Royal Commission necessary

I'm making myself tired for nothing.

Top Aussie scientists have proposed a Royal Commission may be the answer to determining the veracity of IPCC opinions on carbon dioxide poisoning the climate.

"Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate."

Read and believe: Link or copy-paste this into the address bar -

joannenova.com.au/2009/07/03/scientists-call-for-royal-commission-into-climate-change-science/

The paper - Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s
Three Questions on Climate Change – Due Diligence
Contributors:
Bob Carter
David Evans
Stewart Franks
William Kininmonth

They pretty much conclude what I did. (Gis a job).

Heaven forbid such a thing could happen in the UK, the government wouldn't have the balls. Would they?

Cost-benefit of political membership of the EU? Nah, no way.

From Motl's blog - link

I hope. For everyone's sake.

Australian Senator Responded 3

Question 3

Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were(sic) followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling.

Correct answer - Yes

If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?

Correct answer - Bad advice

It is not the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008.

As noted above, air temperatures are affected by natural variability. Global Climate Models show this variability but are not able to predict when such variations will happen.

The Global Climate Model data presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment are averages of many individual simulations. By averaging across simulations natural variability is 'smoothed over' and the result shows only the underlying trend due to large-scale forcings such as greenhouse gases. This is illustrated below. The coloured lines are individual 'realisations' or simulations of global average temperature over the period 1950 to 2020 using a particular model (called 20C3M). The dark line is the average of the individual realisations.

The figure below shows that GCM simulations do capture the decadal patterns of variability evident in the temperature record. They do not predict a steady, uninterrupted increase in air temperatures. The left panel shows two periods - 1977-1985 and 1981-1989 - in the global average air temperature record where no substantial warming was observed, although they are embedded in the longer term trend that does show substantial warming. GCMs reflect this type of pattern. The right panel shows a GCM-based projection of 21st century global average air temperature using a single realisation. Note that the 2001-2010 period and the 2016-2031 period show no significant trend although the century-scale trend is one of strong warming - between 3 and 4°C.

Globally averaged surface air temperature for land and ocean based on the data set by Smith et al [2005]

One realisation of the globally averaged surface air temperature from the ECHAM5 coupled climate model forced with the SRES A2 greenhouse gas increase scenario for the 21st century

Therefore, GCMs can and do simulate decade-long periods of no warming, or even slight cooling, embedded in longer-term warming trends.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

A simple question. Model forecasts are supposed to become more accurate the further into the future from the initiation of the model we get. How can that be true for homogenised wrong model projections that increasingly diverge as is obvious even in this illustration that only shows to 2020?

If all the model projections were aligned at a common point such as the temperature in June 1988, how diverse would the results be at 2020? That there is no common point suggests graph-craft, manipulation to show the best result.

Models are useless for climate prediction because they don't predict.
Models are useless for projection because assumptions are obligatory for climate factors such as atmospheric nuclear bomb detonations, solar variation, ocean oscillations, air current changes, aerosol variation, cloudiness, water vapour, precipitation, ice extent, volcanic and tectonic activity, land use change and others.

Aspects of climate science are scorned because the science has become a political football. It gets funding inappropriate to its value. Opinion and modelled projections take preference over reality. Climate science is advancing. Maybe in a few decades it will be somewhere near useful for long term policy decision making. As of now, it isn't. Bigger computers merely get the wrong results faster.

In the situation we have at present, insufficient data to compute, ongoing investment in climate projection is akin to investment in astrology.

CO2 is a component of the atmosphere that as a whole moderates climate. Warmed air rises and cools. That is the biggest climate temperature factor. Yet a gas of 0.038% of the whole atmosphere that reacts to radiation that is barely identifiable as measurable heat is given higher importance. Human additions at 3.4% of ~2 parts per million p.a. additions to 0.038% is fancied to influence the climate detrimentally. 0.07% is fancied to cause the sky to fall.

Wanna buy a bridge?

***************************************************

Finally, if the aforementioned is insufficient to show the wrongness of the IPCC support for CO2 "greenhouse" hypothesis, then the following should.

Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Link
A non technical summary that should be read in conjunction with the full paper - link. The average Joe/Jolene may be overwhelmed by the mathematics. Skip them. They are the mathematically logical steps to illustrate and evidence the accompanying texts. The document is not difficult to understand and the points covered leave little room for dispute.

From the n-t summary:

Section 3.6 the classic hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius are analysed in detail, followed by modern versions of it, and it is concluded that :
• In the 70s, computer simulations of the "global climate" predicted for a doubling of the CO2 concentration a temperature rise of about 0.7 – 9.6 degrees Kelvin.
• Later computer simulations pointed towards a null effect.
• In the IPCC 1992 report, computer simulations of the “global climate" predicted a global temperature rise of about 0.27 - 0.82K per decade.
• In the IPCC 1995 report, computer simulations of the “global climate" predicted a global temperature rise of about 0.08 - 0.33K per decade
• In 2005, computer simulations of the “global climate" predicted for a doubling of the CO2 concentration a global temperature rise of about 2 - 12K, whereby six so-called scenarios have been omitted that yield a global cooling.
To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare mankind to death is a crime.

Section 5 is the final section of the paper and contains the ‘Physicist’s Summary’, which the reader of this non-technical summary is again urged to review in its entirety. Simply quoting these few lines do an injustice to the entire paper, but set the tone for discrediting the fallacy the UN IPCC is perpetuating, aided in no small measure by many a skeptical scientist who also fails to grasp the fallacy of the so-called greenhouse effect with its double-counting of radiant energy.

Ends with: “The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however, is a manufactured mirage.
Horrific visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and spreading deserts in North America and Europe are fictitious consequences of a fictitious physical mechanism which cannot be seen even in computer climate models.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.

It is therefore illegitimate to use this fictitious phenomenon to extrapolate predictions as consulting solutions for economics and intergovernmental policy.”

See also: jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/radica...

Australian Senator Responded 2

Re. Response to Q2.

Question 2

Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history?
Correct answer - Yes.

While the Earth's temperature has been warmer in the geological past than it is today, the magnitude and rate of change is unusual in a geological context.

The Little Ice Age was an usual event in its depth and brevity. A comparable event has not been found. Comparing emergence to real ice age events is not appropriate and to say the rapidity of emergence is unusual is to state belief thus:

Evidence from ice cores shows that between ice ages and warm inter-glacial periods temperatures increased by 4 to 7°C. However this was a gradual process taking approximately 5,000 years. More rapid changes in temperature, such as those associated with the well-known Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last ice age, are not global but rather highly regional in character. Globally, the Earth has already experienced warming of 0.76°C since 1850, a very rapid change in geological terms.

Ice cores are also regional. Cores of ice laid down in sub zero temperatures record discrete events (snow) that at the very least have a problem of resolution due to compression causing smoothing or smearing that defies identification of rapid events. To suggest certain knowledge is simply propaganda.

In terms of timescales of importance for humans, the last 2,000 years are most relevant, because this is the period over which our civilisations have developed. 2 steps forward in warm eras and one step back in cool eras.

www.longrangeweather.com

The figure below shows an 1800-year northern hemisphere air temperature record including a variety of estimates of past temperature trends. The light grey shading indictes the uncertainties surrounding these estimates and thus represents the envelope of natural variability over the past 1800 years. The red line at the right is the instrumental record since 1850. The broken red line is the "committed" additional temperature rise due to the thermal inertia of the ocean.
This highly contested claim was covered in "Re. response to 3 questions. Q1". The relevant links were "anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content", "Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?" and "Comments On A New Paper “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955–2008 In Light Of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problems".
Even without this additional rise, the current observed temperature is now outside the envelope of natural variability over the past 1800 years and thus would certainly be considered "unusual".

Trends in Northern Hemisphere air temperature for the past 1800 years.
Note that this is the top panel of Fig T.S 20 of the AR4 WG1.
Depending on the choice of proxies of course. Has no-one told
the Senator the hockey stick was busted not least by NAS?
(Also commented on here.)
Ongoing research by a variety of contributors not only prove the
global extent, they also strongly support warming at least
as strong as modern day.
Proxies, decide on your case, choose your proxy. As with models
there is a proxy that proves every condition conceivable.
Vostok though is certainly reliable.

The only reference to historic and prehistoric times we have is
proxies that don't give good resolution. The best that can be
said is there have been much hotter times and with low CO2
and much colder times and with high CO2. The warmest
temperature measured at Vostok in recent times is -12.2°C.

Isn't it? Which one is faulty (and how/why)?
Another demo.



Both images originated from an excellent article that discusses
proxy variation and especially why hockey stick types based on
tree ring data are far from appropriate for use by an
organisation that has a shred of integrity.

The final example I'll show supports the MWP temperature being
comparable to present times.


This article discusses MWP as a solar driven phenomenom and
cites a number of papers.
Medieval Warm Period (Solar Influence - Temperature)
The Medieval Warm Period Project lays to rest the fancy that
the MWP was regional.
It is unnecessary to prove the global extent of the LIA, it is
accepted that it affected the N. hemisphere and that is where
global warming has occurred.
That the MWP was warm and not due to CO2 is sufficient to cast
reasonable doubt on any IPCC selected proxy support of their
position.

If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by humans carbon dioxide emissions;

The correct answer is - justification of existence, justification of funding and achievement of agenda, profit being one of the many.

and in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

The correct answer is - Polar bears don't look as pretty on bare earth.

As noted above, the current warming is unusual as past changes have been triggered by natural forcings whereas there are no known natural climate forcings, such as changes in solar irradiance, that can explain the current observed warming of the climate system. It can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

The aforesaid is unsubstantiated opinion. Cloudiness, water vapour, changing currents in the air and water, ocean oscillations, ozone, methane levels, aerosols, biomass expansion, urban heat islands etc. etc. etc. all contribute to warming. Not least solar influence that is the only source that can actually raise the energy available in the system is gaining increasing attention.

Image from Ice cap used to illustrate the paper "Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature"

Meanwhile on another planet: .
The greenhouse effect is a well-understood physical phenomenon, like gravity.
The theory of the incorrectly named "greenhouse" effect is well understood. There is scant real world observational evidence to support it.
Greenhouse gases have a known ability to absorb heat emitted from the Earth's surface and re-emit it in the lower atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases have an estimated ability to absorb energy (dependent on ambient temperature) of low frequencies emitted from the Earth's surface that escapes the troposphere in various ways at various frquencies due to various factors such as friction and collision. Energy in the lower atmosphere is in constant flux between energy forms.
The net effect - measured as "radiative forcing" - is to increase the heat content at the Earth's surface.
The net effect is "radiative forcing" that is an estimate of how much of the estimated energy that is radiated from the Earth's surface is intercepted by the atmosphere. The calculations use hypothetical numbers such as 41% of the Earth's total energy emission is transmitted as infrared. That is very, very high and is guessed so to produce the volume necessary to make CO2 a significant GHG. Real world measurement of IR emission by the surface, especially in CO2's range has never been undertaken despite its ease because? Satellite measurements are of IR that is not intercepted. A value for emission by the surface is assumed.

Radiative forcing is the common currency for the effect of all factors that influence the heat content at the Earth's surface - solar irradiance, surface reflectivity, greenhouse gas concentrations, and so on. Analysis (modelling) of the climatic shift between the last ice age and the present warm period gives the wrong quantitative relationship between the change in radiative forcing because the assumed numbers are biased by lack of data and need for funding etc. and the resulting change in global air temperature that is a lengthening of the time it takes for energy to escape that shows as a longer time at the same temperature, i.e. a day longer at the same temperature would show as a higher average giving the misleading idea that temperature height has increased; this relationship includes all known feedbacks within the climate system, the value of those whose value isn't known being estimated, in an empirical way that is derived without using models (guessed). Applying (force fitting) this relationship to the post-1850 warming shows that the magnitude of the warming at equilibrium (that is when the system settles into a stable state) is in proportion to the contrived change in radiative forcing, which in turn is largely due to (piracy, the cost of postage and) the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (that is, solar irradiance and surface reflectivity have not changed significantly over this period on planet Gore whilst here on Earth solar irradiance increased throughout last century and albedo changed greatly every year between summer and winter and decade to decade).

Correlation does not prove causation. Besides, CO2 does not correlate.

The volume and effects of cloud, aerosols and ozone that regulate incoming solar radiation, of water vapour that is the main regulator of Earth radiation, the variation and effect of albedo such as ice, crops, water, the values for energy leaving the Earth's surface by conduction, convection, evaporation, radiation etc. are unknown. They have to be guessed, input to models and jiggled to produce a result that is claimed to be of value.

Still on another planet:
The evidence is thus very strong that the post-1850 warming trend is primarily caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities.

The reason that the post-1850 warming trend is guessed to be important is because it is guessed to be moving the Earth outside of the guessed climatic envelope - the guessed patterns of natural variability - within which contemporary civilisation has developed and thrived and within which the ecosystems on which we depend have evolved. For example, many plants and animals will be unable to adapt quickly enough to the warming trend (i.e. the same temperature for longer), guessed to be placing them at risk of extinction. The increased temperature of days that were below the maximum will also alter natural systems such as the hydrological cycle, changing the rainfall patterns that constantly alter without help from humans on which humans have become dependent.

That contradicts the logic that says longer growing seasons with higher productivity due to higher CO2 levels makes for higher crop yields, extends habitat that increases wildlife numbers and makes almost everyone better off than in a cooling climate.

Selected Research shows that Australia is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and that these impacts will become increasingly severe over time. River flow in the Murray-Darling Basin may decline by 10 to 25 percent by 2050 and by 2100 irrigated agriculture may decline by 92 percent. The Garnaut Review based on biased IPCC science also found that the climate change impacts on infrastructure will have a significant effect on Australia's output and consumption of goods and services, and that the costs of adaptation could be high. In summary, if the current warming trend is allowed to continue unabated (said as if we could influence it without a shred of evidence that we can) through the rest of this century and beyond, the risk of impacts to which contemporary society cannot adapt rises sharply.

Prof. R. M. Carter (PhD BSc) in his Sept 2008 essay wrote;
Before human-caused global warming can become an economic problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from natural climate change.
This notwithstanding, a number of distinguished economists have recently written compendious papers or reports on the issue, for example Nicholas Stern (2006) and William Nordhaus (2007); in Australia, Ross Garnaut is currently undertaking a similar analysis. These persons, and many other public commentators and politicians as well, have indicated that they accept that there is a scientific consensus that dangerous, human-caused global warming is occurring, as set by the views and advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC is the United Nations body whose second chairman, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that ‘unless we announce disasters, no one will listen’. From that point forward, it was obvious that IPCC pronouncements needed to be subjected to independent critical analysis;
****
Science funding has for decades been biased towards efforts that support the AGW hypothesis. The IPCC has selected science that supports its position. Contradictory science has been suppressed or ignored. The notion CO2 as a gas that is harmful to climate in tiny volumes remains devoid of observational support after decades of research by the best minds. That is a powerful indication that there is none to be found. Average temperature increased. A combination of increased input and a planet response is all that is certain. That greenhouse gases do not produce energy is a given. They cannot raise the level of existing energy. Allocation of responsibility is the purest of conjecture. STILL.
----------------------------------------
Australian Senator Responded 1

Australian Senator Responded 1

Response to Senator Fielding's questions about the climate change science (PDF - 91 KB)

Re. response to 3 questions. Q1

Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:15 PM GMT [Environmental Science]

A sceptic's point of view.

Question 1: Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?

Correct answer - yes.

If so, why did the temperature not increase;

Correct answer - reduced cloud due to declining TSI allowed IR transmission to space to increase.

how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

Correct answer - humans are evil. Their existence is an offence to nature. Warming is nature's way of telling us humans are bad.
Of course the cup can also be viewed half full. CO2 benefits biomass (nature). That means increasing crop yields, expanding healthier forests and it offsets cooling. It insignificantly affects climate, less insignificantly as the climate cools.
Human responsibility for variations in climate by gas emissions cannot be proved even after the best minds with tens of billions in funding over 20 years have done their utmost. It is assumed by some that additional CO2 is significant despite the absence of evidence. This false assumption is the reason for the weakness of models.

When climate change scientists talk about global warming they mean warming of the climate system as a whole, which includes the atmosphere, the oceans, and the cryosphere (ice, snow and frozen ground). (WAFFLE)

The observational evidence clearly indicates that the climate system has continued to warm since 1998. During this period ocean heat content has risen, ice and snow have continued to melt, and (WAFFLE)
there has been no material trend in global air temperatures.

So there has been an immaterial trend down? The AGW alarmism took off with Hansen's projection based on "no material trend" (~10 years' data). No material trend says the air has stopped warming. How can that be? If oceans are still warming (they aren't) and ice extent is still reducing (it isn't) how is air NOT warming? Unknown natural factors? So the alarmism is based on science that is based on unknown factors? Yes. But, solar activity hit bottom and solar irradiance trended down since 2003. But that is only sunlight. And correlation is not causation. But it is significant because CO2 just kept right on increasing.

Air temperatures

When changes in surface air temperature are considered, it is important to note that at time scales of around a decade, natural variability can mask the atmospheric warming trend caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. For example, global average surface temperatures clearly increased between 1975 and 2008 but some shorter periods, such as 1981-1989, showed no warming.

Thus CO2 is overwhelmed by "other factors". More evidence that CO2 is insignificant. CO2 influence increases with cooling, decreases with warming so it slightly helps reduce the severity of cooling at a cost of an insignificant addition to warming. The smallness of this influence is adequately demonstrated in the range of temperature variation being both large and small even on a year to year basis despite CO2's consistently increasing volume.

Such behaviour is consistent with the outputs of climate models such as those assessed by the IPCC (see below for more details).

Any behaviour is consistent with the combined outputs of climate models. With a span increasingly increasing, e.g. from 0.4 to 0.8°C in 10 years, a large comet collision and a direct hit from a solar flare is likely embraced in a projection to 2200.

Regarding the 1998-2008 period, the year 1998 was unusually warm due to a strong El Nino event. We note that Question 1 uses 1998 as the beginning year for its trend analysis. So, in addition to the period of analysis being too short to detect underlying trends, the use of a highly unusual year to begin the trend analysis will also give misleading results. This is a simple feature of statistics. Furthermore, globally 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

The El Nino warming is balanced by the La Nina cooling (ENSO). It seems strange that this argument is used to dismiss the argument against AGW when the IPCC use of a highly unusual year to begin their trend (~1945) also gives misleading results to justify alarming claims of AGW. However, El Nino events are significant in that their influence demonstrates the overwhelming influence of ocean mood, ENSO being a single aspect. And reinforces the argument that oceans dominate climate variation.

In terms of the climate system as a whole, only about five percent of the warming since 1960 has taken place in the air.

Opinion without evidence.

Ocean heat content

Most of warming since 1960 (about 85 percent) has happened in the oceans.
(remembering the influence of oceans on air demonstrated in 1998.)
Thus, in terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is the most appropriate.

The change in ocean heat content since 1960 is shown in the figure below. Note the significant warming trend since 1998.

The greater the smoothing factor, the more it conceals. The data before 2002 and after 2003 should be referred to separately. The reason for this is that the change in instrumentation produced a spike in the record. The matter is not yet resolved. When it is, it is very likely there will be no abrupt increase in temperature.
anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content

(Image was added)

An analysis of a 42-year record of change in ocean heat content (from 1962 to 2003) shows that over half of the total increase during that period occurred in the last 10 years of the period (1993-2003). That is, the rate of change of ocean heat content has risen sharply over the past 15 years. So, not only is the heat content of the oceans increasing, it is increasing faster.

"it is increasing faster" dependent on the anomalous spike.
Looking at the trend, oceans cooled to 1970 then warmed. How can oceans cool while CO2 was increasingly increasing? Simple, CO2 is insignificant. Since 2003 TSI went down. Air stopped warming and then in 2006 the oceans (both currently cooling). The ocean lag was likely due to decreasing atmospheric cloud offsetting the TSI reduction. Sunlight is the main cause of evaporation that produces cloud.

(3 images were added)

Ozone (that blocks UV) recovery was noticed in 2006. Likely due to decreasing stratospheric H2O.

The variations in the temperature ranges attest to the insignificance of "greenhouse" gases other than H2O. The absence of a signature in the tropical troposphere is strong supportive evidence of the minimal influence of ALL additional greenhouse gases.
See: GHG sig. no show

The following from: Dr.Weinstein ScD
"The computational models that show that the increasing CO₂ and CH₄ cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the Stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature. It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO₂ data (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO₂ (or CH₄) from the volcanoes, did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus, this cannot be the cause of the drop in the Stratosphere temperature. The ramp up of atmospheric CO₂ also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002. In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!"

As to increasing heat content, Dr. Pielke Snr makes a strong argument against both that and ocean storage of heat. Here. And William DiPuccio. Here.
It is technical but the zeroes are in plain numbers.

Ice, snow and frozen ground

Since 1998 there has been continued decline in Arctic sea ice, reduction in the area of snow and frozen ground, melting of glaciers and melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. There has also been a small increase in the area of Antarctic sea ice, although it is not known whether the amount of Antarctic sea ice has changed because there are no data on ice thickness.

NASA. Antarctic sea ice extent trended up according to satellite data. Increasing extent is a strong indication of thickening, 1st year ice becoming 2nd year, becoming 3rd year and so on. Thickness is irrelevant to albedo that diminishes oceans' receipt of solar output. 1% per decade increase would equal Arctic sea ice ~10% per decade. Of course it is hard to say whether a 10% increase in Arctic sea ice is significant because ... etcetera.
Earth Observatory

Overall the amount of ice, snow and frozen ground has declined. (Since the Little Ice Age went into retreat.) A small amount of ice or snow melt corresponds to a large amount of heat, since additional (latent) heat must be added to cause the melt itself, even without a temperature rise.

It is commonly asserted that the temperature rise since the mid 1700s has been ~0.5°C per century, What factors driving this increase stopped and allowed CO2 to almost exactly replicate the warming in the years since? I.e. Warming from 1910 (slow CO2 increase) if anything rises faster than warming from 1945 (rapid CO2 increase).

About five percent of the warming since 1960 has been in the form of melting ice, snow and frozen ground. The remaining five percent of the warming since 1960 has gone into the land.
Eureka. It's hiding in the land. Except land doesn't stay warm for long, up to 6 weeks judging by the length of time between summer solstice and the warmest days. But then that is obviously the Sun and we must discount the solar influence.

The basis of the IPCC assessment

The argument presented in Q1 above is not new and has been thoroughly refuted by a very wide range of observations (name a few please) (and surely the following are mere opinions that are)(incestuously) peer-reviewed scientific literature and summarised in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes (SPM page 5) that reported in the

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. (emphasis added)

Looking at the "bible like" treatment of the assessments,

Warming of the climate system is unequivocally not due to human emissions, as is evident from total absence of observational evidence. Increases in average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level that have now reversed cannot be caused by human additions to an insignificant climate compononent whose sum additions cause no climate effect that is detectable.

Climate variation can and has been predicted based on TSI and ENSO variation. (See: here) and climate variation has been linked to the ENSO. (See: here) It can't and has never been predicted using CO2 as a metric.

Climate warming was expected at the rate of ~0.5 deg C as a response to LIA cooling. Last century was typical. This century may have seen the peak after which it is all downhill unless we are particularly fortunate and the climate stabilises. That is unlikely as the destruction of forests continues.

The response to the response will continue withe Q2.

Mr. MP it's as easy as 1 2 3

QUESTION 1.
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
QUESTION 2.
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
QUESTION 3.
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?

Answers to these questions have been requested of the Australian government's Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen. Our government needs answers to them too.
*********************************************************************************************
Full Text (from- http://sciencespeak.com/FieldingQuestions.pdf):

Meeting with
Climate Minister Wong, Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen 15 June 2009
Briefing Paper by Senator Steve Fielding

This briefing paper outlines questions put forward by Senator Steve Fielding to the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen.

While the questions below are those which the Senator would like answered, the supporting material has been supplied from some leading scientists from Australia and overseas.

These are questions Senator Fielding would like answered so he can make an informed decision on whether or not an emissions trading scheme is the best course of action for Australia to take to deal with climate change and global warming.

The Senator remains open minded and has requested that the government address these questions, the answers to which are fundamental to shaping any climate change legislation.
*********************************************************************************************
QUESTION 1.

Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

QUESTION 2.

Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

QUESTION 3.

Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?
*********************************************************************************************
QUESTION 1 – Supporting data and charts

Figure 1.

Main graph:
Global surface temperature between 1850 and 2008 after the U.K. Meteorological Office (Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia).

Inset graph:
CO2 measurements taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (in black, rising) plotted against the Hadley temperature record since 1995 (in red, falling). These two sets of statistics are used by the IPCC in its reports. The IPCC considers them to be gold standards of our ability to measure atmospheric CO2 concentration of carbon dioxide and global temperature, respectively.

Notes:
The current hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions will cause dangerous levels of global warming. The 1995-2008 data test this hypothesis, and it fails the test.
Note that CO2 also increased rapidly during the earlier cooling between 1940 and 1979. Again, global temperature falls whilst CO2 continues to rise, and thus the hypothesis is invalidated a second time.
*********************************************************************************************
QUESTION 2 – Supporting data and charts

Figure 2a.

Composite deep ocean temperature curve from DSDP Sites 846 and 849, North Pacific, over the last 6 million years (proxy: oxygen isotope ratios in marine cores). The approximate temperature scale relates to closely similar climatic fluctuations that occurred in oceanic surface waters, in a pattern that recurs worldwide, but varies in exact magnitude from place to place.

Note that temperatures were higher than today’s at many times in recent earth history, and expressly so during the early Holocene (about 8,000 years ago), during previous warm interglacials during the last several hundred thousand years, and for an extended period between 6 and 3.5 million years ago.

In proper geologic context, there is nothing unusual about modern global temperatures.

Palaeoclimatic data sets from deep ocean seabed cores and polar ice cores provide the gold standard of our knowledge about past climate change.

Mix, A.C., Pisias, N.G., Rugh, W., Wilson, J., Morey, A. & Hagelberg, T. (1995). Benthic foraminiferal stable isotope record from Site 849, 0-5 Ma: Local and global climate changes. In: Pisias, N.G., Mayer, L., Janecek, T., Palmer-Julson, A. & van Andel, T.H. (eds.), Proc. ODP, Scientific Results 138, College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 371-412.

Mix, A.C., J. Le & N.J. Shackleton (1995) Benthic foraminifer stable isotope stratigraphy of Site 846: 0-1.8 Ma. In: Pisias, N.G., Mayer, L., Janecek, T., Palmer-Julson, A. & van Andel, T.H. (eds.), Proc. ODP, Scientific Results 138, College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program), 839-856.
*********************************************************************************************
QUESTION 2 – Supporting data and charts .... cont.

Figure. 2b.

Rate of temperature change for the last 48 000 years in °C/century, based on the analysis of oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 ice core in Greenland (after a slide by Andre Illarianov, 2004). Note that during the last 9,000 years of the Holocene, temperature change occurred regularly at rates between +2.5° and -2.5°C/century. Earlier, during the last glaciation, rates of change as high as 15°C/century are indicated.

The rate of temperature rise has therefore many times in the past been higher than it was in the 20th century. The rate of temperature change, both in Greenland and globally, during the late 20th Century Warming was between 1 and 2 deg. C/century. Thus recent, modern rates of warming fall well within the natural rates of change of the last 10,000 years.

In proper context, there is nothing unusual about the rate of late 20th century warming.
Palaeoclimatic data sets from deep ocean seabed cores and polar ice cores provide the gold standard of our knowledge about past climate change.

Data plotted after Alley, R.B., 2004. GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. NOAA.
*********************************************************************************************
QUESTION 3 – Supporting data and charts

Figure 3.

Measured surface temperature from 1880 to 2000 (in yellow box) followed by IPCC model projections of future temperature made in 2001 (red dotted line plus pink envelope). Red dot (indicated with green arrow) represents the global temperature in 2008.

Note that all IPCC projections now fall outside the error bounds of the trend based on the elapsed temperature record. Global average temperature appears to be following its usual 30 year oscillations, superposed upon the established upward trend of ~0.50C per century that has marked the recovery from the Little Ice Age (Akasofu,2009).

Given their manifest inability to correctly project global temperature over periods as short as a decade or two ahead, GCM models are not suitable as a basis on which to formulate policy. In recognition of this, CSIRO attaches a DISCLAIMER to its modelling studies, for example:
“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report” (Walsh et al., 2002).

Akasofu, Syun, 2009. Natural causes of 20th Century warming: recovery from the Little Ice Age and oscillatory change. Heartland-2 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 9, 2009. http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
Walsh, K. et al., 2002. Climate Change in Queensland Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions. Final Report 1997-2002, 84 pp.