OFFICIAL COMPLAINT ABOUT ACCURACY
[sent to the Herald online today]
Dear Sir,
Yesterday the Herald’s Jason Patinkin or an editor said: “The mountains of East Africa that inspired Hemingway are being dissolved by climate change.” There are two things wrong with that statement.
First, climate change cannot destroy rock; the mountains are safe.
Second, the spectacular icecap on Kilimanjaro is “nowhere near melting,” according to a local ecologist only two years ago. This is widely understood—even Skeptical Science (confirmed believers in global warming) admit that Al Gore got it wrong when he claimed in his film An Inconvenient Truth that it was being melted by global warming.
The idea that global warming was eroding the ice was described in 2000 in a paper by Professor Lonnie G. Thompson. Nobody agreed, though, and a long-term study published in American Scientist in 2007 by glaciologists Phillip W. Mote and Georg Kaser rebutted Thompson’s argument once and for all, showing that rising air temperatures were not shrinking the ice.
They found that from 1958 to 2007 temperatures fluctuated between -4 and -7 °C. There was no warming.
Mote and Kaser studied it and other equatorial mountains over many years and not only dismissed climate warming as a cause of the Kilimanjaro shrinkage, they excoriated it, saying: “Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behaviour of the glaciers and plateau ice on Africa’s Kilimanjaro massif” [emphasis added].
It cannot be stated any plainer than that.
So what IS causing the ice loss? Mote and Kaser observe that glaciers are complex environments. For example, snowfall varies, which affects the amount of solar radiation reaching the glacier. There are other factors, too, which all need careful study to understand what’s happening, but the major factor appears to be deforestation around Kilimanjaro, reducing the water vapour that causes rain and snow on the mountain.
They ask: “Is Kilimanjaro’s ice cap doomed? It may be.” But then, incredibly, they describe how atmospheric warming could help snowfall remain on the icecap and actually increase its size, adding: “Ironically, substantial global warming accompanied by an increase in precipitation might be one way to save Kilimanjaro’s ice.”
The Kilimanjaro summit environment is not as one-dimensional as climate change activists would have us believe, and it is not difficult to discover this. Mr Patinkin was not nearly so diligent as he is meant to be.
Kindly require him to issue corrections to his story or I shall be obliged to complain to the NZ Press Council. This is official notice of a complaint about inaccuracy.
Thank you.
Richard Treadgold
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/
Views: 165
DR HANS JELBRING CRITICIZES PSI SLAYERS and RESIGNS, RECOMMENDING that DOUG COTTON BE HEEDED.
In an email Hans wrote …
“The essence of science is to be able to have a discourse and discuss pro and cons about hypotheses and theories especially if you claim that the organization you represent has the intention to reach a standard that is at a scientific level. I have found that leading members of PSI show little will to discuss scientific matters and to leave out personal emotions making it close to impossible to have a meaningful dialog.
“Doug Cotton might behave in a miserable way showing his anger towards certain scientists and PSI. Still, the book he has published contains many arguments which deserve a serious and thorough investigation. This is why I have recommended a number of Australian politicians to read what he writes. Much of it is essential in the debate of the IPCC false claims and even the future economies of western countries and even more. ”
THE SUN’S DIRECT RADIATION CANNOT EXPLAIN SURFACE TEMPERATURES.
You can’t assume (like Postma and Bright-Paul) that the mean of 168W/m^2 could produce a mean temperature above 233K (-40°C) just because the radiation is variable and can reach over 1,000W/m^2 for a very small portion of Earth’s surface. The variability actually leads to a LOWER mean temperature than that for steady flux. How would you explain Venus surface temperatures with your conjecture anyway?
That’s why the correct paradigm had to be discovered, as I did – https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
IT’S ABOUT TIME all you CLAUSIUS FANS got it into your heads that (for NON-RADIATIVE HEAT) the Clausius corollary of the Second Law* only applies in a horizontal plane wherein gravitational potential energy does not change and thus does not affect entropy. THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY IMPORTANT IN REGARD TO PLANETARY TEMPERATURES.
It is NOT radiation that supplies all the necessary thermal energy to maintain a planet’s surface temperature – it is free (or “natural”) convective heat transfer happening at the molecular level and carrying out the SECOND LAW* process of MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION. But you will need to study my paper that arrogant people at PSI rejected in 2013.
* Second law of thermodynamics: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.” There’s nothing in there about heat from hot to cold.
Doug,
>”It is NOT radiation that supplies all the necessary thermal energy to maintain a planet’s surface temperature”
No, but solar energy is an input to the equation, not just for the surface but for any altitude in the entire troposphere:
US Airforce Labs modeled the entire atmospheric temperature from surface to TOA similarly and without recourse to the redundant and fallacious radiative greenhouse effect.
But then, you accuse people of arrogance but you don’t respond to replies to your spam do you Doug?
So who is the arrogant one here?
BTW re >”* Second law of thermodynamics: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.” There’s nothing in there about heat from hot to cold.”
There’s a number of statements of the Second Law e.g. your statement above, the Kelvin-Planck statement wrt cyclic heat engines and heat sinks (climate models violate this), and the simplist Clausius statement that you will find in the ubiquitous educational text Applied Heat by Roger Kinskey, viz (annotated for the climate case):
The entire AGW/MMCC conjecture violates this statement, and instead climate science creates a bogus perpetual motion machine of the second kind:
A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a violation of the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the case of climate, “transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir” refers to space.
Climate models retain heat that according to the 2nd Law is expelled to space i.e. climate scientists are NOT applied heat or heat transfer qualified, neither do they have the expertise.
Aside from the off-topic hijacking above, well done RT on an excellent debunking. We await a response with interest.
Well, don’t hold your breath, Mike — you could hurt yourself. 🙂
It could be that the meanings of “complaint about accuracy” and “complaint about inaccuracy” are opposite, yet they both convey my meaning. The English language is splendid: infinitely flexible, wildly accurate, stolidly reliable, sensationally creative. I love it.
You are criticising the phrasing of a sub-heading inserted by a copy editor. Jason Patinkin’s article is factually correct. All the way through the article Jason attributes the receding glaciers with climate change which you misleadingly interpret as warming.
Good luck with your complaint to the Press Council. Maybe you could set up a charitable trust and sue the NZ Herald as well. Get one of your learned friends to be legal counsel and you won’t have any legal costs. Just don’t be too prolix.
Hi Simon,
1. “You are criticising the phrasing of a sub-heading…” Never mind who wrote the heading, it’s wrong.
2. “Jason Patinkin’s article is factually correct.” I’ve pointed out where Patinkin’s article is incorrect.
3. “Jason attributes the receding glaciers with climate change…” Clumsy phrasing, but didn’t you see the bit about Al Gore blaming it on global warming? Or where Mote and Kaser said warming fails spectacularly to explain, etc., etc? In the article Patinkin says: “The glaciers Kenyans have looked at in wonder for millennia are disappearing as a result of climate change.” You didn’t even read it, did you?
3. “… climate change which you misleadingly interpret as warming.” Now what kind of double-speak are you giving us? Misleading??!! The only way in which humans are accused of altering the climate (“climate change”) is by warming it. How else do we manage it? Are you saying CO2 causes atmospheric cooling? Or that we stir up strong winds? Listen carefully: man-made climate change means global warming!
4. “Maybe you could set up…” Droll!
Jason Patinkin is a journalist based in East Africa. This is a syndicated piece via AP
Ah, interesting. Still, I don’t cut the Herald any slack for being wrong on climate change. Or what exactly are you saying, if anything? Of course, I can tell you’re saying something, there’s a buzz in the air. I mean, do you speak between your lines, so to speak? Or whatever?
I note that the piece that is lifted from AP is completed with a note from the sponsor – Emirates – on how to fly there.
The Emirates ad would probably be the only input from The Herald, apart from writing the cheque to AP
It still amazes me that people buy newspapers here.
I mean, do you speak between your lines, so to speak?
I agree that the Herald still has a responsibility for accuracy, even for syndicated pieces
I am as confused as you about Simon’t claim that the glacial recession is due to “climate change”.
What is it?
Simon is channelling Humpty Dumpty RT – seems to be warmy trait.
>”All the way through the article Jason attributes the receding glaciers with climate change which you misleadingly interpret as warming.”
This places you as Alice RT (no offence):
Apparently Warmer World isn’t, it’s Wonder Land.
Not surprizing given the UN FCCC and IPCC disagree on their climate change definition. The IPCC’s primary climate change criteris might be helpful to resolve the issue:
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
[A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”
And,
[B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
>”Not surprizing given the UN FCCC and IPCC disagree on their climate change definition”
UNFCCC: Definitions of climate change
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf
# # #
Note the violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see upthead) in the very first paragraph of the “fact” sheet:
This violation will haunt them now temperature is not proceeding in the 21st century as per their non-physical basis and prediction.
The rebuttal is simple:
IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). Co = 280ppm, C = 400ppm.
# 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
# 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and IPCC Table of Forcings, similar to net anthro).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble 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, -11 W.m-2 Southern Ocean). 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.
Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg
I’m confused too as to where RT’s deforestation theory came from. It’s not in any of his links or the scientific literature that I have seen. There could be an effect there, but I am sceptical that would be the sole cause. Most papers blame ‘climate change’. Of course, large scale deforestation can cause climate change too.
Found it. Yet another myth propagated by the Heartland Institute.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
When will you guys ever learn?
Also in the 2011 UN FCCC “fact” sheet:
This was where they threw the IPCC CO2-forced climate models under a bus when they discovered the 21st Century trend (their acknowledged ‘Hiatus’) was nowhere near their CO2-forced model’s trajectory. The model mean is just over 0.3°C per decade.
Meanwhile, the 2015/16 El Nino “warming”, claimed for AGW/MMCC by Schmidt, Rahmstorf and Co, is dissipating to space in accordance with the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see upthread) i.e. even their “0.2°C per decade” is in jeopardy, as is their entire conjecture.
And Gaia forbid, cooling kicking in within the next 20 years (2011 – 2031) as per the solar conjecture (start looking mid-2020s).
Me, I’m going with the laws of thermodynamics – not UN WMO, FCCC, IPCC violations of such.
Simon
>”Found it. Yet another myth propagated by the Heartland Institute. [linl] When will you guys ever learn”
When will YOU ever learn Simon?
What you have “found” (Pierrehumbert’s essay) is out of date:
Here’s a link to a recent paper on the loss of ice on Kilimanjaro… lead by an Otago geographer.
“A century of ice retreat on Kilimanjaro: the mapping reloaded
Cullen et al. 2013: The Cryosphere 7: 419-431
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/419/2013/tc-7-419-2013.pdf
Simon,
It’s not hard to find studies of it. I never said it was the sole cause, but it does appear to be a major one. My post mentioned deforestation but it was discarded during editing. I was unaware of the Heartland link you cite; since many other sources talk about it, this is a conspiracy that doesn’t exist. You should know, too, that Sceptical Science considers deforestation a big influence on Kilimanjaro.
You say: “Of course, large scale deforestation can cause climate change too.” Yes, this is well known, but it’s only a local or regional effect. Although it is reasonable to suppose a global effect might exist from the combination of all the regional influences, no such effect has so far been detected. That’s how pointless the anti-climate campaign is. There’s no human influence in the first place, so we can hardly stop what we’re not doing.
Maggy,
What an interesting paper, thank you. No mention of global warming to explain the ice loss, and confirms it will be gone within a couple of decades or so.
Here’s a more popular account of Cullen’s work on Kilimanjaro.
Doesn’t look like settled science to me.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/profiles/otago015748.html
Thanks Maggie – a good article indeed.
Andy,
re your surprise ‘that anyone buys newspapers these days’, looking at the increasingly parlous sate of MSM dead tree incomes tells it all.
Ref. the comment by Doug Cotton (under the guise of lukesarewrongtoo) – you may find of interest the review and comments relating to Dougy’s booklet “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” and the blog articles on which it is based ( see https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228