NZ climate scientists run from challenging questions

UPDATE: I forgot to add in the main post below, some of the main points in the briefing. One is that the IPCC's next report, AR5 will see an increase in its sea level predictions by 2100 from an upper limit of 60cm to more than 90cm and possibly 1.5 metres. Another, and this one had me smiling given previous correspondence with alarmists, debunked the oft repeated myth that methane clathrates and hydrates on the ocean floor pose a major threat. To their credit, despite everything else below, not even the IPCC team were prepared to go where Gareth Renowden routinely treads.  The IPCC/NZ briefing is available as a podcast from this page.

I've just attended a major briefing on climate change by the NZ Government's "leading" climate experts, David Wratt, Tim Naish, Andy Reisinger and a couple of others. As a propaganda exercise drip-feeding a largely tame media, it was exceptional. As an informed appraisal of the latest science, it was just plain wrong, and it was tightly controlled to avoid any of the main speakers being challenged.

First of all, our first choice of attendee, Dr Vincent Gray, was banned from the event held at taxpayer funded Ministry for the Environment. Investigate magazine was informed last night that Gray was not an approved, accredited journalist and therefore would not be permitted to attend. Our response was that this was a gross invasion by the State into dictating who, or who could not, write for or represent Investigate magazine, which had already been formally invited to send someone.

I told them last night that no Government agency had a right to dictate which journalists/columnists could represent a publication. I wanted Gray there because I'm on deadline and he was as well briefed on the latest science as I was, unlike many of the daily media in attendance.

Secondly, I attended and listened to a disappointingly out of date and out of touch with the latest science presentation from all the men involved.

When I began asking a couple of questions, I was muted, and told privately I would be allowed to ask some later. Instead, they opted not to unmute and closed the news conference with no further challenging questions.

I may post audio in due course, but at no time was I rude or impolite. Just asking firm questions. Here's the text I've just described:

First question, 11:10am

Investigate: Andy, you put up a slide suggesting a 1000 year residence time for CO2, I'm just looking at a list of peer reviewed studies. Nearly 99% of them suggest the maximum residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 10 years. Can you explain how you get to 1000 years please?

Reisinger: I've never seen a peer reviewed study that suggested a residence time of ten years, I'm afraid.

Investigate: I can quote you some (gives details). The only people I can see on this list who go beyond 20 years is the IPCC report of 2007.

Reisinger: Which contains a large amount of peer reviewed studies, and the most recent understanding of climate science.

Investigate: Well, how do we explain this list of 30 peer reviewed studies suggesting a residence time of ten years? Doesn't that have an impact on our presumptions about climate change?

Reisinger: As I say the most recent IPCC assessment statement of understanding does not actually support that.

Investigate: But these peer reviewed studies do.

Howard: Ian, I have to say, I'm a climate scientist too and I've never seen a peer reviewed study that suggests a residence time of ten years.

Investigate: I'll forward it through, but what I'm suggesting is that the science on this is not settled.

Wratt: I would disagree.

Howard: We'll have to agree to disagree.

The list of studies I was referring to is this one:

You can read more about the residence time of CO2 here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-5-15-years-only/

Or read Junge's study here showing 15 years RT

UPDATE: The IPCC's own report discloses CO2 may have a residence time as low as 5 years (and up to 200), and adds that not enough is known about this as it depends on different factors. Forget their obfuscation for political reasons, (this was buried in the fine print), the peer reviewed studies above are pretty unanimous and it would be a struggle for me to accept IPCC's high option as gospel in the face of the above.

What I'm curious about is how on Earth the NZ scientists can justify the extrapolation out to 1000 years! And for two leading NZ (and UN IPCC) scientists to deny knowledge of low CO2 residency beggars belief. It's there in the IPCC report.

Then a further question five minutes later:

Investigate: You mentioned about species extinction becoming a problem with global warming. Are you aware of Oxford University's statement that "alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated" and that species adaptation, which biologists specialize in, has not been taken into account by climate scientists?

Reisinger: Well the study that's mentioned in that graph is not a study by climate scientists but biologists using the knowledge that was available at that time. And it is a moving field because we are only now seeing the warming and implications this has on various species. I'm not saying that this is a definite figure and all those species will die; as Howard was saying in his introduction adaptation can reduce some of those impacts, but it is very unlikely that adaptation would reduce the impacts from 25, 30% extinctions down to zero."

Investigate: Without tying it up on the one point, I'll just give you this synopsis from Oxford scientist Kathy Willis -

Ministry for Environment official: Ian, I don't want to interrupt you, but –

Investigate: She's made the point that the climate modeling and species modeling that's been done is far too obtuse –

MfE: We do have people waiting on line

Investigate [now muted] But these are relevant questions.

Here's what I got hit with:

[11:18:12 a.m.] Peter SMC (in private): I am happy to unmute you again if you will let me know through the chatbox that you have a question and wait on your turn to be called

[11:18:29 a.m.] You: that's ok...i have about eight further questions

[11:19:25 a.m.] Peter SMC (in private): Alright, noted. We will put you in the queue

[11:25:02 a.m.] You (to Peter SMC): By the way, having now listened to the presentation and seen the graphs, if this is state of the art science from NZ's perspective I'm appalled, just quietly.

[11:25:41 a.m.] You: Massive holes in the evidence, much built on suppositions, and often in contradiction to peer reviewed data

I waited patiently for a call that never came.

[11:33:04 a.m.] You (to Peter SMC): can i get some questions to Tim please

[11:40:22 a.m.] Peter SMC (in private): we are running short on time

[11:40:27 a.m.] Peter SMC (in private): I'll see what we can do

[Announcement that press conf had ended]

[11:41:09 a.m.] You: Peter...you assured me I could ask questions!

[11:43:40 a.m.] You: Questions that were not answered: Tim, you quote ice mass loss from Antarctica, but my understanding is we do not yet have full satellite coverage of Antarctica What is your evidence of mass loss given the incomplete data?

[11:44:32 a.m.] You: Greenland surface melt going through holes in the ice and lubricating ice sheets, found to be "inconsequential" in peer reviewed studies this past year. Your response?

[11:44:43 a.m.] Peter SMC (in private): Yes. You did get to ask questions, as many as anyone else in the room. Please do follow up by sending your questions to the researchers if you'd like further clarification. We can help coordinate if possible.

[11:45:04 a.m.] Sarah Gibbs: Which study is that in Ian?

I then cited the studies (Utrecht Uni; Uni of Washington/Woods Hole) that I'd printed on pages 185 to 187 of Air Con.

I then began by firing off other questions on the chat process addressed to the scientists, but visible to other media like Sarah Gibbs. Unfortunately the plug was pulled by MfE before I could save the updated chat.

So from memory, here are some of the questions I typed seeking answers to:

Question for Wratt: You cited the Antarctic warming study of Steig et al from earlier this year. Are you prepared to tell the media assembled here that in actual fact satellite records show no warming over Antarctica since 1980, despite rising GHG emissions, and in fact a cooling? Can you confirm that the Steig study you've shown the media contains errors?

Question for Wratt: You've stated there's been a temperature increase of 0.5C between 1980 and 1999 globally. Why did you not qualify that by pointing out the exceptional El Nino year of 1998 that pushed up temperatures? What is your comment on citing ten or twenty year cycles as proof of global warming?

Question for Wratt: Did any of the GCMs used by the UN IPPC forecasters predict the specific temperature deceleration that has occurred since 2002, despite rising GHG emissions?

Question for Wratt/Reisinger: Given that CO2 is central to UNIPCC and NZ government policy on climate, and your presentation this morning, what are the implications of the new University of Bristol study showing that the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has stayed the same since 1850, despite human-caused emissions rising from 2 billion tons a year to 35 billion?

Question for Wratt/Reisinger: The new study suggests terrestrial ecosystems and oceans "have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had previously been expected". Doesn't this prove that the science on CO2 is nowhere near settled and in fact our understanding in the IPCC reports may be utterly wrong?

