2008

The Council on Foreign Relations has released a paper, “G-8’s gradual move to post-Kyoto climate change policy.”  It reads very much like a document produced by the European Commission, but was written by a CFR author who has recently addressed this topic and written equally often about AIDS, opium trading and the LaStatetino vote.

Intentionally or otherwise, the author paints a picture rather at odds with Kyoto’s reality. For example, she states that “Some Kyoto participants have found it difficult to meet their assigned targets—ranging from 5 percent to 8 percent below 1990 levels (except EU countries, which have special targets).”  Of course, -5% to -8% is not the range of Kyoto promises.  Australia, for example, promised not to increase its emissions by more than +8% above 1990 levels.  But the implication is that such difficulties are the exception, not the rule.  In fact, the portion of Kyoto parties who actually did promise an emission reduction (from 1990 levels) are on track to have to purchase their entire “reduction”.

Note the “except EU countries…”  Kyotophiles are aware that the European countries – using even the more limited definition of EU Member States – account for 25 of the 35 countries covered under Kyoto.  The EU-15, as she does admit, rearranged their touted, promised reductions so that 10 of the 15 lowered their promised reductions, with 5 of the 15 promising emission increases.  At least she said “assigned targets” and not “reduction promises”.

Further, only two EU countries (and arguably none of them) aren’t among those “some”: the UK for reasons described below, and Sweden, which made a promise to increase its emissions, but not beyond a certain point.  Both project being at or very near to their promises.  At least reading the UK press they, too, have found this difficult to achieve, so it is fair to say that all of them have found it difficult.  Indeed, not one country has actually reduced emissions since Kyoto was agreed in 1997; those countries on track to meet their promises are former Soviet bloc nations who reduced emissions the old fashioned way, through economic collapse.

Stating things more plainly, most of the 10 non-EU countries have had trouble meeting their promise, as have nearly all of the 25 EU countries not given a free ride due to having collapsed economically.  The word choice is either uninformed or misleading cheerleading.

The enthusiasm for Europe’s leadership runs throughout.  As noted the author acknowledges EU’s Article 4 “burden sharing” (shifting) agreement, writing “The protocol allowed the European Union to assign individual countries their own targets, which go as high as 28 percent below 1990 levels.” [link to “Evolution Markets” homepage provided in original, the relevance of which is unclear]

The 28% is from tiny Luxembourg, this promise a consequence of it having shuttered the largest emitting facility after 1990; similarly, Germany and the UK made (numerically) bold promises of -21% and -12.5%, conditioned upon their having mothballed East German industry and “dashed to gas,” respectively, both one-offs that occurred after the 1990 baseline.  This all explains why Europe’s one must-have in Kyoto was a 1990 baseline. 

The author fails to mention that Europe’s promises also range to as low as +27 [Portugal] above 1990, that only 8 of the EU-15 actually promised reductions from 1990, 5 of them greater than the EU-wide promise of -8% and 3 of them more forgiving, that 2 countries promised no reduction at all and 5 of them promised increases but not beyond a certain amount.

Further protective of Europe, the author writes “During the 2007 Bali conference, the United States, along with countries such as Canada and Japan, blocked an EU proposal for mandatory emissions cuts of 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020—jeopardizing negotiations.”  She fails to mention that at the 2005 COP in Montreal, Europe and Canada rejected the effort to make Kyoto binding and enforceable, which she implies throughout Kyoto is (it isn’t, as the effort to make it so, and Article 18, make clear).  Of course, this served to keep negotiations alive, as no one apparently wants to be bound by their global warming rhetoric and will only move forward on the condition they won’t.

Statements like “The Bush administration and Republican lawmakers opposed to emissions caps have been touting the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate” are gratuitously partisan given that most lawmakers oppose emissions caps; the Democratic Congress says it wants Bush to act on CO2 just as they claimed to want the Republican Congress to adopt CO2 controls, but haven’t been keen on adopting such a thing themselves.

There’s plenty more and, as they say, read the whole thing, but be forewarned it is advocacy, not analysis.

As with the global warming advocate who attributes each weather event – hot or cold, wet or dry – to his creed, there’s nothing like starting one’s day off having your beliefs or assumptions affirmed.  So it was when I picked up today’s Washington Post, turning to its editorials confident that the lead piece would feature some angst over the lack of promises made about global warming to-dos in last night’s SOTU speech.

Lo and behold, despite the many weighty issues of our time and addressed last night, in true self-parody fashion the Post laments in its ultimate paragraph:

“But the greatest disappointment of the night was his failure to commit to working with Congress on legislation to create a mandatory carbon emissions reduction system in the United States — without which no international accord will be possible.”

Wow.  That's disappointment, but its expression is notable not so much for intimating that the U.S. enhances its bargaining position by adopting in advance some version of what we are asking others to adopt in return for our acquiescence; thank goodness WaPo editorial writers aren’t doing our negotiating for us (again/yet).

No, most instructive is the mindset betrayed by this appeal, which is also apparent in the halls of Congress: Bush must take ownership of this issue before he leaves office.

Remember, the next administration could just as easily push this agenda, like asking Congress to approve the Post's desired cap-and-trade legislation, or make the relevant findings.  Regarding the latter, this would actually allow more careful deliberation given the regulatory challenges/demands are recent: making a Clean Air Act “endangerment” finding, and listing the thriving polar bear as “threatened”.  But, maybe more careful deliberation isn't a good thing.  Further, the global warming establishment sounds confident that the next president will be “one of theirs” (Clinton, McCain, Obama).

Similarly, Congress has the ability to enact that which they insist that Bush either first ask them to enact, or adopt through unfortunate abuse of existing statutory language.  Yet you have noticed that, after seven years of shrill demands that hearings are an irresponsible delay tactic and waste of time and Congress must act now, the new majority seized the gavel and…opted for dozens of hearings not one of which, until recently, was on an identifiable piece of legislation (which bills, of course, carry identifiable price tags).

This is because the agenda is very expensive, intrusive, would lead to job loss and increased energy costs – just as it already has in Europe.  So the better scenario for them is for Bush to take the blame for, er, helm of the policy cruise they claim they are eager to board.  They offer the occasional excuse that, well, that mean Bush would veto it so there’s no point trying.  That’s of limited persuasion given that the past twelve months are replete with rhetorical and actual examples that such threats are no deterrent whatsoever.

As my colleague Marlo Lewis, DC attorney Peter Glaser and others have pointed out, for Bush to relieve Congress of responsibility for that which their lips say they really really want, but which their reluctance to take responsibility for says no no, would necessarily trigger statutory implications unprecedented in their insertion of a regulatory agency into the U.S. economy.  The consequences would include the unfortunate and unintended, in addition to the intended and expensive, requiring a “legislative fix.”

That is, for Bush to do what the Post and others insist with increasing desperation would not merely rescue Congress from having to follow through on their (post-2006 election) promises, but also position them to clean up Bush’s mess.  Better still, this would leave the regulated community grateful for the “fix” that would, of course, include imposition of the cap-and-trade regime that they presently oppose (but-for the rent-seekers who, also in classic fashion, can’t agree on whose scheme should make who windfall-wealthy).

If you embrace this agenda, the choice is simple.  The Post gets it.

President Bush made it clear in his State of the Union speech that he has not changed his mind that the best policies to address global warming are based on developing new technologies rather than enacting mandatory targets and timetables to reduce emissions. He also said that any new international agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol must include commitments from the major developing nations. Since China, India, and other major developing countries have adamantly opposed agreeing to mandatory emissions cuts for themselves, this means that no new treaty will be agreed that includes Kyoto-style mandatory targets and timetables–that is, as long as the next administration continues President Bush's policies.

President Bush is correct to prefer new technologies to mandatory emissions cuts and the governments of China, India, and other developing countries are right to oppose any new international agreement that would consign their people to perpetual energy poverty because the blessings of abundant energy far outweigh any potential negative impacts of potential global warming.

It is also noteworthy that President Bush did not comment on cap-and-trade bills in Congress, on whether the EPA would make an endangerment finding for CO2, or on whether the polar bear would be listed. Hopefully, these are signals that the president does not support cap-and-trade and is having second thoughts about endangerment and the polar bear listing. Even if one thinks, as I do not, that a Kyoto second round is desirable, it would be utterly foolish to enter into mandatory domestic programs to reduce emissions before an international treaty is agreed.

I found the following quote from Chip Giller (italicized and in bold), founder of Grist.org, on the side of my Starbucks cup. To help you shore up your dialectics, I address each argument individually.

So called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers

We know it’s not tree-huggers funding these ideas, but very large businesses, like Dow, Dupont, GE, GM, Shell and other USCAP members, and even larger Big Government.

to make America energy independent,

Which part of oil as a global commodity does he not understand?

clean our air and water,

Ethanol, one of the “renewable fuels” touted, causes more ground and water pollution and water shortages than oil.

improve fuel-efficiency of our vehicles,

I like my hybrid’s gas mileage as much as the next person, but I give my teenager a tank to drive: I prefer choice.

kick-start 21^st century industries,

Yes, kick-start the law firms with lawyers making $700/hr lobbying Congress and energy carbon traders on Wall Street!

and make our cities safer and more livable.

It’s hard to find life livable when you’re in the one in six British households living in fuel poverty.

Don’t let them get away with it.

Amen!

 Steve Milloy's simplification of Joseph D'Aleo's paper on IceCap

Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2

Note: This is my analysis of a new paper by Joe D’Aleo, I’ve tried to simplify and explain certain terms where possible so that  it can reach the broadest audience of readers. You can read the entire paper here.

Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better.

It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R² correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.

If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend of CO2, and thus the R² correlation between the two trends would be high. Since NCDC has recently released the new USHCN2 data set for surface temperatures, which promises improved detection and removal of false trends introduced by change points in the data, such as station moves, it seemed like an opportune time to test the correlation.

At the same time,  R² correlation tests were run on other possible drivers of climate; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

First lets look at the surface temperature record. Here we see the familiar plot of temperature over the last century as it has been plotted by NASA GISS:

The temperature trend is unmistakeably upwards, and the change over the last century is about +0.8°C. 

Now lets look at the familiar carbon dioxide graph, known as the Keeling Curve, which plots atmospheric CO2 concentration measure at the Mauna Loa Observatory:

A comparison of the 11year running mean of the USHCN version 2 annual mean temperatures with the running mean of CO2 from CDIAC. An r-squared of 0.44 was found.

The results were striking to say the least. An R² correlation of only 0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between the two data sets.

Now lets look at other potential drivers of climate,  TSI and PDO.

Scafetta and West (2007) have suggested that the total solar irradiance (TSI) is a good proxy for the total solar effect which may be responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. To test it, again the same R² correlation was run on the two data sets.

In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record is better than with CO2, producing an R² correlation of 0.57 which is between fair and good.

Finally. Joe ran the R² correlation test on PDO, the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation. He writes:

We know both the Pacific and Atlantic undergo multidecadal cycles the order of 50 to 70 years. In the Pacific this cycle is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas (in both cases a frequency difference of close to a factor of 2). Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America.

This PDO and TSI to surface temperature connection has also been pointed out in previous post I made here, for former California State Climatologist, Jim Goodridge. PDO affects the USA more than the Atlantic cycle (AMO) because we have prevailing westerly wind flow.

Here is how Joe did the data correlation:

Since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their cold modes cooling, I though the sum of the two may provide a useful index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and US). I standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI.

This was the jackpot correlation with the highest value of r-squared (0.83!!!).

An R² correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2.

But he didn’t stop there. He also looked at the last decade where it has been commonly opined that the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years to see how well the correlation was in the last decade:

Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, we looked at the correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.

Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an r-squared of 0.02.

According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an R² correlation of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years.

As another test, this analysis was also done on Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John Christy) satellite temperature data:

To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, we did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We found a similar non existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over troposphere.

 So with R² correlations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either.

Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:

And his conclusion:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.

While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.