Science

The British scientific establishment reacted so badly to dissenting voices at a Moscow conference on climate change science that they disrupted the event.  The two-day seminar, entitled Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, had been organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences and was chaired by distinguished climatologist Yuri Izrael, a Vice-Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

On being informed that the program would include contributions from scientists who question the effects of global warming, such as Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, and Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, the British delegation, led by Sir David King, objected to their inclusion.  They first delayed the conference, then asked British foreign secretary Jack Straw to exert political pressure in an effort to get the program changed.  When this failed, there were reports that the conference was disrupted on at least four occasions (one reporter asked why security guards did not intervene).  In the end, Sir David, who is on record as judging global warming a worse threat than terrorism, walked out. 

Peter Cox of the U.K.’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research attempted to justify the British actions by telling Science magazine (July 16), We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism.

During the conference, Paul Reiter used a simple experiment to demonstrate the low relevance of climate to the spread of malaria.  He said, When I asked whether any of the Russian Academicians at the symposium had had malaria, nearly all raised their hands.  Several had contracted the disease in Siberia!

The French newspaper Le Figaro in reporting the controversy (July 16) commented, The clash was more than a minor diplomatic incident because it revealed a form of intellectual bullying that is beginning to dominate the scientific community on the question of climate change.

A recent study published in Hydrology and Earth System Science has found that high mercury levels in the environment may not be the result of coal-fired power plants.  The paper by E.C. Krug and D. Winstanley of the Illinois State Water Survey, Comparison of mercury in atmospheric deposition and in Illinois and USA soils, comes after the recent emergence of an environmentalist offensive calling for increased regulation of mercury (Hg) emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Krug and Winstanley tested the hypothesis that mercury in Illinois and USA soils is the result of human activities by comparing the rates of atmospheric mercury deposition with soil and Earth crust mercury content. They discovered that, contrary to popular belief, environmentally significant amounts of natural mercury are generally found in soils and quantities of Hg in USA soils are too great to be attributed to anthropogenic atmospheric Hg deposition.

The effort to impose federal regulations to reduce coal-fired power plant mercury emissions is based on the unsubstantiated theory of a direct correlation between power plant locations and high mercury levels.  Krug and Winstanleys paper discredits the environmentalists claim that amounts of mercury in the environment were naturally low before anthropogenic Hg environmental deposition.  Their paper has attracted little major media attention, but was covered in an article by David Wojick appearing in Electricity Daily (www.electricity-online.com, July 14).

A recent study published by the Yale Journal of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies claims a rise in global temperatures is causing a northward shift of vegetation and mammals. The study involved eight U.S. parks, and how a supposed rise in temperatures could entice the movement of species to and from these parks.

The study predicts that the parks they studied stand to gain 92% more mammals through immigration within the next century, and 20% of the mammals to relocate outside of the parks. Oswald Schmitz, professor of population and community ecology, cautions, the species that were in the parks, especially in the northern parks, arent leaving those parks and going even farther north. So this migration crowds species much more (www.vaildaily.com, July 21).

At the Lincolnshire Environmental Awards, noted British conservationist Dr. David Bellamy dismissed wind farms cost effectiveness as “rubbish” and portrayed the supposed benefits of wind farms in reducing CO2 levels as a “ridiculous claim.”

Bellamy expressed outrage at global warming scare tactics and commented, “The latest is that global warming is a bigger threat than international terrorism. Tell that to the people of New York.” Dr. Bellamy also questioned the science suggesting that atmospheric CO2 increases raise global temperature, saying, “A paper called Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the last Glacial Termination, has proven that increases in temperature are in fact responsible for increases in CO2 levels. Not the other way round as claimed by the wind lobby.”

The famed environmental campaigner also castigated the economics of the wind industry, saying that the argument that wind power will have a significant effect on reducing CO2 concentrations, “is a complete non-starter when you consider that Britain has about 1,060 turbines that produce about 0.35 per cent of our electricity needs. With only 28 per cent of our CO2 emissions coming from the production of electricity, this means that these turbines displace less than 0.1 per cent of total CO2 emissions.”

Dr. Bellamy also pointed out that, “The thousands of turbines in Denmark have resulted in them having the dearest electricity in Europe – more than double the price here” (Lincolnshire Echo, June 12).

An analytical speech and paper debunking the claims of wind power by Glenn R. Schleede, a well-known energy consultant, will be discussed in the next issue.

The July 1 issue of Nature magazine contains a correction by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH) of mistakes in their 1998 Nature article that purported to give an accurate reconstruction of global temperatures over the past six centuries (the initial source for the hockey stick graph).  The brief notice does not contain the corrections beyond an uninformative list of data errors, but refers readers to www.nature.com/nature, where one can eventually also find changes to the studys methodology (referred to as “an expanded description of the methodological details”).

This highly unusual admission comes as the result of an article by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph, that exposed serious errors in data and methodology.  The editors of Nature agreed and required Mann et al. to fix their mistakes.

“Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” ends with an extraordinary statement: “None of these errors affect our previously published results.”  McIntyre and McKitrick dispute this statement: “We have done the calculations and can assert categorically that the claim is false. We have made a journal submission to this effect and will explain the matter fully when that paper is published.”

It is also important to realize that this correction was not published as an Addendum, which, according to Natures published policy, is the case when “Authors inadvertently omitted significant information available to them at the time” but which does “not contradict the original publication,” as would surely be the case if MBH are correct in their assertion. Corrigenda are only published, “If the scientific accuracy or reproducibility of the original paper is compromised.”

Up until this climbdown, Mann, an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had ferociously defended his hockey-stick papers and had launched several ad hominem attacks on McIntyre and McKitrick.  The corrigendum listed five references, but not the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (“Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series,” Energy and Environment 14(6)) that first drew attention to his mistakes.

The hockey-stick purports to show that the global mean temperature was relatively constant through the first nine hundred years of the past millennium and then rose sharply in the twentieth century.  It was featured as proof of global warming in the U. N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report.  A number of papers have been published that challenge either the hockey sticks reconstruction of past temperatures (e.g., Esper et al., Science, 2002) or Manns handling of data in general (e.g. Chapman et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2004).

Mann had to publish another correction to his published work in June in the Journal of Geophysical Results, following complaints from other paleoclimatologists that his methodology in another paper did not show as big a warming trend from the end of the Little Ice Age as is necessary. In other words, Mann underestimated how cold the Little Ice Age was.

The full debate over the “hockey stick” controversy can be followed at Ross McKitricks web site at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ research/trc.html.

An overlooked study suggests that evidence from the Great Barrier Reef in Australia points to corals being strengthened, not weakened, by rising temperatures.

The study directly contradicts earlier findings by Kleypas et al. (1999) that received considerable media attention for its conclusion that the rising CO2 content of the Earths atmosphere would lower the saturation state of the carbonate mineral aragonite in the surface waters of the worlds oceans and lead to weaker, more fragile, and slower growing coral reefs.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org.), however, has drawn attention to a study by Lough and Barnes, published in 2000 in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, that assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized corals of Australias Great Barrier Reef. It found that increasing CO2 would increase, not decrease, the calcification of coral reefs. Their study notes that, “This increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry.”

The Center comments, “In light of these real-world empirical-based calculations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world’s climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes thus conclude that coral calcification rates may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change.  And they are likely to increase even more, we would add, if the air’s CO2 content and temperature continue to rise in the years ahead.”

A recent study conducted by G. Zhou and colleagues (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 2004) suggests once again that no strong correlation exists between global warming and malaria outbreaks. This stands in stark contrast to the oft-repeated claims of self-described malaria experts, such as the physician Paul Epstein.

In seven study sites conducted in the East African Highlands, Zhou et al. found that “malaria dynamics are largely driven by autoregression and/or seasonality” and that “the observed large among-site variation in the sensitivity to climate fluctuations may be governed by complex interactions between climate and biological and social factors,” including “land use, topography, P. falciparum genotypes, malaria vector species composition, availability of vector control and healthcare programs, drug resistance, and other socioeconomic factors,” among which are “failure to seek treatment or delayed treatment of malaria patients, and HIV infections in the human population,” which they say have “become increasingly prevalent.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the scientific consensus of malariologists, rather than climate change “experts,” is that climate is a minor factor in the recent spread of vector-borne diseases.

Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science panel on June 15 (see last issue), Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University and former holder of the Barbra Streisand Chair in Environmental Studies at Environmental Defense, told the audience, “The sea-level rise over the past century appears greater than what the model says it should be,” and that, “The [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheets may be contributing more than the models predict.”  These statements completely contradict the latest scientific evidence on this topic.

Publishing in Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 31, 2004), Cambridge Universitys Peter Wadhams and Scripps Institution of Oceanographys Walter Munk described their careful calculations of the known contributions to sea-level rise (ocean warming, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and mid-latitude glaciers) over the last century. Their conclusion was, “We do obtain a total rise which is at the lower end of the range estimated by the IPCC.”

They also commented, “One interesting consequence is that the continental run-off which is allowed after subtracting the effect of sea ice melt is considerably lower than current estimates of sub-polar glacier retreat, suggesting a negative contribution from polar ice sheets (Antarctica plus Greenland) or from other non-glacial processes.” That is, as previous studies have concluded, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are probably thickening rather than melting.

DETROITFord announced a Sept. 3 rollout date for its new Ford Foresight, a hydrogen-powered SUV that, if it reaches sales projections, will deplete the earth’s supply of hydrogen by 2070. “America has asked for a car that does not use fossil fuels, and we’ve delivered,” Ford CEO William Ford Jr. said Monday. “With an engine nearly 20 times as powerful as that of our gas-burning SUV, the 11-ton Foresight will be unaffected by the price-gouging whims of OPEC, as it uses water electrolysis to gather fuel from the oceans and the fresh mountain air.” Ford acknowledged that, when hydrogen supplies are depleted, the usefulness of the Foresight, as well as life on earth as we know it, will end. (The Onion, Americas leading parody news source, found on the web June 15).

Sir,

“Energy rationing without tears”that should have been the title of Lord Browne’s column (“Small steps to limit climate change”, June 30). He imagines that the world’s nations, via a series of “small steps”, could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 500 to 550 parts per million by 2050 “without doing serious damage to the world economy”.  This is pie in the sky.  A study in the November 1, 2002 issue of the journal Science, co-authored by 18 energy and climate experts, including several who worry about global warming as much as Lord Browne, examined possible technology options that might be used in coming decades to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations, including wind and solar energy, nuclear fission and fusion, biomass fuels, efficiency improvements, carbon sequestration and hydrogen fuel cells.

The authors found that “all these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilise global climate”.  They specifically took issue with the claim by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO2 stabilisation levels, such as 550 ppm, 450 ppm or below over the next 100 years”.  As noted in the study, world energy demand could triple by 2050.  Yet “energy sources that can produce 100 to 300 per cent of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants”. The bottom line: ” CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away.”

Given current and foreseeable technological capabilities, any serious attempt to stabilise CO2 levels via regulation would be economically devastating and, thus, politically unsustainable.  Lord Browne’s policy agenda is a dead end.  A small step on a journey one cannot complete and should not take is not progress; it is misdirection and wasted effort.