Blog

NASA confirms role of land use in climate change

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Science

Using the NASA Ecosystem Demography model to trace the evolution of vegetation distribution in the US over the past 300 years, researchers at Princeton University have confirmed that land use changes have significantly affected the US climate.

According to the NASA press release, “The researchers found land cover changes produced a significant cooling effect of more than one degree Fahrenheit in parts of the Great Plains and Midwest as agriculture expanded and replaced grasslands. Farmlands tend to create lower temperatures through increased evaporation. A warming effect was found along the Atlantic coast where croplands replaced forests.

“Compared to forests, croplands are less efficient in transpiration; a daytime process where water evaporates from leaves during photosynthesis and cools the air. A slight warming effect was also observed across the Southwest, where woodlands replaced some deserts.

“The study found land cover changes could impact local precipitation, but not as significantly as they affect temperature. The relatively strong cooling over the central U.S. has probably weakened the temperature difference between land and the Gulf of Mexico, slowing the northern movement of weather systems and resulting in enhanced rainfall across Texas. Consequently, the air masses reaching the Central Lowlands region, including Illinois and Indiana, are drier, causing rainfall reductions.”

Lead researcher N. J. Roy said, “It is important to understand the effects of changing land cover, because it can mitigate or exacerbate greenhouse warming. In the U.S. over the past 100 years, it seems to be offsetting greenhouse warming. The opposite is probably true in most other parts of the world. This finding has also been supported in previous research.”

Weather Balloon Evidence Confirms Lowest Satellite Temperature Estimates

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Science

Last year, three dueling estimates of what satellites tell us about the temperature of the atmosphere were published. John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and colleagues estimated marginal warming (+0.03 0.05 C per decade), while Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) found warming at the bottom range of greenhouse theory projections (+0.12 0.02 C per decade) and Vinnikov and Grody found warming similar to that predicted by global climate models (+0.24 0.02 C per decade).

Christy and his colleagues maintained that their interpretations were closer to the truth because they were backed up by independent measurements from weather balloon radiosonde readings. Others objected that the radiosonde readings did not cover the whole atmosphere, which meant that their validity could not be established by that method.

Christy et al. have now published a study in Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 31, Mar. 31) that compares the UAH and RSS data for the lower troposphere to comparable radiosonde records. The study finds that “the UAH lower tropospheric (LT) data are highly consistent with the more robust lower elevation radiosonde data. These results support the conclusion of Christy et al. [2003] that for Dec. 1978 to Nov. 2003 (25 years) the global trend in LT is +0.08 0.05 C [per] decade.” This lends “support for the least positive trend of the three deeper layer [i.e. whole atmosphere] values (+0.03 0.05 C [per] decade) as it was constructed in the same manner as LT.”

Etc.: Peter Simple on wind power

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Politics, Science

Veteran British satirist Peter Simple turned his sights on the environmental movement in Londons Daily Telegraph on March 5, inspired by United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blairs plans to cover pristine countryside with wind farms and the opposition from the Ministry of Defense (MoD). His words can stand by themselves:

“Ever since the environment was invented, 50 years ago, as a secular term for what used to be called the Creation, it has not only turned into an industry of itself, employing hundreds of thousands of officials and workers, but has become a principal enemy of what it was supposed to defend, the beauty of the earth and its fitness for habitation by human beings rather than robots. Environmentalists believe that the natural world, for its own good, must be planned in detail on the assumption that the future can be foretold and the earth parcelled out for various functions purely for utility and regardless of its beauty and holiness.

“It is an assumption that puts logic and reason before all else, arguing dubiously that because the earth is threatened by “global warming” caused by conventional techniques of power generation, therefore alternative technologies such as the fashionable wind farms must be installed although they destroy landscapes whose sacred harmony has sustained the souls of men for generations.

“They will permit nature controlled in such arrangements as national parks and other graded arrangements – “museums of landscape”, as they have been called – but allow wind turbines to be built all round them. This is to remind us that in the long run nothing counts but utility and the industrial growth of the Total Labour State. They deal in barren abstractions and in a special soulless jargon. They set up innumerable bureaucratic agencies for the control of the natural world and bury it under acronyms and mounds of paper.

“The Wind Energy Association, which is the front for a highly profitable industry, will be screaming with rage like a hundred turbines whirling together at a check to its plans from such an unexpected opponent as the MoD. Between wind turbines and radar stations is a choice of two evils. Two kinds of technology are in conflict. But the wind turbines serve to remind us wherever we look of our enslavement to the industrial system which is gradually absorbing everything in the world, whereas radar stations in themselves are perfectly useless.”

Connecticut Bill Aims at Slowing State Economy

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

The Connecticut state legislature is currently considering SB.595, which aims to reduce the states greenhouse gas emissions using Kyoto-like measures.  The bill has passed out of a joint committee and has the backing of the Governor.  Section 3 of the bill seeks to mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010; 10% below 1990 levels by 2020; and 75% to 85% below 2001 levels by 2050 (unless another year is set). 

 A study by Charles River Associates for the American Legislative Exchange Council brings home the effects of the bill on the quality of life of Connecticut residents.  The study finds, A conservative estimate is that costs per Connecticut household of meeting these caps would be between $700 and $1300 per year over the next three decades, accompanied by the loss of about 20,000 jobs.  Connecticuts state product would be reduced by about 1.3% from baseline levels by 2020, and these losses would either remain stable or grow, depending on whether costs of sequestration level decline or remain constant.  The states budget problems would be worsened, with lower wages and incomes leading to a loss in tax collections of about $250 million per year by 2010.  Moreover, the bill would directly impose costs on the state to set up the trading system, and would raise energy costs for state and local governments.

Lewis Andrews of the Yankee Institute in Connecticut goes further, saying in an op-ed that the bill could cost Connecticut as much as $8.1 billion.  He concludes, Connecticut facing record budget deficits due to lower-than-expected revenues in 2002 and 2003 should not adopt an overly ambitious greenhouse gas reduction program that costs taxpayer dollars, destroys jobs, and does nothing to protect the environment.

 Copies of the Charles River Associates study are available by request from the American Legislative Exchange Council (www.alec.org).

Announcements 2004 03 31

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Science, Students

The George C. Marshall Institute will host two briefings by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delawares Center for Climatic Research, speaking on “Global Warming and the Hydrologic Cycle: How is the Occurrence of Floods, Droughts, and Storms Likely to Change?” The first is at noon on Monday, April 12, in Room 406 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. The second begins at noon on Wednesday, April 14, in Room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Lunch is provided. Reservations are required and may be made by phoning (202) 296-9655 or by e-mail to info@marshall.org.

Save the date: the National Center for Policy Analysis is planning an Earth Day seminar on global warming issues on the morning of April 22 in the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Complete details will be available in the next issue.

Save the date: the Cooler Heads Coalition has scheduled a major seminar on the potential impacts of global warming for Monday, May 3, on Capitol Hill. Confirmed speakers include: Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institut speaking on vector-borne diseases; Prof. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University speaking on sea level rise; and Dr. Madhav Khandekar, recently retired from Environment Canada, speaking on storms and other severe weather events. The seminar is tentatively scheduled for 10 AM to 1:30 PM in the House Rayburn Office Building. Further details will appear in the next issue.

Comments needed: The U. S. Climate Change Science Program is inviting interested parties to provide comments on the draft guidelines for the synthesis and assessment products that are being prepared by the Program to “support both policymaking and adaptive management.” Comments are due by May 3. See www.climatescience.gov for further details.

Economy Beats Greens in German Emissions Compromise

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Several members of the European Union are having a hard time complying with the EU Commissions deadline for filing their detailed plans for meeting Europes Kyoto targets. The German government was rocked by open political warfare between the governments Socialist Party Economics Minister, Wolfgang Clement, and its Green Party Environment Minister, Juergen Tritten, until Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder personally intervened on the side of Clement.

Tritten had proposed emissions reductions from the current level of 505 million metric tons per annum to 488 million tons in 2005-2007 and to 480 million tons in 2008-2012. Clement, a key figure in Schroeders unpopular but necessary economic reforms, had objected strongly to these targets, saying, “Growth isn’t possible that way. I can’t support that as Economy Minister” (Reuters, Mar. 26). Schroeder decided on minimal cuts in the near future, with a target of 503 million tones in 2005-2007, followed by a deeper cut to 495 million tons in 2008-2012 (AP, Mar. 30).

The powerful German environmental movement reacted furiously to the news. Greenpeace energy policy expert Sven Teske told the German news wire DPA (Mar. 30) that the agreement “has nothing more in common” with the Greens’ policies.

“With this compromise, Red-Green [the ruling SPD-Greens coalition] has bowed out from climate protection,” Teske said. DPA concluded, “Clement, by rigidly defending industry’s interests, had cast a dark taint on the credibility of German climate policy, the Greenpeace expert charged.”

The argument seems to have affected Herr Schroeders attitudes towards energy suppression agreements like Kyoto. On March 26, he publicly questioned whether the EU should go ahead with its plans to implement Kyoto targets in the absence of Russian ratification. Reuters reported (Mar. 26) that he told a news conference, “We hope that Kyoto will be ratified, for example by Russia. But if that doesn’t happen, it will distort competition at the expense of European and especially German economy.” Reuters went on, “Without giving a direct answer, he asked: What happens with the emissions trading system if Kyoto is not ratified?”

Cap-and-trade bill is introduced in House

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

litionRepresentatives Wayne Gilchrest (RMd.) and John Olver (DMass.) introduced on March 30 a House version of S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, known as the Lieberman-McCain bill after its two chief Senate proponents. Ten Republicans and ten Democrats joined as original co-sponsors of H. R. 4067.

The bill was referred to the Science Committee and to the Energy and Commerce Committee. One of the co-sponsors is Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (RN.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee. However, Rep. Joe Barton (RTex.), the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has a long record of opposition to energy-rationing legislation. A weaker version of S. 139 was defeated on the floor of the Senate last fall by a vote of 43 to 55.

Global Warming: The Movie

by William Yeatman on March 25, 2004

in Politics, Science

Coming to a multiplex near you on May 28 is the global warming disaster movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.” Ive only seen the trailer, but my money is on the movie, not global warming, being the disaster.

Featuring sensational but implausible weather phenomena ― such as tornadoes ripping through Los Angeles, a blizzard in New Delhi, grapefruit-sized hail pounding Tokyo and a single day sweltering-to-freezing temperature change in New York City ― the movie’s unmistakable purpose is to scare us into submitting to the Greens’ agenda: domination of society through control of energy resources.

This column has addressed Green extremism and global warming many times in the past ― “Eco-Imperialism’s Deadly Consequences” ; “Global Warming not a WMD”; and “Global Warmers Admit No Solutions,” for example. So suffice it to say that there’s no credible evidence humans are altering global climate in any measurable way and, to the extent that global climate is changing ― as it always has and always will ― there’s nothing that humans can do about that change except to adapt.  

The oldest movie marketing strategy in the world is to tie in to some swirl of controversy ― it sells tickets. These filmmakers go one step further by pointing an accusing finger at each one of us with their plea to go “carbon-neutral.”

The film’s producers say they discovered that they were actually contributing to global warming by making the movie. To compensate for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, they decided to go carbon-neutral ― a mix of energy conservation and tree planting, they claim, helped make up for their eco-error.

“It’s a small part of a very big problem, but it’s a start,” the producers reasoned. For what the rest of us can do, we’re directed to a Web site called futureforests.com, where you’ll learn that you (unfortunately) produce carbon dioxide, “well, just by living.”

Futureforests.com says you need to “make a commitment to reduce your emissions and have that published” and “buy products, which will compensate for every ton of carbon dioxide you produce, or buy gifts which neutralize a friend’s emissions.”

Futureforests.com also features a celebrity section where you can learn about what celebrities are doing to go carbon-neutral. The rock band Foo Fighters , for example, is also planting trees as their personal contribution to fighting global warming.

“We measured the amount of carbon dioxide” created by the production, manufacture and distribution of [the band’s latest album] and [we are] planting enough trees in the Tensas River forest and wildlife reserve in Louisiana, to re-absorb that carbon dioxide over their lifetime,” said the band.

But if global warming were a real problem and planting trees were the answer, forest products giant Weyerhaeuser would seem to have already solved a good part of the problem with the 130 million trees it plants every year.

The filmmakers’ nauseating elitism, ignorance and politics are displayed on the Web site, which features personal responses of the filmmakers to dopey questions such as “One last day, where on Earth would you spend it?”

Director Roland Emmerich said he’s spend his in “my house in Puerto Vallarta.” Editor David Brenner said, “On Kauai … as soon as they get a Starbucks.” VFX supervisor Karen Goulekas said, “Having a party on the beach in front of my house in Marina Del Ray.” Actor Jake Gyllenhall said “On Martha’s Vineyard, with all my friends.”

“Your message to the world, given a billboard for one final day, what would you put or say on it?,” is another deep question asked of the filmmakers. Writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff said, “Out of 20 million species, why is there always one who has to go out and ruin it for the others?” Emmerich said “No more Bush.”

Many of the cast and crew have yet to respond on the Web site to these and other penetrating inquiries ― I can hardly wait to learn more about why we should take global warming seriously. So far, global warming appears to be just an excuse for Hollywood hedonism, human-bashing and electing John Kerry.

The movie’s undeniable political overtones verge on the irresponsible, especially in an election year. Aside from the director’s acknowledged anti-Bush sentiment, the actor who plays the evil U.S. vice president has more than a coincidental physical resemblance to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The film is not rated yet, but perhaps the Motion Picture Association of America will consider a new rating for The Day After Tomorrow ― a zero.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Respond to the Writer

Copyright 2004 Fox News.

Energy Secretary Defends Administrations Commitment to Sound Science; British Government Reprimands Alarmist Scientist; McCain W

by William Yeatman on March 16, 2004

in Politics

Energy Secretary Defends Administrations Commitment to Sound Science

Responding to a Washington Post op-ed by former American Prospect Online editor Chris Mooney that repeated allegations that the administration had ignored the scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham issued a strong defense of administration policy in a letter to the newspaper.

He wrote, In “Beware ‘Sound Science.’ It’s Doublespeak for Trouble” [Outlook, Feb. 29], Chris Mooney engages in more than a little doublespeak himself and does what he accuses the Bush administration of doingtwisting reality to fit his preferred hypothesis.

Mr. Mooney claims that the 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change embarrassed the administration that commissioned it. This is nonsense. The administration is well aware of the scientific consensus that temperatures have warmed partly due to human activity.

But acknowledging consensus is a far cry from implying, as Mr. Mooney does, that our understanding of climate change is complete. Indeed, the same report also noted that “a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established,” and it identified a number of scientific areas that need further study to advance our understanding of climate change and support policy decisions.

The administration’s Climate Change Science Program strategic plan, released in July 2003, addresses many recommendations from the NAS report and is designed to accelerate research on the most important uncertainties in climate science. An extensive review of the plan just published by the NAS, and ignored by Mr. Mooney, commends the program for seeking input from a broad array of scientists and stakeholders and concludes that advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will be of vital importance to the nation.

British Government Reprimands Alarmist Scientist

Despite supposedly having the backing of Prime Minister Tony Blair, UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King earned a dressing-down from senior civil servants after claiming that global warming was worse than terrorism (see previous issues).

According to the Independent (Mar. 7), Ivan Rogers, Mr. Blair’s principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister’s chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush’s policy on climate change.  Since Sir David’s article in Science was published, No. 10 has tried to limit the damage to Anglo-American relations by reining in the Prime Minister’s chief scientist.

In a leaked memo, Mr. Rogers ordered Sir Davida Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministersto decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4’s Today.  To accept such bids runs the risk of turning the debate into a sterile argument about whether or not climate change is a greater risk, Mr. Rogers said in the memo, which was sent to Sir David’s office in February.

Sir David, who is highly regarded by Mr Blair, has been primed with a list of 136 mock questions that the media could ask if they were able to get access to him, and the suggested answers he should be prepared to give. One question asks: How do the number of deaths caused by climate change and terrorism compare? The stated answer that Sir David is expected to give says: The value of any comparison would be highly questionablewe are talking about threats that are intrinsically different.

If Sir David were to find himself pushed to decide whether terrorism or climate change was the greater threat, he was supposed to answer: Both are serious and immediate problems for the world today.  But this was not what Sir David said on the Today programme on 9 January when the Science article was published.

Asked to explain how he had come to the conclusion that global warming was more serious than terrorism, Sir David replied that his equation was based on the number of fatalities that have already occurredimplying that global warming has already killed more people than terrorism.

Sir David does not appear to have repeated his contention since the Madrid outrages on March 11.

McCain Wants New Studies to Support His Legislation 

Senator John McCain has somehow overcome his long-time opposition to wasteful government spending in order to promote two costly new studies on global warming.  Since he believes that the science is settled on the issue, his purpose appears to be to provide support for his energy rationing bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139.  First, he has asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to study the likely effects of global warming on federally managed lands.  

Bluewater Network, an environmental pressure group, boasted in a press release, Prompted by a request from Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based environmental nonprofit organization, Senators McCain and Hollings asked the GAO to identify the losses and stresses on all of Americas public lands (including coastal and ocean resources) that will result from global warming. The GAO report would inventory the impacts of global warming and predict the timing of their environmental and socio-economic consequences. In addition, the Senators are asking the GAO to identify the resources that can be saved by adaptive measures such as construction of sea walls to protect coastal lands, and improved networks of reserves to protect species.  Bluewater Network point out that global warming is a direct consequence of industrialization.

Second, McCains Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed out a bill that would spend $60 million to establish a research program for studying abrupt climate change within the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The bill was passed out by voice vote and with little discussion on March 8.  The sponsors are Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Vermont Independent Senator Jim Jeffords.

Lomborg Case Quietly Dropped

It escaped the attention of most of the worlds press that had earlier gleefully reported the news of his conviction for scientific dishonesty, but the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty on March 12 dropped their case against Bjorn Lomborg, author of the international environmental best-seller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, following the quashing of its initial verdict by the governments science ministry.

The Environmental Assessment Institute, headed by Dr. Lomborg, issued a press release that quoted him as saying, The committee decision is as one would expect.  More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation.

Lomborg continued, DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid.  I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events.  The release concluded, The DCSD translated their first judgment into English.  Today’s announcement is only available in Danish.

UN Admits Russian Emissions Forecasts are Wrong; Costs of Kyoto Begin to Dawn on Britain

by William Yeatman on March 16, 2004

in Blog

UN Admits Russian Emissions Forecasts are Wrong

The growing realization that Russia is serious about not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol has reached the pages of Science magazine.  In an article entitled, A Eurasian Tiger Threatens to Maul Kyoto (Mar. 5), reference is made to a draft report from the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that says that, The data underlying the U.N.s emissions forecasts for Russia are full of holes and out-of-date.

The last official communication from Russia to the UNFCCC, submitted in November 2002, predicted that Russias emissions would not surpass 1990 levels before 2015.  However, the new review suggests that the communication does not include emissions data from important energy sources, including plans to double coal production.

The article also quotes Alexander Golub of Environmental Defense, who once predicted that, Solid economic growth without significant energy efficiency reforms might propel Russia beyond its Kyoto emissions limits far sooner than the U.N. had predicted.  He now thinks, however, that Russia will remain well within Kyoto limits, so it would not hurt to ratify the protocol.

Golubs arguments seem to carry little weight in the Kremlin.  The article quotes economist Peter Kaznacheev, who said, Its unlikely Russia will make profits from carbon dioxide quota sales.  And meeting Kyoto targets is out of the question: The targets are hardly affordable, says Kaznacheev.  Russias rising fortunes, therefore, could be the Kyoto treatys ultimate misfortune.

Costs of Kyoto Begin to Dawn on Britain

The economic ramifications of the British Governments decision to adopt stricter-than-Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions are finally being looked into by British officials and industry leaders.

According to the BBC (Mar. 10), an adviser to the government has warned that Britains power supplies could be interrupted owing to lack of capacity by 2006.  Meanwhile, a report by the bipartisan House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee has warned, There is a danger that there is currently insufficient investment in the network to replace in a planned and orderly way equipment which is reaching the end of its life.  Simply to maintain present performance levels, capital expenditure by the network owners would have to double.  The report suggested that consumers would have to pay an extra ₤1 billion in higher electricity prices to redress the balance.

The same day, Londons Times reported on a new paper by the Royal Academy of Engineering on the cost of renewable energy.  It summarized, Even the cheapest forms of renewable energy will cost at least twice as much as gas or nuclear power for the foreseeable future, according to a new report that questions the viability of the Government’s energy strategy.

The paper quoted the report as saying, The energy consultant PB Power, which prepared the report, found in a comparison of energy costs that electricity generated from gas turbines or modern nuclear plants is by far the cheapest, at 2.3p per kilowatt hour (kWh).  Onshore wind power, the cheapest renewable energy, costs 3.7p per kWh and offshore wind power costs 5.5p per kWh.  And the cost of both is increased further by the need for back-up conventional power sources to ensure that supplies remain constant when the wind is not blowing.
 
Then, on March 12, yet more of the cost of the governments green policies came to light.  The Guardian reported, Water and sewerage customers in England and Wales could be forced to pay more than the 30% extra in real terms over the five years from April 2005, originally foreseen by regulator Ofwat.  It follows tough new environmental guidelines from ministers.  Business bodies warned that industry could see their power bills rise by up to 30%with a knock-on effect on domestic consumersif the government sticks to its plans to enforce a 16.3% cut in greenhouse gases under an EU carbon emissions trading scheme that takes effect on January 1, 2005.

The Guardian concluded, Ministers came under fire from both the CBI [Confederation of British Industry] and EEF [an association of manufacturers]over their ambitious plans for CO2 trading which, the government says, should increase power bills by no more than 6%.  Industrial and retail customers, who already face a combined 1.5bn bill over 10 years to rebuild the grid system and hefty increases to meet the switch to renewables, will pay considerably more10 to 30%than government forecasts, the two bodies said.

The EEF said UK power prices would surge faster than in Europe unless ministers persuaded other EU states to adopt its more stringent standards and urged a delay to the new scheme.  While the rest of Europe drags its heels, Britain’s manufacturers are going to have to run much faster to meet the UK’s ambitious target, said Martin Temple, EEF director-general.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →