October 2003

Hockey Stick Data Wrong?; Hockey Stick Crowd Dismiss Medieval Warm Period

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Science

Hockey Stick Data Wrong?

The “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the last thousand years was featured prominently in the IPCCs Third Assessment Report and the National Assessment on Climate Change and is a key component of the case for action on global warming. It shows an unprecedented spike in temperatures in the 20th century. That graph is based extensively on research by University of Virginia assistant professor Michael Mann and others in 1998 and 1999.

Now, however, two Canadians with expertise in statistical analysis, Stephen McIntyre and economics professor Ross McKitrick, have looked again at the source data, supplied to them by Manns research associate at his request, and found considerable errors in the way the data was collated. They were unable to replicate Manns results either by re-running his calculations once the errors were corrected or by constructing their own data set from the original sources. Their reconstruction of the Mann et al. data set from the original sources shows clearly that there was a period of greater warmth than the last century in the 15th century, and that the spike is not unprecedented. They have suggested that Mann should account for the discrepancies.

Manns initial response was that this was a “political stunt.” Further comments were published on the web log of freelance propagandist David Appell. They suggested that McIntyre and McKitrick (“M&M”) had used the wrong data set and that the correct data was publicly available. McIntyre and McKitrick responded with the e-mail exchanges that showed that Manns associate had sent them the data they used at Manns request. Mann also suggested that they should have used 159 proxies rather than the 112 they did. McIntyre and McKitrick responded with e-mails showing that Manns associate referred to 112 proxies (which accorded with references to 112 proxies in the original published research articles). The article has been published on the web by Energy and Environment (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm) , an English journal, and will appear in the November printed issue. Further details can be found at McKitricks website: (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html. No doubt there is much more to come before this controversy is settled.

Solar Frenzy

German scientists from the Max Planck Institute along with Finnish scientists from Oulu University have reconstructed sunspot activity over the past millennium. They conclude that the sun has been in what they term a “frenzy” since 1940, which may be a factor in global warming.

The research is based on amounts of the beryllium 10 isotope found in ice deposits in both Greenland and the Antarctic. The team also discovered a burst of activity between 1100 and 1250, which corresponds closely to the usually agreed extent of the Medieval Warm Period, but the scientists note that there were fewer sunspots then than today.

The scientists found that the current surge is 2.5 times as great as the long-term average and that solar activity closely matched average temperatures on Earth.

Spokesman Sami Solanki said that, despite discovering a new climate influence, the team still believed the recent surge in warming was caused by fossil fuel emissions. “Even after our findings,” he was reported as saying, “I would say the sharp increase in global temperatures after 1980 can still be mainly attributed to the greenhouse effect arising from carbon dioxide.” (News24, South Africa).

Hockey Stick Crowd Dismiss Medieval Warm Period

Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona (partners with Michael Mann in the research referred to above), together with Henry Diaz of NOAA, have written an article concluding that the Medieval Warm Period was not global. In “Climate in Medieval Time,” published in the Oct. 17 issue of Science, they argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that regional warm spells between 500 AD and 1500 AD occurred simultaneously.

The scientists concluded that medieval average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere “were not exceptional” because some regions cooled whereas other regions warmed. They also dismiss solar arguments, noting that recent modeling studies show that increased solar irradiance does not warm Earth’s surface at all locations. Instead, they say, ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation, warming the stratosphere and altering atmospheric circulation patterns. If such changes happened in the 12th century, they could well have altered large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns linked to the Arctic Oscillation, thereby warming some regions but not others. (Science Daily, Oct. 20)

EU Backs Away from Kyoto; Replacement for Kyoto Urged; talists Target BP and Shell

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

EU Backs Away from Kyoto

According to the Wall Street Journal Europe (Oct. 29), European Union diplomats are suggesting that some member governments are backing away from a promise under the Kyoto protocol to give aid to poorer countries. The EU had promised in 2001 to contribute 450 million ($523 million) from 2005 on to developing countries in order to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The dispute centers on how the cost will be shared, with Spain, Greece and Portugal wanting to contribute less than had been agreed. The southern EU member countries argue that they are poorer than northern countries and so should pay 20 million less each, but EU law requires that countries pay in proportion to their emissions rather than to their wealth.

Meanwhile, the Journal also reported that the European Parliament is delaying the first reading of a bill designed to regulate emissions trading, putting at risk a deadline of 2005 for implementing the legislation. The EU estimates that trading would reduce the 3.4 billion cost of implementing Kyoto by about 680 million.

The EU is currently on target to cut by emissions by 4.7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The Kyoto protocol requires an 8 percent reduction.

Replacement for Kyoto Urged

An article in Environmental Science and Technology (Oct. 13), the journal of the American Chemical Society, suggests that a global treaty focusing on intercontinental air pollution could be a better approach to controlling climate change than the Kyoto Protocol. The researchers claim that, by cooperating to reduce pollutants like ozone and aerosols, countries could address their own regional health concerns, keep their downwind neighbors happy and reduce the threat of global warming in the process.

The study, from researchers at Columbia, Harvard and Princeton universities, acknowledges a need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but proposes that a treaty dealing with air pollutants, like ozone and aerosols, could be a better first step because it unites the interests of all countries concerned. As aerosols and ozone contribute to large-scale climate problems, the researchers argue, the implications of controlling them go beyond air pollution into the realm of climate change.

The researchers suggest a treaty based loosely on the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), which initially addressed acid rain deposition in Europe through voluntary participation. The convention has since been amended to cover a broad range of pollutants, and participants include countries from Western and Eastern Europe as well as the United States and Canada.

Expanding such a treaty to include Asia would give the United States even more incentive to participate, the researchers claim, since westerly winds spread pollution from that part of the world to North America. (Eurekalert, Oct. 15)

Environmentalists Target BP and Shell

Despite BPs image (“Beyond Petroleum”) as the most environmentally-friendly oil giant, it is coming under increased attack from environmental groups in the UK. Rising Tide — described by Londons Guardian on Oct. 23 as a “loose-knit group of green activists” — organized a rowdy demonstration at a talk given by BP chairman Lord Browne in London that day. The activities included a protestor interrupting Lord Browne during his speech with a series of accusations against the company.

Friends of the Earth also confirmed that it was “re-evaluating relations” with BP and Royal Dutch Shell because of their “apparent failure to turn rhetoric into action.”

A climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth, Roger Higman, told the Guardian, “ExxonMobil is still the bad guy, but we are getting increasingly frustrated with BP and Shell, which talk about climate change but put their money into [oil and gas] developments in places such as Russia and the Middle East rather than renewable schemes. We are not going to be cosy with them because they are doing bad things.”

Rising Tide claims BP invests less than 1 percent of its annual budget on solar and other renewable energy sources, which it points out is much less than they spend on advertising and public relations. It said, “Don’t be fooled by oil company public relations that the only people opposing their destructive agenda are privileged western environmentalists. In fact resistance to big oil’s constant need to find new oil-rich frontiers is most determined amongst some of the world’s poorest people.”

Senate Defeats Lieberman-McCain Bill to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Attorneys General Appeal EPA Decision on CO2; Reactions to

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Senate Defeats Lieberman-McCain Bill to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The U.S. Senate defeated a scaled-down version of Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCains (R-Az.) Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139, on October 30 by a vote of 55 to 43. Forty-five Republicans and ten Democrats voted against the measure. Thirty-seven Democrats were joined by six Republicans in favor.

The Democrats voting against were: Baucus, Breaux, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Levin, Lincoln, Miller, and Pryor. Republicans voting for were: Chafee, Collins, Gregg, Lugar, McCain, and Snowe. Democrats Edwards and Ben Nelson missed the vote.

Lieberman and McCain gained some additional support for their cap-and-trade bill by making special deals for some sectors of the energy economy and by offering only the phase one target of cutting emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. The obvious hypocrisy of this ploy became apparent during the floor debate. The initial emissions cap will do nothing to address the alleged potential problem of global warming, so further, much more expensive reductions would be necessary. S. 139 would create the structure and incentives necessary to make those further reductions. This goal is made explicit in the section on “Ensuring Target Adequacy,” which would require the Under Secretary of Commerce to review the emissions reduction targets in relation to the aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas levels at a safe level.

Senator McCain warned repeatedly that they would be bringing the bill back to the floor again and again. However, immediately after the vote, Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.), who led the opposition to the bill, moved that S. 139 be referred back to the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs. S. 139 was discharged from the committee to the floor as part of the unanimous consent agreement to pass the energy bill in July. It lacks the votes to be voted out of committee

Attorneys General Appeal EPA Decision on CO2

An article in Environmental Science and Technology (Oct. 13), the journal of the American Chemical Society, suggests that a global treaty focusing on intercontinental air pollution could be a better approach to controlling climate change than the Kyoto Protocol. The researchers claim that, by cooperating to reduce pollutants like ozone and aerosols, countries could address their own regional health concerns, keep their downwind neighbors happy and reduce the threat of global warming in the process.

The study, from researchers at Columbia, Harvard and Princeton universities, acknowledges a need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but proposes that a treaty dealing with air pollutants, like ozone and aerosols, could be a better first step because it unites the interests of all countries concerned. As aerosols and ozone contribute to large-scale climate problems, the researchers argue, the implications of controlling them go beyond air pollution into the realm of climate change.

The researchers suggest a treaty based loosely on the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), which initially addressed acid rain deposition in Europe through voluntary participation. The convention has since been amended to cover a broad range of pollutants, and participants include countries from Western and Eastern Europe as well as the United States and Canada.

Expanding such a treaty to include Asia would give the United States even more incentive to participate, the researchers claim, since westerly winds spread pollution from that part of the world to North America. (Eurekalert, Oct. 15)

Reaction to Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putins decision to put off ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has led to a variety of confused reactions from the climate change industry and their backers.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri was only able to assert, “I don’t think a negative decision on Kyoto would be in Russia’s interest overall.” He went on to say: “Russia is a large country with a rich history and has ambitions to emerge once again as a global power. It cannot, therefore, gain in standing politically if it does not join hands with other countries in doing what is required to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases.” (Reuters, Oct. 17).

EU ministers responded by merely restating their position as held before the Moscow conference. The environment ministers of Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement concluding, “Climate change is a real problem. Over the last few years, we have begun to experience more extreme climatic phenomena. This summer, parts of Europe faced an exceptional heat wave and drought that caused deaths and illness among older age groups, heat stress to livestock, forest fires, and damage to crops.”

They went on, “The scientific community has gathered convincing evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Extreme events, such as heat waves or heavy precipitation, will be more frequent, more intense. What we experienced this summer is effectively an illustration of what we are likely to see more frequently in the not too distant future. The international community needs to act with determination to deal with this problem. . . There is no credible alternative to [Kyoto] on the table. We call upon Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.” (BBC News Online, Oct. 23).

The David Suzuki Foundation in Canada alleged that Putin was being “leaned on” by President Bush and could not have come up with his decision independently (http://www.davidsuzu ki.org/files/Climate/Ontario/Oct03Russia.pdf).

The World Wildlife Federations representative in Moscow, meanwhile, concluded that the current position was irrelevant: “But the Kyoto accord is a win-win proposition for Russia. One can expect the government and legislature to move ahead with ratification next summer, when the elections are over and they can return to considering Russia’s long-term interests.” (International Herald Tribune, Oct 28).

Kyoto Ratification Latest; Prebon Reads Writing on the Wall; Wind Farms in UK Raise Environmental Objections

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

Kyoto Ratification Latest

Since March of this year, eleven more countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol: Botswana, Ghana, Guyana, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Namibia, Moldova, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Switzerland. Of these, Switzerland is the only Annex I country subject to emissions controls under the pact, responsible for 0.3 percent of the emissions concerned.

Switzerland’s ratification brings the total percentage of Annex I emissions belonging to countries that have ratified the protocol to 44.2 percent. The USA (36.1), Australia (2.1) and Russia (17.4) together make up 55.6 percent, meaning that as long as either Russia or the U. S. fails to ratify the protocol, it cannot go into effect.

Prebon Reads Writing on the Wall

Prebon Energy, a leading global energy broker, has got out of the emissions trading business. The following is the statement from the company’s president explaining the decision:

“To our Emissions Customers,

After careful consideration, Prebon Energy has decided to exit the air quality trading markets effective immediately. Given current market conditions, we have decided to focus our energies in other areas where we believe we can offer value to our customers; including, but not limited to, the natural gas and electricity markets. Staff will be available to handle any queries regarding emissions trades that have either been consummated or are pending.

Sincerely, Edward Novak, President, Prebon Energy.”

Emissions trading prices in Europe have failed to hit the levels predicted, while the voluntary exchange in the US has suffered from a dearth of buyers.

Wind Farms in UK Raise Environmental Objections

A long article in London’s Observer on October 5 pointed out the many and varied objections locals and environmentalists are raising against the wind farms springing up around the country in an effort to meet the United Kingdom government’s target of generating 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

Self-professed ‘left-wing environmentalist,’ Martin Wright, told the paper: “Since the Second World War, there’s been a consensus that landscape matters…. That’s broken down here. If people in London knew the place, they would be appalled. And yet we’re portrayed as nuclear-loving nimbies in the press…. Wind turbines are a good idea in the right place…. But sticking hundreds of them on wild land is not a good idea. For a small, heavily populated country we have some stunning landscapes, but they’re under threat of industrialization.”

The article also points out the threat to local avian wildlife: “Research shows, however, that wind farms are killing far more birds than the public realizes. A five-year study in California revealed that the Altamont Pass wind farm kills an average of 40 to 60 golden eagles a year, along with ‘several hundred’ hawks, falcons and other birds of prey. In Spain, a report commissioned by the regional government of Navarra concluded that 368 turbines at 10 sites had killed nearly 7,000 wild birds in a single year, including 409 vultures, 24 eagles and 650 bats.

“In Germany, studies show turbines have killed dozens of rare red kites…. Red kites are a conservation success story, brought back from the brink of extinction in this area [of the UK], but two were killed at this small site alone last summer. Other rare British birds are also under threat as the turbines proliferate…. A farm of 27 turbines, each 325ft high, at Edinbane on Skye has planning consent, despite RSPB objections that the site was too close to sea eagles and several breeding pairs of golden eagles, as well as merlin and hen harriers. All four species have the highest possible legal protection.”

Finally, energy consultant and TV personality Professor Ian Fells pointed out that, “To meet the 2010 target, Britain will have to build 400 to 500 turbines each year. Each will be a 3MW machine, bigger than anything yet seen. ‘I think they’ll be doing well to get there by 2020,’ Fell says. ‘There’s some wishful thinking in the latest White Paper. And wind power is not completely clean. You have to build huge concrete foundations and service roads and so on.'”

Return of Malthus; Lindzen Meets the Mayors

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Science

Return of Malthus

In an inversion of the way Malthusian arguments usually run, a team of Swedish geologists has said that constraints on fossil fuel resources mean that there is not enough oil and gas available to fuel the doomsday scenarios of greenhouse gas production envisaged by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left for even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass. Their research suggests that the combined reserves of oil and gas amount to barely 3500 billion barrels of oil, which is considerably below the 5000 billion barrels assumed by the “best-case” IPCC scenario. The “worst-case” assumes 18,000 billion barrels, a level Aleklett calls “completely unrealistic.”

Nebojsa Nakicenovic of the IPCC team counters that their scenarios included a much broader and more internationally accepted range of estimates than the “conservative” Swedes put forward and told New Scientist (Oct. 3) that coal could be used to make up the difference. Aleklett conceded that coal could fill the gap, and both agreed that its use in such an eventuality would be “disastrous.”

Lindzen Meets the Mayors

In response to steps taken by the Mayors of Newton and Worcester, Mass., to mitigate the effects of climate change on their townships, Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published an open letter in The Washington Times on October 9.

He concluded, “Capping CO2 emissions per unit electricity generated will have a negligible impact at best on CO2 levels. It certainly will, however, increase the cost of electricity, and place those states pursuing such a path at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Why would any elected official want that, even at the admittedly severe risk of appearing politically incorrect?

“It is important to understand that the impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30 percent over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man-influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75 percent of what one expects from a doubling of CO2. “Assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so-about 1 degree F-is due to added greenhouse gases-a very implausible assumption-the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-to-3) than models predict.

“If we are, nonetheless, to believe the model predictions, the argument goes roughly as follows: The models are correct, but some unknown process has canceled the impact of increasing greenhouse gases, and that process will henceforth cease. Do we really want to put the welfare of the nation, much less any one community, at risk for such an argument? I for one would hope for greater prudence from my elected officials.”

Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto’s Future; Schwarzenegger’s Campaign Cheers Environmentalists

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto’s Future

The United Nations’ World Climate Change Conference, which concluded in Moscow on October 3, ended without reaching a consensus on the issue. A senior economic adviser to President Putin stated that he found the answers from the scientific organizers to his detailed questions over climate change science (which for the most part simply quoted from the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report issued two years ago) were unconvincing. When the debate was opened up to the floor on the final day, conference chairman Bert Bolin was forced to admit that nine out of 10 questions from the floor questioned the “consensus” on anthropogenic climate change.

After the conference, Russian advisers were at pains to stress that their skepticism towards Kyoto was based on genuine misgivings over the treaty’s scientific basis and the effects of climate change on Russia rather than simply a negotiating tactic to extract more concessions from the west. An unnamed source told Reuters Oct. 14, “I do not know how clearly what [the senior adviser] said was translated, but judging by the commentaries that appeared the words were interpreted as brinkmanship…. This is not a game, it is a very serious question…about the theory that (the protocol) is based on, and a number of other questions such as the economic issue.”

At time of writing, there has been little official reaction to the conference’s outcome from Kyoto-supporting governments or environmental lobby groups. Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, who attended the conference, alleged to Greenwire (Oct. 15) that, “Scientists and economists who spoke in favor of Kyoto often found their microphones cut off and were not allowed to speak until the last day of the conference.”

However, sources suggest that high-level officials preparing for the UNFCC’s ninth Conference of the Parties in Milan in December are bowing to the inevitable. BNA’s Daily Environment Report reported (Oct. 10) that, “For the first time since its drafting, official discussions will include the possibility of combating climate change without the Kyoto Protocol, although talks will focus more on other issues that include the use and transfer of new technologies, capacity building in developing countries, and sustainable development.”

Schwarzenegger’s Campaign Cheers Environmentalists

According to Greenwire (Oct. 15), California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “policy agenda reads like an environmentalist’s wish list.” He has set a target of reducing “air pollution by up to 50 percent, through incentives for clean fuel usage, and build hydrogen car fueling stations along California highways. The governor-elect also supports the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which would require that 20 percent of the state’s power come from solar and wind power by 2017.”

In addition, he has promised to defend the state’s greenhouse gas legislation against legal challenges, saying, “California’s landmark legislation to cut greenhouse gases is now law, and I will work to implement it and to win the expected challenges in court along the way.”

Schwarzenegger’s campaign was not wholly attractive to the environmental lobby, which reacted badly to his suggestion that he might want to close down the state’s environmental protection agency as part of his campaign against government bureaucracy. However, Terry Tamminen, an unpaid adviser to Schwarzenegger on environmental issues, and executive director of Environment Now, told Greenwire that he hoped the new Governor would be able to work more closely with the White House than Gov. Davis did on issues like global warming and air pollution, saying, “As a Republican governor, Arnold is much more likely to be able to work with the Bush administration to resolve differences…. California could persuade the federal government to take another look at those policies.”

Deal on Energy Bill “Close”

Progress on the energy bill conference stalled over recent weeks, but Republican conference leaders are now confident they are ‘close’ to a deal on the outstanding disagreements over electricity, tax, and MTBE issues. Those disagreements are over whether merchant power generators should have to pay for transmission upgrades and issues surrounding liability protection for and a federal ban on the fuel additive MTBE. Sources suggest that one of the issues (it is not known which one) has been sent to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) to try to reach some resolution. The package of tax incentives has not been finished, either. The conferees have agree to drop the Senate’ bill’s three climate titles and the 10% renewable porfolio standard for electric utilities. There is confusion over whether the provisions for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and for an inventory of oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf have been dropped. Sen. Joseph Liebermen (D.-Conn.) had issued a press release congratulating Republican conference leaders for removing the provisions, but retracted his statement when no announcement was forthcoming.

Collusion Charges “Absurd”

Following an allegation by the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Maine that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, had colluded with administration officials to sue the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Data Quality Act over its dissemination of the junk-science based Climate Action Report 2002, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) has written to the White House asking officials to release to him any documents relating to the alleged collusion.

CEI rejected the charge as preposterous. “This started as a suit against a Clinton administration global warming report,” CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. said in a press release. “The accusations of collusion are absurd and just an attempt to divert attention from the real issue-that junk science is being used as the basis for climate change reports, which could lead to policies that cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars with little, if any, benefit.”

CEI’s legal action began against the Climate Action Report’s predecessor, the National Assessment on Climate Change, in October 2000.