Blog

IPCC Releases Political Summary; A Rift in the IPCC “Consensus”?; Teamsters Oppose the Kyoto Protocol

by William Yeatman on January 23, 2001

in Politics

IPCC Releases Political Summary

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on January 20, approved and released the Summary for Policymakers of its Third Assessment Report. As with the Second Assessment Report in 1995, the Summary bears little resemblance to the actual report, which has not yet been approved for final release. The report itself is replete with caveats that give little support for the catastrophic warming scenario touted by anti-energy activists (commonly known as environmentalists).

The summary, on the other hand, is a political document that exists primarily to bolster the claims of the anti-energy zealots, not to summarize the report. As Robert Watson, chairman of the IPCC, said in a press conference releasing the summary, “This adds impetus for governments of the world to find ways to live up to their commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The summary claims that the earths temperature could rise much faster than previously thought and that last century was the warmest in the past thousand years. The Second Assessment Report, which was released in 1995, gave a prediction that the earth could warm by 1 to 3.5 degrees C by the year 2100. The “best estimate” was a 2 degree C warming by 2100, about a third lower than the IPCCs best estimate in 1990. The new report has dramatically increased that estimate to 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C, even though no new evidence has come to light to warrant such a dramatic change.

The summary claims that the 20th century has been the warmest in the last 1000 years. This conclusion is based on a suspect set of data derived from tree rings, which purports to show a stable climate from the years 1000 to 1900. It then crudely attaches the 20th century surface temperature data to produce a dramatic warming thereafter. When these two different (and incompatible) data sets are combined, the resulting graph resembles a hockey stick lying on its back, blade up.

It is very difficult to extract any information about past temperature variations using tree ring data. What it does tell us is whether the “combined micro-environmental conditions during the growing season [of a particular year] were favorable to [tree] growth or not (The Hockey Stick: A new low in climate science, www.microtech.com.au/daly).”

These conditions include rainfall, temperature, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and so on. Singling out the temperature effect is a highly speculative business. Moreover, the samples used in the tree ring data were limited to the Northern Hemisphere, leaving much of the planet unsampled. The IPCC report, nonetheless, presents the hockey stick graph as representing a global temperature trend.

The hockey stick represents a radical departure from the well-established historical temperature record, which has been derived from several proxies, including the written historical record, ice core samples, and tree ring data, among others. Those records show that the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period that spanned much of the first half of the millennium. The 20th century was cooler than the Medieval Warm Period and the warming that occurred could easily be explained by a natural emergence from the Little Ice Age, an episode that also mysteriously disappears in the IPCCs new tree ring data.

The summary states that, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” It turns out, however, that the evidence comes from computer-generated climate models, which, of course, isnt evidence at all.

“There is a longer and more closely scrutinized temperature record and new model estimates of variability,” says the summary. “The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models.” Why the internal variability estimated by computers is valid is not explained. A look at real climate variability over the long term clearly shows that the current warming is well within natural variability.

Finally, computer models are still incapable of replicating the present climate using known climate conditions. Moreover, the several models in existence give such widely divergent predictions it is difficult to know what to make of them. A model that cannot predict the present certainly shouldnt be used to predict a hundred years into the future.

A Rift in the IPCC “Consensus”?

IPCC Chairman Robert Watson has a science degree, but he is not a practicing scientist. Indeed, he has been a political operative his whole life, and his pronouncements on the subject of global warming carry about as much weight as those by Greenpeace. The lead authors of the IPCCs Third Assessment Report are practicing scientists, however, and many of their comments seem to contradict Dr. Watsons.

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria who holds the Canada Research Chair in atmospheric science is a lead author of the UN report. He stated that, “Based on the science you simply cant make the statement that it is going to warm faster.” People who argue otherwise dont understand the IPCC report, said Weaver.

The Toronto Star (January 23, 2001) points out that what was released on the 20th was an 18-page summary that was “hammered out during four days of horse-trading among officials from 99 governments.” These officials are often erroneously referred to as scientists in the press.

Gordon McBean, a former head of the Meteorological Service in Canada who was heavily involved in the Second Assessment Report said, “It is misleading to say the situation is worse.” Both scientists, however, do believe that man is the cause of the warming that weve seen so far.

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is also a lead author of the report. He stated, “The public is led to think that hundreds, even thousands, of scientists formed a consensus about this report. The truth is that were not even asked.”

Bush Administration Seeks Delay

The Bush Administration has reportedly asked to postpone for two months negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol now scheduled to be held in Bonn, Germany in late May and early June. According to an Associated Press story, the State Department announced on January 24 that it needed the additional two months in order to take, in spokesman Rick Boucher’s words, “a thorough look at the U.S. policy on climate change.” This extra time would presumably be used to bring the U.S. negotiating position into conformity with the Bush campaigns explicit opposition to the Kyoto Protocol.

The continuation in Bonn of the sixth Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was agreed to after COP-6 collapsed in the Hague, Netherlands last November. COP-7 is scheduled for Marrakesh, Morocco in November.

Teamsters Oppose the Kyoto Protocol

The 1.5 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters has adopted a resolution opposing the Kyoto Protocol. It states, “The International Brotherhood of Teamsters will oppose the Kyoto Protocol and any like treaty, legislative or regulatory action that causes job loss and mandates internationally disproportionate greenhouse gas reductions.” It also called for a “short- and long-term comprehensive energy strategy that will assure that energy is adequate and affordable for American families and that prevents energy shortfalls that destabilize the economy” (Greenwire, January 23, 2001).

Antarctic Ice Sheet Retreating More Slowly Than Thought; Global Temperatures in 2000: Hot or Cold?; Red River Floods Not Caused

by William Yeatman on January 9, 2001

in Science

Antarctic Ice Sheet Retreating More Slowly Than Thought

“New evidence suggests that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is retreating more slowly and contributing less to rising global sea levels than scientists once thought,” according to research summarized in a NASA news release (http://science.nasa.gov). The research was presented at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in San Francisco on December 16.

“Our previous best estimates that the ice sheet as adding 1 millimeter per year to global sea level are almost certainly too high,” said Robert Bindschadler, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Scientists believed that the WAIS had reached its maximum growth 20,000 years ago, at about 3 times its current size. The new evidence, however, shows that it was still growing as little as 8,000 years ago.

According to Bindschadler’s analysis, “More rapid retreat approximately 7600 years ago and possible near-stability in the Ross Sea sector at present suggests a slow rate of initial retreat followed by a more rapid-than-average retreat during the late Holocene, returning to a near-zero rate of retreat currently” (http://earth.agu.org/meetings/fm00top.html).

“Bindschadler points to “the geologic record of dated stages in the retreat of the ice sheet’s continental base as evidence that it has shrunk in fits and starts,” according to the NASA news release. “Such episodic retreats may be controlled more by the varying depth of the underlying surface and water than by the changing climate.”

Global Temperatures in 2000: Hot or Cold?

The New York Times on December 19 proclaimed 2000 was “one of the hottest years since 1860,” even though the year wasn’t over and therefore not all the data had been collected yet. According to the World Meteorological Organization, said the Times, “2000 was the 22nd successive year that global temperatures have been above the average of the 1961-1990 base period.”

The use of 1961-1990 as the base period is suspect, however. That period encompasses a fairly long global cooling trend that began in 1940 and lasted through most of the 1970s. So it’s not surprising that temperatures since then have been above that particular average.

Preliminary data from the satellite measurements made by John Christy and Roy Spencer, on the other hand, show that global temperatures in the year 2000 were cooler than the running average since 1979. The overall trend since 1979 is plus 0.04 degrees C per decade, according to Christy, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

Red River Floods Not Caused by Global Warming

Flooding along the Red River in 1997 devastated parts of Canada and destroyed Grand Forks, North Dakota. Government officials from Canada and the U.S. (President Clinton and Vice President Gore) blamed the floods on global warming. Indeed, the Red River-climate change link has become ingrained in global warming folklore.

A new study shows that such a claim is entirely erroneous, however. Appearing in Natural Hazards (21: 2000), the study points out that the Red River has “a high natural potential for flooding” due to the fact that “it is located on a former glacial lake bottom.” In spite of the natural flood hazard posed by the area, development has continued to increase, thereby leading to ever-higher costs related to flood damage.

The 1997 flood was the largest of the 20th century, but it is smaller than floods that occurred in the 19th century. A slightly larger flood occurred in 1852, and in 1826 a catastrophic flood occurred that discharged 40 percent more water than the 1997 flood.

It’s a Cold, Cold Winter

The U.S. has just experienced its coldest November to December period in the 106-year temperature record in the lower 48 states, according to preliminary figures from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center. The World Climate Report (January 8, 2001) argues that these figures are likely to go down even further when the final data comes in. “The early returns are largely from urban stations whose concentrated economic activity is known to produce artificial warming, while rural stations, slower to report, are free from this effect and therefore could likely lower the preliminary average,” noted WCR.

In Siberia, one of the two areas in the world that is supposed to warm up more rapidly than any other, according to climate models (the other being Northwest North America), they are experiencing life threatening cold temperatures. The city of Barnaul recorded its lowest temperature in the last 100 years on January 7, 67 degrees below zero F. Authorities evacuated patients from poorly-heated hospitals.

In Krasnoyarsk the month of December never saw temperatures rise above minus 58 degrees F. People are keeping gas ovens running nearly 24 hours a day just to keep their homes at around 50 degrees F, and the freezing temperatures are disrupting the distribution of water.

Forecasters are worried that January could be even worse. According to UPI (January 7, 2001), “Weather forecasters confirm an old Russian tradition according to which the harshest weather can be expected during the so-called ‘Baptist Frost,’ the week following January 19.”

EIA Analyzes Multi-Emissions Reduction Proposals; U.S. Energy Crisis: A Reality Check

by William Yeatman on January 9, 2001

in Politics

EIA Analyzes Multi-Emissions Reduction Proposals

Several bills have been floating around Capitol Hill which propose mandatory coordinated multi-emissions reductions of SO2, NOx and CO2. The Bush campaign also pledged in its energy policy statement to propose legislation to reduce emissions of these three gases as well as mercury through a “multi-pollutant” approach. At the request of former-Rep. David McIntosh, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has issued a study that analyzes “the potential costs of various multi-emission reduction strategies to reduce the air emissions from electric power plants.”

To analyze the potential costs, EIA assumes an emissions trading scheme similar to the one used in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to reduce SO2 emissions. It also assumes a reduction in SO2 and NOx of 75 percent below 1997 levels and a reduction of CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2005 to 2008 and a further reduction to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. It also analyzes the difference in costs between separate programs for each of the gases and an integrated reduction approach.

The costs of reducing NOx and SO2 emissions would do little to raise electricity prices above EIA’s business-as-usual projections. The cost of electricity to consumers would rise 5.9 cents per kilowatt-hour as a result with or without the emissions reductions. However, the annual cost of a separate CO2 program would be $90 to $121 billion over the same period, raising consumer electricity prices by 8.3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

An integrated approach where emission targets for the three gases were met simultaneously would lower the cost of emissions reduction by $5 to $11 billion. The loss to GDP under the integrated approach would be $60 to $115 billion in 2005 and $60 to $84 billion in 2010.

According to EIA, “The impact on electricity prices is projected to be much larger in the CO2 cap and integrated cases than in the NOx and SO2 cap cases. Because there are currently no commercially available technologies for removing and storing (sequestering) CO2 and none is expected to be available during the projection period, the only way to make large reductions in CO2 emissions is to reduce the consumption of fuels with relatively high carbon content and improve the efficiency of energy production and use.”

In other words, SO2 and NOx reductions can be met through installation of emission reduction equipment in existing plants, but reductions in CO2 emissions will require retiring coal-fired power plants and constructing natural gas (if gas supplies increase) power plants or perhaps more-efficient coal-fired power plants. The bottom line is that including CO2 emissions reductions in a multi-emission reduction strategy would significantly raise consumer energy prices. The report can be downloaded at http://www.eia.doe.gov.

U.S. Energy Crisis: A Reality Check

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (December 29, 2000) discusses the real energy problems that George W. Bush will face as President. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not on the list.

Among those problems are, “fear of heating-oil shortages in the Northeast, record high natural-gas prices, and soaring electric bills and threats of blackouts in California. Bush was facing reality when he told a group of reporters, ‘When we’re undersupplied as a nation and demand increases, prices will go up.'” The solution, said Bush, is to raise supply through higher production.

Most experts agree, however, that there is little the president can do in the short term. “He’s going to have to look down the road on how he can improve the situation and keep it from happening again,” said Robert Ebel, director of energy programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Energy shortages and much higher prices may be one of the main causes of the current economic slowdown. However, the current energy crunch is minor compared to what would be required to meet the Kyoto emissions limits.

Umbrella Group to Hold Secret Meeting in Sunny New Zealand; Bush Cabinet Looks Stronger on Kyoto with Abraham at Energy

by William Yeatman on January 9, 2001

in Politics

Umbrella Group to Hold Secret Meeting in Sunny New Zealand

The Japan Times (December 29, 2000) has reported that the so-called Umbrella Group, which includes Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will hold “secret” talks in New Zealand to forge a joint strategy for future climate negotiations.

The meeting’s purpose is to try to figure out how to revive the moribund talks that collapsed last November in the Hague at the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. One of the major sticking points at COP-6 was over the extent to which carbon sinks can be counted toward meeting emissions reductions. The Umbrella Group wants much more credit for sinks than does the European Union. Another controversial issue is the use of so-called flexible mechanisms. The Umbrella Group wants full use of emissions trading, for example, while the EU wishes to limit the use of such mechanisms.

The talks have been scheduled for February, which means that the new Bush Administration will have very little time to prepare their position or to put a new negotiating team in place. President-elect Bush opposed the Kyoto Protocol in his campaign, but no official position is expected until after he takes office.

Bush Cabinet Looks Stronger on Kyoto with Abraham at Energy

Since our last issue, President-elect George W. Bush’s cabinet picks look much less wobbly on global warming than the early nominations of Paul O’Neill to be Treasury Secretary and Gov. Christine Todd Whitman to head EPA. Bush nominated former Senator Spence Abraham to be Secretary of Energy on January 2.

In the Senate, Abraham was a solid opponent of the Kyoto Protocol. He sponsored legislation to repeal the federal excise tax on gasoline during last summer’s price spike and supported abolishing the Department of Energy. It’s also no surprise that, as a senator from Michigan, he was one of the leading opponents of raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards on automobiles.

Secretary of Energy looks like it will be a key position in the early months of the new administration. Current energy shortages may get worse, and candidate Bush laid out an ambitious long-term plan to increase production and reduce supply bottlenecks.

In addition, Kyoto opponents have a strong ally in Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card, Jr. Card served as secretary of transportation in the George Bush Administration, as president of the Alliance of American Automobile Manufacturers, and most recently as vice president in charge of General Motors’ Washington, D.C. office.

Text References on Climate Change and Weather Extremes

by William Yeatman on December 31, 2000

in Science

Text References

Bernard, H.W. Jr.; “Global Warming Unchecked,” Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1993.

Emmanuel, K.E.; “The Dependency of Hurricane Intensity on Climate,” Nature 326, 1987.

Emmanuel, K.E.; “The Maximum Intensity of Hurricans,” J. Atm. Sci., 45, 1988.

Flavin, C.; “Storm Warning, Climatic Change Hits the Insurance Industry,” World Watch, 7, #6, 1994.

Friedman, D.G.; “Implications of Climatic Change for the Insurance Industry,” National Hazards Research Program, Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut, 1989.

Gardner, B.; (Personal Communication), January 1995.

Imbrie & Imbrie; “Ice Ages,” Enslow, Short Hills, N.J., 1979.

IPCC; (International Panel on Climatic Change) “Climate Change, the Scientific Assessment,” University of Cambridge, 1990.

IPCC; (International Panel on Climate Change) “Radiative Forcing of Climate, the 1994 Report of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” 1994.

Jones, P.D. & P. YA Groisman, et al.; “Assessment of Urbanization Effects in Time Series of Surface Air Temperature over Land,” Nature, 347, 1990a.

Jones, P.D. & P.M. Kelley et al; ” The Effect of Urban Warming on the Northern Hemispheres Average Temperature,” J. Climate, 2, 1990b.

Karl, T.R. & Baker, C.B.; “Global Warming Update,” Invited Presentation at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, 1995.

Karl, T.R., et al.; United States Historical Climatology Network National and Regional Estimates of Monthly and Annual Precipitation. pp 830-905. In T.A. Boden et al. Trends 93: A Compendium of Global Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., 1994.

Lighthill, J. & G. Holland, et al.; “Global Climate Change and Tropical Cyclones”, Bulletin American Meteorological Society, 75, 1994.

Lindzen, R.S.; “Climatic Dynamics & Global Change,” Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 1994a.

Lindzen, R.S.; “On the Scientific Basis for Global Warming,” Env. Pollution, 83, 1994b.

Lindzen, R.S.; “Some Coolness Concerning the Global Warming.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society, 71, 1990.

Michaels, P.J.; “Sound and Fury The Scientific Polities of Global Warming,” CATO Inst., Washington, D.C., 1992.

National Weather Service, NOAA; “Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1878-1986,” National Climatic Data Center, 1992.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory; “Trends 93: A Compendium of Data on Global Climate,” ESD Publ. #4195, Oak Ridge, Indiana, September 1994.

Obasi, G.O.P.; “WMOs Role in the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction,” Bulletin American Meteorological Society, 75, Vol. 9, 1993.

Ostby, F.P.; “The Changing Nature of Tornadoes Climatology,” 17th Conf. Severe Local Storm, October 1993.

Piexoto and Oort; “Physics of Climate,” American Institute of Physics, 1992.

Spencer, R.W. & J.R. Christy; “Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellite,” Science, 247, March 1990.

White, C.F.; “A Perspective on Reduction Losses from Natural Hazards,” Bulletin American Meteorology Society, 75, #7, 1994.

Bush Picks Look Wobbly on Warming

by William Yeatman on December 26, 2000

in Politics

So far President-Elect George W. Bushs nominees for top positions look wobbly on global warming. Bush has chosen Christine Todd Whitman as his administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Whitman, as Governor of New Jersey, rarely stood up against the demands of environmental activists and has been at the forefront of pushing Kyoto-style policies. Indeed, New Jersey was the first state “to commit voluntarily to a specific [greenhouse gas] reduction.”

“New Jersey has set an ambitious goal to not only curb greenhouse gas emissions, but to reduce them,” said Whitman. “Our target for 2005 is a 3.5 percent reduction below the 1990 levels.

“The fact is that climate change associated with greenhouse gases has an effect on every aspect of our daily lives. The environmental and economic benefits that stem from controlling greenhouse gases are enormous.”

Tom Bray in OpinionJournal.com (December 26, 2000) noted a number of environmental issues in which Whitman is out of the conservative mainstream, including strong support for the precautionary principle.

“We must acknowledge,” said Whitman, “that uncertainty is inherent in managing natural resources, recognize it is usually easier to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later, and shift the burden of proof away from those advocating protection toward those proposing an action that may be harmful.”

Bushs nominee for Treasury Secretary, Paul ONeill, CEO of aluminum manufacturer Alcoa, has also taken several dubious positions on energy use.

As noted by the New York Times (December 20, 2000), “Mr. ONeill participated in at least two sessions with President Clinton as part of a corporate advisory body convened to discuss global warming. Participants in one 1997 meeting described Mr. ONeill as more willing to consider steps to tackle global warming than most of his corporate counterparts, but more skeptical about global warming trends than some Clinton administration officials.”

ONeill claims he has criticized the administration for exaggerating the global warming threat. “I said to him [President Clinton], Im just astounded that he and the Vice President keep saying that the Grand Forks flood and El Nio and these severe weather events are somehow related to global warming. Theres not a scintilla of scientific evidence to connect those things. It damages his ability to lead when he exaggerates what no reputable scientist would agree to” (Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2000).

On the other hand, ONeill has long advocated higher energy prices. In 1992 he advised the Bush Administration to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents a gallon. “It certainly has been clear to me, and has been for a long time, that we need a gasoline tax,” he said.

Midnight Greenhouse Regulations

by William Yeatman on December 26, 2000

in Blog

Theyre called midnight regulations – the flood of federal regulatory activity occurring in the closing months of an administration. Though a bipartisan phenomenon, the pre-inauguration day rush to finalize pending rules is particularly pronounced in Democratic administrations that know that Republicans will replace them.

Professor Jay Cochran of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has studied midnight regulations extensively, and concludes that the last-minute regulatory binge under Clinton is rivaled in number and scope only by the Carter administration at the end of 1980.

Included in the 100 or more such measures are several designed to combat global warming. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of finalizing new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers and central air conditioners.

By DOEs own estimates, the rules will add at least $200 to the cost of a new clothes washer and $274 for an air conditioner. DOE claims that, by reducing demand for residential electricity, these standards will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions. However, the impact is likely to be minor.

According to energy consultant Glenn Schleede, DOEs estimates of carbon emissions reductions are approximately 11/100 of 1 percent for air conditioners and 18/100 of 1 percent for clothes washers. On a cost per ton basis, these rules are two of the most expensive carbon reduction strategies yet proposed.

It is difficult, but not impossible to undo a finalized rule. However, only time will tell if the new Congress and Administration will make the effort to review, and possibly rescind, these and other midnight regulations.

20th Century Warming Explained, Say Modelers; 2000 Temperatures Reverse Trend

by William Yeatman on December 26, 2000

in Science

20th Century Warming Explained, Say Modelers

Global warming scientists keep on turning out computer-generated climate models that purport to “prove” that global warming is real and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, even though politicians and environmental activists keep telling us the science is settled.

The latest such effort, published in Science (December 15, 2000), comes from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, a major booster of catastrophic global warming. One of the puzzles that climatologists have struggled with is that there were two warming episodes in the 20th century, one early on and one in the last 30 years, that are roughly equal in magnitude and duration.

The current surface temperature trend has been attributed to the emission of greenhouse gases, but the early 20th century warming occurred when human emissions of greenhouse gases were insignificant. The new study claims that the early warming was due to natural causes, but that the current one is manmade.

The authors “made an ensemble of simulationsthat includes both the most important anthropogenic forcings and the most important natural forcings during the 20th century.” The primary natural forcings used in the model were volcanic eruptions, which cool the climate, and solar variability. The models show that the natural forcings account for the early 20th century warming, between 1910 and 1939, which was characterized by increased solar activity and little volcanic activity.

Natural forcing explains the early trend, but fails to explain the current trend. Anthropogenic forcing on the other hand explains the current trend but not the earlier trend. The researchers claim, “When we include both anthropogenic and natural forcings, our model successfully simulates not just the observed global mean response, but also some of the large scale features of the observed temperature response.” Extending the model into the future, the researchers predict that by 2100 the earth will have warmed by 3 degrees C.

David Wojick in Electricity Daily (December 15, 2000) noted, “The amount of solar variance over the last century is a matter of debate, not to mention the forcing effect of that variance. Henceit is impossible to compare that effect statistically with the temperature record. As one skeptic puts it, You cant compare what you dont understand.”

2000 Temperatures Reverse Trend

The following item appeared in the New York Times (December 24, 2000):

“Globally, the 10 warmest years in the past century have all been since 1982. But a list of the warmest 10 years in the United States looks quite different: 1998, 1934, 1999, 1921, 1931, 1990, 1953, 1954, 1939, 1987. But that is the way of weather. Not every region follows the global trend. Not every drought is a sign of global warming and not every cold front a refutation. This year was on pace to become the warmest on record for the United States [as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was quick to point out] until November, which turned out to be the second coldest on record. So 2000 is now expected to fall somewhere between 7th and 12th.”

But Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, wasnt about to let a cold November get in the way of a good global warming story. “I think this goes to illustrate that even in a warming trend,” Dr. Karl said, “one can and should expect an individual month with some very anomalously cold weather.”

COP-6 Off to Shaky Start; IPCC Peer Review Process a Sham; Political Slant is Clear in IPCC Summary; Clinton Seeks to Regulate C

by William Yeatman on December 15, 2000

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

COP-6 Off to Shaky Start

The sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change got off to a shaky start this week. This is supposed to be the concluding conference to finalize the Kyoto Protocol, but there appears to be little movement on the major issues that have plagued the negotiations from the beginning.

According to a Reuters story (November 15, 2000), the disagreement between the European Union and the United States over the use of emissions trading is as sharp as ever. “So far, I havent seen anyone move their position by one centimeter,” said Raul Estrada, Argentinas special representative for the environment. The EU believes that the developed countries should reduce emissions through “tough domestic policies.”

Indeed, the EU probably wont budge from its negotiating stance. Its 15 nations agreed to form a “united front in demanding tough rules for compliance,” that would “ensure countries made most of their emissions cuts through domestic action rather than through emissions credits or other flexible mechanisms,” according to a November 8 Reuters story. The EU also agreed to demand firm sanctions against countries which miss their targets and strict limits on the use of so-called carbon sinks uses of forests, which absorb carbon to account for some of a countrys target.

The U.S. and its allies, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, want full emissions trading that would allow them to purchase credits from developing countries and Russia as part of their compliance strategy. Adding to the standoff is a deal struck between the U.S. and fourteen Latin American countries “to push for full-scale trading in greenhouse gas emissions as a solution to global warming.” The emission credits would be created through U.S. funding of rainforest preservation in Latin America (Financial Times, November 6, 2000).

The “G-77 plus China” Group are also trying to present a united front in the negotiations. But their coalition is fracturing due to several disagreements. In general, the group wants the industrialized nations to commit to tough emissions reduction targets. But small island states worried about rising sea levels, for instance, have little in common with oil producing countries in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia claims that it would lose $25 billion per year as a result of Kyoto and wants to be compensated. “There will be no outcome if our concerns are not adequately addressed,” warned Mohammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation.

IPCC Peer Review Process a Sham

Controversy continues to surround the leaked draft of the Summary for Policymakers of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Third Assessment Report (TAR). New charges resemble the complaints made about the Second Assessment Reports (SAR) summary of 1996. In that report, the statement, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,” was inserted into the summary after the report had gone through scientific peer review.

In the TARs Summary, a major conclusion of the report has once again been inserted after the peer review process was completed. According to Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia climatologist, the Summary “dramatically increased the upper limit of its forecast [from the SAR] of the 21st centurys temperature increase, from 4.5 degrees C to 6.0 degrees C.”

“But,” said Michaels, “the document the IPCC sent out for scientific peer review contained no such number. Indeed, after the scientists reviewed it, the maximum value was 4.8 degrees C.” This alteration “inserted after the document had circulated among scientific reviewers,” said Michaels, changed the “reports most crucial conclusion at the 11th hour, after the scientific peer review process had concluded.”

The change was inserted during the “Government Review” in which nonscientist reviewers comment on the draft. According to Michaels, “The 6 degree C figure is based upon a socio-climatological model,” which “relies upon a number of illogical scenarios called storylines.” These storylines first appeared in a non-peer reviewed paper by Tom Wigley, a climatologist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a Kyoto cheerleader group. Indeed, Pews press release announcing the study said that Wigleys scenarios would be incorporated into the IPCC report.

Finally, according to Michaels, the IPCCs peer review process “isnt really peer review in the classic sense, for the IPCC retains veto power.” Under real peer review, the reviewers comments must be incorporated into a study, but under the IPCCs system, “It is up to the original authors to review the scientific comments and decide which to keep and which to ignore.”

Political Slant is Clear in IPCC Summary

Cooler Heads has compared copies of the April and October drafts of the IPCCs Summary for Policymakers. The changes between the two drafts reveal the political motives behind the whole IPCC process. The overall tone of the Summary went from one of inquisitiveness to one of assertion.

Several headings were changed. Headings such as “Is the climate changing?” and “How well do we model climate and understand climate changes?” were changed to “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system” and “Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates has increased.”

Some changes are blatant attempts to present a more alarmist tone. Statements that bolster catastrophic warming claims were accompanied by statements of uncertainty in the April draft, but were eliminated in the October draft. Statements that cast doubt on the manmade global warming hypothesis had statements of uncertainty added in the October draft. For example, the April draft states that there has been a 40 percent decrease in Arctic summer or early autumn sea-ice extent, but that “Limited sampling, however, leaves open the possibility that these changes may not reflect broad areas of the Arctic.” This caveat is dropped from the October draft.

The April draft also states, “The observed changes in the intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical storms, such as hurricanes, are dominated by interdecadal-to-multidecadal variations, with no clear long-term trends. There is no evidence for systematic changes in severe local storms, such as tornadoes.” The October draft repeats the observation that there is no clear evidence of long-term trends in hurricane frequency, but adds that, “data are often sparse and inadequate.” This occurs repeatedly throughout the draft.

The section on climate modeling underwent significant alterations to bolster claims about accuracy. The statement from the April draft, “The complexity of the processes in the climate system prevents the use of extrapolation of past trends or statistical and other empirical techniques for projection of the future,” was dropped from the October draft. Also, the April draft claims that several models have been able to reproduce 20th century climate driven by natural as well as manmade forcings, but the October draft only mentions manmade forcings.

Two statements in the April draft, “Simulation of some extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, remains problematic,” and “Based on the record of past climate changes, we know that the possibility of rapid and irreversible changes in the climate system exists, such as altered ocean circulation patterns. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty about the likelihood of such transitions,” were dropped in the October draft. Added to the October draft, however, is the extremely controversial claim that, “Some aspects of model simulations of ENSO, monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation have improved.”

Forecasts of CO2 concentrations, as well as temperature changes, were different in the two drafts. In April the projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations were given as 550 to 800 parts per million by 2100. In October it became 540 to 970 ppm. The summary noted that the 1996 SAR forecast a temperature change of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C over the next 100 years. The April draft put the range at 1 to 5 degrees C. In October, it became 1.5 to 6 degrees C.

Since nothing changed within the TAR itself from April to October, it is clear that the numbers have been fudged to bolster the pro-Kyoto, anti-energy agenda.

Clinton Seeks to Regulate CO2

In an effort to keep the Kyoto negotiations alive, President Clinton has called for federal regulations to limit CO2 emissions. The plan calls for a “cap and trade” system similar to U.S. emissions trading programs to control smog and acid rain.

According to the New York Times (November 10, 2000), “Any such expansion of pollution rules would probably require action by Congress, where there is significant opposition to the idea. But the administration contends that without this kind of step, a global treaty to reduce the risks of global warming will probably fail.” Currently there are no federal laws that would allow regulation of CO2 emissions.

Clintons announcement was timed to co-incide with release of the final version of the National Assessment on Climate Change, which otherwise attracted little media notice. The National Assessment has been mired in controversy and is currently the target of a lawsuit filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, 60 Plus Association, Heartland Institute, Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, and Sen. James Inhofe.

Kyotos Impact on Trade and Growth

by William Yeatman on December 15, 2000

in Kyoto Negotiations

A new report by economists David Montgomery and Paul Bernstein of Charles River Associates makes it clear why the 180 countries involved in international negotiations to reduce greenhouse gases are having a tough time coming to an agreement. The problem is that there would be winners and losers under the Kyoto Protocol and the different compliance scenarios would produce different winners and losers.

According to the study, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would result in a loss of economic welfare to the tune of $900 million to $1.4 trillion from 2010 to 2030. Flexibility mechanisms such as emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism could lower costs somewhat. “Only full participation of developing countries in a system of global permit trading can reduce costs significantly below $1 trillion, and the option is not a possibility under the Kyoto Protocol,” says the study.

These costs will not be limited to developed countries, however. Since all countries are linked through international trade, the costs of Kyoto will be partially shifted to developing countries. “Changes in patterns of international trade will shift costs of compliance with Kyoto onto some non-Annex B countries, who will be caught in a terms of trade squeeze, paying more for goods they purchase from Annex B countries and receiving less for the goods they sell.” Other developing countries will gain through increased competitive advantage over energy intensive industries in developed countries, whose costs will increase under Kyoto.

The Clean Development Mechanism, which allows developed countries to invest in low cost energy reductions in developing countries, could reduce costs of compliance. But, says the study, “The greatest issue with CDM is whether it will be so burdened with administrative costs and restrictions on the nature and location of projects, or taxed as a source of revenue for the Secretariat (the levy), that investment in CDM projects will not make good economic sense.”

Moreover, “Not all of the flows of funds into CDM represents a net gain to the host country. Projects that meet CDM guidelines will cost more than conventional projects, and the additional resources used to build CDM projects will not be available to produce goods sustaining the consumption needs of the population.”

The CDM, which was designed to transfer wealth from the developed to developing countries as an incentive for developing countries to participate, could produce division among developing countries. “Countries like China and India, that export energy-intensive goods and benefit from energy price increases in Annex B countries, can be made worse off by the success of CDM, because CDM reduces some of the global trade distortions that benefit those countries.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →