Dangerous global warming - an urban legend?

"About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.

I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth..."

Visit the website of Dr Roy Spencer (PhD in meterology, former NASA climate scientist) to read more.

Want a basic overview of the "global warming sceptic's" position?

Well, possibly you don't.  Nevertheless, if you do believe in hearing both sides of a debate, a good basic overview of why people are sceptical of anthropogenic climate in to be found in an excellent series of 6 videos on youtube by Warren Meyer - basically just powerpoint presentations with video, but very clear and accesible.  Total of 60 minutes.  Watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and watch these videos.  Then you've heard both sides of the debate.

First video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ9-fwSMWY

Maldives under threat of rising sea levels?

The President of the Maldives recently held a cabinet meeting underwater, to illustrate concern that the Maldives will become inhabitable due to rising sea levels - which have been attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

However, according to Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Morner, a specialist in sea level changes, the stunt was "not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments."

Morner's findings have been contested by others - but they do show that the debate about sea level changes is still alive and kicking.

The full text of the letter written by Morner:

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.

When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meetings, we agreed on a "best estimate" for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm (as given in Fig. 1). Such changes would imply small to negligible effects.

Such a small rise would pose no threat for the Maldives. Rather, it would be a natural return to the conditions existing from 1790 to 1970; i.e. to the position before the sea level fall in the 1970s.

So, Mr. President, when you ignore available observational facts, refuse a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

Let us, for Heaven's sake, lift the terrible psychological burden that you and your predecessor have placed upon the shoulders of all people in the Maldives, who are now living with the imagined threat that flooding will soon drive them from their homes, a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modeling constantly proven wrong by meticulous real-world observations.

Your cabinet meeting under the water is nothing but a misdirected gimmick or PR stunt. Al Gore is a master in such cheap techniques. But such misconduct is dishonest, unproductive and certainly most un-scientific.

Nils-Axel Morner

Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003); Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on); Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

Update on Senate Estimates

This week a number of scientists and other government employees are answering questions in Senate  Estimates.  The following are some interesting excerpts from the transcripts.

1) Below, Dr A Johnson is the leader of environment and sustainability-related research at CSIRO.
Page E21 of Economics Legislation Committee Estimates (Wednesday 21 October) (pdf)

Senator JOYCE—Will a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions from Australia change the temperature of the globe?
...
Dr A Johnson—That is a very complex question. It is driven by a range of both global and national factors. I cannot— ... [t]he short answer is that which I have just given you—that there are a range of factors both globally and locally that determine the answer to that question. I cannot give you an answer to that question.
Senator JOYCE—You do not want to give an answer or you cannot?
Dr A Johnson—I cannot give you an answer to that question now. It depends on the specifics of—
Senator JOYCE—I will make it specific: a five per cent reduction of carbon emissions in Australia. Will that have an effect on the temperature of the globe?
Dr A Johnson—It is possible but, again, it would depend on a range of factors which I am not in a position to answer.

2) Later (p E34-E35) - Prof. Sackett - Chief Government Scientist "answers" some questions:
Senator JOYCE—As Chief Scientist for Australia and at the top of your role I am going to ask you a clear question because it is at the front of the economic debate at the moment and at the front of the scientific debate. Will a five per cent reduction in Australia’s carbon emissions by itself affect the temperature of the globe or change the temperature of the globe?
Prof. Sackett—To reiterate your question, you are asking whether a five per cent reduction in Australia’s emissions will affect the temperature of the globe. It certainly will; the question is by how much.
Senator JOYCE—By how much?
Prof. Sackett—I do not have that answer in front of me now, but we know—
Senator JOYCE—Will it be noticeable?
Prof. Sackett—I would have to take on notice the degree to which the temperature could be measured.
Senator JOYCE—If I park my car in the garage and stop driving it, that will have an effect on the temperature of the globe to an extremely small extent.
Prof. Sackett—Yes.
Senator JOYCE—If Australia reduces carbon emissions by five per cent, that also will have an effect. But both of them are infinitesimally small.
Prof. Sackett—This is a collective problem which requires a collective solution. When we are looking to solutions, they will require a global effort. Many cars reducing their CO2 emissions is done by individuals
collectively.

More updates to come.

"A case against Precipitous Climate Action"

An important and timely paper by Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - Quick facts

Below are some brief and essential points about the CPRS legislation:

1) The title is misleading - the scheme is about carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is not "pollution."  It is a greenhouse gas that is essential to all plant life on the planet.  Just like water vapour - it's a greenhouse gas that's essential to all life - but we don't call water vapour "pollution", do we?

2) The scheme is designed to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, and for the price of emissions permits to be decided by the INTERNATIONAL TRADING of such permits.*

3) Nobody knows what these permits will cost after 2012, so we have little idea what financial impact the system will have on Australian families or businesses in the medium and long-term.*  We do know that the government is forecasting that it will recieve income of about $12.5 billion in 2012 from the sale of permits - that's equivalent to a 25% increase in the GST.

4) The government's modelling suggests the scheme WILL NOT affect emissions by our power-stations - which are currently the biggest emitters of CO2 in Australia.  This suggests the scheme may be of questionable effectiveness.

5) The scheme currently has a target of a 5% reduction (as a minimum) by 2020 - we currently contribute about 1.5% to world emissions.  So the scheme has a target of reducing world emissions by only 0.075% over the next 10 years.


*technical note: according the Department of Climate Change website, the export of emissions permits will not be allowed initially.  However, it is not clear that the scheme will make it illegal for a company to buy Australian emissions and sell international emissions at the same time, or use derivative products linked to emissions permits (or employ some other similar strategy) - if any of these strategies are allowed, then the price of emissions permits in Australia IS likely to rise to meet the international price (in the event that the international price is higher).

The myth of "green jobs"

The creation of new, "green" jobs, is an oft-repeated reason to support legislation restricting carbon emissions and encouraging the development of new green technology and industries. 

The only problem is that it doesn't happen.

A new study examines the German experience and provides strong arguments against thinking that mandating renewable energy targets and providing subsidies will result in any positive results for the economy (or even the environment!!).

Some excerpts:

The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. (p 4)
...
[T]he government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. (p 4)
...
Hence, although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits. (p 26)

The ineffective CPRS

A report released yesterday by the Australia Institute points out that, contrary to what we have been led to believe, the CPRS will not actually reduce the emissions of our coal-fired power stations in a meaningful way.

Some excerpts:

Coal-fired power stations comprise the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, accounting for 36 per cent of total emissions in 2008.  Any determined effort to tackle what Prime Minister Rudd has referred to as the ‘moral challenge’ of climate change would presumably seek to reduce emissions from that source significantly. The proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), however, does not. (p 1)

[T]he CPRS is complex, expensive and ineffective. The government’s strategy appears to be to suggest to voters that it is taking significant action on climate change while simultaneously assuring industry that no such transformation is occurring. (p 4, emphasis added)

Global warming and hurricanes

Has global warming increased the number or intensity of hurricanes in the world?

Well, an American court is about to have the chance to decide.  The graph below would suggest their answer may be in the negative.

Is a compromised CPRS any better?

The Coalition is now negotiating with the Government to try to amend the CPRS legislation to, among other things, include more protection for agriculture, natural gas, aluminium refining, coal mining and food processing.

The problem is that the scheme will still exist, and still have the same target.  That means that those industries that aren't getting extra protection will have to cut more.

The key point though is that the more that certain emitters are protected or exempted, the greater the cuts that have to be achieved by everyone, everything, else. And that overall cut having to be got from a smaller base has just blown out 27-29 per cent per person!

We can make as many amendments as we want, but because the CPRS is, fundamentally, an attack on the Australian economy, such amendments aren't going to make a big difference.  Amendments will just change which parts of the economy suffer the most damage.  They can't stop the damage.  The only way to do that is scrap the thing.

Climate sceptics doing it tough

With Polar Bears (and their survival) a favourite subject in the global warming debate, it pays to examine the views of those who work in the field. The problem is that those who are sceptical get excluded. This report (pdf file) makes an enlightening read.

Key articles

The following are recommended introductory articles:

Emissions trading is a tax, no matter the name - Terry McCrann

What happened to global warming? - Paul Hudson

The Rudd government's biggest mistake

******
THE first and most important thing to note about Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme is that it is a tax.

It's not called a tax, but if it waddles like one, quacks like one, and most pointedly raises money like one, it's a tax. And not just any old tax -- it's a huge and continually growing tax.
****

I am convinced that the Rudd government's plan to introduce an ETS, using its current CPRS legislation, is an enormous mistake. Much worse than anything it has done so far, or is ever likely to do in the future.

The government is determined to introduce a massively complicated scheme to make emitters of CO2 pay extra for the right to emit, compensate some parties at different rates for different lengths of time, and increase the costs of many industries in our economy. And it's going to leave the price of CO2 emissions to commodity traders and merchant banks to decide. It's going to cost our economy a fortune - budget papers estimate that it will bring in the same amount, in 2012, as a 25% increase in the GST.

And, the government is intent on introducing its scheme as quickly as possible. It's in a rush for two reasons. First, because people haven't really caught on to the full ramifications of the policy yet, and second, because Kevin Rudd really really wants to be able to show up at the Copenhagen conference with the CPRS feather in his cap.

People haven't really caught on to the full ramifications of the policy yet, because it has such a clever name. It's called a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It sure sounds like a reasonable enough idea. The only problem is that the title is a lie - both in terms of the words it includes and the words it excludes. The most problematic inclusion in title is "Pollution" - because it's just not true. Carbon Dioxide (we'll assume that "Carbon" is just an innocent abbreviation for Carbon Dioxide) is not a pollutant. Check it out for yourself. Click here to go to the official list of pollutants in Australia, as produced by the government. You'll find CO2's cousin - Carbon Monoxide on the list. But CO2 doesn't make the list. Because it's not a pollutant. It's a gas that's essential for all plant life. Calling CO2 pollution would be like calling Oxygen pollution. But the Rudd government likes to use the word pollution, no matter how misleading.

The thing the title leaves out is the word "tax". The scheme is effectively a tax. If it was actually called a tax, people would be a lot more concerned about it. They would ask questions like - "how much more expensive are my groceries going to be when the scheme comes into effect in a few years?" These are questions the Rudd government doesn't want to answer, and can't really answer - because they are going to leave the pricing of Carbon Dioxide to the market to determine. That means they actually don't know how much more expensive they will be making things. It's kind of convenient too, because when things do become a lot more expensive they can simply blame the very market they empowered to decide the price.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is effectively a sociopathic GST on steroids with a personality disorder. But of course the government is very happy to rush it through as a "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme". That way Kevin Rudd can show up at Copenhagen and impress all the world leaders with his quick action and visionary plans.

Result: world leaders impressed, Australian people shafted.

Quick rundown on acronyms

CO2 = Carbon Dioxide - odourless colourless gas that you breathe out all day long, known absorb and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm and 14.99 µm.

ETS = Emissions Trading Scheme - generic term used for a system that allows for some form of trading of CO2 credits or permits.

CPRS = Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - the dishonest name given by the Rudd government to its legislation to create an ETS. The name is dishonest because its about CO2, not Carbon in general, and more importantly, because CO2 isn't actually pollution. But calling it pollution works well politically.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming - the current predominant scientific opinion (*NOT consensus) that human actions (mostly emitting CO2) are directly responsible for increased average world temperatures during the 20th century.

Government's climate plan: costly and ineffective

It turns out that treasury modelling indicates that the Rudd governments ETS (in the form of the CPRS) won't actually reduce the emissions of our coal-fired power stations - the largest single contributor to Australia's total emissions:

The bottom-line charge is that while Wong has been relentlessly sounding the alarm about the dramatic action needed now to cut carbon pollution, Treasury modelling buttressing the CPRS shows it will in fact have little or no impact on one of the key offenders -- the coal-fired electricity generation industry -- in our lifetime.
...
What she (Wong) doesn't tell us is that her CPRS, complex and
impenetrable as it is, does not actually result in the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions from our coal-fired power stations.

Using graphs taken from Treasury spreadsheets of the CPRS modelling, Denniss argues that when the CPRS comes in there is a slight reduction in the amount of electricity generated from
black coal between 2010 and 2020 and virtually no reduction in brown coal electricity -- the dirtiest form of electricity generation -- over the same period.

After 2020... emissions from black coal-fired power stations are actually forecast to rise slightly before stabilising until about 2033. Brown coal emissions are also stable between 2020 and 2033. It's only after 2033 -- that is, in 24 years -- that emissions from black and brown coal both begin to fall rapidly. Not only that. The decline in electricity generation from black coal is actually driven solely by the introduction of the government's 20per cent renewable energy arget, an entirely different policy instrument from the CPRS. It is the projected increase in the supply of renewable electricity -- unrelated to the introduction of the CPRS -- that will slightly reduce the amount of electricity generated by black coal power stations. The bigger polluting brown coal power stations will be virtually unaffected.
...
And the reason emissions from black and brown coal-fired power stations plummet in 2033 also has nothing to do with the CPRS... Treasury has simply assumed that in 2033 we will invent clean coal and that, having invented it, it will turn out to be cheap. Further, it assumes that between 2033 and 2043 we can replace or retrofit every coal-fired power station in Australia. Despite the fact that it takes five years to plan and build a normal one, Treasury seems to think we can replace them all in 10 years.