Bus stop (wet day)

homer.jpg A few commenters have wondered recently why I tolerate knee-jerk dissenters like HarryTheHat on Hot Topic. The answer is both easy and complex. I got started on all this climate stuff as a result of a naive belief that if climate cranks could be shown where they were getting the science wrong that they would thank me, amend their views, and move on. From the early days of the NZ C”S”C when their site allowed comments, I enjoyed jousting with cranks, but I was sadly mistaken about their ability to recognise reason when it was presented to them. In that sense, giving Harry (and batnv, et al) room to play is a part of what HT is about. Perhaps one day they’ll remove their rose-tinted spectacles and see the real problem. Perhaps HT will have helped.

It’s also about my dislike of censorship. This is something I share with a blogger called Poneke, who rather bombastically announced back in January:

I believe in freedom of expression, no exceptions. No point of view on any subject should be suppressed.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I find that my two most recent attempts to post at his blog have been censored. And that shortly after it became apparent that neither was going to appear, a new “comments policy” page turned up.

A few months ago a commenter here asked me to pop over to Poneke’s Weblog to offer some support in a debate over climate change. I did so, and ended up with another sea ice bet. Since then, I’ve kept an eye on his blog, and commented occasionally on posts related to climate change. The posts seem to have developed a pattern. Poneke discovers the latest bit of crank effluvia (probably by regularly checking the “dissenting voices” side of Denis Dutton’s deliberately misleading Climate Debate Daily site), duly posts about it (often at great length), and then appears to become upset when his readers point out the errors in the original.

Most recently, he posted about noted “dissenter” Roy Spencer’s recent testimony to Congress about negative feedbacks in the climate system. My first comment duly appeared (after a long time “in moderation”), with in-line response from Poneke. Later, George Darroch posted links to Open Mind‘s excellent three-part deconstruction of Spencer’s thinking. I picked up on that, and attempted to post the last paragraph of Tamino’s piece (here), to demonstrate why Spencer doesn’t get much traction in the climate science mainstream. It disappeared. Then a comment from malcolm appeared below, referring to peer-review. I then attempted to post a link to Spencer’s well-documented belief in creationism. Neither post appeared. But Poneke’s new comments policy did. And look at rule one:

No personal abuse of people mentioned in articles or of other commenters, especially abusive remarks about someone’s ethnicity, religious or political beliefs or sexual orientation.

In other words, if Poneke writes about you, you are above criticism on Poneke’s blog. And that seems to apply to all the crank pantheon, from Lindzen and Spencer on down.

Also telling is the final paragraph:

The comments section is not under any direct moderation, but WordPress and Akismet moderate comments with multiple links (a sign of spam), and some names and issues are marked for moderation in an attempt to prevent potentially defamatory comments. As a result, your comment may not appear immediately, though most do.

My name was clearly marked for moderation very early on, but I don’t believe that it had anything to do with defamation. I’m not going to post comments on a site which so transparently stacks the odds against a fair debate. And that’s why Harry and his friends remain “welcome” at Hot Topic. In the last 18 months I’ve only deleted one non-spam comment, and that was at the commenter’s request. I’ve edited one or two for rudeness – and reserve the right to do the same in future.

Poneke’s blog is an interesting place, his posts always well written and often challenging, as you might expect from an established journalist with a long track record. I can’t share his enthusiasm for the minutiae of Wellington’s public transport system, but then I dare say he’d be bored rigid by talk of truffles. And he is at least very sound on Ken Ring. But if he walks like a crank, if he quacks like a crank, then he must be…

108 thoughts on “Bus stop (wet day)”

  1. Good on you, Gareth. Discussion is a good thing, and I’ve personally learnt a lot from debating climate – even when the other participants haven’t. HT isn’t currently in danger of having argument noise override the signal.

  2. Ha, you’re not the first person to have found Poneke’s hypocrisy and dishonesty a turn off:

    On the 22nd of July I Emailed Poneke – I don’t have a copy – complaining than all my comments were held for moderation and that I didn’t understand why.
    He replied:

    >I don’t hold your or anyone else’s reply.

    >Askimet and WordPress put some comments into moderation or spam.

    >I am not online all day to fix this, as I have a job

    My response:

    >Ok, but yours is the only blog in NZ I have come across on which virtually all my comments are “held for moderation”, on other blogs the only comments by regular commenters that get held are those with three or more links.

    >I know that Terence has decided to no longer comment on your blog as he thinks his comments were held by you while comments by others weren’t.

    >I doubt that Terence and I are the only ones who have the wrong impression.

    >Regards, Andrew

    Obviously his Email was a flat out lie.

    In this thread on his site: http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/veitch/

    Poneke made this interesting comment:

    >In my final days in the daily media I was reduced to being told to write about celebrities and, in the final straws, about dogs on Lyall Bay beach and, I kid you not, Cabbage Patch dolls. I don’t want to write that kind of story and I resigned over it, to the delight of the editor, who’d been trying to get rid of me for some time. And when you work as an uncompromisingly serious journalist for as long as I did, you make a lot of enemies of the media employers, so I am basically unemployable in the New Zealand media.

    I can well understand his employers reservations at letting Poneke loose on important issues, and like many others who are “unemployable” Poneke blames his employer, failing to recognise that his problem stems from his own faults as a journalist.

  3. The Poneke situation saddens and puzzles me as, like Gareth, I find the blog interesting and well-written, and I have really admired many of Poneke’s posts, the championing of science and public transport and the enlightened views on social issues.
    But my name is also marked for moderation, and I’ve had many comments deleted.
    The ‘relevance’ part of the comments policy seems like a smokescreen, as commenters whose views align with Poneke’s on climate change seem to get free rein. Falafulu Fisi, in particular, regularly gets away with long rambling comments of dubious relevance that also quite often contain personal attacks (he/she once accused me of being a ‘Libertarian’!), though admittedly on that occasion there was mild remonstration from Poneke. Again, it’s complex because I’ve admired many of Falafulu’s views on scepticism in particular.

  4. Hi Ken,

    I don’t like censorship in any form, just as you seem unable to accept criticism in any form.

    I conducted a fair review of your “forecasts” and found them to be useless. I am not alone in having done that, as Poneke pointed out.

    I am very happy that you should continue to publish your books and issue your forecasts, but I would be much happier if you would stop making spurious claims to accuracy, and ask your publisher to ensure that your book is displayed in the astrology section, not – as Whitcoulls seem keen to do – in the science section.

    Because whatever your “method” is, it isn’t science.

  5. …and, at least in the case of the comments of yours that I read, Gareth, you were one of the most civil commenters there. Still, I have to say, I’m really glad I’m no longer commenting on Poneke’s blog – arguing on the internet gets tiring after a time.

    Good luck with the no censorship policy. Most blogs end up abandoning it after a while. The important thing, I think, if you do, is to be honest and transparent about it.

    This is what bugged me about Poneke’s approach.

    ps love the comment edit function 🙂

  6. Gareth
    I can take criticism, but not from someone who is not a scientist but an author making money out of spreading alarmist nonsense for which there is no evidence. I do not consider running an anti-Ken website fair play. I consider it a private vendetta, more akin to a racist skinhead mentality. You have never met me, yet you seem to want to squash me for my ideas. Who are you to have “plans” for where my books should be displayed? Live and let live. But I doubt that you have that in you.

  7. Just when you thought you got rid of one, another comes along.

    I wish this site was dedicated to discussing which policy is best suited, not the redundant science discussion.

    No evidence, gees…

  8. Hello Ken, We meet again. You seem unaware of any evidence for climate change; have you perhaps been on holiday in a different part of the solar system? I can’t imagine how else it could have passed you by.
    Thank you for posting the link to the PDF version of your book on Poneke’s website; I enjoyed the myths and legends and historical material.

  9. I am always willing to discuss climate change, but the difference between us is that I allow that you have an opinion and a right to it, and a right to write a book about it, whereas you don’t allow that of me. You instigated your website Ringworld, dedicated to undermining me. I have not done a Renowdenworld one. I really wonder if you can see the difference? Whilst you keep kicking the man and not the ideas, you ruin any chance of real debate. Because there is no evidence of human-induced climate change, it seems you really have little other recourse. Prove me wrong and shut down both your anti-Ken Ring websites.

  10. Thanks malcolm. Nice to know it wasn’t just me (or Carol, or Andrew, or Terence). Can’t be doing with that sort of approach to a conversation or debate. You either set strict groundrules (as at, say, RealClimate) and apply them consistently, or you apply a very light touch – which is what I aspire to. Using moderation excessively disrupts any sort of flow…

  11. Ken,

    For the record: you are perfectly entitled to believe whatever the hell you want, but you have no right to claim accuracy for your weather forecasts when it has been repeatedly shown that your predictions are useless. And not just by me. It’s your ideas and publsihed works I’ve investigated and found fault with, not you personally.

    I invite you to go and read Hot Topic (your library will have a copy), and publish a critique. Go ahead, make my day.

    But to return to the subject: you assert that there’s “no evidence of human-induced climate change”. Care to explain how you arrive at that conclusion?

  12. First let me clear the air about accuracy.
    My almanac correctly predicted the end of the Waikato/Taranaki drought, the Turangi flooding, the recent weather “bomb” of the end of July, and this winter’s snow timings. Those were the weather events of this year. If you want the relevant pages in my 2008 almanac I can supply them. On the other hand, NIWA said the Waikato drought would not be relieved till the end of June(I said middle of April which is when rains arrived) and that winter cold would be over on 7 July. Again, I can tell you the dates they said that in the Herald. So who was more accurate?
    Now, as to human-induced climate change. Climate is always changing or we would still be in Ice Age. Humans did not cause the Ice Age. There is a tendency to confuse pollution with climate. City smog, haze etc does not go above a few hundred feet. You can look down on it from the summit of Mt Eden. The amount of CO2 in the air is always only 38 parts in 100,000. CO2 is invisible and odourless and is not one of those impurities. Thousands of tons of water are lifted each day from the oceans by evaporation. This water is free of impurities – that is the nature of distillation. A low pressure system can range for hundreds of miles and drop rain over an area as big as the Tasman Sea. Yet the amount of soot particles is infinitesimal and does not contribute to weather. Being heavier than air in less turbulent parts of the atmosphere it drops out when it can. Water vapour always rises because it is lighter and separates off. CO2 comes out of volcanoes and is ejected by volcanic blast then kept aloft by thermals and upperlevel turbulence. But it is also heavier than air and drops back to the ocean, where it dissolves. To suggest that soot changes weather patterns is to deny the enormity of the weather systems and to give far more credence to man’s tiny tiny impact than is justified. There is no evidence that man-made pollution contributes more to the soot levels in the air than gets there through natural forest and bush fires and perennial eruptions from volcanic sources all around the globe. There is evidence that volcanoes like the Taupo eruption and Pinatubo had slight effect, but that dissipated quickly too.
    Anyone who thinks it is possible for soot to be far ranging perhaps needs to think again. Whilst it is true that dust particles form rain, it was never claimed that soot altered world weather patterns when cities like London, Chicago, Shanghai etc had pea-soup fogs barely 100 years ago. Cities are much cleaner than in the past. The level of soot from them is ever-smaller. Rain is really quite local. The cycle of evaporation to rain is about 7 days. Given that average winds are about 7m/s, or 15mph, or 2,500 miles per week, which is not even the width of China (3,123 miles)and after 7 days most atmospheric soot would have all but dissipated, I very much doubt that loads of soot would make it anywhere beyond Chinese cities with any effect.
    Emissions are just dirty steam, mostly water vapour content which just joins the sky as extra cloud. The dirty bits of fuel that give the discolouration are minute and heavier than air particles which fall to ground and are biodegradable. Of course it is not healthy to breathe them in, but breathing any smoke is equally not good for you, for instance the carcinogenic fumes from barbecued sausages, yet no one is saying sausages are wrecking the planet. Given the vastness of the atmosphere and the huge altitude where weather is generated, some 8 miles from the ground, vs the tiny amount of city smog that only rises a few hundred feet by day then falls again to ground under its own weight at night, it is impossible that weather is affected by it. Remember too that NZ weather comes from thousands of miles across the ocean, where there are no factories or cars.
    Ken Ring

  13. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to count the ways in which Ken is wrong.

    Thanks Ken, for once again demonstrating why you are the sweet voice of unreason in matters relating to the atmosphere.

  14. Ken:
    As for your claims to accuracy, your criteria for success seem to be such that you retrospectively claim all kinds of successes with complete impunity. As I noted previously on Poneke’s blog, there was a major disjoint between the actual weather and what was forecast on your website for the weather bomb event at the end of July.[Presumably there is consistency between your almanac and your website?]. If someone was, for instance, planning a boating trip, they would be far better advised to consult the MetService forecast than your almanac.

  15. “Given the vastness of the atmosphere and the huge altitude where weather is generated, some 8 miles from the ground, vs the tiny amount of city smog that only rises a few hundred feet by day then falls again to ground under its own weight at night, it is impossible that weather is affected by it

    Acid rain anyone?

  16. Ken,

    do you still hold to the views you expressed in your open letter to MPs in 2006 that:

    “Ozone comprises three thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere. That acts as a radiation shield? How silly. The idea simply insults our intelligence. The sun cannot shine through Antarctica skies through the ozone “hole” and onto NZ to form skin cancer because Antarctica is to our south and the sun to our north; so such an action anyway is physically impossible.” ?

  17. Doug, I’m glad you mentioned the ozone hole.

    Ken, in your book ‘Predict Weather’ you question whether CFCs (which you keep wrongly calling CRCs) could be responsible for ozone depletion, on the grounds that

    “In fact, the culprit CRCs are heavier than air so would find it rather difficult to float upwards, are inert so probably
    wouldn’t combine with anything, and because of population densities in the Northern Hemisphere would surely travel more to the Arctic if they went anywhere.”

    At risk of boring everybody else, Ken, it goes something like this:

    In the first place, direct measurements have been made of CFCs in the stratosphere. This may come as a surprise to you.
    As for how they got there: well, CFCs are very stable and unreactive in the troposphere. This gives them a long residence time, which gives them plenty of time to become well-mixed throughout the lower atmosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant, and winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes higher than the top of the stratosphere at a faster rate than molecules settle according to their weight. Once they reach the stratosphere CFCs photodissociate (with uv radiation) to produce free chlorine atoms which catalytically destroy ozone.
    And if you’re wondering why ozone destruction was most pronounced over the Antarctic, it is because of polar stratospheric clouds which provide surfaces that help catalyse the destruction of ozone.

  18. I gave my mum a Ken Ring annual weather almanac to help her plan her gardening one year and she said it was hopeless.

    I bought a forecast for an event from you one year and it forecast gobs of rain over the 8 days it was for. I even sent it to the organisers. And you know what, it turned out to be a hot spell!

    Climate is always changing or we would still be in Ice Age. Humans did not cause the Ice Age.

    Logical fallacy. That does not imply that current warming is not as a result of human activity.

    There is a tendency to confuse pollution with climate.

    Like you just did in your post? Where did this stuff come from? Light-coloured industrial releases increase albedo, COâ‚‚ increases the greenhouse effect. You seem to be the one confusing them in your post!

    I’m extremely disappointed in your findings and writings Ken. I read them, they sure sounded plausible – but I feel deceived when I realised that they were mostly based on arguments that have long been discredited.

    In short I find very little evidence in your writing of much rigourous investigation into your claims at all.

  19. Carol: yes, my almanac is the one to look to for forecasts. All you’ll get on my website is a day either side, and the leeway is often up to 3 days, looking from 2 years away. If you want to discuss the predictions in the almanac, go right ahead. I am proud of my hit rate. But if you haven’t an almanac you don’t know what you are critical of.
    As for CFCs, please supply evidence that atmospheric polar chlorine comes from CFCs and not Mt Erebus, an active volcano since 1984 pumping 1000 tonnes of chlorine into the Antarctic atmosphere each day. Are all chlorine molecules tagged as to source?

    Doug: yes, I still believe the sun is in the north and Antarctica in the south. You seem to have a problem with that.

    Sam: it was a bit useless getting an almanac to help your mum with gardening when I have not mentioned gardening in any up almanac till 2009. No wonder she did not find it helpful. As to hot spells, they are usually followed by convective showers – sounds like the rain did come perhaps a little later than predicted..as the Metservice says “the rain held off”, and as to your point about climate change you have not shown that climate change is a result of humans. I am always calling for evidence, not computer modelling. There is more statistical-reasoning evidence of humans having no effect as our tiny contribution is forever lost in noise. “Climate” is a function of latitude. Climate-change only occurs when poles shift. Please explain how with our current technology we can alter our distance from the equator.

    Any other queries? I am happy to debate, although moderators allowing someone to be called idiot takes debate away from ideas. May I suggest it has no place in adult discussion.

  20. Ken
    you’re my hero.

    keep going, mate, you might convince someone in the end.

    I’ll do my best but the conspiracy against you – and us at flat earth society – is so big – it seems to be gaining on us at the moment. I would like to meet up to do some plotting – would you be up for that?

    nathanial pipeblower
    Flat Earth Society NZ

  21. Ken, the CFC-stratospheric ozone depletion story is very well-traversed in the environmental chemistry literature. I’m happy to point you in the right direction if you’re interested. A good place to start is the textbook “An Introduction to Environmental Chemistry”, by Andrews, Brimblecombe, Jickells and Liss, published by Blackwell Science in 1996.

  22. Ken:
    “As for CFCs, please supply evidence that atmospheric polar chlorine comes from CFCs and not Mt Erebus”

    Now the thing is buddy, CFCs are not produced in nature, they are produced in a lab. So that is why we know they did not come from Mt Erebus. It is lucky that they inventor used chlorine instead of bromine, because bromine would have been very reactive and destroyed the ozone layer at a very fast rate.

    I would suggest that you go to


    It is a free source on Atmospheric chemistry, by Daniel Jacobs. Who is he? Well just a Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
    and Environmental Engineering at Harvard University!

  23. nathanial pipeblower …. how does the sun in the north and Antarctica in the south work for you? I would have thought that the sun goes around the Earth, is this not the case?!?!!?

  24. “It is lucky that they inventor used chlorine instead of bromine”

    Sorry, it should read
    “It is lucky that they inventor used fluorine instead of bromine”

  25. I am always calling for evidence, not computer modelling.

    It wasn’t always computer modeling, in 1896 Arrhenius produced one with just pencil and paper. Admittedly, it was very simple.

    Ignoring the fact that there is bountiful evidence, this is a dishonest argument. The “modeling” just means the application of known and observed properties of the atmosphere. Some properties are measured exactly, some inferred. It is not sufficient to simply cry foul at the use of computer modeling; you must actually say specifically which part of the model you think does not match reality and why. You must challenge the hypothesis.

    Otherwise you’re not engaging in the science of the argument, you’re just crying foul at the use of science.

    Climate-change only occurs when poles shift.

    Lemme guess… this is due to happen in 2012?

  26. Tushara: I didn’t say CFCs come from Erebus, you did. I said chlorine comes from Erebus, and chlorine destroys ozone. Check Erebus eruption frequency over past decades – it matches fluctuations in size of ozone hole.

    Carol: please remind me again what university degree in climate science Al Gore has? Otherwise your claim that a university professor knows more than a non academic falls rather flat.

    Sam: it is not encumbent on the skeptic to prove his case. His job is to call for evidence, and there being none forthcoming, request for the theorist to withdraw any claims. Proof is never a function of negating skepticism. You can’t prove there is a fire just because you haven’t seen the absence of one. (It may turn out you are a blind man)

    No one has challenged my dictionary-derived definition of climate being a function of latitude. Climate-change therefore must involve latitude-change purely and simply. Climate is a latitudinal fact, which is why places of similar latitude have similar temp regimes, Auckland and Buenos Aires, Perth+Broken Hill+Taree etc. Weather derives from climate and is modified orographically.
    Ken Ring

  27. Ken, it is a surreal experience trying to discuss anything with you. I didn’t mention Al Gore, you did.
    I’ll say it again. More slowly. The scientific literature, which you seem blissfully unaware of, is quite clear about the role of CFCs in ozone depletion. Here’s a useful lecture on the subject, by one Sherwood Rowland. This was a Nobel lecture, by the way.


    Now it’s your turn. Produce some evidence of this quality to support your theory of ozone depletion.

  28. No Carol, I’ll spell it out a little more slowly for you. You pulled out a professor’s name which to me meant you endeavoured to infer that just because one is a university professor one’s authority should be the last word. But many global warmers who think they are legitimate climate science spokespeople, like Al Gore, Tony Blair, Maggie Thatcher, Helen Clark, Pete Hodgson et all have no degrees and yet their pedigree is not questioned by global warmers. I have yet to hear of Gareth Renowden’s degree in climatology, or Tim Lambert’s. I have no degree in it either, there being no university chair for my line of work, but I have three years of university science units and I think I may have written more books than other meteorologist/climatologist over the last 15 years in both Australasian countries on climate and weather(actually 28), so I think I have a right to an opinion on the subject. I would even go so far as to suggest that universities are no longer where the real research is done, because science is so politicised these days, there is only available funding that meets the approval of government policies.
    Quoting Rowland is indeed a joke. When he first came up with his ozone depletion idea the scientific world laughed, until they saw that it was a road to receiving State funding, then they joined the farce and laughed all the way to the bank. Rowland has since reversed his position and retracted his earlier claims.
    I have already suggested the line of enquiry to my ozone theory. If you Google the eruption history of Erebus, also years of increased hole size, you will see the uncanny match. I think 2006-7 were the last years of both bigger hole and the last increase in eruption intensity. If I could post attachments here I would show you myself.
    If you really want info on the scam of ozone depletion and the whole freon patent affair just Google accordingly. But you have to want to do it. I don’t know that you do.
    Ken Ring

  29. Ken, If you look carefully at the posts, you’ll see that I didn’t pull out any professorial names. Another commentator did. I quoted a university-level textbook in an attempt to drag some science into this conversation.

    WHo’d have thought that ozone depletion would have its own set of deniers, cranks and myths? The US Environmental Protection Agency have helpfully provided a page debunking ozone depletion myths, including your favourite one that volcanoes are responsible.

    But no doubt you’ll dismiss it as a conspiracy to receive state funding.

    Please provide some evidence that Rowland has retracted his claims on ozone depletion. Funny how Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute crop up if you Google this topic.

  30. Okay, admittedly I had mis-read what Ken wrote.

    But still, Ken, the reason why you are incorrect is because of science. real scientist have collected data based on satellite readings from the stratosphere.

    The reason why CFCs are responsible is based on the accumulation of fluorine gases in the stratosphere, which are created when CFCs brakes down. Taking this into account show that CFCs are responsible , not volcanic eruptions.

    As I did say, CFCs are made in the lab. Therefore the radicals found in the atmosphere, which destroy the ozone, can only be created from the brake down of CFCs. Please read the link I posted above, it’s real science.

  31. “it is not encumbent on the skeptic to prove his case. His job is to call for evidence, and there being none forthcoming”

    Okay then, where is your evidence to prove that volcanoes are responsible? It seems you have none that stack up. You’re not a skeptic, you are a crank that puts up ridiculous theories (the layperson kind, not the scientific kind).

    As I have said before, you still cannot even comprehend the massive size of the sun, let alone the complex nature of the climate.

  32. Carol
    My apologies, it was Tushara’s reference. It is no good posting up links as if they will prove anything, when real science is compromised by politics. I could also cherrypick counter links, from equally respectable sources. I have suggested what to do. Google Rowlands retraction, or similar.

    Do you honestly think ozone has just clicked into a hole/no-hole pattern since satellite data of 1979 when Rowlands first presented his theories? My evidence for volcanoes is on the net. If you email me I can send you back graphs of eruption years and you can match them to ozone depletion years. That is my evidence. And as you say, climate is as complex as the cycles in nature, not a simple case of changing lightbulbs and riding bikes to make some glacier icemass reduction jerk to a halt which is what global warmers like us to believe. And what do the glaciers do that are currently advancing? Help is needed for the confused glaciers. Now there’s a bumper sticker.

  33. Ken, I don’t use Google as my primary research tool. I use Science Direct. This is a database of electronic journals of the peer-reviewed variety. I’d advise you to be careful with believing everything you find that Google links to.

    Leaving that aside for the moment, Google does not lead to any links that suggest that Sherwood Rowland has retracted his body of work on CFCs and ozone depletion.

    You said:
    “Rowland has since reversed his position and retracted his earlier claims.”

    I’d go as far as to call this a lie, Ken.

  34. There is a lot of rubbish on the net Ken (some say including your own), but volcano theory has been proven wrong.

    If you read the link that Carol provided, it will tell you why. And my reference is a good reference, written by a world class scientist. It is a intro guide to atmospheric chemistry. I think you’re references will not even come close.

  35. I didn’t pull out any professorial names either. I posted a link to a university-level textbook. I am not sure where you are coming from. It seems that you have been caught out once again.

  36. This has been a classic excursion into the strange world that Ken inhabits. He’s demonstrated his outright denial of mainstream science in most if its forms (unless it supports one of his own mad theories), including the classic “CO2 is heavier than air, so settles out”, “climate is determined by latitude, so climate can only change if the poles shift”, his odd take on ozone and CFCs, and “weather is generated eight miles up”.

    It’s a very strange place, Ringworld. It’s like Discworld. It has its own set of physical laws. It’s physics, Jim, but not as we know it…

    Let’s try an experiment. Ken, if climate is “latitudinally determined”, how do you account for the ice ages? Or indeed your oft-repeated statement “climate is always changing” (see above).

  37. Also Ken, can you answer my question, do you realise how massive the sun is? Then do you understand how big the Earth (my planet) is compared to the sun? Do you then realise that my planet orbits around the sun?

  38. Carol
    Peer review is certainly not to be trusted these days. It is mates helping mates and shutting out non mates. My peers are NZ farmers, the only people I regard as knowing anything about weather. But they tend to be too busy to write pieces for journals.

    Volcanic theory has not been proven wrong. No one will ever know how many volcanoes there are, as most are underwater, unrecorded and undetected. Thousands of new eruptions, fissures and emissions appear anew each day.

    There you go again, linking to your Ken-kicking website. Please take it off the net. It is a shameful act of bullying and says more about you and your attitudes about attacking personally than your desire to debate.
    How do I account for ice ages? You’re not seriously suggesting now that ice ages were caused by man? Ice ages are thought to be caused by Milankovitch’s idea of the 100,000 year ellipse of the sun together coinciding with the galaxy’s passage through areas of cosmic dust. Earth’s natural state is ice age, we have spent 80% of our 4.5bn year geological past iced up. Interglacials, which we are in now, are tiny breaks between ice ages. An interglacial is not followed by another interglacial anymore than a rugby test would have two halftimes back to back. We are heading towards the next ice age, ask any geologist. These are natural changes, always have been and always will be.

    But the bigger issue, I cannot for the life of me believe that members of this list who are so adept at quoting obscure books and references outside of Google do not possess ordinary dictionaries. Look up climate and quote me a respectable dictionary definition that does not list latitude as part of its definition.(“clime”=climb, to move over the lines of curvature of the earth). Unless you choose another language we are committed to English. A word means what the dictionary says it means. Tough if it is not to some people’s liking.

    Ken Ring

  39. Ken,

    You said (above):

    Climate-change therefore must involve latitude-change purely and simply.

    So for the climate of a place to change, it has to change latitude. How does that work with ice ages? Are you suggesting that all the continents drifted nearer to the poles, and then back again?

    I’m sure many geologists would be fascinated to learn that the earth’s been frozen up for 80% of the last 4.5bn years.

    As for my “shameful act of bullying”, I invite HT readers to read Ringworld and form their own judgement.

    PS the Oxford English Reference Dictionary doesn’t mention latitude in its definition of climate.

  40. You still haven’t answered my question about the size of the sun.

    Also, science is based on evidence. There are volcanoes have been eliminated from a cause of the recent depletion of the ozone. As I said before, read the evidence provided by Coral. You still haven’t provided any evidence. If you can prove that the USA EPA’s evidence is wrong, then good on you.

    Peer-review not to be trusted, and you are, Mr ‘The sun is to the north’. I hate to point this out to you, but the sun’s ray engulfs the entire planet. The angle of the planet means that the sun’s ray hits NZ from the south, during the summer months.

  41. Gareth
    How does it work with ice ages? That is part of the climate, not climate change. I think you are confusing weather with climate. Climate contains the idea of cycles, both closer ones like summer/winter, and the larger cycles, the glacials/interglacials. Latitude change is an overlay, the change that changes/affects the cycles themselves.
    The Oxford Dictionary does mention latitude in its definition of climate, sorry. I have several dictionaries, including the Oxford.
    Oxford Concise: “(GK: klima -at,slope(of Earth))”
    Concise Etymylogical Dictionary: “slope, zone, region of the Earth.”
    American Heritage Dictionary: “(Latin clima, zone of latitude, from Gk klima, sloping surface of the earth, from Indo-European klei – to lean)”
    Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language: “climate: from klima, klimatos; a slope, a zone of the earth, a clime, from klino, to bend, referring to the inclination of the earth from the equator to the pole.”

    “the sun’s ray hits NZ from the south, during the summer months”
    We are not talking about the sun’s ray, we are talking about the sun. The sun’s ray is nothing in this discussion as it also hits from the north, east and west, depending on time of day. The sun is always in the north. Why do you think our buildings all face north? To catch the summer shade? I hope you’re not suggesting the sun’s ray does a 180 at the south pole? The sun rises in our southeast at summer solstice, is about north at noon and sets in our southwest. In Antarctica the sun in midsummer never gets above the low-on-horizon position that it hits NZ at, at 4pm in midsummer. Ask someone who has been there. That is because it is so far north.

  42. Ken, if obfuscation was an Olympic sport, you’d be a good medal prospect. You are using a relatively minor sense of the word ‘climate’. My dictionary defines it as “The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.” I think this would be most people’s understanding of what is meant by climate.

    Anyway, Ken, another thought experiment for you: if latitude is such an important driver of climate, does this not in fact suggest that the Earth’s climate is driven by the sun rather than the moon?

    And how are you getting on with finding that retraction by Sherwood Rowland?

  43. Latitude is only one variable determining climate. Others are the chemical properties of the atmosphere, land-sea distribution, orography and of course external factors like the Sun’s intensity. If one or more of those change the climate can also change. We do not need to “shift the poles” to change the climate.

  44. Climate embodies the idea of the cycles, which regularly change about, or they wouldn’t be called cycles. Climate therefore embodies change within a repeatable pattern. But the essence of the word is “climb” as in up and over the curvature of the earth, because the root word is klei, to lean. We also get words from klei like “lid”, which leans onto a hollow, “little” meaning to crouch over, “climax” which is the peak of a curvature etc. The word has many derivations now, but climate is still well-rooted in latitude lines and zones or regions of reference. “Climate change” is therefore an oxymoron. You will not find climate-change in any dictionary. What is meant in popular usage by climate is the cycle of seasons at any one place, determined by temperature, in turn determined by latitude. Perth, Taree and Broken Hill are miles apart at either ends of Australia and near the middle but they have the same maximum and minimum ranges(24C and 12C)because they are the same distance from the equator, even though Broken Hill is 1000 feet above sealevel and Perth only 16 feet above sealevel. Climate can only change if latitude changes, which has happened so often in the past. The Sahara Desert used to be the Sahara Forest, a jungle environment as evidenced by massive rain erosion on the Sphinx. The Nile once ran right beside the pyramids. But there will always be a cold bit at the top and bottom of the earth and a hot bit in the middle, whatever countries find themselves there. The poles will always freeze because the atmosphere is so shallow in height there (only a few miles high, compared to about 15 miles high at the equator)and the cold of space will always come down nearly to ground level. Today it was minus 60C at Vostok at the South Pole. Last week it was in the minus 70s. Ice will never permanently melt at those temperatures. Even at thge North Pole, currently enjoying summer, the temperature 1000 miles south, which is the nearest data-gathering station is subzero. Antarctica even in summer almost never gets above -5 to -20C.
    As far as the sun goes, yes, that is the engine of weather and climate. The moon is only the driver, and, being another planet also sitting on the ecliptic (actually within 5deg) is also orbiting the sun like the rest of the planets. Unhappily for the moon the earth keeps getting in its way. Some astronomers call earth-moon the Double Planet. If you want to know the interrelationship between sun and planets and the electromagnetic solar wind/tail/tide caused by the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn google Solar System Barycenter. These give rise to the sunspot cycles, which again, are on a very repeatable pattern. It is these that give us our drought years. The moon’s declination cycle gives us the Southern and Northern Oscillation Indexes, which combine with sunspot solar cycles to give El Nino and La Nina years. That is why El Nino roughly coincides solar minimum. These were 1963-68, 72-73, 82-83, 91-95, 05-06 and will be again 2011-12.
    Please let me assure you, all this has nothing whatever to do with eco-lightbulbs, SUVs vs riding bicycles, old fridges, planting trees, paying carbon taxes, turning off lights, outlawing plastic bags or recycling aluminium cans.
    Ken Ring

  45. Ken, your wacky view of the way the world works is entertaining, but hardly educational.

    Even at thge North Pole, currently enjoying summer, the temperature 1000 miles south, which is the nearest data-gathering station is subzero.

    Only in Ringworld. Current temperature at the North Pole is hovering around 0C, and if you go south to the land, temps are +15C to 20C (or higher). The only really cold place is high up on the Greenland ice sheet.

    Please let me assure you, Ken, that your assurances are nonsense.

  46. Then you dispute
    the existence of solar cycles
    that solar cycles affect weather
    that the ENSO is a function of solar minimums
    that natural mechanisms create climate
    that natural mechanisms are cyclic
    that cycles pattern weather

  47. If current temps at North Pole are 0C, which station is that?
    Wherever it is 0C, then ice cannot melt there, as ice needs to be 4C to thaw. And it is summer time, as hot as it ever gets, for the rest of the year it is colder and more ice and snow will obviously form. So where is the N Pole melting away?

  48. Re. Perth, Broken Hill etc.
    Their climate is similar, but not the same.
    Use the BOM’s page to compare the climate of different places on the same latitude (and don’t just look at temperature, rainfall is also a property that defines climate).
    Unfortunately I could not get permalinks to their site so you have to navigate through yourself.
    You can do the same for a lot of places around the world and you will find that there is more than just the latitude that determines the climate.

  49. Sorry, folks, I left it too late to edit that comment above.
    I was about to ask you how you arrive at this figure of 4C, Ken. Are you perhaps thinking of the density maximum of liquid-phase water that occurs at 4C?
    And did you even look at the beautiful picture that Gareth linked to? I suspect not, or you wouldn’t need to be asking about data stations.

  50. Re Arctic temps: You could try looking at the real-time data from a couple of buoys. Now, admittedly they’ve drifted away from the precise pole, but they’re still in the high Arctic in the middle of the remaining ice. One gives (at the time of writing) an air temp of -0.2C, the other +0.6C. The ice is melting (not at 4C, as Ken reckons), and that keeps air temps close to freezing.

    And so to Ken’s list:

    Then you dispute:
    the existence of solar cycles

    The 11 year sunspot cycle is well-established, and has a minor peak to trough impact on total solar irradiance – enough for a small impact on global ave temp (0.1C peak to trough, IIRC).

    that solar cycles affect weather

    The sunspot cycle has no measurable impact on “weather”.

    that the ENSO is a function of solar minimums

    This is clearly groundbreaking science in Ringworld. Not observed in reality, of course…

    that natural mechanisms create climate

    True, but human influences are forcing the current changes.

    that natural mechanisms are cyclic

    Some – not all – are cyclical, ENSO for instance. But the changes we are currently seeing are certainly not the result of a “natural” cycle.

    that cycles pattern weather

    In that some cycles (ENSO) affect the pattern of weather around the globe, this is obviously true. But the weather itself is not cyclical, as several people have shown when looking at the periods Ken claims are important in weather.

  51. The question arising from melting ice and the temperature transition over which this takes place is somewhat academic.

    As is commonly known, ice is less dense than water because of its open hexagonal internal structure. Put simply the ice structure looks much like a beehive, composed of layers of slightly crumpled hexagons. The layers of oxygen atoms forming the hexagons are held apart and bound by hydrogen bonds with the hydrogen atoms lying along these bonds. It is the length of the hydrogen bond that creates the open structure of ice and when ice starts to melt at 0°C, some of the bonds are broken, causing a collapsed disordered structure resulting in a change of density to a higher value. However, even in the resulting liquid water some short-range order remains, with a few water molecules retaining the crystal-like bonded structure until destroyed by thermal motion and causing the changed density behaviour in fresh water, where there is a maximum density at 4°C

    So perhaps it can be said that ice only totally melts through the thawing process when it reaches its maximum density at 4°C

  52. “So perhaps it can be said that ice only totally melts through the thawing process when it reaches its maximum density at 4°C”

    this is different to Ken Ring saying that:

    “as ice needs to be 4C to thaw”

    It begins to thaw at 0C and totally thaws at 4C, i.e. water starts to form at 0C and ice totally melts to water at 4C. The trawing process starts at 0C.

  53. If water freezes at 0C, how does it also THAW at 0C?
    The Vostok temperature at Antarctica today was -79C. How does ice melt at that temperature? Therefore how is the pole melting?
    When using existing temperature measuring equipment there is mainly nonstandardised instrument technology, in nonstandardised locations, by nonstandardised personnel. That is exacerbated by heat from instrument-case internal lighting, heat and humidity from a monitoring person’s body, heat exchange when temperature box door is opened and closed, wind movements from surrounding traffic, and exhaust fumes from the monitoring person’s vehicle. Location temperature does not compensate for barometric pressure changes due to the moon’s 27-day change of hemispheres, for overhead cloud cover or for vegetative gas output from surrounding soil. So far I have listed only twelve error factors, there are myriad more. Inprecision is the rule, yet we are asked to consider (and react with some alarm to) the IPCC and NIWA-derived temperature difference of 0.8C over 127 years, which is 0.00001C per day. Apparently the planet needs saving from this wild temperature hike. The fact that each location can vary by about 10C per day between max and min, and each instrument can vary by 15-20C per hour depending on season, wind changes, and other factors, is immaterial.
    Temperature of the globe is simply immeasurable. Don’t forget half the world is always in cold night and the other half in hot daylight, half in summer, the other half in winter. The situation is always inconstant. The world is not a baby that you can put a thermometer under its tongue at any time. Just saying the world is warming over and over is good for those with that religious faith, but it doesn’t make it so. Show us the actual evidence, not NOAA graphs which are politically influenced.
    Ken Ring

  54. Andrew W. No Andrew, the Arctic area, the Arctic area. I was advising Gareth and Ken to click on the John Daly site (above) then click on the Arctic ‘area’ for graphed station data. If you do that you’ll see that the temps that are worrying some now are the same as that during the late 1930s – some were even higher. This is from Bodo http://www.john-daly.com/stations/bodo.gif Take a look and see, and ask yourself why we weren’t worrying then, or rather, why some are worrying now.

  55. Steve
    No need to convince me. The Greenland ice sheet sits in a bowl of its own making and even if it melted would not add to sealevels. Actually the middle of Greenland is getting thicker.
    The Antarctica ice sheet is expanding and has been doing so for the past 20 years, according to science@nasa.com.

  56. Ken, the sheer breadth of your misconceptions is breathtaking. There’s enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m. The latest data (Rignot et al, 2008) suggests Antarctica and Greenland are both losing significant amounts of mass.

  57. Oh horse pucky. Show me the maths on Greenland.
    And I’m still waiting to hear how ice can BOTH freeze AND thaw at 0C, and how -79C can be the new melting point at the South Pole.
    I would like to be discussing science here, and I keep calling for evidence. All I get back are links to more warmers that have their snouts in the research trough and pathetic comments about my supposed imagination. Step up to the plate!!

  58. Ken,
    The melting point of a substance (0C for water) is the temperature at which solid and liquid phases co-exist in equilibrium. This is known as ‘dynamic equilibrium.’ Thus, at 0C, ice melts and water freezes.

    Salt in water can also act to depress the freezing point of water so that seawater can have temperatures as low as -1.8C.

    [Sorry, Gareth, I know this is barely relevant, but I am inclined to think that increasing scientific literacy is a Good Thing].

  59. Carol –I am intrigued with your brief and somewhat inexplicit explanation of the process of ice melt. Could you explain the transitional structural mechanism – presumably different to the explanation I provided above based on an explanation given by Peter Wadhams (Prof. of Ocean Physics University of Cambridge, UK) – where at 0°C, as you allude to of solid and liquid co-existing in equilibrium, through the increasing density change to 4°C where water only exists.

    Sorry Gareth, barely relevant as Carol says, but no doubt perceiving to increasing scientific literacy.

  60. “Thus, at 0C, ice melts and water freezes”
    Ah, so setting my freezer compartment at 0C will create intense molecular confusion? What will that do – produce steam?
    Y’know, throughout my whole school career I believed water turned to ice at 0C and ice thawed at 4C. So this really is a whole new science revelation, one in which ice instantly becomes water again at freezing point. But of course – you can now prove water never freezes not even at -69C (at Vostok right now: http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/stations/vostok.shtml)
    Do you really believe this nonsense Carol?
    Ken Ring

  61. Gareth
    You brought this up, no mystery. I said temp was 0C 1000 miles south of the N Pole, so the N Pole couldn’t be melting away, unless it gets warmer(up to 4C) at the very pole itself.
    I thought we are discussing supposed global warming, which supposedly starts at the poles and will eventually supposedly smother the land with higher sealevels in a century, by 65 metres according to Al Gore, 7m according to you, and 10cms according to NIWA, only a discrepancy factor of 65,000%. And they talk about consensus!

  62. 65 m = estimated sea level rise if the _Antarctic_ ice caps melts completely
    7 m = estimated sea level if _Greenland’s_ ice cap melts completely
    0.1 -0.2 m = _observed_ 20th century sea level rise

  63. Ken – the melting point of ice is 0C. That’s a fact. Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes and then top up with water. Leave it for 5 minutes at room temperature so that the water can cool down and the ice warm up. Measure the temperature of the water in the glass. If your thermometer’s accurate, it will say 0C (or 32F). And it will stay at that temperature until all the ice is gone. As others have pointed out, water achieves its maximum density at 4C (which is why ice floats). If you really don’t get this basic level of understanding, there really is no hope for you.

    I didn’t mention “a century” as a timeframe for Greenland to melt away. It’ll take much longer. But there’s enough ice at both poles vulnerable to melting to get sea level rise of several metres over the next 100 years – if we’re unlucky.

  64. ‘ I believed water turned to ice at 0C and ice thawed at 4C.’

    This makes no sense, if it water turns to ice at 0C, then how can it thaw at 4C.

    I am sorry, you can cool water down to 2C and it still remains as a liquid, it may have some ice crystals form, but it does not turn completely solid.

    If you heat ice past 0C, i.e 0.01C, water starts to form, heating it up to 4C, then no ice remains, the thawing process begins at 0C and ends at 4C.

    Did you fail at school?

  65. That’s correct JonnoFakename, it’s what happens after 0C that matters. If temp descending then ice forms at 0C. If heating from subzero then water BEGINS the thawing process.
    But to say “Thus, at 0C, ice melts and water freezes” is not correct. But let’s forget 0C. That all arose because Gareth said that at 1000 miles south of the N Pole 0C indicated the N Pole was melting away, and which statement I challenged. Because it would mean that north of that temps would have to be higher which is impossible. I keep asking but no one has yet told me how ice can melt at -74C which is today’s S Pole temp. And Antarctica is supposed to be warming and melting.

  66. “But to say “Thus, at 0C, ice melts and water freezes” is not correct.’

    No, you are wrong, this is correct, unless there is a magic substance in your world that exists when H20’s temp is between 0-4C.

    Can you please answer my question, did you fail at school?

  67. At 0C, ice melts and water freezes.

    Ken, no one claims that the ice at the South Pole, as opposed to the Antarctic periphery, is going to melt this century, or for thousands of years, if ever.

  68. Ken, the term melt point and freezing point refers to the same point, expect, one refers to solid turning to liquid (the former) and one refers to a liquid turning to a solid (the latter), why can’t you understand this?

  69. Ken’s ability to misunderstand is immense.

    Ice will melt wherever there’s enough heat to raise the temperature of the ice to 0C. In the Arctic, that’s just about everywhere (except the top of the Greenland ice sheet). In the Antarctic, that’s around the edges. In both places, a lot of the heat comes from the ocean, not the atmosphere.

  70. “In the Antarctic, that’s around the edges.”
    Well of course, which is why edges get to be called edges. There has to be some point where sea meets the ice otherwise polar ice would cover the whole globe. But just because it will always melt into sea at edges just defines edges, it doesn’t mean for one second that Antarctica is melting away. That’s the mistake global warmers continue to make. They go down there, look around in summer(they can’t go out at all during winter)and they see edge-melt and they freak out. That’s what Sir Peter Blake did. If ever there was lack of commonsense this is it. But the icesheet at those very edges grows back again in winter. All the IPCC, Al Gore etc talk is of Antarctica melting and staying melted all year around. So, sorry Andrew, they ARE claiming that.

  71. Frank
    What’s the point? Any evidence will be scorned on this forum. Can you use Google? Do it yourself. I just did and a whole lot came up. Google IPCC end of ice
    here’s three, I haven’t time to do your work for you

    “Then in 2005, the British Antarctic Survey released findings that 87 percent of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula have retreated over the past 50 years. In the past five years, the retreating glaciers have lost an average of 50 metres (164 feet) per year. Potentially, the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) could contribute an additional six metres (20 feet) to sea level rise..recent research indicates new evidence of massive ice discharge from the WAIS. The entire Antarctic ice sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 62 metres (203 feet)”.
    (the words “the entire Antarctic ice sheet” are pretty clear – unless you are a global warmer)So that’s goodbye Antarctica ice
    Now for the Arctic

    “Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate far quicker than predicted by
    climate change computer models and could disappear completely before the
    middle of the century”
    (disappear is what it says)

    “GLOBAL warming has led to a new travel boom as holidaymakers embrace what tour operators call doomsday tourism — the urge to see the world before its endangered parts disappear forever.. the Arctic and Antarctic, the sinking islands of the Pacific and the fading glories of the Great Barrier Reef..”
    (forever is what this one says)


    Where do you suppose Al Gore’s figure of a 20 ft sealevel rise came from? Answer: Antarctica ice all disappearing

  72. more
    Why should I provide links that you probably won’t believe anyway? Google the subject yourself! I just did and came up with 129,000 for Ice to completely disappear at the Poles

    Arctic sea ice to disappear completely this summer..

    There is nothing much we can do about it and, if the current rate of recession continues, it is inevitable that the ice sheet will completely disintegrate within 7,000 years” said geophysicist, Howard Conway, from the University of Washington and lead author of the paper.

    Unless you don’t understand the word “completely” used twice, that’s all the ice due to go

  73. Ken said: “All the IPCC, Al Gore etc talk is of Antarctica melting and staying melted all year around.”

    Ken, surely even you have to admit that your links don’t support that claim.

    Ken said: “Where do you suppose Al Gore’s figure of a 20 ft sealevel rise came from? Answer: Antarctica ice all disappearing”

    And yet in one of his links: “The entire Antarctic ice sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 62 metres (203 feet).”

    Clearly any claims of SL rise of 20 feet don’t involve “Antarctica ice all disappearing”, and Gore didn’t claim such a rise in SL would happen this century.

  74. Everyone seems to have a different sealevel rise figure. Obviously there is no consensus. It ranges from a few inches to 200 feet per century. If they are so unsure it begs the question how they can be sure it is happening at all.
    I see no rush to sell prime coastal real estate at giveaway prices. Does this not tell you something?

  75. Note that today’s S Pole temp was -54C. Last week it was -74C, a huge temp variation of 20C over a week. Next week the temp will swing again. Yet the IPCC is talking about some linearly progressive warming of 2C per century, not fact, just conjecture based on narrow sampling. Anyone can play the narrow-sampling game. 20C in a week would be, by a simple computer extrapolation, 104000C per century. If by year 2108 the poles were to go up by this gentle 100,000 degrees, imagine how hot it would get in NZ! Now THAT’S what I call global warming.

  76. ken:

    “There is nothing much we can do about it and, if the current rate of recession continues, it is inevitable that the ice sheet will completely disintegrate within 7,000 years” said geophysicist, Howard Conway, from the University of Washington and lead author of the paper.

    Unless you don’t understand the word “completely” used twice, that’s all the ice due to go”

    howard conway was only talking about the west antarctic ice sheet (~7m sea level rise equivalent) not the east antarctic ice sheet (~60m sea level rise equivalent). he was not saying that the south pole was melting. hardly ‘all the ice’, ken.

  77. Whatever process is “melting” ice would apply to all the ice, although I have yet to hear how Antarctica ice that is today -59C can thaw. Please someone enlighten me with that science process. And unless one half of Antarctica is on the globe and the other half isn’t, the Poles are not melting away on the globe.
    If you are a global warmer facts don’t matter. You’ll make it all up as you go along. One minute the Pole is melting, then, when shown to be wrong, only PART of the pole is melting. Next we’ll have PART of the sea is rising, and PART of the globe is warming, which we all know anyway, formally called “summer”.
    Fundamentalist Warmers are getting very desperate now because they have lost the debate, shown at every turn to be incorrect. There is simply no evidence, only continual shrieking about their warming Armageddon.
    Ken Ring

  78. Whatever process is “melting” ice would apply to all the ice.

    Why on earth does that have to be true? The mass of an ice sheet is determined by the balance between snow accumulation at the centre and ice melt at the edges. At present, melting dominates for all major ice sheets, to the best of our knowledge.

    Fundamentalist Warmers are getting very desperate now because they have lost the debate, shown at every turn to be incorrect.

    Thanks for sharing that, Ken. When I’ve stopped laughing, I’ll celebrate your unique take on reality with a glass of fine NZ wine…

  79. ken, your logic is astonishing.

    1. the west antarctic ice sheet which, according to conway et al, appears to be continuing a retreat set in motion at the end of the last ice age, has the potential to retreat quickly because it is marine based, ie most of the bed of the ice sheet is below sea level. the temperature of the air above the surface of the ice sheet is actually irrelevant to this process. the east antarctic ice sheet, upon which the south poles rests, is quite a different beast. the stability of the east antarctic icesheet isn’t in question on any time scales relevant to humans. no one is saying that the south pole is melting.

    2. lets take another of you pieces of evidence that apparently prove that people are saying that the south pole is melting:

    “… The entire Antarctic ice sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 62 metres (203 feet)”.

    (the words “the entire Antarctic ice sheet” are pretty clear – unless you are a global warmer)So that’s goodbye Antarctica ice”

    if you read the quote you posted carefully ken, you’ll notice that the last statement is a simple statement of fact, unrelated to the text above. yes, not even greenpeace is claiming that the south pole is melting. its just you, ken.

  80. Wow, this is fun! Can I play?
    1) Carol points out that you claim in one of your books that CFCs (or CRCs as you call them) will not travel to the stratosphere (“would find it rather difficult to float upwards”). However, as she also points out, direct measurements have been made of CFCs in the stratosphere. Who’s wrong–you, or the instruments measuring stratospheric CFCs?
    2) If I put an ice cube in a room at 3C, are you seriously claiming that it will not melt?

  81. Oh tortoise, you are so slow and behind the times.

    I asked Ken many moons ago to run his “ozone and CFCs heavier than air ” idea past any of the “scientists” associated with NZCSC and post their responses. Nada as yet.

    I even asked some of said scientists. No response. Even though if correct Ken’s ideas invalidate some of the papers they have published (real science in real journals).

  82. I noticed this morning that a link to this thread had been posted in the comments section at Poneke’s, it’s gone now.

    Is there no limit to that mans need for censorship?!

  83. Hi Ken (or anyone who knows the forecast)

    Could anyone tell me with certain validality on what the forecast or prediction for the weather on Saturday, 28th February 2009 ?


  84. Hi Guys

    Oh, Kill joy – as one of my friends is planning to get married on 7th Feb 2009 and I am getting married on the 28th. She mentioned that she saw Ken on a morning TV programme (about 2 months ago) about the forecast for next year and said that Ken mentioned that it was going to be a wet February next year.

    Has anyone heard of this prediction before?

Leave a Reply