Northeastern environmental scientist finding could improve global warming forecast models

BOSTON, Mass.
A Northeastern University researcher today announced that he has found that the soil below oak trees exposed to elevated levels of carbon dioxide had significantly higher carbon levels than those exposed to ambient carbon levels. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that elevated carbon dioxide levels are increasing carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems and slowing the build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is thought to cause global warming by trapping heat radiated by the Earth.

The research, published in the latest on-line edition of the journal Earth Interactions, represents an important advance in the global warming research. The lead author on the article, Soil C Accumulation in a White Oak CO2-Enrichment Experiment via Enhanced Root Production, is Kevin G. Harrison from the department of earth and environmental sciences at Northeastern. Contributors also include Richard J. Norby and Wilfred M. Post from the Oak Ridge National Library in Tennessee and Emily L. Chapp form the University of Hawaii.

In the study, the researchers sought to determine if the mechanism for storing carbon in soil was CO2 fertilization, the process by which plants grow better when exposed to high CO2 levels, and to investigate the extent to which CO2 fertilization could be increasing the amount of carbon stored in soil under white oak trees. The researchers studied the soil below white oak trees in the temperate zone over four growing seasons and found that the soil below trees exposed to elevated levels of CO2 had an average of 14% more carbon.

Researchers have long been puzzled by observations that show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing more slowly than expected., said Harrison. This conundrum has hindered predictions of future carbon dioxide levels and, in turn, estimates of future global warming. By being able to demonstrate a substantial average increase in the carbon below these oak trees, we have potentially found the solution to better global warming forecasting. However, further research is needed in other ecosystems to see if they show similar responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels.


Contact
Steve Sylven at 617 373 7424

About Northeastern
Northeastern University, located in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, is a world leader in practice-oriented education and recognized for its expert faculty and first-rate academic and research facilities. Northeastern integrates challenging liberal arts and professional studies with the nations largest cooperative education program. Through co-op, Northeastern undergraduates alternate semesters of full-time study with semesters of paid work in fields relevant to their professional interests and major, giving them nearly two years of professional experience upon graduation. The majority of Northeastern graduates receive a job offer from a co-op employer. Cited for excellence three years running by U.S. News & World Report, Northeastern has quickly moved up into the top tier rankingsan impressive 30 spots in three years. In addition, Northeastern was named a top college in the northeast by the Princeton Review 2003/04. For more information, please visit
http://www.northeastern.edu.

Europe Looking Beyond Kyoto Climate Change Treaty; NCPA Says Kyoto Treaty Can’t Be Improved Without Developing Nations’ Participation

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 800-859-1154 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Skeptics of the theory that human activity is causing global climate change now have confirmation of their argument that the Kyoto Treaty — the energy-rationing international treaty to cut greenhouse gases — was not an end point but only a modest first step, according to an expert with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). The Associated Press reports today that delegates from European countries assembling in Buenos Aires next week as part of the annul international treaty conference will begin a push to find new ways to confront the presumed climate change.

“Since it is widely recognized that Kyoto will do nothing to stem the rise of greenhouse gases, it is understandable that if you believe they are the cause of catastrophic global warming something beyond Kyoto is needed,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “The problem is the vast majority of signatory countries are unlikely to meet their Kyoto obligations, much less go beyond them.”

The Kyoto Treaty’s requirement of initial cuts in “greenhouse gas” emissions by 2012 finally comes into force in February, seven years after it was negotiated. European governments now want the annual treaty conference — Dec. 6-17 in the Argentine capital — to get down to talks on steps beyond 2012 to limit heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

That debate will go on in the corridors at Buenos Aires, while the formal meeting agenda puts a “major, major emphasis” on adapting to climate change, said the Dutch head of the treaty secretariat, Joke Waller-Hunter.

“To the extent that the next agreement contains binding commitment from fast growing developing countries, it might have a chance of garnering U.S. support and modestly reducing the rise or at least the rate of rise of CO2,” said Burnett. “Yet it is extremely unlikely that most developing countries will agree to binding commitments for themselves — in fact, most are on record rejecting them.”

Burnett concluded that in the end, “by the time any proposed reductions under a new commitment period come into effect, climate science could very well show climate change to be less of a threat than is currently believed – which would tend to undercut the need for energy restrictions.”

——

The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. We depend on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

The Cooler Heads Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute


invite you to a Congressional and Media Briefing on


+10F  –  Are the UNs Global Warming Forecasts based on Faulty Economics?


with


Professor David Henderson

Friday, November 19, 2004 – Noon to 1:30 PM
406, Senate Dirksen Office Building
First Street and Constitution Ave., NE
Refreshments and lunch provided – Reservations are required.


In 2001, the Third Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the global mean temperature would be between 2.5 and 10.4o higher by 2100. This range of predictions was based on a wide variety of scenarios of future world population, economic growth, energy use, and technological change. These scenarios were used to calculate future levels of greenhouse gas emissions, which were then fed into sophisticated computer models of the Earths climate system. David Henderson and Ian Castles have produced a powerful critique of the economic assumptions used in the IPCCs scenarios. Professor Henderson will discuss whats wrong with the economic methodology used by the IPCC and why even the low-end scenarios overstate likely future emissions. He will also discuss the IPCCs unwillingness to adopt accepted international economic methods and practices in preparing its Fourth Assessment Report.


Professor David Henderson is currently Visiting Professor at the Westminster Business School in London. He was chief economist at the OECD in Paris from 1984 to 1992, has held senior positions at the World Bank and the British government and was professor of economics at Oxford University. Among Professor Henderson’s many publications are Misguided Virtue, Anti-Liberalism 2000, The Changing Fortunes of Economic Liberalism, and Innocence and Design: the Influence of Economic Ideas on Policy (the BBC’s Reith Lectures in 1985).



Please RSVP by e-mail toinfo@marshall.orgor by calling 202.296.9655.






US GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE


 


 






















 


Norman Baker


 


Mr Peter Ainsworth


 


Mr David Chaytor


 


Mr Simon Thomas


 


Sue Doughty


 


Alan Simpson


 







 


 


 








 


Mrs Helen Clark


 







 


   That this House deplores in the strongest possible terms the unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government’s Chief Scientist, by Myron Ebell, an adviser to US President George W. Bush, on climate change; notes that Mr. Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, an organisation funded by, amongst others, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute; fervently hopes that Mr. Ebell’s comments do not represent official US policy; congratulates Sir David King on the work he has done to raise the issue of global warming both at home and abroad; believes that the planet cannot afford another four years of inaction and denial from the US Administration; and calls on the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to do everything possible to get President Bush to accept the need to take climate change seriously and ensure the US plays its part internationally in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Today 11 climate experts sent a letter (please see below) to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee and is holding a full committee hearing this morning to hear testimony on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

In the letter, the climate experts respond to statements made in the ACIA that temperature changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of global warming. The signers of the letter point out that sediment and ice core samples show that the arctic has experienced past warming that can not be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. There is also a history of strong year-to-year variability of Arctic temperatures. The letter also calls for the need for advances in Arctic climate science in both models and measurements in order to assess a more complete picture of Arctic climate understanding.

The following climate experts signed the letter: R. Tim Patterson, PhD, Professor of Geology at Carleton University; Tim Ball, PhD, Retired – Professor of Climatology at University of Winnipeg; Anthony Lupo, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science at University of Missouri – Columbia; David Legates, PhD, Associate Professor in Climatology at University of Delaware; Pat Michaels, PhD, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; George Taylor, M.S. Meteorology; Gary D. Sharp, PhD Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Roy W. Spencer, PhD Principal Research Scientists, The University of Alabama in Huntsville; Jon Reisman, Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy; University of Maine at Machias/ Maine Public Policy Institute Scholar, Willie Soon, PhD, Science Director, Tech Central Station and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, Enviro- Science Editor, Tech Central Station.

    November 16, 2004
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

As you know, climate varies in the Arctic more than globally-averaged measures reveal, prompting not inconsiderable ecosystem responses.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report by the Arctic Council documents significant ecosystem response to surface temperature warming trends that occurred in some areas since the mid-19th century and in the last thirty years.

Estimates of the amount of surface warming trends over those periods and their causes relies on scientific knowledge of natural and anthropogenic effects, the latter including landscape modification, urbanization, plus the air’s concentration of aerosols and greenhouse gases. Moreover, Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to another, and over time in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic.

For example, for Greenland’s instrumental surface temperatures a team of experts headed at Los Alamos National Laboratory recently found:

     Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone
predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet,
the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 degrees C
per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests
that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the
current global warming trend.(1)

Analysis of ice corings of the Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island show that the recent warming trend is unexceptional compared to natural variability in centuries past, when the enhanced greenhouse effect cannot have had much impact:

     Our sea-salt record suggests that, while the turn of the [21st] century

was characterized by generally milder sea-ice conditions in Baffin Bay,
the last few decades of sea-ice extent lie within Little Ice Age
variability and correspond to instrumental records of lower temperatures
in the Eastern Canadian Arctic over the past three decades.(2)

From a detailed study of sea core sediment from the last 10,000 years in the Chukchi Sea, researchers concluded that, “in the recent past, the western Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is today.” They also found that “during the middle Holocene [approximately 6,000 years ago] the August sea surface temperature fluctuated by 5 degrees C and was 3-7 degrees C warmer than it is today,”(3)

The relatively recent discovery of the PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation,(4) points to a strong natural component of the recent warming trend. Researchers noted in 1997:

     Our results add support to those of previous studies suggesting that the
climatic regime shift of the late 1970’s is not unique in the century-
long instrumental climate record, nor in the record of North Pacific
salmon production. In fact, we find that signatures of a recurring
pattern of interdecadal climate variability are widespread and detectable
in a variety of Pacific basin climate and ecological systems. This
climate pattern — hereafter referred to as the Pacific (inter)Decadal
Oscillation, or PDO (following co-author S.R.H.’s suggestion) — is a
pan-Pacific phenomenon that also includes interdecadal climate
variability in the tropical Pacific.

The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977 is typical in the documented pattern of natural climate fluctuations going back at least several centuries. In Alaska in particular, although the onset of the 1976-1977 shift ended the several-decades-long period of cold in the middle of the 20th century recorded by many of Alaska’s good weather station records, it returned temperatures to warmth seen in the early decades of the 20th century. Thus, it is unsurprising that Alaskan ecosystems have responded to recent warmth, which has the characteristic step-upward shape of the PDO, but not the gradual but large warming trend implied by the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The PDO may have shifted back in 1998-99 to its mid-20th century state, which would tend to deliver sharply cooler temperatures in the next several decades to the western U.S., including western and southern Alaska. For example, scientists from British Columbia’s Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans and Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences found recent cooling of the North Pacific:

     Subsurface upper ocean waters off Oregon and Vancouver Island were about
1 degree C cooler in July 2002 than in July 2001. The anomalously cool
layer coincides with the permanent halocline which has salinities 32.2 to
33.8, suggesting an invasion of nutrient-rich Subarctic waters. The
anomalously cool layer lies at 30-150 m.(5)

Surface air temperatures (SAT) going back 125 years were studied from “newly available long-term Russian observations of SAT from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chuckchi seas.”(6) Those researchers found “strong intrinsic variability, dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations with a timescale of 60-80 years.” Comparing those measures of Arctic regional variability to that of computer simulations, the researchers concluded that observations do “not support amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by GCMs [General Circulation Models].”

A comprehensive study of Arctic temperature records(7) found that “in the Arctic in the period 1951-90, no tangible manifestations of the greenhouse effect can be identified.” However, strong year-to-year variability is present, as the researcher notes that “a more recent analysis of mean seasonal and annual air-temperature trends in the Arctic (Przybylak, in press) shows that in the mid-1990s there occurred quite a large rise in air temperature,” and as a consequence, “the areally averaged annual air temperature for the whole Arctic for the last 5 year period of the 20th century was the warmest since 1950 (1.0 degree C above the 1951-90 average).”

Those examples demonstrate that Arctic climate has and will continue to exhibit intricate patterns not reliably reproduced by global climate simulations, thus underscoring their scientific incompleteness and need for advances in Arctic climate science, in measurements, theory and models.

The history of the Arctic and its ecosystems remains complex, a fact too often perceived by reporters under deadline or extremists as irrelevant nuance. Ecosystems and humans survived the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, as they survived the warmth from A.D. 900 to 1200, when Thule people migrated from Alaska across the Arctic while Vikings farmed in Greenland soil now permafrost and sailed in Arctic waters now permanent pack ice. They survived the warming of the last 15,000 years as earth emerged from the last glacial period, whose termination produced much more radical temperature shocks than those observed in the last several decades.

As Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IPCC author concluded in testimony before your May 1, 2001 Commerce Committee hearing:

     The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one.
From my provincial perspective, an important priority should be given to
figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science
underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote
alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better
understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill
thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such
understanding.
We appreciate your efforts to support scientific fact-finding concerning responses of Arctic ecosystems to climate variability. 
    Sincerely,
R. Tim Patterson, PhD
Professor of Geology
Carleton University
    Tim Ball, PhD
Retired – Professor of Climatology
University of Winnipeg
    Anthony Lupo, PhD
Professor of Atmospheric Science
University of Missouri – Columbia
    David Legates, PhD
Associate Professor in Climatology
University of Delaware
    Pat Michaels, PhD
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Virginia State Climatologist
    George Taylor, M.S. Meteorology
Oregon State Climatologist
    Gary D. Sharp, PhD
Scientific Director
Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
    Roy W. Spencer, PhD
Principal Research Scientists
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Jon Reisman
Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy
University of Maine at Machias/ Maine Public Policy Institute Scholar
    Willie Soon, PhD
Science Director, Tech Central Station
    Sallie Baliunas, PhD
Enviro-Science Editor Tech Central Station
    (1) P. Chylek, J.E. Box and G. Lesins 2004 Global warming and the
Greenland ice sheet, Climatic Change 63 201-221
    (2) N. S. Grumet, C.P. Wake, P.A. Mayewski, G.A. Zielinski, S.I. Whitlow,
R.M. Koerner, D.A. Fisher, and J.M. Woollett, 2001, Variability of
sea-ice extent in Baffin Bay over the last millennium, Climatic
Change,49, 129-145
    (3) D. Darby, J. Bischof, G. Cutter, A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, G.
Dwyer, J. McManus, L. Osterman, L. Polyak and R. Poore 2001, New
record shows pronounced changes in Arctic Ocean circulation and
climate. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 82, 601 and
607
    (4) N. J. Mantua, S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace and R. C. Francis
1997, A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on
salmon production Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78,
1069-1079
    (5) H. J. Freelnad, G. Gatien, A. Huyer,  and R. L. Smith 2003, Cold
halocline in the northern California Current: An invasion of subarctic
water. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2002GL016663.
    (6) I. V. Polyakov, G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev,U.  Bhatt, R.L. Colony,
M. A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, A. V. Yulin
2002, Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of
global warming. Geophysical Research Letters 29:
10.1029/2001GL011111.
    (7) R. Przybylak  2002,  Changes in seasonal and annual high-frequency air
temperature variability in the Arctic from 1951-1990, International
Journal of Climatology 22, 1017-1032

On the occasion of yet another congressional hearing featuring alarmist predictions of future climate disaster, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a study on the state of the global warming debate. Today Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain (R-AZ) will hold a hearing on the misleading and unbalanced Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report. CEI’s study, Launching the Counter-Offensive: A Sensible Sense of Congress Resolution on Climate Change, by Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr., refutes many of the faulty assumptions from the Impact Assessment and similar climate studies.

 



The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, despite its recent release, has already generated analysis pointing out numerous flaws and distortions.  Widely accepted data records show Arctic temperatures that are roughly the same as in the 1930s and part of a slight cooling trend over the last few thousands years, and that the Greenland ice sheet is also cooling, all in opposition to the unsourced data sets contained in the Assessment.


 


Launching the Counteroffensive takes on the misleading Arctic scenarios: As for the Arctic Sea, satellite photos show that ice cover has contracted since 1979, a period when the region warmed. However, the Arctic has not warmed faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, contrary to what we would expect if the polar warming were due to an intensification of the greenhouse effect, writes Lewis. Moreover, the Arctic was warmer during the late 1930s and early 1940s, before the rapid rise in CO2 levels, than it is today. For all we knowsatellite photography did not exist 65 years agothe Arctic then looked pretty much as it does now.


 


In order to generate the predictions of massive dislocation and disaster in the Arctic, the authors of the Impact Assessment had to use warming scenarios from a previous report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Third Assessment Report which scientists and economists consider extreme and among the least likely to actually come to pass.  Even the evidence for one of its most widely cited predictions, that polar bears may become extinct due to regional warming, is actually consistent with a larger population of bears competing for a naturally limited food supply.

MSU1278-1004.gif (23586 bytes) As determined by NOAA Satellite-mounted MSUs
Information from
Global Hydrology and Climate Center,
University of Alabama – Huntsville, USA
The data from which the graph is derived can be downloaded
here

Global Mean Temperature Variance From Average,
Lower Troposphere,
October 2004: +0.239C

(Northern Hemisphere: +0.246C , Southern Hemisphere: +0.232C )
Peak recorded: +0.746C April 1998.
Current change relative to peak recorded: -0.507C

GISS1278-1004.gif (28491 bytes) GISTEMP Anomaly October 2004 +0.73C .
Peak recorded: +0.97C February 1998.
Current change relative to peak recorded: -0.24C

Discrepancy between GHCC MSU & GISTEMP October 2004: 0.491C

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C (57.2F)
Estimated absolute global mean October 2004 14.73C (58.51F)

CompareDatasets.gif (26406 bytes) Datasets – what’s the diff?

The question often arises as to why we are so particular about specifying datasets, skeptical of some while more tolerant of others – perhaps this will help. Plotted on the graph linked via the adjacent thumbnail are four temperature anomaly tracks: GISTEMP near-surface; MSU lower-troposphere (a.k.a. “satellite”) – both as noted and linked above; Radiosonde “balloon” 850-300 mb (approx 1,000-10,000mtrs) from J. K. Angell, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, September 2004 and; NCDC Sea Surface Temps. NOTE THAT THESE TRACKS HAVE BEEN ‘COMMUNIZED’ (ADJUSTED TO ZERO AS A BASELINE 1979).


Supplemental Nov. 15: Click here for an alternate representation showing trend lines – note well that the trend lines are also zero-anchored.

Because you asked (repeatedly): ‘Communized’ I wrote and ‘communized’ I meant – as in: “To subject to public ownership or control.” Why? Because each dataset has been subjected to central planning and arbitrarily adjusted to meet a zero commencement value beginning 1979. Without mentioning any names (to protect mono-browed conspiracy theorists), no, so-adjusting entire series does not alter the trend demonstrated in any given series – click here for a chart of the original and adjusted GISTEMP annual means with [gasp!] parallel trend lines.

For individual (unadjusted) tracks and trends, beginning with the well-mixed atmosphere where enhanced greenhouse should theoretically manifest itself, click here: Radiosonde Balloon; Microwave Sounding Unit; Sea Surface Temp.; GISTEMP Near-Surface. Ed. Nov. 15


While all these techniques of ‘taking the Earth’s temperature’ are in rough synch the anomalies are common only during El Nio-driven temperature peaks (most obvious in 1998). Most reactive (and least far from its 1958-1977 average baseline) is the radiosonde track, our physical measure of the well-mixed atmosphere at +0.11C – not global but dispersed and less subject to local corrupting influences than are near-surface measures. In ascending order of anomaly we have the MSU track, with near-global coverage it indicates approximately +0.01C/year increment (+0.248C from 20 year average over 25 years) and is least subject local disturbances. Then we have the sea surface measures at +0.3C – useful for short-term meteorology but quite subject to varied wind influences (rapid diurnal warming at surface when becalmed, evaporative cooling… and all at very shallow depths (millimeters) – current satellite-mounted infrared sensors do give coarse information suitable for weather forecasting but are little better than the old ‘bucket over the side and dunk the thermometer’ data gathering of 50 years ago. At the top of the anomaly range and galloping away from the field we have the near-surface amalgam indicating +0.506C (from 1951-1980 mean). That these sets measure anomalies from different baselines is irrelevant since we are only interested in the cumulative variance since 1979.

So, four datasets, four different answers, although all in the positive range. Our two measures of the well-mixed atmosphere indicate some warming, which could lead to as much as +1C temperature increment over a century if the trend were to continue (not very worrying). While a little rudimentary and not well suited to measuring subtle climatic trends the sea surface temps roughly concur with the MSU set. And then we have our anomalous near-surface set, beset by problems of increasing urbanization of data collection, urban heat island effect and a growing disparity with data collected with the other measuring techniques indicating an increasing rate of warming.

Is the world heating unnaturally? Depends on which data you look at and what weight you give it, doesn’t it? We highlight the MSU data because we believe it the most reliable.

It’s not often that a Washington lobbyist gets to be the focus of a censure motion in the British House of Commons, but anti-global warming lobbyist Myron Ebell managed that trick earlier this month.

Seems Ebell, interviewed Nov. 3 on BBC Radio, said: “We have people who know nothing about climate science, like Sir David King, your chief scientific adviser, who are alarmist and continually promote this ridiculous claim. Sir David has no expertise in climate science.”


One newspaper reported the shot and described Ebell, who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as “one of President George Bush‘s top climate change advisers.”


Next thing you know there’s a censure move in the House of Commons, saying it “deplores in the strongest possible terms the unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government’s Chief Scientist, by Myron Ebell, an adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush, on climate change; notes that Mr. Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, an organization funded by, amongst others, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute; fervently hopes that Mr. Ebell’s comments do not represent official U.S. policy.”


Well, not precisely.

Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, is the dire warning contained in a new report from an international group of “researchers” called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.


Im not quite sure what the future holds for polar bears, but it doesnt appear that any alleged manmade global warming has anything to do with it.


The report, entitled Impacts of a Warming Arctic, pretty much debunks itself on page 23 in the graph labeled, Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present.


The graph shows that Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles that are roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems currently to be undergoing a warming phase similar to one experienced between 1920-1950 which will likely be followed by a cooling phase similar to the one experienced between 1950-1990.


The reports claim that increased manmade emissions of greenhouse gasesare causing Arctic temperatures to rise is debunked by the same graph, which indicates that the near surface Arctic air temperature was higher around 1940 than now, despite all the greenhouse gas emissions since that time.


Also self-debunking is the reports statement, Since the start of the industrial revolution, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased by about 35 percent and the global average temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.


So despite all the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity over a period of 200 years were supposed to worry, and even panic, about a measly 0.6 degree Centrigrade rise in average global temperature during that time?


Even if such a slight temperature change could credibly be estimated, it would seem to be well within the natural variation in average global temperature, which in the case of the Arctic, for example, is a range of about 3 degrees Centigrade. Remember, global climate isnt static its always either cooling or warming.


Even though manmade greenhouse gas emissions and warmer temperatures dont seem to be a problem in the Arctic according to their own data, the researchers nevertheless blamed them for causing supposed 15 percent declines in both the average weight of adult polar bears and number of cubs born between 1981 and 1998 in the Hudson Bay region.


The 1999 study in the science journal Arctic that first reported apparent problems among the Hudson Bay polar bear population suggested that their condition may be related to the earlier seasonal break-up of sea ice on western Hudson Bay a phenomenon that seems to correlate with the 1950-1990 Arctic warm-up. But, as mention previously, the 1950-1990 Arctic warming period seems to be part of a natural cycle and not due to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.


Moreover, the notion of a declining polar bear population doesnt square well available information.


A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears are so abundant theres a public safety issue. The local polar bear population reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuit hunters and international agreements since 1972.


The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has spurred a new round of calls for a clamp-down on carbon dioxide emissions. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told the Associated Press that the dire consequences of warming in the Arctic underscore the need for their proposal to require U.S. cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.


Fortunately their call will likely get a chilly response from President Bush, who reiterated through a spokesman last weekend that he continues to oppose the international global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol.


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

On September 24, Californias Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a plan to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new cars and trucks starting in 2009. To sell cars in California, automakers will have to reduce fleet average GHG emissions by 22 percent in 2012 and 30 percent in 2016. CARBs rulemaking is a raw deal for auto dealers in California and any other state that mimics Californias plan.


 


Unscientific. To justify its rule, CARB cites the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) scary forecast of a 2.5F to 10.4F warming over the next 100 years. However, the IPCC forecast is junk science. The IPCCs warming estimates presuppose ridiculous economic growth rates in developing countries (i.e., most of the world). For example, even the IPCCs low-end (2.5F) forecast assumes that underachievers like North Korea, Libya, and Argentina grow so rapidly their per capita incomes will surpass U.S. per capita income in 2100! CARBs rule has no credible scientific rationale.


 


Unlawful. California Assembly Bill 1493, the enabling legislation, directs CARB to achieve maximum feasible emission reductions. However, CARB cannot do so without forcing automakers to increase the average fuel economy of their fleets. Unsurprisingly, CARBs list of recommended GHG-reducing technologies closely matches the National Research Councils inventory of fuel economy-enhancing technologies. Yet the federal Energy Conservation and Policy Act prohibits states from enacting laws or regulations related to fuel economya prohibition necessary to ensure economies of scale and a competitive U.S. auto industry. CARB will surely be challenged in court.


 


Unaffordable. AB 1493 also stipulates that CARBs plan must be cost effective. CARB claims that fuel savings from the technologies automakers deploy to reduce emissions will substantially exceed the increase in vehicle sticker price. Of course, this is a tacit confession that the rule is a de facto fuel economy program.


 


Sierra Research, Inc., in a report written for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, finds multiple problems in CARBs cost-effectiveness calculation. CARB inflated vehicle costs in the 2009 baseline (no regulation) case by assuming general adoption of expensive technologies such as 5- and 6-speed automatic transmissions. CARB knocked down by 30 percent its own contract researchers cost estimates based on nothing more specific than staffs experience and the potential for unforeseen innovations. CARB assumed that consumers benefit from fuel savings years after most cars are sold or scrapped.


 


Whereas CARB projects a net lifetime consumer saving of $1,703, Sierra estimates a net loss of $3,357. The rule will reduce vehicle sales and put the brakes on the chief source of air quality improvementreplacement of older vehicles with newer, cleaner models. CARBs rule is bad for the environment!


 


Raw Deal. If implemented, CARBs plan will hammer California auto dealers. The rule applies to automakers, not auto owners or operators. Unless CARB is prepared to build a wall around California, it cannot stop people from importing less regulated, more affordable cars from out of state.


 


Dealers elsewhere would be unwise to celebrate, however, because California is a trend setter. Any state that adopts Californias rule (seven Northeast states may do so) will similarly hobble its auto dealerships.    


 


Marlo Lewis


Senior Fellow, Environmental Policy


Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C