Guest Post: Deep Sea Oil Drilling in NZ : just who is crazy?

March 28th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

A guest post by Assoc Prof , director of Energy Studies at Otago University:

I think the time has come to ask, “Just who is crazy when it comes to the arguments for and against exploring for oil off the NZ coast?” The numbers coming from scientists vary from very scary to the “Oh shit it’s too late” variety. The very scary numbers suggest we have around two decades to decarbonise the world’s economy. The “too late” variety come from people like NASA scientist Jim Hansen, who researched the earth’s past climate to obtain a safe CO2 limit of 350 ppm in the atmosphere. We are now close to 400ppm. Hansen’s numbers suggest we should stop all CO2 emissions now and sequester carbon by tree planting and burying biomass as carbon in the soil.

To ensure a habitable climate for future humanity and provide energy for our continued social existence we must stop carbon dioxide emissions and start the transition to a sustainable energy economy. With the present (unsustainable) world economy so closely linked to fossil fuel use, it would be very difficult to stop all emissions immediately. Even Jim Hansen realises this. Some years ago he suggested a transition program where developed countries should close down all coal-fired power plants by 2020 and developing countries do the same by 2030. Hansen opposes any further exploration or exploitation of non-conventional hydrocarbons. There is no evidence that his advice is being followed.

I’ve been looking at these problems for years: it has made me very pessimistic. My pessimistic reputation led to a group of university students giving a lecture titled “Cheer up Bob”: they argued that change was possible — and that they were up to the challenge. From this grew a local consortium that wants to prevent exploration for deep sea oil and/or gas by Anadarko and Shell. This oil and gas is not part of the world’s known reserves: by all scientific accounts it cannot be used if we are to keep our climate habitable.

This proactive, enthusiastic Oil Free Seas Flotilla group wants to prevent human distress and suffering. It wants to preserve the earth’s climate for future generations. It wants an orderly transition to sustainable energy sources that don’t emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The group does not want to shut down the world economy by preventing all existing emissions. Members are not protesting the existing extraction of known resources in Taranaki. They realise we need clear market signals that transition from fossil fuels is the only sensible choice. NZ progress depends on our investment in wind energy, solar energy and biomass resources.

The opposition to deep sea oil drilling is not against the use of conventional oil, especially for purposes that don’t emit carbon into the atmosphere. In fact the best use of remaining oil reserves may well be for construction materials, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser production and lubricants. Future generations may disbelievingly ask their parents, “You actually used to burn this valuable stuff?” 

Because natural gas is a lower greenhouse gas emitter than coal by around 50%, the use of gas in power stations is preferable to coal. Yet as world gas use is still increasing, in ten years the emissions reduction will be wiped out. In addition, gas substitution for coal doesn’t focus on a shift to sustainable energy sources in the short time available. Such a substitution also delivers profits to the very companies — such as Anadarko and Shell — that will invest in yet more oil and gas exploration and so again deliver more CO2 into the atmosphere.  We have to stop the cycle of fossil fuel dependence, not extend it. The gas transition argument is not valid.

So is the protest against oil drilling crazy, or are the people ignoring climate change deluded? New Zealanders must answer this urgent question. Are short term profits for a few worth the incredible risks involved to all?  Vested interests want to continue the status quo, by using all the oil, gas and coal until the earth is wrung dry by fracking, deep sea oil and gas extraction and mining the dirtiest coal. The two thirds or so of existing fossil fuels that cannot (should not) be extracted add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars of profits. But what do profits mean when the earth is uninhabitable? Or more to the point, what do dollars mean when there is nothing to spend them on?

The failure of international climate change negotiations shows that world governments are incapable of acting on this issue. The visible signs of global warming increase every year. Why? Because governments focus on economic growth at all costs and are at the same time subservient to the fossil fuel lobby. Unless the general population of all countries, including NZ, express concern by protesting this insanity, governments will continue not to act.

I am not alone in my views. Another group, Wise Response, is a raft of prominent New Zealanders from a wide range of professions and backgrounds. It’s calling for a cross-party risk assessment of how best to future-proof New Zealand against the climate, energy and financial challenges posed by our fossil fuel dependent society. Wise Response will present a submission to Parliament in April. When their team arrives at the Beehive, they will have the future of all New Zealanders in mind: regardless of political persuasion.

Kiwiblog is generally happy to run occasional guest posts to air different points of views.

Bob Lloyd is with Wise Response.

Tags: , ,

137 Responses to “Guest Post: Deep Sea Oil Drilling in NZ : just who is crazy?”

  1. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    The two thirds or so of existing fossil fuels that cannot (should not) be extracted add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars of profits. But what do profits mean when the earth is uninhabitable?

    @griff: Hear, hear. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    I hadn’t heard of Wise Response. Worth a look:
    http://wiseresponse.org.nz/?page_id=166

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. EAD (1,450 comments) says:

    What if oil were not a scarce resource like all the doomsters, peak-oil, AGW brigade would have you believe? Are we really supposed to believe that the only reason we can drive cars, fly around the world, venture into space and power industry is because the dinosaurs died millions of years ago? This belief is the cornerstone of the Peak Oil Dogma that has indoctrinated us into the belief that oil is consummately and imminently finite permitting the oil industry and its allies to drive all over us, setting prices beyond the wildest dreams of Croesus.

    What if oil is an infinite resource and not scarce?
    A: Abiotic oil (and this article is from the Huff Post no less!)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/methane-oozing-in-alaska_b_518177.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Yaaaawn….There are plenty of other things for the good professor to worry about than what would happen to Gaia if a Giant or Super Giant oil or gas field was discovered off the New Zealand coast.

    There is not much doubt that electric or hydrogen powered vehicles will become a reality in the near or medium term future. I can foresee a time in my lifetime when petrol driven vehicles will be either very rare or unknown. What the good professor doesn’t touch on – perhaps he doesn’t know – is the multiple uses petroleum has OTHER THAN as a transport fuel. In fact even some oil field people have been saying for a while that we shouldn’t be burning fossil fuels in cars and trucks – because the stuff is just too damn valuable to use like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    Academics need more grants, more money, and endless funding to “study” Gaia, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    ” The visible signs of global warming increase every year. ” Show me !!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. OneTrack (3,350 comments) says:

    We obviously need to move to nuclear power since the problem is so critical.

    Oh, wait. They don’t want to do that either. That means they don’t really think the problem is that bad at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    New Zealand is just one very small piece in the very big jigsaw. The left see policies of regulation and high taxation as the way to solve this problem but they really want yet another excuse to bring in their failed philosophy socialism. There is not a good-dam thing we can do about this problem even if we were to wreck our economy to make it carbon free including destroying the dairy industry. The solution lies with the big powers, and forest clearing operations.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Boy oh boy.

    Another AGW thread, and this just after I finished posting a “final” comment about this to Griff on yesterday’s GD. The key part, which I wrote years ago on Kiwiblog was this:

    First, if we could wind back global CO2 production to that of 1960 (and remember that global GDP is about three times larger than in 1960), and if we could then hold it at that level for the next 90 years – we would still double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100.

    Such reductions are
    Not
    Going
    To
    Happen

    For the billionth time I see that an advocate of the drastic reduction approach fails to understand what’s really going on

    Vested interests want to continue the status quo,

    Unless the general population of all countries, including NZ, express concern by protesting this insanity, governments will continue not to act.

    We’re all the “vested interests” dimbulb, that’s why all the agreements and even national efforts have failed to date. And the contradictions continue…

    The very scary numbers suggest we have around two decades to decarbonise the world’s economy.

    The group does not want to shut down the world economy by preventing all existing emissions.

    But you will have to accomplish the latter if you really want to achieve the former.

    The gas transition argument is not valid.

    A fair point, but the gas transition is the only thing that has really cut into CO2 emissions in the USA. The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.

    The two thirds or so of existing fossil fuels that cannot (should not) be extracted add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars of profits.

    Indeed. Allow me to repeat yet another quote from years ago on KB:

    “Ten countries ruled by nasty people control 80 percent of the planet’s oil reserves—about 1 trillion barrels, currently worth about $40 trillion…….If $40 trillion worth of gold were located where most of the oil is, one could only scoff at any suggestion that we might somehow persuade the nasty people to leave the wealth buried. They can lift most of their oil at a cost well under $10 a barrel. They will drill. They will pump. And they will find buyers. Oil is all they’ve got.”

    Someone should tell Vlad the Impaler about such economic thinking – it’s so 19th century.

    But tell me about being in denial – again.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Professor Bob Lloyd doesn’t make it clear here that he’s speaking as an active protestor.

    Also set to board SV Tiama is Bob Lloyd, associate professor and director of energy studies at the University of Otago physics department. Prof Lloyd (65) said he would ask the drill ship crew, via radio on the protest yacht, to halt its New Zealand drilling operations.

    He would ask they stop their search and focus on discovering renewable energy, such as solar panels and wind turbines.

    But the money to be made would make their hearing selective, he predicted.

    ”The amount of oil, gas and coal in the ground is worth around $100 trillion to $200 trillion. That’s a lot of vested interest.”

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/290877/david-and-goliath-quest

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. backster (2,195 comments) says:

    Professor Lloyd doesn’t mention what kind of car he drives or how his house is heated. I assume he is advocating the replacement of coal energy with nuclear.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    As soon as I see proof of AGW – that warming is NOT a natural cyclical event – the I will consider doing what the doomday sayers are saying.
    Till then, I’m not prepared to agree to join those who want to send our country and the world back into the medieval period.

    All they have is theories and computer generated modles. PFFFFT.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kleva Kiwi (290 comments) says:

    So by switching to gas which reduces co2 output by 50% for the same energy gain is not a substitute because growth in energy consumption will absorb any decrease in 10 years?

    This guy is an absolute fool if he believes anybody should take him seriously spouting this nonsense. If he believes that the world can transition to so called green energy overnight, wiping trillions of $$$ of infrastructure out…

    The proponents of climate change can never produce an argument on a rational or feasible level. Yeah sure, humans are having an effect on climate. But any realistic model for transition to alternatives has peak oil consumption happening in 35-40 years from now, and alternative energy eventually outstripping fossil in 2075. We as a race will still be using fossil fuels past 2100, unless the world wants to experience energy crisis, hyper inflation and a move backwards in the standard of living.

    But there is not one single shred of scientific evidence that paints a realistic scenario of this planet becoming uninhabitable to humans, the most successful, most adaptive organism to develop on this planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. alwyn (439 comments) says:

    ” In fact the best use of remaining oil reserves may well be for construction materials, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser production and lubricants. Future generations may disbelievingly ask their parents, “You actually used to burn this valuable stuff?” ”

    Ah, this takes me back. It was the view of the Shah of Iran in the 1970’s. What a pity he was overthrown by the various Ayatollahs who went back to shipping it out to be burned as fuel, one might say. The left of course would regard him as a fascist dictator. The fact that his views were just the same as theirs wouldn’t occur to them, even though they appear, like him, to regard themselves as the only people qualified to rule and to set the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. alloytoo (582 comments) says:

    @Onetrack

    You’re absolutely right, nuclear has the potential to supply all our power requirements without the significant problems of other non emitting power sources.

    More reliable that wind (well what isn’t?)
    More useful than solar.
    Doesn’t tie up resources of water and land like hydro.
    Doesn’t require unique circumstances like Geothermal.

    In addition Nuclear has the potential to drive the price of hydrogen generation way down, and make hydrogen powered cars a real challenger to the current internal combustion engines.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    tom hunter: Very well said. I have been told that if all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions for a year was equal to one two litre jug of milk, NZ’s contribution would be one half of one drop. I have never heard that analogy contradicted.

    If that is so it means that if ALL our greenhouse gas emissions ceased tomorrow it would have no effect at all on AGW…. If that is what’s happening, and let’s indulge the Prof and accept that it is.

    Lots of other threats to our happy existence concern me much more: the coming age of antibiotic resistant bacteria; a future where my kids will need to speak Maori – and believe some bullshit version of our country’s pre European history – to get a job; our growing and soon to be total dependence on the microchip for all of human interactions; Microsoft’s dominance of world computing etc. etc. etc. Way way way down the list of things I worry about is maybe it’ll get warmer in Dunedin, and we might have more “100 year event” storms and floods.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Farmerpete (58 comments) says:

    I just can’t see the point of this post. Someone please give this poor long suffering f**l an antidepressant. Don’t these people read anything that is not consistent with their views, because if they did they would see that just about every forecast made by AGW proponents has not materialised. There is a mountain of contrary research but these diehard ‘AGW’ists’ just can’t see it.
    What is not immediately clear above is that the Prof is really speaking as an advocate and not as a scientist.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Show me the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. greenjacket (486 comments) says:

    “It wants an orderly transition to sustainable energy sources that don’t emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.”
    Such as nuclear reactors. Or maybe pixie dust?
    .
    .
    “Vested interests…”
    Oooooh Vested interests. Which presumbly means anyone who drives a car or uses electricity? Those bastards driving cars and using electricity (i.e. all of us).
    .
    .
    “Because natural gas is a lower greenhouse gas emitter than coal by around 50%, the use of gas in power stations is preferable to coal. Yet as world gas use is still increasing, in ten years the emissions reduction will be wiped out.”
    OK – and why is gas use increasing?
    Gas use is increasing because overall energy use is increasing. And if gas is not used to meet that demand, then it will be coal.
    So this silly writer fails to address the actual issue – it is that energy demands are going up. So what is he going to do to reduce demand? Because protesting about oil drilling will have ZERO impact on rising energy demand. The problem is rising demand for energy – not oil drilling.
    .
    .
    “In addition, gas substitution for coal doesn’t focus on a shift to sustainable energy sources in the short time available.”
    Jesus fucking wept. What “sustainable energy sources”? does this fool mean? Wind power won’t do it. Solar power won’t do it. The ONLY alternative is nuclear. So why can’t Bob Lloyd be honest – he wants a massive uptake of nuclear power. Or else Bob Lloyd is a fantasist.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Actually tom sweetie

    I make a habit of not commenting in the early stage on posts like this when DPF makes them

    My personality and ongoing deliberate attacks on wing nuts would just glog the discussion :wink:

    Good to see you engage however.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    LOL………..all this is based on the single premise of Jim Hanson that 400ppm is the ‘end of the world’?

    He doesn’t offer any other fact at all! :cool: Read it again. :cool:

    He labels a bunch of alarmist activists ‘a consortium’ to create the illusion that they are ‘an economy minded group’?

    And all he uses is the tired old cliches of emotional words, terms, labels and statements to back that single premise up?

    And then associates his doomsday theory activists with their professional arm – ‘Wise Response’ – who believe the same stupid premise of Jim Hensen?

    And just like the rest of them – he will never ever mention the SUN. Never ever. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    greenjacket — ” he wants a massive uptake of nuclear power. Or else Bob Lloyd is a fantasist.”

    Guys like Bob Llotd definitely don’t want nuclear so he must be a fantasist !! All his mates in Germany went crazy after the Fukushima accident and persuaded the German Govt. to bring forward the closure date of their old nuclear plants and did not want new nuclear. Very quickly the Govt. realised they had a problem so they are now building about 20 new coal fired plants as quick as they can.
    So as Farmerpete says the dear old Prof cannot be keeping up with his research and reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    Will Professor Lloyd dare to return to KB to answer some of the questions and challenge the assertions made here?

    Yes, the same professor for whom “growth is a delusion”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    We and the next few generations will all be long dead before fossil fuels “destroy” civilization if that is indeed possible. By then alternatives will be cheaply available. Technology will balance it all out.
    These warmist/climate change nut bars could put their efforts into say helping to alleviate the pain of cancer but there’s no money in that so they wont.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    My personality and ongoing deliberate attacks on wing nuts would just glog the discussion

    Oh I grok that you don’t want to harsh our mellow Griff.

    But how else are you going to shutdown the “jamming wing nuts.” so that a rational debate can happen?

    C’mon. Use Nut, nut, nutter again. Never fails to make me laugh :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    I have only 2 questions :

    1) What was the greenhouse gas emissions for any one year in the past 5, from human sources. I.E the emissions attributable to AGW.

    2) What was the greenhouse gas emissions in that same year from ALL sources. Including human and animal expiration, fires, volcanoes (terrestrial and underwater), geothermal, everything.

    I will need links to peer reviewed scientific publications.

    Once someone can tell me that, I’ll have another look at global warming. Until then, I don’t believe you.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. insider (845 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett

    You must be planning on living a really long time if you think electric and hydrogen cars will replace ICEs in your lifetime. You have to remember there is huge inertia in the vehicle market – only a small part of the market upgrades to new every three years. Hybrids were supposed to be the next big thing yet they are only ~5% of the fleet almost 20 years after hitting the market. So unless there is an unexpected global fuel supply crisis or major price breakthrough on alternative technologies, expect to see ICEs get more and more efficient, and so continue to dominate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bill Ted (93 comments) says:

    What I love the most about the climate change debate, is that those trumpeting the end of the world all suffer from the predisposition of wanting to tell others how to live their lives. Lovers of freedom are immediately skeptical, because they want solid proof before taking liberty with other people’s liberties. But then the second you ask questions and seek the proof, you get called a climate change denier. Personally, I believe our activities absolutely impact on the climate. I’m just yet to be convinced that it’s going to make an ounce of difference in the grand climatic cycle of the earth’s existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Peter (1,694 comments) says:

    No proof of dangerous AGW. Therefore, entire post based on speculation.

    Yawnies.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pita (314 comments) says:

    “Vested interests want to continue the status quo” the vested interest goes beyond the oil sheiks and oil barons; it goes to the very heart of politics itself. A wholesale (or unilateral) withdrawal from carbon based energy would lead to societal upheaval too ghastly to contemplate. Even the most naive of our politicians would understand this but perhaps not our closeted academics.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Science 28 August 1981:
    Vol. 213 no. 4511 pp. 957-966
    DOI: 10.1126/science.213.4511.957

    Articles

    Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

    J. Hansen1,
    D. Johnson1,
    A. Lacis1,
    S. Lebedeff1,
    P. Lee1,
    D. Rind1,
    G. Russell1

    + Author Affiliations

    1Atmospheric physicists at the NASA Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, New York 10025

    Abstract

    The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    A wholesale (or unilateral) withdrawal from carbon based energy would lead to societal upheaval too ghastly to contemplate. Even the most naive of our politicians would understand this but perhaps not our closeted academics.

    Really?

    Ever traded in a fire for a heat pump? Or know anyone who has?

    The societal upheaval you experience is not all that ghastly!

    We’ll still be driving to work in SOMETHING, even after petroleum gets too dear to burn as a fuel..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. gravedodger (1,575 comments) says:

    AS pointed out by some commenters above I will climb on board to stop my headlong rush to destroy the planet, to read how AGW supporters are giving their commitment and encouragement to a Nuclear fueled electricity generation project.

    The good professor talks about phasing out coal fired generation, not much point preaching to me or New Zealand, Germany is expanding coal fired generation to replace and close all its Nuclear generation capacity. Duh double Duh.

    China builds a new coal fired generation plant at the rate of one a week.

    For gods sake Prof go and grow some beetroot or some other worthwhile act to replace something where you have a glimmer of hope of achieving a meaningful outcome.
    Maybe get your Ivory Tower re-surveyed for Earthquake safety, then again leave it as it is and we might just get lucky.

    Btw could you at your earliest convenience return the Oxygen you purloined while writing that justification for your miserable existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The table could easily be tilted in nz to down size and decouple our personal transport fleet from its sole reliance on petrol.

    Hybrid has gone from a novelty to a serious contender in ten years.

    Diesel has efficiency advantages over petrol and our maritime climate lessons the compression ignition particles pollutions cumulative effect.

    Heat pump hot water or solar collectors is a cost-effective solution to water heating why is not mandatory or even subsidised on new builds?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. berend (1,690 comments) says:

    If CO2 rise is such a problem, why doesn’t Bob activate we start investing in scrubbing research? For 30 years they have been telling us that we are all going to suffer from catastrophic human induced global warming in 20 years. For starters, please make a prediction that you are sticking too.

    And secondly, scrubbing CO2 seems to me much more feasible than forbidding people to use a fridge or car.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    What is it now?
    17+ years of no temperature increase.
    When are these fools going to give up?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Because 1998 was an unusually strong “super El Niño,” and because we haven’t had an El Niño since 2010, it can appear as if global warming has slowed — if you cherry-pick a relatively recent start year. But in fact several recent studies have confirmed that planetary warming continues apace everywhere you look.

    Remember that 2010, a moderate El Niño, is the hottest year on record so far. And 2010 saw a stunning 20 countries set all-time record highs, including “Asia’s hottest reliably measured temperature of all-time, the remarkable 128.3°F (53.5°C) in Pakistan in May 2010.” Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters said 2010 was “the planet’s most extraordinary year for extreme weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s.”

    Given that the “Earth’s Rate Of Global Warming Is 400,000 Hiroshima Bombs A Day,” the planet is half a billion Hiroshimas warmer than it was in 2010. So even a moderate El Niño will cause record-setting temperature and weather extremes. But a strong one, let alone a super El Niño, should shatter records.

    Peru’s official El Niño commission said last week that they are expecting an El Niño to start as soon as April. Peru tracks this closely because “El Nino threatens to batter the fishmeal industry by scaring away abundant schools of cold-water anchovy.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/26/3417812/el-nino-extreme-weather-global-temperature/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Griff agrees – ocean currents have more influence on climate change than CO2 emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kleva Kiwi (290 comments) says:

    Griff your great at dredging up slogans and “scientific” data supported by global alarmists, but your useless at interpreting it in a rational manner or even making realistic conclusions based on the evidence.
    You continue to base your assumptions on other peoples conclusions, flawed as they are.

    There will not be a massive global shift to an uneconomical energy model. It makes no sense realistically, ethically and morally.

    The world will not end by AGW. It will adapt, just as out species has done for the brief split second that we have existed.

    By the way, its been 17 years since there has been an increase in average temperatures. The US has been through a very extreme cold period this winter (note, not the worst on record!). The so called 350ppm co2 limit and 400ppm point of no return is based on no empirical evidence what so ever. It is a straw man’s grasp to make headlines. The fact that earth historically has had far higher co2 levels is ignored by climate pseudo science. In fact, 500 million years ago co2 was 20-40 times greater than today, and again about 200 million years ago it was 5 times higher, slowly dropping to today’s current LOW of 350. In recent times it has increase to 400 (from an all time low of 280ppm in the 1700’s)

    The simple fact is, we don’t know a fraction of cause and effect of global climate, and we as people/scientists have only been observing WEATHER for a fraction of the Earths history.

    Griff you accuse us of cherry picking information, how about the climate establishments cherry picking of data… to make baseless sensationalised headlines about the end of the world. You sound like radical religious nutters

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    right now is unable to look past his prejudices and look at the facts.

    See the above paper by Henson etal .

    One moment its “you ignore natural cycles”

    the next is see natural cycles affect the weather.

    well duh what do you think science has been examining since 1981?

    Cyclic effects like the soi do not rise continually upwards they cycle around the norm. The temperature trend continues upwards when you filter out known natural cycles. A strong El Nino is going to happen and when it does…..

    Ps so many red for wingnut when a scientific paper is posted :lol:

    Arguing we don’t know yet when the science is presented its to scary for the wing nuts widdle weality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pita (314 comments) says:

    RRM: Societal upheaval/dislocation goes beyond heat pumps and what car (or prius) you drive…the upheaval comes from those societies that can no longer compete against a low energy cost producer.

    Politicians generally understand that the economy needs more than just “cake” to sustain the restive masses and keep the tumbrels from the door. Greens and closeted academics excluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    Kleva
    It’s pointless discussing this with Griff. He’s really confused and lately has been arguing the sceptic side whilst not being aware of it. Lol .Let’s just say he’s not ” Kleva”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=80
    So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account the fact that the sun was 4% less active than now. What about times closer to home? The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm. What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. The close coupling between CO2 and climate led the author to conclude that “geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth’s history.” (Tripati 2009).

    To sum up, Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings.” Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    ‘……we must stop carbon dioxide emissions…..”

    I stopped reading at that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. singularian (23 comments) says:

    There is no empirical proof that CO2 is anything more than a minor atmospheric gas. If anything it is becoming clear that it has little to no effect on climate/weather.

    Coupled with the fact that that the climate models relied upon by the doomsayers are being proven by the day to be inaccurate to a farcical degree and we have a situation where we must force these useful idiots to admit the truth, which is that we are decades away from even being close to having a reasonable understanding of the machinations of earths climatology.

    Most reasonable people agree that there was a period from the early 1600’s to the late 1800’s of colder than ‘average’ climate. This became known as the little ice age. After an ice age, large or small, something happens……..I wonder what that is?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    it’s funny watching global warming deniers try to sound clever when there is next to no science backing their delusions. The Earth’s atmosphere is heating up, humanity ‘s carbon emissions are the primary cause and we will suffer dire consequences if we do not take drastic steps immediately to put an end to the amount of green house gas we pump into the atmosphere. This is what the peer reviewed scientific research is telling us, …end of story. (heh, ‘…end of story’ really annoys me)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Yoza – are you really saying that we are accurately understand earths climatic system.

    If so the real denier is obvious to all, if not then nothing is settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “well duh what do you think science has been examining since 1981?”

    Oh I’m sure ‘science’ has been examining a great many things since 1981. What a thoroughly stupid question. If I said science has been examining shit since 1981 I wouldn’t be wrong.

    If you’re talking about climate scientists then I think they’ve been examining imaginary data, aka climate models.

    The modeled sea surface temperature anomalies for the last 32 years are twice the observed anomalies for the period. So if you want to talk about science, the real type that is based on the scientific method, this ain’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Yoza (1,261 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    it’s funny watching global warming deniers

    It’s funny you think such people exist. More modeling instead of reality.

    Have you stopped using fossil fuels and electricity yet Yoza?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :lol:
    Yoza
    I am closer to your politics now than to many of my former noecon :lol: brethren who still insist on hiding behind denial.

    Sorry for the big tail pull Tom. :blush: .

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Laissez-faire+capitalism.

    Ignores two things from an economic standpoint
    The commons.
    The exponential growth by resource extraction is unsustainable when the imputs are finite.

    Within a climate shift as fast as the one we are manufacturing is proberbly the destruction of their beloved system on the rocks of massive social upheaval.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    And that’s the nub of it – how quickly can humankind move to a post-carbon world?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “how quickly can humankind move to a post-carbon world”

    As soon as all carbon based life is extinguished I guess

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. singularian (23 comments) says:

    mike, you know that carbon is the 4th most common element in the UNIVERSE, right?

    You guys crack me up.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    What is the ratio of human CO2 emissions, compared to volcanic and other geologic CO2 emissions ?

    I suspect you’ll find human emissions are way less.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. db.. (87 comments) says:

    Hey Griff – How old are you?

    db..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi (1,289 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    What is the ratio of human CO2 emissions, compared to volcanic and other geologic CO2 emissions ?

    I suspect you’ll find human emissions are way less.

    Human introduced CO2 is the only variable that produces the warming we have.

    http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/carbon-dioxide-sources

    . I suspect you are not aware of the process of science.

    Al these talking points are covered by nasa or niwa or any one of the NGO that are charged with looking into this.

    or are back into conspiracy to defraud for money by all the worlds scientific bodies etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Griff: “I suspect you are not aware of the process of science.”

    You should acquaint yourself with the scientific method Griff. Try this site to get you started:
    http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/projects/thescientificmethod.html

    Observations

    Describe the observations you made during your experiment. Include information that could have affected your results such as errors, environmental factors and unexpected surprises.

    Handy Tip: Models are not observations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kleva Kiwi (290 comments) says:

    Its nice of Griff to continue to post all these fringe science and interest group webpages…

    Your logic and assertions make no sense. The last time earth had 400ppm co2 was indeed the Miocene era, an era where the earth was going through a cooling period leading into some of the more recent ice ages in the Pliocene era (circa 5m years)
    Earth had just transitioned from the much warmer Oligocene age where CO2 levels where infact LOWER than they are atm.

    So what exactly are you trying to prove? Because history and geological evidence indicates a far stronger case that CO2 has very little to do with global warming, and in fact is more likely to contribute to cooling effects…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kleva Kiwi (290 comments) says:

    Oh, and if you want some supporting evidence Griff, take a look here:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png
    As you can note, rather stable tempatures in the last 10 years on a geographical time line.
    The fact that since 1730 the tempature average has only increased 0.6 degrees is inconsequential compared with historical changes in the Earths history. Human influence is real, but the degree is irrelevant on a geological scale.

    A single volcanic eruption will do more so called ‘harm’ than humans entire contribution in the last 300 years…

    Not to mention we are technically still in an ice age

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    http://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/weather-and-climate/

    Here yah are klava

    at your level.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Insider: I live in hope of living to ripe old age.

    The one thing that is certain in all of this – as with much else in human/machine evolution – is we don’t really know what will happen or not happen. Regardless of your age, read “Future Shock” by Alvin Toffler, published in 1970, and a huge bestseller in its day. Mr Toffler was a “futurist” who made confident predictions about what the future would hold. Reading it 40 years later is quite amusing: almost nothing he confidently predicted would happen has happened, and conversely he foresaw NONE of the major developments of our age – such as mobile phones and the internet.

    It is entirely possible that electric cars – or more correctly their batteries – will develop way faster than we can envisage now…and it’s equally possible that batteries are now close to as good as they will get…no-one can tell. For “electric cars” and “batteries” in the preceding sentence substitute “Hydrogen powered cars” and “fuel cells.”

    Just two examples of “predictions wildly wrong” will suffice: the President of IBM saying – whenever it was he said it – that the world market for computers was about five. And the predictions confidently made at the time of the Apollo moon landings that we would have a permanent outpost on the moon way before 2000. Both predictions proved to be utterly wrong.

    Kleva Kiwi: Well said Sir/madam

    I still like that slogan “Dunedin – looking forward to global warming”!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi (1,289 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    What is the ratio of human CO2 emissions, compared to volcanic and other geologic CO2 emissions ?

    I suspect you’ll find human emissions are way less.

    Humans emit 135 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:

    Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

    Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

    The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    singularian (4 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    Yoza – are you really saying that we are accurately understand earths climatic system.

    If so the real denier is obvious to all, if not then nothing is settled.

    No, what I am saying is that as the result of decades of intensive scientific investigation into the effect human industrial activity is having on the planet humanity’s leading scientific institutions have concluded the amount of green house gasses we are releasing into the atmosphere are causing our only known survivable habitat to heat up to a point that it could, in all probability, extinguish our species.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    In his book The Third Wave, Toffler describes three types of societies, based on the concept of “waves”—each wave pushes the older societies and cultures aside.

    First Wave is the society after agrarian revolution and replaced the first hunter-gatherer cultures.
    Second Wave is the society during the Industrial Revolution (ca. late 17th century through the mid-20th century). The main components of the Second Wave society are nuclear family, factory-type education system, and the corporation. Toffler writes: “The Second Wave Society is industrial and based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, and weapons of mass destruction. You combine those things with standardization, centralization, concentration, and synchronization, and you wind up with a style of organization we call bureaucracy.”
    Third Wave is the post-industrial society. According to Toffler, since the late 1950s, most nations have been moving away from a Second Wave Society into what he would call a Third Wave Society, one based on actionable knowledge as a primary resource. His description of this (super-industrial society) dovetails into other writers’ concepts (like the Information Age, Space Age, Electronic Era, Global Village, technetronic age, scientific-technological revolution), which to various degrees predicted demassification, diversity, knowledge-based production, and the acceleration of change (one of Toffler’s key maxims is “change is non-linear and can go backwards, forwards and sideways”).

    In this post-industrial society, there is a wide diversity of lifestyles (“subcultures”). Adhocracies (fluid organizations) adapt quickly to changes. Information can substitute most of the material resources (see ersatz) and becomes the main material for workers (cognitarians instead of proletarians), who are loosely affiliated. Mass customization offers the possibility of cheap, personalized, production catering to small niches (see just-in-time production).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. OneTrack (3,350 comments) says:

    Rightnow -“Handy Tip: Models are not observations.”

    But everybody knows the “models” dont need observations. That’s old school science. They have got hockeysticks instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    That’s right – the hockey stick – pretty much mainstream consensus thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Yoza: dont worry be happy….the earth will last long enough for you and your childrens’ children…even if their houses get a bit closer to the sea than when they built them..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    I think he’s got you there OneTrack.

    If anybody knows about “mainstream consensus thinking”, it’s our mikenmild.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Nice to have you on board, tom.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Absolutely, sorry I didn’t say this a few days ago Tom but it’s good to see you back

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Post-modern science: facts aren’t important
    Post-carbon world: humans aren’t important (especially those in the developing world, they don’t have any rights to cheap energy)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Thanks RightNow – but somehow I don’t think that’s what milky meant !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :lol:

    every scientific body in the world

    It gets boring posting that when all idiots come up with is prior discredited talking points.

    Hansen et al

    griffith :
    March 28th, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Right Now.

    a succesful prediction of events as they have unfolded since 1981

    unfortunately The experiment you demand is only available to us once.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    milky says a lot of stuff that toes the line but I think he has a certain ability for independent thought that might lead him to question if what he’s told is always the truth.
    Griff is a different kettle of fish, I think he’s decided some time ago that he’s going to accept what an alleged consensus has said, and stake his claim that the majority has to be right. Never mind that observations say the models are wrong, the team still says it’s catastrophic and humans are majority to blame, so that’s what griff will repeat.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Once you warmist loons swear off the following – petroleum products you may have a little credibility in your fight to rid the world of this scourge.

    I will be interested to watch your stories change as the massive backdown from the IPCC in WGII comes to the forefront in the next couple of months. Useful idiots is the approriate term.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “a succesful prediction of events as they have unfolded since 1981″

    Whatever planet you’re on I think the oxygen is a bit thin

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    actually right now I was educated by the sources of your own arguments and the obvious repeated failure to understand what they were reciting.

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm

    Like your posting of a discussion document for a workshop with a few on the fringe debating respected scientists.

    The result of that discussion was often an inside into the minds :lol: of the three.

    But no matter how many time you are shot down it’s another staple of the stupid. One sided alt science or misdirection. As poorly critically researched as the last.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :shock:

    Right now can not process this

    griffith (387 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Science 28 August 1981:
    Vol. 213 no. 4511 pp. 957-966
    DOI: 10.1126/science.213.4511.957

    Articles

    Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

    J. Hansen1,
    D. Johnson1,
    A. Lacis1,
    S. Lebedeff1,
    P. Lee1,
    D. Rind1,
    G. Russell1

    + Author Affiliations

    1Atmospheric physicists at the NASA Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, New York 10025

    Abstract

    The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960′s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America . and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/ice-radar-grawk/
    Science Graphic of the Week: Radar Reveals Massive Antarctic Ice Retreat

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    singularian: Be nice if your link worked…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    So Griff.

    I’m thinking of taking my family for a holiday this year and we figured to do something more exotic than the usual USA-fest.

    So I’m thinking the Maldives! I’m told that tourism is essential to their economic survival.

    The problem is that I’ve also been told that every ton of CO2 we emit during our flights there will sink them another millimetre into the Indian Ocean.

    So – Yes or No on the Maldives?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    What’s the deepest hole you’ve ever drilled DG?

    I’ve only ever logged 7″ before my drill string bottomed out! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    tom hunter: If that was the case, the Maldives would sink beneath the waves next Thursday..

    JB: I have worked on holes that got down further than 4000 metres…but only been responsible for the less risky shallower bits…And I’m sure it is a coincidence, but 7″ (diameter) hole is often what is drilled the deepest…(You start big, maybe 28 or even 30″ and get smaller as you go down…)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Whatever Tom enjoy your holiday.

    :lol:

    Enjoy the lifestyle while it lasts. maldives is one of the worlds top dive spots.

    I have my own little diversions from lives struggles. we all need them.

    I travel down the holiday highway on a two weekly basis to….

    holiday.

    Except my relaxation once there is developing my own long-term carbon sink and low-carbon future lifestyle once my old dad is no longer my daily responsibility

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “Right now can not process this…Science 28 August 1981:”
    “well duh what do you think science has been examining since 1981?”

    Apparently there’s been no progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “how will I know which green break-throughs are real?”
    “Seriously? You think there are real ones?”

    Scott Adams,never a truer word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. singularian (23 comments) says:

    David G – works for me, here’s the copy pasta – http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

    Griff – how do you get to your holiday destination? Considering your pontification on this site I’m sure you would not be hypocritical enough to use any oil based products in your transportation. Unless………….

    ( I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that Griff will somehow overlook this comment and not answer it :) )

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Don’t be so sure he’ll overlook it singularian, there’ll be a downtick in your future :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :lol:

    lots of progress just your wingnut denial stops you examining it.

    eneva, 24 March 2014 – The year 2013 once again demonstrated the dramatic impact of droughts, heat waves, floods and tropical cyclones on people and property in all parts of the planet, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate. The report confirmed that 2013 tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest on record, continuing the long-term global warming trend. It provided a snapshot of regional and national temperatures and extreme events as well as details of ice cover, ocean warming, sea level rise and greenhouse gas concentrations – all inter-related and consistent indicators of our changing climate.

    Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F) – 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 2001–2010 decadal average. Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm, with Australia having its hottest year on record and Argentina its second hottest.

    “Naturally occurring phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or El Niño and La Niña events have always contributed to frame our climate, influenced temperatures or caused disasters like droughts and floods. But many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change. We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise – as Typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines,” said WMO Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Singularian: Thank you, that worked…but about a third of those things could be collected under the general term “plastics”…(Still a very impressive muster…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Oh dear going to burn the messenger . :lol:

    Do I have to drag out my carbon foot print again…

    How many years of living of grid do you require will six do?

    How about building and living with an off grid hybrid wind solar generation system? does that count towards understanding how a carbon free economy could work.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one,”

    Yeah, 27 of my last 45 tallest years on record have occurred in the last 27 years. Funnily enough I don’t deny the world has warmed in the past, but please tell me the trend over the last 14 years, I’m really interested to know if it is statistically significant. You see I think there really is an urban heat island effect, and the result of denying it is that the recent years show no significant trend.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    griff: As I recall you live on a yacht parked up in whatever estuary you can get away with…pretty easy to live “off grid” in those conditions…how does the hypothetical clerk who lives in the suburbs, and takes the number 876 bus to work over the bridge manage it? (please give a full and detailed answer)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    griffith (388 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Right now can not process this

    No, I doubt he can. When political dogma prevents someone from accepting rigorously researched peer reviewed science there is little anyone can do. Its not as if the likes of NASA is a socialist organisation(Tom Hunter recently quoted a passage from ‘The Right Stuff’ to illustrate some point he was making about glorifying militarism), these are scientists warning us of an unfolding catastrophe. The ice disappearing from the North Pole is not an intangible computer model , it is just another example of what is happening now and a harbinger of worse to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Shit 34 of my shallowest holes have occurred each year since I was 30.

    I put it down to libido cooling and gargling too many drilling mud cocktails! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    DG – to be fair I have way more respect for Griff, even though I disagree with much of what he says, than I do for climate scientists and activists who fly around the world and have massive carbon footprints. Griff at least lives his ethos to some degree, while the others are simply massive hypocrites. Now I think if those others really thought the world would end due to excess CO2 emissions then they would immediately stop air travel 100% and use some alternative like video conferencing. But no, clearly they don’t really believe CO2 is such a threat at all, so why should anybody else?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Yoza “these are scientists warning us of an unfolding catastrophe.”
    See my previous post. How many of them have given up the use of air travel?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    I’m sure you believers are totally convinced that any opposition to the AGW theory is politically based, so be honest with yourselves – how many lefty politicians have boycotted air travel? Gareth “air-miles” Hughes is a non-starter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    David Garrett (5,001 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    griff: As I recall you live on a yacht parked up in whatever estuary you can get away with…pretty easy to live “off grid” in those conditions…how does the hypothetical clerk who lives in the suburbs, and takes the number 876 bus to work over the bridge manage it? (please give a full and detailed answer)

    It is pretty hopeless expecting individuals to attempt to extricate themselves from an all encompassing economic system. It is the system that will change.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Waiting, waiting, for someone to name one climate scientist or leftist politician who has completely cut their air travel. Its too much to ask for even ONE?

    Yoza, you must have cut your air travel out completely, surely? And installed alternative energy sources at your home? Tell me it’s so Yoza, you wouldn’t want me to carry on thinking you were just another bullshitting hypocrite would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    OMG people, the world is dying and all you’re doing is posting comments on a blog? The blood of billions of people is going to be on your hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Technology now

    use a smaller efficient car. heat pumps or solar for water heating. Led or low energy lighting, appliances when renewed with high efficiency ones

    ten years
    Smart grid becomes more prevalent. Solar becomes more mainstream for home energy production. Plug in electric vehicles and lipo batteries allow growing management of distributed network with demand and supply buffering. The convergence of technology generates compound change in our work and social paradigm

    twenty

    Impacts of AGW become more and more expensive stifling developement and starting the collapse of capitalism and our civilization.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I live an exemplary life of caring for the planet. I still drive my 1963 Austin A40 to work each day quietly chuckling to myself about how I have avoided 20 generations of wasted metal as the assholes in their HSV’s blast past me.

    Fuck them I say. I still get 30 miles to the gallon and catch up with the bastards at the next set of lights! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RightNow (6,275 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    If, as some say, the damage has already been done, what would be the point of giving up air travel. And, if the damage is a naturally occurring phenomena, then the same applies.

    There are simply too many people on this planet taking too much from it. It doesn’t matter what we do, as long as the number of people continues to increase rather than decrease, the planet is doomed and so are we. The best we can hope for is to maybe slow it down a little – but mankind is too greedy to make the effort, and really, why bother – the inevitable will happen anyway. IMO its too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    When it breaks I can fix it myself too without a bloody dealers computer to analyse its innards at $300 a pop! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Nathan S (2 comments) says:

    Hi guys,

    I’m part of the Wise Response (www.wiseresponse.org.nz and facebook.com/wiseresponse) group, and this is my first post on this blog. Be gentle!

