Member log in

Groser flies off on climate change trip

Trade Minister Tim Groser flies out today to attend talks on climate change and trade in South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In Pretoria, Mr Groser will attend a Ministerial meeting laying the groundwork for the United Nations climate change conference in Durban in December. 

In London, he will hold bilateral discussions on trade and climate change and participate in the Creating Climate Wealth Summit - presented by the non-profit organisation The Carbon War Room - which will address capital funding of low-carbon technologies, including for sustainable agriculture. 

In Washington, Mr Groser will discuss climate change negotiations as a special guest of the Major Economies Forum, a grouping of the 17 largest emitting countries.

He will also host a roundtable event for US agri-business, philanthropic foundations and multilateral banks to update them on the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and related New Zealand initiatives, including the New Zealand Fund for Global Partnerships for Research on Livestock Emissions.

The fund, which totals $25 million over four years, is aimed at accelerating global research into mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral livestock.

“New Zealand’s interest in improving food security without increasing greenhouse gas emissions clearly resonates at a global level. The New Zealand Fund for Global Partnerships for Research on Livestock Emissions will create new collaborations that reduce livestock emissions, benefiting New Zealand and other countries.”

Also in Washington, Mr Groser will deliver a keynote address on “The Impact of Climate Change on International Trade” at the Inter-American Development Bank’s conference on Trade and Climate Change in Latin America.

More by Niko Kloeten

Comments and questions

What a pratt !
Keynote address indeed that will be the highlight of the Washington media year.
UN has created a huge industry out of a lie.
Grosers part in this farce is well noted.

I think he and the mates are getting closer to "outing" themselves. Picked up an ad the other day that told me "it didn't matter if I didn't believe" (the warmist theories")....and to "seize the opportunities".
Note too....he's off to the "Creating Climate Wealth Summit"....which is where the fat old con man Al Gorge and his mates come in. It's from the team that gave you all those cute "financial" products back then.
My concern is about our local environment, which needs arms and legs to fix....not BS.

So if its a come you can now row to the North Pole.

because the North Pole has shifted. CHECK NASA'S REVERSAL ON THE SUBJECT. The Antartic has grown. The temperatures have cooled.

Last time I checked the North Pole was in the Artic..but hey if you say its moved I'll need to adjust my compass.

Another dubious junket flying first class at the taxpayers expense.

Stay home and do some work man

So the Minister of Trade should stay at home and wait for the customers to come to the last stop at the end of the world...wakeup and smell the coffee you SFB.

The true cost of climate change is not the money they waste of silly trips like this, it is the harm they cause by not putting that money into building community infrastructure (like water supply) in poor nations, or funding health research so people don't die prematurely. That's the real tragedy of the global warming scam.

A few years ago, global warming was a threat. Now, it's transformed into a get- rich- quick opportunity.

"Create wealth out of crazy govt schemes which will do nothing for the environment but will make some people rich"

Very sure merchant bankers and traders have come up with clever formulas for their carbon unit derivatives and options....roll the dice again boys and dig us deeper into the debt ridden financial dung heap called the deregulated free market.

He will be having the Calamari no-doubt

yes right after he has polished off the mini-bar

Don't forget the duty free single malt,gin and vodka!

Hope he is doing his key-note speech before 1pm ?

Not to worry, carbon credits will be the junk bonds of the future and Joe public will pay for them, while keys money mates clip the ticket on the way through. We will still have polluters and no effect on the climate.

It might be more helpful if the Government focused its efforts at home, and did something to support investment in NZ developed GHG reduction technologies. These can deliver almost immediate and significant GHG reductions, with technology export potential, but the Government seems blind to these local opportunities.

what about the carbon-fart print of the trip? ooops. Carbon is heavier than air. Never gets to atmosphere. Hence fossil fuel. Hence the big huge joke in governments about the gullibility with it's whole purpose of subversion.

They don't fart they burp and its methane not carbon which has a far greater warming effect and is lighter than air..please do a little homework whoeveryouare...start with "Poles Apart" by Gareth Morgan.

I was referring to the irony. Nevertheless, you say this is a credible source? My word. Do some homework. Check NASA's reversal on the whole thing. NO WARMING EFFECT WHATSOEVER.

I think you will find NASA's research is actually saying Antartica is getting colder in the middle and warmer around the edges.

And global warming causes cooling and the big yellow thing in the sky has no role in anything whatseover right?

Well Bob, it looks like you're so naive as to believe everything you're told:

Perhaps you should follow your own advise and do some research of your own. Try looking for the atmospheric hot spot that the IPCC said should exist, something that hasn't been found in over 30 yrs. of searching. Without it there is absolutely no case for AGW being a problem, and fortunately for us all it doesn't exist. Keep spouting the propaganda comrade, only the idiots believe in this conjob anymore.

Well thingamebob try reading this article in the Telegraph about the guys who just rowed to the North Pole..

