CLIMATE SCIENCE            

 The actual "global monthly mean surface temperature" deviations from the above web site shows that - for land meteorological stations - the three 'warmest' months since from January 1997 to June 2008 are:  February 1998 (1.01degrees above average), March 2002 (0.99 degrees above average), and January 2007 (1.09 degrees above average), whereas the three 'coldest' months are July 1997 (0.19 degrees above average), January 2000 (0.13 degrees above average), and July 2004 ( 0.19 degrees above average) . The monthly values for 2008 are: January 2008 was 0.35 degrees above average, February  0.31 degrees above average, March 0.66 degrees above average, April 0.52 degrees above average, and June 0.39 degrees above average. For the land plus the ocean stations the warmest month is January 2007 with value of 0.86 degrees above average, and coolest month is January 2008 with a value of 0.12 degrees above average.

The University of Illinois compiles daily data of the extent of the Arctic sea ice. Daily datai is available for any day from 1990 to the present. The web site  http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm  also allows a direct comparion between the extent of the Arctic sea ice on any two days during this period. The site shows a overall decrease in Arctic ice from 1990 to 2008 but an increase from August 2006 to August 2008.

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, -0.17, -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. As shown, 39 of the 42 values listed above for the months January to July 2008 are below average.  

A "Solar Terrestrial Activity Report" including the current sunpots number compiled from various official sources and updated daily is available at http://www.dxlc.com/solar/ The International Sunspot Numbers for 2008 are January 3.4, February 2.1, March 9.3, April 2.9, May 2.9, June 3.1, and July 0.5. This compares with a value of 125 at the peak of the last sunspot cycle in April 2004.

For a graphical display of the sunspot index, the Maunder "butterfly" diagram, and other solar matters from the Royal Observatory of Belgium, see http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/sidc_graphics.php 

B. IPCC and NIWA  (The "Official Viewpoint" )

• 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 2005 is available at:  http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate#y140  
• 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
•  C. REFERENCES TO SOURCES QUESTIONING THE  "ESTABLISHED    VIEWPOINT ON "GLOBAL WARMING
• 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
• 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
• A 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
• 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

D. NEW ZEALAND SITES (not previously cited)

• 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
•  A very interesting site - updated daily - which gives "equal space" to both sides of the question (Nature or Man as the cause of climate change) is edited by two philosophers Denis Dutton and Doug Campbell  from the University of Canterbury. The site provides many web links to relevant sites. See  http://climatedebatedaily.com  
•  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 :
  
  
  ********************
  Fortyseven 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 the
  tremendous 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.