Friday, 18 September 2009

Penny Sackett Media Release

Media Release.



In the Movie “A Few Good Men,” in response to Lt. Daniel Kaffee’s remark: “I want the truth!” Col. Jessep shouted: “You can’t handle the truth!”

Recently on Sydney Radio 2UE, Australia’s Chief Scientist, in response to a question about global warming scepticism, made a statement to the order of “I have never seen a peer-reviewed paper that supports the anti AGW position.” This was after attending a meeting with Steve Fielding where peer-reviewed evidence was presented.

Also at that meeting, Senator Fielding presented the Chief Scientist with the hefty hard copy of the NIPCC report, which is a compendium of the relevant climate science that “demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

It also contains details of the Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) which has been signed by more than 31,000 US scientists refuting the CO2 hypothesis. How much more peer-review does she need?



A subsequent response by Senator Fielding’s Science Advisors contained more than 60 peer-reviewed papers. Surely, with due diligence, the Chief Scientist would have read this response, wouldn’t she?

This was issued 5 days before her statement on 2UE.



Geoffrey Brown

Treasurer

The Climate Sceptics Party

Ourimbah 2258





For supporting documentation see http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/ and see the eight September posts beginning Penny Sackett….

Climate Cools for Global Warming Party.

From Viv Forbes' Carbon Sense: CS 90913, Sept 09


Climate Cools for Global Warming Party.

For years we have watched in wonder and disbelief as this global warming party got into full swing:

First came the party-planning committees from among the old reds and greens in Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra and their various Fabian friends.

Then they created the party bureaucracy with its own impressively named exclusive club, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Then they extracted the money from parent governments for the recruitment of academics to produce the supporting literature.

Then came the promotion group tours to various hardship locations like Rio, Kyoto, Bali, Geneva and Paris.

Finally we are approaching the big party itself, planned for Copenhagen in December 2009 with all parent governments invited. The highlight planned for the December party is the birth of “Son of Kyoto”, to be named “Copenhagen”. The plan is to get all parent governments so excited that they will participate in a mass adoption ceremony, pledging eternal parental support for “Copenhagen”.

Our job is to make sure Australia (and USA and NZ) sign nothing in December so that “Copenhagen” does not sponge on us but stays with his parents in Old Europe where he was conceived.

Thankfully there are signs that, at last, the public is getting sick of supporting this never ending party:

In Britain, a recent poll found (Daily Express, 11 Sept 09):
50% believe the media is too alarmist.
29% believe evidence linking human activity and global warming has been exaggerated (this figure has doubled since 2003).
20% totally reject the idea that human activity impacts global warming and believe that temperature is controlled by natural processes.

In France, a recent poll showed that 66% opposed Sarkozy’s carbon tax.


Party poopers are even appearing in the IPCC alarmist camp:


IPCC Author Concedes Cooling

“Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

“Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

“..... Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?”

Lorne Gunter in the National Post,
reported in CCNet 140/2009 – 12 September 2009

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/11/lorne-gunter-global-warming-takes-a-break.aspx



There are also many signs that we are at or past the peak of the most recent phase of natural global warming, with an increasing number of scientists now saying that the sun, via oceans and clouds, controls earth’s temperatures.

See also a new news forum that will focus on Climate Realism at:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/09/new-data-pours-more-cold-water-on-global-warming-believers.html

We must keep the pressure on all politicians to reject or defer the deceptively labelled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being pushed by the Rudd government – it is just another discredited Ration-N-Tax Scheme.

The Media release below highlights one more perverse consequence of the scheme. Please spread it around.

Remember the Pledge: “The RAT Scheme must be rejected” (in Australia, USA and NZ).

Penny Sackett Chief Scientist -Bill Kininmonth's Observations

On the Penny Wong/ Steve Fielding Meeting:

Bill Kininmonth wrote:

1 July 09

I am firmly of the view that Senator Fielding asked the correct question. It was simple and direct and invited a simple and direct response. Much like the little girl who asked “Why is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?”.

The point is that anybody with any understanding of climate history knows that a decade is a very short record and essentially meaningless for interpretation of long term trends. We recognise that the climate system includes two interacting fluids, the oceans and the atmosphere, and interactions between the fluids gives rise to variations on a range of timescales.

The AGW crowd however have made their own bed when in the 2001 IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers they claimed that, based on computer models, there is only limited internal variability in the climate system. Remember the infamous ‘hockey stick’? The logical consequence of that statement is that any variations must be a consequence of radiation forcing and the warming of the previous two decades was due to CO2. This logic continued into the AR4 and the claim that most of the warming of the previous half century was related to anthropogenic causes.

The public expect, based on the IPCC propaganda, that if CO2 concentration is continuing to increase then global temperature should also continue to increase. The reality is that, based on the IPCC’s favourite reference record, temperatures have continued to be cooler than 1998. Senator Fielding, who represents a constituency, is entitled ask on behalf of the public why temperatures are not going up. There might have been a simple radiation forcing related answer, such as the solar irradiance has declined, aerosols concentrations have varied, or some other seemingly plausible mechanism.

The response has been very interesting and revealing.

Professor Nicholls of Monash University wrote a letter in The Australian newspaper to the effect that temperatures are still rising; in the decade since 1998 (1999-2008) temperatures have beco argued that solar irradiance variations since the Maunder Minimum could not explain the warming since the Little Ice Age, therefore a drop in irradiance was not a plausible excuse as the counter to CO2 increase. They also did not use the aerosol argument because IPCC have already admitted to a low level of understanding (and uncertain quantification) of the overall radiation effects of aerosols.

Minister Wong’s advisers have come up with a novel response: there is still an underlying warming trend because long-term the climate is forced by ocean heat; measurements of ocean heat content since 1960 identify a steady increase, even over recent years. The oceans contain more than 85 percent of the climate system heat and the implication is that this added heat will reappear eventually and warm the atmosphere. There are three contradictions in this advocacy.
1. The admission of internal variability severely weakens the previous storyline of only limited internal variability and that previous warming was due to CO2. Why was the previous warming not due to internal variability rather than CO2?
2. The temperature gradient in the ocean surface layer is such that the warmest water is at the surface and temperature decreases with depth. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat will flow down the gradient from the surface to the deeper cooler layers. It is against the Second Law for the heat, at some later stage, to flow back up the gradient! The AGW advocates need to explain the processes whereby the heat will reappear and warm the atmosphere, because the processes are not obvious.
3. An increase in ocean heat content in the upper 700 m of the ocean of 15x10^22 joules since 1960 would seem to be of large magnitude. However, when divided by the mass of the upper 700 m and the specific heat of water we find that the warming is only 0.14C since 1960, or about 0.003C/year. The available instruments (expendable bathythermographs - XBT - deployed from merchant ships since 1960, and Argos buoys deployed since 2003) and the ocean coverage (merchant shipping lanes for the XBT) do not provide such precision of assessment. The claimed ocean surface layer warming is an illusion arising out of a delusion.

The upshot of Senator Fielding’s seemingly simple question is that the AGW advocates have not been able to give a simple and plausible response (that is, that the lack of warming is just part of the internal variability of the climate system) without tearing down a false edifice that has been constructed over three decades of carefully constructed seemingly plausible science. Unless the AGW advocates come up with a response to the Senator’s question that is soundly based in science then we must conclude that the AGW scare is a myth based on naked propaganda.

William Kininmonth

Penny Sackett and Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth comments on Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change – Due Diligence1
Contributors2

(From the pdf carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf)

Due Diligence would require the Chief Scientist to read this report. Did she?

Extract:
We draw the following general conclusions:
• At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and minor cooling trend will deepen significantly or will instead be succeeded by resumed warming. Both possibilities are plausible, based upon the well known pattern of natural multi‐decadal climate cycles.
• No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous global warming on top of natural, cyclic trends.
• It is unwise for government environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice and especially so when that monopoly is represented by an international political (not scientific) agency, viz. IPCC.
• Other authoritative, independent audits have recently reached similar conclusions to ours (Idso & Singer, 2009). As Carlin has recently concluded (2009; EPA internal document):
“As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data”.
• Accordingly Parliament should defer consideration of the current CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate.
The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous
global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where
competent scientific witnesses are cross‐examined under oath and under the strictest rules of evidence.
(20 peer-reviewed papers followed)

At the end of the pdf there 6 pages of peer-reviewed reference papers.

Penny Sackett and the NIPCC

During the course of the Fielding/Wong/Sackett interviews, Senator Fielding handed Ms Sackett a copy of the NIPCC report.

The NIPCC

Near the end of the meeting Senator Fielding presented Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist with the hefty hard copy of the NIPCC, which is a compendium of the relevant climate science that “demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.”

It is similar in length and complexity to the IPCC Assessment Report 4, but unlike the IPCC report it is easy to read—presumably because it is intended to be understood rather than to intimidate. Presumably Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist cannot now say they weren’t informed of the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of global warming.

Due diligence would demand that she read this report. Did she?
After Senator Fielding presented the NIPCC report, David said "Presumably Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist cannot now say they weren’t informed of the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of global warming."

This report has peer-reviewed anti alarmist papers. Did Ms Sackett look at the NIPCC report; if she did, did she miss the peer-reviewed links? Did she miss the mention of the Petition Project?

In case she did, it has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists.

Part of the Petition says:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

Penny Sackett and the Correspondence

My e-mail to the Chief Scientist dated 17/8/09

(Similar –posted on radio 2UE link e-mail.)

Dear Professor Sackett,

I have sent the following e-mail to 2UE after your interview yesterday afternoon:

On Wilton and Robertson's show on Sunday afternoon(16/8),  Australia's Chief Scientist Prof. Penny Sackett said that she did not know about any "peer-reviewed" paper that was against the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming(AGW).

As a committee member of the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party (http://www.climatesceptics.com.au) I found this remark to be either duplicitous or showing a great lack of research from the Chief Scientist of our great nation.

My e-mail contained the following references to peer-reviewed anti AGW papers:

I asked our party's Secretary, who holds dual qualifications in Law and Science to give me a list of peer-reviewed papers.

Here is his reply.

Hi Geoff,

here are 2 sources;

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

then there is this site;

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
then there is the reference list for the petition;
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5985

and don't forget the recent McLean, Carter and de Freitas paper;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

And my paper with Dr Stockwell;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
Not to mention numerous papers by Professor Stewart Franks;

Can you really say, Professor Sackett,  that you were not aware of any of these papers?

Yours sincerely

Geoff Brown

=======================================================


My e-mail attracted a generic reply from the Department but nothing from either 2UE or the Chief Scientist:-

I then sent the following by surface mail to 2UE Management with a copy to the Chief Scientist:

The CLIMATE SCEPTICS PARTY
Geoff Brown
Treasurer
(address Supplied)
Ourimbah NSW 2258
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au
Phone No Supplied


19 August, 2009


The Management,
2UE
170 Pacific Highway,
Greenwich NSW 2065


Cc -Office of the Chief Scientist
c/- Science and Research Division
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA ACT 2601


Cc Mr Leon Ashby; Mr Anthony Cox; Climate Sceptics Party.


Dear People

Re Broadcast: Murray Wilton and Clive Robertson Interview with Prof. Sackett 16 August 2009.

During the course of this interview, the Chief Scientist made a dubious statement.

 I have e-mailed Mr Wilton twice. The first time requesting a transcript of the interview and the second time with many links pointing to the error made by the Chief Scientist.

I also sent the same email to the Chief Scientist.

As Spam filters often erase e-mails with many links, I am attaching hard copy of the e-mail.

Could you please keep the transcript and forward a copy.

With thanks in advance

Geoff Brown
================================================================

I received nothing from the Chief Scientist but the following reply dated 21/8/09 from 2UE’s General Manager Tim McDermott:-
Dear Mr Brown,
Thank you for your letter dated 19 August 2009. 2UE always appreciates feedback from listeners.
When I listened to the referenced interview, I did not hear anything that concerned me. Even though you indicated that you “find it difficult to believe that Ms Hackett was not aware of certain information” (Interestingly, Mr McDermott’s quotes (“ “) but not my words!) that does not necessarily mean that her acknowledgement was inaccurate. In this instance, I am afraid I cannot agree with your concerns.

He then went on to say that they were not obliged to provide transcripts of broadcasts.

If they thought there was nothing wrong (and there was nothing wrong from their side), why not show goodwill by providing the transcript?

===========================================
Snail mail sent 19/9/09 to 2UE's Mr Mc Dermott and Chief Scientist Prof Penny Sackett;

Geoff Brown
Address as supplied



19 September, 2009



Mr Tim McDermott
General Manager 2UE
PO Box 954
St Leonards
NSW 1590


Cc The Chief Scientist



Dear Mr McDermott

Thank you for your letter dated 21 August 2009.

Attached please find a Media release regarding this matter..

Perhaps you would like to share the attached Media Release with your newsroom.


Yours sincerely


Geoff Brown





From: inquiry@chiefscientist.gov.au
Subject: Message from Office of the Chief Scientist [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: 17 August 2009 5:58:20 PM
To: geoff@dalmatian.com.au

Thank you for your recent correspondence to Professor Penny D Sackett, Chief Scientist for Australia. Your e-mail has been received. This is an automatic response.

To find out more about the Chief Scientist, you can visit Professor Sackett's official website at www.chiefscientist.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Chief Scientist
02 6276 1727
chief.scientist@chiefscientist.gov.au

-------------------
Prior to this interview, Prof. Sackett had attended a meeting between Senators Penny Wong and Steve Fielding (link) during which she was given the hefty volume NIPCC report which contained three pages of links to peer-reviewed papers. Did she, as her job would have warranted, look at this report and the linked peer-reviewed papers?

If so, she lied during the 2UE interview?

If not, she was derelict in her duties.

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (3)

Dr David Evans on the Wong/Fielding/Sackett Meeting

In Part:

The Discussion

I wish someone had been counting interruptions: I am certain that we were interrupted many, many more times than we interrupted. Often you could do more than acknowledge the last point when they interrupted you just as you started to make your own point. For much of the meeting we could hardly get a word in edgeways. Some terrible nonsense got by unchallenged.

All the speakers on the alarmist side frequently rephrased our questions. Often the rephrasing changed the meaning, and often it set up a straw man. It was as if they had to map the question to the nearest Grist talking point. I’m not sure how much of the rephrasing was a way of answering a question they would prefer to answer, and how much was because they genuinely did not understand what point we were making, but there was certainly at least some of both types.

It’s as if they had never before encountered real live competent skeptics or their arguments. Actually, there is a technical reason for this: they probably hadn’t. Only alarmists work in alarmist organizations; they only hire like-minded people. Skeptics who know what they are talking about are booted off alarmist websites (the good arguments are nearly all on the skeptic websites). Like the mainstream media, alarmists suppress and avoid skeptic thought at all cost. This has left alarmists generally very ill informed about either the skeptic arguments or the caliber and numbers of skeptics. It is easy for alarmists never to encounter competent skeptics, and to believe their own political line that the skeptics are just a few misinformed cranks in the pay of big oil.

We pointed out that they hadn’t actually presented any evidence that carbon was the main cause of global warming. No response. Clearly they thought they had, but all they presented was evidence that warming occurred and some models results. Models are theory, not evidence. So: warming, but no evidence that carbon done it. The attempt to frame carbon is a classic stitch up, based mainly on the IPCC’s refusal to consider other suspects.

We pointed out that the models were wrong because they predict a hotspot and there was no hotspot. The amount of warming is equal to the “no-feedback warming” (due to the forcings, which we agreed they had about right for CO2) multiplied by the “feedback factor”. The models assume that the feedback is predominately due to water vapor, and that the feedback factor is about 2.5 – 3. The weakest spot in the IPCC calculations is the effect of feedbacks. This is where they get it seriously wrong, resorting to hand waving and assumptions instead of empirically-validated physics. Naturally they instead draw your attention to the forcing calculations, which are solid.

We showed them the diagram of the model predictions versus the radiosonde observations in my No Evidence paper (page 7). (Warning: horn tooting. That document explains why, despite media impressions, there is no actual evidence that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming. I recommend at least the introduction.) But if there is no hotspot then there is no water vapor feedback, in which case the feedback factor must be less than 1.2, and so the climate models exaggerate predicted temperature rises by at least a factor of two. All IPCC models and calculations of temperature rises rely on a large feedback factor, but the missing hotspot is empirical evidence that it is in fact small.

I thought it appeared from their faces they this was news to them, or at least an unusual argument. Their response was interesting: they replied simply that they had not used models in their arguments at the meeting. There was a moment’s awkward silence, then they moved on. You see, the lecture handout had concluded with the statement “the mid-range amount predicted from the human-driven change in radiative forcing at equilibrium is 1.3 C”, which is a model result. And the lecture had included climate model hindcasts of the last century’s air temperatures with and without the CO2 forcings, and this had been presented to us as evidence. And they relied on model forecasts plenty in the discussion that followed. So if the models are wrong, their conclusions are wrong too.

So why are they not defending the models? Or did they just not want to answer that particular question, and we were bamboozled out of pursuing it? (If so, did the Senators notice the glaring problem?) Perhaps they were being tricky—you can basically do any temperature prediction by the models with a short calculation based on a system diagram with feedbacks. Takes two minutes with a calculator, you don’t actually need to run the models. Perhaps they meant that the quoted results were “calculated by hand”, not “using models”? Surely not? Anyway, we didn’t explore that topic further. I thought it brazen, but crying “rubbish” would have seemed out of keeping with the tone of the meeting.

The other tactic of note was their reliance on ocean temperatures and the deemphasizing of air temperatures. They based the whole empirical part of their case on their claim that ocean temperatures are rising. However this is not a credible claim. We did not dispute it much, because it is a matter of measurement and data and it didn’t seem to me that this meeting should be exploring those narrow technical issues. At one stage William Kininmonth, 45 years a climatologist and head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, explained the physics of how this was not credible, but they didn’t seem to notice.

Ocean temperatures have only been measured in any detail or to any depth for five years, by the Argo buoys. And as that article says, “Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant””. The Argo buoys have been recalibrated, and for a while they showed a slight warming trend. The latest result seems to be slight cooling: see the graphs on this Argo site.

The ocean temperature data is sufficient to prove that the IPCC are wrong about the climate (the rise would have to be over a certain amount to confirm the IPCC case). We did not bring this up at the meeting, though we had discussed the Argo ocean temperatures just before the meeting. There is a larger problem: alarmists have all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict the IPCC climate theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the IPCC theory. It has happened several times now—but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time.

The only other unusual issue was the discussion about Figure 3A in Senator Fielding’s questions. This graph, by Syun Akasofu, shows all the observed global air temperatures, which go back to about 1880. It shows a rising temperature trend as the Earth comes out of the little ice age of the 1600s and 1700s, with alternating warming and cooling periods of about 30 years around the trend. It is discussed here. Human emissions of CO2 were only significant after 1940 (Figures 2 and 3), but the temperature rise had been rising fairly steadily since 1750 or at least 1880—which seemed to interest Senator Wong.

They asked how the straight trend line was drawn; we replied it had been done with a ruler, and that this was simply empirical evidence. The Department’s science adviser replied that they had much more sophisticated methods of drawing trend lines. We were all so impressed!

The meeting finished at 5:26. For political meetings such as this, a meeting of an hour and a half is considered long. I am thankful they gave us a hearing at all, though in the larger scheme of things they should of course be talking to us regularly. (Remember, a trial without a defense is a sham, business without competition is a monopoly, science without debate is propaganda, and government without an opposition is usually a disaster. Who is paid to audit the IPCC? No one, it’s just a few unpaid bloggers.)

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (2)

Bill Kinimonth on the Fielding/Wong/Sackett Meeting:

1 July 09

I am firmly of the view that Senator Fielding asked the correct question. It was simple and direct and invited a simple and direct response. Much like the little girl who asked “Why is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?”.

The point is that anybody with any understanding of climate history knows that a decade is a very short record and essentially meaningless for interpretation of long term trends. We recognise that the climate system includes two interacting fluids, the oceans and the atmosphere, and interactions between the fluids gives rise to variations on a range of timescales.

The AGW crowd however have made their own bed when in the 2001 IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers they claimed that, based on computer models, there is only limited internal variability in the climate system. Remember the infamous ‘hockey stick’? The logical consequence of that statement is that any variations must be a consequence of radiation forcing and the warming of the previous two decades was due to CO2. This logic continued into the AR4 and the claim that most of the warming of the previous half century was related to anthropogenic causes.

The public expect, based on the IPCC propaganda, that if CO2 concentration is continuing to increase then global temperature should also continue to increase. The reality is that, based on the IPCC’s favourite reference record, temperatures have continued to be cooler than 1998. Senator Fielding, who represents a constituency, is entitled ask on behalf of the public why temperatures are not going up. There might have been a simple radiation forcing related answer, such as the solar irradiance has declined, aerosols concentrations have varied, or some other seemingly plausible mechanism.

The response has been very interesting and revealing.

Professor Nicholls of Monash University wrote a letter in The Australian newspaper to the effect that temperatures are still rising; in the decade since 1998 (1999-2008) temperatures have beco argued that solar irradiance variations since the Maunder Minimum could not explain the warming since the Little Ice Age, therefore a drop in irradiance was not a plausible excuse as the counter to CO2 increase. They also did not use the aerosol argument because IPCC have already admitted to a low level of understanding (and uncertain quantification) of the overall radiation effects of aerosols.

Minister Wong’s advisers have come up with a novel response: there is still an underlying warming trend because long-term the climate is forced by ocean heat; measurements of ocean heat content since 1960 identify a steady increase, even over recent years. The oceans contain more than 85 percent of the climate system heat and the implication is that this added heat will reappear eventually and warm the atmosphere. There are three contradictions in this advocacy.
1. The admission of internal variability severely weakens the previous storyline of only limited internal variability and that previous warming was due to CO2. Why was the previous warming not due to internal variability rather than CO2?
2. The temperature gradient in the ocean surface layer is such that the warmest water is at the surface and temperature decreases with depth. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat will flow down the gradient from the surface to the deeper cooler layers. It is against the Second Law for the heat, at some later stage, to flow back up the gradient! The AGW advocates need to explain the processes whereby the heat will reappear and warm the atmosphere, because the processes are not obvious.
3. An increase in ocean heat content in the upper 700 m of the ocean of 15x10^22 joules since 1960 would seem to be of large magnitude. However, when divided by the mass of the upper 700 m and the specific heat of water we find that the warming is only 0.14C since 1960, or about 0.003C/year. The available instruments (expendable bathythermographs - XBT - deployed from merchant ships since 1960, and Argos buoys deployed since 2003) and the ocean coverage (merchant shipping lanes for the XBT) do not provide such precision of assessment. The claimed ocean surface layer warming is an illusion arising out of a delusion.

The upshot of Senator Fielding’s seemingly simple question is that the AGW advocates have not been able to give a simple and plausible response (that is, that the lack of warming is just part of the internal variability of the climate system) without tearing down a false edifice that has been constructed over three decades of carefully constructed seemingly plausible science. Unless the AGW advocates come up with a response to the Senator’s question that is soundly based in science then we must conclude that the AGW scare is a myth based on naked propaganda.

William Kininmonth

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (1)

Wong's silent treatment

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth | June 19, 2009

Article from: The Australian

STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.

Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: "What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

"In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science."
Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: "A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist." Think about that for a moment with respect to our government's climate policy.

On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.

Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.

After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.

The questions posed were:

  • Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
  • Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
  • Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?

As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister's advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.

We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.
Que? What is it about "carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased" that the minister's science advisers don't understand?

The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.

And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister's advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.

These are not adequate responses.

It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change's green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society's energy usage that will be driven by the government's ETS legislation.

All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong's advisers may yet provide.

Geologist Bob Carter, carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth attended the meeting between Steve Fielding, Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen. Sackett has so far declined to answer Fielding's questions on this page.