Here Bob, let me explain it to you since you failed to read the link I posted. They rowed to the magnetic pole that existed in 1996 (something that they posted on their own website), the magnetic north pole has been moving since then - they're 738 KM short of the actual magnetic pole.

From Wikipedia:

'The Canadian government has made several measurements since, which show that the North Magnetic Pole is moving continually northwestward. In 1996 an expedition certified its location by magnetometer and theodolite at 78°35.7′N 104°11.9′W / 78.595°N 104.1983°W / 78.595; -104.1983 (Magnetic North Pole 1996).[8] Its estimated 2005 position was 82°42′N 114°24′W / 82.7°N 114.4°W / 82.7; -114.4 (Magnetic North Pole 2005 est), to the west of Ellesmere Island in Canada.[9] During the 20th century it moved 1100 km, and since 1970 its rate of motion has accelerated from 9 km/year to approximately 41 km/year, or 1.3 mm/sec (2001–2003 average; see also Polar drift). If it maintained its present speed and direction it would reach Siberia in about 50 years, but it is expected to veer from its present course and slow its rate of motion.'

Perhaps the tabloid rags promoting this trash know more than the actual scientific measurements undertaken by the Canadian government?

Now Bob, perhaps you can point out the tropospheric hot spot - the tabloids might tell you where it is:

Do your homework like you advise others instead of reading the scandals they print in the papers - real science is far more informative.

88 degrees in Fairbanks could get sunstroke up there thingmebob...better keep your head in the sand.

That's the best you can do Bob?

Doesn't matter what temperature it is Bob, without the atmospheric hot spot there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it's caused by mankind is there? As current temperature rises are no different to the historical records seen in the ice cores, there's no reason to expect they're anything other than natural.

Let me show you who really has their head in the sand Bob:

1/ Your rowing team are 738KM away from the real North Pole.

2/ There is no tropospheric hot spot, therefore there is no positive feedback.

3/ Without positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour the AGW hypothesis fails.

These are facts, which is more than you have Bob. Just because it's warming (which it currently isn't), doesn't mean people caused it. Perhaps we make the Earth revolve & the seasons change too, huh? It's pretty warm in Fairbanks after all.

That's the current science Bob, & if you don't believe it then you're the one with your head in the sand. Where's the evidence without the hot spot Bob?

You only need to look at the comment by Manfred Zysk, M.E. to get a snapshot of the lunatics pushing this tripe.

Hey Manny, the AGW theory only works if there's positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour - something empirical evidence proves doesn't exist. CO2 is only capable of warming the planet no more than a maximum of 1.5C if the total atmospheric CO2 levels are DOUBLED (not man's contribution, but total CO2 levels). If methane locked in the polar ice caps are a problem why wasn't it a problem in the past when it was warmer, and when there was higher CO2 levels? Hmm?

Hey thingamebob...get your buggiesmugglers on..

Arctic sea ice was 21.55% below the 1979-2000 average in July, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This ranks as the smallest July Arctic sea ice extent on record. The previous record was set in 2007. This month is the 15th consecutive July and the 122st consecutive month overall that Arctic sea ice has been below average. Most of the ice loss occurred in the first half of the month when high pressure made for clear skies and melting sunshine, and warm air blew into the Arctic from the south. In the first two weeks of July, air temperature over the North Pole was 11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average. During the last two weeks of July, low pressure took over and brought cooler temperatures, although it appears this also acted to push the ice around, which resulted in a larger but thinner area of ice.

This failed "science" that uses taxpayer money to pay handsome salaries and overseas jaunts to generate new scary stories will soon be telling us the world will start spinning faster due to something they will dream up, then claim they can do research to slow it down.
Good news is that there will be no continuation of Kyoto, and the most important economic players will not be supporting any further stupidity in this regard. They are more concerned about growing their economies, not stifling them.
Groser should start studying the effects of open trade policies and permanent movement of real jobs to other countries.

And this proves what, that it's warmer?

Without the hot spot it's meaningless. I'm sure the ice extent was far lower in the past when it was warmer, no?

Proof it's warmer is not proof of why it's warmer. Now Bob, since you seem to believe in AGW, perhaps you can explain how we can get problematic temperatures without positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour. Surely you must some evidence on which you base you beliefs on. C'mon Bob explain how it's possible without the hot spot.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Water Vapour as a positive feedback

As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity

The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

The IPCC states that water vapour at the height of 12km (300hPa) is needed to amplify the warming attributable to CO2. Water vapour at lower levels create a negative feedback by acting as a shade & reflecting the heat from the sun back back into space.

What's needed is a hot spot at 12km and observation over 30 years has shown it doesn't exist. This is what the IPCC stated is needed & is what they program into their models.

Where's the evidence?

Here's something else you might be interested in Bob regarding the Arctic ice and the north Pole:

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot.

There's a figure in the IPCC 4th Assessment report that shows the "temperature signature" expected from the various forcings that drive climate. This figure is frequently misinterpreted. Let's have a close look:

Figure 1: Atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1990 from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing (IPCC AR4).

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

What about a long-term hot spot? With short-term observations confirming our understanding of the lapse rate, that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit. However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?

Nice cut & paste from Bob, I've examined all these papers in the past:

The papers quoted have all been discredited - ALL, notice the dates when they were written? Try something a little more up to date and robust enough to stand up to scrutiny:

You really should try learning a bit ('do your homework' to use your words) rather than quoting from propaganda websites only intent on promoting one side of the story. Any suggestions as to why McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman 2010 is ignored at, along with all the other successful rebuttals to the papers they've quoted? I'll tell you why, because they don't want you to know.

The truth is there is over 30 years of data collected from over 28,000,000 weather balloons, all of which are highly calibrated to within 0.1C - the hotspot is supposed to be 0.6C. Perhaps some were wrongly calibrated, but not 28 million. They try to find reasons why the hot spot isn't there by fudging the data and using wind shear, but the results are plainly obvious for all to see. The rebuttals to those papers rip them a new one, and in the case of Sherwood it's downright fraudulent. Do some research into rebuttals to the papers quoted at to see how badly you've been lied to, and then ask yourself where is the hot spot & why was I lied to?

heard of Agenda 21 Bob?

bob, will our global warming be sufficient to melt the big scary comet that's also go to end the world? should we start up our cars in order to warm up the atmosphere a bit?


How about you stfu eggbert.

What happens if you row at night?
Can you miss the north pole?

Yes and be a good boy and go to sleep...and please take your hand off it.

Seems you have had your hand on it this whole blog Bob

Hey Blob

put your head back in the bucket.

So what have we learned here:-

1 Ruminants pose a climate gas problem not because they fart carbon as suggested by thingamebob...but because they burp methane..which is lighter than air.

2 The northern ice extend is still decreasing and you can now row to the magnetic north pole...which thingamebob says is moving about a bit.

3 Central Antarctica is cooling according to NASA while the fringes of the continent continue to get warmer.

4. It now gets very warm at times in Alaska..99 degrees being the record in Fairbanks.

5. There is on-going debate about the short term/long term hot spot which thingamebob seems to think is the key to understanding climate change.

6. Some people don't like Tim Grosser because he's doing what any normal trade minister would do and getting overseas and meeting people.

7. People given the name Anonymous tend (with exceptions) to have a very low I.Q.

As an old...rather conservative friend of mine used to say..."goodnight and good gardening".

So what have we learned here:-

1 Ruminants pose a climate gas problem not because they fart carbon as suggested by thingamebob...but because they burp methane..which is lighter than air.

2 The northern ice extend is still decreasing and you can now row to the magnetic north pole...which thingamebob says is moving about a bit.

3 Central Antarctica is cooling according to NASA while the fringes of the continent continue to get warmer.

4. It now gets very warm at times in Alaska..99 degrees being the record in Fairbanks.

5. There is on-going debate about the short term/long term hot spot which thingamebob seems to think is the key to understanding climate change.

6. Some people don't like Tim Grosser because he's doing what any normal trade minister would do and getting overseas and meeting people.

7. People given the name Anonymous tend (with exceptions) to have a very low I.Q.

As an old...rather conservative friend of mine used to say..."goodnight and good gardening".

No Bob what we have learned here is there are three types of people out there.

1) At one end of the spectrum, there are those waking up to what's going on with the global warming scam and the severity of its design

2) At the other end, there are those who hide behind the name "Bob" who are getting deeper into their "denial" (of reality) saying "hey everyone look at me yeee ha" lets "save the planet" there is an issue but, it's just not warm yet...but...hey...look....someone told me i'm a lemming....but i've done NO research and am happy to spout some sort of blind delusion that we are standing on the edge of the abys and looking down at the ambulence...and hey everyone in this group is failing to see that they are dependant on it's false existance just to exist

3) And there are those in the middle who have "no idea" what's going on whatsoever. Indeed, its a testiment to the folk who make decisions in businesses and governments who sound like addled, low grade, unaware, morons. They are just gibbering mindless idiots that can tell you everything about every facet of the latest all Blacks dilema, any soap opera or dramas event, sports claptrap and so on and who think it's wierd that some people are politically aware. Or, worse, they get freaked out if some people are informed as to what's happening. Indeed, the irony is they think folk who portray reality are showing off or are sanctimonius in trying to warn them. They think it's "crazy" that people know the basic details of socio-political, socio-economic scams and the now publisced societal conditioning agenda afoot. Basic facts often are regarded with distain and raised eyebrows and calls arise to justfiy blatant madness like Co2 pollutes the atmosphere. My word.

Where you at Bobby? Reality? Delusion? Or Soap Opera/Soap Box?

Suck on an ice cube Bob

Run away now Bob and do some reading, 'your homework' if you like. I suggest you inform yourself about the hot spot before you publicly humiliate yourself again.