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Secondly, I attended and listened to a disappointingly out of date and out of touch with the latest science presentation from all the men involved.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

Regarding the discussion here a few days ago on the airborne fraction of CO2 - Le Quéré et al have today published a paper in Nature Geoscience on "Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide", http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo689 .

Quote: "In the past 50 years the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45% ..."

[John Boy]

"...because people can see the holes in bad science."

And that is why some are here asking questions. Some of us think there's bad science afoot for political gain. It wouldn't be the first time.

[AcidComments]

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

Blatant misrepresentation."

CM,

Trying to keep temperatures from rising around the 2C mark then . Is utter Fantasyland Rubbish.

Seriously. The Politicians and the Scientists trying to do this. Need kicking up their backsides bigtime. They're either misinformed, deluded, arrogant or completely incompetent as they come.

Copenhagen climate change agreement is impossible

World leaders have finally accepted that it will be impossible to come to a deal on climate change this year and have moved their attention to setting new dealines for a global agreement.

The new plan was put forward by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, over breakfast at an Asia-Pacific summit.

He suggested world leaders agree a “political accord” to keep temperature rise below 2C. However it will not be until further UN meetings in Bonn in June and Mexico in December that the details of how this will be achieved will be decided.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6574604/Copenhagen-climate-change-agreement-is-impossible.html

[R2D2]

Tim Naish,

So you say that during the last interglacial temperatures were 2-3C warmer than today, and CO2 levels were not higher than 400ppm. Do we know what caused temperatures to be so high? Did these high temperatures cause methane emissions from the arctic and other positive feedbacks? How did the world escape this warming and head back to an glacial period?

[Bamm Bamm]

CM:

Yes, water vapour.
I've published in 'climate science' - but switched fields due to the 'quality problem' of people working there.

I will soon be fleeing NZ to work overseas ... permanently.

Water vapour shows I don't know anything about climate science?

WOW!

I would like to see how CO2 has anything to go with real climate science ... so CM, put up - or shut up.

Maybe CM - you could please tell us all how CO2 functions to supposedly raise the Worlds temperature??

Feel free to start with the CO2 IR spectrum and evolve your model out from an atmospheric model to an oceanic thermal one ... Please start deriving here - we will all follow in great interest.

PS: Don't forget the Water vapour!

[comparison essay papers]

Wow, incredible blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is magnificent, let alone the content!