Pincas Jawetz’s argument that the Consider his premise: 38 countries of the worldLiechtenstein, Luxembourg, Iceland, the United States, etc.agreed in principle to an energy suppression measure, the Kyoto Protocol. The same measure was refused by 160 other countries: Only the What of those proud, supposedly economically vibrant few who soldier on “in exasperation” with our refusal to adhere? Other than 10 percent unemployment and next-to-flat economic growth since they undertook this campaign, stubbornly clinging to Actually, this experience further dispels the notion that energy suppression paves the road to economic health. Every major economic downturn in the past century was preceded by the increase in energy prices that is Claiming that President George H.W. Bush “supported the Kyoto Protocol” is absurd, if consistently so. The Kyoto Protocol is named for the conference at which it was drafted, in December 1997. Thematic talks did not even begin until 1995. President George H.W. Bush was defeated in 1992. If anyone can show me evidence of George H.W. Bush supporting As to President Clinton, he indeed signed this abominable treaty, but for the remaining three-plus years of his presidency refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Mr. Jawetz concludes by menacingly intimating the collapse of the World Trade Organization over the This scenario presumes that the WTOa body created to break down discriminatory trade barriersis likely to accept the argument that if EU nations decide to do something remarkably silly to themselves, then the If any organization that could reach such a conclusion were to collapse, it would be no great loss. Fortunately, it remains as unlikely as the rest of this odd mishmash of Kyotonomics.
Politics
There will be NO appreciable CO2 emissions reduction even if Russia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol
Climate analysts at the George Marshall Institute said today there will be no appreciable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions even if Russia adopts the Kyoto Protocol, allowing it to enter into force. Yesterday, several press accounts indicated that Russia may be reversing its position on the treaty.
Russia will benefit from a great wealth transfer as EU funds flow into the country in exchange for rights to Russian CO2 allowances, Institute President William OKeefe said. The tangible effect on carbon dioxide emissions will be non-existent.
O’Keefe said Russia is so far below its allocated emission levels that it will be able to trade its excess to the European Union, who, in turn, will technically meet the Kyoto target but not reduce their CO2 emissions at all.
Russia emitted 1614 million metric tons of CO2 in 2001, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administrations (EIA) 2004 International Energy Outlook. The European Union produced 4123.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2002 (data from the European Commission, press release, July 15, 2004).
The Kyoto Protocol calls for the European Union to reduce its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. According to the European Commission, 1990 emissions totaled 4245.2 million metric tons, which would require the EU to meet a 3905.5 million metric ton mark by 2008-2012. Credible projections suggest that EU CO2 emission levels will begin rising again, following modest decline from 1990 to 2002. Russia is required to maintain its 1990 level of emissions in the same timeframe. The EIA puts Russian CO2 emissions in 1990 at 2405 million metric tons, meaning that it need only maintain that same amount. In fact, its 2001 emissions were significantly below that level (by 791 million metric tons). EIA projections call for a modest increase in Russian emissions, but the level will remain well short of the level allowed under the Kyoto Protocol.
The Russians can sell the EU their excess allowances under the emission trading system called for by the Protocol and European emissions of CO2 will rise as they are expected to, OKeefe concluded. The net effect will be minor, at best.
Today and tomorrow, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is holding a public hearing on its plan to implement a law requiring maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles. In comments filed earlier this week, the Competitive Enterprise Institute challenged the rulemaking on scientific, legal, economic, and auto safety grounds.
The comments (http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,04218.cfm), written by Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis and General Counsel Sam Kazman, make the following key points:
ARBs regulatory proposal lacks a credible scientific rationale. Global warming alarmism is based on hyperbole and fear, not science.
ARBs proposal is prohibited by federal law. Maximum feasible greenhouse gas reductions cannot be achieved without mandatory engineering and design modifications to increase new-car fuel economy. However, the federal Energy and Conservation Act of 1975 prohibits states from adopting laws related to fuel economy.
ARBs proposal fails its own cost-effectiveness test. Even if the theory of catastrophic global warming were true, the emissions reductions achieved would make no detectable difference in global temperature trends over the next 50 years. As environmental policy, the proposal is all cost for no benefit. Further, it will raise the sticker price of new cars more than it will lower operating expenses for most consumers.
ARBs proposal will reduce auto safety. Downsizing and down-weighting of cars is the most likely means of complying with the rule. Lighter, smaller vehicles are less crashworthy. Federal fuel economy mandates killed between 1,300 and 2,600 motorists in 1993, according to the National Research Council. To the extent ARBs proposal constrains vehicle size and weight, it will put motorists at risk.
ARB cannot achieve maximum feasible greenhouse gas reductions from automobiles without poaching on federally preempted policy terrain. It cannot achieve cost effective reductions with any set of regulatory tools, said Lewis. ARB should brief Governor Schwarzenegger and the
70 Percent of Roundtable Companies Have Already Signed up for Climate RESOLVE # # #
Washington, DC Business Roundtable today announced that 70 percent of its member companies representing every sector of the U.S. economy have embraced voluntary actions to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by participating in its Climate RESOLVE program, which was launched in February 2003.
The Roundtables release of its first progress report on Climate RESOLVE coincides with the beginning of a two-day workshop for companies on ways to build and enhance programs to manage GHG emissions. The Roundtable has also launched a new ad campaign highlighting its member companies commitment to voluntary action.
The Roundtables Climate RESOLVE report presents results of a survey of participating companies which show that all of the respondents are putting in place the building blocks for effective GHG management and that 92 percent of these companies have taken or are taking measures this year to manage GHG emissions.
Climate RESOLVE demonstrates that effective climate change policies can be compatible with continuing economic and social progress, said Michael G. Morris, Vice Chairman of the Roundtables Environment, Technology & the Economy Task Force and Chairman, President and CEO of American Electric Power. We are delighted that so many Roundtable companies from every sector of the economy have joined Climate RESOLVE and have embraced voluntary actions to control GHG emissions.
New Initiative Focuses on Energy Efficiency in Service Sector
To further increase participation in Climate RESOLVE, the Roundtable also announced a new initiative to help non-manufacturing companies manage GHG emissions. The focused effort will include a guidebook on energy efficiency in office buildings and development of a new Web tool that provides step-by-step assistance in establishing energy efficiency programs.
Climate RESOLVE is based on the idea that effective action to reduce the GHG intensity of our economy requires a contribution from every company in every sector of the economy, Morris said. We have challenged all of our member companies to take part in the voluntary programs, and we are also committed to showing them practical steps that they can take to reduce emissions by using energy more efficiently in the buildings they occupy.
Part of the Administrations Climate VISION initiative, Climate RESOLVE (Responsible Environmental Steps, Opportunities to Lead by Voluntary Efforts) seeks to help meet the Presidents goal of an 18 percent reduction overall in greenhouse gas intensity in the U.S. economy by 2012. The voluntary program does not set a specific target for each company and allows individual companies to decide the most appropriate course of action.
Climate RESOLVE demonstrates that voluntary actions can deliver continued economic growth, meaningfully reduce the GHG intensity of our economy, foster innovation and promote investment in new technologies without government mandates and rigid compliance timetables, said John J. Castellani, President of the Roundtable. Our companies are leading the way in pursuing climate change by improving energy efficiency, sequestering greenhouse gas emissions and developing low-carbon technologies that can facilitate economic growth without corresponding increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Key findings from the Roundtables survey of Climate RESOLVE participants include:
Climate change is a challenge that requires sustained public and private efforts by all countries, Castellani said. Our companies understand that improving energy efficiency is good for the environment and good business. This progress report shows that the climate has indeed changed in companies across America.
However, the Roundtable has committed to building on the solid foundation in the program.
More work lies ahead to strengthen Climate RESOLVE, and we will continue to challenge our members to do more to manage GHG emissions, Castellani said.
To give companies the insight and the tools to improve their GHG management programs, the Roundtable is continuing to hold workshops, conduct telephone learning sessions, offer one-on-one consulting support and provide examples of options to reduce, avoid, offset and sequester emissions.
The two-day Climate RESOLVE workshop for companies that begins today in Colorado Springs includes presentations from leading officials from the Administration, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, private sector officials with first-hand experience in managing greenhouse gas emissions and representatives of environmental groups. The Roundtable also conducted two workshops for companies in 2003.
The Roundtable has also been talking to international business groups about the importance of voluntary action in addressing global climate change. Last December, the Roundtable and several member companies attended a United Nations conference in Milan, Italy and discussed Climate RESOLVE during meetings with groups such as the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Keidanren, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Chamber of Commerce.
To view a copy of the report Every Sector, One RESOLVE: A Progress Report on Business Roundtable’s Climate RESOLVE Program click here.
Business Roundtable (www.businessroundtable.org) is an association of chief executive officers of leading corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States and $4 trillion in revenues. The chief executives are committed to advocating public policies that foster vigorous economic growth and a dynamic global economy.
In a behind-the-scenes move with far reaching implications, the Senate Appropriations Committee last week approved a bill including language that would shield one of the federal governments most important scientific agencies from legal requirements mandating integrity in government science. A clause in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Commerce and other agencies (S. 2809) would exempt research produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from complying with the Federal Data Quality Act, which requires that data circulated by federal agencies conform to standards of scientific integrity.
This quiet ploy is clearly aimed at avoiding the inevitable lawsuits exposing the junk science, much of it traceable to NOAA, which has been employed in government publications in recent years, including two alarmist global warming reports, said Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow and Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The apparent strategy here that any agency or department report using NOAA science will now be above the law guts existing data quality rules in the very context which forced Congress to enact them in the first place.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI, was previously forced to admit that at least one such federal studythe National Assessment on Climate Changewas never subjected to the requirements to the Data Quality Act and thus does not represent government policy.
The Data Quality Act is a valuable tool to stop federal agencies from producing or using faulty and biased information, said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy. How any Senator could be against basing public policy on sound science is beyond belief.
This past week has seen significant media coverage of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ‘global warming’ fears. (UK: PM’S ENVIRONMENT SPEECH [Press briefing]; UK: PM Speech on Climate Change [Text of speech] (Number 10)) We might wonder what makes him so fearful.
To establish whether Mr. Blair is suffering relatively local warming is not too difficult since we have Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research‘s Central England Temperature record (CET):
The above graph indicates by color the Annual Mean Temperature ; 10-year Running Mean ; Series Maximum Value (10.63C) ; Series Minimum Value (6.84C) and; Series Mean (9.47C) .
The most impressive warming evident occurred from the 1690s through 1730s with the running mean climbing almost 2C! We imagine that was a significant relief in the depths of the Little Ice Age although 1740 was obviously a bummer. Abrupt warmings also occurred in the 1770s; 1810s/20s; 1890s and 1990s. Abrupt coolings are evident and a relatively sustained warming in the first half of the Twentieth Century. With our 10-year running mean showing warmer than the series mean for almost the entire Twentieth Century it is fair to say there has been a net warming over the record period. Some argue that warming is a problem and we will not dwell on our contention that warming is distinctly preferable to cooling.
Having established that there has been a warming and avoided the question of whether this constitutes a problem, the next and obvious question is: “why has this occurred?”
Tony Blair appears convinced by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis but atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET at all well. For example, from 1695 to 1733, the annual mean temperature rose from 7.25C to 10.47C at a time when there was negligible change in atmospheric CO2 – the running mean did not return to such readings until the 1990s. On the other hand, annual mean temperatures fell from 10.62C in 1949 to 8.47C by 1963, a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were measurably rising. Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.
If not greenhouse then what? Certainly there has been significant urbanization – with the English population rising from about 9 million in 1800 to almost 50 million now that is inevitable. Urbanization or at least population growth, however, has been continuously positive since the mid-17th century and that does not really suit our mean temperature track either. Or does it? Consider the effect of so many more urbanites and their fuel sources of the day – see how Roehampton University writes it up:
What is the urban effect on sunshine? This is one aspect of the region’s climate that has dramatically changed over the late 19th and 20th centuries. At the height of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 19th century, vast amounts of smoke and soot were emitted into the atmosphere in London. This led to the absorption or blocking of a remarkable proportion of the incoming radiation from the sunshine and hence sunshine amounts were curtailed.
It is difficult to believe today how profound this effect was and how quickly it has changed. In the 1880s, it was estimated that London was ‘losing’ up to 80% of its winter sunshine. In December 1890 no sunshine was recorded at Westminster. As recently as 1921-50, central London averaged only 50% of the winter sunshine as surrounding rural areas. The effect was concentrated in winter because of the increased emission of smoke and soot associated with the greater use of coal burning to heat houses and offices and also because of the low angle of the sun.
The situation is quite different today – emissions of pollutants that cause a shading effect have dropped dramatically with the switch away from coal as the prime source of energy in industry and in the home, a change well under way before the passing of the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s and 1960s. Not only has this led to a reduction in the frequency of winter smogs and fog (possibly assisted by more mobile, changeable winters in recent decades) but on occasions, central London is now sunnier than the outlying areas because of the urban heating effect evaporating low cloud or fog.
Seems plausible, a lot more people, all using what would currently be abhorred as “dirty” fuels, could conceivably generate enough smoke to interfere with solar warming, at least regionally. We are not aware that anyone seriously disputes the dramatic improvement in urban air quality over the Twentieth Century so increased solar radiation penetration to surface must at least be entertained as a probable result. Here is a mechanism by which increasing populations could influence both increase and decrease of regional temperatures and specifically where near-surface temperature readings are recorded. Importantly, it is not merely current urban heat island effect, which datasets try to address (with varying and, we think, limited success) that is affected by urbanization but, through earlier regional sunshine suppression, prior cooling (not addressed in any dataset to our knowledge) that gives the impression of current warming within the dataset. While merely an assertion rather than any form of cause and effect explanation for recorded temperature trends, the differing effect of urbanization over time highlights some of the problems with simplistic associations like enhanced greenhouse – it is not as simple as: atmospheric greenhouse gas levels have risen; recorded temperatures have risen – therefore greenhouse gases drive temperature.
There has been much discussion of solar activity recently and New Scientist published the following graph in Sun more active than for a millennium.
Granted, this gives us some familiar patterns, the low 1700s look reasonable, so too the high in the early 1800s and rising trend through the 1900s but hardly a great fit. Let’s look at a few other graphs produced elsewhere:
Looks pretty good but…
Ooh… the Medieval Climate Optimum is a bit of a spoiler isn’t it. It doesn’t fit either our solar activity or atmospheric CO2 scenarios – or any known combination thereof.
Perhaps the Danes have the answer for that, here’s how John Daly wrote it up:
In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in Science describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). Science writer, Richard Kerr described it as “one dazzling correlation”
Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperature (surface)
(The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length)
As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (i.e. solar maxima becoming more frequent)
Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s theory to explain this correlation was that if the time duration between solar maxima peaks was shorter, then the earth was collecting more net energy overall than if the time between maxima was longer. The cycle averages 11 years, but it does shorten to about 10 years at times, and can open out to 12 years. From the maximum of 1980 to that of 1990, the cycle was only 10 years, resulting in the 1980s collecting greater warmth from the Sun than would be usual for other cycles.
Where the maxima are very large ones, as in the last 4 cycles, then a shortening in the time duration between maxima will increase the long-term energy input into the earth-atmosphere system.
Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2. From what we can see, GHGs are a poor fit with measured global near-surface temperatures, so, too, are simple urbanization and sunspot numbers, although length of solar cycle appears to have promise as a primary driver.
Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things so briefly discussed here might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth’s orbital eccentricities.
On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground.
We freely admit cherry picking some of the dates used for comparison here – and why not, the greenhouse industry is shameless in their selective use of data – our purpose is to demonstrate that there’s really nothing new under the sun.
A favorite comparison is the temperature increase since 1880 (roughly the end of the Little Ice Age) and that’s fine. The CET above certainly indicates an annual mean increase of ~1.6C 1880-1999 – half that observed 1695-1733. Twice the warming occurred over one-third the time and this was before humanity could possibly have significantly influenced the greenhouse gas balance in the atmosphere, so why the current panic over possible warming and specifically over atmospheric CO2?
To return to our original point, Tony Blair has made much of enhanced greenhouse and global warming – the Central England Temperature record suggests his fears are groundless. You can either believe a 340-year temperature record or a politician – suit yourself.
See also Days of Sunshine by John L. Daly;
Heat Wave in Europe: The Mystery Unveiled by Eduardo Ferreyra
Copyright 2004 JunkScience.com – All Rights Reserved.
This article, including graphics, may be reprinted in full or in part with attribution.
According to Torontos Globe and Mail (Sept. 8), Canadas greenhouse gas emissions have increased at a faster rate than in the United States since 1990. The figures, agreed by both governments, show that Canadas emissions have grown by 20 percent, while Americas have risen by only 14 percent. If emissions generated by Canadian energy exports to the U. S. are removed, then the Canadian rise drops to 15 percent.
Harlan Watson, chief climate negotiator for the U. S. State Department, said the figures showed how difficult emissions reductions are. He told the Globe and Mail, As we say, actions speak louder than signing pieces of paper. I don’t want to be harsh on Canada. We have some of the most self-righteous folks in Europe, of course, and they’re [also] having a great deal of difficulty. Energy use accounts for something in the order of 80 per cent of the emissions. Until we get a handle on that, there’s no way to get from here to there, absent an economic collapse.
The Conference Board, a nonprofit business membership organization, published an executive action report on September 7 titled Climate Change: Clear TrajectoryHaze in the Details. The report is based on the global warming propaganda conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see the June 23 issue). The Conference Board notes that their participation in the AAAS event was facilitated by the pressure group Environmental Defense and thanks the Turner Foundation for financial support.
The report quotes Michael Oppenheimer, now at Princeton University and former long-time holder of the Barbara Streisand Chair at Environmental Defense, on sea-level rise. It also refers to Richard Alleys flipping-the-canoe theory (see article above on McCain) and, mixing metaphors, asks whether melting glaciers, such as on Mt. Kilimanjaro, are the canary in the coal mine. On the subject of computer climate models, the Conference Board quotes Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research: Myth: Models cant simulate what weve already observed. Reality: Models are doing quite well simulating the 20th century and up to 1000 years previously.
The reports author, Dr. Charles Burnett, said, Given the increasing costs of, and uncertainties surrounding, the reliability of traditional energy sources and growing pressures for higher standards of citizenship and contributions to global sustainability, businesses that ignore the debate over climate change do so at their peril.
The report comments, seemingly oblivious to the climate policies of the company referred to, Corporate boards will be increasingly expected to evaluate potential risks associated with climate change. The frequently cited Enron effect will likely result in increased pressure on boards to evaluate potential costs and risks associated with mitigation either of carbon emissions or the effects of actual climate changes.
A recent report requested by the shareholders of American Electric Power showed that the costs to the company of the relatively modest and ineffective Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act could amount to close to $1 billion by 2030 (Greenwire, Sept. 7). There is little pressure on business to disclose the potential costs of regulations to reduce emissions.
A new report from the Senate Republican Policy Committee looks at the poor state of economic analysis in current projections of global temperatures. The document, Scientists Set Off Wrong Alarm Bells with Global Warming Conclusions, examines the criticisms of Ian Castles and David Henderson and the reactions to the criticisms.
Castles and Henderson (see previous issues, passim) have produced a devastating analysis of the economic assumptions underlying the scenarios used in computer models by the U. N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Third Assessment Report to predict future global temperatures. The RPC paper summarizes the ensuing debate.
The paper concludes that it is the IPCCs status as a body with a political, rather than scientific, agenda that led it to such technical sloppiness and use of dubious assumptions. The paper argues that the Principles Governing IPCC Work demonstrate that, The IPCC exists to support the Framework Conventions predetermined conclusions, not to objectively assess whether global warming is real or not, or whether it would be potentially harmful or benign.
The paper suggests that there is no indication that the next round of IPCC work will address these concerns. As a result, the paper warns, Policymakers should approach the IPCCs claims with a healthy dose of skepticism before considering whether restrictions on energy use based on the IPCCs conclusions are warranted. Alarm may well be in order alarm that the IPCCs science cannot be relied upon. The report can be found on the web at: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf.
Witnesses are expected to detail dramatic scenarios of localized climate impactsreduced snowfall in the The claims that one state will be impacted by climate change in a specific way are based on computer models that are simply not able to make such predictions, said Contact for Interviews: Climate Change Expert Available for Interviews Myron Ebell Director of Global Warming & International Environmental Policy 202-331-2256 mebell@cei.org Iain Murray Senior Fellow 202-331-2257 imurray@cei.org
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org