What the media aren’t telling you about climate change

From our friends at Daily Media Review comes this revealing story of how the IPCC itself announced that we can expect no dangerous warming from our CO2 emissions. – RT

By Daily Media Review
24/06/15

The mainstream media love to lecture us daily about the coming apocalypse as a result of catastrophic climate change, but are we being told the complete story?

There is little dispute amongst the scientific community about the warming effect of CO2. Both those who accept and those who reject the climate change hypothesis agree on this—they even agree as to how much warming CO2 is capable of causing. But according to the International Panel on Climate Change, CO2 only accounts for half of the expected warming in the computer models. The assumption is that the rising temperature attributable to CO2 will result in increased atmospheric water vapour as a result of evaporation, which will further amplify the warming of CO2. The IPCC believes that the positive feedback from increased water vapour will double the effects of any temperature increase attributable to CO2.

This is clearly stated by the IPCC in their 2007 AR4 report:


‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).

And:

‘Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html


In summary, the IPCC states that positive feedback from water vapour accounts for half of the warming in their computer models, and that this should manifest itself in the form of the mid/upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere/surface.

In 2013 the IPCC released their updated AR5 report which has the results to see if this is really occurring:

Table 2.8 | Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU data set global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods(1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere (Figure 2.23. Satellite records start only in 1979 and STAR do not produce an LT product. (Click to enlarge)

Source: IPCC AR5 report 2013, Working Group I, Chapter 2, page 197, table 2.8
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

 
ALL temperature records, both satellite and weather balloons, show the lower troposphere (LT) warming faster than the mid/upper troposphere (MT), i.e., no tropospheric hotspot — the opposite of what was predicted in AR4. It’s true the hotspot can be caused by any type of forcing, not just CO2, but the fact that it doesn’t exist shows that there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour.

As a result, according to the criteria set by the IPCC in their AR4 report, half of the predicted warming in the form of positive feedback from water vapour isn’t there. Without water vapour to double the initial forcing of CO2, the most it can warm from a doubling of TOTAL (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 is 1.2C (please be aware that the IPCC’s estimates for climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 INCLUDE feedbacks. The warming effect of CO2 alone without feedbacks is generally accepted as between 1 and 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2):


‘ … we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C.’

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm


Note: Don’t worry about Sceptical Science being in the pay of ‘big oil’, it’s notorious for being a pro-climate change propaganda mouthpiece.

So How Much Will it Warm?

CO2’s ability to warm weakens as its concentrations rise, which is why science always talks about it in terms of how much it will warm per doubling of total CO2, e.g., if CO2 concentrations double from 1ppm to 2ppm it will rise 1.2C. For it to rise 1.2C again it will need to double again from 2ppm to 4ppm, and then from 4ppm to 8ppm, etc.

In the year to May, CO2 rose by 1.82 parts per million (ppm) from 401.88ppm to 403.70ppm, and at that rate it will take 221 years to double from 403.70ppm to 807.40ppm & rise a maximum of 1.2C.

For it to rise another 1.2C it will need to double again from 807.40ppm to 1614.80ppm, which will take a further 443 yrs – a total of 664 yrs to rise a maximum of 2.4C. Considering 1.2C is the extreme amount it can warm it will probably take longer.

http://co2now.org

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png

So what will it look like when half the warming that is predicted by the computer models doesn’t exist in reality? See for yourself:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

 
Conclusion

The IPCC made a prediction in their AR4 that was supposed to account for 50% of the warming, and this prediction has been empirically falsified by the empirical scientific data from all temperature records in their subsequent AR5 report. Without the upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the lower troposphere there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour.

No tropospheric hotspot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no anthropogenic global warming (well, nothing to worry about anyway). There have been claims that there is missing heat hiding in the oceans, but if this is true that makes the case for positive feedback from water vapour even weaker. So even if it has warmed over the last 18 years, it certainly isn’t as a result of our CO2 output.

So where did all the extra evaporation go when it was warming prior to the current 18 year warming ‘hiatus’, and why hasn’t it been amplifying as predicted? The IPCC have recorded slightly higher rates of precipitation over the years which suggests that, although there is increased water vapour, it has manifested in the form of lower level cloud cover and rain. Lower level water vapour is thought to have a negative or neutral feedback (i.e. cooling effect), as clouds tend to reflect the radiation back into space, and they release any stored heat when it rains.

But what about the ‘97% of scientists’ who believe in global warming?

As far as I know 100% of scientists believe in global warming and that CO2 contributes towards it, including those sceptical of anthropogenic global warming. What they don’t agree on is what happens after CO2 warms the planet, i.e. water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, etc. – that is the real debate in climate science, not that you’d ever know about it reading the stories in the mainstream media.

So, if a vital 50% of the anthropogenic global warming theory has failed a major empirical test, why does the media neglect to mention it?

There are several possibilities:

  • They only read the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, which is written by politicians who negotiate every word, and avoid the actual science that is in the Working Group I section.
  • They’re incapable of understanding the science so just accept what they’re told by others.
  • They’re environmental activists masquerading as journalists, and are too busy pushing an agenda to report the truth.
  •  It’s too difficult to report science in a form that the general populace can understand.
  • They need dramatic headlines to sell papers, and they’re told what to write by their editors as a result.

I personally think it’s often a combination of all five, although I have to say that amongst certain ‘ journalists’ some points are more relevant than others (to put it politely).

Suggested reading:

16 Thoughts on “What the media aren’t telling you about climate change

  1. HemiMck on June 29, 2015 at 12:01 pm said:

    Antarctic experts gather.

    There is obviously a lot of solid and worthwhile scientific research conducted by our scientists in Antarctica which we should all applaud and would like to hear more about.

    But I am just bracing myself for all the quasi- science spin and extrapolation and out of context headline grabbers that the most ambitious of the experts will produce for an ever ready media. Some might even win a ticket to Paris.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/nz-antarctic-experts-gather-2015062908#axzz3eP5zYmv6

  2. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 12:26 pm said:

    >”Some might even win a ticket to Paris.”

    Yes, wasn’t a newspaper reporter sponsored to Lima by the SMC or suchlike?

    Tim Groser’s entourage of policy wonks will have had their tickets booked and paid for by the taxpayer long ago.

    COP 13 Bali
    COP 15 Copenhagen
    COP 16 Cancun
    COP 17 Durban
    COP 18 Doha
    COP 19 Warsaw
    COP 20 Lima

    Paris this year – Woo Hoo!

    [Yes, join the IPCC and see the world. btw, COP 14 was held in Poznan. – RT]

  3. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 1:13 pm said:

    [DMR] >”There is little dispute amongst the scientific community about the warming effect of CO2. Both those who accept and those who reject the climate change hypothesis agree on this—they even agree as to how much warming CO2 is capable of causing.”

    What “climate change hypothesis”?

    No formal hypothesis has ever been written. Therefore no hypothesis has been written according to the radiative forcing criteria defined by climate science and provided by the IPCC in FAQs (hidden in plain sight). Therefore no-one is in a position to either accept or reject the hypothesis. And it must be a formal falsifiable hypothesis in accordance with the scientific method i.e. falsifiable by measurable evidence.

    The media aren’t telling anyone about this either because climate science is not making it clear to them.

    The scientific method would also include a formal null hypothesis. These are two separate hypotheses.

    The criteria is “the planet’s energy balance” at TOA.

    SkS actually have this correct in essence:

    [SkS] – “…….[CO2] in the Earth’s atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere……”

    The “energy balance” as measured at TOA. Problematic unfortunately. Climate science (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2) report the most recent imbalance to be a “steady” (trendless) 0.6 W.m-2 measured at TOA.

    CO2 “forcing”, supposedly effective at TOA, is now in excess of 1.5 W.m-2. Over 1 W.m-2 of that has occurred over the IPCC’s anthro attribution period 1951 – 2010. The empirical trend is 0.2 W.m-2 2000 – 2010 (Berkeley Labs 2015).

    CO2 “forcing” is therefore a completely ineffective climate forcing according to the criteria laid down by climate science.

    The hypothesis for CO2 is very simple (my formal statement of it):

    “The theory of AGW/MMCC posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing.”

