Tag: IPCC

Chris hates Greenpeace

False balance time at the Herald. Last week they gave Greenpeace climate campaigner Susannah Bailey a chance to look at how certain sectors of the business community (Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Business Roundtable etc) are lobbying against current plans for an emissions trading scheme, this week they give NZ Climate “Science” Coalition science advisor Chris de Freitas space to express a different point of view. Bailey’s language was a deal more measured than de Freitas, who indulges in some vibrant green-bashing:

The fanatical name calling and personal attacks expose the strong ideological elements that drive global warming alarmist thinking. It’s as if the depth of passion is overcompensation for doubt and uncertainty. Why else would environmentalists squander so much effort trying to discredit individuals and organisations who disagree?

Warning: I’m about to squander some time trying to discredit de Freitas – whose grasp of the underlying science seems a little – how shall I put this – shaky for an associate professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland.

Continue reading “Chris hates Greenpeace”

IPCC’s Fourth Report now complete: Synthesis in Valencia

After six years and a lot of sweat, the IPPC has completed its fourth report. The Synthesis Report [PDF], released today in Valencia, pulls together the key findings of the three working groups, and provides a 23 page overview of the problem and its potential solutions. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, welcomed the report:

“Today the world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” he said. “In Bali I expect the world’s policymakers to do the same.”

The most succinct summary of the contents comes from Joseph Romm at Climate Progress: “Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly.” Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Blah, blah, blab, Blaby (*)

Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, a British Tory politician who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet during the 1980s, is visiting New Zealand as a guest of the Business Roundtable to give this year’s Sir Ronald Trotter memorial lecture. Lawson withdrew from the mainstream of Conservative politics in 1992 “to spend more time with his family” (coining that phrase as he did so), but in recent years he has reinvented himself as a climate sceptic, a vociferous opponent of the Kyoto protocol and a scourge of what he terms “eco-fundamentalists”. Clearly, the Business Roundtable has brought in a wise elder statesman to provide much needed context to the climate debate, to better inform its members about the need for emissions reductions. Sadly, Lawson is far more likely to serve up a rousing speech packed with half-truths, distortions, and advice so bad it amounts to dangerous folly, if reports in the Sunday Star Times and Dominion Post are to be believed.

Continue reading “Blah, blah, blab, Blaby (*)”

Going up

How much will sea level rise over this century? “Don’t know” is a good answer. “Not much” is looking like a bad answer that’s getting worse by the month. Last week a group of Northland Conservation Corps workers rode on a hikoi along Ninety Mile Beach to draw attention to the issue:

Tutor Mike Wikitera and his team erected five signs marking predicted sea level rises by 2030. The group, who rode horses to avoid adding to greenhouse gas emissions, erected the first sign at Shipwrecks Bay and placed the last one at Waipapakauri beach on October 30.

But what are the “likely levels” by 2030? The IPCC’s latest report projects between 18cm and 59cm by the end of the century, but only by excluding a very big unknown – how much ice will melt in Greenland and Antarctica. As more evidence of dramatic melt in Greenland arrives, it’s getting increasingly difficult to rule out multi metre rises. The latest number comes from Professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, quoted in the Daily Telegraph [UK]:

Prof Vaughan says the main message is not to panic – the effects of melting will be gradual, in the order of three metres per century if the evidence of the past 20,000 years is anything to go by.

Three metres per century? That’s towards the top end of current speculation. 30cm every ten years, ten times the current rate, compares with 17cm over the last century. Prof Vaughan’s right about panic. It’s not a good option, but extreme concern is certainly justified. For some dramatic pictures of what might happen, check out this Greenpeace report on climate change impacts on Spain, timed to coincide with the IPCC meeting in Valencia to ratify the AR4 synthesis report. To see what 3m might mean for NZ, go here and zoom in on your favourite bit of beachfront property. NIWA’s current advice to local government is to allow for 50cm by 2100. That’s in need of considerable upward revision.

Meanwhile, the impact of sea level rise is not just high tides and wet feet. Salt water intrusion into fresh water coastal aquifers can be bad news for agriculture and drinking water – and the problem may be worse than previously thought, according a new study reported by Science Daily. The BBC covers one of the areas at most risk – Bangladesh – in a new series, documenting a boat journey through the country.

Revenge of the zombie facts

Dr Vincent Gray is one of the most active of NZ’s little band of cranks. He’s been publishing his “envirotruth” newsletter since the ’90s, always brimful of climate scepticism, and has been a stalwart reviewer of IPCC reports. His most recent contribution to the IPCC process was to make 1,898 comments on the final draft of the Working Group One report – 16% of the total, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, he accounted for 95% of the comments rejected by the authors. Vincent’s offerings are the backbone of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition site, and I always enjoy reading them.

His most recent, Problems With Surface Temperature Data [PDF], is typical. He asserts it’s impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure global temperature, prefers satellite data but doesn’t believe it, and then states that “Since the amalgamated surface record is unreliable, an indication of temperature change over the past century can be obtained from well-maintained local records. Attempts to correct for the many errors, though not entirely successful, give records of some credibility.” (Otherwise known as the cherry-pickers charter). He then disinters a 1994 paper that found a 60-65 year cycle in global temperature (but I thought that was meaningless) if the data is “detrended”. One wonders what trend was removed. Perhaps the long term underlying rise in temperature? If we ignore the data, it goes away. Magical thinking at its finest.

[UPDATE 6/11/07: NASA’s excellent Earth Observatory posts a very interesting article about James Hansen and the development of the global temperature record. There’s a superb animation of atmospheric flows from space on page 2.]

But the most interesting part of Vincent’s report is the note at the end: “This paper is part of “The Science is not Settled: Major Issues Remain Unresolved by the IPCC: A Report of the NIPDD” (sic) (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) to be published by the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington Virginia.” The NIPCC? Seems this is something Fred Singer at SEPP has set up as a counterblast to the IPCC, and its report is due soon. From Fred’s The Week That Was for Sept 1st:

Highlights of the NIPCC Report

  • Demonstration of the insignificance of human contribution to current warming – using the ‘fingerprint’ method – and why future anthropogenic warming is negligible
  • Why climate models do not agree with observations – the role of feedbacks
  • Evidence that solar activity controls most climate change on a decadal time scale
  • Evidence that future warming will not accelerate sea level rise appreciably
  • No evidence for more storms, hurricanes, droughts, and floods as climate warms
  • How we know that a warmer climate is better than a colder one
  • Evidence that the Medieval Period was warmer than today
  • Evidence that pre-1940 warming was not anthropogenic
  • Problems with data quality and special problems with sea surface temperatures
  • Uncertainties about the CO2 budget, past and future – and of future emission scenarios
  • Changes in ocean heat storage, glacier length, and sea ice coverage indicate climate change – but not whether the cause is anthropogenic or natural

That’s a mind-boggling list. If all the papers show the – how shall I put it politely – “rigorous” approach to the science that Dr Gray demonstrates, the NIPCC report will be a real paradigm shift. Or perhaps not.