My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« RIP Chris Carter, Investigate columnist | Main | BREAKING NEWS: Arizona shooter of Gabrielle Giffords appears to have borne a grudge »


L Pillai

I am trying to understand the conclusions drawn by your statement in simple terms:
Does this Abstract explanation mean that the atmosphere's capacity to absorb vapour is relative to temperature increase or decrease? And when more energy is needed and taken to absorb vapour, the effect is the atmosphere heats up around the regions and the world, and this is 'warming'. And therefore 'warming' is not caused by the increase in CO2 as emitted by fossil fuel-burning and related combustion.

However, as the 'debunked' here is the CO2 increases as temperature increases BUT does not decrease when temperature decrease, and so proves the absence of the relationship, can I ask what does it mean in context of the temperature of the atmosphere affecting the absorption of vapour. Cooler temperature decreases water vapour absorption, right? And because the energy absorption of vapour is weaken, then this supports that the 'cooling' would happens?

Would it be true then that the density of the atmosphere is contracted/higher (compared to the climate event of high temperature with higher levels of CO2), and there remains high volume of vapour in the atmosphere, BUT in the equatorial regions, cooler temperatures are mostly due to geographical factors. What happens when the temperature is a constant high and you have increased humidity in the atmosphere as you would normally experience in such a region? And remember you won't get distinct warmer seasons or triennal changes in the equator as much as in the North and Southern Hemisphere. Are we certain conducting the same analysis about the correlationship of CO2 and temperatures would produce any helpful new info that debunks or proves the relationship?

Regarding the conclusion about CO2 and temperature, "Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase."

I cannot understand how this line of explanation can be held to conclusively support the fuel emmissions (effectively the rise in CO2 levels) is not related to temperature? Shouldn't the analysis tool measure up to be applicable in every geographical location as a case for its results to be conclusively true?

In the equator, I would venture a guess that historical temperatures would not have varied as much before rapid economic progress and population. It would be interesting to see the trend in vapour absorption in this region before and after industry growth. Before this Abstract, I would have suggested studying the trends in the changes in the rainforest/plantation cover and industrial areas, and their correlation with CO2. Still, these same variables could also be taken into account with vapour increase or decrease, couldn't they?

Really I am asking for clarification just based on the Abstract so would appreciate something in layperson's terms as much as possible.

[Wishart responds..Point 1..I provided a link to the main paper for a very good reason...context.

Point 2, as I've argued in Air Con and on this blog previously, It's quite possible annual CO2 fluctuations are taken up a number of ways, including via vegetation and marine organisms.

Our current theories on CO2 levels are based on the inexact science of ice core readings, which tend to smooth out the actual annual flux into ten or 20 year averages.

If forests, marine biota etc are sucking up excess CO2 before it registers in polar ice, then the ice cores are not telling us an accurate story of historical CO2 or how Earth deals with it.

The industrial revolution did cause a rise in CO2 emissions via factories of course, and via the clearing of massive forests as population went from one billion to six billion.

However what most people overlook is that not only was CO2 released by burning the trees, but CO2 reabsorbtion was stuffed by killing the trees...we removed part of the earth's lungs. That's what has probably caused the rising level of CO2.

What this latest paper does is show a disconnect in the assumed pathways for CO2 processing, which indicates it is not the primary temperature driver.

Many scientists have already realised this, of course, and their arguments and findings are well canvassed in Air Con.]

(not so) Silent

I think he wants you to buy the book......

CPR Techniques for Babies and Children

Very interesting, I’ve recently taken an interest in CO2 and global warming and its effects, I will be looking into your book.


"Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption."

This seems to contradict the belief that you have Ian.

L Pillai

Thanks for elaborating. Reevaluating the scientific theories behind CO2 fluctuations is a good starting point to investigate the true causes behind the current environmental and climate events. Whether part of the cause is excessive amounts of C02 in the atmosphere or not, the effects of C02 in the surface of life on the planet is clear, is it not? No one can doubt lack of control over any noxious gas emissions (and absorption) have repurcussions to the immediate ecological and geophysical health and survival of eocsystems in the environment, and whatever changes here, do and will continue to affect the health of each and every living thing. I would think in the face of adverse events, why would we be thinking about the relationship between atoms and molecules, and temperatures, but we will carry on. Basic science prevails: when heat rises, cooled by the atmosphere, condensation and vaporisation and rainfall. But what is the cause of rising energy absorption of vapour? Any energy burn produces heat so with a constant volume of vapour -what we are saying now is, the atmosphere needs MORE heat to absorb this volume of vapour and will produce MORE heat as a byproduct and so the cycle of amplifying warmth carries on. What happens to the CO2 with the effect of heat or lower temperatures atomically? If there are no trees or marine/plant life to absorb the heat or reduce the amplification of the heat, i.e. no green cover for shade and cooler terrain, cloud won't form, and the drying and desertification risk increases. In the winter season, of course this lack of cloud cover means temperature decreases, and of course there won't be a decrease in CO2. Even if the research took this factor into consideration, and exclude the data from the colder seasons, it is silly not to see that cloud cover/vapour plays a direct role in changing temperatures but not gas content or levels. But how about temperature and gases? What is the relationship?

There has been more rainfall in the tropics as evident by floods happening across South East Asia with more rain, and now Queensland. Higher temperatures reported in the region and frequent and heavier rainfall. Where does the vapourisation and condensation explanation fit in? Green cover is reducing not increasing in these regions due to development.

The northern American and West European continents had not had much green cover (and so cloud cover) for far longer, so the climatic events of colder temparatures are evident of that lack, isn't it? But parts of Europe still saw massive flooding flooded last year. I would be interested to see what scientific relationships the comparative data would throw up.


CO2 has nothing to do with global warming or climate change.

Anyone that says it does - is a liar, and anyone that believes that CO2 emissions have anything to do with it is delusional.

MMGW is a religion - not a science.


On a more serious note.

It has come to my attention that the NZ Police are actively tracking, monitoring and recording personal information of NZ Citizens on the Internet.

Facebook is a classic example, but also other mediums such as dating sites, twitter, chat forums and so forth.

A number of undercover police officers have been found collecting electronic data and information on law abiding persons on a popular dating website through these means.

Where this information ends up, and in what hands it falls into is currently unknown.


Here is a great new video on AGW, highlighting the bias in the BBC's reporting

This is well worth watching.


I've not long returned from a trip into the Southern Alps with a hunting party.

At an estimated 3450 ft we found Totora logs in a small river fed from a glacial headwater zone.
The top of the tree line was miles down the valley - and topped out at about (estimated) 2100 ft.

Now, if we believe all these crazy people telling us that the climate is warming from 'man made' activities, then we have a real problem.

Because sitting in a South Island mountain stream, is direct evidence that the climate was locally a lot warmer, and I mean A LOT WARMER and recently too.

I would welcome all the 'worriers' to 'chew the cud' on this one.
It is probably the hottest smoking gun on the delusion of 'man made global warming' in a long time!

Of course, someone needs to go back and carbon date these logs.
I feel a scientific paper coming out on this one :)


So what are trees doing 1000 ft above the bush line in an area where there are tussocks and snow grass?


Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study

Physicist U.R. Rao says carbon emission impact is lower than IPCC claim

A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.

Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.


Of interest:

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.


Still not looking good

Peter H. Gleick: 2010 Hottest Year on Record: The Graph That Should Be on the Front Page of Every Newspaper
By Ant | Jan 15, 2011

Climate change is worsening, fast. The National Climate Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just announced that for the entire planet, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

And the period 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on record for the globe. The actual data are here.This graph and this information should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Every Congressional representative should see it.And the hottest 10 years on record in order?


The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme..

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

Eric Danell

Co2 levels clearly follow a temperature rise, Co2 does not cause a temperature increase. In addition to geological explanations for this, carbon is stored in massive organic soil layers during cold periods, but degrades during hot periods. Here in the tropics we have very thin organic layers, everything decomposes, while in the boreal zone there are thick organic soil layers because degradation is so slow. We should not worry about Co2 at all - better focus on the overpopulation, the root to all environmental problems!

Eric Danell

About 'Hottest year on record' simply compare with the charts of the previous 8000 years (many hot periods) and the charts for warm periods since 600 million years:

(not so) Silent

With regard to L Pillai, perhaps you should read this;


Please have a look at the graph on page one on the link below –

then, presuming this garph is bona fide, can anyone tell me what was happening between 1950 – 1960?

the answers so far from
1/ "If readings were available for earlier periods it would show that the world was in a much better energy balance. It was only in about 1960 that the world began to recover form the second world war and started to burn coal and oil in serious quantities."

2/ "Tom, perhaps you asked the wrong question.
The real question would have been: What happened between 1960 and 1975. And the answer is that during this time due to a large increase in industrial smog (SO2 had a lot to do with it) we actually industrially counteracted the AGW CO2 forcing effects. Then in the late 70ies clean air act laws came into place which bettered the situation in that sense and returned Earth to the state of imbalance it already had in the 60ies.
In fact some of the geo-engineering ideas being circulated to fight GW are to simulate the smog of the 60ties by injecting stratospheric SO2 to counterbalance GW forcing."

Does this make any more sense to you all than it does to me?



Global warming no threat to humanity'

“Global warming is no threat to humanity,“ Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist and an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 climate change documents, said on Friday.
Speaking at a lecture organised by Mumbai University's Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, Khandekar explained his bold stance by citing instances of extreme climate change in history.

The comments to this entry are closed.