Blog

20th Century Warming No Big Deal: ASU Bristlecone Pine Data

by William Yeatman on March 24, 1999

in Science

Arlington, VA March 25, 1999) In their fourth report pursuant to a Greening Earth Society research grant to Arizona State University, the ASU Climate Data Task Force examined 1,437-years of temperature data extrapolated from tree-ring chronologies of Bristlecone pines (Pinus aristata) growing in the San Francisco Peaks area of northern Arizona. The reconstructed temperatures during the 20th Century showed a warming of 0.10C per decade that, over the entire 1,437-year record, appears to be “an inconsequential twist in the long road of temperature changes in the region.”

The long-lived Bristlecone pine trees have been growing around the Colorado Plateau for thousands of years and their “rings” preserve remarkable information about the climate of each year in the trees lifespans. The actual values of the chronology used by the ASU task force were obtained from the International Tree-Ring Databank at the University of Arizonas Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research. The original chronology was developed by the late Donald Graybill from a site 3,500 meters above sea level and spans the period from 548 AD to 1984 AD.

The University of Arizona researchers followed a standard procedure used in literally hundreds of tree-ring reconstructions of local and regional climate conditions. In their review of the data, the ASU researchers found the mean sensitivity for the San Francisco Peaks chronology to be very high, indicating that the specimens respond well to annual climate variation. The ASU team gathered historical climate records from different stations in the general area of northern

Arizona and southern Utah and found that the tree-ring series had a relatively high correlation with the annual temperature data from Hanksville, Utah over the period from 1912 to 1984.

The ASU team used a standard set of time series and multivariate statistical procedures to link the variance in the tree-ring data to the annual temperature variance at Hanksville, removing autocorrelation in the data, establishing the statistical linkage between the tree-ring widths and the temperature data, developing transfer furnctions, and generating an estimate of annual temperature for each year from 548 AD to 1984 AD. According to the ASU researchers, “We tested the comparisons over the period of actual and reconstructed temperature values during this century, and we generated diagnostic statistics indicating that a long-term, meaningful reconstruction was possible.”

The results, displayed on the last page of the ASU study, while showing the “inconsequential” 20th Century warming also showed that while greenhouse gas concentrations did not increase in the early 1100s or the early 1300s, the temperature had no trouble shooting upward. Similarly, the ASU team notes, “There is no indication for any drop in greenhouse gas concentration in the last 1300s when temperatures fell like no other time in the 1,437-year record.”

“We must note that the magnificent Bristlecone pine trees of northern Arizona have been enjoying the recent buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” the ASU Climate Data Task Force reports. “The effect is a growth stimulation that may produce a recent warming bias in our reconstruction. Despite this problem, the temperature reconstruction does not reveal a warm-up that looks anything out of the ordinary over the past 1,437 years. The Bristlecone pines are telling us a lot about our climate. Wed better listen.”

This latest ASU Climate Task Force report (“Listening to the Pines”) is the fourth to be released by Greening Earth Society in 1999. The first (“20th Century Temperatures Atop Mt. Washington”) found no change in the sixty-year annualized mean, maximum or minimum temperatures recorded at Mount Washington in New Hampshire. The second (“View of Arctic Temperatures from Drifting Ice”) found no warming in the 37-year record of temperature data gathered at Arctic manned sea-ice stations operated by the Soviet Union between 1954 and 1990, and a slight, though statistically insignificant, cooling of annual mean temperature. The third (“A Climate Gift from Rothamsted”) examined one of the longest-running and continuous temperature records in the world (121 years) from the Rothamsted Experimental Station near Harpenden in southeastern England. That study revealed early, benign warming in that the bulk of warming took place at night and in winter with almost all of the detected warming (92.5%) taking place before 1950, which is before the exponential rise in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use.

The four ASU Climate Data Task Force studies were preceded by one prepared by Greening Earth Society science advisor Robert C. Balling, Jr., in November 1998. Ballings study analyzed trends in United States “heating and cooling degree days” between 1950 and 1995. According to Balling, who is Director of the Arizona State University Office of Climatology, no statistically significant trends over the period of study could be detected. That study led to the formation of the ASU Climate Data Task Force and Greening Earth Societys research grant to the university.

Under the research agreement with ASU, the results can be submitted for peer-review in the major journals on climatology. The effort will also be a source of continuing information for use by Greening Earth Society in World Climate Report and at the website (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org) to keep GES members abreast of developments in the science of climate change.”

The yearlong survey of available ground temperature datasets will use disparate, worldwide official climate data repositories and national meteorological centers, expanding the search to include other institutions, as necessary.

Click Here to read the study.

Model Study Shows Mixed Results; Global Warming Guru Advises Caution

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Science

Model Study Shows Mixed Results

A study appearing in the February 25 issue of Nature attempts to ascertain the regional effects of global warming on Europe. Using a climate model from the UK Hadley Center the researchers attempted to determine what effects global warming may have on river flow and wheat yield, both of which are affected by temperature and rainfall. The purpose of the experiment was to see if they could distinguish the impacts of human-induced global warming from natural multi-decadal climate variability.

The results showed that increasing anthropogenic carbon emissions significantly changed river runoff relative to natural variability in northern and southern Europe, but showed no change for western and central Europe. They also found that wheat productivity was very sensitive to natural climate variability. Only Denmark, Finland and Italy showed a marked increase in wheat yield as a result of human-induced global warming. “Elsewhere,” according to the study, ” climate-change impacts on mean wheat yield are indistinguishable from those due to natural climate variability.” Wheat yield was also highly sensitive to increases in CO2 concentrations.

An article discussing the study that also appeared in Nature said that “the clear message of this work is that greater efforts are needed to take account of the noise of natural climate variability when considering the signal of climate change.”

Global Warming Guru Advises Caution

Stephen Schneider is most famous for predicting global cooling in the seventies and then reversing himself to predict global warming in the eighties. As one of the most visible and radical proponents of the global warming theory and international control on energy use he is now urging the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be cautious when making its projections. In an internal paper for the IPCC, Schneider argues that it is a “well-documented tendency for scientific committees to overstate the confidence of their guesstimates.” Schneider argues for a “consistent assessment and reporting of the uncertainties.” No more statements like “the balance of evidence suggests,” which, according to the New Scientist (February 20, 1999), was the “result of a straw poll among themselves [the IPCC].”

Announcements

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

Cooler Heads Briefing Faults “Early Action”; Kyoto Cant be Met With Current Technology; Kyoto Will Cost Agriculture Billions

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Blog

Cooler Heads Briefing Faults “Early Action”

On February 22 the Cooler Heads Coalition sponsored an economic briefing for congressional staff and media. The briefing, which featured Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Mills of Mills, McCarthy & Associates, discussed the Mack-Chafee “Credit for Early Action” plan.

Lewis discussed the political problems with the bill. He explained that the bill would create winners and losers within the business community. Those who earn early credits will do so at the expense of those who are unable to. The bill will also create a pro-Kyoto constituency among the winners since their credits would be worthless unless the Kyoto Protocol is ratified.

Mills argued that “early action” on emission reductions is a nonstarter because you cant do it, it wouldnt work, and it wont matter. Mills maintains that currently fossil fuels supply 85 percent of the U.S. energy supply and is forecast to reach “90 percent of all increases in energy supply vital to a growing economy.” Substantial reductions in fossil fuel use would depress the U.S. economy.

Mills argues that “early action” would not work. It would require a “vast bureaucracy to track, validate and regulate the millions of existing and prospective activities of the entire market that uses $500 billion in energy annually.” Most energy use in the U.S. is in the form of electricity. Restricting electricity use, says Mills, would “threaten the entire technological infrastructure of the new information economy that is almost exclusively electrically-fueled.”

