TCS Daily


Getting Warmer

By Hans H.J. Labohm - May 11, 2006 12:00 AM

True, it needs close reading; and true, it comes from an obscure and mostly powerless institution. But it's possible to detect subtle shifts in the EU's position on the Kyoto Protocol.

In an 'Opinion' of 28 April 2006, on the effects of international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the industrial change processes in Europe, the European Economic and Social Committee timidly opens the door for an overhaul of Europe's climate policy, especially its CO2 emission trading system.

The opening sentence is still funny: "Climate change is a unique problem that humanity has never before encountered in modern times." I always figured that climate change is of all times. It is the norm, not the exception. And mankind has coped with it pretty successfully so far.

But then the 'Opinion' becomes more serious:

"Further policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must take into account all the economic parameters. If not, those states which have ratified the Kyoto protocol run the risk of having some of their manufacturing move to developed economies which are still hesitating to sign the protocol or to developing countries which are not yet subject to any quota obligations under it. This could result in economic losses and weakened competitiveness, without producing the desired global reduction in emissions."

So true. One can only wonder why nobody thought of it before.

And then another pinch of realism:

"There also needs to be a realistic assessment of the will of the Member States of the EU itself to achieve far more ambitious goals of obligatory emissions reductions after 2012 with a view to the Lisbon Strategy and the results so far of measures adopted and implemented."

Surprise, surprise! Is this the beginning of the recognition that there is a gap between the greenhouse gas reduction rhetoric of EU member countries and actual results?

It also seems that the EU has finally woken up to the outcome of the G-8 Gleneagles Summit and the Montreal Climate Conference. There it became clear that the major economic powers in the world were not willing to follow the EU's climate policy of cap-and-trade. Nevertheless, the 'Opinion' still makes an obligatory reference to "future negotiations":

"These negotiations must lead in the future to an acceptable way of continuing the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 - one that involves all the economically developed countries and the prime producers of emissions in the developing countries as a whole and especially those where development is rapid."

But subsequently reality sets in:

"Failing this, it will have to be accepted that in 2012 the Kyoto Protocol in its present form will only cover a quarter of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. As it stands now, the Protocol cannot be an effective instrument for addressing the question of global climate in the future and an approach will have to be sought which can seamlessly follow on from it. This must, however, include a rethink [!] of instruments for reducing greenhouse gases, including the EU ETS, both in terms of their real impact on the global volume of greenhouse gas emissions and their cost effectiveness and administrative burden. Steps should be taken immediately to compare the proposals and plans of various groups of countries for long-term reductions in greenhouse gases so that the right decisions can be taken in time. The global community must be involved in solving global problems by political means. It has to be openly admitted, however, that such involvement is not necessarily in the interest of all the big polluters and that, because of their size and geographical location (USA, China), they prefer a unilateral approach. If there is political failure, the EU's continued leading role in climate change issues could weaken the ability to adapt without having any tangible effect on climate change itself."

Again, so true! Again, why did nobody think of it before?

And finally another surprise. How often have we heard "the science is settled" and "all scientists agree"? Apparently the EESC is not so sure any more, because it concludes:

"These problems cannot be solved without a far better understanding of both the causes of the phenomenon and the possibilities of reducing the man-made influences involved. Only adequate investment in science and research, monitoring and systematic observation will enable the necessary acceleration in scientific understanding of the real causes of climate change."

The "real causes of climate change"? And we have always been told that .....? Oh my gosh! Is this the beginning of the end?

The author is a TCS contributing writer living in Europe.

Categories:

115 Comments

EUROPE CONSIDERS MOVE AWAY FROM KYOTO
Can it really be true? A little sanity from Europe on the science and economics of Kyoto, after decades of rank scaremongering , gross incompetence and incredible waste?

What is the root cause of this about-face? Perhaps Europeans were bombarded with gamma rays after Chernobyl, and the effects are finally wearing off. Perhaps it was the anti-freeze in the wine, or the benzene in the Perrier...

We welcome this return to the Age of Reason, but worry that intellectual backsliding, Kyoto revisionism and global warming nostalgia will rear their ugly heads.

Stay tuned for the continuing saga of "Europe Falls on its Sword."

Best regards to all, Allan :-)


CCNet 74/06 - 11 May 2006
-------------------------

SCEPTICISM ON THE RISE AS EUROPE CONSIDERS TO MOVE AWAY FROM KYOTO
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-11-05-06.htm


The assumption which enjoys wide support in scientific circles - mostly in Europe - and is given great importance at the political level is that climate change is caused predominantly by the increase of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere resulting from human activity, above all the burning of fossil fuels.... However, the global climate is also affected by cycles of solar activity and geophysical factors, and establishing exactly how great man's influence is compared with natural changes is not yet possible, nor is it likely to be for a long time...


As it stands now, the [Kyoto] Protocol cannot be an effective instrument for addressing the question of global climate in the future and an approach will have to be sought which can seamlessly follow on from it....


While in 1990, when international negotiations began, developing countries accounted for around 35% of total world emissions, in 2000 the figure was around 40% and
forecasts indicate that by around 2010 it will be 50% and in 2025 as high as 75%.

This represents a serious threat to the goals of this whole initiative. If a global consensus cannot be achieved on climate change issues through political negotiations,
the isolated endeavours of European countries (the EU) will be incapable of producing the desired positive effects and could, on the contrary, create a serious imbalance in economic development...


Further policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must take into account all the economic parameters. If not, those states which have ratified the Kyoto protocol run
the risk of having some of their manufacturing move to developed economies which are still hesitating to sign the protocol or to developing countries which are not yet
subject to any quota obligations under it. This could result in economic losses and weakened competitiveness, without producing the desired global reduction in emissions.


Only adequate investment in science and research, monitoring and systematic observation will enable the necessary acceleration in scientific understanding of the real causes of climate change.

--European Economic and Social Committee, 20 April 2006


EUROPE CONSIDERS MOVE AWAY FROM KYOTO
More likely the steep fall in price of carbon permits/ credits from a peak of E31/ton to E11 and maybe soon to zero means no more money in the Kyoto Scam

Much more gain in the huge subsidies for Windfarms

and construction of a Grid for Europe

The big Energy Companies[BEC] cannot jump on this bandwagon quick enough

And Climate Alarmists think BECs are financing climatesceptics-Why do they get everything so wrong?

Meanwhile Eurobusiness is finding it hard to compete in a global market.Since cheap energy facilitates growth, punitive fuel tax in Europe may be the last straw

But global competitors need not worry. This will take decades to percolate down the layers of Eco-Freak bureaucracy dominant in EU, National,Regional and Local government never mind the caring, moralising,Media

More on wind energy, corn ethanol, etc.
Excerpts from my earlier post on TCS:

Wind power is viewed as a panacea by many in the environmental movement. I wish this were true, but it is not.

An excellent report from Germany provides strong evidence that wind is highly uneconomic in most onshore locations.

The report is "E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005" at www.eon-netz.com/EONNETZ_eng.jsp

A German leader in this industry, E.On Netz operates more wind power than the entire USA. Its Substitution Factor (the amount that wind power can displace conventional power stations in the grid) is very low at 8% now, dropping to 4% in 2020 - this is the key to why wind power is not economic.

At a 4% Substitution Factor, E.On must install 25 times more wind power capacity than the conventional power that the wind power replaces. In effect, this means that for every wind power project constructed, Germany still needs a similar-sized hydro, coal, gas or nuclear power plant to support it.

The E.On report demonstrates the key flaw that is ignored in virtually all analyses of wind power - the wind does not blow enough when you need it and so wind power is ineffective at replacing conventional power stations, especially as more wind power is added to the grid.

Some supporters of wind power say that it does not matter that wind power requires greater than 90% backup by conventional power stations, because when the wind does blow it allows those conventional power stations to shut down, saving gas or coal. This is not really correct either. Large power plants, particularly nuclear and coal-fired ones, cannot be easily shut down and brought back up in response to rapidly varying wind speeds.

Another problem is that the Capacity Factor, which is the amount of wind power actually generated divided by the nameplate capacity of the wind farm, is surprisingly low. E.On Netz reports a 19.3% Capacity Factor for their German gird, so they must install 5 times the nameplate capacity to actually generate that average amount of wind power.

Building these massive wind farms costs more than just money - money is a proxy for all the energy and pollution that goes into smelting the steel and copper, fabricating the components, erecting them, tying the towers into the grid, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning.

Taxpayer subsidies disguise the fact that wind farms simply move the pollution from one location to another and probably add to total pollution and energy waste rather than decreasing it.

The foolish government subsidies provided to wind power projects disguise the fact that wind power is incredibly inefficient and hence is highly anti-environmental, without even considering the visible pollution, noise or bird kill.

Another such example is corn ethanol for motor fuel - I used to have a corn ethanol plant in the USA and it was economically marginal, at best - it would have been highly unprofitable except for huge state and federal subsidies.

I finally came to understand why it was so unprofitable - the total full-life energy input to make the corn ethanol was greater than the energy within the ethanol! When the energy meters are running backwards, there is no way you can win. Perhaps fuel ethanol made from cellulose (agricultural wastes, wood, etc.) will ultimately prove more energy-efficient.

Undoubtedly others will challenge me on these points, and some may actually provide some credible data!

Here is the acid test - shut down all taxpayer subsidies to wind and corn ethanol and see how long they survive.

Lastly , some greens will counter that the fossil fuel industry receives even greater subsidies. Frankly, I have yet to see any credible case made for such Pavlovian statements. My home province of Alberta received about $14 billion in royalties and mineral land sales from the energy industry last year, and many more billions in corporate taxes. There is no question that this vastly exceeded any and all subsidies, real or imaginary, that were allegedly given to the energy industry.

Regards to all, Allan

More Wind
A very usefull summary

But who cares so long as Big Energy Coys make a profit at expense of taxpayer

and the rich can feel green and good- and the increasing cost of fuel is tax deductible

The wind sudsidies are supposed to to be justified by the need to constrain CO2 emissions under Kyoto treaty

It seems when allowance for CO2 emission involved in construction, maintenance and distribution of windpower
the saving is negative

The Answer is NOT Blowin' in the Wind.
RE YOUR POINTS:

"The wind subsidies are supposed to to be justified by the need to constrain CO2 emissions under Kyoto treaty. It seems when allowance for CO2 emission involved in construction, maintenance and distribution of windpower the saving is negative."
AGREED. SO GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ELIMINATE THE HUGE SUBSIDIES AND LET'S FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND POWER, CORN ETHANOL, ETC.

"But who cares so long as Big Energy Coys make a profit at expense of taxpayers?"
DISAGREE. WE ALL SHOULD CARE, EVEN THOSE OF US WHO WORK OR HAVE WORKED IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY. CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY ACTING IMMORALLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEE THE BIG PICTURE. COMPETENT ENERGY COMPANY EXECUTIVES WHO LOOK AFTER THEIR SHAREHOLDERS' INTERESTS KNOW THEY MUST ALSO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR THEY WILL ULTIMATELY JEOPARDIZE THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

ENRON PROMOTED THE BOGUS IDEA OF TRADING CO2 CREDITS, AND LOOK AT ENRON NOW. IN CONTRAST, THE "BIG OIL" COMPANY THAT TOOK THE MOST ETHICAL POSITION ON KYOTO WAS CLEARLY EXXONMOBIL. INSTEAD OF SPOUTING POLITICALLY-CORRECT BS LIKE SHELL AND BP, EXXONMOBIL SPOKE THE TRUTH AS THEY SAW IT. IN SO DOING, THEY PAID THE PRICE - THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED AT THE PUMPS IN EUROPE, WHERE GREENPEACE , SPONSORED BY EXXON'S COMPETITORS, URGED A BOYCOTT AGAINST EXXON (AT THE TIME, I CALLED THIS THE "SHELL GAME"). REGRETTABLY, EXXONMOBIL IS CAVING-IN TO PRESSURE AND NOW APPEARS TO BE FALLING INTO LINE WITH THE REST OF INDUSTRY.

WHY DO I CARE? BECAUSE KYOTO AND OTHER SUCH CO2 ABATEMENT SCHEMES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON EITHER ECONOMIC OR SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. KYOTO IS A MASSIVE WASTE OF SCARCE GLOBAL RESOURCES THAT SHOULD BE DEVOTED TO SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS, NOT SQUANDERED ON FICTITIOUS ONES. WITH MY LIMITED FUNDS, I SPONSOR EIGHT CHILDREN IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD. PROPERLY USED, THE FUNDS WASTED ON KYOTO COULD SAVE MILLIONS OF KIDS EVERY YEAR.

BEST TO ALL, ALLAN




On the Decline of the European Empire.
Good comments alimac.

Europe seems to be in a terminal decline, a sort of continental death spiral. Vastly excessive regulation and bureaucratic stagnation are the norm. Political correctness trumps logic and common sense, and Pavlovian anti-Americanism masquerades as intellect.

The latest eco-fads lead to ridiculous, uneconomic energy policies and ever-increasing cost of working and living.

If Europe today is indeed failing, it is primarily due to a failure of intellect - Europe, it would appear, is dying of stupidity.

Twice in the 20th Century the New World came to the rescue of the Old. My family sacrificed one beloved teenaged son in France in WW1. In WW2, we were luckier - my uncle, twice wounded, was the only surviving officer of his regiment at the disastrous Dieppe raid. Our dues to Europe have been paid in full.

Those were simpler times - citizens rallied to the cause as defined by their governments, unaware of the fundamental reasons for the conflicts in which they were sent to fight and die.

Nowadays we are better informed. I would never send my children to defend the Europe of today.

As with previous European disasters, this one is self-inflicted, but this time Europe will have to find its own way out of the mess.

Best regards to all,
Allan MacRae
Calgary

Solar Heresy from the Hadley
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_62.pdf

The UK's Hadley Centre, a pro-Kyoto boilerworks not previously known for objectivity on the subject of climate science and global warming, has released a report entitled "The Influence of Solar Changes on the Earth's Climate". They even reference Veizer and Shaviv (2003)!

The Hadley recognizes the Sun has a role in climate? Can this all be true? Surely the Second Coming as at hand!

For the pro-Kyoto gang, this is the greatest solar heresy since Atenism was introduced in Egypt in the 14th Century BC. Akhenaten must be smiling.

Oh Ra! Oh Ra!

Best to all, Allan

More corn ( of 3)
The following article states that corn ethanol is slightly positive in energy balance. I am surprised if it is this good - my impression is that corn ethanol is energy-negative on a full life-cycle basis. No matter, it is still a waste of corn, and of the waters of the dwindling Great Plains Aquifer.

Cellulose ethanol may be better but is still technologically challenging.

Sorry for the long post. I've split in three parts.

Best to all, Allan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722621580248526.html

Biomass Movement (Part 1 of 3)

JOHN DEUTCH , WSJ May 10, 2006

President Bush has made the welcome point that the U.S. needs "to move beyond a petroleum-based economy," and has lent his support to the need to develop energy from biomass, which refers to all bulk plant material. This is popular with the public and also enjoys significant support in Congress. Unfortunately, congressional subsidies for biomass are driven by farm-state politics rather than by a technology-development effort that might offer a practical liquid fuel alternative to oil. Meanwhile, major oil and chemical companies are evaluating biomass and investors are chasing biomass investment opportunities. But how much of this is practicable?

Biomass can be divided into two classes: food-crop and cellulosic. Natural enzymes can easily break down food-crop biomass such as corn to simple sugars, and ferment these sugars to ethanol. Cellulosic biomass -- which includes agricultural residues from food crops, wood and crops such as switch grass -- cannot easily be "digested" by natural enzymes.

Today, we use corn to produce ethanol in an automobile fuel known as "gasohol" -- 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Generous federal and state subsidies, largely in the form of exemption from gasoline taxes for gasohol, explain the growth of its use; in 2005, over four billion gallons of ethanol were used in gasohol out of a total gasoline pool of 120 billion gallons. Politicians from corn-states and other proponents of renewable energy support this federal subsidy, but most energy experts believe using corn to make ethanol is not effective in the long run because the net amount of oil saved by gasohol use is minimal.

In the U.S., cultivation of corn is highly energy-intensive and a significant amount of oil and natural gas is used in growing, fertilizing and harvesting it. Moreover, there is a substantial energy requirement -- much of it supplied by diesel or natural gas -- for the fermentation and distillation process that converts corn to ethanol. These petroleum inputs must be subtracted when calculating the net amount of oil that is displaced by the use of ethanol in gasohol. While there is some quarreling among experts, it is clear that it takes two-thirds of a gallon of oil to make a gallon equivalent of ethanol from corn. Thus one gallon of ethanol used in gasohol displaces perhaps one-third of a gallon of oil or less.

A federal tax credit of 10 cents per gallon on gasohol, therefore, costs the taxpayer a hefty $120 per barrel of oil displaced cost. Surely it is worthwhile to look for cheaper ways to eliminate oil.

The economics are not the same in other countries. Brazil is a well-known example, where sugarcane grows in the tropical climate and conventional fermentation and distillation readily yields ethanol. Ethanol is said to provide 40% of automobile fuel in Brazil and compete with gasoline without government subsidy. Depending on the future world price of sugar and the lessening of trade restrictions on both sugar and sugar derived ethanol, Brazil could become a net exporter of this biofuel.

* * *

More corn (2 of 3)
Biomass Movement (Part 2 of 3)

JOHN DEUTCH , WSJ May 10, 2006

The situation in the U.S. is quite different for cellulosic biomass, because much less petroleum is used in its cultivation. There are two paths to convert this material to liquid fuel. In the chemical approach the cellulosic feedstock is gasified with oxygen to produce synthesis gas -- a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This "syngas" can be converted by conventional chemical techniques into liquid fuel suitable for transportation use. The cost, although uncertain and dependent upon local production conditions, is in the range of $50 to $70 per barrel of oil, which explains why, until now, it has not attracted a great deal of attention.

The biotech approach, by contrast, seeks to produce new enzymes that will break down the difficult-to-digest cellulosic feedstock into simple sugars that can be fermented into ethanol or other liquid biofuels products. This approach merits genuine enthusiasm, especially as one can imagine engineering an organism to produce enzymes that (a) break down the cellulosic material, as well as (b) more efficiently ferment the sugars into ethanol. Realizing this exciting prospect will not be easy. Many hurdles must be overcome: Biotech experts need to assemble the gene "cassette" and the organisms, and talented engineers need to demonstrate a cost-effective process. Most importantly, an integrated bioengineering effort is required to develop a process that: reduces the harsh pretreatment required to dissolve the solid cellulosic feedstock; increases the concentration of ethanol that is tolerated by the enzymes; and achieves an efficient process to separate the ethanol from the product liquor.

Success will require a sustained research effort; it is too early to estimate the production costs of this method, because process conditions are unknown. However, the expected fossil energy inputs for cellulosic biomass will be much less than that of gasohol, because the energy cost for cultivation is less, and because the portion of the cellulosic material not converted to ethanol can be burned to provide process heat -- thus substantially lowering the implied cost of federal tax subsidies per barrel of oil displaced. I will be astonished, but delighted, if the cost of ethanol or other biomass-derived chemicals proves to be less than $40 per barrel of its oil equivalent, and if large-scale production can be accomplished in six years.

* * *

More corn (3 of 3)
Biomass Movement (Part 3 of 3)

JOHN DEUTCH , WSJ May 10, 2006

Critics of biomass argue that the conversion of sunlight into plant material is "inefficient," and that impractically large amounts of land would be required to produce significant amounts of transportation fuel. Both arguments are overstated. W e should be humble about calling natural photosynthesis "inefficient" -- especially since we clever chemists cannot accomplish any artificial photosynthesis in the lab. At present, artificial photosynthesis is not an option, but it is an important basic research goal.

As for the land required to support significant biofuel production from a dedicated energy crop, switch grass offers a basis for estimation. It grows rapidly, with an expected harvest one or two years after planting. Ignoring crop rotation, an acre under cultivation will produce five to 10 tons of switch grass annually, which in turn provides 50 to 100 gallons of ethanol per ton of biomass. Thus the land requirement needed to displace one million barrels of oil per day (about 10% of U.S. oil imports projected by 2025), is 25 million acres (or 39,000 square miles). This is roughly 3% of the crop, range and pasture land that the Department of Agriculture classifies as available in the U.S. I conclude that we can produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass sufficient to displace one to two million barrels of oil per day in the next couple of decades, but not much more. This is a significant contribution, but not a long-term solution to our oil problem.

Rising real prices of oil and natural gas reflect in part the progressive decline in low-cost reserves, and signal the wisdom of preparing now for a long transition from our petroleum-based economy. Almost certainly, future economies will exploit all possible technology options for replacing petroleum-based liquid fuels, especially technologies that do not produce net carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. Biomass should, properly, be considered along with nuclear power and coal conversion with carbon capture and sequestration as important options for future energy supply.

Mr. Deutch, director of energy research and undersecretary of Energy in the Carter administration, and director of the CIA and deputy secretary of Defense in the first Clinton administration, is a professor of chemistry at MIT.

***********************

Less Wind...
Today we drove the Chelsea tractor down to southern Alberta, to beautiful Waterton Park on the US border. Waterton Lakes National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, an International Peace Park, and a Biosphere Reserve, the only park in the world that has these three designations!

We saw three herds of bighorn sheep, plus several more of mule deer, elk and a solitary, beautiful fox.

Do not go there - you will not like it! Too many bears on the golf course!

http://www.watertoninfo.ab.ca/

On the way back, we drove by the McBride Lake wind farm - all 114 turbines, the largest in Canada, reportedly capable of powering 32,000 homes. But not today! Not a single turbine was turning! Curious, I ground the tractor to a halt and stuck my arm out of the window - nary a breath of wind, and this in the Crow's Nest Pass, one of the most consistently windy places on the planet! Cows develop there with two legs shorter than the others, from always leaning into the wind! When the wind quit today, about a million cows just fell over!

We'd better crank up those wind power subsidies, or this wind power thing is just not going to make any money for the investors!

Don't you just love eco-economics? If a certain technology is really inefficient, just subsidize it some more, and presto, it is deemed to work!

US Border-Let yourself in
Much enjoyed my trip across the Continental divide after a fortifying whisky in Kamloops-available then only from the Free Masons Lodge-discretely.

Powered by a studebaker estate -the best, maybe the only car built in Canada-its v8 engine in a compact body outpaced most police cars and consumed less fuel than a SUV.Bought it in Palo Alto for 400 dollars and sold it some 6k miles later on Boston airport carpark for 300.

Only done once for speeding on El Camino Real enroute Big Als in San Francisco celebrated for its stripper on piano descending from ceiling.The cop wanted to bang me up for having two middle names. I tried to explain my triple Mac. Tell it to the judge in the morning he said.

My colleagues said I must explain my speed was intended to avoid danger-a loitering school bus and two overtaking fire engines. I got an abject apologg

Check my Chelsea tractor blog on www.adamsmith.org/blog.

Even then the bears were down in the dumps in Banff and multiplying rapidly [1965]After enjoying Waterton I had to let myself across the Border,closed at sunset, by raising a counterbalanced log single handed.

Lets accept all this CO2 propaganda and concentrate effort on explaining why windfarms dont help

Europe nominated for Darwin Award?
In India, the amazing thing is that all the intelligent people are optimistic. Those who would be cynical or despairing in the West, the clever economists,
the observant school-teachers, the writers and the thinking classes in general, are full of infectious patriotic delight at the way their mighty country and
ancient civilisation is preparing for world power.
No doubt some unpredictable disaster could unhorse this new hope. But in the long run India, like its less loveable rival China, will own the 22nd century and - if we are not careful - reduce us, in our complacent pride, to museum states where our grandchildren will scurry after Indian and Chinese tourists in London, Berlin, Rome and Paris, offering to shine their shoes and wheedling for handfuls of coins.
--A warning to wealth-destroying Euro-greenies, Mail on Sunday, 14 May 2006

Crazy about CO2 Credits!
More effects of Chernobyl fallout, anti-freeze in the wine, and benzene in the Perrier:

The European Commission has threatened to sue the British Government over the controversial carbon emissions trading scheme. The looming legal standoff threatens to plunge the European scheme further into farce.
--Tim Webb, The Independent, 14 May 2006

The EU's carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) hit renewed turbulence yesterday when CO2 prices fell to a fresh one-year low and it emerged that five UK energy groups are suing the European commission over cuts in their allowances. Brussels, meanwhile, is planning new legal action against Britain. David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said: "I'm fearful of the scheme falling into disrepute." He added that companies would be reluctant to invest in new power plants if the price of carbon was unpredictable.
--David Gow, The Guardian, 13 May 2006

Europe's market to trade carbon dioxide almost doubled to 205 billion euros ($265 billion) in a year. More than two-thirds of it vanished in the past three weeks. "There might be a problem with the data" on which analysts and traders relied, said Per Otto-Wold, chief executive officer of Point Carbon. Peter Kreuzberg, managing director of RWE Trading, last week said prices may have
been "artificially inflated." He questioned whether there were "some politicians out there who might have thought they'd do their industries another favor."
Some European governments may have been generous to "make sure power stations are built" at home, Simon Skillings.
--Bloomberg, 15 May 2006

Dimas can be: Looks like we didn't anticipate this!

Let me start by saying that the beginning of a year is always a good time to look back at what has been done and, over the last 12 months we have achieved a great deal in terms of taking forward the EU environmental policy. Many did not expect this. Emission trading started at the beginning of last year and the first experiences are very encouraging. By the end of the year, some 260 million allocations - worth more than EUR5 billion - had been traded. In short - the system works.
--Stavros Dimas, European Commission, Brussels, 22 February 2006

Volcanoes - do they make Earth colder or warmer?
Seems to me that volcanoes cool the climate - Krakatoa 1883 and all that. You have to wonder, with volcanoes spewing out all those greenhouse gases and all. Just when you need CO2 to warm things up, it lets you down!

Here is the gospel:

"This worldwide volcanic dust veil acted as a solar radiation filter, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888."

Newly active volcano in Indonesia, called Merapi - prepare for rapid cooling if it really blows!

Activity at Indonesia's volcano increases, hot gas clouds shoot down slopes
-----------------------------------------------------------

at 2:50 on May 15, 2006, EST.
By CHRIS BRUMMITT


Indonesia's Merapi volcano erupts with lava and huge clouds of hot gases early Monday. (AP/Ed Wray)

MOUNT MERAPI, Indonesia (AP) - Clouds of deadly hot ash, rock fragments and volcanic gas surged down Merapi's slopes Monday, as activity at the towering mountain intensified to its highest level yet, officials and eyewitnesses said.

One of the eruptions sent an avalanche of debris and ash rolling almost four kilometres down the mountain's western flank, said Ratdomopurbo, the region's chief vulcanologist. It was followed by several other huge explosions on the crater. Some people who earlier refused to leave the danger zone fled Monday in public minivans or trucks.

Braking wind... Why windfarms don't help.
My above posts outline some of the issues of wind power - define some key terms and quantify them.

Capacity Factor is about 20% in Germany, maybe a bit more in UK, etc. but still low.

Even more important, Substitution Factor is much less than 10% once you have significant wind power in the gird - this means wind power needs full backup by conventional power plants, so you only save variable operating costs of conventional when you add wind power to the grid.

This "full conventional power backup" is due to the regrettable fact that the wind does not blow when you need it, and people want electric power instantly upon demand.

So how do you justify wind power?

First you exaggerate the Capacity Factor to make the economics work.

Then you totally ignore the Substitution Factor, and make up some blarney about saving the environment.

Then you tell the politicians that you just need a little subsidy to get it started, and get them to publicly support you.

Later you say this subsidy must be much larger and you will need it for the life of your project. The politicians are upset, but reluctant to admit they have been duped, so they go along with the bigger subsidies, and tell the public it's all good for the environment (which is another big lie).

It's not good for the environment, because wind power is so uneconomic that wind creates more pollution than it saves! And we are just talking about the air, water and soil pollution directly caused by the fabrication, erection and tie-in of the wind farms - we are not yet counting the visual and noise pollution of wind farms, nor their propensity for turning rare, beautiful birds like eagles and condors into chowder.

Ask my friend Mark Duchamp about this. Look him up at save.the.eagles

If greenies are so enamoured of wind power, let them consume this power only when the wind blows, and pay for the full cost of generating it. But that is not the green way - they always insist on sending the rest of us the bill for their latest pet delusions.

Best to all, Allan :-)

MORE HOT AIR ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
COMMENTS:

IF THE PROMOTERS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE ARE AS UNETHICAL AS THIS ARTICLE STATES, PERHAPS IT IS TIME FOR A FULL HEARING INTO EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND PERHAPS THIS HEARING SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO SUBPOENA AND SWEAR-IN WITNESSES AND EVEN TO RECOMMEND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD.

THE ARTICLE HAS SOME OF THE RING OF TRUTH - I HAVE WITNESSED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLOSED RANKS SAYING "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED", WHICH IS UTTERLY FALSE, THE VICIOUS INTIMIDATION OF ANTI-KYOTO SCIENTISTS, THE BLATANT EDITORIAL BIAS OF LEADING JOURNALS, AND THE CLIMATE ALARMIST'S DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF WEATHER EVENTS SUCH AS HURRICANE KATRINA.

IF IT IS FAIR TO SAY "WHERE WERE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?" AND QUESTION WHETHER AMERICA WAS MANIPULATED INTO A COSTLY WAR, IT IS EQUALLY FAIR TO SAY "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING" AND QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS AN ONGOING ATTEMPT TO LIE AND MANIPULATE AMERICA INTO AN EVEN MORE COSTLY ENVIRONMENTAL PONZI SCHEME CALLED KYOTO.

BEST TO ALL, ALLAN


EXCERPT FROM:

HOW TO THINK SENSIBLY, OR RIDICULOUSLY, ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

American Enterprise Institute, 22 May 2006

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24401/pub_detail.asp

By Steven F. Hayward


The crusade to fight global warming with tough reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions has entered its war-room phase. Already we are seeing the fruits of a multi-million dollar PR campaign: lavish cover stories in Time magazine ("Be Worried, Be Very Worried"), Vanity Fair, and Wired; multiple global-warming scare specials on PBS, HBO, and the network news; and, finally, the imminent release of Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Soon the Ad Council will begin airing TV spots pulling on the usual heartstrings: We have to stop global warming for the children! One of these ads--featuring a montage of kids counting down "tick, tick, tick"--is reminiscent of the infamous 1964 anti-Goldwater ad.


Unfortunately, the green warriors substitute propaganda for persuasion, insist that there is no debate about the science of climate change, and demonize any scientist who dares dissent from their views. They advocate putting the U.S. and the world on an energy starvation diet, to the exclusion of a wider and more moderate range of precautions that might be taken against global warming.

Underlying this effort is a sense of panic over two things: the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, and frequent polls showing that Americans aren't buying into global-warming alarmism. The latest Gallup poll on environmental issues found that only 36 percent of Americans say they "worry a great deal about global warming"--a number that has hardly budged in years. Global warming, Gallup's environmental-opinion analyst Riley Dunlap wrote, puts people to sleep. Even among those who tell pollsters that the environment is their main public-policy concern (who are usually less than 5 percent of all Americans), global warming ranks lower than air and water quality, toxic waste, and land conservation.

There is no conspiracy behind the global-warming-awareness campaign; in fact, the environment lobby is quite open about what it's up to. The Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies recently published a plan to elevate climate change to the top tier of the political agenda. This report, Americans and Climate Change, grew out of a summit meeting of environmental leaders held last year in--naturally--Aspen. It lists 39 recommendations for raising the percentage of the public that is alarmed by global warming from the anemic mid-30s to over 50 percent. Tactics include everything from manipulating public-school curricula to reaching out to NASCAR's fan base to seizing events like Hurricane Katrina as "teachable moments."

The Yale report also does us the favor of making its authors' desire to politicize climate change explicit. One faction of environmentalists openly argues that "the only way to proceed is to exercise raw political power, wake up the public about the urgent nature of the issue, create a major public demand for action comparable to that which stimulated major environmental legislation in the 1970s, pursue outright victory at the polls." In other words, we need to boot out those evil Republicans.

Game Over, They Say

This campaign intimidates the public and would-be dissenters with its unrelenting line that the science of global warming is settled, full stop. (Time swallowed it whole: "The debate is over. Global warming is upon us--with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing.") The "consensus" that human activities are playing a role in the earth's so-far mild warming trend is misrepresented as agreement that we are headed toward catastrophic results that can be prevented only by immediate and drastic action.

In fact, many scientists don't believe the catastrophe scenarios. But those who dissent from the politicization of climate science face withering ad hominem attacks. For example, the National Environmental Trust and Vanity Fair attacked Frederick Seitz, the 94-year-old former president of the National Academy of Sciences, for supposedly taking money from R. J. Reynolds while he was president of Rockefeller University to deny the health effects of smoking. In fact, the money went into a medical-research project unrelated to tobacco that led to a Nobel Prize in medicine. The climate-action caucus clearly feels no shame about employing smear tactics. One might even go so far as to accuse it of scientific McCarthyism.

But try as it might, this caucus cannot change two facts that have been evident since climate change first came to the fore in the late 1980s. First, even though the leading scientific journals are thoroughly imbued with environmental correctness and reject out of hand many articles that don't conform to the party line, a study that confounds the conventional wisdom is published almost every week. Sometimes these studies even find their way into Science and Nature. Most recently, the April 20 issue of Nature carried a study that casts serious doubt on the high-temperature forecasts of computer climate models. And last fall, Science published a study finding that the Greenland ice sheet, whose perimeter melting is presented as a sign of imminent sea-level rise (never mind that the Vikings observed similar melting 1,000 years ago), is gaining ice mass in the interior. (The oddest aspect of the Greenland story is that average temperatures in southern Greenland appear to have fallen during the 20th century; ice-mass changes probably have more to do with regular variation in Atlantic ocean currents--a natural phenomenon known as Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.) The media tend to ignore such research while giving disproportionate coverage to the latest news about melting glaciers or expiring frogs.

END OF EXCERPT

Denial and more denial
You can capitalize all you want. Here's what the American Geophysical Union says:

"Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December, 2003

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts....."

continued at:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

But what does the AGU know?

Gulliver's travails...
Hi Gulliver:

Most scientists would tend to agree with the above AGU statement.

But competent scientists would also ask the question:
HOW MUCH?

And most competent scientists would answer:
MUCH LESS THAN 1 DEGREE C WARMING FROM A DOUBLING OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS.

Not enough to worry about, so don't be so gullible, Gulliver.

For the record, Eos is the journal of the AGU and it has displayed some of the most blatent bias and disreputable behaviour in this whole AGW debate. The attacks in Eos on Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard, Jan Veiser of Ottawa and Nir Shaviv of Israel were reprehensible.

Regards, Allan

You say so, but....
What's the source of this?

>And most competent scientists would answer:
MUCH LESS THAN 1 DEGREE C WARMING FROM A DOUBLING OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS.

Which scientists are you talking about? You should really have them talk to the AGU: the AGU says "The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."

As far as "attacks" — what falsehoods (please be specific) has Eos published about Baliunas, Soon et al. ? Do you mean this?

Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity

WASHINGTON - A group of leading climate scientists has reaffirmed the "robust consensus view" emerging from the peer reviewed literature that the warmth experienced on at least a hemispheric scale in the late 20th century was an anomaly in the previous millennium and that human activity likely played an important role in causing it. In so doing, they refuted recent claims that the warmth of recent decades was not unprecedented in the context of the past thousand years.

Writing in the 8 July issue of the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and 12 colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom endorse the position on climate change and greenhouse gases taken by AGU in 1998. Specifically, they say that "there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate changes, including increases in global-mean surface temperatures, due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil-fuel burning."

The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed. ...
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

The article goes on to point out specific weaknesses in the publications. How is this "reprehensible?"

Is this what you mean about "reprehensible" Soon and Baliunas coverage???
"The study, "Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years: A Reappraisal," was published several weeks ago in a British scientific journal, Energy and Environment. The authors contend in the 65-page paper that their reanalysis of data from more than 200 climate studies provides evidence of global temperature shifts that are more dramatic than the current one.

The research was underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association of the world's largest oil companies. Two of the five authors are scientists who have been linked to the coal industry and have received support from the ExxonMobil Foundation. Two others, who are affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also have the title of "senior scientists" with a Washington-based organization supported by ExxonMobil Corp.

The organization, the George T. Marshall Institute, is headed by William O'Keefe, a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute. He also was at one time the president of the Global Climate Coalition, a now-defunct organization created by oil and coal interests to lobby against U.S. participation in climate treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol."

This was not EOS, it was Jeff Nesmith of Cox News. Was he incorrect? How is publishing this informaiotn "reprehensible?"

Eos - Reprehensible behaviour Item 1.
Here is an excerpt of an article I published on this subject in 2004-2005:

Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the "hockey stick" temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia.

Mann's hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in CO2. Mann concluded: "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."

Mann's conclusion was the cornerstone supporting Kyoto. However, Mann has been proven entirely incorrect.

Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1300 AD when global temperatures were warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder.

Mann's conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies, but was adopted without question by Kyoto supporters and was the centerpiece of the 2001 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 2003, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard University wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints - contradicting Mann's hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon and Baliunas were then attacked in the journal EOS.

Also in 2003, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that even though prehistoric CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were often many times today's levels, CO2 had an insignificant effect on Earth’s temperatures. Veizer and Shaviv also received "special attention" from EOS.

In both cases, the attacks were highly unprofessional - these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto gang.

Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been completely vindicated.

Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre conducted a detailed audit of Mann’s hockey stick, and found fatal errors including severe data selection biases and methodological mistakes. McIntyre and McKitrick even showed that hockey stick graphs could be produced over 90% of the time by loading any set of random numbers into Mann’s computer code. Just call it “Mann-made global warming”.

Few scientists now accept Mann’s hockey stick. Climate researcher Hans von Storch further criticized it in Science Express in 2004, calling it “rubbish".


Eos - Reprehensible behaviour Item 2 (Part 1 of 2).
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB114480355145823597.html

COMMENTARY by RICHARD LINDZEN

WSJ, April 12, 2006; Page A14

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes.

Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific
statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal
technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves
libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is
their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less
excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

(continued in next post)

Eos - Reprehensible behaviour Item 2 (Part 2 of 2).
(continued from previous post)

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nevertheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when antialarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Senator Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the
scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.

Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.

However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can
respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and
longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."

Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually
happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

--------------------------

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

=============

Eos - Reprehensible behaviour Item 3 - Summary.
Hi Gulliver,

In case someone of Lilliputian talents missed the point, here it is again, in summary:

MacRae 2004-2005:

In both cases, the attacks were highly unprofessional - these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto gang.

Lindzen WSJ 2006:

However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."


Gulliver, in your post you have provided excellent examples of the issues cited in the above articles:
- the sliming of scientists by saying they are in the pay of "big oil".
- the hastily prepared guano that Eos published to discredit Soon/Baliunas.

It is now becoming apparent that Eos, Science, Nature, and a few other such journals have demonstrated unreasonable bias and have lost much of their hard-earned credibility.

No Subject
Closed-Form Solution to Bound the Warming Question

Using the USA NOAA seasonal and annual data from 1930 to 2005, I calculate 0.3 degree C additional warming from today for a hypothetical doubling of CO2.

Based on 0.38 degrees F (0.21C) average annual warming from 1930 to 2005.

Obviously, this analysis makes certain unconservative assumptions about the relationship of atmospheric temperature and CO2 (by ascribing all warming to atmospheric CO2) - and still there is no problem.

k = deltaT/ln(CO2b/CO2a)

deltaT = k*ln(CO2b/CO2a)

k CO2a CO2b deltaT Case
0.730 285 380 0.21 Base Annual
0.730 380 560 0.28 Due to 2*CO2.

Repeat: Closed-Form Solution to Bound the Warming Question.
Closed-Form Solution to Bound the Warming Question

Using the USA NOAA seasonal and annual data from 1930 to 2005, I calculate 0.3 degree C additional warming from today for a hypothetical doubling of CO2.

Based on 0.38 degrees F (0.21C) average annual warming from 1930 to 2005.

Obviously, this analysis makes certain unconservative assumptions about the relationship of atmospheric temperature and CO2 (by ascribing all warming to atmospheric CO2) - and still there is no problem.

k = deltaT/ln(CO2b/CO2a)

deltaT = k*ln(CO2b/CO2a)

k CO2a CO2b deltaT Case
0.730 285 380 0.21 Base Annual
0.730 380 560 0.28 Due to 2*CO2

"Pro-Kyoto gang?"
And you're complaining about people being not nice to S & B? This excerpt is meaningless cherry picking. A very few researchers have questioned Mann's conclusions. Many more have confirmed them.

This is ridiculous:

"Climate researcher Hans von Storch further criticized it in Science Express in 2004, calling it “rubbish." He may have criticized but he didn't call it 'rubbish" in Science.

May I ask who you are to think that your conclusions about what the scientific consensus is trumps those of the NAS and the AGU?

Ah yes, Lindzen
He's an eminent scientist, but he is isolated. He was all alone on the NAS climate change panel among people as distinguished as himself. But you're sure he's right and all the other NAS panelists are wrong. And we should believe you why?

Lindzen: more of same
But I thought you were going to show how EOS was engaged in character assassination. Instead, you have Lindzen questioning the integrity of all kinds of people on the other side.

You seem to have a reading problem
You're assuming what you have to prove.

> the sliming of scientists by saying they are in the pay of "big oil".

The report from Cox was factual. You've rebutted not a syllable of it. I asked you, what was incorrect? You've found nothing.

> the hastily prepared guano that Eos published to discredit Soon/Baliunas.

You seem to get a free ride on "sliming," or is "hastily prepared guano" meant as praise. The article was peer reviewed. If it was wrong, S & B could have (and I believe did) later respond.

>It is now becoming apparent that Eos, Science, Nature, and a few other such journals have demonstrated unreasonable bias and have lost much of their hard-earned credibility.

Sure they are. You say so yourself. Again: who in the world are you to say that Science and Nature don't represent science?

Von Storch called it "rubbish" in der Spiegel.
Excerpt from Spiegel (04 Oct. 2004) interview with Prof. Hans von Storch on his latest paper in Science:

"The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last ten thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil burning. Mann calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in ‘Science’ that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish."

Von Storch: "Die Kurve ist Quatsch" (The Mann curve is rubbish).
You seem to be throwing about a lot of Quatsch yourself, Gulliver old boy. You are typical of the pro-Kyoto gang - disparaging competent scientists and casting sticks and stones while hiding behind your pseudonym. Your scolding, indignant tone does you no credit - to you and your fellow-travelers, sir, I say again, Quatsch!

That's what von Storch says. That doesn't mean he's right
And it's really peculiar that you object to alleged attacks on B & S in Eos that never took place, but point with pride to attacks on people you disagree with in non-peer reviewed journals.

Quatsch yourself
I haven't "disparaged" anyone. I've noted that Lindzen is a small minority among a large panel of equally eminent scientists.

As far as a "scolding, indignant tone" -- you were the one complaining about Eos's "reprehensible" treatment. Perhaps you think the word "reprehensible" is only respectable when you say it.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you are a better judge of the science involved than the NAS and the AGU.

More Quatsch from Gulliver/Stephen.
Your logic, or rather the lack thereof, has a certain familiar ring.

Is that you Stephen?

Is your spell-check working better now?

I fondly recall your huffy "Goodbye and good riddans" comment, and your spelling of "radiosounde".

Let's not do this again. I don't like to argue with eight-year-olds. Goodbye Stephen.

Here's a familiar pattern
Can't give a factual rejoinder or argue your case, so out come the personal insults & you stamp your little foot and go storming off.

I'm still missing the explanation for why we should ignore the NAS and AGU and accept what your small band of (largely) oil-funded dissidents say.

Submit it to Science or Nature
I'm sure they'll see it's undeniable.

Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries - NASA
Re-post From CCNet: SOLAR VARIABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries - NASA

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm?list3134

"This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won't have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms."

"On the other hand, they will have to worry more about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles from deep space; they penetrate metal, plastic, flesh and bone. Astronauts exposed to cosmic rays develop an increased risk of cancer, cataracts and other maladies. Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensify-yin, yang."

Strangely they don't mention the effect of cosmic rays on low-level cloud cover, modulated by the 11-year solar cycle, and the resultant effect on climate - Cold!

For those that don't understand:

Brighter sun Þ enhanced thermal flux + solar wind Þ muted galactic cosmic ray flux Þ less low-level clouds Þ less albedo(reflectivity) Þ warmer climate.


Less active sun Þ reduced thermal flux + solar wind Þ lack of muted galactic cosmic ray flux Þ more low-level clouds Þ more albedo(reflectivity) Þ colder climate.

That's how the bulk of climate change works.

Regards,
Paul Biggs

NASA Press Release: Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries - NA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm?list3134

Long Range Solar Forecast

05.10.2006

Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.

May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.

This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won't have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms.


On the other hand, they will have to worry more about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles from deep space; they penetrate metal, plastic, flesh and bone. Astronauts exposed to cosmic rays develop an increased risk of cancer, cataracts and other maladies. Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensify—yin, yang.

Hathaway's prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: "Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt."

How do you observe a belt that plunges 200,000 km below the surface of the sun?

"We do it using sunspots," Hathaway explains. Sunspots are magnetic knots that bubble up from the base of the conveyor belt, eventually popping through the surface of the sun. Astronomers have long known that sunspots have a tendency to drift—from mid solar latitudes toward the sun's equator. According to current thinking, this drift is caused by the motion of the conveyor belt. "By measuring the drift of sunspot groups," says Hathaway, "we indirectly measure the speed of the belt."

Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity."

If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, "off the bottom of the charts


Gleissberg Iceberg!
In September 1, 2002 I wrote in an article published in the Calgary Herald:

"If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030."

Almost four years later NASA now says "Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries".

To some, this is clearly a big oil company plot,and now NASA has been bought by big oil! Is nothing sacred? Is there nothing big oil cannot buy?

What will happen next? Will Kyoto high priest Tony Blair recant? Will Britain go nuclear? Will Europe start to turn its back on Kyoto? Oh darn - this is already happening!

Will Michael Mann publish another paper about the hockey stick, with the end of the broken-in-half blade pointing downward? Will Stephen Schneider flip-flop-flip and publish yet another book, the latest one like his first, on Global Cooling? Not yet, but stay tuned!

You're talking to yourself
If you think you know the science, I suggest you submit a paper to a refereed journal. I don't think it helps just to be calling scientists who disagree with you names.

A Swiftian kick in the Quatsch.
Spiegel (04 Oct. 2004) interview with Prof. Hans von Storch on his latest paper in Science

Original German text and translation by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen as follows:

"Spiegel 41-2004 Seite 158

Climate: The graph is nonsense

The German climate researcher Hans von Storch comments on the dispute between scientist concerning the temperature curve of the last thousand years and the greenhouse effect.


Spiegel: You claim that the reconstruction of past temperatures by the US researcher Michael Mann is wrong. What gives you this idea?

Storch: The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last ten thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil burning. Mann calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in ‘Science’ that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish (Quatsch).


Spiegel: How did climate change instead?

Storch: According to our computer model temperatures fluctuation were significantly larger and took place faster.


Spiegel: Are you therefore claiming that the greenhouse effect does not exist?

Storch: Definitely not. Our data show a distinct warming trend during the last 150 years. Yet it remains important for science to point out the erroneous nature of the Mann curve. In recent years it has been elevated to the status truth by the UN appointed science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).This handicapped all that research which strives to make a realistic distinction between human influences and climate and natural variability.


Spiegel: New curves have been around for some time. Why were Mann’s critics unable to get a hearing?

Storch: His influence in the community of climate researchers is great. And Mann rejects any reproach most forcefully. His defensiveness is understandable. Nobody likes to see his own child die. But we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics.

So the idea is that we know Storch is right and not Mann because you say so?
Or because it's reported in Spiegel?? Lots and lots of scientists support Mann's views. Why are you so sure they're wrong and Storch is right?

Not stephen, fortunato/eric
or, perhaps, all three are the same fellow. Stephen seems better able to make his points and less willing to succomb to epitaths, than fortunato and/or (AKA?) eric. However, the same basic information and patterns are present with all.

Allan, this is bad news indeed
Crap!! I was pretty comfortable in my understanding that I would not be here for a significant cooling trend. If this is true, the next low cycle should produce enough cooling to actually have another "Little Ice Age". Unfortunately, I believe you and that means it is time to button up my house even tighter for some cold winters will be arriving when I'm still around to hate 'em!

I feel sorry for my kids if the solar trend continues.

Mann is wrong, because every serious scientist says so.

A zero credility stateemnt
If you want to participate,source what you sa.

Picture the irony, Pauled.
Imagine!

What if we skeptics are right and the Sun is the major driver of global climate, and humanmade CO2 plays no more important a role than fifth fiddle?

After three decades of wringing of hands, rending of hair, weeping and wailing by the pro-Kyoto gang about global warming, and the waste of trillions of dollars on CO2 abatement schemes that did nothing but destroy our economies, everyone suddenly realizes it's getting colder!

If Solar Cycle 25 is as quiet as predicted - a lot colder!

The Four Horsemen, resurrected as ever in cooling times, ride once more. Famine, War, Pestilence, and Death stalk the land!

The fossil fuel industry, gutted by years of eco-foolish policies, is no longer able to provide salvation.

This is the way the world ends; This is the way the world ends; This is the way the world ends; Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Makes you positively nostalgic for a little warming, doesn't it?

QuatroQuatsch! All are one and one are all!
This particular subject's pattern of illogic is so similar and so unusual - almost unique, but not in a good way.

Must be all the same person, operating under different pseudonyms.

Perhaps the several characters all talk to each other in different voices... How Creepy Would That Be!!!

Anyway, I've taught them a new word - Quatsch! Means Rubbish in German.

Perhaps that counts as 3 or 4 words in this case.

TCS Daily Archives