    Wise Response seeks to get the government to perform a braod spectrum risk assessment, focused around 5 main areas: Economic / Financial Security, Energy and Climate Security, Business Continuity, Ecological / Environmental Security, and Genuine Well-Being

    From this risk assessment, we are then asking that government ‘implement cross-party policies to avert any confirmed threats to future generations of New Zealanders’

    That’s it. Plain and simple. There are a wide range of views represented in the commitee, and there is no specific environmental or AGW agenda. What we’re asking for would look something like a NZ specific version of this report: reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2014/ – see page 16 for an overview of risks as perceived by the World Economic Forum.

    ——————–

    Having stated the above, I’d like to discuss a couple of points from my own personal perspective that struck me from the comments thread:

    First point. Oil is not scarce. We’re nowhere near running out. What we are seeing however is diminishing returns on investment for the extraction of oil. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the news regarding the oil major’s profit warnings recently. The most profitable business in the history of the earth has in recent months been issuing profit warnings, and major players such as Shell are having to sell assets (like drilling leases) to pay their dividends (https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=oil+majors+profit+warning). Like all good businessmen, they went after low effort profits first, in the form of easy to extract reserves. Once these were depleting, they ploughed profits back into improved technology to go after the next easiest reserve, and so on. In the 1930’s in Texas for example, you could get 100 barrels of oil out for every 1 barrel you put to extraction effort. This 100:1 ‘Energy Return on Energy Investment’ (EROEI, or often EROI) gave fantastic profits. As these reserves are now declining in production, and they are having to go for reserves with much higher effort (and therefore lower EROI) to extract such as tar sands (Canada), oil sands (Venuzuala), fracking and deep sea drilling (Global), there is a decreasing profit as the marginal cost of production (the amount it costs to extract a barrel, in both energy and monetary terms) climbs. The net result is lower profits, and lower ‘net’ energy available to society to power our current way of life. See chapters 1&3 of this book: http://www.postcarbon.org/end-of-growth-chapters/ – free to read online – for more detail than I have time for here.

    Secondly we’re close to the end of the most recent 7(ish) year cycle in global financial terms. What that means from here, I’ll leave to the crystal ball gazers. I’d just like to point out a few facts:
    – The global financial crisis was in a large part the result of the aforementioned reducing net energy available to society. There are a few different ways to say this. Again, lacking space and time, here are a few links: For the views of a Wharton School of Economics Professor and advisor to the EU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e0UofNMzKM (I’d only watch the first 12 minutes or so, he goes on a bit about technological fixes that I have doubts about after that), or a well known commentator with impressive credentials (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/nicole-m-foss) http://vimeo.com/66770756#at=0, or an Actuary http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/03/21/oil-limits-and-the-economy-one-story-not-two/
    – We’ve done nothing to fix the underlying problems economically. In fact, we’ve rewarded banks globally for failed business models through QE, et al, allowing them to assume a larger, and therefore more threatening role in this current cycle.
    – Given that they have a literal ‘license to print money’ (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity) and that they should be insanely profitable, banking must be restructured, because they can’t even remain profitable with the cards stacked FOR them…

    A summary of the point I’m trying to make above: IMHO, the problem in the short term is unrepayable debt combined with a decline in net energy available to society, specifically liquid fuel for transport. I’m not sure anyone knows what the next 40 years hold, but I’m very sure it won’t be business as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Whatever Tom enjoy your holiday.

    Heh, heh, heh. I’m sure you saw that little trap, but I won’t tease you about the lack of explanation. The question is, after all, the heart of the problem.

    Alright – time to watch The Usual Suspects with my daughter!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    A decent nuclear war is what we need Judith. Reduce the population by 95% and the progeny of the 5% left will be able to handle extra radiation later on when the magnetosphere does a whoopsie! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “If, as some say, the damage has already been done, what would be the point of giving up air travel. And, if the damage is a naturally occurring phenomena, then the same applies.”

    So what’s the point of the argument again? If it is as you argue then why do anything? As Andrew Bolt argues, what difference would Australia’s carbon tax make to global temps? No statistically significant impact at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Glad I give you amusement tom.

    :lol:

    I may not be highfuluting educamated but.

    Even to an autodidactic there is a certain inevitability where AGW will go and it is not pretty.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. MrTips (103 comments) says:

    All I ever learned about Climate Change comes from the whiney Michael Mann, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371956/michael-mann-apologizes-false-attack-charles-c-w-cooke

    Al Gore’s inconvenient truth http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486969/Judge-attacks-errors-Al-Gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.html

    and the fact that Assoc Prof Lloyd is part of a consortium that stands a very good chance to gain $30M in funding over the next 6 years from CoRE funding http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Forms%20Templates%20and%20Guides/Centres%20of%20Research%20Excellence%20selection%20process%202013.pdf

    So many questions……….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    It will be a great day when developing nations have all the cheap energy they need, and climate activists have to video conference to have a climate scientology shindig.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @RightNow (6,279 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    I honestly don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps slow down the decline in the hopes that an alternative will be found?

    I do know that my packaging up my plastics and sorting the paper from the other garbage makes no difference, other than to make me feel like I’m doing something. I believe (and I’m happy to be proved wrong), that if there was a fix, it would take such a massive effort by all nations, and require such a sacrifice and alteration to our existing lifestyles, that not enough people would be prepared to comply, and so it would never happen.

    Perhaps it’s this bloody flu’ I’ve had for 6 weeks, but I don’t see anything but doom and gloom for any of us right now. But I’ll continue to use environmentally friendly tissues, and sort my trash, and just hope that we are hit by a meteor, before we stuff the place completely, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t want to upset you Judith but if you have a long term flu-like condition it is often a sign of cancer!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (13,196 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Well that’s better than the doctor suggested, she said it was something to do with a swine.

    Oh well, gotta die of something, I must say I’ll be peeved off if its something as common as cancer, preferring to be ‘different’, but que sera sera, or something like that! (no I’m not Doris Day).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Mr tips
    If I were to be so bold ?
    all questions answered by science with supporting peer-reviewed papers here
    http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

    and for the more scientifically literate
    here at real climate you will find extensive debate from scientists about many climate questions.
    http://www.realclimate.org/

    They also have good links to learning resources.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Judith

    I reckon that the best recipe for an end to a good life is this:

    “Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadslide, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming – fuck – what a ride!”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska (9,280 comments) says:
    March 28th, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Could agree more!! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    NUTS

    We’re on hold while people shower, do dessert, prepare for bed!

    So…. it’s back to AGW.

    The year 2013 once again demonstrated the dramatic impact of droughts, heat waves, floods and tropical cyclones on people and property in all parts of the planet, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate.

    Sigh

    In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.
    Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.
    However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950

    I always love it when the IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report, Final Draft (7 June 2013) Chapter 2, section 2.6.2.3 Droughts ….
    can be used to counter the usual screamist link of http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west

    Remember that scientific phrase Griff – “low confidence”. You’re going to be hearing it a lot over the next few years.

    (Tom Hunter recently quoted a passage from ‘The Right Stuff’ to illustrate some point he was making about glorifying militarism),

    Yoza !!!……. just a few weeks after I referred to you as a piece of communist excrement …. you actually made the effort of looking up the quote when I gave no link and no reference!

    You big sweetie you!

    Pity you totally missed the nuance, but hey, for communists I’m sure honour is the same as militarism, especially when it’s Blokin pulling the trigger.

    BTW – NASA is totally a socialist organistion, always has been, military members not withstanding.

    Woo Hoo – back to the movie – finally.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    there would be only one problem

    with finding oil

    people would become concerned about our
    religious and democratic freedom and may wage war on our behalf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    bait and switch tom

    the discussion on global trends ignores the impact of regional trends

    Already played that game with piecks snr no drought in the USA argument using the over all palmer drought index .

    Failure to look at the data and ignores the equation east cost getting wetter and west cost getting dryer.

    The ipcc report is not released yet and is already obsolete.

    Global Drought Patterns

    Drought is by nature a regional phenomenon. In a world that is warming on the average, there will be more evaporation and therefore more precipitation; that is, a warming world will also get wetter, on the average. In speaking of global trends in drought, then, the meaningful questions are (a) whether the frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts are changing in most or all of the regions historically prone to drought and (b) whether the total area prone to drought is changing.

    Any careful reading of the 2013 IPCC report and other recent scientific literature about on the subject reveals that droughts have been worsening in some regions in recent decades while lessening in other regions, and that the IPCC’s “low confidence” about a global trend relates mainly to the question of total area prone to drought and a lack of sufficient measurements to settle it. Here is the key passage from the Technical Summary from IPCC WGI’s 2013 report (page 112):

    Compelling arguments both for and against significant increases in the land area affected by drought and/or dryness since the mid–20th century have resulted in a low confidence assessment of observed and attributable large-scale trends. This is due primarily to a lack and quality of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, geographical inconsistencies in the trends and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability from long term trends.

    The table that accompanies the above passage from the IPCC’s report ― captioned “Extreme weather and climate events: global-scale assessment of recent observed changes, human contribution to the changes, and projected further changes for the early (2016–2035) and late (2081–2100) 21st century” ― has the following entries for “Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought”: under changes observed since 1950, “low confidence on a global scale, likely changes in some regions” [emphasis added]; and under projected changes for the late 21st century, “likely (medium confidence) on a regional to global scale”.

    Dr. Pielke’s citation of a 2012 paper from Nature by Sheffield et al., entitled “Little change in global drought over the past 60 years”, is likewise misleading. That paper’s abstract begins as follows:

    Drought is expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future as a result of climate change, mainly as a consequence of decreases in regional precipitation but also because of increasing evaporation driven by global warming 1–3. Previous assessments of historic changes in drought over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries indicate that this may already be happening globally. In particular, calculations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) show a decrease in moisture globally since the 1970s with a commensurate increase in the area of drought that is attributed, in part, to global warming 4–5.

    The paper goes on to argue that the PDSI, which has been relied upon for drought characterization since the 1960s, is too simple a measure and may (the authors’ word) have led to overestimation of global drought trends in previous climate-change assessments ― including the IPCC’s previous (2007) assessment, which found that “More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.”

    The authors argue for use of a more complex index of drought, which, however, requires more data and more sophisticated models to apply. Their application of it with the available data shows a smaller global drought trend than calculated using the usual PDSI, but they conclude that better data are needed. The conclusion of the Sheffield et al. paper has proven controversial, with some critics pointing to the inadequacy of existing observations to support the more complex index and others arguing that a more rigorous application of the new approach leads to results similar to those previously obtained using the PDSI.

    A measure of the differences of view on the topic is available in a paper entitled “Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models”, published in Nature Climate Change at about the same time as Sheffield et al. by a leading drought expert at the National Center for Climate Research, Dr. Aiguo Dai. Dr. Dai’s abstract begins and ends as follows:

    Historical records of precipitation, streamflow, and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas 1,2. Analyses of model-simulated soil moisture 3,4, drought indices 1,5,6, and precipitation minus evaporation 7 suggest increased risk of drought in the twenty-first century. … I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30–90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation.

    The disagreement between the Sheffield et al. and Dai camps appears to have been responsible for the IPCC’s downgrading to “low confidence”, in its 2013 report, the assessment of an upward trend in global drought in its 2007 Fourth Assessment and its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events.

    Interestingly, a number of senior parties to the debate ― including Drs. Sheffield and Dai ― have recently collaborated on a co-authored paper, published in the January 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change, entitled “Global warming and changes in drought”. In this new paper, the authors identify the reasons for their previous disagreements; agree on the need for additional data to better separate natural variability from human-caused trends; and agree on the following closing paragraph (quoted here in full):

    Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the twenty-first century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will probably increase, although there may be regional exceptions. Climate change is adding heat to the climate system and on land much of that heat goes into drying. A natural drought should therefore set in quicker, become more intense, and may last longer. Droughts may be more extensive as a result. Indeed, human-induced warming effects accumulate on land during periods of drought because the ‘air conditioning effects’ of water are absent. Climate change may not manufacture droughts, but it could exacerbate them and it will probably expand their domain in the subtropical dry zone.

    Additional References (with particularly relevant direct quotes in italics)

    Christopher R. Schwalm et al., Reduction of carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America, Nature Geoscience, vol. 5, August 2012, pp 551–556.

    The severity and incidence of climatic extremes, including drought, have increased as a result of climate warming. … The turn of the century drought in western North America was the most severe drought over the past 800 years, significantly reducing the modest carbon sink normally present in this region. Projections indicate that drought events of this length and severity will be commonplace through the end of the twenty-first century.

    Gregory T. Pederson et al., The unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in the North American Cordillera, Science, vol. 333, 15 July 2011, pp 332–335.

    Over the past millennium, late 20th century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming that is due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States.

    Gregory T. Pederson et al., Regional patterns and proximal causes of the recent snowpack decline in the Rocky Mountains, US, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 40, 16 May 2013, pp 1811–1816.

    The post–1980 synchronous snow decline reduced snow cover at low to middle elevations by ~20% and partly explains earlier and reduced streamflow and both longer and more active fire seasons. Climatologies of Rocky Mountain snowpack are shown to be seasonally and regionally complex, with Pacific decadal variability positively reinforcing the anthropogenic warming trend.

    Michael Wehner et al., Projections of future drought in the continental United States and Mexico, Journal of Hydrometeorology, vol. 12, December 2011, pp 1359–1377.

    All models, regardless of their ability to simulate the base-period drought statistics, project significant future increases in drought frequency, severity, and extent over the course of the 21 st century under the SRES A1B emissions scenario. Using all 19 models, the average state in the last decade of the twenty-first century is projected under the SRES A1B forcing scenario to be conditions currently considered severe drought (PDSI<–3) over much of the continental United States and extreme drought (PDSI<–4) over much of Mexico.

    D. R. Cayan et al., Future dryness in the southwest US and the hydrology of the early 21 st century drought, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, December 14, 2010, pp 21271–21276.

    Although the recent drought may have significant contributions from natural variability, it is notable that hydrological changes in the region over the last 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural variability, and instead show the signature of anthropogenic climate change.

    E. P. Maurer et al., Detection, attribution, and sensitivity of trends toward earlier streamflow in the Sierra Nevada, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, 2007, doi:10.1029/2006JD08088.

    The warming experienced in recent decades has caused measurable shifts toward earlier streamflow timing in California. Under future warming, further shifts in streamflow timing are projected for the rivers draining the western Sierra Nevada, including the four considered in this study. These shifts and their projected increases through the end of the 21st century will have dramatic impacts on California’s managed water system.

    H. G. Hidalgo et al., Detection and attribution of streamflow timing changes to climate change in the western United States, Journal of Climate, vol. 22, issue 13, 2009, pp 3838–3855, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2740.1.

    The advance in streamflow timing in the western United States appears to arise, to some measure, from anthropogenic warming. Thus the observed changes appear to be the early phase of changes expected under climate change. This finding presages grave consequences for the water supply, water management, and ecology of the region. In particular, more winter and spring flooding and drier summers are expected as well as less winter snow (more rain) and earlier snowmelt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

    Yes sooner or later it will rain and ease the present on going drought.

    There is rising probability of a large event.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/an-el-nio-coming-in-2014

    Today’s guest blog post is by Dr. Michael Ventrice, an operational scientist for the Energy team at Weather Services International (WSI) – Jeff Masters

    We are seeing increasing evidence of an upcoming change in the Pacific Ocean base state that favors the development of a moderate-to-strong El Niño event this Spring/Summer. To begin, here is a snap shot of global sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies (the departure of temperature from average) 30 days ago:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    @judith: I’m much the same. I sort my recycling, minimize my power consumption and drive with a light foot. I do it because it’s of benefit to me mostly, not because I think it makes a difference to the environment. I believe in planting trees rather than deforestation, that single thing alone will make more difference in co2 emissions than taxes and so called renewable energy. And then I see the people loudly telling us we have to cut our emissions are flying around the world and hiring hundreds of limousines. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    PS Judith I don’t have any sense of pessimism for the future. All species have a built in sense of preservation. If the threat from AGW was real the jet setting alarmists would stop flying. They’re like the Canary in the coal mine. As long as they aren’t so shit scared they’ll stop flying you can be assured we’re going to be OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I went off grid for life style reasons.
    Had no idea about AGW before my exposure to KB.
    Playing with alt energy was a fun hobby at the time. So was pushing my boundaries with sailing . Pretty hard to get more free of society than being on a self-contained ketch capable of sustained independent voyaging. Preparing for cat one certification and the challenge of ocean voyaging and sailing a large and complex vessel solo was very satisfying. It also gives me the ultimate world capable fully loaded escape capsual :lol: and the knowledge and training to use it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Oh Griff you really are an alarmist aren’t you? – Reams of text will not sway my friend. Quoting Skeptical Science ( oxymoron anyone? ) and Realclimate ( M.Mann is one of the site owners ) opens you up to the same ridicule you attempt to heap upon others when they post links to sites you consider run by “deniers”. Please try harder.