Finally, Mills argues that even if we could do it and it did work, it wouldnt matter. Even if we burned all available fossil fuel in the next twenty years, “the net result would not significantly change the future atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.”

Kyoto Cant be Met With Current Technology

The Clinton Administration has based much of its Kyoto-will-be-painless argument on the claim that the energy efficient technology needed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is already on the shelf and just needs to be installed. A new study by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), however, takes issue with that claim.

According to the report “the time frame proposed by the Protocol will not be sufficient to accommodate the enormous investment of R&D and human resources needed to meet the carbon emission reduction goals.” To meet the goal the U.S. would need to reduce its carbon emissions by 551 million metric tons (MMT). But, says the report, “maximum utilization of currently available technologies might result in a reduction of carbon emissions by an estimated 79 to 164 MMT by 2008-2012 time frame.”

The report evaluates several possible technologies that may be helpful in reducing carbon emissions, and finds that most are either nonviable or would have minimal impact on U.S. emissions. The federal government, for instance, has been heavily involved in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that would use fuel cells as a power source for transportation. The ASME argues that “it is not yet clear that fuel cells will be developed for commercialization by 2008/2012. A massive infusion of R&D funding would be needed to make this happen.”

“Commercial air travel,” according to the report, “is the second largest and fastest growing transportation subsector.” It is also the most dependent on petroleum. The report states that replacements for kerosene jet fuel are still “many decades away.” The Clinton Administration has also claimed that household electrical appliances is another sources for potentially large energy efficiency improvements. It has proposed new energy efficiency standards as part of its plan to reduce carbon emissions. According to ASME, however, “much of the technology for residential heating, cooling, hot water, and refrigeration equipment is reaching its theoretical limit or can only be increased at a significant cost.”

Energy supplied by biomass is highly favored by the Greens. But biomass requires massive amounts of land to produce the necessary fuel. The report points out that to fuel a 2600 MW plant at a 65 percent capacity factor “would require one half of the State of Ohios available farmland and forests.” The maximum amount of energy that could be produced from biomass would be about 210 billion KWH per year or about 3 percent of the total amount of energy demand projected for 2010. Wind power is also expected to contribute a maximum of about 2 to 3 percent of total electricity needs.

What, according to the ASME, would be required to meet the Kyoto target? A massive reduction in the use of coal from 50 percent of energy mix to 15 percent in 2010 and zero percent by 2030. An increase in the use of natural gas from 11 percent to 56 percent. The report also argues that “the nuclear option must be included in any long-term strategy for the reduction of carbon emissions.”

Kyoto Will Cost Agriculture Billions

Last week we reported that a recent Pew Center on Climate Change study claimed that global warming would have little effect on U.S. agriculture. A new study, sponsored by five national agriculture organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Corn Growers Association, National Cattlemans Beef Association, National Grange and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Association, shows that global warming policy under the Kyoto Protocol will do severe damage to U.S. agriculture.

According to the study by Sparks Companies, Inc., an agriculture consulting firm, agriculture costs could increase by 8.8 percent or $16.2 billion. The study also shows that the compliane with the treaty would boost gasoline prices by 29.5 percent by the year 2010, electricity by 54 percent, and natural gas by 110.9 percent. The study also claims that American farmers would be faced with lowered demand for their goods because they would be forced to compete with farmers in countries that are not bound by the treaty. This could lead to a reduction in farm income of more than 50 percent.

“The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farms,” said Dean Kleckner, President of the AFBF. “The Clinton Administration has committed to a flawed treaty without releasing its own analysis of the impact the protocol would have on U.S. agriculture. Meanwhile, agriculture has completed three studies, all of which show devastating financial consequences for farmers and ranchers” (Topeka Capital Journal, February 23, 1999).

Iceland Will Not Sign Kyoto; Oklahoma Senate Committee Rejects Implementation; British MP Attacks Greenpeace; IPCC Chairman: Sci

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Iceland Will Not Sign Kyoto

The first major defection from the Kyoto Protocol comes from an unlikely source. Icelands foreign minister Halldor Asgrimsson announced that his country will not sign the Kyoto Protocol unless his country is allowed to substantially increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Icelands target under the Kyoto Protocol is a 10 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels. But the government argues that this is too stringent, and is demanding to be allowed a 25 percent increase. Even one new industrial plant could increase Icelands emissions by 10 percent, according to the government. Only Iceland, Turkey and South Korea among the OECD countries are expected to miss Kyotos March 15 signing deadline. So far only two countries, Fiji and Barbuda & Antigua have ratified the treaty (ENDS Daily, March 3, 1999).

Oklahoma Senate Committee Rejects Implementation

One of the ploys used by the Clinton Administration to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification is to convince the states to make greenhouse gas reductions by providing grants and other benefits. The state of Oklahoma, however, has taken a first step towards rejecting administration overtures. The Senate Energy, Environmental Resources and Regulatory Affairs Committee voted 9-4 on February 18 to advance Senate Joint Resolution 6 to the full Senate for consideration.

The resolution, sponsored by committee chairman and Senator Kevin Easley (D- Broken Arrow), states that the Oklahoma Legislature should not take any action to reduce greenhouse gases until the Kyoto Protocol is properly ratified. The resolution also states that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would lead to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, higher electricity rates, income losses and lower output.

Senator Lewis Long, a Democratic supporter of the resolution said, “I think we need to stop and tell the federal government to go fly a kite on some of these issues and let us take care of our own business here in the United States instead of a bunch of bureaucrats telling us what we can do and cant do” (The Sunday Oklahoman, February 21, 1999).

British MP Attacks Greenpeace

At a meeting of the Commons Environment select committee, Teresa Gorman a Tory MP for Billericay, accused Greenpeace of “demonizing” the energy use and raising fears about global warming. She asked Labour Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, “isnt the demonization of carbon gases over the top, and your organization has to answer for that?” She noted that there are other factors that may be responsible for climate change, such as volcanic eruptions and sunspots. Gorman also said, “it was not the job of governments to burden their populations, with carbon taxes” (Press Association Newsfile, February 24, 1999).

IPCC Chairman: Science Doesnt Matter

Weve always suspected that proponents of the global warming scare really dont care what the scientific evidence shows. Now a statement by Robert Watson, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms our suspicions. At a sustainable development conference in Tokyo, Watson argued, according to the Asahi News Service (February 24, 1999), that “governments cant wait until the cause and effect of global warming have been definitely established because the time to reverse the damage may take centuries.” Watson also argued that the business community must not turn a blind eye to environmental problems that will affect sustainable development. To do so, said Watson, would have adverse effects on their bottom line.

Agriculture to Suffer Little from Global Warming

by William Yeatman on February 17, 1999

in Blog

Much has been written about the potential effects of global warming on agriculture. Global warming skeptics have generally argued that the net effects will be positive, while believers have claimed that the effects could be disastrous. A new report from the Pew Center on Climate Change (believers) argues that the net effects of global warming on U.S. agriculture will probably be small even though there could be significant regional effects.

For example, agriculture in the northern United States and Canada could benefit from warmer temperatures, while agriculture in the southern United States could be harmed. The report also concedes that “currently available climate forecasts cannot resolve how extreme events and variability will change; however, both are potential risks to agriculture.” This seems to be the tack taken by the Pew Center on each of the aspects relating to agriculture and global warming it discusses. To wit, we dont know how global warming will effect agriculture but it could have both positive and negative consequences.

The report concludes that “climate change is not expected to threaten the ability of the United States to produce enough food to feed itself through the next century; however, regional patterns of production are likely to change.” It also concludes, “the form and pattern of change are uncertain because changes in regional climate cannot be predicted with a high degree of confidence.” The report also discusses that farmers will have several means to adapt to any potential change in regional conditions. The report can be found at www.pewclimate.org.

NRC Sees Shortcomings in Global Warming Science; Coral Bleaching May be Naturally Caused

by William Yeatman on February 17, 1999

in Science

NRC Sees Shortcomings in Global Warming Science

Global warming skeptics have argued for years that the science is riddled with uncertainties, errors and outright ignorance about the climate system. While those who use the threat of global warming to advance political agendas have dismissed this argument, scientists who believe that man is warming up the planet readily admit to these problems.

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has just released a report, The Atmospheric Sciences: Entering the Twenty-First Century, which discusses in great detail the shortcomings of climate science. The NRC admits that there are large natural variations in the climate system, which make it very difficult to locate a human fingerprint. It argues, for example, that paleoclimatic and computer data show that the climate has varied significantly in the past, and that we can expect it to vary in the future, “irrespective of human impacts on climate.”

The report also admits, “current observational capabilities and practice are inadequate to characterize many of the changes in global and regional climate.” And that “significant progress in characterizing and predicting seasonal-to-century time-scale variability in climate, including the role of human activities in forcing variability, is likely to take a decade or more.” For at least ten years, similar reports have claimed that it would take a decade to fully understand the climate system.

The report also discusses problems with the computer models. One the most important but least understood aspects of global warming is cloud feedback mechanisms. According to the report, “intercomparison of the magnitude of cloud feedback in a number of global climate models indicates a fourfold range of uncertainty, with some models predicting strong positive cloud feedback and others a weak negative feedback to the climate system.”

In contrast to the statement by the American Geophysical Union, which stated that sufficient knowledge exists to take action now, the NRC argues that “current observational systems are far from adequate in addressing the questions being posed by scientists and policy makers concerning climate change.”

Another major problem, according to the report, is the poor quality of the surface temperature record. Even in the United States, which probably has the best surface temperature record in the world, serious problems exist. There is no reference temperature network; there are problems with maintaining the homogeneity of minimum and maximum temperature readings; and discontinuities resulting from inadequate overlap during changes in instrumentation have occurred. In addition, data corrupted by urban heat island effects, changes in local conditions and a failure to calibrate new instruments with old, remains uncorrected. The report can be found at www.nas.edu.

Coral Bleaching May be Naturally Caused

Coral bleaching is one of a myriad of ecological phenomena that has been blamed on global warming. A new study in Science (February 5, 1999) argues that the observed bleaching is probably due to natural causes. Coral bleaching occurs when a symbiotic algae, known as zooxanthellae, is expelled from the coral. The researchers monitored the Acropora formosa coral in a shallow lagoon in Mauritius for six years. They found that there is a strong seasonal cycle with bleaching occurring almost entirely in the spring and summer. In fact the density of the algae during the “autumn and winter are three times the densities in spring and summer.” The study concludes that “bleaching events in corals within such lagoons may be frequent and part of the expected cycle of variability.”

Etc.

  • An article appearing in the EM-Environmental Manager (December 1998) characterized the debate between global warming proponents, made up of various environmental activist groups and government agencies, and skeptics, primarily the Cooler Heads Coalition, as “greens” versus the “red, white and blues.”

Announcements

  • The Cooler Heads Coalitions is sponsoring a briefing for congressional staff and media on February 22, 1999 to discuss the Credit for Early Action Act. The briefing will feature Marlo Lewis, Vice President at CEI and Mark Mills of Mills-McCarthy and Associates and a CEI adjunct scholar. The briefing will be held the Cannon House Office Building room at 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m.

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

Greens Oppose Early Credit Bill; Senators to Sponsor a Counter Bill

by William Yeatman on February 17, 1999

in Politics

 Greens Oppose Early Credit Bill

Several Green groups, including the Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace, National Environment Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ozone Action, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. PIRG, and World Wildlife Fund, have written a legislative analysis opposing the current “Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act.” Although not opposed to the idea in principle, these groups argue that they cannot support the Act as currently written.

There are several points of contention, a couple of which will be discussed here. The groups only favor giving “rewards and incentives for actions that would not otherwise have occurred,” and, therefore, oppose credits for actions that occur overseas. They point out that the Kyoto Protocol already provides incentives for early action through the Clean Development Mechanism, and that “additional incentives in U.S. domestic legislation for international actions are [not] needed or appropriate.”

They also argue that the Act should employ a “declining baseline over time to reflect, at a minimum, existing U.S. commitments under the Rio Convention.” They also argue that “baselines must be set in a way that avoids awarding credits for changes in market share unrelated to overall changes in emissions.”

They oppose allowing the “President to award credits for actions reported under the controversial section 1605b program,” under the Department of Energy that allows companies to report voluntary emission reduction efforts. They believe that reported reductions under this program are not verified. Finally, the groups oppose any credits related to nuclear power which they call “an inherently high-risk form of energy production.”

Senators to Sponsor a Counter Bill

Senate opponents of the Kyoto Protocol are offering a bill to counter administration proposals, as well as the Chafee-Mack-Lieberman Credit for Early Action bill that could grease the skids to ratification. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) will cosponsor the bill.

According to Hagels spokeswoman “the legislation will include provisions to increase scientific research on climate change, invest in long-term research and development and remove tax and regulatory barriers that prevent voluntary industry action.” The bill, according to the spokeswoman, is a “recognition that Kyoto is going nowhere,” and is a “market-based way to approach climate change” (National Journals CongressDaily, February 5, 1999).

The Emerging Sun; Fewer Droughts, No Change in Floods; No Evidence of Climate Change in New Hampshire; Record Rainfall Not Due t

by William Yeatman on February 6, 1999

in Science

The Emerging Sun

Global warming research continues to reveal that the sun is playing an increasingly important role. James Hansen has argued, for example, that if aerosols cancel out much of the climate forcing effects of carbon dioxide, then the sun may play a greater role in the small amount of observed warming than previously thought. Recent research, published in the Journal of Climate (December 1998), has found that the sun has exerted a significant influence over the earths climate over the last 400 years.

Using several types of data, Judith Lean of the E.O. Hulburt Center for Space Research and David Rind of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies found that “the correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere surface temperature anomalies is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800.” For later periods the correlation dropped somewhat, but remains strong. Solar forcing may account for about half of the 0.55 degrees C increase in temperatures since 1900 and about one-third since 1970.

If half of the last centurys warming was caused by the sun, then the other half must be divided up among many other influences, including rebound from the Little Ice Age, urbanization, and other effects. That leaves little room for greenhouse gases argues Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the University of Virginia. Michaels also points out that during the 1990s, the sun has been brighter than at any other time in the last 400 years. Combined with the El Nio of 1998, it would have been surprising if 1998 wasnt the warmest year on record.

Fewer Droughts, No Change in Floods

One of the most consistent claims by global warming activists is that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to more severe floods and droughts. This claim was invoked as recently as Clintons State of the Union address, even though government researchers have found otherwise. In an article published in the Geophysical Research Letters (January 15, 1999), Harry Lins and James Slack of the U.S. Geological Survey found that there are fewer droughts but no more floods since the 1940s.

Lins and Slack came to this conclusion by analyzing stream flow trends for “395 climate-sensitive streamgaging stations in the coterminous United States to evaluate differences between low-, medium-, and high-flow regimes during the twentieth century.” What the researchers found was that there is a “distinct upward trend” in the low to middle range of flows. For the highest flows, however, “only four percent of the gages experienced increases, while five percent showed decreases.”

“We can draw three general conclusions form these trends,” Lins said. “First, the nations streams are carrying more water on average. Secondly, the streams are experiencing less severe hydrologic droughts, and thirdly, the streams are not experiencing more floods.” Lins also noted that, “the United States is now less extreme hydrologically than it was earlier in the century.”

The article is at http://water.usgs.gov/public/osw/lins/streamflowtrends.html.

No Evidence of Climate Change in New Hampshire

Long-term, continuous and reliable temperature data sets are hard to come by and those available have become important in the global warming debate. Recently, an analysis of one such data set has been released, and the results are encouraging. Mount Washington in the Presidential Range in New Hampshire has an observatory located at the 4,000 foot summit that was founded in 1932. “The Observatory,” according to the report, “is the only fully-staffed, year-around alpine weather observatory in continental North America.” Observations are taken every three hours and reported to the National Weather Service. Another characteristic that makes this location ideal is that minimal land-use changes have occurred throughout the duration of the Observatorys life.

An analysis of the minimum and maximum temperature data for the period 1939 to 1997 found that there was “little-to-no response to the buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases through the 20th century. And there appears to be no obvious compensating cooling effects that may have overwhelmed the warming effects of the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide.”

The report also pointed out that it appears that the daily temperature range seem to have decreased over much of the planet. The diurnal temperature range on Mount Washington fell by 0.42 degrees F over the 60-year period, but was change was not statistically significant. Other stations do nothing to clear up the picture. The Pic du Midi station located in the Pyrenees at 9,387 feet elevation shows a significant reduction in the diurnal temperature range. But high elevation stations in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria fail to show a reduction. The report can be found at www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/mtwash.htm.

Record Rainfall Not Due to Global Warming

Britain has just experienced its wettest January ever with more than five inches falling during the month. According to Rob Nichols, spokesman for the Environment Agency, “The main issue is global warming. Part of the result of the world getting warming is that winters are getting wetter and summers are getting drier” (The People, January 31, 1999).

Not so, according to a spokesman at the Meteorological Office. “A front has been snaking its way over the Midlands but recent weather systems over Europe have prevented it moving on as fast as it should have. It is just a natural fluctuation. I am sure the last time it was nearly as wet, back in January 1960, they were not all talking about climate change. Yes, its been very wet, but its not the end of the world as we know it” (Birmingham Evening Mail, January 26, 1999).

Announcements

  • The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a monograph, titled Doomsday Dj vu: Ozone Depletions Lessons for Global Warming. Author Ben Lieberman argues that rather than serving as a successful model for the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol should serve as a cautionary tale. Its mistakes would be greatly amplified if repeated under the Kyoto Protocol. The study can be obtained from CEIs website at www.cei.org or by contacting CEI at (202) 331-1010.

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and recently released, Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

Clinton Asks for $4 Billion to Prevent Global Warming; American Geophysical Union Makes Controversial Policy Statement; Greens B

by William Yeatman on February 6, 1999

in Politics

Clinton Asks for $4 Billion to Prevent Global Warming

In a blatant attempt to implement the unratified Kyoto Protocol the Clinton Administration has said it will ask the Congress for $4 billion next year to finance policies to address global warming. This is a sharp increase over last years funding. According to Gore, the move represents “significant new investments to accelerate our aggressive, commonsense efforts to meet the challenge of global warming.”

Many programs are included under the initiative such as a $200 million “clean air partnership fund” that would “generate millions more in state and private funds to help reduce greenhouse gases.” The money would be used to retrofit buildings, purchase fuel-efficient automobiles and “promote public-private partnershipsincluding voluntary efforts by companies to improve energy efficiency.” Much of the money would be tied to promises of state matching funds.

Other programs include: $1.4 billion for research and development of energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy programs, tax credits for purchase of energy-efficient homes and equipment, $122 million to develop cleaner burning, coal-fired power plants (Associated Press, January 26, 1999).

American Geophysical Union Makes Controversial Policy Statement

The American Geophysical Union, one of the top scientific organizations dealing with climate issues, released a position statement on January 28 regarding global warming. On the whole, the statement was a cautious review of the state of global warming science. In the end, however, it side-stepped the science and made a policy pronouncement. The statement concluded, “AGU believes that the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human induced climate change and/or the adaptation to it.”

The AGUs press conference was a public relations fiasco. Reporters asked whether the statement truly represented the views of the membership. It was asserted that the vast majority of the membership agreed with the statement. When asked what that assertion was based on, one of the panelists replied that the 26 member panel, which voted unanimously on the statement, was in tune with the membership and closely represented their views.

The panel also argued that the membership was given opportunities to comment and participate in the drafting of the statement. For example, a draft of the statement was posted on the web a few months ago and comments were received and incorporated into the statement. According to Fred Singer, however, an AGU Fellow and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the final statement was not presented to the membership. “It was not displayed on the website nor announced in Eos (as required by AGU procedure; cf. Eos Dec. 29, 1998), but was sent to a panel which contained only five of the 13 members of the original panel,” according to Singer.

Reporters spent much of the time questioning the nature of the final sentence. David Wojick of Electricity Daily pointed out that the statement was not scientific, but merely talked about the science, and that it employed a triple negative that translateds into “uncertainty justifies action.” Another reporter pointed out that the use of double and triple negatives in statements of this sort are usually employed to cover-up widespread disagreement.

Wojick mentioned that in his estimation the current scientific uncertainty justified inaction. One of the panelists, Eric Sundquist of the US Geological Survey, asked Wojick if he had published that statement in a peer reviewed journal. Wojick replied that neither his nor the AGUs statement were scientific and would more properly be published in a journal of philosophy or logic, where degrees of uncertainty are discussed.

Finally, one reporter pointed out that this statement may be used by the Greens, as well as the Clinton Administration, to claim support for their global warming positions. The panelists argued that such claims would not be valid. A statement by Vice President Al Gore, however, stated, “We have an obligation to act responsibly in assessing potential damages, and to protect our economy and national security by investing in efficient energy technologies. As the AGU reinforced today, the risks of climate change are serious, the costs of potential impacts are large, and the time to act to protect our national interests is now.” So far, the AGU has not disabused Gore of this notion. The AGU statement is located at http://earth.agu.org. A critique can be found at www.sepp.org.

Greens Backpedal from Early Credits

Many Green groups are beginning to become disenchanted with the “credits for early action bill.” Aides to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair John Chafee (R-RI) and Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack (R-FL) told the groups that the bill would be introduced with few changes. Groups such as Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the US Public Interest Research Group and the Union of Concerned Scientists argue that the bill “lacks adequate provisions to prevent fraud and abuse.” One Senate staffer complained about the attitude of the Green groups, accusing them of “whining” and scolding them for walking away from the process (Greenwire, February 1, 1999).

What Can Developing Countries Do?

by William Yeatman on February 6, 1999

in Blog

Developing countries have balked at the idea of taking on emissions reduction targets, and with good reason. Such actions may well preclude future economic development leading to perpetual poverty. A paper by Ramon Lopez, published by Resources for the Future, proposes two means by which developing nations can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Lopez suggests first that the developing countries eliminate energy subsidies that promote coal and oil consumption. Such subsidies include “direct subsidies to consumers through under-priced energy services, and implicit subsidies to producers through trade barriers that limit the availability of more energy-efficient technologies.” According to one study the elimination of such subsidies would lead to a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions of a little over 3 percent in 2005 relative to business as usual scenarios.

Second, Lopez suggests that the cessation of burning biomass for the purpose of clearing farmland would also lead to significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions while providing a potential economic windfall through the earning of emissions credits. According to Lopez, this “could result in potentially large revenues from the sale of carbon credits, if these credits were legitimated under the Kyoto Protocol.” Lopez argues that the economic benefit from selling emission credits would be greater than the economic benefits of expanding agricultural lands. The developing countries should be cautious, however. They would be far better off relying on the economic benefits of expanding agricultural production than relying on fickle, politically created global redistribution schemes. The paper can be found at www.weathervane.rff.org.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →