The NZ Climate Science Coalition’s opponents have attacked it for creating a Trust (the NZ Climate Science Education Trust, NZCSET) for the sole purpose of unfairly (perhaps, in the opinion of some, unlawfully) avoiding costs if they lost the court case against NIWA.
However, there are sensible reasons for creating a legal entity to take someone to court. One of the first questions a judge asks is “who are the parties?” If that simple question cannot be answered by naming a legal entity the case doesn’t get off the ground and the judge just gets annoyed.
So, although the NZCSC did the scientific work in challenging NIWA’s techniques, it couldn’t take the court proceedings. An unincorporated association cannot sue or be sued, as it has no legal existence separate from its multifarious members.
This may surprise some people, but the Coalition laboured mightily to avoid Court proceedings, and it was partly for that reason. For example, it sought copies of documents under the Official Information Act. Nothing came back.
It wrote formally to the Chairman of NIWA on no less than six occasions urging an investigation and offering to meet. Nothing happened.
It prepared lengthy and detailed formal documents (the Audit and the Critique) and forwarded them to both the Chairman and the legal advisers of NIWA, seeking reactions. But nothing happened.
After establishing that NIWA had no record of the 7SS, the Coalition secured an undertaking from the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp that NIWA would undertake a full peer-reviewed analysis to document the series.
Still nothing happened.
It was obvious that court action would be necessary to make progress. Which meant we had to incorporate some form of legal entity.
The Coalition therefore sponsored the formation of a charitable trust with the broad purpose of educating the New Zealand public on aspects of climate change science and policy.
Included within that broader purpose was resolution of the disputed temperature record. As these objectives were solely in the public interest, with no element of self-interest or profit, a charity was the obvious form to adopt. It was also a suitable vehicle for the acceptance of donations from interested supporters.
So, you see there was no nefarious purpose behind the Trust. There was no trickery or deception in promulgating it — just an honest attempt to force a response from NIWA to the suggestion that there were errors in the preparation of the national temperature record.
But NIWA brought a team of expensive QCs against our homespun endeavour and so far they’ve avoided giving straight answers.
For example, they say they have no duty to keep records, to employ the best scientific techniques, to pursue excellence or even, astonishingly, to produce a national temperature record.
Nobody predicted that – especially their many supporters. They must have been gobsmacked.
Without the court case, New Zealand would never have discovered these important facts about our premier, publicly-funded, environmental organisation. Thank heaven for the legal system!
Views: 470
IMHO, creating the Education trust was very sensible and the only possible tactic that could have enabled the pursuit of NIWA, and the truth, through the courts. I suspect the judgement handed down by Justice Venning may not be final and ultimately may, rather like the judgement in ’28Gate’, bite the local defenders of dubious statistical manipulation in the backside.
Ah, Alex, haven’t the “local defenders of dubious statistical manipulation” already been bitten “in the backside” – by the High Court, no less?
Also, where do you suppose Bob D. is these days – perhaps hiding his head in shame, after his errors were pointed out to him by one of the few mathematically literate climate change sceptics?
which errors?
Haven’t you heard, Andy? Bob got the warming wrong by a factor of 3, compared to NIWA and BEST.
I guess McIntyre must have put him right, and Bob’s gone away to do a remedial maths course at a Polytech somewhere.
Brandoch, you have completely missed the point I made, deliberately, no doubt, as misdirection is your usual modus operandi.
Actually, Alex, it’s known as “irony” – look it up sometime.
No I didn’t hear Brandoch. Are you saying that Steve McIntyre corrected Bob’s work? I must have missed that somewhere.
Can you provide a link or something that explains what you are trying to say.
Furthermore, NIWA and BEST results are not the same. BEST is about half way between NZCSET and NIWA
>”Bob got the warming wrong by a factor of 3, compared to NIWA and BEST.”
HOW EXACTLY did he get it “wrong” Brando? You never have divulged this information have you?
I think that’s because you’re making stuff up.
BTW, GHCN corroborates the NZCSET series (Bob et al and 3 stats reviewers) but BEST NZ doesn’t corroborate either NIWA or NZCSET (it’s also junk that grotesquely distorts input).
You better tell Berkeley that, it’ll be news to them. I like the BEST approach because it doesn’t require a priori knowledge or meta-data. I wouldn’t get too hung up with NZ temperature readings for 1850, it’s not BEST’s fault that there was no reliable weather stations in NZ back then.
>”I wouldn’t get too hung up with NZ temperature readings for 1850″
I would, and 2000s too (when stations are presumably reliable e.g. AWS):-
12.69 NIWA 7SS 2001 – 2011 (as for NZCSET 7SS and GHCN v2 12SS)
11.40 BEST NZ 2001 – 2011
Best NZ is junk.
11.08 Dunedin 2001 – 2009 (from NIWA 7SS)
11.40 BEST NZ 2001 – 2011
11.69 Lincoln 2001 – 2009 (from NIWA 7SS)
Some, if not all, of Dunedin and Lincoln data will be from each reference station (last open site) i.e. raw, unadjusted observed temperature. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project would have us believe that a representative proxy for NZ in the 2000s is near Waimate between Timaru and Oamaru in the lower half of the South Island.
You are not comparing apples with apples Richard. The average based on seven selected stations will not be the same as the average based on a different set of weather stations. That is why comparison can only be on variation from the mean.
>”You are not comparing apples with apples Richard”
No I’m not and that is EXACTLY the point. Can you not see how far away from being representative of NZ the BEST NZ series is Simon?
>”The average based on seven selected stations will not be the same as the average based on a different set of weather stations”
I didn’t say anything about “the average based on seven selected stations”. I only produced 2 individual locations. I’ll try again. Consider the following:
For the exercise, forget “seven selected stations”, forget NIWA 7SS, forget NZCSET 7SS and GHCN v2 12SS. Just focus on working out what level of absolute temperature should be representative of the entire NZ landmass in the 2000s.
To identify what BEST NZ actually represents, take 2 individual CliFlo datasets of temperature measurements 2001 – 2009 (Dunedin and Lincoln open stations near enough and probably raw). Those 2 locations are selected because they look to be in the ballpark of the BEST value we will compare to (no point looking at Auckland is there?). Find the level of absolute temperature over the period for each location both of which are in the lower half of the South Island note.
11.08 Dunedin 2001 – 2009 (basically raw CliFlo data)
11.69 Lincoln 2001 – 2009 (basically raw CliFlo data)
Now do the same for BEST but for their representation of NZ in entirety.
11.40 BEST NZ 2001 – 2011
Clearly, the BEST NZ output after kriging is a value almost exactly between the 2 individual locations, Dunedin and Lincoln.
11.08 Dunedin 2001 – 2009 (basically raw CliFlo data)
11.40 BEST NZ 2001 – 201111.69
11.69 Lincoln 2001 – 2009 (basically raw CliFlo data)
Sure enough, BEST NZ is representative of a location near Waimate (between Timaru and Oamaru) about half way between Lincoln and Dunedin.
Now ask yourself: is that location a realistic representative proxy for the entire NZ landmass?
If you answer “yes” to that question, then obviously you haven’t got a clue about how temperature records are compiled in order to obtain realistic proxies. I suspect too that you really don’t know what the NZCSET v NIWA breakpoint issue is about either.
>”That is why comparison can only be on variation from the mean.”
Hogwash. Temperature is defined as a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.
In absolute terms, the variation is from either 0 K or 273.15 K (0 C) so obviously a comparison can be made between values in the same units (unless BEST Celsius units are somehow “different” to other units in Celsius as they appear to be in the case of BEST NZ).
The kriging process uses latitude and altitude as correlation variables. A significant proportion of the NZ land mass is in the South Island and most of NZ is well above sea level so the BEST average does not surprise me. Once again you dismiss something as rubbish because you don’t understand the basic concepts.
Simon:
Well if it does it introduces errors.
Example:
Walvis Bay, lat 22°S, alt 0m. Avg Temp is 16.25°C
Durban, lat 30°S, alt 14m. Avg Temp is 21.75°C
So according to you, Durban, which is further south and marginally higher than Walvis Bay, must be colder.
Oops.
What are you taking about? Kriging interpolates between known data points by looking at the cross-correlations of whatever spatial datasets you throw at it. It this case BEST is probably correct as Walvis Bay is subject to strong cool sea breezes off the relatively cold ocean.
Simon:
Kriging is OK as long as the function based on the set of independent variables adequately predicts the dependent variable. In this case altitude and latitude alone are inadequate (many other factors come into play, obviously – one of them is ocean currents, as you point out), and therefore the function result is also inadequate.
Think of it this way: if Walvis Bay was all we had in that region, how good a predictor would latitude and altitude be in determining the temperature of Durban?
>”…The kriging process uses latitude…”
Right. All the inputs to determine the NZ series are dragged in (including from places VERY far away, not even on the NZ mainland) and the typical ambient temperature arrived at happens to coincide with the ambient temperature of a location with similar latitude to Wanaka. One look at a map of NZ should tell you that the Wanaka – Waimate latitude isn’t that great as a South Island representation let alone when the North Island is considered too for spatial integrity on a national scale i.e. the centre of area of NZ would not lie on that latitude or anywhere near it. Then for that latitudinal cross-section to be valid, there would have to be sampling across it – at Waimate, Wanaka and wherever, all adjusted for altitude.
>”…..and altitude”
OK, now tell us what is the altitudinal distribution of measurement sites throughout NZ and what time-spans do they cover? Just where are the Stevensons Screens at long-life locations that have sampled for the last century, the Southern Alps? The Ruahines? The Kaikouras? The Uraweras?
There’s enough drama adjusting for altitude with the Wellington site move uphill to Kelburn without pulling in sites to sample for altitude and that is a very small vertical displacement in comparison to the altitudes of mountainous parts that you’re talking about.
The essence of a composite series is to select specific long-life sites that are at similar heights to avoid altitude adjustments wherever possible and to represent the entire country spacially so that over time the climate can be monitored. It is not necessary to have hundreds of thermometers all over the country (including mountainous regions) to do that. Lincoln/Ruakura or Dunedin’Auckland would probably suffice.
Any notion that BEST has better representation because a few high and mid altitude sites have been included as inputs is fanciful from a time and space coverage perspective. If that multitude of long-life sites was actually available, THEN I would agree that a kriging method has merits but that is just not the case. If it were, I’m sure NIWA would be promoting a different series to the 7SS. As it is, NIWA actually does have a product on offer for purchase that interpolates from many sites (all CliFlo I think) and has had for some time but these are very rough estimates unless there is the requisite spacial and altitudinal sampling, but there isn’t.
If you want to stick with BEST’s 11.4 C as representative of NZ in the 2000s fine, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t expect many to join you from the ranks of those monitoring climate and that would include NIWA in particular I’m sure.
>”NIWA actually does have a product on offer for purchase that interpolates from many sites”
Turns out it is a free product:-
Virtual Climate Station Data and Products
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/our-services/virtual-climate-stations
Introduction
Virtual Climate Station (VCS) data are estimates of daily rainfall, potential evapotranspiration, air and vapour pressure, maximum and minimum air temperature, soil temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, wind speed and soil moisture on a regular (~5km) grid covering the whole of New Zealand. The estimates are produced every day, based on the spatial interpolation of actual data observations made at climate stations located around the country.
A thin-plate smoothing spline model is used for the spatial interpolations. This model incorporates two location variables (latitude and longitude) and a third “pattern” variable. For example, for rainfall the 1951–80 mean annual rainfall digitised from an expert-guided contour map is used to aid the interpolation (Tait et al. 2006; Tait et al. 2012). The software used for the interpolations is ANUSPLIN (Hutchinson 2012).
A similar interpolation procedure is used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to deliver estimated weather data at similar resolution over all Australia (Jeffrey et al. 2001).
Accessing the Data
The VCS data are available for free from NIWA’s online portal to the National Climate Database, called Cliflo. Here are the steps for extracting VCS data:
1. Go to http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz
2. If you do not have a registered cliflo username and password, click on ‘subscribe on-line’ (there is no cost)
3. Login
4. On the database query form, click on ‘select datatype’ then ‘special datasets’ then ‘VCSN’
5. On the database query form, type in the agent number of this VCS point (see below for finding the VCS agent number using a map interface)
6. On the database query form, choose a date range (VCS rainfall data begin on 1/1/1960; VCS wind data begin on 1/1/1997; other VCS data variables begin on 1/1/1972. The data are updated every day at approximately 1pm local time for the 24-hour period up to 9am local time on the same day)
7. On the database query form, choose an output data format (e.g. ExCel file)
8. On the database query form, click ‘send query’.
Example VCS Daily Air Temperature and Frost plot for a site near Nelson.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/gallery/example-vcs-daily-air-temperature-and-frost-plot
# # #
BOM and NIWA were doing this before BEST came along but it’s not actual weather or climate and neither is BEST.
Some weird stuff on the BEST NZ page:-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/new-zealand
Note firstly, the link address is “regions/newzealand”
3 of 6 in Auckland vicinity (4 including Hamilton). No Napier, Nelson, Dunedin etc.
“Palestina” is Israel.
From index page
BEST refers to “region” as both “New Zealand” AND “Oceania”
Problem is, the NZ land mass area alone is 268,671 sq km so they must mean “region” is “New Zealand” not Oceania.
Since 2000, 30 of the NZ input stations are “within region” (is that Oceania or NZ land mass?) but 125 are “region plus 2000km” i.e. in a 1500 – 2000 km zone outside Oceania or NZ land mass (which is it?). Hobart is apparently “region plus 2000km” and the distance from Wellington to Hobart is 2260 km indicating that “region” is NZ land mass (not Oceania) and BEST has dodgy info pages. 125 stations from that distance away (1500 – 2000 km) is hardly necessary to describe mainland New Zealand when they have 30 stations actually on the NZ land mass already.
“Coming soon” indicates BEST is experiencing the same difficulty NIWA had compiling contiguous location series. Hence the adjustments required to a number of shorter sites in order to bring into terms with a reference station and thereby construct psuedo long-life sites.
>”…the centre of area of NZ would not lie on that latitude or anywhere near it [Wanaka – Waimate]”
Botanical Hill, Nelson
The summit of Botanical Hill has a monument celebrating its claim of being the geographical centre of New Zealand. In fact, the true geographical centre of New Zealand is said to be 55km southwest in the Spooner Range
http://www.peakbagging.org.nz/wiki/Botanical_Hill
The geographical centre of the North Island is marked by a plinth that lies deep in the Pureora Forest north-west of Lake Taupo [see estimate method, not a surveyed location]
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6BD1_Centre_of_the_North_Island_New_Zealand
A guess at the centre of the South Island (including Stewart Island) would be Twizel, Omarama or Tekapo.
There’s something wrong with the structure/system of Crown Research Institutes when they cannot be held accountable to anyone for the reliability of their work.
The Minister cannot interfere in operational decisions and MPs are ignored. The Board is a rubber stamp, mainly concerned with ensuring the institute is impenetrable from the outside. Questions under the Official Information Act are routinely evaded and appeals to the Ombudsman are fiercely resisted and interminably delayed.
The Auditor General will look into financial criticisms but is not interested in qualitative issues.
The NZ Royal Society Climate Committee is stacked with NIWA employees and the PM’s Chief Climate Adviser has his speeches written by NIWA.
Nothing short of a High Court judgment can make a CRI act reasonably in the public interest. And even that is a toothless tiger when the Court allows Government scientists to be the sole arbiter of their chosen methods.
All of the raw climate data is freely available online through NIWA’s CliFlo database. Apply the best methodology that you have to homogenise the data. Hint: don’t simply discard data outside the 7 Station series, it is useful for cross-correlations. Write a paper and then get it published. This will then be the “official” NZ temperature record in the absence of an alternative. You will have added to the pool of scientific knowledge and there is no need for lawyers.
>”Hint: don’t simply discard data outside the 7 Station series”
Like this GHCN v2 12SS series that corroborates NZCSET 7SS?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2qlao0m.png?w=614&h=722
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/347z98z.png?w=921&h=654
Richard, try, if you can, to learn from the recent Republican debacle in the US.
So convinced were they that their candidate, Romney, was unbeatable, that they invented their own pseudoscience of “unskewed statistics” to explain why all the other polls were wrong.
Problem is, they weren’t….
Are you able to connect the dots?
“Those who do not understand their history are doomed to repeat it – first as tragedy, then as farce”
That’s why we can’t help but laugh at you running away like a little girl when asked to provide some evidence for AGW Brandoch. Like the village idiot choking on a chicken bone, hysterical and pathetic at the same time. Where’s the evidence Brandoch? Now run away again squealing insults like the little girl you are so we can laugh at you once again. All mouth and no substance, but good for a laugh or ten.
>”Are you able to connect the dots?”
No dots to connect Brando. US presidential poll surveys (however manipulated) are not observed NZ climate site data adjusted to reference for location (NIWA/NZCSET 7SS) nor is it GHCN v2 data i.e. you are away with the birdies (again).
NIWA, NZCSET and GHCN v2 are identical for recent years (BEST is an idiotic outlier in any timeframe). But GHCN corroborates NZCSET in the early years and NIWA and BEST compete for outlier status – BEST wins hands down:-
11.93 NIWA 7SS 1913 -1922
11.15 Lincoln 1913 -1922 (NIWA)
10.80 BEST NZ 1913 -1922
10.67 Dunedin 1913 – 1922 (NIWA)
I am still waiting to hear about this “mistake’ that Bob made and where he was corrected by a “mathematically inclined sceptic”.
Please fill us in with the details
Yes, please do, I’d love to see the details.
Brando has it not occurred to you that the US presidential poll surveys were snapshots in time but temperature records are time series?
That would make the respective datasets statistically dissimilar would it not?
Brandoch, do you actually know the definition of ‘irony’?
I keep an edition of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary at hand, which defines irony as
‘ the opposite of what is stated, dissembling, feigning ignorance’ etc.
You feign beautifully! And probably without even trying.
With all due respect, guys, have you considered that you may be mentally unwell?
It sure looks like magical thinking, shared delusions and denial of reality to me… sure, denial has its place in the grieving process, but at some stage you have to come to terms with living in the real world.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/denial/SR00043
Are you able to fill us in with the details of Bob’s “mistake” and how this was corrected by a mathematically inclines sceptic (as you put it)?
Thanks
Have you ever considered the fact that you might be delusional Brandoch?
‘A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary….
These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
You don’t have any evidence to back up your claims of AGW, despite ample evidence being provided to disprove your viewpoint. To maintain the delusion you try to disprove your opponents on some other unrelated & trivial points, or abuse them, in an attempt to deceive yourself into thinking your point of view has some credence. The fact is you can only justify your viewpoint with evidence which you don’t have, and your use of the the term ‘denial’ is just a sad example of a projection of your own insecurity about your baseless beliefs.
Where’s the evidence Brandoch?
Looks like the World Bank’s in denial too Brando:-
So much for the World Bank’s “Turn Down the Heat”. Turns out the WB is reducing poverty by providing funding for coal-fired energy development in developing countries:-
It would appear that the World Bank has no qualms about providing funding to the tune of $5.3bn for developing countries that prefer to turn up the coal-fired heat and share the same economic benefit of developed countries that are already heavy coal-fired energy producers.
Puts the World Bank in a compromising position doesn’t it Brando?
The World Bank is funding the world’s largest coal fired power station in South Africa, whose emissions are 50% of the whole of New Zealand.
Brandoch Daha says
1. November 23, 2012 at 2:54 am
I really don’t understand why you persist in writing in this forum. You have nothing to say but you ramble on all over the place making irrelevant comments that are neither cogent nor connected to the context of this present column. I expect that it would be too much to ask you to go away. But for the sake of clarity I will do just that. Please go away.
Douglas, I do not post for your benefit, but for the benefit of any open-minded souls who might otherwise think that the willful ignorance they encounter here has some basis in reality.
Which, clearly, it does not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408350
Brandoch, I am very open minded, and am interested in the mistake that Bob made that was corrected by a mathemetically inclined sceptic (according to you)
Are you able to fill us in with the details?
Thanks
Brandoch, I find BBC links to “facts” about climate change a bit suspect.
After all, this is the publicly funded organisation that held a meeting with 28 people, mostly activists and only a handful of actual scientists, to determine the future biased direction of the organisation
They then hired 6 lawyers to block information about these 28 people from a retired person called Tony Newbury. The information was in the public domain anyway, and was unearthed by Maurizio Maurabito via the Wayback Machine.
Of course the BBC has other issues too, having falsely accused Lord McAlpine of running a paedophile ring, a scandal that resulted in the resignation of the Director General who was paid out 1.3 million pounds after 53 days in the job.
We also, of course, had the Jimmy Saville affair, which showed a culture of child abuse across the organisation over a period of decades.
So maybe you could find a more authoritative source than the BBC, a self-serving group of activists and kiddie-fiddlers.
Brandoch Daha says:
November 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
You are, of course, like a moth to the candle but if you insist of proving my point so be it. I suppose hair shirts have they uses.
Brandoch, I bet you are a break-up when you take the mick out of innocent but tolerably-well educated strangers who visit your branch of the RSA. You are a troll and nothing more, as evidenced by your flinging accusations and never providing verification of even the flimsiest kind. You waste our time and yours.
Please guys, DNFTT!
Well, I certainly agree with half of that statement…
As for “open-minded Andy”, is this not the person who refuses to accept “modelling”, despite having benefited from it for most of his life?
Yes, Andy, mathematical modelling is used everywhere, including for the medicines, cars and airlines you somehow manage to endure without flinching… hypocrisy, perhaps?
The models that I use are verified against real data
If you include high sensitivity to CO2 as an input to the model, an unverified assumption, then the model has no value
Same tired old straw men, Andy? Forget the modelling, what about the empirical evidence for climate sensitivity, or are you just going to shrug that off as well, as It conflicts with your limited worldview?
Of course you are!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
Easily. You’re confusing TSI with blocking of sunlight by changes in cloud cover. The latter is many times more powerful than GHG changes.
I see you are now channeling Roy Spencer’s nonsense, Bob; please explain how short-term water vapour affects long-term climate trends:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/
Perhaps you were giving a nod to the GCR hypothesis, too, which collapses under the weight of the empirical solar data:
Now, have you fixed up your NZ temp calculations yet?
>”…..the lifetime of cloud systems is days rather than decades”
So what? It’s cloudiness levels that matter. Cloud forcing changes on interdecadal and decadal scales with magnitude far greater than GHGs (its been explained to you previously, remember Stephens et al 2012 – or are you in denial Brando?).
>”For starters, we see no evidence for any long-term change in the sun in the last 50 years”
Not when they look at PMOD data. The flat trend in the PMOD composite is an artifact of uncorrected ERBS degradation. All explained here Brando:-
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/archive/index.php/thread-1843.html
Quoting:-
“Scafetta and West 2008 found that up to 70% of the warming over the last 50 years can be explained by just TSI alone when you use the ACRIM dataset. This does not include other natural causes like Cloud Cover decrease, PDO, AMO, Volcanism etc.”
“What does this all mean?
It means that the graph that the viewers of Skeptical Science [and Real Climate] love to throw around is cherry picking one dataset of Solar Activity, and completely leaving the other one out, to fit their predetermined conclusions.”
# # #
It gets much worse for you Brando. Two papers just out at THS (not highlighted at SkS obviously so you probably missed them):-
New paper finds the data do not support the theory of man-made global warming [AGW]
Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming
M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor
2012
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/new-paper-finds-data-do-not-support.html
New paper shows no “hot spot” as predicted by climate models, invalidates AGW
Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations
Dian J. Seidel, Melissa Free, James S. Wang
2012
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/new-paper-shows-no-hot-spot-as.html
Enjoy.
>”….have you fixed up your NZ temp calculations yet?”
What EXACTLY does Bob have to “fix” Brando?
Your sniping is vacuous until you answer that question.
I don’t have to explain anything to you, my little demon. I’ll just point you to the scientific literature in the hope that you may learn something. Anything.
Davies and Molloy (2012)
Loeb (2012)
Erlykin and Wolfendale (2010)
Cloud height decreased between 2000-2010
So, still sticking to that statement “the lifetime of cloud systems is days rather than decades”?
How odd.
By the way, several people have now asked you to identify my “errors”, and you still seem unable to substantiate your statement. Your continual failure to do so is severely damaging what tiny amount of credibility you might still have had.
Also, I note you are still unable to provide any explanation for the lack of the tropospheric hot-spot. We’re still waiting, you know.
Sixteen years of no warming, no tropospheric hot-spot, record high Antarctic ice, dropping sea level rate, record low hurricane ACE values – honestly, I would hate to be in your position, trying to defend AGW.
The only paper cited in AR4 (to my knowledge) that tries to estimate sensitivity to CO2 using empirical data is Forster and Gregory. I think they used data from the Mt Pinatobu eruption.
(discussed at Bishop Hill)
This was the only paper that didn’t rely on model output, and estimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at about 1.5 degrees C
The IPCC did some dodgy Bayesian work on the paper’s conclusions that amplified this figure to fit more closely with the other papers that relied more on models. This was uncovered by Nic Lewis.
For anyone interested, here is the ink to my last quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/
If your case is so strong, Bob,
why do you need to dissemble and lie?BD, accusing other commenters of lying is unacceptable. Start showing HOW they’re wrong and start answering our questions or you’ll be banned. Incidentally, showing how they’re wrong consists of an explanation followed by references, not just writing the words FALSE, IRRELEVANT, etc., in capital letters. You might have noticed I’ve deleted many of your rude, goading comments; try to take the hint and desist, please. – RT
Or are you just [ad hominem remarks deleted – RT] of facts that do not fit your peculiar worldview?
>”Sixteen years of no warming (FALSE),”
In denial Brando?
>”no tropospheric hot-spot (IRRELEVANT),”
You wish.
BTW, about that “fix” that you seem to think Bob needs to carry out on the 7SS Brando. Is it because the established method fails to reproduce the warming that you just “know” should be evident, that the method must be abandoned in favour of something more arbitrary and flexible (like NIWA’s)?
And what “fix” do you suggest for the global records this century? Hansen style? They’re badly in need of “fixing” aren’t they Brando? Especially those pesky satellite records.
This seems to perfectly fir your position Brandoch.
e.g Ice melting in Arctic = Global Warming
Ice gaining in Antarctic = Wind
Ignore “irrelevant” issues like Tropospheric Hotspot.
I am not sure I even know what the AGW theory is anymore.Maybe you would like to tell us.
As a cure for ignorance, Andy, you could try the following, starting with the daily papers!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10839848
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113141936.htm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1627.html
Got that now, Andy?
The fact is that the poles (both of them) are supposed to warm significantly more than the tropics, because the air is extremely dry and CO2 effects will greatly dominate. This is standard AGW theory, and always has been.
Except it hasn’t been happening. Your own quote says it:
Invoking the ozone hole is pure, squirming desperation, and they know it.
For those few bright moments when the Team thought that Steig et al (2009) was correct, they came out with smug claims that the Antarctic was in fact warming after all, just as they predicted.
If CO2 is a powerful driver of our planet’s climate, we should see strong and clear indicators in line with predictions. We don’t.
I have no idea what you’re on about.
However, because you have resolutely refused to address any challenges given to you, preferring to live in whatever bubble-world you have created for yourself, this will most likely be my last response to anything you post.
There really is no point in trying to have an adult conversation with the likes of you.
>”…the likes of you”
Troll genre generally, BD being from the Warmist sect of the larger group. Sects being adherents to distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs – Warmism in BD’s case. Probably more of an obsessive compulsive disease than a belief, an addiction not readily cured in those willfully denying the reality of the world around them.
Our resident troll has found an outlet for his particular obsession – very necessary for those as deeply afflicted as he is and he’s not doing any real harm, the vital freedom to vent at CCG is probably preventing him from going completely loopy. Better that than being confined to the strait-jacketed, padded-cell enclaves that most warmists gravitate to and from which BD supports his addiction. In that respect, CCG is providing a social and medical service for a person suffering an unfortunate psychiatric condition. Integration into the societal norm of healthy scepticism afforded by CCG will go a long way towards his eventual rehabilitation.
Climatic conditions (the continued failure of the Warmist delusion to eventuate) will do the rest in time because time is the best healer of emotional fear when the fear is not reinforced by year-by-year experience. Meantime, be kind to the troll, he’s unwell.
“Meantime, be kind to the troll, he’s unwell.”
😀
Nasty! (In the new sense, meaning nice.)
I was looking for something along the lines of a scientific theory that could be disproved.
However, a cut and paste of activist propaganda is OK too
Arctic summer wind shift could affect sea ice loss and U.S./European weather, says NOAA-led study
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121010_arcticwinds.html
Changes in summer Arctic wind patterns contribute not only to an unprecedented loss of Arctic sea ice, but could also bring about shifts in North American and European weather, according to a new NOAA-led study published today in Geophysical Research Letters.
If your case is so strong, Brando, why do you need to dissemble and lie?
Or are you just wilfully ignorant of facts that do not fit your peculiar worldview?
“Experts say….”
Always gets me, every time
What a rebarbative little bastion of ignorance for the morally repugnant this site is!
I must say, BD, that the only morally repugnant acts are by those casting bitter aspersions without explaining why, accompanied by a determined deafness when asked questions. Go away.
Then go back to Hot Topic Rob, you will find a more accommodating audience there.
But now the Liberal set in Aussie find it Ok to refer to skeptics likened to pedophiles
Oh dear
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/breaking-skeptics-are-like-paedophiles-drug-robyn-williams-abc-time-to-protest/
And people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.
The Marxist/totalitarian/centralist activists (Williams, Lewandowsky, Figueres et al) leave no doubt now that they’re simply opportunists piggy-backing climate change to further their cause.
And they’ll stoop to any level to get there as evidenced by their forebears, until it all goes wrong when an arch opportunist seizes ultimate power. History is replete with the despotism and tyranny that ensues from that scenario – why repeat it?
Guys,
Much as Brandoch may throw unsubstantiated statements and ad hominums around, the responses are also laden with ad hominum attacks. This hardly does anyone on this website any favours.
Richard Treadgold, I see that you slapped Brandoch over the knuckles for calling people liars but then didn’t do the same when Richard C accused Brandoch of lying.
I enjoy reading a good discussion of the facts and putting people in their place using facts and references but we really could do without the abuse from both sides. Please enforce politeness and respect on both sides Richard. People coming to this site to be informed would be horrified with the slanging that is currently going on here and might conclude that sceptics are no better than alarmists.
I think one issue, and I am guilty of this too, is that these threads seem to degenerate into open threads, usually involving questions like “has there been any warming in the last 16 years”, or “is the Antarctic actually melting”
Aside from the sniping, these kind of discussions are penetrable only to the people in the discussion, and would be better off directed to an open thread
The issue of the legal status of the NZCSET might actually be of interest to outsiders, but hardly any of that has been discussed on this thread.
>”..when Richard C accused Brandoch of lying”
All I did was copy Brandoch’s comment from here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/11/nzcset-mischievous-or-sensible/comment-page-1/#comment-150580
And substituted “Bob” for “Brando” to highlight Brando’s line-of-attack i.e. to give back EXACTLY what he’s dishing out.
I see RT has moderated Brando’s initial comment so the situation has been resolved.
I agree, Huub. In trying situations I, too, become biased towards my friends, despite strenuous attempts at neutrality. “Brandoch” does all he can to unbalance us.
Thanks for the admonishment, because it’s exactly those silent visitors we want to inform.
You could try my questions on the apparent wind farm de-rating scam as a rare exercise in self-restraint (for me)
Note that technical discussions about wind turbine design are now in “the Twilight Zone”.