Archives for September 2007

Hansen wrote: “I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP [Government Accountability Project] did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000 (that’s a lot of Mercedes). Whatever amount they got, I do not see anything wrong with it. They are a non-profit organization. Seems like a great idea to have some good lawyers trying to protect free speech.

By the way, in case anybody finds out that George Soros INTENDED to send me $720,000 but could not find my address, please let me know! We are pretty hard pressed here.”

To buttress his position, Hansen copied a letter sent by GAP and his counsel to NASA chief Michael Griffin asking for assurances he would “not be punished for exercising his rights under the First Amendment, Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and the Anti-Gag Statute to share his internationally-renowned expertise on climate change.”

Direct link to Hansen’s response here.

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org:

NASA’s James Hansen Claims He’s Being ‘Swift-boated’ by Critics

Those Europeans Say the Darnedest Things

Chris Horner

September 26, 2007

Today’s Washington Post story was replete with pompous and absurd proclamations – the pompous being the Danish Environment Minister claiming that she and her ilk “are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf but on behalf of the planet.” The condemnations of the US included “unusually blunt language” about how the rest of the world are waiting for the US to act, and that it is the US resistance to adopting a particular approach to addressing emissions that jeopardizes the climate. Not China, India, Mexico and 155 countries representing the vast majority of emissions seeing theirs skyrocket; certainly not the EU.

Although that specific assertion begs the question, no mention was made of actual emissions (sidebar: this story was written by Juliet Eilperin, who has this beat and is by no means new to the story. Putting aside that the administration has only once uttered something that can be called a robust comparison of US and EU performance, it remains baffling that she and her peers can continue writing as if what it is now well understood were never in fact revealed.)

givne that the European Environment Agency may play rhetorical games but it makes no secret of the fact that Europe is not lowering but increasing their emissions, which are up since Kyoto was agreed not down, this struck me as possibly clever groundwork-laying for that which ultimately must publicly come to pass: Europe explaining away the gaping chasm between global warming “world leader!” rhetoric and actual emissions performance. We would’ve cut them but we’re waiting on the US to do something. Don’t laugh, that wouldn’t be all that aberrant for Brussels, Berlin or Paris.

Regardless, yesterday’s vulgar display prompted me to tally the comparative, real emission increases in US and EU, given I have heard the counter “well, in percentage terms, but…” when I point out that EU emissions are increasing faster than the US’s under any modern baseline (that is, since Kyoto was agreed and the EU commenced its breast-beating).

We know that the US CO2 emissions are going up at a much slower rate than the EU-15 (“Europe” per Kyoto). We know that, as a result of the EU-15’s obvious failure to reduce emissions, even Cf. 1990 (with the gift that that baseline was to them, for reasons of unrelated UK and DE political decisions), the EU-likes to redefine Europe. They do this to boast on the EU-25 doing this or that — usually, being on target to meet its [sic] Kyoto promise…there not being an EU-25 Kyoto promise, but one collective promise for the EU-15 and 10 different other individual promises, plus 2 countries that are exempt from Kyoto. They do this now as a way to ride the economic collapse of Eastern Europe, reclaiming the hoped-for benefits of the 1990 baseline that slipped away for the more developed EU countries.

However, having a higher percentage increase for even an economy smaller than the US’s (EU-15) means that one might actually produce a larger real emission increase as great or greater than the US. One cost of redefining one’s self as is convenient is that it allows others to do so, possibly guaranteeing that a larger real emission increase is the case.

It turns out that a quick review indicates that real EU-25 CO2 emissions have increased more than the US since, say, 2000, by a third as much (133.1%) in fact. If my numbers are right, that means +177.7 MMT for the EU-25 in 2005 Cf. 2000, as compared to the US’s +133.5 MMT 2005 over 2000, per the Energy Information Administration numbers (I have only just done this and do not know how it holds for older baselines, e.g., 1997 being the only potentially relevant year).

And oh, dear, even without the EU-10, the EU-15, “Old Europe” – a smaller economy than the US’s – increased emissions by 161.67 MMT to the US’s 133.5 over the same period; that is our climate hectors have increased real emissions more than the US’s, in real terms, by 21%.

So there is no need to rely on the “in percentage terms” qualifier when noting that Europe’s emissions have risen faster than the US’s (as Kyoto defines Europe). Instead, it appears that Europe’s emissions (as Kyoto defines Europe, and certainly as Europe defines Europe, including for these purposes) have not only increased much faster than the US’s but also that the EU has increased CO2 emissions much more than the US.

