm the naive. We must keep our heads on our shoulders. Continue Reading →