WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
In any consideration of climate change, there are opportunities as well as risks
The information given on this web page is provided by Dr John Maunder, President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization from 1989 to 1997, who over the last 55 years has been involved in the "weather business" in various countries, including New Zealand, Australia, Canada, US, Ireland, Switzerland, and the UK , through activities in national weather services, universities and international organizations, and publications including four books : "The Value of the Weather" (1970), "The Uncertainty Business - Risks and Opportunties in Weather and Climate" (1986), "The Human Impact of Climate Uncertainty - Weather Information, Economic Planning, and Business Management " (1989), and the "Dictionary of Global Climate Change" (1994). The information is prepared so as to provide a "need to know" background on climate change, and "global warming" with the aim to promote a better understanding of this complex matter. Among other things the author was the only New Zealander invited, along with 100 other experts, to the "original" international conference on ".., the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in climate variations and associated aspects " held in Villach, Austria in October 1985. The findings of this conference led to the development in 1988 of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- There are a variety of viewpoints on this subject (covering the full range from those who consider that we ARE the weather makers, to those who consider that we are NOT the weather makers and that climate change is mainly a natural event). I have provided web links to a selection of what I consider to be relevant sites, covering both sides of the story. For further information please contact Dr John Maunder at climate@ihug.co.nz
- For a different perspective on John Maunder you might like to check the following site: http://sites.google.com/site/hymnforallseasons/ which is hymn writen by John Maunder based on Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
- Last updated on 19 January 2012
Also see the National Space Science and Technology Center web site which publishes monthly anomalies of the global, land, ocean, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and tropical temperatures at http://nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2/uahncdc.mt.
For the current information on sunspots see http://spaceweather.com., and http://sidc.oma.be/current/ri.html We are now moving out of a prolonged period of "spotless days". In 2009 the sun had no spots 71% of the time, which is the lowest number for any year for 95 years. For 2010 there were 51 spotless days. For 2011 to date, there have been 2 spotless day. The latest monthly sunspot numbers are: December 2010 - 16, January 2011 - 19, February - 29, March -56, April 54, May 42, June 37, July 44, August 51, September 78, October 88, November 97, December 73. See also http://sites.google.com/site/johnmaunder/thesunpaysnoheedtohumancommitteespage'st
1.Communtities and businesess and individuals should always live within their climatic income - both now and in the future.
2. There are always surprises in science, and the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood.
3. It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer. However, some species which have adapted well to their current climate may not be able to adapt to a future climate if the rate of change to that climate is too fast.
4. Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (ie human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunties.
5. It is important that we should "clean-up" the environment by decreasing greenhouse gas emisions, but we should do so because in most cases it makes good economic and social sense to do so. If, by so doing we ALSO produce a "better" climate, then we will all be winners, but we should NOT expect to be able to "control" the climate.
6. One should always be aware that if it is really "Nature" and not "Man" in "control" of our climate, then our only choice ( as has always been the case ) will be to adapt to whatever "Nature" provides, and our ability to control such changes will be minimal if not zero.
 Andrew Campbell andrew@thesun.co.nz
16 Jan 2010 Tauranga resident and climate scientist John Maunder says the politicisation of the climate change issue is ruining the debate on it. In 1985 there were about 100 people at a World Meteorological Organization meeting which John believes is the beginning of the manmade climate change debate.
“I was the only one from New Zealand at that meeting,” says John.   |
***********************************************************************
WEB SITES and OTHER REFERENCES
1. Temperature, Rainfall, Solar/Sunpots, Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice, and Sea Level Data
2. The "Official" Viewpoint (UN FCCC, IPCC, NIWA etc) on "Climate Change/Warming"
3. Sources questioning the "Official" Viewpoint on "Global warming"
4. Other Related Sites (not otherwise cited
************************************************************************************************************
For the latest temperature data - and historical data to date - for various including areas including global (land-ocean), global (meteorological stations), three latitude bands, hemispheric, and the United States, prepared by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA, see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ The "global temperature graph" shows little change in global temperature since 1998. The yearly global temperatures (expressed as differences from the 1951-80 average) since 1998 are (all above average) are: 1998, 0.57 degrees; 1999, 0.32; 2000, 0.33; 2001, 0.47; 2002, 0.56; 2003, 0.55; 2004, 0.48; 2005, 0.63; 2006, 0.55; 2007; 2008, 0.44, 2009, 0.57 degrees; and 2010, 0.63 degrees. Since 1880 when comparative temperature records are available, the four coldest years according to the NASA site are 1890 and 1917 (both 0.39 degrees below average), and 1877 and 1909 (both -0.35 degrees below average), and the five warmest years are 2005 and 2010 (both 0.63 degrees above average), 2007 (0.58 degrees abve average), and 1998 and 2002 (both 0.56 degrees above average).
The US National Space Science and Technology Center publishes monthly anomalies of the global, land, ocean, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and tropical temperatures at http://nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2/uahncdc.mt. For the month of January 2008, the anomalies were - 0.18, -0.19, -0.18, -0.24, -0.13, and -0.28 degrees; for February 2008 the values were -0.05, 0.00, -0.08, +0.13, -0.23, and -0.39 degrees; for March 2008 the values were -0.14, 0.27, -0.37, 0.07, -0.34, and -0.62 degrees; for April 2008 the values were -0.20, -0.01, -0.30, -.0.09, -0.30, and -0.61 degrees; for May 2008 the values were -0.29, -0.12, -0.39, -0.20, -0.39, and -0.59 degrees; for June 2008 the values were -0.20, -0.07, -0.28, -0.17, -0.23, and -0.35 degrees; for July 2008 the values were -0.07, +0.09, -0.16, -0.01, -0.12, and -0.13 degrees; for August 2008 the values were -0.15, -0.02, -0.22, +0.04, -0.33, and -0.16 degrees; for September 2008 the values were +0.01, +0.13, -0.06, +0.13, -0.11, and 0.00 degress; for October 2008 the values were -0.02, +0.17, -0.13, +0.06, -0.11, and +0.03 degrees; for November 2008 the values were 0.00, +0.14, -0.09, +0.10, -0.11, and +0.08 degrees; and for December 2008 the values were -0.05, -0.02, -0.06, +0.18, -0.27, and -0.10 degrees. For the 12 months January to December 2008, 54 of the 72 values listed above were below average. For January 2009, the values were +0.07, +0.17, +0.01, +0.22, -0.07, and -0.17 degrees.; for February 2009 the values were +0.15, +0.46, -0.03, +0.44, -0.14, and -0.18 degrees; for March 2009 the values were +0.03, +0.24, -0.09, +0.06, 0.00, and -0.23 degrees; for April 2009 the values were -0.04, 0.04, -0.09, -0.04, -0.05, and -0.09 degrees; for May 2009 the values were -0.08, 0.01, -0.14, -0.09,-0.08, and 0.15 degrees; for June 2009 the values were -0.16, -0.07 ,-0.22, -0.17, -0.16, and -0.11 degrees; for July 2009 the values were +0.24, +0.27, +0.23, +0.09, +0.40, and +0.39 degrees; for August 2009 the values were +0.11, +0.21, +0.05, +0.16, +0.05, and +0.38 degrees;for September 2009 the values were +0.30, +0.46, +0.20, +0.39, +0.20, and +0,46 degrees; for October 2009 the values were +0.19, +0.12, +0.24, +0,16, +0.23, +0.260; for November 2009 the values were +0.27, +0.38, +0.22, +0.28, +0.27, +0.40; for December +0.12,+0.15, +0.10, +0.19, + 0.05, +0,35.
For 2010 the values are: January +0.38,+0.46,+0.34,+0.49,+0.31,+0.57 degrees C ; February +0.40,+0.44,+0.37,+0.38,+0.37,+0.72; March +0.46, +0.58, +0.39,+0.61, +0.37, +0.68 degrees; April +0.34,+0.39,+0.30,+0.50,+0.17,+0.62 degrees; May +0.45,+0.58,+0.38,+0.68,+0.22,+0.76 degrees; June +0.35,+0.42,+0.31,+0.50,+0.20, and +0.40 degrees; July +0.45,+0.49,+0.43,+0.60,+0.31,+0.33 degrees; August +0.47,+0.57,+0.41,+0.61,+0.33, +0.26 degrees; September +0.49,+0.59,+0.43,+0.53,+0.45,+0.19 degrees; October +0.22,+0.33,+0.16,+0.24,+0.21,+0.17 degrees; November +0.12,+0.21,+0.07,+0.23,+0.01,-0.04 degrees; for December +0.01,+0.11,-0.04,-0.01,0.04,-0.22 degrees.
For 2011 the values are: January -0.14,-0.19,-0.12,-0.28,-0.01,-0.36 degrees; February -0.14,-0.24,-0.08,-0.28,-0.01,-0.28 degrees: March -0.25,-0.22,-0.26,-0.35,-0.15,-0.28 degrees: April -0.08,-0.03,-0.11,-0.04,-0.12, -0.28 degrees: May +0.01, +0.06, -0.02, +0.02, -0.01, -0.10 degrees: June +0.18,+0.31,+0.10,+0.27,+0.08,+0.14 degrees: July +0.25,+0.26,+0.18,+0.25,+0.24, +0.11 degrees: August +0.18,+0.37,+0.09,+0.19, +0.17, +0.08 degrees: September +0.17,+0.37,+0.07, +0.24, +0.09. +0.13 degrees: October -0.05, -0.08, -0.13, +0.02, -0.13, -0.09 degrees: November -0.06, -0.04, -0.18, -0.10, -0.02, +0.01 degrees.
The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK has a web site in which it provides their estimates of the temperature anomalies from 1961-90 "average" for various areas of the world. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt Their estimate for the global average temperature for the year 2010 shows an anomaly of +0.27 degrees C. This is the smallest positive deviation for a calendar year since 2000. The "global temperature" values since 1998 which had the "peak" of the current warming of +0.53 degrees, are 1999 +0.30, 2000 +0.28, 2001 +0.41, 2002 +0.46, 2003 +0.47, 2004 +0.45, 2005 +0.48, 2006 +0.42, 2007 +0.40 degrees, 2008 +0.33 degrees, 2009 +0.43 degrees, and 2010 +0.27 degrees. . For 2008 the global monthly values are: January +0.07 degrees C, February +0.20 degrees C, March +0.44 degrees C, April +0.26 degrees C, May +0.28 degrees C, June +0.32 degrees, July +0.40 degrees, August +0.39 degrees, and September +0.37 degrees, October +0.43 degrees, November +0.39 degrees, and December +0.30 degrees. For 2009, the values are : January +0.37 degrees., February +0.36 degrees, March +0.36 degrees, April +0.41 degrees, May +0.40 degrees, June +0.49 degrees, July 0.49 degrees, August 0.53 degrees, September +0.46 degrees, October +0.44 degrees, November +0.45 degrees, December +0.42 degrees. For 2010, the values are January +0.49 degrees, February +0.45 degrees, March +0.57 degrees, April +0.56 degrees, May +0.50 degrees, June +0.52 degrees, July +0.53 degrees, August +0.48, September +0.38 degrees, October +0.39 degrees, November +0.44 degrees, December +0.25 degrees. For 2011, values are January +0.21 degrees, February +0.27 degrees, March +0.32 degrees, April +0.40 degrees, May +0.33 degrees, June +0.42 degrees, July +0.44 degrees, August +0.44 degrees, September +0.36 degrees, October +0.34 degrees, November +0.28 degrees.