It seems the only thing standing between Europe and a reality check is a White House calling them on their bluster.

globalwarming.org

Patrick Moore to CCNet:

Excellent comment by Chris Horner on the fact that EU CO2 emissions are increasing faster than the US. Does this confirm the US position that technology is the key, not political targets?

Perhaps the Danish Environment Minister is not aware of the fact that Denmark has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of the EU 15? Yes, they have 18% wind energy but the other 82% is all fossil fuel. Denmark has no hydro-electric because it is flat and they have no nuclear because they are anti-nuclear. Denmark produces 11 tonnes CO2 per capita whereas Sweden, the lowest per capita of the EU 15, produces 6.3 tonnes per capita, in a colder climate. Sweden’s electricity is 50% hydro-electric and 50% nuclear, i.e. no carbon. France has the second lowest at 6.8 tonnes per capita, primarily due to 80% nuclear electricity. Germany produces 10.2 tonnes per capita with only 30% nuclear and a lot of fossil fuel. It is clear that given comparable per capita GDP, CO2 emissions per capita are largely governed by electricity generation technology. The more nuclear, hydro-electric and wind the lower the emissions.

France and Germany provide a stark comparison. France has 80% nuclear, low per capita emissions, and is the only country in Western Europe with a large surplus of electricity for export. Their electricity technology is in line with climate policy. Germany, under the Social Democrat/Green alliance, voted to phase out all their nuclear plants. The only possible replacement is either domestic dirty brown coal or Russian gas, both of which would increase CO2 emissions above present levels. At the same time the German government has committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 by 2020. These two objectives can not be attained simultaneously thus Germany has logically inconsistent and dysfunctional policies for energy and climate. Meanwhile Germany is importing billions of dollars worth of nuclear energy from France. And Chancellor Schroeder, who presided over the decision to shut down the nuclear industry, took the job of European representative for Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, immediately after stepping down. Talk about creating your own job.

It is clear to me that until the “green” movement recognizes that nuclear and hydro-electric are the primary technologies capable of getting us off fossil fuels, they will remain a primary obstacle to the realistic achievement of CO2 emissions reduction.

Patrick Moore [pmoore@greenspirit.com]

Woody Harrelson calls for green activism

Excerpt: Woody Harrelson called for more anti-oil activism at a media and technology conference Thursday, though he declined to say how far he was willing to go personally as a protester. “In spite of the fact that there’s an increase in awareness of what’s going on in terms of polar ice caps melting and just global warming generally … oil companies don’t seem to be making much of a change,” the 46-year-old actor said. Harrelson was at the “Picnic” conference, which has a green theme and features a contest in which British billionaire Richard Branson will award $700,000 to the winning idea for an environmental project. “Certainly (oil companies) just want to get as much out of the ground and make as much money as possible before they transition into anything else,” Harrelson said. “So I still think it’s time for some strong activism, especially as it relates to our dependency on oil.”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-et-ap-harrelson27sep27,1,1133949.story?coll=la-celebrity-news&ctrack=1&cset=true

Update: NASA’s Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report

Excerpt: Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations. Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter – you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! – they would have found Hansen’s name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123): < > Here, in Soros Foundations’ annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that “The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.” As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don’t find this newsworthy. Think they’d be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official? While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added): note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000). Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed – that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science — is actually available in this annual report. Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

U.S. Senate Hearing on Global Wamring & Sea Level Rise

Excerpt: Senator Inhofe detailed the latest peer-reviewed science that counters global warming led sea level rise fears. “Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s. According to multiple peer-reviewed studies, current temperatures in Greenland have not even reached the temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s. It is important to note that 80% of man-made CO2 came after these high temperatures were reached in Greenland. We have seen global average temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years,” he explained. (LINK) Dennis T. Avery, of the Hudson Institute, testified that the recent warming cycle is tied to natural climate factors. “The natural climate cycle is apparently driven by the sun, and the warmings are unstoppable,” Avery said. Avery co-authored the 2006 book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years” with atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=435fb939-802a-23ad-40c2-677f4b36edbf

‘Too Late To Avoid Global Warming’

Excerpt: A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now “very unlikely” to be avoided, the world’s leading climate scientists said yesterday.

The latest study from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic – are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/milmo190907.htm

VA’s Skeptical State Climatologist Forced out for views?

Excerpt: The Washington Times reports that prominent global warming skeptic and Virginia State Climatologists Patrick Michaels was pressured to step down from his post over the summer. The Times writes: “Mr. Michaels has been a leading skeptic of global-warming theories. Although he thinks global warming is real and influenced by humans, he contends it is caused primarily by natural forces.” The administration of Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, asked Mr. Michaels last year to refrain from using his title when conducting non-state business because of fears his views would be perceived as an official state position. The governor’s office said Mr. Michaels, appointed by Gov. John N. Dalton, a Republican, was not a gubernatorial appointee, contending that the climatology office became UVa.’s domain in 2000. Mr. Michaels, 57, called his resignation a sad result of the fact that his state climatologist funding had become politicized, compromising his academic freedom. “It’s very simple,” he said. “I don’t think anybody was able to come to a satisfactory agreement about academic freedom.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/global_warming_and_freedom.html

Intellectual dishonesty in peer review? (Climate Audit)

Excerpt: On Sep 21, 2007, Hugues Goosse, the Climate of the Past editor responsible for the Juckes article, published a statement saying that a revised version of the Juckes et al article had been submitted to “conventional” refereeing and accepted on Sept 21, 2007. He said: “On the other hand, the authors disagree with one reviewer on some points for which no clear consensus could be gained from published literature. The arguments of the authors appear reasonable from our present knowledge of the field and are presented in a balanced way. As a consequence, I decided to accept the paper for publication in Climate of the Past.” I presume that I was the “one reviewer”, although Willis Eschenbach and Mark Rostron also submitted critical reviews. Under CP policies, authors are supposed to respond to review comments. I’ve collated my review comments together with Juckes’ replies. It is remarkable how insolent and unresponsive Juckes’ comments are. In virtually every case, I’ve provided a detailed and analytical comment and Juckes virtually never makes a direct and straightforward reply, rebutting the comment in straightforward terms. See what you think.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2105

Academic Misconduct Alleged in Climate Research

Excerpt: The European Science Foundation just wrapped up the first World Conference on Research Integrity. Held in Lisbon, this historic three-day conference drew hundreds of scientists to address what they call the “open sore” of science — the falsification or misrepresentation of research data. < > Keenan filed a Freedom of Information Act claim to find the source of Wang’s data — a report written jointly by the U.S. DOE and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He quickly found a smoking gun. The data came from only 84 stations, 60% of which had no history whatsoever, and the report claims “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, observing times … are not known.” Of the 35 remaining, over half had moved large distances (one station moving as many as five times) or had serious, known inconsistencies in the record. The report specifically contradicts Wang’s claims, concluding that “even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization.” Keenan immediately filed a formal allegation of fraud against Wang, a charge which is pending investigation at this time. Why is all this important? Because even though the Earth is warming, the rate of warming is critical. Even the IPCC admits natural factors are responsible for some of recent temperature rises. The entire theory of anthropogenic global warming hinges on one factor — whether the rate is too fast to be explained by natural causes. Put simply, if UHI effects really are raising temperature readings substantially, the primary justification for human-induced global warming vanishes. Kaput.

http://www.dailytech.com/+Academic+Misconduct+Alleged+in+Climate+Research/article8988.htm

Wetlands Methane Counteracts Kyoto Emissions Cuts

Excerpt: new study that will appear in Thursday’s journal Nature revealed that methane being released from bogs in what is now Great Britain likely contributed to global warming 55 million years ago. Maybe more importantly, when you add up the methane being released from wetlands around the world, it could completely counteract all the carbon dioxide emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. < > As reported by National Geographic Wednesday (emphasis added throughout): Huge belches of methane from bogs in what is now Britain likely contributed to global warming some 55 million years ago, a new study says. The emissions probably amplified an ancient and extreme global warming event that heated Arctic Ocean waters to a balmy 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23 degrees Celsius). The finding adds weight to the idea that methane being released from wetlands today may accelerate modern global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/methane-wetlands-counteracts-kyoto-protocol-s-emissions-cuts

Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming

EXCPERT: Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won’t like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners. “I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like,” Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html

Published Online September 27, 2007
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1143791

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Establishing what caused Earth’s largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be key factors responsible for this warming.

Summary at EurekAlert

Extract:

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate. I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea. The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago. “What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said. But where did this energy come from” Evidence pointed southward. Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence. In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began. Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

Nature 449, 382-383 (27 September 2007)

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Quirin Schiermeier

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Extract:

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules’ ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The abstract of the original paper is here.

CCNet’s take:

CCNet 161/2007 – 27 September 2007 — Audiatur et altera pars

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON MAN-MADE OZONE HOLE MAY BE COMING APART

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
–Quirin Schiermeier, News@Nature, 26 September 2007

If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.
–Markus Rex, News@Nature, 26 September 2007

Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart.
–John Crowley, Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, 26 September 2007

Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely. Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.
–Neil Harris, University of Cambridge, 26 September 2007

The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
–Quirin Schiermeier, News@Nature, 26 September 2007