    That’s it, nothing else required.

    No evidence of this from observations. Effectively a null hypothesis. CO2 is not a climate forcing.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 2:35 pm said:

    What “climate change hypothesis”?

    Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

    A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]

    Scientific hypothesis

    People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an “educated guess”[8][9] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. However, some scientists reject the term “educated guess” as incorrect.[10] Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

    According to Schick and Vaughn,[11] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

    Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
    Parsimony (as in the application of “Occam’s razor”, discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
    Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
    Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
    Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

    Working hypothesis

    A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[12] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.[13] Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research purpose in empirical investigation. Working hypotheses and are often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.[14][15]

    Hypotheses, concepts and measurement

    Concepts in Hempel’s deductive-nomological model play a key role in the development and testing of hypotheses. Most formal hypotheses connect concepts by specifying the expected relationships between propositions. When a set of hypotheses are grouped together they become a type of conceptual framework. When a conceptual framework is complex and incorporates causality or explanation it is generally referred to as a theory. According to noted philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel “An adequate empirical interpretation turns a theoretical system into a testable theory: The hypothesis whose constituent terms have been interpreted become capable of test by reference to observable phenomena. Frequently the interpreted hypothesis will be derivative hypotheses of the theory; but their confirmation or disconfirmation by empirical data will then immediately strengthen or weaken also the primitive hypotheses from which they were derived.”[17]

    Statistical hypothesis testing

    When a possible correlation or similar relation between phenomena is investigated, such as whether a proposed remedy is effective in treating a disease, the hypothesis that a relation exists cannot be examined the same way one might examine a proposed new law of nature. In such an investigation, if the tested remedy shows no effect in a few cases, these do not necessarily falsify the hypothesis. Instead, statistical tests are used to determine how likely it is that the overall effect would be observed if the hypothesized relation does not exist. If that likelihood is sufficiently small (e.g., less than 1%), the existence of a relation may be assumed. Otherwise, any observed effect may be due to pure chance.

    In statistical hypothesis testing, two hypotheses are compared. These are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that there is some kind of relation. The alternative hypothesis may take several forms, depending on the nature of the hypothesized relation; in particular, it can be two-sided (for example: there is some effect, in a yet unknown direction) or one-sided (the direction of the hypothesized relation, positive or negative, is fixed in advance).[20]

    # # #

    Climate science, and the IPCC, ignores all this formalism. They are not scientific.

    An IPCC assessment report should essentially be just a formal hypothesis, an experiment, the results of the experiment, and a conclusion from the results in respect to the hypothesis.

    The climate experiment is actually live, real-time real-world.

    What they have instead, mostly, is screeds of anecdotal and non-real-world observations very little of which is in respect to the critical hypothesis. However they do provide the criteria for a hypothesis except they don’t say so in those terms.

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
    “What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that affect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors.”
    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    From this the hypothesis is formed:

    “The theory of AGW/MMCC posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing.”

    The inferred hypothesis is falsified in a very brief section of Chapter 2 in the AR5 report:

    IPCC Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
    2.3.2 Changes in Top of the Atmosphere Radiation Budget [Page 182]
    “Since AR4, CERES enabled the extension of satellite records of TOA
    fluxes into the 2000s (Loeb et al., 2012b). The extended records from
    CERES suggest no noticeable trends in either the tropical or global
    radiation budget during the first decade of the 21st century (e.g.,
    Andronova et al., 2009; Harries and Belotti, 2010; Loeb et al., 2012a,
    2012b). In summary, satellite records of TOA radiation fluxes have been substantially
    extended since AR4. It is unlikely that significant trends exist
    in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000.”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

    This is actually very simple – someone tell Tim Groser, he should be able to understand it.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm said:

    This is what happens when the TOA imbalance criteria is addressed and questioned at Carbon Brief:

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us/#comment-2096475880

    See Paul Clark vs There’s Physics. This argument is getting very close to the critical issue but the warmies don’t want to look at the observations, they’d rather preach their theory.

    There’s Physics Paul Clark • 5 days ago

    Do you have a link to the change in incoming & outgoing radiation?
    I’m not sure what you’re actually asking for. This is basic physics. If energy accumulates, it’s because there’s more coming in than going out. If energy drops, it’s because there’s more going out than coming in. I can’t think of what to link to (other than, possibly, a first-year physics textbook).

    Paul Clark There’s Physics • 3 days ago

    I’m asking for satellite data, e.g. NASA, that shows change in outgoing emission spectrum of earth. Only thing along that line I can find is here:

    http://www.john-daly.com/smoki

    With all those satellites up there measuring outgoing radiation, if they found anything, surely they’d be heralding it from the rooftops. So I ask for the link of the “smoking gun”. I provided you with link (previous comment) showing the warming is not due to the “greenhouse effect” because OLR hasn’t decreased during the few decades of warming.

    …basic physics…

    Science is not done by starting with the theory and assuming observations match it.

    As the internal flux of EMR in any object provides no warming: the only way a greenhouse effect can warm earth is if it causes emission to be from the higher, cooler layers of troposphere. If the “basic physics” of the greenhouse effect is in operation, there would be an observable change in the outgoing emission spectrum of earth – less emission at CO2 absorption wavenumber. This change would happen even if earth didn’t warm, as it hasn’t for 18 years. So, please link me to this “smoking gun”.

    Paul Clark There’s Physics • 3 days ago

    OK forget greenhouse effect: show me the change in outgoing EMR spectrum. It doesn’t exist. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I’ve been blocked by carbonbreif on Twitter & now I’m getting the wind-up here from John Russel (MOD). Shame. I get the hint & I won’t be back on this site.

    Thought we were having a good talk, but I guess not. Time to wrap it up then. Remember debate’s bad because the consensus position is so strong…oh, wait..

  6. Andy on June 29, 2015 at 4:15 pm said:

    Back on the methane discussion at HT, Herr Thomas writes

    Yes I see of cause. The agricultural CH4 at least once its back into CO2 is (in a way) not representing an extra loading and hence the 84 figure is likely not applicable in its full extent for AG CH4 emissions. It would be interesting if somebody has worked this out.

    The 84 figure is some GWP figure he found somewhere. My question about the relevance of GWP when methane stock is not increasing, which Gareth succinctly answered ( and correctly, in the context of the radiative properties of methane).

    Yet Herr Thomas and the rest of the crowd continue to prattle on about methane from ruminants and NZ’s need to reduce it, and also to quote the 84 figure like they just forgot they debunked their own theory

  7. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 4:36 pm said:

    I’ve put my case at Carbon Brief (as “Nonentity”):

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us/#comment-2096475880

    Be interesting to see the response.

  8. Kenneth Richard on June 29, 2015 at 5:58 pm said:

    According to this paper, there has been no clearly identifiable change in global water vapor levels in the last few decades. The positive water vapor feedback cannot occur if water vapor levels don’t dramatically increase (with the 1.2 C of warming caused by CO2 at most).
    —–
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/full#grl29301-fig-0001
    Introduction: Water vapor is a principal atmospheric variable, and is a central component in both the Earth Energy Budget and the Global Water Cycle. Clouds and precipitation manifest its presence, its phase transitions are a source of energy to influence motions in the atmosphere, and its transport (e.g., atmospheric rivers can produce significant weather events. Increasing water vapor amounts in a warming climate could accelerate the global hydrologic cycle.

    Conclusion: [A]t this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.
    —–
    And in looking at this graph from this same paper (below), notice that water vapor levels don’t change much at all in the tropics year-round, and that the water vapor levels at the poles are so low that even with the temperature change of +30.0 C and up from winter to summer, water vapor levels don’t change much at all. So if water vapor don’t change much at all with +30.0 C, how could they possibly change with only +1.2 C of change?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/#figure-viewer-grl29301-fig-0004

  9. HemiMck on June 29, 2015 at 6:28 pm said:

    CH4 again.

    “The 84 figure is some GWP figure he found somewhere”.

    The standard time frame that has been used is 100 years, The timed horizon is independent of the half life of the gas or the radiative efficiency nothing, The reason is that 100 years is used it that CH4 is being compared to a long life gas – CO2 and this is a long term issue (if it is an issue at all). But here are the numbers for GWP before and after IPCC manipulation for whatever time horizon you want

    Time Horizon base number after IPCC manipulation

    100 years 7 23
    50 years 11 39
    20 years 23 71
    1 year 60 126

    Lets say you chose a 1 year time horizon for this years emission the GWP would be

    The GWP is to give a comparison with CO 2. The time horizon is essentially arbitrary usually given is

  10. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 6:55 pm said:

    >”I’ve put my case at Carbon Brief (as “Nonentity”):”

    Wrong link, should be:

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us/#comment-2105961767

    Sort by Newest will bring it up too.

  11. HemiMck on June 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm said:

    That was meant to be table and the button got pushed before editing.

    100 year time horizon – base number 7 – after manipulation 23
    50 years etc

    Thinking more about it, 100 years was used because CO2 was generally considered to have a half life longer than 100 years. GWP methane is not an absolute measure it is relative to CO2. The half life and
    radiative efficiency are dealt with elsewhere in the calculation.

    If you wanted to compare to a short half life gas then a shorter time horizon may be appropriate. Using 20 years for CH4 makes no sense.

  12. HemiMck on June 29, 2015 at 7:42 pm said:

    What changing from 100 years to 20 year time horizon does is artificially reduce the impact of CO2 and thereby increase the relative impact of CH4. The measure essential ignores the last 80 years of CO2 warming but takes into account all the impact of CH4 which has a half life of 7 years.

    Going back to the model:

    The decay function is the significant item. Changing the time horizon from 100 to 20 changes the decay function for CH4 from 7.2 to 6.8 ie by a trivial amount.

    The decay function for CO2 with the same change moves the decay function of CO2 from 73.0 to 18.7

    The truth will finally out and some of these manipulators have to be called to account

  13. My main beef (pun intended) with the methane decay issue is that if we reach equilibrium and the stock is not changing, what relevance is the decay function?

    The situation is physically the same as a (hypothetical) very long lived gas where the total stock does not change over time

    Even though the radiative properties of methane and my hypothetical gas are exactly the same, one gets treated differently to the other.

    Actually I think Gareth at HT correctly interpreted this as a means of defining methane under an emissions trading scheme, and not due to its physical properties so much.

    In other words, a scam.

  14. HemiMck on June 30, 2015 at 2:15 pm said:

    Andy, I don’t disagree with you on that but I don’t see how it helps. CH4 will not be completely excluded by IPCC. The wrought we now have was developed in the 1990’s when it did appear that atmospheric CH4 was increasing rapidly. The pulse model was developed because it was projected CH4 would NOT get to equilibrium. Atmospheric CH4 quickly stabilised post 2000 but the wrought remained.

    If you are going to tax emissions of CO2, rather than accumulations in the atmosphere of CO2, (not that I know how you could do that) then presumably you have to tax emissions of CH4 regardless of the minimal net increase in the atmosphere.

    If you accept CH4 needs taxing the time horizon for the GWP calculation should be 100, otherwise it is not referenced to CO2, and a static state assumption for CH4 should be applied meaning the GWP multiple is 7 not 23.

    All Gareth has done is say it could be anything, maybe zero. The time horizon issue is pure IPCC obfuscation feed into Wikipedia and repeated without challenge. Gareth has our model and should be able to see past that. This doesn’t help in fixing NZ’s overstated emissions calculation. We will not get CH4 counted as zero so we should at least be using the right number.

    Remember the model that we unwrapped was IPCC’s own work.

  15. Andy on June 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm said:

    To be fair on Gareth, I think he does basically accept now that ruminant methane is not the same class of problem as CO2 for the reasons already stated, and he also said that the “horse has bolted” as far as the dogma surrounding this issue is concerned.

    Gareth Morgan has also made similar comments on his blog on methane. Maybe some movers and shakers are trying to get things changed, but the likelihood of anything happening at Paris (other than the odd party) is pretty remote anyway.

  16. HemiMck on June 30, 2015 at 6:23 pm said:

    “…..he also said that the “horse has bolted” as far as the dogma surrounding this issue is concerned. ”

    If we accept that or Gareth’s lack of analytical rigour (on this issue) we may as well give up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation