Well done, and I look forward to the response.

Atmosphere

1) Water Vapour Levels – global data not published for over a decade, AGW prescribes an increase

Paper: Water vapor feedback is negative, not positive as assumed by IPCC alarmists

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/paper-water-vapor-feedback-is-negative.html

Latest Water Vapor Evidence Confirms IPCC Climate Models Are Wrong, Global Warming Hypothesis Opposite of Reality

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/latest-water-vapor-evidence-confirms-ipcc-climate-models-are-wrong-global-warming-hypothesis-opposit.html

2) Global Average Temperature – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

Figure 1. Observed temperatures are less than all IPCC projections. The observed temperatures are from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Center

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo1.jpg

Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/

3) Tropospheric Hot Spot – not observed as prescribed by AGW
The missing hotspot

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/

4) Backradiation Levels – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

Another IPCC Prediction Failure: Infrared Radiation That Warms Earth Is Doing Opposite of Model Predictions

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/another-ipcc-prediction-failure-infrared-radiation-that-warms-earth-is-doing-opposite-of-model-predi.html

Ocean

5) Sea Surface Level – not accelerating as prescibed by AGW

Observed SSL vs predictions (featuring Dr James Hansen’s extreme outlier)

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134899901c4970c-pi

Decelerating rate of sea level rise (2.66mm per year 2000 – 2010.74, 3.1mm per year 1993 – 2011.4 from raw data. IPCC required average for a 1m rise by 2100 is 10mm per year)

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

21st Century: The Deceleration of Sea Level Increases

http://c3headlines.typepad.com
/.a/6a010536b58035970c015432341db7970c-pi

2011: Sea Levels Declining and Decelerating

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e8854a924970d-pi

6) Sea Surface Temperature – not rising as prescibed by AGW (except North Atlantic)

Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Versus IPCC Hindcast/Projections

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections-part-2/

7) Ocean Heat Content – not increasing (since 2004) as prescribed by AGW

The GISS divergence problem: Ocean Heat Content (featuring Dr James Hansen’s extremely model divergence from reality)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/the-new-giss-divergence-problem-ocean-heat-content/

I am inquiring as why the relevant actual climate metrics relating to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW – climate change) hypothesis are not monitored, compared to AGW / IPCC predictions and published on the Climate Change Office website for public viewing?

Relevant metrics for the 21st century would be:-

Atmosphere

1) Water Vapour Levels – global data not published for over a decade, AGW prescribes an increase

2) Global Average Temperature – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

3) Tropospheric Hot Spot – not observed as prescribed by AGW

4) Backradiation Levels – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

Ocean

5) Sea Surface Level – not accelerating as prescibed by AGW

6) Sea Surface Temperature – not rising as prescibed by AGW (except North Atlantic)

7) Ocean Heat Content – not increasing (since 2004) as prescribed by AGW

I am also inquiring as why the current global warming hiatus is not explained by the AGW hypothesis and why the New Zealand public are not being informed of the situation?

Given the uncertainty and divergence from reality of the AGW / IPCC projections and failure to explain the 21st century climate metrics, is the Office of Climate Change studying natural climate driver science which not only does explain the climate but can be used to make successful climate predictions?

Please find attached articles and peer reviewed science supporting the above.

These questions are topical in the public arena at present in view of the visit by Dr James Hansen. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this person, among which is his adjustments to the NASA GISSTemp global temperature record and extrapolations of Arctic temperatures. Please note in the attached Climate Metrics that Dr Hansen’s predictions are the most extreme outliers and divorced from reality.

I quote from Jeanette Fitzsimons, spokesperson for the coalition bringing Dr Hansen to New Zealand.

“Every week, there is new scientific information showing us how urgent the situation is, yet we hear of even more plans to increase New Zealand’s addiction to fossil fuels. Why, when we have such potential here to switch to a sustainable energy future?”

There’s certainly “new scientific information showing us how urgent the situation is” but where is the old scientific information (the observed condition – not the “scenarios”) showing us how non-urgent the situation is?

Or has post-normal science completely subsumed the scientific method?

Sincerely

Richard Cumming

Dear Ms. Stirling

I am a visitor to New Zealand, and only yesterday had sight of your 14 May edition of the New Zealand Listerner with its entertainingly fanciful lead story, accompanied by appropriately lurid graphics.

Since this is a topic which raises much controversy, let me try and see if I can encapsulate in a few lines what it is that you would wish you readers to believe. You propose, it would seem, that marginal increases in the concentrations of what is no more than a trace gas, amounting in total not to 10% of the earth’s atmosphere, not even to 5% – nay, not even to 1%. can bring about cataclysmic changes in global climate. So, what exactly is the percentage concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Why, to be sure, it is a gasping, asphyxiating 1/27th part of a single percentage point. But even that’s not the complete picture, is it? After all, as someone (such as you) who has addressed the data for herself will know, even human induced climate change proselytisers acknowledge that, by itself, the radiative potential of CO2 (vanishingly small anyway) fails to account for the “scenarios” promoted by them and by unquestioning and compliant organs of the media – such, indeed, as The New Zealand Listener. So, to get over this this little inconvenience, what should be done? Why, to be sure, invoke another critical life affirming compound (dihydrogen oxide) to provide a “positive forcing”, thereby adding to the so-called greenhouse effect. Regrettably, the very scientists (well, anyway, let’s call them that for the sake of convenience) can’t actually tell you whether the forcing resulting from atmospheric water vapour is positive (so allegedly bringing warming) or negative (so allegedly bringing the opposite). Clouds, for example, have a cooling effect. Have these ‘climate scientists’ with their rinky dinky computers ever managed to incorporate them in their so-named General Circulation Models? Answer – the heck they have!

And neither still is that the whole story, is it? For, while CO2 might have some modest radiative potential, that potential is governed by a relationship to concentration that is logarithmic not linear. In simple layman’s terms, the more you shove in, increasingly less do you get out. In other words, the system is self limiting – well, well, fancy that!

So, to you, let me pose a multi-part question. Even at first sight, does this seem plausible? Possible? Or, is it, perhaps, just stark barking?

Finally, let’s pause briefly on your Gotham City phantasmagoric cover photo. This, from its appearance, could quite easily be a fictional montage designed, of course, to promote a propagandist scaremongering agenda to an ill informed public. In any event, and as far as New Zealand is concerned, as a journalistic professional dealing with a matter of major public importance, you personally should be fully aware that the Flinders University, Adelaide, trans-Pacific tidal buoy project, after ten years of careful monitoring, was wound up a year or two ago after failing to find evidence of any increase whatsoever in rates of sea level rise. These data have since been confirmed by satellite readings – much disliked by AGW propagandists, since they usually undermine the party line. Neither are such contra-indicative findings confined to the S. Pacific. If, in the face of such scientific findings, you have published your story, then you are guilty of lying. If you were unaware of such data, you are guilty of professional negligence, and I speak as a one time journalist myself in publications somewhat more elevated (or, at any rate, more globally celebrated) than the New Zealand Listener.

Actually, let’s be candid. Your piece is not journalism at all, is it? It is mere agit-prop. In essence, as between what you have published (and, I suspect, publish routinely) and what your counterparts disseminated in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, Maoist China any difference is negligible.

Rupert Wyndham

“Dr Hansen will explain why we cannot get climate change under control, while preserving a decent future for our grandchildren, unless we leave most of the remaining coal in the ground” said Jeanette Fitzsimons, spokesperson for the coalition* bringing Dr Hansen to New Zealand.

“Every week, there is new scientific information showing us how urgent the situation is, yet we hear of even more plans to increase New Zealand’s addiction to fossil fuels. Why, when we have such potential here to switch to a sustainable energy future?”

Really Jeanette?

There’s certainly “new scientific information showing us how urgent the situation is” but where is the old scientific information (you know – the observed condition) showing us how non-urgent the situation is?

Or has post-normal science completely subsumed the scientific method?

I feel an email to the NZ govt Office of Climate Change (Cc to the PMSAC) coming on. Attachments will be “Climate Metrics” and “Climate Drivers”.

Dr Hansen has been invited to New Zealand by a group of environmental, social justice and business organisations, academics and committed individuals, as a contribution to the ongoing debate about climate change – and coal. Groups and businesses involved: 350.org, 350 Aotearoa, Greenpeace, Organic Systems NZ, Oxfam, The Pure Advantage (business leaders group), the Institute of Policy Studies – and a number of interested academics and individuals.

http://www.350.org.nz/our-projects/james-hansen-visit

Atmosphere

1) Water Vapour Levels – global data not published for over a decade, AGW prescribes an increase

2) Global Average Temperature – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

3) Tropospheric Hot Spot – not observed as prescribed by AGW

4) Backradiation Levels – not increasing as prescribed by AGW

Ocean

5) Sea Surface Level – not accelerating as prescibed by AGW

6) Sea Surface Temperature – not rising as prescibed by AGW (except North Atlantic)

7) Ocean Heat Content – not increasing (since 2004) as prescribed by AGW

Any others?

If Sir Peter Gluckman responds re water vapour, I will take the opportunity to present this list along with a linked list of natural climate driver science papers and articles (solar, lunar, celestial, ocean oscillations). If he doesn’t respond, I will send this to the PMSAC office anyway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10725266

I guess this is partly to promote his new book, “Watermelons”.