Errors in Royal Society of NZ climate change paper

[Now also available on Scoop]

The Royal Society of New Zealand has again nailed its sorry little tail to the mast of a sinking global warming ship, with a statement designed to convince news media, politicians and the public that the science behind climate change is sound.

The latest paper comes in the wake of embarrassing errors discovered in the UN's AR4 report, and of course the Climategate disaster which revealed scientists conspiring to prevent studies they disagreed with from being published.

What makes the latest RSNZ paper embarrassing are some basic errors and cobbled together assumptions. Let's take a look at a couple.

The RSNZ prefaces its points with these words:

"The evidence pointing towards AGW comes from multiple independent lines of argument, each pointing in the same direction. It is not the intention of this article to labour this point, but a few examples follow:"

Professor Keith Hunter, FNZIC, FRSNZ, Vice-President - Physical Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, Royal Society of New Zealand, says this is one of those incontrovertible facts:

"The amount of extra carbon accumulated in the ocean and the atmosphere matches the known quantity emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels."

Except, he appears to have forgotten that there's a discrepancy between what's been emitted and how much remains in the atmosphere, known as "the missing carbon sink". In other words, the Royal Society is wrong. The emissions don't match.

The Royal Society's Hunter also states:

"It is also clear that the oceans absorb about 85% of the excess heat resulting from this radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (as well as about 40% of the carbon dioxide). Detailed measurements of the changes in oceanic heat content, and the temperature rise that accompanies this, agree quantitatively with the predicted radiative forcing."

Which would be fine, except that the oceans are not warming up much at all, which the Argo project, discussed in Air Con, found, and which has also been detected in another study last year:

"Annual mean heat storage values have been determined for the full period 1999–2005 (Table 2) and these indicate that the heat storage change is not significantly different from zero within the error of the estimate for all boxes."

Indeed, in 2008 the Argo project's Josh Willis was forced to admit there had been no warming in the upper 700 metres of the oceans for four years. One analysis even found a slight cooling:

Even the appalling SkepticalScience site beloved of the AGW community admits through gritted teeth that we are not witnessing spectacular ocean warming at present:

"The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree over short periods. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend..."

So I'd be fascinated to know who gave the Royal Society of New Zealand the daft advice not only that the oceans are significantly warming, but that they are warming demonstrably and primarily as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. A cite should be provided for Professor Hunter's claim that: "Detailed measurements of the changes in oceanic heat content, and the temperature rise that accompanies this, agree quantitatively with the predicted radiative forcing."

Given that there are massive discrepancies in the radiation budget, it seems a surprisingly silly statement for the Royal Society of New Zealand to make.

Here's how the more qualified (than Keith Hunter in this area) Dr Roy Spencer puts it:

"The main point I am making here is that, no matter whether you assume the climate system is sensitive or insensitive, our best satellite measurements suggest that the climate system is perfectly capable of causing internally-generated radiative forcing larger than the "external" forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Low cloud variations are the most likely source of this internal radiative forcing. It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.

"The satellite observed trend toward less energy loss (or, if you prefer, more energy gain) is interesting since there was no net warming observed during this time. How could this be? Well, the satellite observed trend must be due to forcing only since there was no warming or cooling trend during this period for feedback to act upon. And the lack of warming from this substantial trend in the forcing suggests an insensitive climate system."

Spencer is not the only one to pick some kind of "internally-generated radiative forcing" that's stronger than CO2, with a new study out this week suggesting exactly that. Additionally, it turns out computer models relied on the UN IPCC may have been badly programmed on cloud impacts.

Clouds appear to play a much bigger role in regulating the heat that reaches the oceans and which leaves the sea surface. Additionally, oceanic heat is not being primarily affected by "radiative forcing by greenhouse gases" but by natural oscillations.

Then Keith Hunter says this:

"Furthermore, satellite altimetry shows clearly that the sea level has risen by the amount expected as a result of the warming-induced thermal expansion of the ocean."

If he's trying to suggest sea level increase is unusual or rapidly increasing, then in a word, "rubbish".

Professor Hunter concludes his "best pieces of global warming proof" analysis with this:

"Finally, in recent years it has become clear that salinity increases in the tropical ocean from enhanced water evaporation, and parallel decreases in salinity at higher latitudes as the enhanced water vapour condenses again, consistent with the higher heat content of the tropical ocean and with observed changes in the atmosphere."

Sounds great, but what does it actually mean? Seriously? He's describing the hydrologic cycle of evaporation and rainfall, something that has been happening on earth for, oh, I don't know, the last four billion years.

If this is the best evidence the Royal Society of New Zealand can muster in support of climate change, God help the Key administration and his beleaguered science advisor Peter Gluckman, because the people advising National and Gluckman on climate are NIWA and the Royal Society.

The news media would be wise to treat with caution the Royal Society's ongoing flawed pronouncements on climate change.

Comments

[David Baigent]

Ian, Have you any idea why John Key would listen only to Gluckman.

When I and going to make an important purchase I normally get at least 2 quotes.

[Ken]

Me too, David. But I would never go to a conspiracy theorist like Ian for my information.

[Peter]

4And with one little line in the blogsphere ken shows his immaturity and inability to contribute other than schoolyard slagging. What a sad little fellow you are Ken.

[dad4justice]

Talking about sad people Peter, how many years have you been a troll on this blog? Don't answer but do try getting a life!

[Kapow]

I'm with Peter. Always get 2 quotes.
But besides that, John K sold us the line that we just HAVE to have an ETS to match our neighbours. Like Australia right?

[ZenTiger]

Ken, a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't agree the science is settled?

That's a stretch. On other topics, Ian has been proven right on several counts. The media and people such as yourself tend to play up the "conspiracy theorist" throwaway being prone to act like modern scientists: you might know the type, they like to start with a theory and then look for facts to fit it, and disregard other information that would contradict their "evidence".

[Clare Swinney]

Thank-you Ian for continuing to expose these scoundrels.
As an aside, the wacky Royal Society promotes the idea of pumping sulphate particles into the stratosphere - supposedly to solve the non-existent problem of global warming.
How can they pretend to care for the environment and recommend this? These people should be locked in a small room on a short chain.
Refer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html
There are large amount of poisonous particulates being pumped into the skies around the world at the moment in the name of geo-engineering.
Evidence indicates that the Royal Society and others of their Orwellian ilk refer to "man-made global warming," even though it has proven to be a gigantic hoax, as a cover for not only taxing the hell out of people, but in order to justify "geo-engineering."
I suspect, time will show that "geo-" equated to genocidal if this course of pumping the air full of poisons continues, particularly if they persist in using weather modification processes to induce drought.

Related:
NWO poisoning rain water in Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFn2c-1xmgg

Where is the blue sky in drought-stricken Whangarei?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGI4bDPOOLM

[Peter]

Wrong Peter Dad4justice
Read before you speak.

[dad4justice]

I am sorry - my bad, it's so nice to have a REAL Peter onboard.

[Ken]

No Zentiger. I myself don't think the science is settled - that's the nature of science.

Ian is a conspiracy theorist becuase he advances conspiracies. In his case (read his last book , look at his silly post on FoRST funding of climate science in NZ, etc.) the "new world order."

Of course this leads to the other ridiculous conspiracy theory - that all the worlds climate scientists are colluding to falsify data and pull the wool over our eyes!

That is silly, isn't it.

He will be telling us next that 9/11 was an inside job! That goes along with climate change denial, doesn't it?

[Ian Wishart]

No Ken, if anyone is a conspiracy theorist here it's you (do you want me to rake through your site for examples of your claim that all skeptics are part of some worldwide oil-funded conspiracy against climate science?)

I have never stated that "all" the world's climate scientists are colluding to falsify data - that's your strawman argument not mine.

But you did boast you would hold NIWA and co to account, so I'm interested to see the emails you have sent doing so, or indeed any emails sent to the Royal Society over their embarassing goof above?

[Ken]

I am a sceptic (it's part of being a scientists FFS) and don't get any money from oil. So, no, haven't made such silly claims.

You are away with the birds, Ian, Your distort simple statements. Such as my demand that the local denier groups that published the discredited report (you know the one with the "science team" who wish to remain anonymous!) should be subjected to the same transparency as I expect from institutions like NIWA. I have managed to get all the data I want from NIWA's web site. The Coalition for Climate Science (the deniers) refuse to provide any of the data or methodology I asked for.

Understandable as their methods and data are shonky. But hardly adhering to the same transparency they demand of others.

Completely irresponsible, in fact.

And your childish attempt to spin that simple statement the way you do is an indication of your lack of familiarity with truth and integrity.

[Truth]

"He will be telling us next that 9/11 was an inside job! That goes along with climate change denial, doesn't it?"

Hold up there Ken, 9/11 WAS an inside job (see Loose Change and Farnheit 911) and AGW is real. Let's not start in-fighting buddy. We (9/11 truthers) are on your side.

[Richard Treadgold]

Great piece, Ian.

This was an astonishing lapse in judgement from our usually intelligent RS scientists to which you provide a juicy riposte.

Richard Treadgold
Climate Conversation Group.

[Ken]

Truth - you aren't a mate of Clare Swinney are you? If not go to the Centre for Political Research forum and be entertained by her arguments.

[bammbamm'sghost]

Keith is a chemist - and not a very good one at that.

Big Yawn.

Keith is making a play for Gluckmans job .... Rumble Rumble.

There is a die hard group of idealization at Otago University who believe in man made global warming.

I didn't think that Keith was silly enough to sign up for that ... I thought he was a smarter person and better scientist than that ...

Wait for the next time I visit his department.

[bammbamm'sghost]

Actually - Phuck the Royal Society - and the daft horse they rode into town on.

I'm just drafting a letter pulling my membership.

Phucking hill-billy scum. The royal society should learn when to shut up.

[ZenTiger]

No Zentiger. I myself don't think the science is settled - that's the nature of science.

A simple deflection claiming you agree the science isn't settled.

Aside from your agreement that the science isn't settled rings a little hollow, it isn't about what you personally believe, it's the mere fact that we both know the quote "the science is settled" has been used by the AGW lobby so many times it is now common knowledge.

Ian is a conspiracy theorist because he advances conspiracies. In his case (read his last book , look at his silly post on FoRST funding of climate science in NZ, etc.) the "new world order."

You suffer from a common malady known as "conspiracy transference syndrome" where you take a common conspiracy topic such as "new world order" and suggest that just because some very powerful organisations, such as the UN want to create a global governance structure with huge amounts of funding provided from a very clever wealth transfer scheme built around a market mechanism pricing CO2, that the persons reporting this are "obviously nuts".

Except that this is exactly what the UN has put forward, and the documents are in the public domain, and it's not actually a conspiracy, it's more a blatant attempt to change the rules of the game.

There are as many people on both sides of the debate that have twigged to the effects of this game changing approach to managing the world's resources and costing the environmental use factor in a completely new way.

Furthermore, people on both sides of the debate, whilst acknowledging the same outcome see it as either the worst possible thing ever (taxation without representation, and the ability to bind countries to non-voted international laws) and the best thing since Stalin and Mao (a way to make capitalistic industrialists pay for the clean-up and restocking of natural resources they freely plunder).

So yes, unfortunately, we are seeing a push to create a "new world order" in the same way introducing the United Nations after WWII created a new world order.

Moving off the Gold Standard and the establishment of the share markets created, in a sense, a new world order and there are other events in history that would show similar watershed moments.

They are not conspiracies as such, but will still be described by others leading up to the event and beyond as conspiracies. Did they happen? Yes. Were they world changing? Yes.

Think about it.

So Ian pointing out the far reaching impact of some of the political ramifications of the proposed international agreements tabled at Copenhagen and shelved due to the big countries twigging to the far reaching impact of what is being asked for is not a conspiracy as such, but is does auger another huge political shift in the way countries interact.

That you are so dismissive of this, and characterise it as "conspiracy" when it's not discussed at all like that, is the reason why I am left thinking that you like to form opinions and make the facts fit.

Of course this leads to the other ridiculous conspiracy theory - that all the worlds climate scientists are colluding to falsify data and pull the wool over our eyes!

That is silly, isn't it.

Yes it's silly, because it's not what Ian has ever said. That's just a cheap shot by yourself to bolster your claim. Fabricating data that never existed. How AGW! (See, I can do the same thing too)

Equally, the opposite does not hold - just because they are scientists, doesn't mean they are immune from human frailty, such as destroying data, blocking contrary opinion and avoiding their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act etc - and the climategate emails certainly proved that point.

He will be telling us next that 9/11 was an inside job! That goes along with climate change denial, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. Just another baseless slur in the absence of real information.

And if AGW proves to have been a false alarm, then by your logic, it will fall to you to tell us all about 9/11.

Until either happens, why don't you agree to stick to facts rather than wild conjecture. It's unbecoming for a man of science.

PS: Do you think there were errors in the Royal Society paper quoted above - you managed to actually avoid a comment about the post.

[ZenTiger]

This from AGW fan Lovelock:

"The good sceptics have done a good service – but some of the mad ones, I think, have not done anyone any favours. Some, of course, are corrupted and employed by oil companies and things like that. Some even work for governments. For example, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic."

Lovelock on Climate change

That's your side Ken, harping on about oil companies and other conspiracies (if I can use that term), whilst admitting through gritted teeth that sceptics have their place.

By the way, that was the interview that Lovelock argued it was time to suspend democracy to fight the unending war against Eurasia, oops I mean against CO2.

Do you think Ian is paid for by Oil companies or working for the Russian Government?

[Ken]

Zentiger - obviously you are also a conspiracy theorist as well. Do you participate on the same forum as Clare?

Links everwhere. It's enough to make even this non-partisan observer start believing in conspiracies.

The Centre for Political Studies, the Heartland Institute, the Act Party, the Climate Science Coalition, Treadgold, Wishart, conservative Christian blogs, etc,

All with the same hysterical message, often quoting each other and advertising their political meetings.