Robin Grieve does not understand the IPCC report

Written By: - Date published: 10:11 am, January 17th, 2016 - 82 comments
Categories: act, climate change, Environment, global warming, spin, sustainability, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

The Herald has had some difficulties recently with the quality of some contributions provided by former ACT candidates.  Hot on the heels of Jamie Whyte’s unfortunate regurgitated missive on poverty came this opinion from climate change denier and number three on ACT’s last list Robin Grieve.  He is the head of Pastoral Farming Climate Research Inc and professes to have some understanding of climate change.  His contributions to the subject include a proposal that methane is vital for reducing global temperatures do not matter and he once defended Paul Henry against an allegation that he publicly called Susan Boyle a retard when he had actually said that she was retarded.

Mr Grieve’s opinion piece contains this doozie of a passage:

The dire picture the leaders painted of a world under attack from the weather echoed through the numerous opinion pieces published during the Paris talks. Amongst them Rachael Le Mesurier, executive director of Oxfam, warned that the effects of climate change are coming on quicker than scientists had predicted. The problem of global warming was no longer a prediction for the future, it is real and it is happening now and even worse than expected, they warned.

According to the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they are all wrong. Its fifth assessment report states that the temperature rise of the past 15 years is far slower than it used to be and well below model predictions. On droughts, the IPCC concludes that it cannot attribute any changes in the frequency or severity of droughts to human influence on climate. On extreme weather, it summarizes that we are not in the sting of anything at all with no increasing trend in storminess or cyclones identified over the last century. It does predict however that in a warmer world there will be a reduction in cyclones for those of us in the Southern Hemisphere, so that is good news.

Why then are world leaders misleading us? Are they mistaken or are they being dishonest?

There are some rather major accusations there.  Amongst the various statements are that the IPCC report says this:

… the temperature rise of the past 15 years is far slower than it used to be and well below model predictions”.

What the summary report says is this:

[T]rends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

So although the report says what Mr Grieve claims it also gives the reason why it is dangerous for this particular period to be relied on and this is because 1998 was especially warm.  Holy cherry picked time period batman.

Mr Grieve also says this:

The IPCC cannot attribute any changes in the frequency or severity of droughts to human influence on climate

What  the report actually says is that the writers have medium confidence that increases in drought conditions in North America and Asia can be attributed to climate change.  And the report also says this:

Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence).

But wait there is more.  According to Mr Grieve:

no increasing trend in storminess or cyclones has been identified over the last century.

If you ignore increased temperature, drought and flooding and sea level rises and concentrate only on the number of cyclones then I guess we have nothing to worry about.  But unfortunately again it appears Mr Grieve has misunderstood the report.  The full report says:

There is low confidence that long-term changes in tropical cyclone activity are robust, and there is low confidence in the attribution of global changes to any particular cause. However, it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970.

So at least for the North Atlantic the boffins are virtually certain that increased cyclone activity has occurred.

And there is this statement by Mr Grieve:

in a warmer world there will be a reduction in cyclones for those of us in the Southern Hemisphere.

Try as I might I could not find this reference anywhere.  But I did find this:

Extreme precipitation events over most mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent as global mean surface temperature increases …

Globally, in all RCPs, it is likely that the area encompassed by monsoon systems will increase and monsoon precipitation is likely to intensify and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) related precipitation variability on regional scales will likely intensify.

So while there may not necessarily be more cyclones it seems inevitable that they will be stronger.  And besides we should be worried about the global effect of human induced anthropogenic warming, not cheering that because of localised effects the change will not be so dramatic here.

So what are we worrying about?  Well the quality of analysis of the Pastural Farming Climate for one and the fact that they are allowed to publicly sow confusion when their analysis is so wrong.

82 comments on “Robin Grieve does not understand the IPCC report ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    17 January 2016 at 10:17 am

    ACT under 1% of the votes.
    A lot greater representation in media opinion articles.
    Wonder who owns the media.
    People who like ACT’s policies that support the wealthy bludgers in society.

    Publishing climate denialism now, given the knowledge we have of the impacts we are having on the planet, is akin to publishing arguments in favour of Nazism in 1942. We know denying climate change and doing nothing will results in the deaths of many people and many species.

  2. Andre 2
    17 January 2016 at 10:44 am

    IPCC report was the science consensus up to 2013 .Things have moved way along since then. IPCC AR5 was conservative report that tends to be proved so in the actual climate and its effect . Planet has warmed 1.C that alone is giving us significant catastrophic rain events. By the way did you know the 2015 Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone in 2015 stands as the most active season for intense tropical cyclones on record, by a large margin.

    • Andre 2.1
      17 January 2016 at 8:14 pm

      Just to clarify, the Andre that’s posted the 2 comments here is different to the Andre that’s been picking arguments here (that’s me), mostly with weka.

      New Andre, I don’t have a problem with any of your comments, but you may not wish to be associated with mine.

      So, new Andre, what do you reckon, do you want to pick another handle, or should I, or if you agree with my previous comments do we tag-team it?

  3. Robert Atack 3
    17 January 2016 at 10:44 am

    Robin has achieved what he set out to do ie confuse the pig ignorant masses, those reading his bullshit will not read the above truths, so ‘they’ win again …….

    • Paul 3.1
      17 January 2016 at 10:49 am

      And the Herald abetted that.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 11:59 am

        How long are lefties going to keep bitching about the Herald. The Herald are who they are, a mouthpiece of the ruling/capitalist/ownership classes and they have been for over 50 years.

        The real question is: why the Left have not created a nationwide mainstream newspaper to provide an alternative to Granny Herald.

        • The Pink Postman 3.1.1.1
          17 January 2016 at 12:41 pm

          because newspapers need advertising to survive. And business both big and small will not support a Labour paper.
          History has proven that time and time again , What I do suggest is that Trade Unions publish am amalgamated paper free to all members of the union.Regardless of the union they belong too .

          s.

          • Pat 3.1.1.1.1
            17 January 2016 at 12:44 pm

            that unfortunately is preaching to the choir….especially with a reported 19% of the workforce union coverage

          • greywarshark 3.1.1.1.2
            17 January 2016 at 1:10 pm

            So we all know advertising is needed by media to survive. What’s your point?
            Why can’t a medium like the Herald find things to write about that encourage advertising but still give the truth, and tell about successes and failures in whatever. Pollution by cows? Within the item would be some paras on areas that have dropped this considerably and others that are slowly getting there etc. Just repressing the news that doesn’t have a glad end is not the way that a major newspaper should be.

            However a paper that is or was owned by a mining magnate or a serial fortune hunter and husband is unlikely to amount to something of use and quality to the wide public.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.3
            17 January 2016 at 6:04 pm

            because newspapers need advertising to survive. And business both big and small will not support a Labour paper.

            Bullshit mate, there are plenty of small and medium NZ business owners who are lefties and plenty of others who are pragmatic and who just want to get their products and services in front of more people.

            The fact that the left has for decades not been able to get its shit together around this is telling in itself.

        • Paul 3.1.1.2
          17 January 2016 at 12:49 pm

          Money

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.1
            17 January 2016 at 6:09 pm

            Money? That’s a bullshit excuse. What is Helen Clark’s personal wealth? Michael Cullens? Millions each, at a guess. And that’s just two people.

            The Labour Party in the 70s held property assets which today would be worth many tens of millions of dollars.

            The problem is more like a shortage of vision, co-ordination and will.

            • Skinny 3.1.1.2.1.1
              18 January 2016 at 11:42 am

              +1 And all the best in the year of the Fire Monkey😁
              Look no further than the Princess St Branch. Who are asset rich and should sell some property in order to prop up a cash strapped LP. Hell would have to freeze over first though.

              As far as ACT man Robin Grief…I never forget him attending a meet the candidates forum during the last election campaign. He came out of the theatre at the conclusion, after having been given stick on stage from the audience for his neo liberal ranting. He was fuming and was heard cursing “This is a Leftie love feast”.
              Most amusing everyone laughing at him in the foyer.

        • Richardrawshark 3.1.1.3
          17 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

          Until they stop CV. Until they are trucked away to Mount Eden the whole lot of em.

          Free trade and successive crap from both labour and National has absolutely driven us backwards.

          Everyday I look back to the 80’s where I could walk down any industrial area and find work by lunchtime.

          Climate change, ever think for a minute driving manufacturing to china and india where pollution bellowed out at massively increasing rates caused by shoddy unregulated business practices caused all this.

          nah didn’t think so.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    17 January 2016 at 10:55 am

    Well the quality of analysis of the Pastural Farming Climate for one and the fact that they are allowed to publicly sew confusion when their analysis is so wrong.

    Should be able to take the suckers to court for publishing such BS. Ruin the fuckers financially and they might actually get round to understanding.

  6. Paul 6
    17 January 2016 at 11:06 am

    ‘Pastural Farming Climate Research Incorporated

    A word from Robin Grieve, founder and Chairman

    The purpose of the organisation is to represent farmers’ interests by highlighting the many discrepancies and misinformation surrounding any role livestock play in global warming. The lack of any true scientific evidence, the use of assumptions and theoretical models instead of facts and the reliance on uncertain and questionable information by organisations including the New Zealand Government is in the organisation’s opinion totally unacceptable and dishonest. ‘

    Yup, that’s right.
    Robert Grieve, a dairy farmer (and therefore totally qualified to speak about climate science) , reckons there is a ‘lack of any true scientific evidence’ for climate change.

    Maybe next they should get dairy owners to write opinion pieces about the science between cigarettes and cancer.

    Maybe next they should get cereal producers to write opinion pieces about the science between sugar and obesity.

    And the Herald publishes this ignorant misinformation.

    What an absolute rag. Publishing this nonsense and sowing confusion amongst ill-informed readers will only delay genuine action and therefore be responsible for the deaths of untold humans and the extinction of untold species.

    Way to go John Roughan and your merry gang of propagandists.

    http://www.farmcarbon.co.nz/index.php/carbon-farming/

    • Pat 6.1
      17 January 2016 at 11:09 am

      R.I.P. journalism

      • Anne 6.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 11:27 am

        Jesus wept! Only last night I had a rave here about the media (and govts.) attitude to the reporting of Climate Change issues. So did Anthony Robins in his post.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/what-to-do-about-poverty-and-a-suggestion-to-the-media/#comment-1119205

        If they must, go ahead and print arrogant, ignorant and self serving diatribes. But at the same time warn readers the views expressed ARE NOT THE VIEWS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

        The media outlets of [supposed] repute have a responsibility in the name of the preservation of life on this planet to place caveats on the ranting of nut-ball pratts like Robin Grieve.

        • Paul 6.1.1.1
          17 January 2016 at 11:30 am

          Anthony’s writing again

          ‘Take climate change as another example, no responsible media should be publishing denier nonsense these days.
          Now you (the responsible media) might say that you’re offering a range of opinions. But when some opinions are clearly and provably nonsense that excuse is just an abdication of responsibility. It’s laziness, clickbait, and harmful.
          I guess I’m asking for context and sanity checking in the media. Fact-based narrative instead of isolated and inconsistent snippets. Harder work, but much better for everyone.’

          The Herald is not responsible media.
          It publishes articles that will result in ecocide.

        • Pat 6.1.1.2
          17 January 2016 at 11:33 am

          ‘The media outlets of [supposed] repute have a responsibility in the name of the preservation of life on this planet to place caveats on the ranting of nut-ball pratts like Robin Grieve.”

          Sadly the only obligation the media outlets have is to their shareholders…..tis the (relatively) new religion.

    • Andre 6.2
      17 January 2016 at 1:18 pm

      Watch Cowspiracy The Sustainability Secret – Full Documentary Free https://t.co/JSPBApJvxP

  7. vto 7
    17 January 2016 at 11:17 am

    Act got less votes than the Ban1080 Party.

    So did Peter Dunne

    ha

    kind of summarises their worth to society

    • Paul 7.1
      17 January 2016 at 11:20 am

      And yet in the past week Rodney Hide, Jamie Whyte and Robert Grieve all get to spout the party line in Auckland’s only newspaper.

      The media operates a propaganda machine for the 0.1%

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 12:02 pm

        As I pointed out above, this has been the case since before the Waterfront Strikes.

        And decades on, the Left is still bitching about the corporate media.

    • David H 7.2
      18 January 2016 at 9:08 am

      So why are they holding the rest of the country to Ransom???

  8. stever 8
    17 January 2016 at 12:05 pm

    I assume they pay the paper to get their pieces in. And I guess the paper needs money.

    But still…any sort of quality control seems lacking.

    • Lanthanide 8.1
      18 January 2016 at 9:42 am

      If someone pays a newspaper to have content in, the content needs to be tagged as an ad or advertorial.

      Newspapers use opinion pieces to attract an audience, which they make money off by selling ads.

  9. Macro 9
    17 January 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Graph of Extreme Heat events Northern Hemisphere.
    Extreme temperatures that only occurred once every 20 years in the 1960s now occur every 10 to 15 years and record highs are outpacing record lows by ever-greater margins.

  10. Saarbo 10
    17 January 2016 at 1:42 pm

    Excellent work MS.

  11. Manuka AOR 11
    17 January 2016 at 1:44 pm

    Meanwhile life on Earth is now at risk, according to two studies published a year ago in “Science” and “Anthropocene Review” : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/rate-of-environmental-degradation-puts-life-on-earth-at-risk-say-scientists

    Excerpt:
    “Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that’s a belief system, it’s not based on fact. There is no convincing evidence that a large mammal, with a core body temperature of 37C, will be able to evolve that quickly. Insects can, but humans can’t and that’s a problem.”

    Steffen said the research showed the economic system was “fundamentally flawed” as it ignored critically important life support systems.

    “It’s clear the economic system is driving us towards an unsustainable future and people of my daughter’s generation will find it increasingly hard to survive,” he said. “History has shown that civilisations have risen, stuck to their core values and then collapsed because they didn’t change. That’s where we are today.”

  12. One Two 12
    17 January 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Accept that NZ media is a deep psychological operation, (war) being waged against the best interests of the overwhelming majority of people

    Apply the same, to each and every facet of life to then understand that each and every human being, along with the environment, is being abused. Abused by the smallest minority on the planet

    The abuse can only be stopped, once a critical tipping point has been reached and that minority, peacefully, or more likely, forcibly removed from the position which they occupy

    The tipping point is arriving, rapidly

    • Richardrawshark 12.1
      17 January 2016 at 5:21 pm

      I’m just waiting for the spark that sets it off, and that saddens me even more. That it’ll have to come to street mobs to reset the balance.

      Well done indeed. Tories

      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 6:04 pm

        I suspect you may be waiting a while. I hope it won’t come to that, because it’s quite clear that those mobs have every chance of being made of National Party followers.

  13. Sacha 13
    17 January 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Has anyone else noticed comments on the newspaper sites have been more critical of the editorial position lately?

    What can we do collectively to distribute smart critiques via other channels, so that many of our fellow citizens have ammo for conversations at social gatherings, etc?

    • Paul 13.1
      17 January 2016 at 4:35 pm

      Yes, this fawning editorial by Roughan about the TPP got hammered by commentators.

      Some of the comments include….

      ‘Only a fool signs something before reading it. Yet this is effectively what the Key Govt is forcing the NZ public do. We have a right to read this thing before it’s signed. It’s not a draft. It’s called democracy, and it’s being abused. Again.’
      245 likes

      ‘The only reason the signing is being held in NZ is that the other countries will regard us as the safest option. What with our compliant apathetic population they will feel that NZ offers the best opportunity to complete the signing with the least amount of protest and disruption. What an honour!’
      125 likes

      ‘
      So now the nz herald has turned into the propaganda machine like all other media outlets pushing misinformation to blind the masses. I use to respect your organisation….not any more. Do some true investigative reporting instead of spinning for your master’
      119 likes

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11573339

      • Richardrawshark 13.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 5:28 pm

        Seems anyone who meets dear leader suddenly turns into a outright supporter of anything they do. Even against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Man must have very deep pockets or a hypnotist.

        Roughan ain’t no journalist anymore. Any that were left the Herald long ago. I’m just happy Armstrong left/retired, looks like to ill health by the resent photo’s of him, so sad, cough.

        Anyone see Armstrong at Hagars book launch, several copies in his arms.. straight to the herald offices for an all nighter I bet, on how to discredit him must have been in the pipeline, then we read the next days attacks and new it was true.

        • Sacha 13.1.1.1
          18 January 2016 at 8:38 am

          Have a go at Armstrong for the quality of his work, by all means, but merely living with a progressive illness for many years should be out of bounds.

          • Richardrawshark 13.1.1.1.1
            18 January 2016 at 9:23 am

            I did not know he was suffering a progressive disease, I saw a picture of him receiving an award and his hand were in a funny position and I wondered if that was the reason he retired. If true I agree with you 100%. His journalism was terrible but I do not mean to gloat over his ill health.

            I apologize.

            • Sacha 13.1.1.1.1.1
              18 January 2016 at 9:40 am

              Cheers. Parkinsons.

              • Richardrawshark …
                18 January 2016 at 10:01 am

                Ahh, well that is sad, I sincerely mean that. I wish no ill towards him in fact, of the National, I mean NZ herald reporters he was pretty good. He was obviously right, but was not an outright feed em lies sort. He pushed an opinion that was well written a little right of center.

                Since he left the Herald I get the feeling Roughan, Young, Trevett and O’sullivan have head the common sense reins removed. It was a sad day for the Herald.

                If you peruse this JA, Keep your head up mate, a worthy opponent indeed.

      • Richardrawshark 13.1.2
        17 January 2016 at 5:31 pm

        If you looked carefully he did get hammered then they closed it to comments. Within 2 hours several posts were strategically placed .. pro by the usual rent a right wing mob. Also attacking the naysayers.

        Wonder why I think they have skewed the comments section. That’s why.

  14. Robin Grieve 14
    17 January 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Chapter 12 p1074 is the passage you were looking for,

    12.4.4.3 Extratropical Storms: Tracks and Influences on Planetary-Scale Circulation and Transports
    In the Southern hemisphere winter there is a clear poleward shift in storm tracks of several degrees and a small overall reduction in storm frequency of only a few percent.
    And
    Chapter 14 p 1252
    14.6.3 states that there is high confidence that the global number of extra-tropical cyclones is unlikely to decrease by more than a few percent due to anthropogenic change.

    All good news. The alarmists were saying things are worse than they have been, as you say I am right when I say temperature increase (for whatever reason) is not, so Oxfam lied.

    My point is that they should not use lies to justify making the poor poorer with these climate policies.

    When you breathe out you emit CO2 but it does not cause global warming because it is cyclical and does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Same goes when a cow belches methane, no scientific model or theory suggests that the atmospheric concentration of methane increases everytime a cow belches. It is cyclical. Just as with us breathing not every emission of CO2 is harmful, and a cow belching not every emission of methane is harmful.

    Global warming is happening but it does not appear to me to be bad enough to justify making the poor poorer.
    They are poor enough now thanks to tobacco tax and the current ETS

    • RedLogix 14.1
      17 January 2016 at 8:07 pm

      When you breathe out you emit CO2 but it does not cause global warming because it is cyclical and does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere.

      I’m not sure what your point is here. The atmosphere makes no distinction between CO2 or CH4 sourced from either biological processes or fossil carbon burning. It is only the total of these which matters.

      Indeed if you look at the CO2 concentration it does indeed have an annual cyclic wriggle that is the result of excess photosynthesis during the northern hemisphere summer (there being much more land mass in the northern hemisphere than the southern).

      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      The underlying inexorable rise is of course being driven by the fact that the total amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere from all sources is greater than the rate at which solely natural processes can remove it.

      And of course the challenge with methane is that it has a much more intense interaction with infrared than carbon dioxide. And the same applies, every cow belching methane is indeed adding to the same net imbalance.

    • Richard Christie 14.2
      17 January 2016 at 8:30 pm

      Mr Grieve, you neatly illustrate the pitfalls of the scientific illiterate attempting to interpret science.

      NZ’s ruminant numbers are well above the natural carrying capacity of the land, let alone acknowledging that historically, before european migration, there where none present in NZ. Since the 1990 Kyoto benchmarks, the national dairy herd and land turned over to its support has skyrocketed.

      You appear to be basing your misguided argument on some sort of zero-gain cyclical balance, when even then the argument is fallacious.

    • Lloyd 14.3
      18 January 2016 at 12:22 am

      If you breathe out CO2 from food that has been grown on land that has been recently cleared of trees for farming, or from animals fed on palm oil kernel that comes from recently cleared jungle in south-east Asia, then your CO2 is not part of a balanced cycle.

      If you come from a family that is larger than the last generation then your CO2 generation is not in a balanced cycle.

      Even if your food intake comes from recently sequestered CO2, the use of fossil fuels to operate tractors, make fertilizers and process basic farm outputs such as milk powder, definitely isn’t part of any natural cycle that existed on the surface of the Earth, ever.

    • Lanthanide 14.4
      18 January 2016 at 9:58 am

      “Same goes when a cow belches methane, no scientific model or theory suggests that the atmospheric concentration of methane increases everytime a cow belches. ”

      Same idiotic line that Don Brash as Act leader trotted out in the leaders debate back in 2012 (before he resoundingly lost that election), which had Russell Norman visibly squirming at his podium and he literally went over to Don during the ad break in an attempt to educate him.

      Grass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and turns it into growth. Cows eat the grass, and belch methane, which is *a worse greenhouse gas* than CO2.

      Each cow is a factory that converts bad CO2 into even worse methane.

      Therefore, the more cows we have, the more methane is produced. So the atmospheric concentration of methane is indeed increasing each time a cow belches, because cows are converting CO2 into methane.

      Fewer cows = less methane. It’s literally that simple.

  15. mickysavage 15
    17 January 2016 at 8:53 pm

    Thanks for commenting.

    What about the cherry picked 1998 date when you talked about temperature increases being “far slower” and your claim that the IPCC said frequency and severity of droughts had not increased when the IPCC seems to be saying the opposite and your claim that the IPCC says there is no increase in cyclones when the IPCC attributes to increased cyclone activity has occurred.

    Also your claims of a ‘natural cycle’ presumes that levels of CO2 and methane are not trending upwards.

    • BM 15.1
      17 January 2016 at 8:59 pm

      Why would rising levels of CO2 and methane not be a natural cycle?

      • RedLogix 15.1.1
        17 January 2016 at 9:18 pm

        I’ll treat your question in good faith BM. I’ll focus on CO2 alone because the answer doesn’t change a lot if I include CH4.

        The answer is yes, CO2 is subject to natural cycles driven mainly by relatively slow variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The are called Milankovitch cycles and there are a number of them, which combine to produce a complex pattern of changes in the total solar energy arriving from the sun.

        When the cycles align to have low solar irradiation we get an Ice Age (although technically they are actually mini-events called ‘inter-glacials’). Increasing amounts of water is becomes bound as ice at the poles, massive glaciers advance over the continents, wiping out a lot of life forms and the CO2 levels drop.

        Conversely when there is more solar radiation things reverse themselves. For a wiki page this one is pretty readable:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

        But these are changes that typically happen very slowly over a period of thousands, or tens of thousands of years. The graphs on this page are scaled in hundreds of thousands of years.

        http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/climate/global/past-present

        The human burning of fossil carbon by contrast is a step event in less than 150 years. Nothing like this has ever happened before.

        • BM 15.1.1.1
          17 January 2016 at 9:51 pm

          Thanks for the reply, I was curious , the earth is a fairly complex beast with many external factors in play so saying what is natural and what isn’t, I would of thought would be nigh on impossible.

          Would the upswing in the last 150 years be the equivalent of lots of volcanic activity?

  16. JonL 16
    17 January 2016 at 11:12 pm

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
    On average, volcanoes emit annually, about the same amont of CO2 as approximately 25 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations

  17. Tc 17
    18 January 2016 at 11:43 am

    Granny grants a soapbox to nz’s very own flat earth society, the ACT party. Is rortney on a junket as this could just have easily come from him.

    So we have a dairy farmer cherry picking the facts that suit his flawed argument and surprise surprise his conclusion is move along people nothing to see.

    More DP tactics. An opinion piece that granny can distance itself from should it blow up that endorses natz do nothing position. Predictable and consistent.

  18. jaymam 18
    19 January 2016 at 8:12 am

    “If you ignore increased temperature, drought and flooding and sea level rises”
    The sea level in Auckland has been falling for the last four years, if anyone bothered looking at the government-run tide gauge.
    If it’s falling in Auckland it should be falling around the rest of the world, unless Auckland is suddenly rising (which it has not done since records started in 1903).

      • jaymam 18.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 9:00 am

        Auckland sea level has been rising at 1.4mm per year for over 100 years. Since 2011 sea level has been falling. So no chance of flooding any time soon!
        The NZ government graphs have not been updated since about 2000.
        http://i63.tinypic.com/211sbus.jpg

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 9:39 am

          No chance whatsoever.

          ..and the sea level in Auckland is totes falling. Yes Indeedy.

          Don’t fret Paul: this isn’t a debate it’s a rout.

          • jaymam 18.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 6:02 pm

            Thank you very very much for the erroneous sea level data that they will have to fix.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 6:24 pm

              At your behest? Too funny. Here’s a great idea: form a trust and sue them in the high court. That way the court can inflict some personal responsibility on you.

              Call it “The Witless Anti-Social Dupe Fund”.

              • jaymam …
                19 January 2016 at 10:09 pm

                The link you quoted shows “mean sea level”. That is quite stupid if you want to know about potential flooding, like that which occurred on 23 Jan 2011. Obviously we want to know the highest tides each month, which is what my graph shows (using the same data as your graph!).
                Your graph doesn’t show that the highest tide in 112 years was on 23 Jan 2011.

                • Macro …
                  19 January 2016 at 10:37 pm

                  “your graph doesn’t show that the highest tide in 112 years was on 23 Jan 2011”

                  good grief!

                  You realise that you just confirmed the fact that Sea levels are rising?

                  You obviously have little appreciation of Global Warming and even less understanding factors that affect tidal variation.

                  I’ll give you some clues.

                  Perigee
                  Perihelion
                  Full moon.

                  They don’t always occur at the same time.

                  They can work together to produce what is colloquially called King Spring Tides or they can work against one another .

                  Now have a look at 23 Jan 2011. was it all working together?

                  No – it was a storm surge – producing flooding 14cm above the previous record in 1936. (With sea level rise of 10 cm what was a 1 in 100 year event will now occur every 10 years). On 23 Jan 2011 the flooding reached a height 0.6 m above a very high spring tide.

                  • jaymam …
                    19 January 2016 at 11:36 pm

                    The mean of the highest tides in Auckland for 2012 to 2015 is lower than the mean of the highest tides from 1903 to 1912. So the level of the highest tides is now lower than 100 years ago. Sea levels in Auckland are falling. The land by the tide gauge is currently sinking at 0.14mm per year, so is negligible compared with tide changes.

                    • Sacha …
                      19 January 2016 at 11:44 pm

                      “Sea levels in Auckland are falling.”

                      That must be why we are lifting the causeway section of the North-Western motorway at huge expense, right? https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/the-western-ring-route/sh16-causeway-upgrade/

                    • jaymam …
                      20 January 2016 at 12:33 am

                      Engineers have acknowledged that the foundations of the NW motorway were inadequate. The flooding is nothing to do with sea level rise.
                      nzta.govt.nz/projects: “The Waterview to Rosebank section of SH16 runs on a causeway built on soft marine mud. Since it was built in the 1950s the causeway has been gradually sinking. Because of
                      this subsidence, it can flood during particularly high tides.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 6:30 am

                      So have you formed your trust yet? Go on, put your money where your mouth is. Probably best wipe your chin first or other people won’t want to handle it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 6:35 am

                      Says who?

                      Not Auckland CC

                      Not NIWA. Surely you remember NIWA. “Humiliating court defeat for lackwit gimps” NIWA? Ring any bells?

                    • Macro …
                      20 January 2016 at 10:46 am

                      “The mean of the highest tides in Auckland for 2012 to 2015 is lower than the mean of the highest tides from 1903 to 1912” lol

                      Beautiful piece of cherrypicking there!
                      And you obviously can supply a valid reference for this. No I don’t mean NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, I mean a valid reference.
                      I’m sure the tide gauges in Auckland at the turn of the last century were highly calibrated. and highly accurate as well

      • Paul 18.1.2
        19 January 2016 at 9:03 am

        Jaymam has a record of being a climate denier.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/dunedin-climate-consultation-meeting/#comment-1018849

        Don’t know how much time you want to spend debating this with him/her.