After I made comments at Coal Action Network, Gareth Renowden piled in and there was a brief discussion before he gave up in disgust. Here’s the end of it.
Sorry Richard – I tried to be helpful, but it appears that you are so entrenched in your misunderstanding of the physics of what’s going on that it would take a very long time to unpack it all. And past experience suggests you wouldn’t take much notice anyway.
You have a duty to educate yourself – not continually demand answers from other people. Simply repeating contrarian talking points that have been debunked over and over again wins you no friends.
You were helpful, and the lack of censure was refreshing. It was a genuine pleasure to exchange views. Thanks for joining in, and I’m sorry you’re leaving so soon.
You diminish the climate debate by ignoring my arguments and resorting to personal attack. But there’s a deeper issue here. Like it or not, we are two local leaders in the climate debate (such as it is), and I’m surprised you still think you’re only talking to me, because you’re not. We’re talking to thousands. I’m not arguing to change your mind, but to provide information for our audience. Change their minds, if possible, where they’re undecided.
It’s very helpful to them, when you say something that sounds scientific and decisive, to hear a fact-based refutation or how to untangle a misrepresentation.
But I don’t matter and you don’t matter—and any quarrelsome style we adopt simply obscures the debate.
Like it or not, we need to continue.
I’ll post these remarks at the CCG and you are most welcome to add your comments. The debate is too important to abandon but I won’t take it to HT because of the unrestrained toxic trolls. Not to mention you banned me several years ago.
Here’s my challenge: let us, you and me, persevere with this most crucial of national debates.
Hope it leads to a continuing discussion. I’ll be relying on plenty of help from my readers, so please keep your pencils poised.
Views: 325
“I tried to be helpful, but it appears that you are so entrenched in your misunderstanding of the physics of what’s going on that it would take a very long time to unpack it all.”
Apparently, Richard, you have some history with Gareth. What are his credentials that confirm his knowledge of the physics he claims you misunderstand? I think most of us have a limited, if not incorrect, understanding of atmospheric physics. The main shortcoming is not being able to integrate the radiative factors in with the effects of evaporation and advection–convection and wind.
Absorption of IR by CO2 is well documented. However, the projected warming from incremental increases of CO2 in the atmosphere has NEVER been definitively measured. The closest scientists have come to an estimation of potential warming due to CO2 comes from calculations based on a static model of the atmosphere. Phrases like “CO2 blocks outgoing heat” or “CO2 traps radiation which causes surface to warm” belie the influence of convective overturning that cools the surface and transports energy to the upper atmosphere and greater latitudes where planetary cooling takes place.
Hi Chic. Yes, we’ve been sparring for probably ten years or more. Gareth is a journalist, grows truffles in North Canterbury and runs the Hot Topic blog. He’s close to the climate scientists at NIWA, which gives him access to their understanding. He’s not scientifically qualified—as I am not, beyond college. Your comments are interesting, especially since they acknowledge the complexity of atmospheric processes and the uncertainty under which we know them. Most people are not aware that radiative atmospheric warming has not been measured, nor do they know that incoming solar energy is being constantly dispersed.
I’ve been following the climate debate for about 7 years. I’m a physical chemist so I understand much of the radiative aspects of climate. The paleoclimatology is another story. I hesitate to get involved in that arena. But Gareth accusing you of “repeating contrarian talking points” sounds like a pot calling the kettle black. How far back do you have to go to get sea level 20 meters higher than now? At the present rate of 3 mm/year, we won’t see 20 meter rise for what, 6 millennia?
During this current inter-glacial, temperatures have been warmer with less CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 is a control knob, there’s sure a lot of play in it.
Thanks for dropping in, Chic. Yes, Gareth resorts to cheap shots when he can’t make an argument. I’ve had a quick look at paleo sea level and a couple of graphs show that levels were 20 m higher than today about 12 mya. But the point is as you say, that CO2 is not the control knob. There’s a lot more going on. Yes, 6 millenia at least. Take the tide gauge rate of rise (more representative of changes at the coast) of 1.8 mm/yr and it will be more like 11,000 years.
I have been appalled at the vitriolic diatribes posted by Gareth Renowden against scientists and private individuals who discuss observations/evidence that depart from official NIWA lines.
I find it reprehensible that his blog site figures so prominently on the RSNZ sciblog site.
Maggy, I wholeheartedly agree. The worst thing is that his information is all wrong, but the gratuitous vitriol is offensive.
It is NZ based climate scientists who have been IPCC assessment report authors that I’d like to engage some how. Like James Renwick or Dave Frame. Dave used to turn up at HT but not now.
I doubt Gareth could really address the critical issues that AR5 throws up. Not necessarily from a scientific angle but from an IPCC insiders experience of the IPCC process i.e. what gets assessed and what gets written or not. And if not why not.
No 1 issue and critical to the validity or not of AGW, a.k.a. the man-made climate change conjecture, is this:
1) Why didn’t AR5 Chap 13 address the growing discrepancy between theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA (1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm) and the measured energy imbalance at TOA (0.6 W.m-2).
James Renwck has mentioned the CO2 “forcing” in television interviews but I’ve never seen Gareth Renowden say anything of it, James didn’t address the issue either, neither did he make the theory vs observations distinction.
This is make-or-break for AGW but nobody wants to go there, certainly not the IPCC and even sceptics like Joanne Nova don’t want to make it #1 either. All of Gareth’s HT blog is inconsequential until he addresses the #1 issue too because his assumption is that “the physics of what’s going on” is valid.
The AR5 report reveals, by their own observations in Chap 2 vs Chap 9 theory, that “the [theoretical] physics of what’s going on” is NOT valid.
RC, put something together and I’ll publish it. I won’t even purloin the authorship. I don’t have time at the moment; as you know, I was intending to look at it some weeks ago. Now I’m working on something else, just as important, while filling in idle moments fixing our darned house. Make it simple. I know you don’t like the idea of “formal” writing, but your help would be invaluable. Write the way you always do, but (if I might be so bold as to offer you advice!) give some thought to people not used to scientific terminology or climate processes. If nothing comes to you, no worries, mate.
>”RC, put something together and I’ll publish it.”
OK, I’ve got a couple of weeks break until next month starting 6:30am tomorrow – but I have to catch up on some sleep first. I should be able to put it together in that time. And yes, in a way that draws out the issue from the numbers and acronyns hopefully.
Worth pointing out at this point that until the #1 issue is addressed satisfactorily, there is no #2.
That’s right. If it doesn’t work because this is wrong, it won’t work even if that over there is right. I’m happy to help if I can, and thanks.
I watch with interest. Gareth is a local, but not a farmer in the usual sense. Lifestyler, his lovely wife calls it. He has made me an invitation to parlez, but I have yet to accept on account of a loaded dice scenario. He is a politician at heart. I watch with interest.
A precursor to an article on the critical climate change issue which is less about science than it is about either competancy or truthfulness, The following article, by NZ IPCC-aligned climate scientists, completely ignores the IPCCs primary climate change criteria. Item 7 is as close as they get but only at a secondary level, not primary. The rest is anecdotal stuff:
‘Human role in climate change is clear’ – March 10 2015
Authors:
David Wratt is an Emeritus Climate Scientist at NIWA, an Adjunct Professor in the NZ Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University, and a Vice Chair of Working Group 1 of the IPCC. Andy Reisinger is Deputy Director (International) of the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and served as coordinating lead author in the most recent IPCC report. James Renwick is a Professor of Physical Geography at Victoria University of Wellington and served as a Lead Author on the last two IPCC Reports.
7. A substantial contribution to the observed increase in average global surface temperature since the mid-20th century has come from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no other plausible way to explain the observed changes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/67158597/Human-role-in-climate-change-is-clear
Also:
Claims of a ‘mini ice-age’ ahead – Expert reaction [SMC]
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/07/14/claims-of-a-mini-ice-age-ahead-expert-reaction/
[Dr Brett Mullen] – “[I] would point out that the downward infrared radiation into the troposphere is increasing every year due to growing greenhouse gas concentration………….”
About 0.2 – 0.3+ W.m-2/decade, a negligible amount. But Mullen is not stating the case in terms of the IPCC’s climate change criteria which is radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” even though he is theoretically correct that the posited phenomenon is tropospheric.
[Renwick] – “The big difference now is that there is a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than there was in the 1700s (about 40% more CO2 and more than twice the methane) which has added up to more than 2 Watts per square metre increase in the energy absorbed at the ground, compared to the 1700s.”
Renwick has added a clanger. Renwick is dead wrong with “more than 2 Watts per square metre increase in the energy absorbed at the ground” in respect to LW. The IPCC reports only 0.6 W.m-2 absorbed at ground but has no science that the attribution is LW. And LW is not a surface heating agent anyway, particularly at the atmosphere-ocean interface.
I’m looking for a TV3 interview in which Renwick does actually state the 2 W.m-2 “forcing” at top of atmosphere but he doesn’t say it is theoretical. This approaches the critical issue i.e. why didn’t he?
>”I’m looking for a TV3 interview in which Renwick does actually state the 2 W.m-2 “forcing” at top of atmosphere….”
Can’t find it but no matter, here’s what the IPCC says:
Highly problematic. In Chapter 2 the IPCC cites the updated earth’s energy budget (Stephens et al (2012) – see G. Stephens in Chapter 8 author list above and paper linked below) in which the observed top of atmosphere imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static. Time has advanced since the report; at end of 2015 and CO2 at 400ppm the theoretical CO2 forcing was 1.9 W.m-2 and total anthropogenic ERF about 2.4 W.m-2 – i.e. theory 4 times actual.
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/abs/ngeo1580.html
So the scientific problem is the obvious discrepancy between theory and real world. At this point only one author (Graeme Stephens) is common to both author lists but he, at least, must have been very aware of the discrepancy.
The obvious chapter in which to address the discrepancy was Chapter 10 – but they don’t (I challenge anyone to find the passage where they do):
The Chapter 10 scientific assessment ignores the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (radiative forcing) and leaps immediately to secondary effects e.g. surface temperature. It is impossible to attribute secondary effects to human cause if human cause cannot be attributed to the primary criteria. No-one in that very long Chapter 10 author list seems to have noticed this glaring issue.
So now, along with Graeme Stephens common to Chapter 8 and Stephens et al author lists, Drew Shindell and Martin Wild are common to both the Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 author lists. Surely they must have known of the major scientific-theory-vs-real-world discrepancy issue?
The responsibility for what was addressed in Chapter 10 lies with the coordinating lead authors Nathaniel Bindoff (Australia) and Peter Stott (UK). To a lessor extent the review editors Judit Bartholy (Hungary), Robert Vautard (France), and Tetsuzo Yasunari (Japan).
Note that none of the NZ IPCC AR5 report vice chair and authors — Wratt, Reisinger, Renwick — are not players in the critical issue i.e. they cannot really answer for, or properly defend, the work of others if they were not privy to those parts of the report process. But if they subscribe to that work without question and disseminate it, then they must also defend and explain it satisfactorily on behalf of those who actually wrote it.
So that’s the scientific issue. It demands a rock-solid scientific explanation from the IPCC (bloggers allude to “Planck response” and “delayed warming” but the IPCC must explain). If none is forthcoming or what is is unsatisfactory, the man-made climate change conjecture is falsified by the IPCC’s own criteria.
The issue focus then, moves from the scientific aspects to questions of competency and truthfulness. True, the report addresses both theory and observations but separately in two different chapters, never do they make a direct comparison. The IPCC’s neglect to actually apply and compare theory to the observed real world in Chapter 10 raises questions of incompetency and negligence, or worse, willful deceit and impropriety.
I believe the issue of competency and truthfulness is far greater than the scientific issue. Sure, the ramifications of a wrongful scientific basis to national and international regulation is horrendous economically but negligence is a civil offense, willful negligence is a criminal offense i.e. the ultimate accountability for conduct in either case:
What is NEGLIGENCE? (Legal term – civil law)]
http://thelawdictionary.org/negligence/
What is WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE? (Legal term – criminal law)
http://thelawdictionary.org/willful-negligence/
The UN cannot be sued but those above are not UN employees. The question then is: was the neglect of the principles (in legal terms – see Accessory below), Bindoff and Stott, an oversight or was it willful?
Stephens, Shindell, and Wild at least, are accessories, At most all the other Chapter 10 authors and the guiding personnel for the entire report are accessories too, which includes David Wratt:
Accessory (legal term)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29
The above forms a rough draft of a post. Prior comment would be appreciated. All that is missing that I can think of is the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):
>”I’m looking for a TV3 interview in which Renwick does actually state the 2 W.m-2 “forcing” at top of atmosphere….”
Can’t find it but no matter, here’s what the IPCC says:
Highly problematic. In Chapter 2 the IPCC cites the updated earth’s energy budget (Stephens et al (2012) – see G. Stephens in Chapter 8 author list above and paper linked below) in which the observed top of atmosphere imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static. Time has advanced since the report; at end of 2015 and CO2 at 400ppm the theoretical CO2 forcing was 1.9 W.m-2 and total anthropogenic ERF about 2.4 W.m-2 – i.e. theory 4 times actual.
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/abs/ngeo1580.html
So the scientific problem is the obvious discrepancy between theory and real world. At this point only one author (Graeme Stephens) is common to both author lists but he, at least, must have been very aware of the discrepancy.
The obvious chapter in which to address the discrepancy was Chapter 10 – but they don’t (I challenge anyone to find the passage where they do):
The Chapter 10 scientific assessment ignores the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (radiative forcing) and leaps immediately to secondary effects e.g. surface temperature. It is impossible to attribute secondary effects to human cause if human cause cannot be attributed to the primary criteria. No-one in that very long Chapter 10 author list seems to have noticed this glaring issue.
So now, along with Graeme Stephens common to Chapter 8 and Stephens et al author lists, Drew Shindell and Martin Wild are common to both the Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 author lists. Surely they must have known of the major scientific-theory-vs-real-world discrepancy issue?
>”I’m looking for a TV3 interview in which Renwick does actually state the 2 W.m-2 “forcing” at top of atmosphere….”
Can’t find it but no matter, here’s what the IPCC says:
Highly problematic. In Chapter 2 the IPCC cites the updated earth’s energy budget (Stephens et al (2012) – see G. Stephens in Chapter 8 author list above and paper linked below) in which the observed top of atmosphere imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static. Time has advanced since the report; at end of 2015 and CO2 at 400ppm the theoretical CO2 forcing was 1.9 W.m-2 and total anthropogenic ERF about 2.4 W.m-2 – i.e. theory 4 times actual.
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/abs/ngeo1580.html
RT, I posted what is basically a draft post but too long and too many links, I tried to break it up but it’s all in spam.
Please don’t bother digging it all out, it’s too much for this thread but I was looking for feedback. I can easily compile the draft into a refined post as it turns out, now that I’ve ordered my thoughts (I saved a copy of the comment so no loss).
You could perhaps have a look to see where I’m going with it i.e. is it the gist of what you want for a post? Maybe not necessary to copy IPCC author lists although as you would see, those authors are very much a part of the issue. Actually, THE issue.
You have been given the cold shoulder RT
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-lost-art-of-conversation/
Thanks, Andy. Oh, he sounds so reasonable, regretful, even, that he has to decline my invitation to debate. Yet he files me under Climate Cranks and Prat Watch. But he claims to have a science degree! Since I obtained the summary of his bio from his website, and that doesn’t mention a science degree, I can only apologise and suggest he stops hiding his light under a bushel. The flannel he offers in his latest post merely flaunts his insincerity. It’s completely unpersuasive. By the way, the degree he claims is actually named a Human Sciences BA degree, which isn’t a science degree at all. Or it’s the science degree you get when you’re not getting a science degree. Bad luck, Gareth.
The NBR article by James Renwick on SLR has 190 comments on it, suggesting that there is some debate,
The defenders of the consensus don’t seem to have a lot of content to offer and it has degenerated into the usual slanging match
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-scepticism-distracts-us-making-right-choices-190312
Social Sciences huh? Told you he was a politician. Certainly no scientist.
His ripostes seem to come in 2 forms : be patronising (i.e. a ‘prat’); be dismissive of constructive argument, like, “he’s a crank”. His categorisation of RT as a PratWatch member and a Climate Crank therefore seem to be, in social science parlance, a projection. Often the pot which knows how black it actually is rails at the somewhat greyish kettle for being less than white. Maggie calls the result “vitriolic diatribe”, which is succinct. He’s accused me of being stuck in an echo chamber, but it is he who blocks reasoned comments. Again, some projection. Which is why I say the dice are loaded when he invites me to visit him and have a chat. It just ain’t gonna work. Nor will RT’s reasonable invitation for GR to debate in this forum. He is much more comfortable behind the impenetrable walls of his own HT echo chamber.
Corrigendum:
Gareth has a degree, called by his university a BA, which he acknowledges is a BA, and he criticises me for saying it’s not a science degree. He links to the University of Oxford Institute of Human Sciences page, which describes the degree as “provided by a number of departments of the University, including Anthropology, Physiology, Psychology, Sociology and Zoology.” Which, with just two medical or biological subjects, sounds predominantly like humanities to me. He wrote on his site:
[PS: RT might like to note that first degrees at Oxford and Cambridge are all BAs. But that might be inconvenient to his desire to denigrate…]
I replied: “I was unaware of those BA degrees, so thank you. Now, please describe where on your About page your qualifications are mentioned, which would justify your sarcasm.”
Now I ask how he can describe it as a science degree when his university does not. But it’s unimportant; he doesn’t bother to mention it on his web site, and I’ve now got better things to do.
Yes I have one of those too, but from the other place. it automatically gets upgraded to an MA after 3 years. So I have an MA in Mathematics
Weird, I know
Hot Topic commentators are not interested in debate because they are Islamophophic homophobic misogynistic bigots.
Just like all the regressive Left.
Beige, conformist, rule obeying, unthinking, robotic cretins
It’s kind of nice that the racist bigot called “beaker’ has complained about my racial diverse avatar that happened to include a black soft toy at Hot Topic
I’d like to apologise to all the racist bigots at Hot Topic for my choice of avatar
If any other racists, bigots, Jew Haters, misogynistic Islamic apologists etc want to jump in, please feel free