We need a new post. Anything, really, so long as it’s in line with the “lunatic” theme expressed above. Some topic that’s on your minds, that you’re eager to discuss and either give of your own understanding or learn more of.
What will it be?
The topical theme is Lewandowsky, though he’s being well dealt with at WUWT, Jo Nova, Bishop Hill and the Australian Climate thingie. I will shortly ask for donations towards publicity for Lord Monckton’s tour next year, which looks to be about February March, but we’re waiting for the Australians first to confirm their dates.
I’m wondering whether we see correlation between our emissions, CO2 levels and global warming and I’ve started looking at graphs and taking notes. Someone else might have done this and I’m just late to the party. But it would seem to be a simple thing for the man in the street to understand and would surely debunk the nonsense.
Another subject is the rather trivial emphasis on changing our light bulbs as figures seem to suggest there’s little point to it because it won’t show up in the temperature readings, ever.
Of course, there’s also the thin skin effect that keeps the ocean so horribly hot. Who can convincingly describe that?
So this is the new post.
Views: 359
Andy,
Let me answer you here. Ambush, yes, Latin, no.
It’s a good idea, but may not be practicable and we need substantial cash. His visit next year will be self-funding, given good publicity. If we get him here on a special, he could still be refused entry and that would be a pity. Did I mention we need a lot of money?
It was slightly tongue in cheek. I don’t think Al Gore takes questions – at least, not ones that have been pre-filtered by his PR guy.
No, you’re right. He’s very careful like that. And I think you mean “have NOT been pre-filtered”. So there, that gets you back; I should not trust your suggestions.
When do you next visit Auckland? I need a beer, and so does Bob – I’m fairly sure.
No plans to visit AKL at this stage but I’ll be in touch when I do
It’s a good bet, that one.
Here is a good one for starters.
“Treaty gives us the wind – Ngapuhi leader”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Treaty-gives-us-the-wind—Ngapuhi-leader/tabid/1607/articleID/268086/Default.aspx#ixzz25XrUrZJy
LOL
Is he serious? My mind’s spinning.
The obvious next target is the Sun. We all have spiritual connections to the Sun.
The Sun makes grass and crops grow, powers solar PV panels etc.
It seems entirely logical that Maori should claim ownership of the Sun.
We need a strong Prime Minister to stand up and say “stop the nonsense.”
I’ve watched the video of the interview. Rankin’s smiling and gaming this all the way to the Waitangi Tribunal on Monday. He freely admits all mankind has a special connection to the wind and it means nothing special about Maoris.
Another starter for 10…
“Enjoy snow now . . . by 2020, it’ll be gone”
even though this season has been the best in close to a decade, this ‘environmental researcher’ claims that in less that 8 years we will have no ski season
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/enjoy-snow-now-by-2020-itll-be-gone/story-e6frg6nf-1226465074500
I would bet that there will be still snow in 2020, not sure about The Australian though
“Climate change and sexual dysfunction; or how the polar bear lost its wiener”
http://mindaberbeco.scienceblog.com/2012/08/28/climate-change-and-sexual-dysfunction-or-how-the-polar-bear-lost-its-wiener/
The headline is frankly deceptive. I’ve left the following comment (in moderation):
I’d like to nominate Peter Lilley’s ‘What Is Wrong With Stern?’
The Failings of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change
Executive Summary
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/lilley-stern_executive_summary.pdf
DOC has this to say about the Stern Report:-
What was the Stern Report about?
Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, calculated a cost to world GDP of at least 1% a year by 2050 to combat climate change, and that the cost of doing nothing would be far greater than that. He said that the carbon production of the global energy sector would have to shrink to one-quarter of current output by 2050 to stabilise the climate at 550ppm.
For this reason, meeting Kyoto commitments by stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels will not be nearly enough. The world, with developed countries taking the lead, will need to do much more than that.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/about-doc/news/issues/climate-change-for-doc-qanda/what-was-the-stern-report-about/
The findings of the Stern Report have permeated govt policy making all over the world including NZ but now the report is coming under serious scrutiny and found to be highly questionable.
Lilley-
Time to review the Stern Review
The government relies on the Stern Review to justify its policies to combat
global warming – possibly the most costly programme since the welfare
state. But the Stern Review was not fit for purpose.
The Review’s conclusions were way outside the consensus of economic
studies it supposedly reviewed and have been roundly criticised by many
leading economists. Indeed, Stern’s conclusions, that the costs of a crash
programme to reduce emissions are far outweighed by the benefits,
contradict even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
which said: “costs and benefits are broadly comparable in magnitude”
so it could not establish “an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where
benefits exceed costs”.
These criticisms were ignored when Stern’s report was published since
political parties, media and environmentalists welcomed its conclusions
as incontrovertible truth. However, the mood has changed since the
recession, as the costs of climate subsidies hit homes and businesses and
the Climategate emails provoke scepticism. It is time to look anew at the
economics of tackling climate change (while taking as given the IPCC’s
assessment of the science – in order to focus exclusively on the economics of
climate change policy).
And,
Stern sets a target of stabilising the atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide at 500 to 550 parts per million (ppm). This would ultimately require
reducing emissions by more than 80% from current levels. Developed
countries would have to do so by 2050.
[…]
To achieve this, the price of carbon must be raised by taxing or pricing
emission permits to reflect its social cost, which he puts at $310/ton of carbon
rising to $950/ton by 2100.
The economic distortion (esp on electricity generation costs) of NZ’s $25 and AU’s $23 per tonne is an indictment in itself on govt policy – think therefore, about $310/ton and $950/ton.
* Full report: What Is Wrong With Stern? (pdf) Lilley-Stern_Rebuttal 2
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/lilley-stern_rebuttal-2.pdf
It’s good to see more heat coming on the Stern Review after reading all the criticism of it from sceptics when it was published. There’s a powerful heap of reading in your references, RC!
It must be my rude rural upbringing, but how could anyone really want a title synonomous with ‘arse’? I am always surprised that people who should have known better who took Stern and his silly Report seriously as one doesn’t need qualifications in economics to realise that Stern’s report was constructed on a foundation of nonsense and was written to delight the banksters hopeful of making a killing buying and selling carbon indulgences, Greens and the Insurance Industry.
For some reason, the title ‘Stern Report’ suggests nothing more than a heavy-duty gastric disturbance. As others have pointed out, Bishop Hill currently features an excellent precis of what Lord Stern got wrong in his report.
A “devastating critique” according to BH, ‘Stern exposed’
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/4/stern-exposed.html
Lilley’s Intro sums it up:-
“This study simply challenges Stern’s economic methods and conclusions – and shows his Review was an exercise not in evidence based policy making but in policy-based evidence making”
700 pages from a team of 23 Treasury economists and officials, supported by many consultants, who worked on the review for 16 months at a cost of £1.27 million.
But the subsequent cost to national economies (not just UK) as a result of the report is in the billions. Stern has a lot to answer for.
A topical topic to pick is the Government’s “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. Submissions close on Monday next, and can be presented at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/6/8/c/50SCFE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL11566_1-Climate-Change-Response-Emissions-Trading.htm
The Bill is useful in that it extends the current cost of the scheme rather than doubling the rate in January 2013. But if halving the economic burden is a good thing then removing the burden altogether would obviously be a much better thing.
In particular, the Bill changes the entire nature of the legislation from being nominally a (wrong-headed) environmental measure to being an outright tax instrument. In future, the Minister will auction NZ carbon credits and retain the proceeds. There will no longer be any obligation to back the NZUs with international carbon credits (earned by abating emissions somewhere).
Here’s a little pop quiz for you.
What are your thoughts when you see this graph of Arctic Sea Ice extent?
I’ll bite.
1st thought – I see 4.5 x 10^5 km2 right now (more than 15% I think).
2nd thought – what was the extent in the 1930s?
3rd thought – 2012 has been a year of extremes, high in March, low in September.
My thought was what caused the higher winter extent for 2012 coupled with the record low.
The end of the world isn’t what sprung to mind though
For Arctic tipping point consternation refer Hot Topic ‘How Low Can You Go’.
The units on the graph that you linked to are incorrect (x 10^5). Either that or the image is fuzzy and I’m not reading correctly. 15% or greater is in millions of square kms (x 10^6). Here’s the same NORSEX plot from the WUWT sea ice page:-
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext_small.png
Gareth links to the SkS post ‘Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia’ with his “perfectr image” hotlink. SkS cites Walsh & Chapman 2001 (W&C01) for their Figure 1 “perfect image” plot:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg
Except that plot is very selective (hence the “perfect image”) showing Summer only. The actual W&C01 Figure 4 shows Annual, Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn and the differences are marked. W&C explicitly point out 2 issues in their conclusions:-
1) The seasonality of observed sea ice extent is contrary to most climate model GHG simulations.
2) The absence of variations in the Antarctic corresponding to the Arctic.
They also state that the above 2 issues must be resolved before climate model scenarios for the polar regions can be accepted with confidence (even SkS admits the model deficiency). W&C01 attribute decadal-scale variations of NAO and AO to be the Arctic driver. In view of the issues and attributions, HT and SkS citation of W&C01 is counterproductive to their AGW “death spiral” argument.
Walsh & Chapman 2001 ftp://128.208.240.87/incoming/PolarFridays/2-walsh_2001.pdf
W&C01 also answers my “what was the extent in the 1930s” question. Answer: the years of higher atmospheric temperatures are irrelevant, The NAO and AO are the relevant drivers and Winter 2010/11 AO was strongly negative so the high Winter 2012 extent is to be expected although not precisely (see Wiki quote below). See: Arctic Oscillation time series for the extended (DJFM) winter season 1899–2011:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_Oscillation.svg
From Arctic oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_oscillation
“…..the correlation between sharply negative Arctic Oscillations and excessive winter cold and snow in regions vulnerable in that way to these negative AOs should not be overstated”
SkS focus on Summer extent because that suits their “death spiral” meme but how do they explain 2012 Winter extent by their rationale, viz, “human influences are primarily responsible”?
I see SkS have continued their selectivity with the new post ‘Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator’ ( reblogged by Gareth ‘How “sceptics” view Arctic sea ice decline’). Very silly without anthropogenic attribution. SkS says in the ‘Unseen in Millennia’ post: “human influences are primarily responsible for the rapid rate of the death spiral” despite there being no relationship between Summer extent and the Arctic temperatures they cite e.g. Box et al in SkS Fig 3. Apparently the correlation is with CO2 directly (as they imply by their Figure 7 citing Figure 4 from Notz and Marotzke 2012) and temperature can be conveniently sidestepped. I don’t buy that.
BTW, why didn’t Gareth hotlink to the CCG Lewandowsky post directly in his “Whilst the usual suspects provide compelling demonstrations of just how the motivated rejection of science works” instead of to all CCG posts?
Finger fault I’m guessing (benefit of the doubt). Or didn’t he want too much HT attention to be directed to the actual post by those not familiar with the paper title?
Send the pop quiz to Obama:-
“As we speak,” Obama said in Berlin, “cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic”
The best news this week (for me) is that James Delingpole is standing for election to the UK parliament as an independent candidate on an “anti-wind farm” ticket.
Much glee and joy from over the road at NIWA and government science’s “victory”.
And such silence over here [ad hom deleted].
Almost as quiet as when someone asks to see evidence of the tropospheric hotspot. [Needling deleted]
Good to see that there is no dispute from you [needling deleted].
That old saw? Phhhttt…
Notice what’s going on up at the North Pole, oh cooling one? Never mind, there’ll doubtlessly be a ‘recovery’ in the offing, and then another, at least until summer sea-ice all disappears sometime in the next decade.
(Then it can stage ‘a comeback’ occasionally!)
[goading deleted]
You backed the wrong horse, people; the sad thing is now we all have to cover your stupid bet
“Notice what’s going on up at the North Pole”
Yes, higher winter extent in 2012 than recent years.
