May 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

You know your state is in trouble when the chairman of your commission to address the global warming crisis cites one of the newsweaklies as grounds for established scientific fact. That is the case with the University of Iowa's Jerald Schnoor, who chairs the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. He wrote in his environmental science journal in 2006:

In its April 3 special edition, Time magazine has declared it. The debate on global warming is over. And humans are causing it (at least, most of it). Meanwhile, according to a recent poll, 71% of Americans already believe that global warming is occurring. So what has taken the Bush Administration so long? The lack of leadership on climate change and energy policy by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cadre of oil executive cronies borders on malfeasance.

This, again, is from the leader of a so-called study commission that is supposed to be objective in its look at global warming issues — except that, of course, they are not allowed to discuss the science of climate change.

On second thought, I guess that makes him a perfect fit.

Martin Watcher, the marvelous mysterious blogger in Maryland, does the math today on the Public Service Commission's compact fluorescent light bulb program. The upshot is that the major utilities, Baltimore Gas & Electric and Allegany Power, have reaped nearly $1 million per month from the program thanks to surcharges on their customers' bills. From O'Malley Watch:

I need you to follow me on some math. 

Average BGE monthly energy usage: 1386 kWh
Charge per 1000 kWh for light bulb program: $.67
Monthly Charge per customer: 1.386*.67 = $.92
Number of BGE customers: 1.2 million
Monthly income on program for BGE: 1.2 million * .92 = $1,114,316
Number of light bulbs sold per month: 1 million/ 9 months = 111,111 CFLs
Cost of each CFL rebate for BGE = $1.50
Cost per month of the program: 111,111 * $1.50 = $166,666
Overcharge by BGE each month: $1,114,316 – $166,666 = $947,649
Total overcharge of BGE customers: $947649 * 9 months = $8.5 million

That’s right, Martin O’Malley’s handpicked PSC has overcharged BGE customers $8.5 million over the last 9 months because they are pushed this forced participation in a light bulb scam that folks might not even get the rewards of. Western Maryland residents at least got light bulbs out of the deal, but unless someone goes and buys a light bulb, they don’t get anything out of this program. And each month the PSC allows this program to continue unchecked, BGE brings in almost $950,000 more from ratepayers.

Read the whole post if you're at that outrage point in your day.

Hat tip: Mark Newgent.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Every Chesser deserves his five minutes of glory in the blogosphere, so here's Uncle Wes with his celebration of Earth Day, Al Gore, and windmills in his best Dave Barry-esque form.

Reporting from his beat in Fredericksburg, Va. 

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

…now it's the koalas that are threatened. Global warming indiscriminately attacks the cute and cuddly!

A climate change bill headed for the US Senate floor in early June could greatly reduce domestic natural gas production and send refining production and jobs overseas, according to a new report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute.

Biofuels are one of the major reasons you and I are paying more for groceries these days. For most of us, it is just an inconvenience. For many around the world, however, it is a catastrophe. Last week, United Nations Special Investigator Jean Ziegler called the use of biofuels, such as ethanol, a “crime against a great part of humanity.”

With national security on everyone's mind and the average retail price of gasoline nearing an inflation-adjusted high of $3.40 a gallon, analysts have touted Brazil as an example the United States should follow on the path to "energy independence."

Thirty days after Steve McIntyre caught NASA cooking climate history again – this time in a feeble attempt to somehow conceal the alarmist-embarrassing  downward trend since 1998 — Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday's Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a 'consequence' of global warming. 

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

From World Climate Report

One of the major pillars of the greenhouse scare is that sea level is rising due to global warming, coastlines will be inundated, and disasters will occur in coastal areas throughout the world. Who could ever forget Al Gore’s documentary showing us the World Trade Center Memorial under water due to sea level rise? A year ago, climate change hero James Hansen warned the world that non-linearities in the ocean-atmosphere system could lead to a whopping 5 meter or more sea level rise over this century.

As we have covered many times in the past, sea level is certainly rising – of course, it has been rising for the past 10,000 years. During the last glacial period, sea level dropped 400 feet as water was tied up in ice, and as we have moved out of the cold glacial period, sea level has recovered. The question for climate change experts is not “Is sea level rising” but rather “Is sea level rise accelerating?” In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected”, while in 2007, IPCC wrote “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.” To say the least, the IPCC has been very cautious on the issue of accelerated sea level rise.

 

Several articles have been published recently on sea level rise that caught our eye at World Climate Report. The first appeared recently in Global and Planetary Change and was written by a pair of scientists with India’s National Institute of Oceanography. Unnikrishnan and Shankar begin their article noting “Apart from changes in the atmospheric variables, global sea-level rise is one of the good indicators of climate change. Increase in global atmospheric temperature has a direct effect on the ocean by causing a rise in ocean temperature and melting of glaciers. Both these processes lead to a rise in global sea level.” Furthermore, they state “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported values between 1–2 mm yr−1 for the 20th century sea-level rise based on tide-gauge data.”

Unnikrishnan and Shankar collected tide gauge data for a variety of stations located at coastal locations around the Indian Ocean (see Figure 1). They conducted a series of tests for inter-station consistency and they also adjusted the sea level measurements for vertical land movements. At the end of the day, they found that the corrected sea level rise in the region over the past five decades was indeed between 1–2 mm yr−1. However, some of the trends were suspect, so they reduced the number of stations for conducting the analyses. They state “In conclusion, therefore, we use the estimated trends for Aden, Karachi, Mumbai, and Kochi in the Arabian Sea and for Vishakhapatnam in the Bay of Bengal. The sea-level rise estimated from these stations is between 1.06– 1.75 mm yr−1, with an average of 1.29 mm yr−1. Given the problems noted above with some of the records, the average estimate for the basin is likely to be towards the lower end of this range.” When compared to global records, they write “The present study indicates that the estimates for the north Indian Ocean are consistent with global estimates, though somewhat lower.” Imagine that — once someone collects data in their part of the world, they seem to conclude that sea level is rising at a rate slower than the rate reported by the IPCC.


Figure 1. Location of tide gauges with records longer than 20 years in the north Indian Ocean (from Unnikrishnan and Shankar, 2007).

The second article also appears in Global and Planetary Change and was prepared by a team of French oceanographers. As their title suggests, Berge-Nguyen et al. collected thermosteric sea level data based on temperatures in the top 700 meters of the ocean, tide gauge, satellite altimetry, and ocean reanalysis data. They used a series of sophisticated multivariate statistical techniques and ultimately produced the graphic below (Figure 2). Like you, we look at this graphic and see a global increase in sea level of approximately 80 mm over the 54-year time period. The math is simple – the graph shows a rise of 1.48 mm yr−1.


Figure 2. Global sea level curves over the period 1955-2003 (from Berge-Nguyen et al., 2008)

This team from France collected a variety of global sea level datasets, they conducted a complicated set of analyses, and they produced their best-guess of global sea level for each year from 1955 to 2003. We see a rise in sea level that is below the estimate of the IPCC and we see no acceleration through the past five decades. Basically, nothing seems to be happening with sea level that is remotely out of the ordinary. IPCC certainly seems to be exaggerating the best estimate of sea level rise, and it make us wonder what else they might be exaggerating.

References:

Berge-Nguyen, M., A. Cazenave, A. Lombard, W. Llovel, J. Viarre, and J.F. Cretaux. 2008. Reconstruction of past decades sea level using thermosteric sea level, tide gauge, satellite altimetry and ocean reanalysis data. Global and Planetary Change, 62, 1–13.

Unnikrishnan, A.S., and D. Shankar. 2007. Are sea-level-rise trends along the coasts of the north Indian Ocean consistent with global estimates? Global and Planetary Change, 57, 301–307.