Question for Wratt/Reisinger: How much confidence can the media here have in this presentation, when its data conflicts with two peer reviewed studies in the past week suggesting emissions from deforestation have been grossly overestimated by the IPCC – in the words of one study "by at least a factor of two"?

Question for Tim Naish: You talk about the dangers of current warming in Antarctica leading to massive melt in as little as 300 years and sea level rises of many metres. How do you reconcile that with the study published in PNAS in 2006 on elephant seal colonies that proves elephant seals lived much further south than their current Ross Shelf breeding sites, between 600 BC and 1400AD, suggesting it was "substantially warmer [then] than at present". Is there evidence of a 7 metre sea level increase or decrease between 1000 and 1400AD that would correspond to massive melting from a much warmer Antarctica?

Question for Naish/Reisinger: You've portrayed massive sea level rise over time, and extended the IPCC estimates out. But given that sea level rise for the 20th century averaged 1.7mm a year, and recent studies such as Leuliette and Miller (2009) show SLR of only 1.5mm a year between 2003 and 2007 (supposedly the hottest decade), how accurate are your forecasts and what is the evidence in support of catastrophically rising sea levels?

In summary, my impression of the press briefing was "propaganda stunt", deliberately timed to hype up Copenhagen in four weeks. Given that AR5 is not due for release for several more years it was not a genuine justification for a press briefing.

Secondly, these scientists boasted that they or their NZ colleagues "controlled" the production of two of the four major IPCC AR4 reports. If true, then based on their shoddy presentation today, if these men are the smartest guys in the room then frankly we need a bigger room.

Perhaps they should read Climate Depot or WattsUpWithThat. And it wouldn't hurt for them to avoid further embarrassment by reading Air Con

Comments

[David Wratt]

Ian: I'm not sure that a press release from one organization claiming to summarise findings from a paper written by people from another organization is a particularly robust source of information. I'd rather go straight to the original journal paper. My understanding of the van der Werff et al paper in Nature Geoscience is that they are suggesting:

* Emissions from deforestation and forest degradation for 2000-2005 (excluding peatland emissions) are about 27% less than the value given in the IPCC WG1 2007 report.
* Emissions from fossil fuel combustion have increased substantially over the same period.
* As a result deforestation and forest degradation emissions contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (updated from 20%).

The first bullet above is rather different from the claim in the press release that this study concluded emissions from deforestation "have been overestimated by at least a factor of two".

Regards - David Wratt

[Ian Wishart]

Good to see someone else keeping these hours, David.

You say:

"What the biosphere is "soaking up" is a fraction of the emissions - not the whole lot. That is why we've experienced the 37% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
since pre-industrial times"

Yes, but the fraction has remained constant, so the biosphere's ability to absorb extra CO2 has grown at the same rate as emissions have.

As for the press release issues, I'm reporting accurately what the study authors are pitching as the key points of their discovery.

But you are right, it is a double edged sword. Perhaps information given in all media briefings should first be peer-reviewed to ensure a briefing doesn't oversimplify the issues. :)

[David Wratt]

Ian: The Knorr study claims that about 60% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the land biota. This would mean that the number of tonnes / year of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the oceans plus the land biota has increased at only 60% of the the number of tonnes per year by which anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased. Hence the 37% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times. Regards - David

[Pattrick Smellie]

Great finally to be accused of being left wing. Must try more of this, Pattrick Smellie

[iwishart]

I see you don't deny the chardonnay bit or the handwringing. As for being accused of being "left wing", RoarPrawn beat me to it, sadly:

 

"Patrick Smellie is left of the totem pole as well"

[Pattrick Smellie]

More of a beer drinker really.

[iwishart]

You're kidding, they make chardonnay flavoured beer now?

[Pattrick Smellie]

Apparently they hand-wring it specially.

[robk]

:-D

[John Boy]

"...smart tech and agriculture..."

It stalls rather than fixes anything. Thomas Malthus saw that back in 1798 and although there's been leaps in food production technology since his doomsday mid 1800's prophecy there seems no new magic potion to take us on from 2009. There will always be hungry people and regrettably I suspect that suits the mega wealthy elite.

What's possible requires will but I suspect the will isn't there at the right levels. Gore's wealth could sponsor a country but that costs whereas clipping the status quo ticket pays.

[BammBamm]

*The 1/2 life for CO2 in the atmosphere is around 10.4 years- as determined by private studies on residuals with chloroplast studies.

Man Man Global Warming is Fraud.
Other scientists will tell you this also ... including Nobel prize winners.

[BammBamm]

I always have a bit of a giggle at government experts and 'CO2 scammers' in Wellington with their carbon trading rips planned.

Even 'Sir' Peter Gluckman sticks to the global warming 'parrot' line like a true believer. However - the science is more interesting and complex than the kooky Government Science Advisor ... who the other day publically admitted he had no idea how to solve or remedy the culture of science failing of NZ Universities and Industry.

And you'd trust this man on 'climate change' - Not a chance!

Gluckman has little expertise with interdisciplinary science, and doesn't even understand the basics of the science he is dealing with.

Another big problem with the arguments mentioned above above - is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Wakey Wakey children.
Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.

The Maths: I've got real issues with the Climate Kooks - I would love to challenge some here to pick up some chalk and derive away on the blackboard some of the basic mathematics and physics behind the 'MMGW' climate model.
Most of them can't - they just parrot Doctrine.

So - if you can't do the maths - and you don't know what you are talking about - then what the hell are you doing here telling the rest of us to pay for MMGW? Which doesn't exist?

Every NZer will have to pay around $100,000 each for the 'climate change' scam.

People won't be able to buy food - or eat- because the farmers will pass the costs on. None of these people are even thinking very hard at all.

Just remember that 10,000 years ago - at the end of the last glaciation, the sea level was 128 meters lower than it is now.
That works out at 1.28cm per year rise in sea levels.

Far be it from me to point out that real scientists can't get a word in edge ways when the climate crazies are running around pushing their own fiscal scam agendas, and the universities are full of MMGW converts that CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES!

While I'm slightly abhorrent towards Ian on his Christian beliefs interfering with my kind of research, an am going to come out here guns blazing and back him up on this climate change fiasco.

There are too many ignorant people without enough letters behind their names, nor the practical and advanced training to even start talking on this topic.

If there is to be any real change - then the dickheads at the top of the public trough have to be weeded out - and replaced with science orientated people that can analyse, derive - and UNDERSTAND the science behind the arguments.

Otherwise we will have MMGW climate change losers driving this country into financial history.

[AcidComments]

"Gluckman has little expertise with interdisciplinary science, and doesn't even understand the basics of the science he is dealing with.

Another big problem with the arguments mentioned above above - is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Wakey Wakey children.
Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.

The Maths: I've got real issues with the Climate Kooks - I would love to challenge some here to pick up some chalk and derive away on the blackboard some of the basic mathematics and physics behind the 'MMGW' climate model.
Most of them can't - they just parrot Doctrine."

Didn't Gluckman say he only did a month research on Climate Change?

I've had personal dealings with some of these top experts of the Gluckman types and they turn out to be pretty much useless.

Rather funny when you find out they're all just hot air and make the story up on their claimed knowledge as they go along. Otherwords out and out lies. Or their actual real knowledge base just happens to be 60-80yrs out of date and all they can do is rundown their other colleagues and Claim they're the World's leading expert!

Higher up the expert is in a particularly field. A common thread often emerges. It become less about the actual known facts and more about pure 'personal opinion on the subject'. Along with a lack of proper research and investigation.

Parroting doctrine is right. Squawk. Like those who just quote from the Nature publication.

[CM]

Conspiracy, corruption, conspiracy, corruption, Accusations accusations accusations. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with a considerable amount of hard evidence.

>>>>Water vapour contributes more to global thermal normality than CO2 ever could.<<<<

Which scientist(s) argue otherwise?

BammBamm, can I ask - what relevant climate science qualifications and experience do you have, and what current research are you involved in?

[BammBamm]

Yes you can - but I won't answer details because if I'm identified I will be screwed over.

As for the corruption Question.

Follow the Money ... which is namely why on the front page of yesterdays paper '$92,000 per person for climate change'. etc

Now, Ian, can you please tell me where all this money is specifically going, and to who, and whom is giving it?

When you solve invented greenwashed climate problems with shonky 'carbon credits' you know it is a scam.

PS: Unfortunately science is all about opinions Acid, and the taxpayer coughs up the coin for it.

[AcidComments]

"Conspiracy, corruption, conspiracy, corruption, Accusations accusations accusations. It's all meaningless unless you can back it up with a considerable amount of hard evidence."

CM,

Are you quite happy then with the Climate Science research claims which turn out to to be based on fraud, falsifications, over exaggerations and fantasy computer models?

Are you happy with this scenario?

'Global temperature rise by 2050, as predicted by computer models, if CO2 emissions are not curbed: 1C.

Global temperature rise by 2050, by those same models, if CO2 emissions meet Kyoto Treaty targets: 0.94C.

So what's the fricken point of wasting NZ$110 Billion?

[Thomas Everth]

Acid: "Global temperature rise by 2050, as predicted by computer models, if CO2 emissions are not curbed: 1C.

Global temperature rise by 2050, by those same models, if CO2 emissions meet Kyoto Treaty targets: 0.94C."

What you seem to not understand is the trend. If nothing is done, the temperature will keep rising, possibly into territory well beyond 2Deg.
Kyoto and follow up treaties are designed to limit that to 2 Deg max. You will not see a cooling or a sharp change in the curve but the temp should level off at or below 2Deg warming by 2100 or so.
The way you phrase the issue is missing the point of Kyoto completely.

The point is about the end of the curve, not some point somewhere in the middle.

[AcidComments]

"What you seem to not understand is the trend. If nothing is done, the temperature will keep rising, possibly into territory well beyond 2Deg.
Kyoto and follow up treaties are designed to limit that to 2 Deg max."

That's the point.

It's fantasyland stuff. projected by Computer models. 2C, 4C, 6C or 11C. You can make the trend to be whatever you want the data to say the temperatures are going to be by 2050, 2100. Highly unreliable. Useless.

Besides. It's laughable. You Cannot control the temperature by 2C.

We could take a leaf from the Netherlands and start relocating some of our own official temperature reading sites. Just by moving them from nearby urban heatsink sources. They've had a temperature drop of some of their readings by 0.5C. Just by doing that. No CO2 emission reductions needed. :-)

Then there's this.

Georgia Tech: “50 percent of the [USA] warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes rather than greenhouse gases”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/

[CM]

BammBamm

>>>Yes you can - but I won't answer details because if I'm identified I will be screwed over.<<<<

Unless your name is actually BammBamm, I don’t see how you’d be screwed over.
Your comment about water vapour also doesn’t suggest you’re involved in climate science research…..;-)

>>>>As for the corruption Question.

Follow the Money ... which is namely why on the front page of yesterdays paper '$92,000 per person for climate change'. Etc<<<<

You make as little sense as Acid. You are talking about proposed political solutions, and simply taking Labour’s spin as gospel (which I suggest you’d NEVER have done when they were in government). But ‘follow the money’ in science doesn’t work so well because people can see the holes in bad science.

>>>>PS: Unfortunately science is all about opinions Acid, and the taxpayer coughs up the coin for it.<<<<

You seem to be confusing science and politics. Probably the most used contrarian tactic of them all.

[CM]

Acid

>>>>It's fantasyland stuff. projected by Computer models. 2C, 4C, 6C or 11C. You can make the trend to be whatever you want the data to say the temperatures are going to be by 2050, 2100. Highly unreliable. Useless.<<<<

Nobody claims there aren’t uncertainties. But uncertainty isn’t our friend here, and anyone that suggests otherwise is just fooling themselves.

>>>>Besides. It's laughable. You Cannot control the temperature by 2C.<<<<

Blatant misrepresentation.