Global warming not for Kiwis
Richard Treadgold | June 8, 2011
Countless people
- told us we’ve been warming
- warmed up to the warming
- watch the warming
- guard against the warming
But…
But there’s been no warming — and NIWA’s graphs prove it. Not only that, but NIWA’s chief climate scientist says firmly that there’s little warming on the way.
So why is there now a giant bureaucracy in Wellington dedicated to “fighting” the warming? Why, in the 2008-09 financial year alone, have government contracts to research climate change been let worth over $2,700,000?
Claims of harm to New Zealand from future global warming have been made for a long time. Here are just a few to remind ourselves what we’ve been listening to for about 20 years.
In 2007, IPENZ (professional engineers), MfE (Environment Ministry) and NIWA (climate scientists) held one-day courses around the country on climate change. The 7SS graph of national temperatures was used, claiming an increase during the 20th Century of 0.7 °C.
They said climate change was going to affect us and “challenge the ability of engineers to plan, design and construct infrastructure and systems that will protect people from harm and maintain acceptable standards of economic well-being.” Which sounds quite serious to me.
On closer examination, they also said there would be, apparently simultaneously, droughts and floods. Which to me sounds incredible.
On 27 May 2008, a media release from NIWA announced new “projections” for climate change in New Zealand. Notably, it said that evidence that New Zealand is “already experiencing climate change” includes “increasing temperatures: about 0.9 ºC over the past 100 years.” That’s 0.2 °C more than the IPENZ course the previous year.
The release predicted increases of about 2 °C for New Zealand by 2090. The NZ Herald quoted David Wratt saying the evidence of climate change was mounting.
Our global warming minister, Nick Smith, reveals a curious approach to it. First, he’s only been in favour of the warming since National reached the Treasury benches in 2008. He confirmed Labour’s ETS (although weakened), even though he hated it just before the election. In 2005 he said:
The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain.
Now, of course, he’s all for our ETS, unique in the world for including all sectors and bringing even farmers into the filthy GHG emitters’ club.
Though Wratt says the evidence is mounting, he also claims our experience of warming will be “moderated” by the great ocean we live in.
That’s nice. Nothing to worry about, then.
Gotta keep those people working
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/06/08/the-climate-change-department-12-months-ago/
A fascinating comment by the maverick economic commentor Martin Feil.
The Australian government’s Department of Climate Change is very large and top heavy. There are four deputy secretaries and 13 first assistant secretaries on its organisation chart including a first assistant secretary (Barry Sterland) responsible for an Emissions Trading Division. Many much larger and older government departments can’t match that management structure.
It won’t be easy to dig out the roots of the ETS but what’s the alternative? The government can’t pass the legislation now and has walked away from it. It is difficult to believe they will risk another tilt of the same financial magnitude and political risk.
It would be pathetic to simply leave in place the government infrastructure (both federal and state) that was premised on the mistaken assumption that an emissions trading system was a fait accompli. Some billions of dollars have already been spent on jumping the gun. It is essential that there be some transparency in government to demonstrate that initiatives have been taken to stop the financial expenditure until such time as a mechanism is agreed in relation to the reduction of carbon emissions.
AMEN
Richard,
It’s very difficult, if not impossible for Alpha-type people ever to admit they were wrong, and almost all pollies are Alpha types, which is why we will not be seeing any great ‘Aha’ moments of the ‘My God, I wuz wrong’ type anytime soon. An Alpha person’s role is stand at the front, beat their chests and shout out how great their insight and recieved wisdom is.
My guess, and I emphasise the word ‘ guess’, is that there will be a very gradual climbdown wherein most of the more ardent supporters of the warming madness will tip-toe quietly away from it and in later years will expunge their championing of a mad cause from the records and from their own memories.
I can just about hear the rheumy old voices in the Cosmopolitan or the Workingman’s Clubs in a few years’ time…
“Me… Mate your’e bloody joking! What sort of idiot do you take me for? Nah, I aways said the whole thing was a crock…”
Yeah, I forgot the Act party – how many of the other pollies would be able to look an Act member in the eye and admit that Act, and Rodney Hyde, were right all the time?
Can’t see that happening, can you?
Nope.
Hi,
In the land of unintended consequences (or the real world) we get this little gem from Reuters and the Guardian. Seems if industry impliments energy efficiency measures they may not need carbon credits collapsing the price… So forest landowners et al can wait until this joyful day arrives and bulldoze as much as he can in a year and repay the liability with zero cost EU units.. Just love it when a plan comes together!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-eu-energy-climate-idUSTRE74T23C20110530
Also the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets
“The evidence of climate change continues to mount, climate models are becoming more sophisticated, and scientific knowledge of the climate is improving all the time,” says Dr David Wratt, NIWA’s General Manager Climate Change.
He would say that, wouldn’t he (especially when justifying his HPCF)?
I suspect Martin Manning, Director, Climate Change, Victoria University would say that too (especially when research funding is at stake).
However, here’s 7 key climate metrics that don’t say that:-
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/
Temperature since Jan 2001 along with trends and IPCC projections for surface temperatures forced using the A1B scenario
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/
1990 IPCC predictions confront the data
Posted on June 9th, 2011 in Climate Change |
The latest global temperature measurements are available for both satellite data [3] and for the Hadley CRU temperature data [2], so I thought it would be interesting to compare these with the predictions made in 1990 by the first IPCC report. There is now sufficient data to test whether the GCM modeling of greenhouse gases used by the IPCC really matches up to reality.