Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Comment on submission from Sean Rush to the Zero Carbon Bill.

1. Sean says he’s studying for a “Masters in Science”. This is slightly incorrect, as he’s doing a
Master’s in Climate Change Science and Policy, a separate one-year qualification that is distinct
from a two-year MSc programme.

2. The first paragraph of his “Context” is very misleading. He states: “Of that 33°C that the
greenhouse effect naturally achieves, only 1.5°C is attributable to CO2 at the preindustrial level
of 280ppm. There is also broad agreement that a doubling of CO2 will add a further 1°C of
warming, although it is not clear over what timespan this would arise. Further feedbacks,
positive or negative, may add or reduce the warming caused from CO2 however the exact sign –
positive or negative is still a matter of considerable debate – clouds in particular remain a key
outstanding variable.”

Sean is a factor of 10 out here. Carbon dioxide alone would provide roughly 15°C of warming at
280ppm, with another 18 or so from water vapour and other greenhouse gases. From the pre-
industrial level of carbon dioxide, doubling of CO2, by itself only, would give rise around 1.3°C of
warming. The timespan is crystal clear, the warming occurs within a decade of the addition of
the CO2. On top of that we have another 1.3°C or so of warming from the water vapour
feedback, which is where the atmosphere becomes moister as it warms (more evaporation and
the air’s capacity to hold water vapour increases with temperature), and water vapour is a
greenhouse gas. The water vapour feedback is definitely positive and has been accepted science
for most of the last century. There is no question it is an amplifying feedback and roughly
doubles the warming associated with CO2 increase. After that, we have the ice-albedo feedback
(ice melts as the climate warms, making the earth less reflective) which is also definitely
positive and adds another few tenths of a degree of warming. So we are up to around 3°C of
warming for a doubling of CO2, based on completely understood and well-quantified feedbacks.
Cloud feedbacks are less certain but the general understanding is that their changes are a
further warming feedback. The latest research suggests they are a stronger warming feedback
than previously thought.

3. “The recent moderate increase in global average temperature…” The rate of rise in temperature
is the most rapid in thousands of years, and the increase in temperatures over the past century
means the earth is now the warmest it has been for at least 1500 years. It is not a moderate
increase. Later in this section, he overplays the coldness of the LIA as it was a regional
phenomenon, unlike the current global change we’re seeing. The Marcott et al paper (2013, not
2019) he cites starts by saying “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years
suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”

4. In the section on “Natural variability and CO2”, Sean tries to imply that recent IPCC reports do
not contain “honest” assessments of natural variability. This is just not true. It is well known
that the warming between the 1920s and 1940s was naturally driven, and this is not being
hidden. The warming since the 1950s to the present is about three times the size of the pre-
WW2 warming. The literature cited is a careful selection that ignores the bulk of papers
published, which show climate sensitivity is at least as high as we have understood for 40 years
or more. To say that “recent studies in the peer review literature are causing scientists to think
again about recent warming and modelled projections” is a real distortion.
5. The figure chosen from the AR5 technical summary is rather out of date as there has been rapid
warming since 2012. An updated figure is shown below, demonstrating that climate models
continue to do a good job of simulating observed temperatures.

6. “Consequently, whilst there is wide consensus that greenhouse gases trap infra-red radiation,
there is no consensus as to the effect such may have on planetary temperatures – the good
news is we can say that the effect on temperature appears to be in the lower end of that which
are projected.” This is again a misrepresentation. If we look at the full literature, we see that the
warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations would be most likely around 3
degrees, in the range 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. This is as stated in the IPCC AR5 and elsewhere. Yes
there are papers saying the sensitivity is low, just as there are papers saying it is high. That’s
why we need to look at the full literature, which is exactly what the IPCC is set up to do.

7. The idea that climate changes over New Zealand will not be a worry (page 4) is a very optimistic
take on what was taught! It ignores changes in extremes, effects of sea level rise, and knock-on
effects on New Zealand society and the economy from changes in countries we are strongly
connected to such as the Pacific Islands, Australia and so on.

8. The final section on “IPCC integrity and the absence of democratic safeguards” begins by saying
“…New Zealand is handing its democratic institutions to faceless, unelected scientists and
bureaucrats that are influential with the IPCC.” This is complete fantasy and is in my opinion an
insult to the scientific community who give their time freely to the IPCC process. The IPCC is set
up to be “policy-relevant not policy prescriptive”. That is, the IPCC does not ever recommend
policy changes nor does it have any power over democratic governments. IPCC authors and
IPCC reports have zero power in the political process, by design. It is the policy makers, i.e. the
people we elect every three years, who run the democratic institutions and make the decisions.
Ideally they make evidence-based decisions. The IPCC reports are designed to provide the
evidence. Moreover, those involved in the IPCC are far from faceless. All authorship, all drafts of
reports, all revisions, are documented in the public domain. The IPCC process is totally
transparent. I am involved in the writing of the 6th Assessment Report at present. All data sets
and all model code used to generate figures etc will be made freely available on-line as part of
the process.

If Sean had wanted access to a climate model while at university this year, all he had to do was
ask. Various models are used in our School and by our colleagues at NIWA and GNS and are
available for all to access. Climate model codes are often freely available on-line.

Sean’s criticism of the IPCC and the need for reform is lifted straight from the web sites of doubt
and denial groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). His comments on
surface temperatures and urbanisation etc are taken from an essay he wrote for one of the
MCCSP courses, CCSP401, taught by myself and Dave Frame. As we pointed out to him when he
wrote the essay, he was selective with the literature and tended to rely on old papers for his
conclusions. The bulk of the scientific literature demonstrates that the surface temperature
record has been carefully analysed and is not significantly affected by the issues Sean outlines.

The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC reports has to be agreed upon by delegates
of all countries before it is finalised. This involves a days-long meeting to discuss the summary,
line by line. Small changes can be made, but only with the consent of the scientists present.
Hence the statement that “there is no final review process, no checking by a scientist to make
sure the reports present the science fairly” is completely wrong.

James Renwick
Head, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences
Victoria University of Wellington
6 November 2019

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen