This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Official Information request 'All documents mentioning Climate Scientists Nikolov and/or Zeller'.

Alex Pickard
s 9(2)(a)
Info at MfE
RE: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planet Model
Monday, 12 June 2017 10:51:00 AM
Thank you for your emails of 6 June 2017 regarding climate change and the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are a credible source of advice for policy. The IPCC reports represent the global expert
assessment of knowledge on climate change, which the New Zealand Government accepts. The value of these scientific reports is not affected by the
claims of the article you refer to in your email.
The Government considers it prudent to implement policies to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, and to prepare for the impacts of
climate change, as shown by our commitment to the Paris Agreement. The NZ ETS is one of these policies.
Kind regards,
Alex – Advisor, Executive Relations Team
Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
Email: [email address]  Website: 
No.3 The Terrace, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
ACT 1982  |  Follow us on Facebook
From: s 9(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017 9:38 p.m.
To: Info at MfE
Subject: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planet Model
The Chairman of the ETS review committee and members.
IPCC CO2 Hypothesis of Global Warming is wrong.
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model by Ned
Nikolov* and Karl Zeller.  Full paper available here I recommend you read it as it is fundamental to your task.
This could be the most important peer reviewed and published paper on climate in the last 2 centuries. Your understanding of it and its devastating
 importance to current beliefs of the alarmist climate community can’t be over sold. It is game changing, this is the stuff Nobel Prizes are made of.
If you have the maths and physics, a detailed read of the paper is possible, for most however it is the conclusions on Page 17 that are pertinent to a role
on the ETS review.  The ETS was based on the so called “settled science” of late last century, the science has moved on. A clue to the unsettled science
might be that the IPCC GCM’s have failed miserably to predict almost everything. Climate sensitivity has moved down to the extent that it alone takes the
C out of CAGW. With CS at  just over 1 and still falling it leaves the IPCC 3 to 3.5 used in models as absurd outliers producing model outputs that make the
models run hot by a factor of at least 2. The hiatus in temperature, the lack of acceleration in sea level rise while CO to continues to rise, the lack of a
“Hot Spot” in the tropical troposphere The lack of desertification and on the contrary the tangible greening of the earth, lack of increased hurricane
intensity and number of hurricanes all goes to show that something might be wrong with the theory.
From the Papers conclusions
The planetary temperature model has several fundamental theoretical implications, i.e.
• The  greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-
induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition;

• The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface
air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;

• The albedo of planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres is not an independent driver of climate but an intrinsic property (a by-product) of
the climate system itself. This does not mean that the cloud albedo cannot be influenced by external forcing such as solar wind or galactic
cosmic rays. However, the magnitude of such influences is expected to be small due to the stabilizing effect of negative feedbacks operating

within the system. This understanding explains the observed remarkable stability of planetary albedos;
• The equilibrium surface temperature of a planet is bound to remain stable (i.e. within ± 1 K) as long as the atmospheric mass and the TOA
mean solar irradiance are stationary. Hence, Earth’s climate system is well buffered against sudden changes and has no tipping points;
• The proposed net positive feedback between surface temperature and the atmospheric infrared opacity controlled by water vapor appears to
be a model artefact resulting from a mathematical decoupling of the radiative-convective heat transfer rather than a physical reality.
The magnitude of the needfor a  paradigm shift created by Nikolov and Zeller’s paper is so fundamental that it entirely destroys the scientific base on
which the ETS was predicated. Policy based on wrong science has no chance of success. If such policy (ETS) continues to be implemented it can only do
damage to the Economy, the Middle Class and Poor in New Zealand meanwhile having no effect on the temperature of the earth whatsoever. The
unintended consequences of continuing the ETS are already becoming apparent with the cost of $1.4B/an. to the country for the next 10 years.  Given
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) it is totally unnecessary because the ETS policy is based on a false science.
The much vaunted Paris Accord will change the temperature of the earth a best by 0 05 degrees C in 2100. This amount is not measurable.
If Paris runs for an extra 70 years to 2100 it would change the  temperature of the earth by 0.17degrees C only if all party’s fulfil all commitments. We are
off to a great start with US pulling out. You can get an idea of our share  by dividing our GDP by world GDP (2015 data) and multiplying by 0.17. is
4/10,000th of a degree C. Read the full paper by Bjorn Lomborg here
But it all becomes futile waste of resources when we take into account Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017).
I’m sure you are thinking that this is only one paper can I refer you to Einstein 1.
Nikolov and Zeller changed the thinking big time.
s 9(2)(a)

Document Outline