106. p. 432: When discussing ozone depletion and the Montreal Protocol, Plimer asserts: One of the critical molecules, dicholorine peroxide, appears to break down far slower than was though[sic].2158 2159 216
Reference 216024 is the paper announcing the discovery of the ‘Ozone hole’ and so is not directly relevant to the global-scale ozone depletion which the Montreal Protocol aims to mitigate. In particular, reference 2160 makes no mention of dichlorine peroxide.25
ater vapour tends to follow temperature change rather than to cause it. . . .
vapour is an amplifier rather than a trigger. Precisely — this is the mainstream view and contradicts most of Plimer’s arguments about water vapour, including that noted in the
p. 433: The vent opens to release heat when sea surface temperature rises, resulting in a decrease in high clouds above the western tropical Pacific Ocean when sea surface temperatures are higher.2162 This work validates earlier work2163 and was confirmed in later studies2164 2165 2166. Lindzen’s ‘iris’ theory (from reference 2162: Does the Earth have an adaptive infra-red iris) has been tested and found wanting. In particular, in ref- erence 2164 : ropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth infrared iris feedback? their answer to the question raised by the title is “NO”. Specifically, their abstract states:
e argue that the water vapor feedback is overestimated in Lindzen et al. (2001) by at
least 60%, and that the high cloud feedback is small. . . . Using more realistic parameters in the model of Lindzen et al. (2001), we obtain a feedback factor in the range of –0.15 to –0.51, compared to their larger negative feedback factor of –0.45 to –1.03. It is noted that our feedback factor could still be overestimated . . . and conclude the paper with It should be noted that for NY rate of changes of cloudy- and clearmoist areas with changing SS , the feedback due to such a change will be sig- nificantly smaller than that suggested by LCH., LCH referring to Lindzen et al. (2001).
If governments had read the fine print of the crucial chapter 5 of the IPCC
(Humans responsible for climate change) they would have realised that it was based on the opinions of just five independent scientists. This implies that the chapter is called Humans responsible for climate change. This is untrue. In the R4 WG1 report chapter 5 is called Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. The words Humans responsible for climate change are not the title of any section or subsection of chapter 5 (nor the title of any other chapter in the R4 WG1 report). The executive summary of chapter 5 does not include any discussion of attribution of responsibility for the changes that are described. The total number of authors is 13, coming from 9 different countries with Corrinne Le Que´re´ spending part of her time in a 10th country. Similarly, in the R4 reports from working groups 2 and 3, neither chapter 5 nor any other chapter has the title
Humans responsible for climate change — [also in TL list].
24Versions of this document through to 2.1 incorrectly referred to reference 2060 rather than 2160 throughout this item. 25Cl O or ClOOCl, also termed chlorine peroxide.