How do explain that part of the “death spiral” meme with the (SkS) rationale “human influences are primarily responsible”?
For that matter, how do you explain the summer “death spiral” meme when there’s no relationship with Arctic atmospheric temperature?
Ha ha! You’re funny, Richard; don’t ever change.
Checked out any of the volume charts at any stage? No? Well, you have, haven’t you, but it’s just not worth mentioning, is it? [stop it, guys]
Walsh & Chapman 2001 (that SkS cite and extract their “death spiral” summer graph from – ignoring the other seasons)) attribute NAO and AO.
But please bill, feel free to detail the anthropogenic attribution[stop the goading].
BTW I see that Greenland’s ice ‘melts in spurts’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19095069
[ad hom deleted]
@ Bill. I do see what’s happening in the Arctic. What I don’t see is any evidence linking it to anthropogenic causes. All you need to prove it is the tropospheric hot spot but it hasn’t appeared for some reason.
The determination was hardly unsurprising. It’s not the role of the High Court to adjudicate on questions of science requiring the evaluation of expert opinion.
Quite possibly, but I find the reactions [nasty goading deleted] a little bit disturbing.
Good, I am glad the Bill has linked here.
Apparently Eli Rabbett thinks this:
Disgusting, revolting people.
Yeah, those disgusting people, it’s right and proper that the taxpayer pay. Socialise the losses and privatise the gains, that’s the way to play it, eh Andy?.
‘Socialise the losses and privatise the gains’.
That’s the way they do it in the climate change world Richard. Solar & wind power run at a loss and survive on govt subsidies funded by the taxpayer. When those subsidies dry up the wind & solar companies fold.
Yeah, you’re all so sweet, how could anyone have it in for you? 😉
Bill, make a useful contribution without sarcasm. The post you link to is rare and a response to world-leading deception. This thread contributes little yet to our knowledge. – Richard Treadgold
Gee, ‘rare’, eh? You mean I won’t find any more like it if I go looking?
That’s not what ‘rare’ means, is it?
The passage you quote expresses quite well the passion of the moment. Go to Jo Nova’s post linked there and see some of the deceitful statements that had just come to light from so-called leading climatologists. That’s what I was angry about.
Sure, there are warts here, and I don’t mind apologising for them, but you’re welcome to spend all the time you wish examining them if they interest you. Our intention is to conduct a reasonable conversation and enlighten each other. I won’t put up with vacuous nonsense for long.
Please say something useful.
“It’s not the role of the High Court to adjudicate on questions of science requiring the evaluation of expert opinion”
But Justice Venning did just that Simon
[182] For the same reasons the allegation of a mistake of fact based on departure from recognised scientific opinion must fail. The Trust’s alternative proposition, that the decision to publish the review was based on mistaken belief it had been compiled using internationally recognised scientific methodology, is not made out. On the evidence I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology.
But what that “credible scientific methodology” is, nobody knows.
Apparently a student thesis is “internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology”.
Who knew?
I found it fascinating that throughout the proceedings NIWA never once produced the paper on which their methodology was based. I wonder why that was?
Bob, I am going to have a beer for you and Barry.
Well, several, actually.
Enjoy the weekend
That’s the difference between the NIWA Review and the Statistical Audit – citation. R&S93 by NZCSET, conspicuously nothing by NIWA.
But of this NIWA omission “a more tolerant review is appropriate” according to J Venning.
That is (by implication), sceptics should be “more tolerant” of institutional bias and manipulation of data for political positioning than they are – let sleeping dogs lie, look the other way, cease sceptical scrutiny.
This is a sad day for the integrity of science in New Zealand.
>Enjoy the weekend
Thanks Andy, will do. I hope you get some joy regarding your house soon too.
Basically J Venning gave NIWA an easy out:-
[45] I consider this Court should be cautious about interfering with decisions made and conclusions drawn by a specialist body, such as NIWA, acting within its own sphere of expertise. In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate.
So don’t look too closely at NIWA’s work (certainly not to the extent that NZCSET did), and tolerate anything questionable. That’s the limp legal approach.
What a whimp-out by the judiciary.
He did, but that was what the Trust asked him to do. He was very scathing of the Trust’s expert testimony.
Rhodes & Salinger (1993) wasn’t a student’s thesis but it does sound like NIWA and the Trust disagreed on how it should be applied. In a non-partisan world there would be a single published R or SAS script provided by NIWA that applied the necessary station adjustments. That’s not going to happen though if it would result in yet more arguments or legal action.
Simon read the judgment, J Venning specifically states (as I quote above):-
“In such circumstances a less intensive or, to put it another way, a more tolerant review is appropriate”
He let NIWA off the hook on the question of its methodology (a students thesis).
NZCSET on the other hand, applied R&S03 to the letter but J Venning chose to be lenient on NIWA and accept their decision to go with the thesis that they don’t even actually cite in their Review as the basis of their method.
I have quickly read it.
[78] As noted, the Trust contends that, rather than apply the best recognised scientific opinion to produce the 7SS, NIWA applied the thesis. NIWA’s position however, is that the methodology relied on to produce the 7SS was in fact derived from the same methodology found in RS93.
That is correct – it was NIWA’s position. However, it is incorrect that the methodologies are similar, and we proved it. The two methods produce quite different results, and NIWA’s method as shown in their Review is the thesis method. It is not based on RS93 at all.
RS93 relies on:
1) Short time periods to prevent contamination by gradual (UHI, sheltering) or sudden unknown (undocumented site changes) effects at candidate or reference stations. RS93 uses 1-2 years, NIWA uses 10 years;
2) Monthly values – this is to ensure sufficient statistical confidence when using shorter periods – NIWA used annual values;
3) Weighted averages based on statistical correlations – NIWA used none;
4) Confidence tests to ensure shifts were valid – NIWA applied none.
To date there is no evidence (nor was any produced) that shows that the 7SS was ever subject to a RS93 analysis by NIWA. They claim it was, but apparently they’ve lost the data, the analysis, the reports, the computer code, everything.
This is not encouraging.
Then again they claimed they had no obligation to pursue quality science anyway, so I guess it’s all OK then.
When dealing with government bureaucracy, the term “Kafkaesque” often gets bandied around
J Venning effectively “walked away”.
I’m wondering if that was to leave it to someone else if there’s an appeal (if that’s possible).
I’ve lost track of what recourse there is now that the Privy Council door is closed.
I am still trying to understand the mentality of the fanboys who are declaring this a “victory”. If you were a NIWA employee, I could understand, but as an impartial observer?
In what way is this a “victory” for science or for the public at large?
Gee, in what way was Kitzmuller vs. Dover a – scare quotes – victory – end scare quotes – for science or the public at large, andy? 😉
Bill, if this is relevant, please give a reference. – Richard Treadgold
A very hollow “victory” for NIWA. And by no means a “Complete and total vindication for NIWA” as cyclone at HT seems to think.
J Venning made a point of NOT investigating the questions with any intensity (less than normal according to [45]).
A victory by default of the Judge. NIWA has no high ground in this judgment.
Yeah, that’s right, Dixie, you’re winning! You really, really are. No, seriously. You’ll wake up tomorrow morning and it will all have been a dream…
Yes, Bill, very funny. But not gaining a judicial review doesn’t mean we were wrong to seek one, or that there’s nothing wrong with what NIWA did over the national temperature record. It just means there are good reasons for the judge not to perform a review on these decisions. As he explains quite carefully, he’s not touching scientific questions with a ten-foot barge pole. As I say elsewhere, he says virtually nothing about the science on either side.
“NIWA has no high ground in this judgment.”
I suggest Mr Treadgold you and Mr Dunleavy have even less ‘high ground’.
It was Richard Cumming who said that, not me. But he was right to draw attention to the kind of neutral result from the judge declining our application. It’s true he has offered some specific criticisms, but in saying we’re not entitled to a judicial review he’s explicitly deciding it on matters other than the science. The science remains our strength.