    I would also suggest that you peruse the leaked version of the WGII S4PM that has become available in the last few days. As the rug gets pulled bit by bit from under the IPCC’s alarmist proclaiments they are scrambling to keep the money rolling in by retreating from a number positions they have maintained for years, positions which you have repeatedly parrotted on this site. I would suggest that you pull your head in a little as you, and the other useful idiots, are about to be thrown out with the bathwater. I sincerely hope you have the strength of character to come back to this site in a few years time and admit that you were wrong.

    Judith – It’s not all doom and gloom for the world.

    I am presently in the Kingdom of Cambodia, a place whose stark contrast to NZ is apparent in every moment of every day. A place with no welfare system of any type. A place with true poverty ( average wage US$80 per month, lots of people living on less than that ) A place where corruption is endemic. A place where education is NOT a right. Many children here are working full time by the time they are 8, some even younger. A place where life is literally cheap ( human trafficking is a big problem and parents will sell their children to survive ). A place that makes me cry in despair and frustration on a regular basis.

    But it is changing, there is the embryo of a middle class emerging, internet usage is spreading fast ( at least in cities and towns ), people have phones and access to information. In the coastal city where I presently reside a new gas fired power station has just been opened. A regular power supply makes so many things possible, manufacturing is suddenly a possibility, tourism can truely take off ( those westerners need their AC don’t you know? ). There is, in short – hope.

    Modern technology will transform this place and people in years to come. All the things we take for granted in NZ will slowly permate this society. The people who will benefit the most will be those on the bottom of the heap, you can see it happening here every day, even if in tiny increments. To my mind this is the big problem with the supposed mitigation of Climate Change as purposed by Griff et al. Perfectly fine to be sitting in your nice safe western country knowing that the govt will look after you and that the technological level you have reached as a society will stand you in good stead if these people ever get their way. On the other side of the divide ( ie – here ) the damage they will do with these ideas will be huge. They wish to condem billions to eternal poverty to assuage their collective guilt. I find it almost criminal.

    Anyway, don’t worry about your flu or the future of your grandchildren, worry instead about the 4 year old boy I witnessed last night down at the beach at 1.30am selling fireworks to barang (foreign) backpackers, a child who more than likely lives on the beach, looked after and fed by older children. Worry about the young woman ( now 22 ) I met a few weeks back who was sold as a sex slave to Thailand at the age of 12, who bears the marks of some very ugly torture physically and mentally but who’s outlook was so bright it brought a tear to my eye. They are the people we must think of – here and now.

    /rant

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    singularian

    Unable of actually reading or comprehending the post and its significance then

    Modern short attention span ?

    or ADHD ?

    Try to keep up mate

    alarmist is all major scientific bodies

    You are suffering from alt science delusions.

    Hows the conspiracy of the entire worlds scientist going? Please expand .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. singularian (23 comments) says:

    There’s no conspiracy Griff. That’s in your mind, that’s your strawman.

    There are a whole bunch of people who’s financial and academic future rides on the proclaimations they have made in the last 20 years. They have swapped their scientific compass for alarmisim which leads to more research grants and in some cases popular fame. They are the sheep that went with the herd.

    Of the 95 general models used by the IPCC 93 are now outside the realms of actual emperical measurement. If you do not think this is a problem then you are just being obtuse. The facts are that the IPCC are rapidly backing away from a lot of the more alarmist claims they have made in the last 15 years. They have to because actual science and measurement is proving that they over egged the pudding.

    We still only have a basic idea of how climate works, the IPCC until very recently dismissed the effect of the Sun as minor, try having a couple of days without it and tell me how minor it is. We still can’t model clouds in any meaningful way, we have little idea of how feedbacks work, ocean covers 73% of the Earths surface yet until 10 years ago our measurements of it were haphazard at best. We still cannont map actual weather/climate on the ocean, ARGO only measures temp and only then at shallow levels.

    If you think they can model weather/climate 10/50/100 years ahead then you are just a sucker.

    The idea that we can confidently make predictions on any relevant time scale is silly for anyone who truely looks at the information with a sceptical eye (which is what science is all about, right? ). Wake up mate.

    You may desperately want the end of days ( for whatever reason ) but you have no right to take the rest of us with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :lol:

    we have a live one here

    Gish gallop of unconstructed criticism with no linked content.

    No links because single cell nows his sources and their talking points will not stand up to examination.

    If you think they can model weather/climate 10/50/100 years ahead then you are just a sucker.

    see Hasen paper posted above from 1981 :lol: seem much more actuate than your claims.

    Science exploring the known reasons for the change in temperature trend since 1998 and the conclusions of those studys makes your views on modeling irrelevant.

    Its the sun . I am sure nasa is aware of the big red thing. As all climate scientists our :lol: and the variation in sun spot activity dosent change the equations enough to halt warming even if the sun spot cycle stops and it goes into a quite period.

    You can model future climate change effects due to co 2

    WINGNUT alert

    it’s not the IPCC

    it’s not climate scientists.

    it is our entire scientific community.

    They all are saying we have a massive future problem

    All you are doing is personal mental flips to sustain denial.

    single celled idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Ok Griff – whatever.

    You appear unable to comprehend. No problem, I won’t waste any more of my time on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Waste your time

    buddy you are a waste of time :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Last word

    Na Na Nana Na

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    By the way singlecell

    The story you are pushing comes from the gwpf

    it’s already been torn to shreds by one of the writers of the research paper they hashed up crap with.

    keep up dr amoeba

    see open mind.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Which story is that Griff? ( I can think of many other names to call you but that would be a little childish, don’t you think?)

    Do you mean the story where I point out the many, many areas of climatology that we know very little about, let alone their relationship to each other?

    Or the story of the models used by your masters of which 97% ( love THAT number :) ) are now outside the realms of actual emperical measurement? ( that’s real data Griff, not adjusted, detrended or tricked, just actual measurement of reality )

    Or is it the story of how you are very soon going to look like a complete knob as your beloved IPCC has to bow to reality and back away from pretty much ALL of their alarmist claims of the last 15 to 20 years?

    Lolz – you really are a dick, aren’t you?

    Then you link to Grant Foster and confirm.

    By all means, recite your mantra endlessly Griff, I’m sure salvation is coming to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The one when you mentioned the sun :lol: gee all the scientist don’t factor in the sun
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650#.UzadNc6uqSo

    “your masters”

    paranoid delusion slipping out

    How many times single cell? do I have to point out you misdirection?

    every major scientific body etx etc etc

    As to linking to foster :lol:
    The man actually has more cred than all the wing nuts combined,
    Just like Mann and Hansen.

    You are not going to place the source of your silly alt science on the table
    because it is the normal bogy dribble from the whackosphere. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. singularian (23 comments) says:

    Ha Ha, you’re frothing Griff.

    7 year old FRED PEARCE article. Hahahahaha.

    Round and round we go Griff – you linking to the little ( getting smaller by the day ) group of extreme alarmists you have chosen to align with. Then linking to the next one to back up the first one. Delude yourself as much as you want.

    Reality bites Griff, always.

    Have fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Not widle wingnut the only thing spinning is in your head.

    see my comment on GD to two other spinners.

    Still no links.

    kiddy debating .

    Attacks sources again with a lack of given support for his argument.

    Wonders why I start pointing out the ken ring factor of his pronouncements.
    http://www.predictweather.co.nz/
    Still its the tick heads the really crack me up.

    Wingnut
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wingnut

    Alternative meaning

    Just like not all conservatives are neocons, not all conservatives are wingnuts either.

    Being a wingnut requires a particularly paranoid worldview, teetering on the edge of or falling wholesale into tinfoil hat territory, as wingnuttery causes the victim to refuse to accept any source of information that doesn’t back up their prejudices (essentially, wingnuts are almost always authoritarian as well as being politically right-wing). Constant gibbering about the “liberal media” as well as a slavish devotion to cognitive dissonance, conspiracy theories, global warming denialism, psychological projection, and crackpot theories of economics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Nathan S (2 comments) says:

    I just expanded my comment from Friday (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/03/guest_post_deep_sea_oil_drilling_in_nz_just_who_is_crazy.html/comment-page-1#comment-1297783) into a blog post here: http://bit.ly/1dFwxW1 – I’d be interested in your thoughts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote