UPDATE 1600, Monday 20 July: Lecture cancelled – see below
Manukau Institute of Technology, Otara. Look for the theatre. Click to enlarge.
Come along and hear all about it
This is a reminder to readers in and near Auckland about the free public lecture next Wednesday to address the problem of sceptical minds stubbornly clinging to questions about global warming. Since there can be, by our definition, no genuine scientific questions unanswered by our mainstream climate scientists, there must be something in the mind interfering with the acceptance of climate change.
Can sceptics help themselves or do we have to help them? Can they ever put their denial behind them? Victoria University has a highly-skilled psychologist who will dissect their anti-social behaviour.
The official brochure asks: “If it’s so obvious, why doesn’t everyone believe in climate change?” But the brochure misses the simple truth—that it’s not obvious because it’s not happening. The denial is actually in those presenting this examination of denial. What is obvious to the open mind is that it’s easier to cast doubt on the sceptic than to produce non-existent evidence of dangerous anthropogenic warming.
I mentioned this extraordinary public lecture in Are you a scientist? a few weeks ago. I’ll be there; I hope to see some of you.
When and where
When: 5.30–8pm, Wednesday 22 July
Where: Manukau Institute of Technology Theatre, Newbury St, Otara, Auckland
Remember
If you would like to attend, rsvp by tomorrow, Monday 20 July, to rsvp@vuw.ac.nz with ‘Manukau lecture’ in the subject line or phone 04-463 5791.
Two Victoria University of Wellington academics will this month give a public lecture on aspects of climate change at the Manukau Institute of Technology. Climate change: beliefs, biases and measures will see Dr Marc Wilson from the School of Psychology and Professor Lionel Carter FRSNZ of the Antarctic Research Centre discuss how people think about the issue of climate change and aspects of the science underpinning the world’s changing climate.
UPDATE 1625, Monday 20 July: Lecture cancelled
I’ve been advised by Victoria University that the lecture has been cancelled. I rang them for details. They were wanting 40 RSVPs to go ahead but apparently they received only 20. It’s disappointing that we won’t hear the details of this theory explaining climate denial nor get the chance to question them, though they might look at it again next year.
Views: 283
Speaking of Open Mind, here is a discussion of the latest revisions to the GISS surface temperature data: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/new-giss-data/
Simon,
Yes, thanks, that’s interesting. You refer to my expression “open mind” and of course it evokes Tamino’s blog. But are you suggesting that his discussion of the new GISS dataset provides “evidence of dangerous anthropogenic warming” that I’m looking for? Because I don’t see it there. Oddly, Tamino says:
Yet the pause is there in the old and new GISS data, large as life. The lack of strong warming in the last 20 years or so is readily seen. Tamino’s argument ignores the fact that there is no warming in many datasets, including GISS, for varying periods of up to about 19 years. That’s if you insist on a zero trend. If you’re prepared to accept some insignificant warming, I believe you can go back up to 25 years in some datasets. It doesn’t mean warming will never return, but it does falsify the models.
It is also odd that the current year, incomplete as Tamino describes, in both datasets is already significantly warmer than 2010, yet the monthly data graphed at Climate4you has not surpassed 2010.
The latest revisions to the GISS temperature data are bilge, based as they are on a hurried official acceptance of the incompetent paper by Karl (2015) et al., which deliberately tried to erase the lack of warming over the last 20 years by subordinating good data with uncertain data (from an uncertain source unintended for such use). The scientific community should be up in arms over the whole sordid mess that is “consensus” climate science, and you shouldn’t give an inch to any of those “experts” who have made it or any who now smugly promulgate it. I reject the GISS temperatures, and all others simiilarly suborned; I reject all of the adjustments that have been made solely in order to give the false indication of significant global warming. I reject the pronouncements of any and all climate scientists, who I know to be incompetent based upon the overwhelming evidence I have uncovered and brought forward myself, in my own way (and peer-review can go to the devil; it has been a monstrous lie, unfulfilling of its purpose and highest responsibility, that got climate science into this mess). Shame on today’s “leading” scientists, and all the leading voices that follow them.
Harry,
Well, you’ve put the matter clearly. I haven’t kept up with the new GISS dataset. Where’s a good place to read about it and is there any chance you could be wrong?
In other news, Christchurch East residents are looking at challenging the council’s sea level policy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70315654/residents-challenge-coastal-hazards-assessment
GISTEMP was garbage before they adopted Karl et al.
Old version GISTEMP vs RSS vs HadCRUT4 from 2000:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
New version is laughable, as is the “independent” meme. But STILL doesn’t validate the climate models
There’s no CO2-forced warming.
We only have to look at GISS adjustments to NZ’s Gisborne Aero to know GISTEMP is garbage:
At 1963 the cumulative adjustment is 0.7
At 1968 the cumulative adjustment is 0.6
At 1972 the cumulative adjustment is 0.5
At 1975 the cumulative adjustment is 0.4
At 1980 the cumulative adjustment is 0.3
At 1982 the cumulative adjustment is 0.2
At 1986 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2001 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
At 2002 the cumulative adjustment is 0.0
Nuff said.
RC,
“GISS adjustments to NZ’s Gisborne Aero”
They are suspiciously regular but do at least have the effect of reducing a warming trend.
>”but do at least have the effect of reducing a warming trend”
No. The adjustments introduce a warming trend.
At 1963 the adjusted values are 0.7 LESS than the raw data i.e the early data has been COOLED by 0.7 C.
GISS has been doing this all over the world, it is not atypical. Remember this is not a process like 7SS adjustments where disparate sites are being homogenized into one reference site for a location.
Gisborne Aero is just one site. It is not a location of sites like 7SS is at Masterton for example.
RC,
Ah. So the net adjustments are negative; I wondered. To adjust a single site like that (unless it’s justified by site changes, of course) is a fairly blatant application of “these data don’t suit my purposes”. The process may be different from NIWA’s but the effect is the same. What reasons does GISS give for the adjustments?
>”What reasons does GISS give for the adjustments?”
I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does, nothing forthcoming from GISS. Iceland’s Meteorologist asked and got talk-to-the-hand. I think the real reason is that GISTEMP is a political dataset (not scientific) for the politically motivated by the politically motivated.
I worked the above out for myself just with a bit of mental arithmetic for a start to get a “feel” for what was going on then just set to with a calculator. Didn’t bother with a spreadsheet. I’ve documented it in ‘Temperature Records’ starting at the following link..
What started it was a Paul Homewood post ‘Cooling The Past In New Zealand’ which included Gisborne Aero, see here:(note you will have to get to page 2).
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/temperature-records/comment-page-2/#comment-1283169
As you can see it’s not just Gisborne Aero, it is all over NZ. Note you might have to delete delete “http://” from the URLs to get to the GISS datasheets.
First thing of course is to compare GISS’s “raw” GHCN v3 with the Gisborne Aero data in CliFlo. I haven’t bothered to do this given the subsequent adjustments.
Simon, you might have followed the link above to ‘Temperature Records’ and seen that the GISS adjustments to Gisborne Aero bear no resemblance to the BEST adjustments to the same site. This I’ve found is the same for sites in Australia and South America, and other NZ sites.
Since you are a fan-advocate-proponent for both GISS and BEST, I’m wondering how you reconcile this discrepancy:
1) Are they both technically correct even given the disagreement?
If so, how do you explain this in technical terms?
If not, why are you so enthusiastic for both?
2) Or is the technique of one to be favoured over the other?
If so, which one? and why?
>“If it’s so obvious, why doesn’t everyone believe in climate change?” But the brochure misses the simple truth—that it’s not obvious because it’s not happening.
Man-made climate change (MMCC) is not happening that is.
Worse, the IPCC’s own Assessment Report actually holds the disproof of MMCC theory. Below is the simple disproof of MMCC theory (now my standard copy-and-paste), basically 2 short bullet points. AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution failed to address what is so obvious. Take this along to the lecture:
****************************************************************************************
IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC FAQ AR4 box 2.1 – “What is radiative forcing”).
0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.
0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is ocean heat accumulation. Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
No need to invoke CO2 “forcing”.
Game over.
**************************************************************************************
I should point out that it is actually impossible to invoke CO2 forcing – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA.
So they couldn’t be bothered with 20 people.
Were they on some kind of commission?
“So they couldn’t be bothered with 20 people. ”
Clearly not. But, since they’re coming from Wellington, perhaps they found it hard to justify the air fares.
I’m not sure what the purpose of the lecture was, given that it is “free”
They could have made a YouTube video and saved all those airfares.
Or were they planning a bit of audience participation?
So many questions, we will never know
YouTube – too true.
Perhaps it was the sceptical post from yours truly that made them fear some mockery. We may learn the truth next year—but then again, the whole matter could be yesterday’s news after the December disaster in Paris.
You mean I personally put them off? I know I can be off-putting, but I didn’t think my obnoxiousness had spread that far.
Now I feel paranoid… I shall hide
No, I don’t mean that! By yours truly I meant myself! You are not obnoxious. Not always. Please don’t hide, or at least be brief—we need you. Focus on the December disaster that Paris will be.
A new scientific organisation and publishing vehicle for atmospheric science papers – set up by Anthony Watts and Joe deAleo: http://theoas.org/
Membership has 5 levels including Full Membership for dudes with degrees and Associate Membership for undegreed dudes.
>”Speaking of Open Mind”
‘Tamino (Grant Foster) is Back at His Old Tricks…That Everyone (But His Followers) Can See Through’
Bob Tisdale / 60 mins ago July 21, 2015
Or In a Discussion of the Hiatus Since 1998, Grant Foster Presents Trends from 1970 to 2010, Go Figure!
“The data clearly show that NOAA cannot justify the excessive warming rate during the global warming slowdown because the warming rate of the NOAA data is far higher than the dataset they used as reference.”
“Also see the note at the bottom of Figure 3. One of the bases for the following two posts was the failure of Karl et al. to include trend comparisons of their new (overcooked) sea surface temperature dataset and the night marine air temperature dataset they used as a reference for their changes:”
More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset, and,
Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
Tamino’s “followers” include Simon apparently.
Poor old Bob has got things totally mixed up again: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/biased-bob-tisdale-is-all-at-sea.html
I wonder if the lecture would have covered cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger effect? Unfortunately those afflicted are the most likely to deny that they do.
I gave up reading the Hotwhopper article after the introductory sneering paragraph at how few qualifications has and how dim Bob Tisdale is
These sneering pompous jerks don’t win me over, however convincing their downthread arguments might be
Tisdale says:
“NOAA used the night marine air temperature dataset (HADNMAT2) from the UK Met office as a reference for their new ERSST.v4 dataset. But the short-term warming rate of the new NOAA ERSST.v4 data during the global warming slowdown is much higher than the HADNMAT2 data. See Figure 1, which was first presented in my open letter to Tom Karl. That graph serves as the basis for my statements (1) that the recent update to the NOAA sea surface temperature data cannot be justified by the dataset that was used a reference for those adjustments, and, in turn, (2) that the NOAA adjustments are overcooked.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
Silly Sou (Hot Whopper) say’s:
“He’s wrong. HadNMAT2 wasn’t used as a reference in the way that Bob implies. It was only used for bias adjustments to ship sea surface temperatures.”
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/biased-bob-tisdale-is-all-at-sea.html
Tisdale’s Figure 1 is this:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/figure-15.png?w=720
However Silly Sou tries to spin this, HadNMAT2 is still the reference for NOAA ERSST.v4. Tisdale made a clarification anyway at Climate Observations:
“The intent of this letter to present when and how the new NOAA sea surface temperature data differ during the hiatus from the night marine air temperature data, [strikeout] upon which it is based [end strikeout], which are used for bias adjustments over the term of the data.”
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/open-letter-to-tom-karl-of-noaancei-regarding-hiatus-busting-paper/
But by all means Simon, take the heat off your idol Tamino and your new found warmists dream-come-true GISTEMP, having thrown BEST under a bus (heh).
Wrong thread, but …
http://www.nzcpr.com/fact-or-fearmongering/#more-15540
“Fact or fearmongering”
quote:
In Christchurch, the coast is currently accreting, i.e getting bigger due to sediments. Yet the models predict that this will reverse in about 2050 and based on this, people in coastal areas are being told they cannot insure their houses and need to be prepared to leave the area. In some case that I know of, houses in excess of $1 million build cost post earthquake are affected
NZers need to be very concerned about this
Simon, a tip. If you want traction lay out your case rather than just link to blog posts i.e. elucidate the details yourself. Sure, link to someone else’s rationale (not that we are unaware of Tamino, Hot Whopper etc) but you don’t actually display any understanding by doing this.
Argument-by-blog-link doesn’t cut it Simon.
>”the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is about to make the situation worse by hiring NIWA to draw up coastal hazard lines for the whole country – based on the UN’s exaggerated claims of rampant sea level rise.”
The inept Dr Jan Wright again. There’s no evidence around NZ that the IPCC/MfE/NIWA predictions have any credibility whatsoever.
>”NZers need to be very concerned about this”
Yes, but why don’t they just download the tide guage data and plot it out for themselves?
Yes, but why don’t they just download the tide guage data and plot it out for themselves?
We can, but if you can’t insure your house and the council are pursuing a policy of “managed retreat”, mere data isn’t enough.
Legal action is the last resort, which is where it is heading, as I alluded upthread.
I did email RT about this last night and am not too keen to publish information on the subject until more is know. However, the Kapiti coast has a legal precedent and this is what will happen, I suspect.
EDIT – Christchurch City Council, like many local bodies, has some quite dogmatic and unmoveable staff.
Simon, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/ is Bob’s reply to Tamino’s article, referenced in the hotwopper article.
“Grant Foster did not dispute the trends listed on my Figure 1, which he included in his post. Those trends showed, for the period of 1998 (a start year used by Karl et al. for trend comparisons) to 2010 (the end year of the HADNMAT2 data), that NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature dataset had a much higher warming rate than the HADNMAT2 data, which NOAA used as reference for their adjustments.”
HadNMAT2 was not used as “the reference” for ERSST v4. It was used to correct bias in ship sea surface temperatures only, around 10% of the measurements over the period that Bob plotted. The other 90% of measurements came from more accurate buoys.
This is the problem. Bob and Willis and Anthony and others at WUWT don’t understand the science as well as they think they do. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>”if you can’t insure your house and the council are pursuing a policy of “managed retreat”, mere data isn’t enough.”
I made a hasty comment on the way out the door to to work, apologies Andy. What I meant was, make some stand directly to councils with the historical data which proves the IPCC’s predictions are rubbish. This has been done elsewhere in the world e.g. North Carolina where ordinances cannot now be based on the IPCC predictions. Shoalhaven council and some other (can’t remember) in Australia took the initiative on behalf of their constituency but when councils base policy on fantasy then it is contestable. The more people that contest the better. And the more people who know the data the more who are forearmed. If contesting directly with council is unsuccessful then legal action is about the only recourse left I suppose if reason doesn’t prevail.
In the above quote it is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who is overriding councils (to a degree) so it is quite a fight. It is however the council that sets the ordinance whatever the basis of it. Legal action would be against council with perhaps MfE as co-respondent or whatever,
But reason should prevail against the councils in the first instance by informed weight of numbers. My point is that the numbers have to have the facts at their fingertips and familiarity with what SLR is all about. I suspect a good many people (too many) have no idea of either. In other words, not enough weight of numbers to force the change by reason.
>”In Christchurch, the coast is currently accreting, i.e getting bigger due to sediments. Yet the models predict that this will reverse in about 2050″ [local model-based policy]
This is something specific to Christchurch which is not simply IPCC models as I understand. Not sure how this can be contested, you are up against a “managed retreat” as you say. It is models on top of models as I understand. The former (IPCC) definitely contestable, the latter (local) a different animal again. The local model could be independently assessed. That’s about all I can see without knowing the details of the sedimentation study. Certainty of a sedimentation reversal around 2050 seems a stretch to me and very weak.
>”It was used to correct bias in ship sea surface temperatures only, around 10% of the measurements over the period that Bob plotted”
Still a reference Simon, and enough to skew the final result. The buoy data was adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make it “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. In other words, good data was adjusted to match poor data. The extra warming trend was then guaranteed because the buoy network becomes more dense over the last 2 decades.
Rather more than “Bob and Willis and Anthony and others at WUWT” were into the details of Karl et al from the outset and saw the shortcomings instantly. The paper wont survive. And the non-ARGO Karl et al series (i.e. best data neglected) isn’t corroborated by sea sub-surface temperature or satellites or HadCRUT4 (HadSST3 – see below) anyway i.e. they have extra warming along only a sliver of surface which is dopey.
[Judith Curry] – “In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.”
GWPF comments
Received by Judith Curry via email from GWPF:
Key pitfalls of the paper:
# The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
# They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
# Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
$ The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
1. They make 11 changes (not all are explained) producing the ERSSTv4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) dataset that includes new estimates for the different way SSTs are measured from ships (intake or buckets). They also add 0.12°C to each buoy to bring their measurements in line with those taken from ships. These issues have been raised before by the UK Met Office when compiling their HadSST3 ocean surface temperature dataset, see, ‘A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature’
2. The greatest changes are made since 1998, which is interesting because this is when we have the highest quality of data and global coverage using several methods. Only this analysis finds any increase in global annual average surface temperature over this “hiatus” period. The authors have produced a dataset that is at odds with other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
3. The authors start their trend estimates in 1998 and 2000. This has long been considered unwise as 1998 is a very strong El Nino year and 1999-2000 is a much cooler La Nina period. The difference between them distorts their trend estimates. For example, their 1998-2014 trend is 0.106+/- 0.058°C per decade. Starting two years later (during La Nina influenced years) yields a trend of 0.116 +/- 0.067°C per decade as one would expect from starting at a lower temperature. Ignoring these caveats the authors say their analysis produces twice as much warming for 1998-2014 than earlier estimates. Their conclusion is, ironically, based on inbuilt biases in their analysis.
Their Fig 1 shows that when using their updates it is only with the use of these inappropriate start and end points that the “hiatus” is reduced.
4. Even with the 11 changes to their SST database and the problem of start and end dates the authors admit that the statistical significance of their results is only significant at the 0.10 level, and in some cases not even that.
“I believe their estimates of the error in their decadal trend figures are far too small. They quote the error in a 15-year period to a precision of one thousandth of a degree C. In their report the authors admit that their error analysis is not definitive and that looking at them another way invalidates their trend conclusions,” said Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF.
5. Note that trends that include 2014 and 2015 must be treated with caution due to a recently persistent very warm feature in the NE Pacific that is affecting global SST estimates.
6. In addition, they do not include any data from the Argo array that is our best coherent data set on ocean temperatures. The authors state this is because Argo temperature data is not surface data. However, ship-derived temperatures can be from as much as 15 m below the surface. The Argo array samples 5 m below the top of the ocean. From 2004 to 2013 it shows considerable variation and little trend. The non-ARGO data aptly demonstrates the problem of starting trend analysis in 1998 or 2000.
Source: ‘Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006′ Nature Climate Change, 2 February 2015. Black line: 5 m optimally interpolated (OI) ARGO; red lines: NOAA OI SST v2
7. Their conclusions are also at odds with satellite data that shows no trend in the past 16-years or so.
Source: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/index.html and http://www.remss.com/research/climate
8. Extending a change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) to the present time had the largest impact on the SST adjustments over the hiatus period, per Karl et al 2015:
“Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day. Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b.”
Ref (18) is a 2011 paper by Kennedy et al. It states (paragraph 3.1) “Dating the switchover from uninsulated canvas buckets to insulated rubber buckets is problematic as it is not clear how quickly the practice of using insulated buckets was adopted. … Based on the literature reviewed here, the start of the general transition is likely to have occurred between 1954 and 1957 and the end between 1970 and 1980.”
A 2010 review article “Effects of instrumentation changes on SST measured in situ” by Kent, Kennedy, Berry and Smith states that “Models of corrections for wooden and uninsulated canvas buckets show the adjustments to be five to six times greater for the canvas buckets.”
So post 1980 adjustments to bucket measurements should be very small (under 0.1 C) Moreover, by 2000 ship measurements were a minority of total measurements and all types of bucket were a small proportion of ship measurements (see figs 2 and 3 of Kent et al. 2010). These facts imply that post 2000 adjustments warranted by use in some ships of bucket measurements should be negligible.
“The justification given for the change that had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period – continuing to adjust ship SST measurements by reference to night marine air temperature (NMAT) data, ‘which have their own particular pervasive systematic errors’ (Kennedy 2014) – i.e. that some ships still continue to take bucket observations, appears to support only a very small adjustment,” said Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist.
In summary
This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with those produced by the UK Met Office and NASA.
Similar analysis here:
IS THERE NO “HIATUS” IN GLOBAL WARMING AFTER ALL?
by Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, Paul C. Knappenberger
http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all
# # #
Meanwhile, contrary to Karl et al, the hiatus is clearly evident in BEST NZ which is influenced mostly by the 1998 El Nino that produced about a 0.4 C shift between 2 cooling trends and the record high temperatures since 1970.
This is something specific to Christchurch which is not simply IPCC models as I understand. Not sure how this can be contested,
The predictions of coastal encroachment are based on the Tonkin and Taylor report which was commissioned by CCC.
It proposes a one metre sea level rise is likely and two metres cannot be ruled out.
They are pushing to make this national policy which will make many seaside properties unsaleable and uninsurable.
I should add that this CCC policy is very selective. Southshore is badly affected, but Northshore gets off, even though they are both close to sea level
>”The predictions of coastal encroachment are based on the Tonkin and Taylor report which was commissioned by CCC”
OK, same as the T&T report to WCC where T&T explicitly stated they had made no effort to ascertain the historical rate of rise and used IPCC/MfE scenarios instead. This is negligent and relatively easy to contest.
It’s the sedimentation study that is the difficult task. Did T&T do sedimentation modeling themselves or was that by some other outfit? I cannot see how just one sedimentation prediction for 2050, in this case a radical reversal, can be the basis of anything.
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/news-and-public-notices/coastal-hazard-report-released/
“The long term trend” hasn’t happened yet, and may never
This map shows the T&T projections for inundation for the Southshore spit, which is pretty much a writeoff as you can see
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/CoastalHazardReport2015/Tonkin-Taylor-Coastal-Hazard-Assessment-Report-2015-Appendix-D-Sections-7-8-9.pdf
It is a bit of a scandal that they have allowed rebuild projects to continue, at values sometimes over $1million, whilst not informing the public that these properties will be rendered worthless by council policy
I’m getting “file not found” for the Tonkin & Taylor Coastal Hazard Assessment Report 2015.
This Stuff report is enough to go on though:
‘Residents challenge coastal hazards assessment’ – Last updated 05:00, July 18 2015
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70315654/residents-challenge-coastal-hazards-assessment
>”Environmental engineers Tonkin & Taylor computer modelled the impact of a 40-centimetre sea rise over the next 50 years and a one-metre rise over the next 100 years and used that information to map out erosion and inundation zones across the region.”
OK so it was T&T modeling based on IPCC scenarios, not the historical default i.e. this is negligent because the default is the risk unless the prediction can be proven valid – it cannot.
>”Long-term Southshore resident and Burwood-Pegasus Community Board member Tim Sintes said he was worried the council was putting too much faith in the computer modelling and over-reacting to the predicted risks. Residents were worried its approach would make it difficult to get insurance and eventually force people out of the area, he said.”
This is what I was getting at upthread. Tim Sintes does not realize what is going on because he is not familiar with the historical data. It is not so much “computer modelling” that is at fault, it is computer modelling based on unrealistic and so far invalid IPCC scenarios.
>””The first thing we want to do is get the [Tonkin & Taylor] report independently peer reviewed because we’re not convinced they’ve got it right,” Sintes said.”
Yes, this is what I suggested upthread. This is what Shoalhaven did by getting in the NIPCC (including Willem de Lange), The problem would be if an “independent” assessment also used IPCC scenarios and left out the historical default the result would be the same.
>”Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel acknowledged there was uncertainty about how much sea levels would rise but defended the robustness of the science behind the council’s coastal hazards assessment.
“There are real challenges around the how much and the when but there is no dispute around the science on sea level rise,” Dalziel said.
“Robustness of the science behind the council’s coastal hazards assessment” ? I don’t think so, how can it possibly be “robust”? It is easily contestable.
>”It would be up to the independent hearings panel to consider the evidence and to decide whether the council’s proposed approach was reasonable, she said.
It is the case put to the hearings panel which is what I was getting at upthread with this:
“But reason should prevail against the councils in the first instance by informed weight of numbers. My point is that the numbers have to have the facts at their fingertips and familiarity with what SLR is all about. I suspect a good many people (too many) have no idea of either. In other words, not enough weight of numbers to force the change by reason.”
Given Tim Sintes statement above I’m not convinced Burwood-Pegasus Community Board really knows what this is all about i.e. they don’t know the difference between the current default data and the IPCC scenarios (which started 1990) therefore they don’t know how to contest this effectively.
>”This is what Shoalhaven did by getting in the NIPCC (including Willem de Lange)”
Send this to Tim Sintes and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board:
‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’ – Sept 24, 2014
by Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NIPCC-Report-on-NSW-Coastal-SL-9z-corrected.pdf
Just substitute Tonkin & Taylor for Whitehead & Associates.
Tim does know what is going on. I met him earlier this week and he is pretty switched on
Only just got to work on time last night. Just pulled out onto the road and noticed a crowd at the beach. Turned out to be a southern right whale just offshore about 500m between the beach and Motutau Island. Quite spectacular, had to stop and watch for a while.
A pod had been down at Papapoa. A newspaper reported some guy estimating seeing a whale about “20 metres” off the beach, heh. It would have been grounded that close. People have difficulty estimating distances across water.
>”Environmental engineers Tonkin & Taylor computer modelled the impact of a 40-centimetre sea rise over the next 50 years”
40cm from 2015 is 80mm/decade or 8mm/year. Clearly, like Dr Jan Wright, these people have taken leave of their senses.
>”40cm from 2015 is 80mm/decade or 8mm/year. Clearly, like Dr Jan Wright, these people [T&T] have taken leave of their senses.”
Default rate is Lyttelton II 2.36mm/year
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
I’d like to be able to access the Tonkin & Taylor Coastal Hazard Assessment Report 2015 because I suspect the Stuff reporting of it is wrong. I’m sure it would be similar to the T&T WCC report where the projection of 40cms begins 1990 for the 50 years 1990 – 2040 i.e. 200mm rise should already have occurred by 2015.
Instead, only 59mm rise has occurred since 1990.
>”200mm rise should already have occurred by 2015″
A little less because the projection curve is exponential. For the first 50 yrs a linear approximation is near enough though. After 2040 the curve really takes off but if the curve is invalid at 2015 it is invalid for 2040 and not worth considering for 2090.
It is the projection curve that CCC.govt is referring to with ““The long term trend” upthread. The actual long-term trend (the historical default) is only about 30% of the projection. Hence the angst.
Lyttelton tide data is here:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/259_high.png
Linked to from here
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/259.php
Eyeballing only – the change 1920 – now looks to be about 15cm
I keep saying in respect to Wellington which is essentially monotonic, has anyone noticed 180mm rise there?
Same for Lyttelton and vicinity except that PSMSL graph is less regular than Wellington. The 15cm rise had already occurred by about 1983, there was nothing from then until the data ends just after 2000.
Other tide guages around NZ that do have 21st century data (9 do, Lyttelton doesn’t) display a recent “hiatus”. Even Wellington is similar if you look closely at 2000+. Any notion of 80mm/decade since 1990 is absurd. Lyttelton SHOULD be up around 7250 by 2015. Unfortunately the data ends just after 2000 but 7250 is off that chart and not credible given all the other data around NZ.
I very much doubt that Lyttelton is the exception that conforms to the IPCC/T&T projection.
The “hiatus” in Lyttelton measurements is mentioned in the T&T reports.
CCC obviously have an agenda with regard to Southshore.
The government red-zoned the estuary side which has left the other properties exposed and without sea wall protection.
If the CCC and the government had worked together, they could have come up with a plan either to red-zone the entire spit (not such a silly idea) or to maintain it and provide sea walls to protect the area now that the houses with their own sea walls have been demolished
Instead, they have chosen this underhand way to get rid of people from the area with no consideration to their property rights
It is an absolute scandal
>”I’m sure it [T&T CCC report] would be similar to the T&T WCC report”
T&T are milking this for all the fees they can get, as are others like Whitehead & Associates in Australia. They know they have a window of golden opportunity and they have a template they’re peddling around councils which is paying good fees. They’re in no rush to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Anyone who thinks the motives of consultants like this are entirely altruistic is naive in the extreme. I’ve worked for similar consultants and know how fees are “maximized”. They get away with it until they end up in court or suchlike. But so often consultants get away with disaster unaccountable. I can think of a couple of hydro projects in this category although in one the consultants folded eventually.
Case in point: the Christchurch CTV building failure although in this case accountability is catching up:
‘CTV collapse prosecution pending’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/66304755/CTV-collapse-prosecution-pending
My point however, is that the Christchurch central Police building designed by the MOW, which I also worked for, has just been demolished after surviving the earthquake unscathed. Difference being that 55kg of explosives was needed to bring it down:
‘Watch: Christchurch’s central police station implosion’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/68996037/watch-christchurchs-central-police-station-implosion.html
Admittedly design standards are higher for these types of buildings especially hospitals but I took one look at the remnants of CTV and was astounded by the design. It was done on-the-cheap. Same for the hydro collapses above. MOW designs would not have failed under the same circumstances.
Consultants chasing fees are mercenary, make no mistake about that. Problem is unrealistic assumptions are common to both private and public planners. Just in the case of SLR, alarm pays good fees if you can get them. Everyone effected pays dearly as a consequence unless the scam is exposed.
Best sector to be in is law when the AGW edifice collapses. They will milk it for all they can too.
[JoNova] – “Curiously in this warming world, Wikimedia notes that the hottest temperatures (all 50°+C) were recorded from 1888 – 1930, and not since.”
“Presumably those old thermometers needed adjustment.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/humans-live-from-50c-to-40c-but-two-more-degrees-will-kill-us-panic-now/
No matter how much adjustment is made to compile temperature series, it is inescapable for the warmies that the records occur in the raw data – not the adjusted series. Thus the historical records cannot be expunged.
Must rankle.
The interesting thing about the Christchurch Sea Level issue and related issues is that it awakens a lot of people from their slumber.
Most people have lives to live, families to support, and jobs and communities to work with.
Us OCD types, (well me anyway) have lower levels of trigger to get us going.
If you are a non-climate nerd, just living your life, and then your life gets upturned by zealots, then it starts to get interesting.
The scales start to drop from your eyes and you realise that you have been fed a pack of lies
Christchurch citizens are a pretty stroppy lot anyway, after their dealings with EQC etc (see todays press on the graduate on $180k who was rude to all her customers)
We live in interesting and disruptive times
‘Climate Fraud: NASA’s Recent Global Warming “Corrections” Equal A +95.0°C Per Century Trend’
C3 Headlines
How much has NASA’s GISS climate research unit increased global warming under the Obama administration?
The earliest monthly global dataset that we have available from NASA is the one produced for the August 2005 reporting period. Overall, that dataset contains 1,508 monthly observations since the beginning of 1880.
It seems that under Obama, NASA has conducted a global warming fabrications corrections effort, especially focused on the most recent decades since the 1970’s.
Specifically, when comparing the newly adjusted NASA dataset to the one reported in August 2005, out of the 308 months spanning January 1980 through August 2005, NASA has warmed 302 months (only 2 months were cooled and 6 were left unchanged from the 2005 dataset).
Of the total warming adjustments corrections applied to the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s (through Aug 2005) they average out to a bureaucrat-made warming increase of +0.08°C per month…..
===> that’s equal to a 96°C per century warming trend if NASA continues with a pattern of similar “corrections.”
This NASA non-random treatment and purposeful changes of past empirical evidence is beyond just being anti-science. It is fraud-like, with the root cause being attempts by bureaucrat-scientists to meet the political and propaganda agendas of government elites – agendas that have been blatantly obvious over recent years.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/07/climate-fraud-nasas-recent-global-warming-corrections-equal-a-950c-per-century-trend.html
‘Are Pope’s Climate Change Counselors Promoting Debate or Diktat?’
Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., Breitbart News on 23 July 2015.
[…]
The United States was heavily represented at the meeting, with ten mayors present as well as California governor Jerry Brown. The bizarre thing about the American delegation, however, was the absence of a single member of the Republican Party, as if the Democrats spoke authoritatively for the United States as far as ecology is concerned.
[…list of Republican Mayors enacting eco policies….]
Was it just dumb luck that kept Republicans away from the Vatican workshop, or was there some other agenda afoot?
The mastermind behind the two Vatican climate workshops was progressive Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who has built up something of a reputation as one who likes to stack the deck in his favor, squelching opposing voices whenever possible. At a climate change meeting held in April this year in the Vatican, Sánchez notoriously purged the conference line-up of any “heterodox” scholars and silenced those who tried to make their unwelcome opinions heard.
An egregious case of such purging came shortly before the April conference, when Sánchez “disinvited” French climate researcher Philippe de Larminat from attending the symposium when he found out that the scholar believes that solar activity rather than greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
Just five days before the event, de Larminat received an email claiming there was no space left—which arrived after other scientists said that he should not attend, according to The Washington Post.
De Larminat, who has been called “one of the most eminent French scholars in the field,” told the newspaper: “They did not want to hear an off note.”
Bishop Sánchez’s distrust of Republicans is also a matter of public record.
When doubts were raised regarding his decision to invite known opponents of Catholic doctrine on abortion and population control to speak at the April climate-change conference, Sánchez spontaneously lashed out at “the Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil” for instigating criticism of his actions, despite the fact that there were no evident ties between the climate-change skeptics that wished to participate in the workshop and either the Tea Party or the oil industry.
By weeding out opposition, Sánchez’s carefully orchestrated meetings may serve to produce unanimous declarations of agreement among the homogeneous participants, but they do nothing to advance an open discussion of the issues.
In his recent encyclical on environmental stewardship, Laudato Si, Pope Francis called for “forthright and honest debate” on ecological questions and human responsibility, declaring that the Church “knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”
The Pope is ill served by well-choreographed meetings of yes-men who are unwilling to engage the environmental doubts and questions that trouble many in the world today.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/are-pope-s-climate-change-counselors-promoting-debate-or-diktat.html
California Gov. Jerry Brown was the most colorful. He took the opportunity to call anyone who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming as he does a “denier,” which is also the pejorative used to describe those who say the Holocaust never happened. He also called those who don’t conform to his way of thinking “troglodytes.”
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the choir, suggesting that anyone who held a different view than his is insane
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/record-global-temperatures-don-t-get-too-heated-up.html
“Denier”? “Troglodyte”? “Insane”?
Ouch! That REALLY hurts.
Apparently Jerry Brown thinks that humans face extinction unless we do something soon
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article27998554.html
The comment thread on the above is entertaining. Sacramento Bee readers do not hold their governor in high regard
[Brown] – “We are talking about extinction”
Ted Turner would have applauded that at the time he thought the optimum population of earth should be no more than about 300,000. Changed his mind since then, 1.5 billion or something now apparently. Turner didn’t seem to have the same complaint re CNN subscribers though.
Jai Singh is on to the hypocrisy in SacBee comments:
“Curiously enough, if one were dealing with actual science, there would be no place for the continuance of the socialist justice crapola. With mere human existence being a pollutive activity (remember this is supposed to be science), the existence and consumption subsidies for the sanctified ‘poor’ would have to go. The masses of breeding global ‘poor?’ With actual science, they would have to go as well.”
How Jerry Brown Became ‘Governor Moonbeam’
By JESSE McKINLEY MARCH 6, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — On Tuesday, when Jerry Brown — California’s once and would-be-future leader — declared he was running to win back his old job, he brought with him more than questions about his age (71) and his record of political service (40 years and counting).
He brought Moonbeam with him, too.
For the uninitiated, ‘Governor Moonbeam’ became Mr. Brown’s intractable sobriquet, dating back to his days as governor between 1975 and 1983, when his state led the nation in pretty much everything — its economy, environmental awareness and, yes, class-A eccentrics.
The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.
The term had a nice California feel, and Mr. Royko eventually began applying it when he wrote about the Golden State’s young, idealistic and nontraditional chief executive. He found endless amusement — and sometimes outright agita — in California’s oddities, calling the state “the world’s largest outdoor mental asylum.”
“If it babbles and its eyeballs are glazed,” he noted in April 1979, “it probably comes from California.”
But as any New Age Californian can tell you, such hate is probably cover for a deeper love. And so it was with Mr. Royko, who after many vicious gibes at Mr. Brown’s expense offered an outright apology to the governor, and spent years trying to erase the moniker.
In a 1991 column in The Chicago Tribune, he called the label, an “idiotic, damn-fool, meaningless, throw-away line,” and pleaded with people to stop using it.
“Enough of this ‘Moonbeam’ stuff,” Mr. Royko concluded. “I declare it null, void and deceased.”
It didn’t take. Mr. Royko died in 1997, and when Mr. Brown declared his candidacy last week, most, if not all, press accounts referred to his “Moonbeam” past. (This reporter included.) When The Sacramento Bee asked readers for potential slogans for the 2010 Brown campaign, one reader quipped: “From Moonbeam to Aspercreme.” (Suggesting that Mr. Brown, who would be the state’s oldest governor, is, like many of us, a little less limber than he once was. This reporter included.)
Continues>>>>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html
California – the land of fruits and nuts.
Mike Royko was one of my favourite columnists.
In other news, our old friend Pachauri has been fired as boss of TERI after several sex abuse allegations:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/rk-pachauri-asked-to-step-down-ajay-mathur-is-new-teri-chief/
TERI, not a safe place for women
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/03/19/pachauris-teri-not-a-safe-place-for-women/
Sorry, off topic, but have you guys seen this? John Cook busted pretending to be Lubos Motl.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
>”The mastermind behind the two Vatican climate workshops was progressive Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo”
‘Could Pope’s Edict On Global Warming Lead To Sunday Law?’ – January 3, 2015
[…]
Again, behind the public demand for enforced Sunday legislation is the Papacy, and Pope Francis is gaining traction not only in shaping the policies of nations, but he is also attempting to exert his influence and authority regarding the issue of global warming. He is scheduled to issue a papal encyclical this year with solutions to address the issue.
It is reported that “in 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject [global warming] to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions. The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.”((http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing)) The purpose of this encyclical is to urge “all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds…”((Ibid)) The article continues by saying that “the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. According to Vatican insiders, Francis will meet other faith leaders and lobby politicians at the general assembly in New York in September, when countries will sign up to new anti-poverty and environmental goals.”((Ibid)) With over a billion Catholics worldwide, not to mention those denominations with close affinity to the Papacy who are essentially Catholics in doctrine and practice, the outcome and response to this Papal encyclical will have profound effects.
[…]
It would not be far-fetched to conjecture that among the Pope’s proposed solutions to global warming and the calamitous weather conditions, would be a mandatory law for Sunday rest. Already the notion of using Sunday as a day of rest is being talked about. Pope Francis urges Sunday to be kept as a day for God and families. A Yahoo News headline reads: “Pope: No-work Sundays good, not just for faithful.”((http://news.yahoo.com/pope-no-sundays-good-not-just-faithful-130300599.html)) The article states that “Pope Francis has lamented the abandoning of the traditionally Christian practice of not working on Sundays, saying it has a negative impact on families and friendships…While he said poor people need jobs to have dignity, he indicated that opening stores and other businesses on Sundays as a way to create jobs wasn’t beneficial for society.”((Ibid))
[…]
Concern for the preservation of the environment may be a legitimate one; but God’s people cannot join with any movement, even if it is for a seemingly good cause, so long as that movement is connected with destroying reverence for God’s Commandments, while substituting the doctrines of men. Currently the 10:10 Climate Change Campaign is calling for the reduction of carbon emissions and is therefore promoting “slow-Sundays.” Guardian reports: “The 10:10 movement… is a wonderful way to empower ordinary people to participate in the great movement of mitigating global warming. We cannot wait until governments are enlightened enough to legislate and cap the carbon emissions. Matters are urgent. We have to act now, without any delay… One thing we can easily do to achieve this goal: we can declare Sunday to be a fossil fuel-free day or a low-carbon day or at least an energy-saving day.”((http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/17/low-carbon-sunday?CMP=share_btn_fb)) The article continues, “not long ago Sunday used to be a day of rest, a day of spiritual renewal, a day for families to come together, but we have changed Sunday from a day of rest to a day of shopping, flying and driving. However, in the context of excessive carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, which are bringing catastrophic upheavals, we can and should restore Sunday to a day for Gaia, a day for the Earth.((Ibid))
As active as the Papacy has been in 2014 on many fronts, the year 2015 promises to be an even more critical year as the 78-year old Pope Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka and the Philippines in January, and later visit Bolivia and two other Latin American countries, then visit France and of course the United States for the World Meeting of Families in September. The following is a list of important strategic moves and footholds that the Papacy has gained in 2014 that will set the stage for 2015 and the ushering in of legislated Sunday observance, the enforcement of the Mark of the Beast.
[,,,long list of events…]
http://prophesyagain.org/could-popes-edict-on-global-warming-lead-to-sunday-law/
‘The Mark of the Beast’
7. Revelation 13:16 says people will receive the mark of the beast in the forehead or in the hand. What does this mean?
Answer: The forehead represents the mind (Hebrews 10:16). A person will be marked in the forehead by a decision to keep Sunday as a holy day. The hand is a symbol of work (Ecclesiastes 9:10). A person will be marked in the hand by working on God’s holy Sabbath or by going along with Sunday laws for practical reasons (job, family, etc.). The sign, or mark, for either God or the beast will be invisible to people. You will, in essence, mark yourself by accepting either God’s sign or mark, the Sabbath, or the beast’s mark, Sunday. Though invisible to men, God will know who has which mark (2 Timothy 2:19).
http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4997?t=the-mark-of-the-beast.
# # #
>”Currently the 10:10 Climate Change Campaign is calling for the reduction of carbon emissions and is therefore promoting “slow-Sundays.” ”
Remember 10:10 ?
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the World Meeting of Families in September.
>“Pope Francis has lamented the abandoning of the traditionally Christian practice of not working on Sundays, saying it has a negative impact on families and friendships”
It was never “traditionally Christian practice” until the government of Roman Emperor Constantine made it so and RC followed suit (along with most of Protestantism):
‘Constantine and the Sabbath Change’
Author: Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Publish date: Apr 23, 2010
Sunday actually made very little headway as a Christian day of rest until the time of Constantine in the fourth century. Constantine was emperor of Rome from AD 306 to 337. He was a sun worshiper during the first years of his reign. Later, he professed conversion to Christianity, but at heart remained a devotee of the sun. Edward Gibbon says, “The Sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.”i
Constantine created the earliest Sunday law known to history in AD 321. It says this:
“On the venerable Day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits: because it often happens that another Day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting: lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.ii”
Chamber’s Encyclopedia says this:
“Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that Day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D.iii”
Following this initial legislation, both emperors and Popes in succeeding centuries added other laws to strengthen Sunday observance. What began as a pagan ordinance ended as a Christian regulation. Close on the heels of the Edict of Constantine followed the Catholic Church Council of Laodicea (circa 364 AD):
“Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday (Sabbath), but shall work on that Day: but the Lord’s Day, they shall especially honour; and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.iv”
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_change_Constantine
‘The Mark of the Beast’
1. In order to know what the “mark” is, we must first identify the beast. How does the Bible describe the beast?
Answer: Revelation 13:1-8, 16-18 provides 11 identifying characteristics. They are listed below:
C. The beast must receive its power, seat (capital), and authority from the dragon (Revelation 13:2).
To identify the dragon, we go to Revelation chapter 12, ……………………………. So the dragon represents pagan Rome, of which Herod was a king. The power behind Herod’s plot was, of course, the devil (Revelation 12:7-9). Satan acts through various governments to accomplish his ugly work in this case, pagan Rome.
We will quote just two supportive references from history, though there are many: (1) “The Roman Church … pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. …The Pope … is Caesar’s successor.” 2 (2) “The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of Pope.” 3 So this point also fits the papacy. She received her capital city and power from pagan Rome.
F. It would become a strong political power (Revelation 13:3, 7).
See item E above.\
3. What does the papacy say is her symbol, or mark, of authority?
Answer: Notice the following section from a Catholic catechism:
[…quote from catechism…]
So the papacy is here saying that it changed Sabbath to Sunday and that virtually all churches accepted the new holy day. Thus, the papacy claims that Sunday as a holy day is the mark, or symbol, of her power and authority.
4. Did God predict such a change in Scripture?
Answer: Yes! In describing the Antichrist in Daniel 7:25, God said it would “think to change times and laws.”
A. How has the papacy tried to change God’s laws? In three different ways: In her catechisms she has (1) omitted the second commandment against veneration of images, and (2) shortened the fourth (Sabbath) commandment from 94 words to just eight. The Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) clearly specifies Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. As changed by the papacy, the commandment reads: “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” Written thus, it can refer to any day. And, finally, she (3) divided the tenth commandment into two commandments.
B. How has the papacy attempted to change God’s times? In two ways: (1) She has changed the time of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. (2) She has also changed God’s “timing” for the beginning and closing hours of the Sabbath. Instead of counting the Sabbath day from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night as God mandates (Leviticus 23:32), she adopted the pagan Roman custom of counting the day from midnight Saturday night to midnight Sunday night. God predicted these “changes” would be attempted by the beast, or Antichrist.
http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4997?t=the-mark-of-the-beast.
# # #
The next step for the papacy, having taken most of Protestantism with it, is to have govt’s around the world legislate RC doctrine over all people (including atheists) on RC behalf seeing RC cannot do this itself (as a Roman Emperor could).
If you think the Roman Empire declined and died eons ago and therefore can have no further political power, think again.
James Hansen’s latest paper examining the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
James Hansen’s latest paper examining the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading
Indeed, and this this is why the climate cultists at Christchurch City Council are forcing people to relocate against their will based on junk science
This is also why a large part of the locals who are capable of reading graphs and understanding what science actually is will take a more active part in taking these pseudo-scientists like Hansen to task
This is indeed an exciting time for us all Simon, I am sure you feel the exhilaration in the air.
>”the possibility of rapid non-linear sea level rise is scary reading”
If the CO2-forced model-based “possibility” was to occur it would already be evident – it isn’t so Hansen’s scenario is merely bedtime story fantasy. It might scare kids and credulous but that’s about all. Manhattan should already be inundated according to his previous predictions.
Reason for the lack of human forced SLR boost being CO2 is not an effective climate forcing according to the IPCC’s own criteria:
IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”).
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
Game over.
Hansen also says “The oceans will begin to boil……..”
That’s scary too if you overlook maximum SSTs, the boiling point of salt water, the inability of DLR to heat water, the cooling effect of net IR at the ocean surface, the miniscule effect CO2 change has on DLR, and so on.
Or, put another way, that is the bizarre prognostication of an alarmist nutcase who abandoned objective science long ago in a quest for a political lever.
‘Whiplash Warning When Climate Science is Publicized Before Peer Review and Publication’
By Andrew C. Revkin July 23, 2015
Who wins when a scary, but edge-pushing new climate study led by one of the world’s most prominent climate scientists makes headlines before it is either peer reviewed or published?
Everybody, and nobody. Let me explain what I mean.
Projecting a Coastal Catastrophe
The study is “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.”
The 66-page “discussion paper” (the authors’ description) was posted Thursday in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, the discussion forum of the European Geosciences Union journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
[…]
Everybody Loses
So why does everyone lose?
The signs of trouble were there from the beginning. Eric Holthaus, the blogging meteorologist at Slate, sought input from scientists on Twitter after posting his piece on Monday. He said: “Curious whether other climate scientists think Hansen et al’s decision to publish in discussion journal diminishes the study?”
An anonymous blogger who writes knowledgeably on climate, known on Twitter as @ThingsBreak,* replied (this combines two tweets; the acronyms are for the journal name and the European Geosciences Union):
“Absolutely nothing weird or wrong [with] publishing in one of the EGU open review journals. But what’s weird is big press push when it’s just at the ACPD phase *before* reviewer comments and acceptance by ACP. Unusual.”
Most of the initial coverage from journalists who had an advance look, including Holthaus, stressed that the paper had not yet been reviewed.
But by late Tuesday, as other coverage built, so did questions about the way the study was released, and the quality of its analysis. In Science Insider, the news section of the journal Science, Carolyn Gramling included this tough line: “But how influential this paper will be is unclear, given its flaws.”
Another sign of trouble was that, despite the publicity push, the Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian (despite its yearlong push for climate action blending advocacy and reporting) were among those who steered clear of the study. Listen to the taped call to get a visceral sense of the concerns of Seth Borenstein, the longtime climate reporter at the A.P.
As it turns out, those who held off were wise to do so for a reason unrelated to the lack of advance peer review. That portentous section above — which in many ways is the only part of the paper that is news given how it centers on the “likely” inundation of most coastal cities in this century without aggressive emissions cuts — is not in the version the journal has posted.
Altogether, three different documents circulated to journalists and some scientists this week ahead of the paper going online. The “front-page thought” (my shorthand for the element of a story that merits news attention) is not in the paper posted by the journal. It’s in a shorter version, lacking references, that a publicist at Glover Park told me was going into more of a lay publication. [I’ll update that when there’s clarity.]
The final draft posted for discussion has more nuanced language, in line with what those arguing for more near-term climate and coastal risk have already articulated.
Should everyone who excerpted quotes that aren’t in the paper now correct the stories? I’ll leave that up to them.
Maybe we’ll all be a little slower on the draw next time when work is promoted before it is publicized or peer reviewed. This isn’t the first time those covering climate science have been through this drill.
Continues>>>>>
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/whiplash-warning-when-climate-science-is-publicized-before-peer-review-and-publication/?_r=0
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (he’s sent variants of this note to other journalists*, but it’s worth posting in full) [Revkin]:
“The new Hansen et al study is provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and “what if” scenarios. It has many conjectures and huge extrapolations based on quite flimsy evidence, but evidence nonetheless. In that regard it raises good questions and topics worthy of further exploration, but it is not a document that can be used for setting policy for anthropogenic climate change, although it pretends to be so.
The paper is long. It hinges upon interpretation of paleo and other data that is apt to be somewhat controversial. It uses a model that is coarse resolution and which does not have a very good climate simulation. The evaluation of the model leaves much to be desired: no differences are shown compared with observations, and some errors are large. No mention is made of ENSO or Pacific decadal variations that dominate interannual and decadal variability in the real world, and which are a key to understanding the recent hiatus, and recent trends that are not representative of longer-term trends, although frequently interpreted as such. In section 4.5, the authors point out the need to simulate a number of features realistically and the model does not really do them very well, especially basic things like sea surface salinity. So the relevance of the model is not established. They use the model for a number of highly artificial experiments that are supposed to depict melting of ice at high latitudes: ”freshwater injection.” These experiments introduce a lot of very cold fresh water in various places, and then they see what happens. The question is how relevant these are to the real world and what is happening as global warming progresses? They do not seem at all realistic to me.
A key to a lot of this is how clouds change, and one needs to get clouds right in the first place to have confidence in the results. Unfortunately, this is an area where major problems exist. Huge problems occur over the southern oceans for instance and all models have far too much sunshine penetrating to the surface compared with observations. No doubt the southern ocean, featured strongly by Hansen et al, plays an important role, but data there are poor, and change is not well known; in particular the recent hiatus in global warming greatly influences any observations, which can therefore be quite misleading wrt trends. I certainly do not believe the result claimed with regard to less snow over Antarctica with a warming climate. Although Hansen argues that the real world is responding even faster than in the model scenarios, this is not at all clear owing to the natural variability.
The paper is quite well written and a tour de force in many respects, but there are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies. The authors often say that “these model limitations must be kept in mind” – and there are many other model limitations not discussed – but then they do not keep them in mind when drawing conclusions. Some of the conclusions with regard to the need for immediate actions I strongly agree with, but it seems that this study has gone out of its way to make the case, stretching credibility.”
# # #
Ouch.
>”Hansen also says “The oceans will begin to boil……..” That’s scary too if you overlook maximum SSTs, the boiling point of salt water, the inability of DLR to heat water, the cooling effect of net IR at the ocean surface, the miniscule effect CO2 change has on DLR, and so on.”
I don’t think all the cold ice melt water inflow that’s predicted would add much to ocean heat either. Well, it’s not going to take it to boiling point is it?
‘Pope’s U.S. popularity plummets in polls’
Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 24 July 2015.
[…] The Gallup poll was done three weeks after the pope released his much-ballyhooed climate Encyclical, which denounced capitalism (free markets) and criticized humankind for turning the planet into a sewer. Critics say that much of his Encyclical was largely ghost-written by environmental activists and United Nations’ ideologues. Prior to the Encyclical’s release, the Vatican held a controversial climate summit, and invited people like pro-abortionist Jeffrey Sachs and population-control proponent Ban Ki-moon to speak.
Even Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) and PASS, had difficulty trying to explain away why having Sachs and Ki-moon at the climate conference wasn’t antithetical to the church’s teachings and that abortion and population control were not part of the agenda. Sorondo even wrote in one communication to a pro-life group that no one mentioned abortion or population control, but that they did speak of “access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”
As one pro-life group noted, “phrases such as ‘family planning,’ ‘sexual and reproductive health,’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are euphemisms for contraception, sterilization, and abortion.” According to Life Site, “Sorondo’s response was not only ‘surprising’ but amounted to him ‘openly defy[ing] the position the Holy See has held on these terms for over thirty years because of their association with abortion.'” Much of this was seen by Roman Catholics and pro-life groups as a slap in the face after years of battling abortionists, only to be undermined by the pope’s underlings.
Continues>>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/pope-s-popularity-plummets-in-polls.html
How long (read RC loooong) before Francis gets the chop?
Hansen reasserts “the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century” is the earth’s energy balance (+0.6 W,m-2) as per IPCC rather than global temperature:
https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/624410460821958658
Then he gets it wrong by saying “removing this imbalance requires reduction of CO2”.
As upthread, CO2 is impossible to invoke – it doesn’t fit:
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this little problem, so does Hansen.
‘Impact of “Pause-Buster” Adjustment on GISS Monthly Data’
Guest Post By Walter Dnes: justthefactswuwt / 12 hours ago July 24, 2015
“As mentioned earlier, I had to extend the Y-axis in my graph, because the temperatures were adjusted upward. A quick analysis showed that the highest anomaly for almost every download (starting from 2007, obviously) was for the January 2007 anomaly. The only exception was the September 2012 download. It showed the March 2002 anomaly 1/100th of a Celsius degree higher than the January 2007 anomaly. The following graph shows the inexorable upward march of the March 2002 and January 2007 anomalies. Seven years ago in mid-2008, GISS told us that the January 2007 anomaly was +0.85. Today, they’re telling us that the January 2007 anomaly was +0.97. I wonder what they’ll be telling us seven years from now.”
“This encouraged me to look at the lowest anomalies for each download. From my earliest available download, August 2005, through May 2015 the lowest anomaly was always for the month of January 1893. But in the June 2015 download, the January 1893 anomaly jumped up +0.17 of a Celsius degree, giving up the lowest anomaly ranking to December 1916. Ten years ago, back in mid-2005, GISS was telling us that December 1916 was -0.56. Today they’re saying December 1916 was -0.77. Again, what will it be ten years from now?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/24/impact-of-pause-buster-adjustment-on-giss-monthly-data/
There is a half page article in Saturday’s Press from Christchurch, on the sea level issue and an interview with Tim Sintes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70226254/christchurch-coastline-under-threat
If you check the IPCC AR5, Table 13.5 page 1182, the projections do not reach 1 metre. The highest number is 0.82 which is for RCP 8.5
In other words, Christchurch and other councils are using the worst case RCP scenario, and then taking the upper bound SLR projection for that scenario, then adding some on for good measure.
These figures may be plausible, but what is the probability of them occurring?
>”These figures may be plausible, but what is the probability of them occurring?”
Extremely remote. Problem is in the byline (I think it’s called):
“If scientists are to be believed parts of Christchurch’s coastline will be gobbled up by a rising sea over the next 100 years. Not everyone is convinced by their predictions.”
Given the growing divergence between scientist’s predictions and tide guages the predictions have no credibility whatsoever i.e. these scientists are not to be believed:
Good grief, the incompetent Dr Jan Wright is back. “30 cm or so by the middle of the century”, actually by 50 years 1990 – 2040 as per IPCC, not 2015 – 2040/50 as per Wright’s inept reporting, is no where near the current trajectory (300mm vs 118mm 1990 – 2040).
Just watched TV1’s simulation of Hansen’s (non peer reviewed) 3m rise scenario applied to Auckland. What a load of baloney, I bet there was plenty of LOL around the living rooms.
Renwick wasn’t convinced either but he thinks it is just “a matter of time”. Some idiot councilor thought SLR was right on track with predictions – “I’m with Hansen” he said (duh).
Fodder for the gullible, including our own Simon-the-Gullible. Political science by press release.
“it seems that this study has gone out of its way to make the case, stretching credibility”
— Dr Kevin Trenberth.
The ONE News report is here (text differs markedly from video):
‘Simulation shows ‘unavoidable’ 3m Auckland sea level rise’
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/simulation-shows-unavoidable-3m-auckland-sea-level-rise-q02974
>”Professor James Hansen, …………..now of Columbia University”
Of course, where else?
>”Hansen said he wanted to release the study early for public peer review so it could be available to those in power ahead of climate talks in Paris in December.”
Yes, we figured that out for ourselves Jimbo.
>“We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meteer sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century,”
Of course you conclude that Jimbo – it’s what you do,
>“Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating.”
YES YES they could, if you say they they could, O Wise One Jimbo,
‘NASA’s James Hansen gets dissed by global warming establishment!’
Written by Marc Morano, Climate Depot on 24 July 2015.
“Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.”
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/nasas-james-hansen-gets-dissed-by-global-warming-establishment.html
Global Warming Establishment severs ties with Hansen on sea level rise scare study:
Warmist publication Mashable on James Hansen’s new sea level scare paper: “..red flag..study’s conclusions so contradict [UN IPCC] consensus views expressed last year.”
Mashable’s Andrew Freedman: ‘The godfather of global warming’s scary sea level rise prediction is getting the cold shoulder.”
NYT’s Andrew Revkin on Hansen’s sea level scare paper: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”
NYT: UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth on Hansen sea level rise paper: “Rife with speculation..many conjectures & huge extrapolation based on quite flimsy evidence.”
Michael Mann admits Hansen’s SLR estimates “prone to a very large “extrapolation error”
Michael Mann have a go at Hansen too?
Hilarious, I’m surprised he’s got time to look at this paper between taking people to court and blocking “deniers” on Twitter.
I don’t necessarily think Hansen is correct, there are a number of reasons why today is not exactly like the Eemian period. But, many scientists would agree that 5-9m of sea level rise is already ‘baked in’, the big question is how long it will take to get there. At current (linear) sea level rise we probably have time to adapt. We might really need that anticipated Maunder Minimum to give us sufficient time to sequester more CO2. The super storm idea is interesting but there is no evidence to date. Nowhere does Hansen say that the oceans will begin to boil.
I don’t think there is sufficient governmental will to genuinely keep below the 2 ◦C threshold, so all we do is hope that Hansen is wrong.
>”Nowhere does Hansen say that the oceans will begin to boil”
Not in that (non peer-reviewed paper) but he’s on video record as saying that (I think this is the one):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8
Hence:
The Oceans Will Begin to Boil, Raves Global Warming Hoaxer
http://moonbattery.com/?p=6914
Quote of the Week – Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS, unhinged
“The Oceans will begin to boil…” – yes he actually said that, along with some other silly things. Watch this video:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/
Boiling Oceans and Burning Reputations with James Hansen
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/boiling-oceans-and-burning-reputations-with-james-hansen/
Simon.
>”many scientists would agree that 5-9m of sea level rise is already ‘baked in’ ”
Many people would agree that many scientists are ‘baked in’ too but the point is CO2 has nothing to do with SL. CO2 is accelerating but NONE of the tide guage SLR series are accelerating anywhere in the world.
We keep hearing of the time when CO2 was similar to now but sea levels (and temperatures) were MUCH HIGHER, for example:
The default rate of rise is the historical rate of rise. At Lyttelton the IPCC’s prediction is on course to be 2.5 times HIGHER than the default (as it is now). And that prediction is only 0.3m over 50 years – already WRONG.
If the IPCC’s prediction is wrong after only 25 years then we can completely rule out any higher scenarios like Hansen’s.
>”We might really need that anticipated Maunder Minimum”
That frigidity is one of the last things the world needs Simon.
>”all we do is hope that Hansen is wrong”
Other “we” KNOW Hansen is wrong.
Simon.
>”I don’t think there is sufficient governmental will to genuinely keep below the 2 ◦C threshold”
There is nothing any government can do to control the earth’s global average temperature by regulating CO2 emissions. CO2 is not an effective climate forcing.
You keep avoiding this Simon (as does Hansen and the the IPCC). From upthread:
Hansen reasserts “the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century” is the earth’s energy balance (+0.6 W,m-2) as per IPCC rather than global temperature:
https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/624410460821958658
Then he gets it wrong by saying “removing this imbalance requires reduction of CO2″.
As upthread, CO2 is impossible to invoke – it doesn’t fit:
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this little problem, so does Hansen.
It’s game over for CO2 forcing Simon.
>”Many people would agree that many scientists are ‘baked in’ too”
Case in point:
‘Where’s Lewandowsky and Cook when they are needed to look at REAL ‘conspiracy ideation’, like murder plots from ‘big oil’?’
Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago July 25, 2015
Wow, this is just bonkers. [‘Climate scientist [Wadhams] fears murder by [Big Oil] hitman’]
“The three scientists he identified – Seymour Laxon and Katherine Giles, both climate change scientists at University College London, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for marine Science – all died within the space of a few months in early 2013.”
“Professor laxon fell down a flight of stairs at a New year’s Eve party at a house in Essex while Dr Giles died when she was in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London. Dr Boyd is thought to have been struck by lightning while walking in Scotland.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/wheres-leawandowsky-and-cook-when-they-are-need-to-look-at-real-conspiracy-ideation-like-murder-plots-from-big-oil/
‘Pope Francis appears to have run rough-shod over the Pontifical Academy of Sciences’
July 25, 2015 Robert iceagenow
http://iceagenow.info/2015/07/pope-francis-appears-to-have-run-rough-shod-over-the-pontifical-academy-of-sciences/
‘Steamy Encounters and the Elements of Trust’ – By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser July 22, 2015
[…]
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) is an illustrious body of world-renowned scientists. As successor-body to the “Accademia dei Lincei” of 1603 and the “Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei” of 1847. Its current name and function was established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI.
Inter alia, the PAS’ goals include:
“Promoting the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences, and the study of related epistemological questions and issues.”
For the PAS, just like for any other well-functioning organization, there is an underlying principle of trust. The big question of the day is if the PAS is living up to that principle.
[…]
Moral Imperatives and Control
The statement emanating from that encounter [““Mayors from around the world go to Vatican City to sign the Pope’s pledge on climate agreement.”] says “…effective control is a moral imperative for humanity.” I quite agree. With the many millions of dollars the Vatican’s dioceses have had to cough up so far to settle numerous lawsuits about a variety of improprieties, what we really need is good teachings about moral imperatives. The only question is if the Vatican will provide the divine guidance so much needed. Just a couple of weeks ago, Pope Francis said on Thursday, “I say this to you with regret: Many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of America in the name of God” and “Like Saint John Paul II, I ask that the Church ‚”kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters’ and “But where there was sin, and there was plenty of sin, …”
But now, all things have changed—so we are led to believe. Moral sins of the past have been acknowledged and atoned, they are “water under the bridge,” what is the problem now is the environment, climate change, and its evil extraordinaire “carbon dioxide.” IMHO, the Pontifex needs to get some advice from his Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
The Principle of Trust
If you join any organization, as member you trust it to represent you in a fair and responsible way. If you want to trade or buy some goods, many people in the western world seal a deal with a simple handshake. In the Asian countries, the equivalent visual signal is a bow.
Whatever, the custom may be, once sealed by the signal of conveyance, both parties feel obliged to live up to its promises. Now, here comes a difficult (perhaps for some individuals) question: If you think that you simply are being honored for your past achievements by being recognized in a particular “hall of fame,” what are your responsibilities to that group? Is it okay to stand by idly and let the Pontifex proclaim ideas that you may disagree with?
Worse yet, if your nomination comes with an untouchable membership for life, what do you do? I think you have to ask yourself, who is the guardian of your trust in the organization? If I felt betrayed, I certainly would have some serious “soul searching” to do.
Consult—Your Soul
Pope Francis appears to have run rough-shod over the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It appears that only three of the 75 or so PAS members were even being consulted with respect to the scientific aspects about carbon dioxide and climate change in the recent encyclical “Laudato Si”. Even the PAS’ President, Werner Arber, in an email of June 8, 2015, wrote “[translated from German]: Personally, I’m unsure as to what degree the climate change observed in recent decades can be ascribed to human causes, either directly or indirectly. Among the scientists the views diverge rather substantially. Up to now, I’ve had no occasion to speak with the Pope about that…” That statement came more than two weeks AFTER the official date (May 24) of the encyclical.
The encyclical’s emphasis on “carbon pollution” and “decarbonisation” as a means to foster the salvation of the world’s poor and destitute is no panacea. In fact, it misunderstands cause and consequence—big time!
The problem is not that people in industrialized countries have access to cheap and abundant fossil fuel-derived energy. The problem is that those in much of the world lack access to cheap and abundant energy!
The honourable members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences may want to think about that.
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts. [See bio at link above]
# # #
Not a good look for the Pontiff, again.
>“…effective control is a moral imperative for humanity.”
Kaiser agrees with the Mayors for his point and I don’t dispute that (good point) but the Mayors were all Left leaning Liberal. There was not one US Republican Mayor for example. So naturally the Mayors attending consider “control” a “moral imperative”.
They really really REALLY like “control”.
Besides, since when do Mayors call the shots?
More on the Wadhams loony tunes in the Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174599/Have-three-climate-change-scientists-ASSASSINATED-astonishing-claim-Cambridge-professor.html
Presumably the lightening strike was actually a giant “laser beam” created by Dr Evil at a big Oil that struck down the unfortunate scientist.
Goodness me, whatever next.
Back on Tonkin and Taylor and CCC
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5006875e24ac21f35d8de8d2/t/537bec14e4b0b9e2ae4f82c5/1400630292916/Effects+Of+Sea+Level+Rise+For+Christchurch+City+Tonkin+%26+Taylor+Jan+2014.pdf
I don’t think they did update the report to take into account IPCC AR5. T&T seemed to get their advice from MfE, who get it from someone else, …
I’m in an ongoing email debate over my disproof of MMCC theory (see upthread) with Joanne Nova. This is where we are at:
[Jo] Richard,
The problem may be in the communication. Equations turn most people off. So do acronyms. It is like reading a foreign language.
What is Sfc definition?
We have to explain the point in words, we can use graphs, but only ones where people understand what is being graphed.
Jo
[Me] Joanne,
I appreciate your criticism and certainly agree the problem is in communication but I have a simple case expressed in the most concise terms which correspond to the terms in the references. This is the science, it is “non reducible” as Monckton et al would put it.
>”We have to explain the point in words,”
I disagree (to a degree). There have already been screeds of words written but still nobody “gets it”. The IPCC has explained the point “in words” all we have do is refer to them and highlight the fact the IPCC is ignoring its own criteria. Hansen has taken the focus back to those words (IPCC criteria) in his “discussion” paper (see Twitter excerpt previously https://twitter.com/hockeyschtick1/status/624410460821958658). What is needed is LESS words, not more. And pictures. And a simple narrative to bind it together – the less the better.
>”Equations turn most people off. So do acronyms. It is like reading a foreign language.”
I have used only one equation and two acronyms – that’s hardly eye glazing stuff surely.
The issue is an essentially simple numeric problem – CO2 forcing does not fit anymore:
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al
2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as
net anthro).
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
The equation could not be more simple. The 2 acronyms are equally simple and become clear in the Figures and captions linked below anyway:
CO2 is impossible to invoke – it does not fit. If most people cannot grasp this from those 3 bullet points then there is something seriously wrong with our education systems. But the problem with the acronyms and equation is solved by the pictures below.
>”What is Sfc definition?”
>”we can use graphs, but only ones where people understand what is being graphed.”
OK this is where pictures tell a thousand words. Pictures of earth’s energy flows (the criteria).
The first picture is from Stephens et al (2012):
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’
Graeme L. Stephens,
Juilin Li,
Martin Wild,
Carol Anne Clayson,
Norman Loeb,
Seiji Kato,
Tristan L’Ecuyer,
Paul W. Stackhouse Jr,
Matthew Lebsock
& Timothy Andrews (2012)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html
Figure 1: Surface energy balance.
Observed and climate model deduced energy fluxes (all in Wm−2) in and out of the TOA (a) and at the surface (b). The observed fluxes (containing error estimates) are taken from Fig. B1 and the climate model fluxes are from simulations archived under the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) twentieth-century experiments. The fluxes from a 16-model ensemble are summarized in terms of the range in model values (maximum and minimum fluxes) with the ensemble mean fluxes given in parenthesis. ‘SW in’ and ‘SW out’ refer to the incoming and outgoing (reflected) solar fluxes at the TOA and ‘LW out’ is the outgoing longwave radiation. Similarly ‘SW down’ and ‘SW up’ refer to downward and upward (reflected) solar fluxes at the surface, and ‘LW up’ and ‘LW down’ refer to the upward emitted flux of longwave radiation from the surface and the downward longwave flux emitted from the atmosphere to the surface, respectively. SH and LH refer to latent and sensible heat fluxes.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/fig_tab/ngeo1580_F1.html
The second picture is from Loeb et al (2012):
‘Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty’
Norman G. Loeb,
John M. Lyman,
Gregory C. Johnson,
Richard P. Allan,
David R. Doelling,
Takmeng Wong,
Brian J. Soden
& Graeme L. Stephens (2012)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
Figure 3: Comparison of net TOA flux and upper-ocean heating rates.
a, Global annual average (July to June) net TOA flux from CERES observations (based on the EBAF-TOA_Ed2.6 product) and 0–700 and 0–1,800 m ocean heating rates from PMEL/JPL/JIMAR (Ref. 26). Uncertainties for upper-ocean heating rates are given at one standard errorderived from OHCA uncertainties3. See Methods for a description of CERES uncertainties. b, Net TOA flux from CERES, ERA-Interim reanalysis24 and the one standard deviation about the 2001–2010 average of 15 CMIP3 models (grey bar) are anchored to an estimate of Earth’s heating rate for July 2005–June 2010 (see Methods).
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/fig_tab/ngeo1375_F3.html
The third picture is the IPCC’s summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change (Table of Forcings):
FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause significant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.):
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html
These are the words and pictures relating to the IPCC’s criteria (and Hansen’s), which is:
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered.
Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2).
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
I’ve condensed all this into one clear concise reasoning (back 2 in thread). Yes by all means pad it out, add in the actual references and provide the acronyms in plain English but the essence remains the same. There’s no getting around it.
Richard.
# # #
Does everyone see or not see this?
[Jo] Richard, forgive me, I’m run off my feet. I’m just trying to help.
These are all acronyms not words.
W.m-2
TOA
CO2
AGW/MMCC
OLR
H2O
CH4
Sfc
IPCC
CERES
AR4 FAQ
CMIP3 PMEL/JPL/JIMAR etc etc
Maybe some points are just too hard to describe? They might be right, but if the public doesn’t know the language we aren’t going to reach many people.
Jo
[Me] >”Maybe some points are just too hard to describe?”
Jo the case I’ve defined is as simple as it gets (“non reducible”). If we don’t at least put the case out there then it will never be communicated.
And the case is in IPCC terms and definitions.
>”These are all acronyms not words.”
Yes that list is but I repeat that my contra-case only uses 2 acronyms which can easily be expanded and are made clear in the referenced papers and Figures anyway
>”if the public doesn’t know the language we aren’t going to reach many people”
What you are basically saying is that the public wouldn’t be able to understand IPCC reports either if they actually bothered to read them but they have reached the majority of people nevertheless. Our contra argument must also be in IPCC terms – mine is in every way.
>”forgive me, I’m run off my feet. I’m just trying to help”
Think about it this way Jo. You are run off your feet because you are dealing with a mountain of stuff which is peripheral to the primary critical criteria. Not completely irrelevant or immaterial but effectively redundant once the primary criteria is addressed.
Give yourself a break.
Rich
# # #
Sometimes I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall – even with sceptics.
>”Sometimes I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall – even with sceptics.”
Doesn’t help when we get a post at WUWT that creates all sorts of confusion in comments. Seems the purpose of the post is to eventually “hoist SkS on their own petard” in a following post.
Thing is, the rationale contains a massive error from the start (not picked up in comments yet – most turned off at first mention of “SkS”):
This assumes CO2 is the ocean heating agent – this is unphysical. Planetary thermal lag is in the solar SW => ocean mechanism, not LW.
[Me] >”Sometimes I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall – even with sceptics.”
[Jo] >”forgive me, I’m run off my feet. I’m just trying to help”
The background to this is from Jo:
These are what is “effectively redundant” as I’ve pointed out “You are run off your feet because you are dealing with a mountain of stuff which is peripheral to the primary critical criteria. Not completely irrelevant or immaterial but effectively redundant once the primary criteria is addressed”.
I get the impression Jo cannot run with a case that stops the MMCC conjecture dead because that would render all David’s work moot. The cynic in me is thinking Jo is working on a marketing exercise for David’s skills – I hope that isn’t so.
Richard my friend, some simple advice from a simple cherry grower – do not use acronyms. Ever. Spell it out. Stop trying to sound all scientific by using scientific acronyms. Spell out each acronym – don’t be lazy. I cannot follow many of your posts because halfway through my brain tires of trying to solve your acronym puzzles.
“I get the impression Jo cannot run with a case that stops the MMCC conjecture dead because that would render all David’s work moot. The cynic in me is thinking Jo is working on a marketing exercise for David’s skills – I hope that isn’t so.”
You see, even the acronym MMCC stops the flow of thought for me, albeit temporarily. It makes it hard to read mate. It is easier for you to type it all out – Man Made Climate Change – than for the reader to stop and check and wonder then check then remember then try and pick up your thread.
In Jo’s pressured case, even more so. She is trying to be polite. She is trying to get your point, but nerd-speak is the obstruction.
Richard – an exercise for you: translate the following into Queen’s English…
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al
2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as
net anthro).
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
[Richard C]”What you are basically saying is that the public wouldn’t be able to understand IPCC reports either if they actually bothered to read them but they have reached the majority of people nevertheless. Our contra argument must also be in IPCC terms – mine is in every way.”
I think this describes the frustration on both sides of the communication divide with respect to you and Jo (and your wider readership such as myself). I would be able to understand some, if not most of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, only because I know most of the jargon and acronyms only due to hanging around these shadowy corridors for so long. Most do not (know nor hang).
“… but they have reached the majority of people”? Huh? Think again RC. Only alarmist headlines have reached the majority of people. And those headlines usually have no acronyms.
So, no, our contra arguments must be in communicable terms in every way. (Headlines, or subtitles), with drill-downs where necessary to IPCC terms, just to show the minority scientific readership that your point is valid. Jo is not so scientific. Me even less so. Get your point across to the likes of Jo and I and your readership comprehension will expand, I submit. Engage in scientific jargon only when challenged in scientific terms. Us great unwashed simply want to know what you are talking about.
I make only editorial comments here, none regarding the validity of your argument.
To be also polite and constructive, I agree with Mike that acronyms are best avoided, and I still don’t quite get your central argument, sorry to be dense RC
The IPCC is the worst offender for alphabet soup, with terms like RCP, SRES, CMIP5 etc.
These terms cunningly disguise the fact that the AGW conjecture (anthropogenic global warming, ahem) is layers and layers of models and assumptions that are based on some very unproven fundamental premises
Furthermore, coming back to the sea level issue again, the projections of 100 years hence are based on our guesses of what the world economy will be like in 2100, which is somewhat absurd if you try to imagine the people of 1915 doing the same.
At the end of the day, it comes back to Feynmanns famous quote on the scientific method. You make a guess (I.e a conjecture) . You make some models based on that guess. If the models don’t fit reality, it is wrong, end of story.
Mike, read what I said to Jo:
>”Richard – an exercise for you: translate the following into Queen’s English…”
OK, my response to Jo on this was:
I stand by that, This is as simple as it gets, if an intellect cannot grasp the problem then the intellect is totally out of their depth in just about aspect of man-made climate change except the most superficial e.g. polar bears, which is where the IPCC has caught the populace. But there are plenty of people who don’t stop at the superficial because they still remember a bit of school education even though they are not technically qualified. And you might be surprised at the education of tradies like electricians and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians too.
But you underestimate Jo’s readers Mike, by a long long way. Didn’t you follow Jo and David’s N-D solar model series? There were all manner of professionally qualified people e.g. EEs MEs and SDs, who live and breath jargon languages filled with acronyms. David Evens is one of them. It is no problem whatsoever to those intellects. You will notice that this paragraph contains 4 acronyms that were used liberally in Jo and David’s series:
N-D = Notch Delay (does the expansion mean you fully understand the concept?)
EE = Electrical Engineer (does the expansion mean you understand what an EE understands?)
ME = Mechanical Engineer (does the expansion mean you understand thermodynamics as an ME or heat and process engineer would?)
SD = Software Developer (does the expansion mean you see a concept on the same level as physicist and SD Bob Dedekind or Andy Scrase double degreed in maths and an SD)
But OK, I will translate into Queen’s English:
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al
2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
The energy imbalance at the Top Of Atmosphere is nought point six Watts per metre squared and trendless. Citations: Stephens and others two thousand and twelve, Loeb and others two thousand and twelve, International Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report Chapter Two.
# 1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as
net anthro).
Carbon dioxide “forcing” is one point five metres squared and trending. Reference: International Panel on Climate Table of Forcings, same as net anthropogenic forcings.
# 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
The energy imbalance at the Top of Atmosphere is nought point six Watts per metre squared which equals the nought point six Watts per metre squared energy imbalance at the Surface.
Watts are Joules per second. A Joule is “a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy transferred (or work done) when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
Now, having read the above expanded in Queens English, do you now see that the Man-Made Climate Change conjecture is disproved?
Has the English really added anything except tedium (it certainly was tedious writing it)?
The “forcing” does not fit between the Surface and the Top of Atmosphere, whether by acronym or English does not matter.
This is axiomatic.
But don’t forget that the IPCC cites Stephens and Loeb. This necessitates reading the papers and understanding the figures. What is the first thing you see on Stephens et al Figure 1?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/fig_tab/ngeo1580_F1.html
TOA.
It is by neglecting to address the forcing-imbalance discrepancy that the IPCC has perpetuated alarm in the minds of the public. I’m simply saying – ADDRESS THE DISCREPANCY and the alarm stops dead.
I’m starting to think (the cynic in me that is) many sceptics don’t actually want to put a stop to it because that would mean they no longer have a vehicle to display their talents and stroke their egos.
Simon,
Oh, yes he did. My thanks to RC for finding some quotes. Any comment, Simon, perhaps a retraction? I know it stings when one’s heroes are shown up.
Thanks to RC for the explanation – I can now read the underlying papers again. I was scrabbling for a minute to understand what “Sfc” was, now it is surface, it makes more sense.
By the way, I would be more that happy to see “MMCC” disproved so that we can get on with more interesting things with our lives. No egos need stroking here, thanks
Andy.
>”I still don’t quite get your central argument”
It is not my argument Andy, it is the IPCC argument and Hansen has just reasserted it. The IPCC has set the primary critical criteria for climate change forcing agents. From upthread:
…..the IPCC’s criteria (and Hansen’s), which is:
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered.
Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2).
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
I suggest you read all of that box and possibly the whole page too Andy, not just what I’ve copied here.
>”At the end of the day, it comes back to Feynmanns famous quote on the scientific method. You make a guess (I.e a conjecture) . You make some models based on that guess. If the models don’t fit reality, it is wrong, end of story.”
Yes exactly. Except in this case the IPCC has made the conjecture (FAQ 2.1, Box 1) but there is no need for recourse to models because the conjecture does not involve models. The reality is the TOA measurements, the conjecture is that a forcing moves the TOA energy balance away from balance i.e. an imbalance. Problem is: CO2 forcing is a different timing and magnitude to the imbalance and the imbalance has ALREADY been forced at the surface by the ocean anyway.
We are in this mess because there has been no formal hypothesis written for man-made climate change. This was what I took to Joanne Nova in an email titled:
‘A formal statement of the CO2 climate forcing hypothesis’
Just because the IPCC has not written a formal hypothesis does not mean it cannot be inferred – it can:
Having done that everything just falls into place.
The inferred hypothesis is falsified (annulled) by the (live) experiment results in a very brief section of Chapter 2 in the AR5 report:
IPCC Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface 2.3.2 Changes in Top of the Atmosphere Radiation Budget [Page 182]
“Since AR4, CERES enabled the extension of satellite records of TOA fluxes into the 2000s (Loeb et al., 2012b). The extended records from CERES suggest no noticeable trends in either the tropical or global radiation budget during the first decade of the 21st century (e.g., Andronova et al., 2009; Harries and Belotti, 2010; Loeb et al., 2012a, 2012b). In summary, satellite records of TOA radiation fluxes have been substantially extended since AR4. It is unlikely that significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
The IPCC does not address this conjecture ending problem in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. Whether simply by sloppiness, willful neglect for political reasons, or whatever.
>”But don’t forget that the IPCC cites Stephens and Loeb”
Stephens et al (2012) does not occur in the Chapter 2 quote above but Chapter 2 does cite Stephens et al about four times in the context of global average energy budgets i.e. it is not as if they didn’t know about that paper.
Should be:
>”International Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report [Five] Chapter Two.”
Changing tack for a minute back to ChCh sea level issues, the MfE report appears to be the guidance that Tonkin and Taylor are citing
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf
I found your ‘boiling oceans’ quote. He’s talking about Venus! Typical selective quoting without understanding the context. There is of course no reference to boiling in the paper.
>”And you might be surprised at the education of tradies like electricians and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians too.”
When I started work I had a female friend (not my girlfriend) who was a mechanical engineering drafty qualified NZCE (Mech). I only got to Int NZCE (Mech) but I was in civil’structural engineering at the time and qualified with Draughting Technicians Certificate which is civil engineering based. She ditched ME and went on to be a radiographer taking X-rays and such. I ditched Civil and went on to Mech/Elec in electricity distribution and business (NZ Dip Bus).
Point is, here’s someone who in later life you would never think has much of an understanding of physics but in all probability can run rings around you. And radiography deals with radiation of the ionizing kind. Downwelling longwave radiation is non-ionizing as is solar radiation. These people know more about radiation-matter interaction than any climate scientist. It is because climate science has not deferred to these types of specialties (Optics is another e.g. Dr Roy Clark ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’) that has left them clueless on critical physics, e.g. the physics of the Atmosphere-Ocean (AO) interface.
Dr’s Wratt and Renwick are qualified in atmospheric physics (Wratt is specifically, perhaps Renwick not as much) but that does not make them heat or radiation specialists. My friend, I know, could easily understand earth’s energy budget and how CO2 forcing is redundant even though I’ve haven’t brought it up (lost touch) and the AO interface (Surface, Sfc) energy budget too by intimate working and academic knowledge of radiation and radiation-matter interaction and fundamental thermodynamics from NZCE (Mech).
There are many many people in hospitals and medical technological applications with this knowledge who are no dupes. It’s just that they have not been exposed to the simple concepts of man-made climate change that they could easily grasp. The IPCC would be dead if they were.
Same for all the heat specialists out there. Think of Fonterra, Glenbrook, Tiwai Point etc.
>”I found your ‘boiling oceans’ quote. He’s talking about Venus!”
Are you saying Hansen is only applying his runaway greenhouse effect notion to Venus but NOT earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8
at around 2:13, after a preceeding discussion of a runaway greenhouse effect, Hansen says the “oceans could begin to boil
… and that happened to Venus. i.e implying what happened to Venus could happen to Earth.
[MfE] – >a small acceleration of sealevel rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year over the 20th century has been observed.”
That is NOT an “acceleration”. An acceleration would be, for example, 0.013 mm per year PER YEAR.
0.013mm/yr/yr is an acceleration, 0.013mm/yr is NOT an acceleration:
“Acceleration, in physics, is the rate of change of velocity of an object. An object’s acceleration is the net result of any and all forces acting on the object, as described by Newton’s Second Law.[1] The SI unit for acceleration is the metre per second squared (m/s2).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Needless to say, MfE are all at sea (heh):
[MfE] – “There is less certainty yet whether an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has begun.”
There is TOTAL certainty that an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has NOT begun. The posited man-made boost has not materialized.
The posited man-made boost has not materialized.
but they state that rate since 1850 has increased over previous centuries (based on paleo??) yet this is entirely consistent with the rebound from the LIA. The period of anthro attribution to the IPCC is post 1950 does not show anything unusual in SLR changes.
We have to sift though this with a fine-toothed comb, meanwhile councils like CCC are planning for “managed retreat”
If I go to any of these council meetings, I might wear a full nuclear bacteriological and chemical warfare suit to show my solidarity with their approach to risk management,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Chemical_agent_protection.jpg
>”There is TOTAL certainty that an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has NOT begun. The posited man-made boost has not materialized.”
The IPCC’s base date for man-made SLR is the average of 1980 – 1999 nominally centred on 1990 i.e. their predictions of a SLR acceleration begin 1990 and should now be observable – it isn’t.
Dr Jan Wright neglects to stipulate the IPCC’s baseline in her SLR report (and probably her next impending report too). The Commissioner is incompetent but on $300,000 pa.
>meanwhile councils like CCC are planning for “managed retreat”
Venice Italy governance has been unmoved for some time. It’s a feature not a bug to them apparently.
Holland unperturbed too.
Richard c:
Thank you Richard. I appreciate your patience with my uneducated brain. I think you are saying that at top-of-atmosphere the energy in versus energy out leaves about 0.6 watts per square metre in the atmosphere. At the surface the energy down and up leaves 0.6 watts per square metre at the surface. With an identical “imbalance” at both surface and top-of-atmosphere there is no room for any imbalance in between. Therefore any posited forcing of CO2 in between is invalid.
If I have that right, I have a couple of dumb questions.
1. What happens to the 0.6 watts – does it build up in the atmosphere and/or the surface?
2. What exactly is the CO2 forcing? I mean to ask where does the extra energy come from (the posited 1.5 watts). I think it comes from the surface – right? But the surface only has an extra 0.6.
Appreciate your tutelage.
Mike,
>”Jo is not so scientific. Me even less so. Get your point across to the likes of Jo and I and your readership comprehension will expand, I submit.”
Not so Mike. Joanne knows exactly what the latest science is (she posted on Stephens et al (2012) as soon as it was published) and is very scientific, particularly in scientific communication:
Joanne Nova – Education
Nova received a Bachelor of Science first class and won the FH Faulding and the Swan Brewery prizes at the University of Western Australia. Her major was microbiology, molecular biology. Nova received a Graduate Certificate in Scientific Communication from the Australian National University in 1989,[4] and she did honours research in 1990,[5] investigating DNA markers for use in muscular dystrophy trials.[1]
Career
For three years Nova was an Associate Lecturer of Science Communication at Australian National University.[6] For four[4] years, Nova jointly co-ordinated[7] the Shell Questacon Science Circus, which operates all over Australia.
From November 1999 to February 2000, Nova was the host of the first series of 65 shows of Australian children’s science television show Y?[6] and worked for a short period on Space Cadets, a science fiction show by Foxtel.[1] She has been a regular guest on ABC Radio as a science communicator,[8] giving over 200 interviews. She is a director of GoldNerds, a gold investment advice business.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
Thing is, Joanne picks and chooses what she wants to communicate – that’s her prerogative (same with Richard T) and it is what makes her the top SH science blogger. However, she is constrained by what David Evens is doing (as she tacitly admits). My case, the IPCC critical case, renders David’s work moot.
Putting CO2 in the earth’s energy flow budget would put a major spanner in the works for David, and therefore Jo. I don’t think I’m getting through to Jo not because of acronyms but because she is so frantically distracted by David’s work that she can’t see the wood for the trees.
But think of this Mike. It has taken me well over a decade to see the wood. I’ve been into the models just like David, even down to Fortran code in GISS ModelE via their code browser and the formulaic expressions in ModelE, also into NCAR’s CAM-5 manual. And I was completely familiar with Stephens et al (2012) in 2012. It has taken me all this time to go back and distil the IPCC’s conjecture into its essence and to then introduce CO2 forcing as it should be introduced to the earth’s energy budget.
It took me 3 years to get around to applying CO2 forcing to Stephens et al (2012). The IPCC didn’t bother.
I’ve been calculating CO2 forcing on this blog ad nauseum since I arrived but that didn’t mean I was seeing the wood. I was applying it to the wrong place. So given my odyssey I don’t expect everyone else to instantly see what I see. But I do expect people who are up to their eyes in this to at least do their own investigation from the concise rationale and references I’ve provided. If that means having to learn the language of climate acronyms to understand then so be it, it’s not hard. And my legwork is saving you at least 3 years isn’t it?
If I wrote out CMIP5 in long hand every time I would never have had time to crack the climate code.
I note Andy has been motivated to read the papers that myself and the IPCC cite. I think once he also reads IPCC FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? then he will join the dots as I did – if he has time. Andy of course has a rather more immediate problem with the CCC (Christchurch City Council).
Quite so.
Mike.
>”I think you are saying that at top-of-atmosphere the energy in versus energy out leaves about 0.6 watts per square metre in the atmosphere.”
NO, NO, NO. There is simply less energy leaving the planetary system than there is entering it. Where the energy is sequestered cannot be ascertained without recourse to the surface budget too.
>”At the surface the energy down and up leaves 0.6 watts per square metre at the surface.”
YES,YES, YES. See 1. below for more on this.
>”With an identical “imbalance” at both surface and top-of-atmosphere there is no room for any imbalance in between.”
NO, there is no other imbalance than TOA and Sfc. The next step is forcing.
>”Therefore any posited forcing of CO2 in between is invalid.”
YES. You have it here. The posited “forcing” is there but it is ineffectual. 1.5+ trending is more than 0.6 trendless and the actual 0.6 forcing has already occurred at the surface anyway.
>”If I have that right, I have a couple of dumb questions.”
NO, not dumb. Now you are getting to what this is all about.
>”1. What happens to the 0.6 watts – does it build up in the atmosphere and/or the surface?”
At the surface, predominantly in the ocean sub-surface. This is why the ocean is termed the planet’s largest “heat sink”. The capacity of water to hold heat is greater than any other material (except perhaps lithium) and far far greater than air. The equivalent of all the heat in the atmosphere is held in about the top 2.7m of ocean. Yes there is minor heat accumulation in the atmosphere but it is due much more to ocean heat dissipation than to direct solar heating and none by CO2 which is an energy transfer medium (Coolant. Refrigerant code for CO2 is R744).
But remember that 0.6 Watts per m2 is a global average. In the tropics where the sun (shortwave, SW) heats the ocean, the accumulation of energy is in the order of 24 W.m-2 (Fairall et 1996). The accumulated energy is not all dissipated in the tropics therefore the heat moves by horizontal heat transport towards the poles. This is the planetary thermal lag, it takes 10 – 100 years for this process to work out (Dr Kevin Trenberth and a whole other body of literature). In the Southern Ocean there is the opposite of accumulation, dissipation.
The planetary energy system is predominantly sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere(+space), analogous to a pot of water on an electric stove element. If you want to heat it you turn the dial and WAIT. This is thermal inertia and lag.
2. What exactly is the CO2 forcing?
It (CO2 forcing) is THEORETICAL, it is not real power. Climate science does not know this. The electrical analogy is “real” and “apparent” power. Any electrical engineer or electrician will tell you the difference. Just because you can measure power in Watts per m2 does not necessarily mean the power is doing work (the clue is energy-per-photon but ‘nuther story).
>”I mean to ask where does the extra energy come from (the posited 1.5 watts).
There is no “extra energy”. The only energy is from the solar source (SW in). The theoretical CO2 forcing which is now 1.5+ W.m-2 is posited, in theory, to “push” the TOA energy budget away from balance (i.e. restrict outgoing radiation at TOA) and to keep on increasingly “pushing” it further away from balance. Problem is the balance has only been “pushed” 0.6 W.m-2 and hasn’t budged from that i.e. CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing, some other agent is doing the forcing. That agent is the solar SW oceanic thermal lag combo.
>”I think it comes from the surface – right? But the surface only has an extra 0.6.”
Yes and no. There is no extra energy. But longwave (LW) out does come from the surface. LW out is a far greater flux than 0.6. The latest estimate of net LW (LW up – LW down) is in the order of 50 W.m-2 at the surface. For this you might need the other Stephens et al figure which gives you a geo-schematic picture:
Earth’s Energy Flows
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
It is not necessary to have all that purple LW. LW down (“back radiation”) can be dispensed with. It is not a heating agent and doesn’t conform to the Second Law of Thermodynamics in terms of surface heating. The only purple LW needed is net LW which is outgoing longwave (OLR) i.e. a cooling agent at the surface:
398 – 345.6 = 52.4 W.m-2 OLR Sfc.
Note that OLR is just one of the heat transfer mechanisms from the surface. The other 2 are “Sensible heating” (24 W.m-2) and “Latent heating” (88 W.m-2).
The 0.6 W.m-2 accumulation at the surface (and hence TOA imbalance) is because the incoming SW overwhelms the ability of the dissipation mechanisms to instantly move incoming solar energy out to atmosphere and space. This is because solar SW heats down to about 19m in ideal conditions in the tropics. Energy in sub-surface storage cannot all dissipate upwards so it dissipates horizontally and down vertically but to a limited degree.
>”2. What exactly is the CO2 forcing?”
It is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit).
But in reality it is having no effect on the TOA energy budget whatsoever.
>”It is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit). ”
Not right – I’m in a rush to work.
It [CO2 forcing] is posited, theoretically, to force the TOA radiation budget [into] accumulation.
A forcing, any real forcing, forces the TOA radiation budget one way or the other (accumulation or deficit).
[Richard C] on sea level rise
> Venice Italy governance has been unmoved for some time. It’s a feature not a bug to them apparently.
> Holland unperturbed too.
Where do you get your information, Richard? Whether they are ‘moved’ or ‘perturbed’, I cannot say, but the Italian government has spent billions on a barrage intended to protect Venice from increasingly frequent flooding due to ongoing sea level rise and land subsidence. And the Dutch are planning for 0.65 – 1.3 m sea level rise by 2100.
The difference is that the Dutch are largely below sea level already and are quite happy to maintain dykes etc.
Meanwhile, the attitude in NZ is: we “might” experience large sea level rise so we should plan to abandon now because we don’t have any adaptation skills and anyway, Christchurch is munted so we need to give up on it anyway
That is how I and many Christchurch residents see it anyway, that potential SLR is a convenient excuse to give up on the worst damaged areas. Screw the property rights of owners and screw the communities.
National and local government, CERA, EQC and insurance simply don’t give a stuff.
Andy: I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Both the Dutch and the Italians in these cases are spending billions on flood defences in view of an increasing risk. Do you think they’re wasting their money?
As far as Chch is concerned, you can reasonably assume that sea level rise will be the similar to the rest of the world (see IPCC AR5 FAQ 13.1) and might do well to consider one of the recommendations of the Dutch Delta Commission:
“The decision of whether to build in low-lying flood-prone areas must be based on a cost-benefit analysis. This must include present and future costs for all parties. Costs resulting from local decisions must not be passed on to another administrative level, or to society as a whole. They must be borne by those who benefit from these plans.”
Seems admirably sensible to me. Concerning property rights, compensation etc, we don’t have good precedent in NZ for this situation and it would be good to resolve it before the next street/suburb becomes unliveable. I’m all for socialised risk-sharing, but not bearing costs unnecessarily. And you surely can’t expect insurance companies to bet against the odds.
Christchurch is not planning for sea defences, unlike Holland. They demolished the estuary facing properties at Southshore during the red zone process, which has compromised the rest of the properties. The council will not build a sea wall because they (in their own words) say that sea walls do not work, and in the same sentence, the person concerned said that Sumner was in a better position because they have a sea wall.
(This is a verbal account of a verbal exchange, so don’t expect any links )
Therefore, based on RCP 8.5 which assumes unabated emissions for the next century, no technological progress whatsoever, and high climate sensitivity, all unproven assertions, and virtually no evidence based on empirical data of any existential threat to the community, the coastal suburbs of Christchurch have essentially been thrown under the bus by all the governing bodies, who are all too busy agreeing with each other and having endless meetings to actually bother taking any interest in the people that pay their wages.
I should add that the sea wall protection was previously provided by the private properties that were estuary facing. They are needed to prevent erosion from southerly storms that can have waves lapping onto properties, very occasionally. During our 15 years in the area, our street and property have not been flooded a single time, despite numerous flooding events in greater Christchurch, especially those near rivers.
Properties have been rebuilt in Southshore post earthquake, some projects costing a million dollars. Now they are struggling to get insurance from the same people who built the house.
Not much joined up thinking.
But then, most people haven’t even read the IPCC MfE and other reports that show that these projections are all guesses anyway. Just because other countries are doing the same doesn’t mean they are all right.
T Man
>”Where do you get your information, Richard? Whether they are ‘moved’ or ‘perturbed’, I cannot say, but the Italian government has spent billions on a barrage intended to protect Venice from increasingly frequent flooding due to ongoing sea level rise and land subsidence.”
Exactly, they are “unmoved” i.e. they are STILL THERE (duh!). Water inundation is a tourist attraction (“a feature”), tourists paddle around in the water when there’s flooding (SLR is the least of their problem). Tourists PAY for the experience. So of course the Italian govt is spending whatever it takes to keep Venice afloat (financially).
>”And the Dutch are planning for 0.65 – 1.3 m sea level rise by 2100.”
My statement “unperturbed” is in comparison to panic stricken Christchurch City Council. The Dutch actually seek out the risk of inundation (they are risk seekers) in order to live on land claimed from the sea. They plan, build, carry on unperturbed. But CCC are risk averse (in the extreme).
But CCC are risk averse (in the extreme).
This is actually a very good point, and some insight can be gleaned from the MfE report from which the Tonkin and Taylor derived much of their guidance
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf
1.2 Changing paradigms for coastal hazard management
This is heavily based on the RMA philosophy. It takes the approach that humans “meddling” in nature makes things worse.
I have a fundamental philosophical difference of opinion on this topic. My view is that by letting “nature takes its course”, especially in urban or sub-urban areas, things can become a lot worse.
T Man
>”As far as Chch is concerned, you can reasonably assume that sea level rise will be the similar to the rest of the world (see IPCC AR5 FAQ 13.1)”
Thank you T Man. You support our contention. FAQ 13.1 shows historical rates of SLR (tide guages). These are the DEFAULT rates of rise. The IPCC’s posited man-made “acceleration” to SLR has NOT materialized. You can plot out the data from any of the 9 NZ tide guages that have data spanning 1980 to present (the default) and you can plot the IPCC/MfE prediction from 1990 (baseline 1980 – 1999 average) against the default (as we have done here at CCG e.g. Wellington – see below) and it is immediately apparent that the prediction is already overshooting i.e. the prediction is WRONG.
Dr Jan Wright’s scenario, derived from the IPCC, is bonkers. This unrealistic thinking is causing all sorts of policy distortion and unnecessary costs and loss of value to landowners.
SLR planning, including Christchurch, should be in respect to the default rates of rise which are easily manageable. These rates have been there all last century but did anyone even notice?
Dr Jan Wright’s $300,000 pa nutcase scenario is here:
Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 1
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/commissioner-wrights-wrong-part-1/#more-20135
Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 2
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/02/commissioner-wrights-wrong-part-2/#more-20376
See Part 1 graph:
Historical record of sea level at Wellington. Red line shows projection issued by IPCC and echoed uncritically by Commissioner Wright. Shows the outlandish acceleration needed to meet the IPCC’s guess.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png
Wright actually failed to stipulate the IPCC’s baseline for that scenario so the caption is not quite right. The 2015 baseline is inferred from Wright’s report date for that graph. But even when you plot 300mm from 1990, the prediction is still wrong.
Same with the IPCC/NIWA prediction for NZ temperature.
Man of Thessaly,
You acknowledged the influence of subsidence in Florence and you’re wrong to imply that the Dutch are threatened by inundation only because the sea level is rising. You ought to point out that it is relative sea level that is rising. In many places in north-west Europe and the Mediterranean coast, post-glacial isostatic adjustments are causing subsidence, affecting Holland and northern Italy (Florence). In a brief search I could not find details of the isostatic movements in Florence.
Neither the Dutch nor the Italians, in engineering major works to prevent inundation, are responding to the IPCC’s insubstantial guesswork over some amount of sea level rise that might be caused by an indeterminate warming that may result from an indefinable increase in emissions that might issue from an unidentified future amount of human production.
They are instead responding to solid observations.