PLEASE NOTE: There was an investigation into the validity of some of the the temperature data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. SEE : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident
New Zealand Temperatures and Rainfalls
Download pdf here
A summary of the monthly rainfalls( wettest, second wettest, driest and second driest, plus the long-term averages and the 1961-90 normals), as well as charts for the rainfalls for all months from 1913-2011 , for Tauranga (NZ) from several recording sites over the last 100 to 110 years ( updated to September 2011), all data being adjusted to the current recording site at Tauranga Airport is available at https://sites.google.com/site/nzrainfalls/newzealandmonthlyrainfalls
The monthly average daily maximum temperature data for Tauranga for most months for the years 1913 to September 2011 are available at http://john.maunder.googlepages.com/taurangatemperaturedata This shows that most of the warmest months ( looking at each month , ie January, April, August etc) during the last 90 to 100 years occured during the first part of this period rather than during the last 40 to 50 years. The warmest year was 1916 with an average daily maximum temperature of 20.4 degrees. This web site also shows charts of the average daily maximum tempertures for Tauranga for all months for the period 1913 to 2011. NOTE: This data series ( for all months) has been adjusted where appropriate to account for the several site changes in Tauranga since 1913, and the data is a lttle different that that from the NIWA "eleven-station" series, examples of which are given below.
NIWA has compiled an +eleven -station" climate data series of the average daily maximum and the average daily minimum temeratures for each year of the record for 11 stations in New Zealand. For Tauranga this is for the period 1913-2009, and for Ruakura, Hamilton 1924- 2009. My graph of this data for Tauranga is available at: https://sites.google.com/site/climatescience/annual-temperatures-tauranga-nz ,and the data for Hamilton is available at: https://sites.google.com/site/climatescience/yearly-temperature-trends-hamilton-nz
SUNSPOTS
Sea level data is available for several sites throughout the world which may be accessed through the University of Colorado at Boulder site at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php Since August 1992, satellite altimiters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with considerable accuracy over the traditional and continuing method of using coastal tidal gauges. The various links given on this web site highlight the relatively large variability in sea level rise rates in space and time.
The web site http://tinyurl.com/6cauyq gives comments by Jarl R Ahlbeck ( Akademi University, Finland) which states that there has been "No significant warming since 1995". The author shows two global temperature graphs sourced from the UK Hadley Centre and NASA.
See http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm which discussed the period to 2009 which recorded a large number of days without sunspots - "spotless days".
Some scientists suggest that melting of the Arctic ice may decrease the "global ocean conveyer belt". An introduction to this topic is available at https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/circulation1.html&edu=elem
Surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)
Here is the PDF file: pnas.201102467
The headlines from the abstract and the conclusion state:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.
The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was 12.38 million square kilometers (4.78 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High Resolution Image
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Overview of Conditions
Arctic sea ice extent in December 2011 averaged 12.38 million square kilometers (4.78 million square miles). This is the third lowest December ice extent in the 1979 to 2011 satellite data record, 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.
December 2011 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite record is -3.5% per decade.
For details see:
Antarctica Ice
The National Snow and Ice Dat Center in Boluder, Colorado ij their report date 14 January 2012 states"
After a particularly slow ice loss rate at the beginning of the month, Antarctic sea ice extent was unusually high through much of December 2011, in particular in the northern Ross Sea and the eastern Weddell Sea. December and November have had a markedly strong Amundsen Sea Low, an atmospheric pressure pattern that tends to spread the sea ice cover northward in the Ross Sea. Low pressure over the eastern Weddell Sea later in the month had the same effect there. Sea ice for the Antarctic in December 2011 was the fifth-highest for that month in the satellite record; the highest December extent occurred in 2007. Overall though, Antarctic sea ice extent remained below or near normal for most of 2011. Antarctic sea ice data are available on the Sea Ice Index Web site.
B. IPCC and NIWA (The "Official Viewpoint" on Global Warming)
The Official Report of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) from the Copenhagen Climate Conference held in December 2009 is available at this site:
For the latest "Summary for Polcymakers of the Syntheseis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" is in November 2007 see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/
For the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the science of climate change issued in November 2007 see http://www.ipcc.ch/ar4-wg1.htm
A "Climate Change Statement from the Royal Society of New Zealand " issued on 10 July 2008 is available at http://www.rsnz.org/news/releases/clim0708.php
For the latest IPCC report on the impacts, adaptability and vulnerability of climate change issued in November 2007 see http://www.ipcc/ch/ar4-wg2.htm
For the latest IPCC report on the mitigation of climate change issued in November 2007 see http://www.ipcc.ch/ar4-wg3.htm
For a summary, prepared by NIWA, on the IPCC's key findings on the impacts of climate change for New Zealand and the South Pacific download the pdf at www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc
A study of past climate variations over New Zealand, prepared by the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) ,which describes climate variations over New Zealand during the past 150,00 years, and in particular describes in some detail the climate variations over the last 140 years - including a graph of the mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1855 to 2008 is available at: http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate#y140
NIWA in a special report issued on July 20, 2010 state that there are many lines of evidence showing that NZ has warmed during the past century. Details of this information are given below.
NZ Temperature Record
There are many lines of evidence showing that NZ has warmed during the past century. These include the "seven station" temperature series, the "eleven station" temperature series, and information from ship measurements of sea-surface temperatures and marine night-time air temperatures over the oceans around NZ.
‘Seven-station’ series
NIWA's 'seven-station' temperature series uses temperature measurements from seven 'climate stations'. The locations were chosen because they provide a representative geographical spread across NZ and have reliable records dating back at least to the early 1900s. The trend over the past 100 years (1909-2008) is warming of 0.9 ºC.
'Eleven-station' series
This series comprises a set of eleven stations spanning New Zealand where there have been no significant site moves for many decades. The data used in this series are raw (unadjusted) – no adjustments are required because the measuring sites have not moved significantly. There is a warming trend over the 77 year period 1931-2008 of close to 1 ºC.
To see the special issue on "Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed" published by "Newsweek" see www.newscientist.com/climatemyths
The UK's National Science Academy (the Royal Society) has on its web site a list of "misleading" arguments about about global warming, each of which is addressed. See http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
Dr James Hansen and 14 collaegues have made available through the web their assessment of the current state of climate change in a paper entilted: "The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future". This comprehensive paper from a pioneer in the field is available at : http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf
3. REFERENCES TO SOURCES QUESTIONING THE "ESTABLISHED" VIEWPOINT ON GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9853/Another-victory-for-science-House-votes-244179-to-kill-US-funding-of-UN-IPCC-It-no-longer-wishes-to-have-the-IPCC-prepare-its-comprehensive-international-climate-science-assessments
The above web site states "Another victory for science! House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of UN IPCC! 'It no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments' This IPCC 'amendment' was sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who read aloud on the floor from the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists! (Written by Climate Depot's Morano). Luetkemeyer stated that Americans 'should not have to continue to foot the bill for an (IPCC) organization to keep producing corrupt findings'
A special report complied by "Climate Depot" to coincide with the UN Cimate Summit in Cancun (Mexico) in December 2010 is available at the web site below. Among other things the report lists more than 1000 dissenting scientists from arong the world who have challenged many of the "man-man global warming" claims of the IPPC.
President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, writing in the "Spectator" on November 5, 2010 highlights the excellent work of Professor Bob Carter of Australia on climate change/global warming. He says that he likes Carter’s emphasis on the crucial difference between global warming (which is part of normal scientific discourse) and ‘dangerous anthropogenic global warming’ (which is ideological propaganda). He is also right when talking about the difficulty in defining who is and who is not a climatologist, and turning our attention to the fact that there is no ‘climate science’, because ‘scientists who study climate change come from a wide range of disciplines’'. - President Klaus in the UK Spectator. For details see
http://tinyurl.com/353w4cu
- For an overview of what is best decribed as "integrity in science" and in particular the science of global warming/global cooling etc, the following comments are relevant.
"Climate alarmists do not simply boast of their monopoly over peer-reviewed outlets – they also do their best to call into question peer-reviewed outlets that dare to publish research that challenges any aspect of their moral crusade." says Professor Frank Furedi, writing in The Weekend Australian. For details see:LINK
"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. " Go here for a list
"The global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS ( American Physical Society) before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. " So states distinguished American physicist Hal Lewis in his letter resigning from the American Physical Society.
Details and letter here
- The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition mission is to represent accurately, and without predudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both the natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change. Their website is updated daily. See http://www.nzclimatescience.org.nz
- The Heartland Institute, an independent nonprofit organization, has been very active in the global warming debate, publishing books and monographs, maintaining multiple Web sites providing information on the issue, and in 2009, publishing Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Institute have had four conferneces on the subject to date (the latest being in May 2010). Speakers at the conferences do not all agree on the causes, extent, or consequences of climate change, or what should be done, but the scientists and other experts share their latest research and engage in respectful debate with others.
- The First International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-1) took place in March 2008 in New York City. One hundred speakers and panelists came from 26 countries to prove that leading scientists and economists from around the world dispute the claim that global warming is a crisis. More than 500 people attended the conference, which generated global press attention.
The next conference, ICCC-2, took place in March 2009 once again in New York City. This time the theme was “Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?” Once again speakers and guests came from around the world and the audience grew to more than 700 people. The conference demonstrated that the number of global warming “realists” is growing rapidly, and the scientific community is turning against alarmism.
The Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-3) took place in June 2009 in Washington, DC. This scaled-down one-day version of the conference, just three months after the second conference, attracted a standing-room-only audience and featured presentations by leading scientists as well as three members of Congress. It took our key message -- that global warming is not a crisis -- directly to the nation’s capital and elected officials.
-
For further details see
Scientists agree that global temperatures are rising, and so are levels of carbon dioxide. But the immediate impact of human activity on natural climate cycles—from ice-sheet dynamics to wind and ocean currents—remains unclear. The Antarctica research reported in the "Wall Street Journal" sited below, could - for the first time - teach scientists how global warming developed when humankind had no hand in it. At a camp here on Earth's remotest continent, American researchers have constructed a towering drill that, like a biopsy needle, periodically plunges thousands of feet into the ice to extract an exotic marrow of frozen gases and isotopes.
Their work could settle a central question in the dispute over climate change, by documenting how greenhouse gases influenced temperatures in the past. Only then can researchers accurately analyze climate changes that may be under way today. An important report on this work in the "Wall Street Journal" dated May 29, 2009 is available at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704655004575114010457906340.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6
-
VETERAN AMERICAN WEATHERMAN DEBUNKS CLIMATE HYSTERIA John Coleman, meteorologist of 50 years' experience, founder of the US "Weather Channel" and original weatherman on "Good Morning America" demonstrates in user-friendly language why there is no foundation for IPCC claims of carbon dioxide-driven catastrophic "global warming" - to view video: LINK
` The web site ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/ )
- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/#more-15762 is a commentary on "puzzling things in life, nature, weather, climate change, technology etc, compiled by Anthony Watts. It is updated daily and provides a good insight into recent developments in climate science.
"Solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid." - Lawrence Solomon, writing on May 21, 2010 in the National Post, Canada
LINK
- ICECAP( http://icecap.us/) which is the web site of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project is updated daily on a wide variety of items related to the climate change debate.
- Shortcomings in the climate change policies of the Australian Government have been brought to light through the initiative during 2009 of independent Federal Senator Steve Fielding seeking a meeting with Climate Change MInister Penny Wong, at which the Senator posed three basic questions. The Minister had two science advisors, and Sen.Fielding had four independents. The questions, the Minister's answers, and the independents' commentary on those answers reveal the apalling lack of justification for the costly "carbon pollution reduction" measures being pushed by the Australian Govt, and similar moves in other western countries. To access go to the "Climate Change Documents" panel on Sen. Fielding's website: LINK
- An open letter (dated December 12, 2007) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by over 100 scientists expressing doubts that human-caused global warming consitutes a dangerous problem is available at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002. The published list of signatories to this letter ( including several New Zealander's) are available at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
- "Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason'". Report by Christpher Booker in the "Telegraph.co.uk" web site on April 7, 2008. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml
- "The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change" which was agreed to at a conference in New York in March 2008 in which scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers and business leaders, among other things noted that "the causes and extent of recently observed climate changes are subject to intense debates in the climate science community and that the oft-repeated assertions of a 'supposed' consensus among climate experts are false", is available at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org . This site also includes links to many sites which in the main question the "consensus" than 'man' rather than 'nature' in in control of the climate.
- For a viewpoint of a 15-year student from the US on the results of her research on climate change which gives a refreshing viewpoint see http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html
- An internet posting for laypeople who want to know more about "global warming" and questioning whether it is "fact" or "hoax" , see the editorial by James A Peden at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
- Am excellent perspective on climate change emphasing the overall importance of natural causes is given in "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard". This book, written by William Kininmonth, was published by Multi-Science co, UK, in 2004.
- For a research paper on "Climate Change: Climate Science and the Stern Review" written by R.M. Carter, C.R deFreitas, I.M. Goklany, D. Holland, and R.S. Linsdzen which was published in "World Economics", Vol 8, No.2, April-June 2007, in which the authors state:" Wrong science breeds pointless economics; it's that simple", see: http://www.nzclimatescience/org/images/PDFs/wec00275_00802_henderson.pdf
- For a web site dedicated to "sound public policy based on sound science" see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org . The Science and Public Policy Insitute (SPPI) uges critical appraisal of legislative "climate fixes" for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utiity or futility. "An Inconvenient Expert" is how the "Outside Magazine" decribes US MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen. The article asks "Right or wrong - why do so many people think he should be silenced?" For details see: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html
-
NIWA 7 STATION REVIEW FAILS TO SHOW SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE CHANGES IN NZ As a result of probing by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in 2010, questioning the accuracy of NIWA's Seven Station Series (7SS) temperature records, NIWA undertook a review of 7SS. Dr Vincent Gray, founding member of NZCSC, and IPCC expert review since inception, has now analysed the review, and finds the results "compatible with the historic view of no significant change since records began." Dr Gray's penetrating paper wsa published in the June 2011 issue of Energy & Environment, Volume 22 No 4. Download pdf here
- The Judgment of Mr Justice Burton in the UK High Court of Justice on October 10,2007 in relation to the case involving the showing of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" to every state secondary school in the UK is given at http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly102.htm. In paragraph 40 of the Judgment, Justice Burton states that teaching staff should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically and point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream opinion.
- A paper on the "Ultralong Solar Cycle 23 and possible consequences " by Joe D/Aleo is available at http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx? a=130
4. OTHER SITES (not previously cited)
The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a newly registered arm of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, filed a claim in the High Court in New Zealand (in August 2010) seeking a declaration by the Court to invalidate the NZ Temperature Record, currently promoted by NIWA, and featured on its website. To download media release, bacgrounder and summary of claim, link here
To download explanatory graph, link here
The Statement of Claim by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) and the Statement of Defence by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in the matter of the Court action about New Zealand's temperature recordsis given below.
NZCSET Statement of Claim: download pdf here
NIWA Statement of Defence: download pdf here
- A Powerpoint presentation of a Royal Society of New Zealand sponsored "Climate Workshop" held in Wellington (NZ) on May 25, 2007, on the implications for NZ of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report see http://www.rsnz.org/events/ipcc4/
- The New Zealand Institute has published papers on climate change with special refernence to New Zealand. For "The economic effects of climate change: positioning New Zealand to respond" see http://www.nzinstitute.org
- The New Zealand Ministry of the Environment in their magazine "Envronz" dated July 2008 has a two page article on "Climate Change - Adaption Demands Attention" . Among the pertinent comments are those of Sue Powell (Environment Ministry General Manager who states " It is not a case of being alarmist, it is simply getting people to use the scientific information available to minimise the risks and maximise the opportunties that come with the physical impacts of climate change". For details see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/about/environz/environz-jul08/index.html?
- The New Zealand PowerFutures Group forecasts of the spot electricity prices for three areas of New Zealand for selected weeks during the next two years , as well as the predicted "hydro-electricity-climate" index for a selection of months for the North and South Islands of New Zealand during the next two years are available at: http://nzelectricitypriceforecasts.googlepages.com/home
-
-
PANEL DISCUSSION ON "CLIMATE CHANGE: BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY"
A panel discussion on "Climate Change : Both Sides of the Story" ( which I chaired) was held at a Rotary Conference in Cambridge on June 28 2008. I was President of the Rotary Club of Otumoetai for 2007-08, and Rotary District Governor John Tarbutt asked me in December 2007 to Chair a discussion on the above subject and to arrange the speakers. I was fortunate to be able to obtain the services of Dr Jim Renwick from NIWA, who in the main, took the side of "man" and Dr Willem de Lange from the University of Waikato who in the main, took the side of "nature" . -
The organisers were very generous in giving us 1 hour 20 minutes, and this discussion was held before 600 delegates. I open the proceedings with a brief overview of the subject with reference to the fact that when I started in the "weather and climate business" over 50 years ago, nobody would have forecast that in 2007, 15,000 people would attend a climate change conference in Bali. I pointed out that I was the only person invited from New Zealand to attend the key WMO,UNEP, ICSU Climate Conference in Villach, Austria, in 1985, which was in the mind of many people "the start of the whole complex subject of what role 'man' and in particular greenhouse gases have in 'controlling' our climate". The following is what I said in my opening remarks :
********************Forty-seven years ago, after already being a weather forecaster in New Zealand and Canada for a few years, I was appointed to the staff of the University of Otago as a Lecturer in geography. Among my duties as a Lecturer I presented an Honours course in Climatology. At Otago the course on climatology included two main topics, first the causes of climate change, and second the evidence for climate change. At that time, little did I know, nor I suspect any of my students could foresee the explosive nature of the subject of "Climate Science" as it is now called, during the last decade, and particularly over the past few years.
My involvement in climate science has subsequently involved National Meteorological Services in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Universities in New Zealand, Canada, USA and Ireland, as well as many years involved in the World Meteorological Organization including being President of the WMO Commission for Climatology for 8 years.
Among the many climate science meetings I have attended, the most significant, at least as far as this afternoon is concerned, is my involvement in the WMO,UNEP.ICSU Conference held in Villach, Austria in October 1985. One hundred experts from 30 countries attended the meeting,( in contrast to thousands who now attend such meetings) and I was privileged to be the only New Zealander invited. We were all there as experts in various fields of science endeavouring to do the best we could in looking at the complexities of climate science. --
Among the principal findings of this conference was .......
"while other factors, such as aerosol concentration, changes in solar energy input, and changes in vegetation, may also influence climate, the greenhouse gases are likely to be the most important cause of climate change over the next century."
At that time, even though I was partly responsible for the writing of the paragraph I have just read, I along with a few of my colleagues, had some misgivings about it, and were somewhat surprised that with a year "human-induced climate change" caught the imagination of much of the world.
Despite this concern, a colleague of mine from Australia, Bill Kinninmonth, who in 2004 wrote a book called "Climate Change - A Natural Hazard" has mentioned to me on several occasions that I have changed from being the :"gamekeeper" and become the "poacher". Whether that is true is a matter of opinion. I am sure Jim and Willem each have a view on that!
However, irrespective of my personal views on the matter, it is very clear that there are two main views held by Climate Scientists and others:
* first those who are mainly involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many or most Government scientists, plus others, such as Al Gore, and many politicians and most journalists who consider that man, including domestic animals, is the prime cause of recent changes in the climate;
* second, those - in the main some University Scientists and ,any retired climatologists, and a minority of politicians and journalists, who consider that Nature (or God if you prefer) is the main cause of changes in the climate.
Even 20 years ago, it was unconceivable that the New Zealand Government would have a Minister in Charge of Climate Change. Accordingly, as weather forecasters and climatologists in the 1960's and 1970's, we just got on with our job of making the best possible weather forecast and providing the best climate advice, without guidance or interference from the Government of the day. How things have changed!
Indeed, one of the most fascinating things about the climate change scene is thetremendous growth in the political and economic aspects of it. In 1970, I wrote a book called "The Value of the Weather", and later on in 1986 I published a book called "The Uncertainty Business - Risks and Opportunities in Weather and Climate". In both books, I made only a few references to "global warming" or "climate change" but many references to variations in the weather and climate on a day to day, season to season, and year to year basis. -
It is my view that these variations are still paramount but the current emphasis seems to be on what is going to happen to the climate 20, 50 and 100 years ahead, and hence the debate we are now to have here this afternoon..
***********************************************************************************************************Jim and Willem were each given about 20 minutes to state their case, and this was followed by about 20 minutes of questions, some of which I obtained from attendees at the conference, but most were questions which came from me. Prior to the conference, both Jim and Willem agreed that I should ask the questions. The following were some of the questions which I asked.
**********************************************************************************************************Questions :
1. Irrespective of the cause of Climate Change, could you explain why the media and many politicians seem to consider that, in general warming, is a bad thing, and by inference does this mean that, in general cooling, is a bad thing?
2. If the IPCC was forecasting a cooling rather than a warming, what difference do you think that would make in Government, UN and Greenpeace attitudes?
3. The Maunder Minimum, from 1650-1715, which was a period of very low sunspot activities, and associated with very cold conditions in Europe, was a significant feature of the history of the last millennium. Are we likely to get another Maunder-like minimum in the near future?
4. During the period of Viking exploration from about 800 to 1300AD the Northern Hemisphere was associated with relatively warm conditions, and in many cases it was warmer then than during the last 30 or 40 years. During that 1200's Greenland had about 3000 settlements period and yet by 1550 the last of them had disappeared. There was no human-induced greenhouse warming during that period, so is there any reason why we could not have such a period again - perhaps like what we had from about 1970 to about 2000 - unrelated to what people and domestic animals are doing?.
5. I understand that the IPCC seems to be giving relatively small importance to the role of the sun. Why is this the case? Do we really know all there is to know about solar activity?
6. A key debate in the climate change arena appears to be whether increases in carbon dioxide ( from whatever cause) causes warming, or whether warming causes increases in carbon dioxide. When do you think we will be able to establish the truth about these statements, or have I go it it all wrong?
7. Why is an increase in carbon dioxide not considered to be a good thing? I understand that some scientists suggest that the biosphere is currently suffering from "carbon dioxide starvation", and that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase plant production by 20%.
8. Many or most climate scientists who have publicly stated that they do not agree with the findings of the IPCC are labelled as "sceptics", yet economists who disagree with the Reserve Bank on monetary matters are not considered be "economic sceptics", but simply experts who have a different view of things" Why is this so?
9. To WILLEM : If in the future it can be established without question that the current viewpoint of the IPCC is correct, how would people like yourself and organizations who take the contrary view of the IPCC, deal with this situation?
10. To JIM : If in the future it can be established without question that the current viewpoint of the IPCC is wrong, and that nature is the main driver of climate changes, how would the IPCC, and organizations like NIWA deal with this situation?
11. My understanding is that most climate scientists who support the view that man rather than nature is in control of the climate are Government employees, whereas most climate scientists who support the view that nature, rather than man, is in control of the climate are in the main, retired. On the other hand University Climate Scientists take a variety of positions on this subject. Is there any reason for this? Is it linked to who finances the research, political agendas, or something else?************************************************************************* *********************Jim and Willem were then given 5 minutes to sum up.
From what I heard from the attendees, the discussion seemed to be an excellent way of presenting this challenging subject, and my sense was that the majority of the audience there were yet to be convinced that man is really in control ( as most media, politicians including the G8 leaders, and the IPCC believe), rather than or nature.
Jim and Willem agreed on many points, but it was the interpretation of the data, much presented in graphical manner, which was the key difference in their presentation. Jim obviously took in the main the "IPCC line", but agreed with Willem that we did not know everything, and Willem took in the main the more "academic line", but also agreed that we do not know everything. -
*************************************************************************************************
-
At the request of the editor of the "Bay of Plenty Times" I was asked to write a guest editorial on climate change. The editorial was published on July 24, 2009. My original heading for the editorial was "Global cooling.. global warming" but this was changed ny the newspaper to "Foolish to believe humans can control global climate" .
-
"foolish to believe humans can control global climate"
-
In considering both sides of the “global warming/cooling controversy” there are several key points to bear in mind. First, the climate has been changing ever since planet Earth was created, and climate change is best described as a natural hazard; second, climate change brings opportunities as well as risks – namely the opportunities of economic and social benefits, and the risks of not adapting to change; third, there are always surprises in science - we do not know everything. Further, although "cleaning up" the environment is what we should all do, whether we think we can control the climate by doing so is quite another matter.
However, at the last G8 Meeting in L'Aquila, Italy in July 2009, the G8 summit leaders stated: "We declare that the average global temperatures should not be allowed to exceed more than 2 degrees C". The absurdity of this statement is the belief that the global climate can be controlled by “Man”, and further that a rise of global temperature more than 2 degrees C is a bad thing. What is far more important is for all our political leaders to appreciate that “Nature” and not “Man” is the real driving force of our weather/climate system, and that the Sun pays no heed to human committees – no matter how powerful they think they are. We ignore this fact at our peril.
It is very clear that there are two main views held by climate scientists and others: first, those who are involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many or most Government scientists, plus others, such as Al Gore and his followers, and many politicians and most journalists who consider that man, and domestic animals, is the prime cause of recent changes in the climate; second, those - in the main many University scientists, the majority of retired climatologists, and a minority of politicians and journalists, who consider that “Nature” is the main cause of changes in the climate. But whatever “camp” you are in, or follow, we (and our political masters) need to appreciate the following:
*. Communities and businesses and individuals should always live within their climatic income - both now and in the future.
* There are always surprises in science, and the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood.
* It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer.
* Climatic variations and climatic changes from whatever cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities.
* It is important that we should "clean-up" the environment by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, but we should do so because in most cases it makes good economic and social sense to do so. If, by so doing we also produce a "better" climate, then we will all be winners, but we should not expect to be able to "control" the climate.
Finally, one should always be aware that if it is really "Nature" and not "Man" in "control" of our climate, then our only choice ( as has always been the case ) will be to adapt to whatever "Nature" provides, and our ability to control such changes will be minimal if not zero. The need to forecast the changes that will occur in the climate of the future, and in particular how the current climate will vary over the next 10 to 20 years remains paramount, and the best climate-scientific brains are required to prepare all countries for whatever the future climate will be.
Philip Duncan: 1) It feels like summers in New Zealand aren't as hot as they used to be - it doesn't feel like NZ is getting hotter at all? Dr Renwick: I hear that comment quite a lot, and I think a lot of it is psychological. My perception is that when you're young you spend a lot of time outdoors in the summer...the older we get the more time we spend indoors, in the office, less holidays etc. So our perception is that summers used to be hotter, but I can assure you that the data show it is definitely warming up and has done so over the last century. 2) If the world is heating up, why are places like USA and UK seeing record cold and snow? That's the difference between global change and regional change. The USA and UK have had a very cold winter, but other parts of the northern hemisphere, such as Greenland, Alaska and the Arctic Ocean have been much warmer than average over the past few weeks, but this didn't make the headlines. We need to be careful with comparing a local region to what's happening across the whole globe. 3) Why was Global Warming replaced with the term "Climate Change"? That's a really interesting question and I don't believe it ever was changed. My perception is that Climate Change has always been used in the scientific community, however the term "Global Warming" was something perhaps used more by the media and then the term stuck. There's a lot more to climate change than just warming - that's why all the scientists I know use and have always used the term "Climate Change". I don't think there has ever been an "official" replacement. 4) Last decade was NZ's warmest decade on record - but wasn't the increase within the margin of error or at the very least, a tiny change? There are two ways of looking at that. One of the records we used was based on seven climate stations which have data for well over 100 years. The difference in the averages (between the 2000s and the 1980s) from those stations was indeed very small and within margin of error. However it's important to note that four decades in a row have been significantly warmer than those before it. There are other records that can be used, such as the 11 reliable climate sites we described on our website last year, and in that data set the 2000s and the 1980s (next warmest decade) were more than one 10th of a degree different, which is significant. So the last 10 years were a bit warmer, and the last few decades have been a lot warmer than all the previous decades in the record, which shows an overall warming trend. If it was natural variability then you would expect a recent decade to have been cooler, like it was in the 1920s, say - but we aren't seeing any decades dropping back to those sorts of levels - and it's very unlikely going into the future that any will be that much cooler. 5) If the world is getting hotter, how come 2009 was cooler than average in NZ? This is partly the same as question 2. It's important to remember that New Zealand covers a small fraction of the globe. Climate change doesn't mean every year will be warmer in every country. It also doesn't mean every year will be warmer globally. There are always ups and downs but the trend is upwards. For instance, last century the eastern US actually cooled for several decades while the globe overall warmed up significantly. In the last 25 years however, that local cooling has reversed, as the globe has continued to warm. So, the overall trend is upwards, but even then we do see some cooling regions and some cooler periods. There are patches of the globe, sometimes quite large patches, which can go against the overall trend for a while - but that misses the point...if you're thinking about global change you have to look at the whole globe. 6)Weather forecasters can't even predict the weather 2 weeks out, how can climate scientists predict 10 or 50 years out? Well that's confusing the weather with the climate. Its true you can't predict the exact daily sequence of the weather more than a week or two out. But we (climate scientists) can say, with quite a lot of certainty, that July is going to be cooler than January in Auckland because seasonal change in the climate is predictable...and changes in the average climate over decades are also quite predictable. We're not in the business of saying what the weather will be like in Jan 2050, but we can predict average conditions several decades out on the basis of greenhouse gas increase. Here are a couple of analogies that might help explain my point: Analogy1: Imagine you're out in the harbour on your boat. Predicting the weather is a bit like predicting the ripples of the waves on the sea caused by the wind. Predicting the climate is more like predicting the tides. Analogy 2: Nobody can predict exactly when you and I will die, but insurance companies make a lot of money from knowing what the average death rate is - this average can't be applied to any individual. Predicting the climate is like using those life expectancy tables...we can predict the averages and the overall statistics with a fair degree of accuracy. Predicting the weather is more like tracking an individual person...certainly more variable. 7) Is 30 years of weather data long enough to use as a "guide" for predicting the future? The four warmest decades where the last four decades...and some have interpreted that to mean we didn't have data from before that. Actually, we have good records from a lot of stations in NZ from the last 70 or 80 years and some back well over 100 years. Globally, scientists use ice cores, tree rings, and other records to estimate climate over several hundred or thousand years. 30 years is certainly not long enough but no one is actually using just 30 years of data. 7B: You just mentioned ice cores - but haven't they showed big warmings in the past? Yes you're right, and that tells us the climate is sensitive. ...it just happens that it has been pretty stable while human society has been around. There are certainly natural things that cause fluctuations, such as changes in the Earth's orbit that drive the ice ages, but it's also clear that human activity - CO2, Greenhouse gas release affects the climate as well...in fact, basic physics shows that today's greenhouse gas release is a much faster way to heat the planet than the slow natural warming process that ends an ice age. I often hear this argument: Because there are natural causes of variation then the concept of human-caused variations is impossible - i.e. there's been natural cause in the past so then that rules out a human cause now. That argument just doesn't make sense. Natural influences have caused the climate to change quite a lot in the past and that should give us concern...it shows that the climate is variable, and vulnerable. 8)Are scientists scared to speak out about what they really believe for fear of being alarmist or not "going with the consensus"? Well no (laughing)...no not at all. Scientists are in the business they're in because they want to find out what's actually happening with the natural world. I don't know one scientist who is scared to speak out about what they believe...and believe is an interesting word. Science is about observing the natural world and building understanding on those observations, it's not about belief. Scientists publish their results openly, there's no fear of speaking out at all. Going with the "consensus" is an illusion too. For instance, the IPCC is a review process - it summarises what thousands of scientists all over the world have observed, or modelled, or deduced - it doesn't dictate to them, just summarises. It turns out 99.9 per cent of work reported does indeed form a consensus... that's a reflection of how things are, of what the real world looks like - it's a very clear picture. 9) Why does it seem that climate change is so doom and gloom? I'm burnt by warnings of things like SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu, Swine Flu etc how can I trust the experts on this one? There isn't an easy answer to that...there have been a lot of things in the media that haven't turned out to be as important or dangerous as we are led to believe...and if you're not an expert in those fields then what do you believe? What I can say is that with climate change there is an incredible weight of evidence that shows that climate change is happening...it is definitely a problem. Almost every scientific paper out there supports this view. The IPCC process is designed to help non-experts understand the problem. There are a lot of dire possibilities with future climate change...all the scientist I know are very concerned, and have a sense of urgency about taking action. To help convey that sense or urgency to the public, we sometimes do focus on the biggest issues or risks. It's important to note though that it's not all doom and gloom...there will be some winners, at least in the short term....perhaps more grass or grape growth in colder parts of New Zealand...but unfortunately there will be more losers than winners for the globe, and more at risk as times goes on. 10) Copenhagen seemed like a complete waste of money...are politics helping or confusing your cause? Science is about evidence and understanding the natural world, so scientists are not in the business of politics. But there has to be a political process to deal with this problem, one that's informed by the science. There is no alternative to dealing with this, and individual countries need to work together. Getting that cooperation going can seem slow and confusing, and a bit of a time wasting process. From my point of view it would be great if the political process was more efficient and faster. Copenhagen was a bit disappointing...but given human nature, I guess the world community has to go through these stages before we really get somewhere. I was just reading a report on Copenhagen (from the Business Council for Sustainable Development)...and the author said it reminded him of going to a dance as a teenager...it takes a long time to get couples up on the dance floor... but eventually someone gets up and dances, and then everyone wants to dance. That was Copenhagen - things didn't really get going there, but we hope the big players will be ready to dance soon. In the scientific community there is a great deal of concern and a sense of urgency - that we have to do something now. This hasn't quite gotten through to the international political world. We aren't taking it seriously enough yet...and there isn't a lot of time left to get on top of things.10 big questions on climate change answered
WeatherWatch weather analyst Philip Duncan's blogs on climate change have attracted a lot of reader interest. He took readers' 10 most commonly asked questions and put them to Dr James Renwick, Principal Scientist, Climate Variability & Change at Niwa.
