15 Jul 2008
COMMENTS ON THE RECENT STATEMENT BY THE CLIMATE
COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND
Dr Vincent Gray
Veteran Wellington climate consultant, Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer
of all four IPCC *****sment Re****ts, explains why he has resigned his
longtime member****p of the Royal Society of New Zealand in protest at
the inaccuracies in a re****t on climate change issued on 12 July by the
Society's Climate Committee.
INTRODUCTION
As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have
submitted thousands of comments to all of the Re****ts. My comments on
the Fourth IPCC Re****t, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC
(2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b)
I am therefore very familiar with the arguments presented by the IPCC,
many of which have now been copied by the Royal Society of New Zealand,
and the responses to them.
I will first comment on the Introduction to make absolutely clear what
the evidence is for climate change and anthropogenic (human-induced)
causes.
The climate has always changed and always will. No evidence whatsoever
for a human contribution to the climate is given in their following
statement.
Their Summary is as follows:
The globe is warming
This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. According to
the CSSP Re****t (Karl et al 2007), there are currently nine authorities
currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature
anomalies. They are
NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)
NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)
Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)
University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )
Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)
National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)
European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)
Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling.
Only GISS disagrees.
because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions
No evidence is presented to justify this conclusion. There are
"projections" of computer models but these are not predictions, they are
merely the results of assumptions made in the model. No "projected"
result has ever been successfully related to an actual change in the
climate.
Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
are well above levels seen for many thousands of years.
This statement is a lie. 90,000 measurements published in peer-reviewed
journals since 1850, some by Nobel Prize-winners, have been suppressed
by the IPCC because they do not agree with this statement. (Beck 2007).
Stability of carbon dioxide in ice cores thousands of years old is
questionable. (Jaworowski 2007). Recent measurements of carbon dioxide
are confined only to exceptional cir***stances over the ocean, and do
not include measurements over land. (Manning et al 1994).
Further global climate changes are predicted,
This is another lie. Computer models of the climate have never been
shown to be capable of prediction, and the IPCC recognises this by using
the term "projections" for the output from the models. This statement
refers only to greenhouse gas concentrations anyway, not to any other
"global climate change"
with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses.
"Expected" by whom?. By "experts" whose finance depends on favourable
"expectations". On what basis?. Purely on the opinions of these
"experts".
Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Again, mere opinion, without any evidence that this "requirement" will
work.
fostering evidence-based scientific debate
There is no "debate". This is a one-sided statement which does not
permit discussion or disagreement in public. At least I can debate it on
the Internet.
We hope this statement makes a useful contribution to public
understanding of climate change.
I hope that my comments will make a similar useful contribution.
THE STATEMENT
There has been an overall upward trend in global surface temperature
since the beginning of the 20th Century.
Typically, from the nine global temperature records, you choose the
least reliable, the surface temperature record, which suffers from
numerous problems and biases, such as poor and unrepresentative
sampling, poor quality control, and urban and land-change influences.
The least reliable section was at the beginning of the 20th century,
when presumed influences of greenhouse gases were negligible..
The surface record has been highly irregular and it has included several
upwards and downward "trends", none of which could be called "overall".
A downward "trend" was shown from 1940 to 1976, apparently uninfluenced
by increased greenhouse gas emissions, It is difficult to explain why
the greenhouse gases had a sudden reversal of influence for the upwards
"trend" from 1976 to 1998. After 1998 the temperature has fallen, and
there was a "trend" downwards from 2002 to the present day, unnoticed by
this statement.
Most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years is very
likely to be due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere.
"the past 50 years" has been dishonestly chosen to eliminate the most
reliable observed global
temperature records, the radiosondes, (from 1958) and the MSU satellites
(from 1978) for exclusive consideration. This record actually shows
"global cooling" from 1958 to 1976, so it is only the bit in the middle
of the record, 1976 to 1998, which showed "global warming"; considered
"very likely" to have been "due to increases of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere". It is strange, that the greenhouse gases suddenly stopped
operating from 1958 to 1976 and from 1998 to 2008.
As before, the opinion that this strange behaviour was "very likely"
comes entirely from "experts" with a conflict of interest.
Greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere by allowing sunlight to reach
the Earth?s surface but trapping some of the infrared radiation emitted
by the Earth. Human activities have increased the concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methaneand nitrous oxide since the mid-1700s. More than
half of the carbon dioxide concentration increase has occurred since
1970.
This may be true, but there is no evidence that there have been any
harmful effects as a result.
Human activities have also increased concentrations of aerosols (small
?air pollution? particles) in the atmosphere. These may have partially
offset the heating effect of the greenhouse gases by scattering some
sunlight back to space.
This may also be true, but it merely shows that net effects can be very
complicated. Since more aerosols are emitted in the Northern Hemisphere
than in the Southern Hemisphere, and over land rather than sea, one
might expect greater cooling in the North and over the sea. In reality,
it is the South and the oceans where temperature rises have been less.
Natural factors also cause climate variations. Climate has always
varied, over timescales of decades, centuries and millennia. Until
recently these variations have had only natural causes
? including changes in the tilt of the Earth?s axis, the shape of
theEarth?s orbit, the energy output from the sun, dust from volcanic
emissions, and heat exchanges between the atmosphere and the ocean (such
as El Niño). This natural variability still occurs in addition to the
human influences. Thus while the overall decade-to-century temperature
trend is upwards, individual years can still be warmer or cooler than
previous years.
Here you display your prejudices. When the temperature goes up it is
"very likely" due to human greenhouse emissions, It is only due to
natural causes when it goes down, and great efforts must be made to
eliminate these by averaging over the year, the decade, the century, in
the hope that they can be covered up.
Further global changes are predicted. Many impacts are expected to be
more costly as time progresses. Even if the concentrations of all
greenhouse gases and aerosols were held constant at year 2000 levels, a
further warming trend would be expected for at least several decades,
due mainly to the slow response of the oceans.
Here we go again. Climate models cannot make "predictions", but the IPCC
soothsayers have no limit to what can be "expected" without any
evidence.
Additional increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, and resulting
changes in climate, will occur over coming decades unless concerted
international action is taken to substantially reduce emissions.
Impacts will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the
present, they are very likely to impose net annual economic costs which
will increase over time as global temperatures increase.
The end is nigh! Prepare to meet thy doom!!! Unsubstantiated nonsense.
*Measurements show that:* * Atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased by 35%, 150% and 18%
respectively since around 1750^1 <#1> .
So what?
Air temperature (averaged over the globe's surface) has risen through
the past 100 years. The linear warming trend from 1906 to 20052 was
0.74°C [0.56 to 0.92°C]3.
Only if you believe the unreliable record all that way back. But why
does it matter?
Globally-averaged sea level rose by 17 cm [12 to 22 cm] during the 20th
century.
Highly unlikely. When tide-gauges are kept level with GPS the rise
disappears.
Average northern hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the
20th century were very likely warmer than during any other 50-year
period in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in the past 1300
years.
A dishonest trick obtained by comparing unreliable and unrepresentative
"proxy" measurements with weather station data influenced by urban
heating.
For the globally-averaged surface air temperature, 2005 and 1998 were
the two warmest years in the instrumental temperature record (i.e. since
1850. Twelve of the thirteen years during the period 1995-2007 are the
warmest since 1850).
The poor accuracy and undoubted bias from urban heating make these
comparisons worthless. For information on the undoubted influence of
urban heating, see Gray (200) and Gray (2008a). For a recent statistical
demonstration of socio-economic bias see McKitrick and Michaels (2007)
Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both
hemispheres.
Spring peak river flows have been occurring 1 to 2 weeks earlier in
basins with im****tant seasonal snow cover in North America and northern
Eurasia (based on observations over the period 1936 - 2000), due to
earlier warming-driven snow melt.Arctic sea-ice summer extent has
decreased at an average rate of 7.4% [5.0% to 9.8%] per decade since
1978.
There has been a global temperature cycle which had a peak value in
around 1950, a trough around 2975 and another peak in 2000. It has been
particularly prominent inn the Arctic where it is reinforced by the
Atlantic Decadal oscillation. The recent fall in temperature is likely
to reverse these effects. Some of these changes go back to the previous
ice age and some are due to changes in local vegetation or
precipitation.
Observations since 1961 show the average temperature of the global ocean
has increased to depths of at least 3000m, with decadal fluctuations
superimposed on this long-term trend.
The observations show a periodic behaviour related to the ocean
oscillations. The measurements are highly inaccurate and have been
revised twice already.
The ocean has become more acidic because of uptake of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere.
Parts of the ocean emit carbon dioxide now and are thus more acidic than
others. Organisms are already adapted to both extreme changes and any
increase in carbon dioxide will only change the pro****tions. Evolution
should easily handle any changes in ratio.
For New Zealand the air temperature shows substantial year to year
fluctuations, but shows a clear increase over time, with a linear trend
in the country-wide average of 0.9°C between 1908 and 2006. The average
sea level rise over the twentieth century was 16±2 cm. The number of
frost days has decreased since the 1950s at many New Zealand sites.
There was no overall change in temperature in New Zealand since 1950 and
the previous figures are dubious. The sea level all over New Zealand has
levelled out since GPS devices enabled accurate levelling. Doubtless it
is possible to select those "many" sites that justify your prejudice.
Present global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide far exceed
pre-industrial values dating back at least 650,000 years.
Only if you suppress the information do***ented by Beck (2007) and
Jaworowski (2007)
The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration since
pre-industrial times are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use
change.
About 2/3rds of these anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions since 1750
are estimated to have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3 from
land use change. About 45% of this carbon dioxide has remained in the
atmosphere.
If it is true why should I care?
The combined influence on the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere
system of all anthropogenic emissions between 1750 and 2006 is likely to
be at least 5 times larger than the influence of changes in solar output
over the same period.
No part of the earth ever has an "energy balance" and there is no reason
to suppose that such a balance exists. The Sun has much more influence
than estimated here because you ignore feedback effects such as the
influence on clouds and the influence of cosmic rays. Current changes in
sunspot numbers are already having more effect than you are prepares to
admit.
Very energetic volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt Pinatubo in 1991)
can place small particles high in the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and
leading to cooling for a few years.
You usually ignore these effects when you derive "trends".
Increasing atmospheric temperatures lead to an overall increase of water
vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is itself a strong greenhouse
gas, so this amplifies the warming effect of the increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
You usually ignore the im****tance of water vapour by pretending it is a
"feedback" to the effects of the minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
You also conceal the fact that its distribution of water vapour in the
atmosphere is extremely unbalanced, with most of it over the tropics and
very little over the poles. Its role in the climate is almost completely
unknown at present.
The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land
areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric
water vapour.
Typical vague statement. "Increased" since when? where?, with what
variability? Measurements are highly inaccurate.
Projections for the 21st Century from the IPCC's4 2007 *****sment
(assuming no substantial efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions)
include:
Note that these are "projections", NOT "predictions" They are not based
on evidence, only on partisan "expert" opinion.
An increase in globally-averaged surface temperature of 1.1 to 6.4°C by
21005.
A globally-averaged sea level increase of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. However
these projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle
feedbacks nor the full effects of dynamic changes in ice-sheet flow, so
do not provide an upper bound for possible sea level rise.
More heat waves, fewer frosts, and more heavy rain events are very
likely.
The area affected by droughts is likely to increase through the 21st
Century. Increases are likely in the peak wind and rain intensity in
tropical cyclones
More irresponsible ranting.
Projections for New Zealand based on these global projections suggest6:
A New Zealand-average warming7 of 0.2 to 2.0°C by 2040 and 0.7 to 5.1°C
by 2090. Fewer cold temperatures and frosts, and more high temperature
episodes.
A stronger west-east rainfall gradient (wetter in the west and drier in
the east) in winter and spring, and an increasing risk of extreme
rainfall as the century progresses.
Increasing drought risk during this century in areas which are currently
drought-prone.
An increase in New Zealand-averaged sea level of the same order as the
IPCC global projections.
Natural year to year variations in New Zealand's climate will be
superimposed on top of these projected anthropogenic changes.
They are getting 38 years of comfortable well-paid work before everybody
tumbles to the scam in 2040.They have an excuse already ready for when
it fails, and can be extended another 50 years. It is in the last
sentence.
Some potential further risks are being quantified by ongoing research:
Some studies suggest substantial parts of the Greenland ice cap, and
perhaps of the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt over the coming 1000
years. Global average sea level at the height of the last interglacial
about 125,000 years ago (when average polar temperatures were around 3°C
to 5°C warmer than now) was likely 4-6 m higher than at present.
The standby of contem****ary scientific research is the could be/might be
discovery, which is merely "suggested". And "likely".
Models indicate some slowing of the oceanic meridional overturning
circulation (MOC) is very likely during the 21st Century. The MOC
carries warm water into the North Atlantic where it cools, sinks and
then spreads through the other ocean basins at depth.
No limit to this stuff.
As the globe warms, the oceans and biosphere may become less efficient
at absorbing carbon dioxide, leading to a larger fraction of the
anthropogenic emissions remaining in the atmosphere.
Maybe, maybe.
Reducing the future impact of climate change will require substantial
reductions of net emissions of greenhouse gases. Major international
policy changes would be required to deliver these reductions but various
technologies exist to provide them:
Here it comes. Punish the people for being too prosperous.
More efficient use of energy, e.g. better designed and insulated houses,
more efficient appliances and industrial processes
Renewable energy sources, e.g. hydropower, geothermal, wind, marine, and
solar
Lower-carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas and the capture and
storage of emissions from power plants
More efficient trans****t and urban systems and the use of appropriate
biofuels and other renewable energy sources to power trans****t
Reforestation, reduced deforestation, and lower emission forms of
agriculture
Green Party propaganda. There is an election coming up.
I have never understood why it is so necessary to punish the animals as
well as the humans. Cows and sheep do not eat fossil fuels so they make
no contribution to the "human" carbon dioxide emissions. They eat grass,
and convert most of it into meat, milk and wool. A small residuum is
emitted as methane which is converted back to carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and then is converted into more grass
I burn wood in a wood stove. It is entirely converted into carbon
dioxide which helps grow more trees. I just recycle it. So do the
animals. But I suppose they will be after me too soon.
CONCLUSION
This Climate Change Statement is veritably an orchestrated litany of
lies, to borrow a phrase. As a longstanding member of the Royal Society
of New Zealand I am unable to tolerate such a departure as this from the
supposed objectives of fair or responsible comment on scientific
matters, so I have resigned in protest.
REFERENCES
Beck, E-G, 2007 150 Years of Atmospheric Gas Analysis by Chemical
Methods, Energy and Environment 18 259-281.
Gray, V. R. 2000. The Cause of Global Warming. Energy and Environment.
11, 613-629.
Gray, V R. 2008a The Global Warming Scam.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=32
Gray, V R. 2008b The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Spinning the Climate.
http://www.techknow.eu/uploads/Spinning_the_Climate.pdf
IPCC (2007) Comments on 4th IPCC Re****t, WGI
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1-commentFrameset.html
Jaworowski, Z. 2007. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Swindle of Our Time.
EIR Science (March), 38-55.
Karl, T.. R., S.J. Hassel, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray (Eds). 2007.
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and
Reconciling Differences A Re****t by the Climate Change Science
Programme (CCSP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalre****t/default.htm
Manning, M. R., A.J.. Gomez, K.P. Pohl 1994.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/baring.htm
McKitrick, R.R. and P.J. Michaels, 2007, Quantifying the influence of
anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global
climate data, J. Geophys. Res. 112, D24S09, doi:10:1029/2007JD008465.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=1
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"It's very appropriate that it [An Inconvenient Truth] got an Oscar from
the land of make-believe." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural
Resources Steward****p Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg
|
