Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for September 2008

Why Do Most Climate Skeptics Accept ‘The Consensus’ that Humans are the Principal Source of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels? (Part 1)

By

 

WE have all heard about the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.   Along with most people, I have accepted that this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.  After-all, this is the accepted view, even for most so-called climate change skeptics.

 

But there is evidence indicating that most of the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be from natural sources.    

So, asks Alan Siddons from Holden, Massachusetts, why do most climate skeptics tacitly and even explicitly accept that man is the culprit?  

Let’s consider some of the available evidence. 

1.  Carbon dioxide concentrations have been measured at Mauna Loa in the Pacific Ocean since 1957 and over this period have shown a general increase.

 

2.  Over this period there has been a general increase in global temperatures.

 

3.  The change in carbon dioxide concentration with time correlates better with temperature change than with change in human carbon dioxide emissions (see Figures 2 and 3 @ Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving Carbon Dioxide,  Watts Up with That, January 25, 2008).

 

4.  Large interannual fluctuations in Mauna Loa-derived carbon dioxide “emissions” roughly coincide with El Nino and La Nina events (see Figure 3, ibid)

 

5.  There is a clear and strong relationship between levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and long-term average sea-surface temperatures as would be expected from the solubility curves for carbon dioxide in water at various temperatures and pressures (see Figure 1 @ Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Follow Sea Surface Temperatures, Jennifer Marohasy.com/blog, September 16, 2007)

 

6.   Current carbon cycle flux estimates indicate that the annual carbon dioxide exchange between the surface and the atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere. 

 

7.   Natural processes remove an order of magnitude more than the annual increase in carbon dioxide each year, then put it back again.

 

8.    Human generated carbon dioxide is around 3% of the total carbon dioxide flux.

 

9.  The isotope ratio difference between ‘natural’ carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is small and not a reliable indication of the source of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (see Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio, Watts Up With That? January 28, 2008)

 

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

The above nine points are drawn in part from posts by Roy Spencer at blog site ‘Watt’s Up with That?’ on January 25 and 28, 2008 and also a post by Lance Endersbee at JenniferMarohasy.com/blog on September 16, 2007.

Thanks to Alan Siddons for the discussion and the slide, which is from a Lord Monckton lecture. 

Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted ‘Global Warming’ (Part 2)

By

 

The now bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers invested heavily in the politics of global warming and were hoping to make millions out of emissions trading.   In an earlier blog post entitled ‘Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted Global Warming’ I suggested this was part of their undoing.   According to Graham Young the issue is not specific to Lehman Brothers, or global warming, but rather systemic, and it has everything to do with computers and modelling.

“In the real estate investment and development industry computer models never really took over. Valuation practice meant that valuers had to check their calculations by using at least two, and preferably three methods for comparison. Cost of construction and direct market comparisons didn’t negate computerised discounted cashflow models, but they did mean banks wouldn’t lend to you on the digital blue-sky valuations. The models might be right, but few lenders were prepared to risk their shirts on them.

 

“I know I soon realised that if it didn’t work on the back of an envelope, then making it work with a computer program was very dangerous.

 

“The same thing can’t be said for equity and credit markets, where asset pricing models for risk have taken over at the large ticket end of things. Which brings us to the sub-prime mess.

 

“Even though a cursory explanation of how the mortgage packages were structured sounds daft, the models said that they were fine. GIGO (garbage in garbage out) is the technical term for this. And the models were so complex, and the products they were used to produce so opaque, that no-one really knew the full risks of what they were “investing” in.

 

“And at the bottom of the pile, making all of this possible with abstract computerised models, were undoubtedly a lot of physics and maths graduates.

 

Which is pretty much where we are with climate change.”

 

Read more here:

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003396.html

 

 

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

Don’t forget there is a community thread at this blog.  Breaking news over there includes the retirement of Don Burke as chair of the Australian Environment Foundation.

https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/2008/09/don-burke-retires-as-chair-of-the-australian-environment-foundation/

Don Burke Retires as Chair of the Australian Environment Foundation

By

 

Don Burke, best known for his TV program ‘Burke’s Backyard’, recently retired as chair of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF).  He was at the helm of the organisation for three years and will continue to be a great ambassador for the environment. 

As a practical environmentalist, it is not surprising that as Chair the AEF Don took a particular interest in the issue of woody weeds, visited western NSW on behalf of the AEF and did numerous radio and print media interviews on this topic. 

 

Don also visited Tasmania in support of the pulp mill recognising it represents world’s best practice, spoke in support of waste water recycling for Toowoomba recognising water is precious and recycling sensible for a growing inland city, and of course was an advocate for nuclear power as the only carbon-neutral source of reliable base-load power available at this point in our history.  

 

The moratoria on genetically modified crops were lifted in Victoria and NSW earlier in the year.  Don is a staunch supporter of GM technology and spoke in favour of GM crops and the clear environmental benefits from their use.

 

The AEF may not have made a particularly large splash on any one of these issues, but the organisation and in particular Don’s involvement was another important brick in the wall; progressing a reasoned evidence-based approach on these important issues.

 

I am a founding member and director of the AEF and at a recent board meeting I agreed to take over as Acting Chair. 

 

Our annual conference and AGM is just a few weeks away.  The theme for this year’s AEF conference which will be held in Canberra over the weekend of 11-12 October is ‘A climate for Change’.   Speakers specifically on this topic will include Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth, Bob Carter and Don Aitkin.

 

Why not join us and register for the conference http://www.aefweb.info/display/conference.html

 

Cheers,

Grain Stubble as Petrol

By

Biofuels made from the stubble left over from harvesting grains could replace around one fifth of the volume of petrol used in Australia.

The article, Grain Stubble Could Power a Greener Future, by Anna Salleh, at ABC Online, doesn’t explain that this depends on second generation bioethanol production becoming an economic reality; but we are hopeful that this lignocellulosic ethanol will become a reality one day.

Michael Dunlop, from CSIRO, is quoted explaining that based on 2001 figures, the 10 main grain crops of Australia produce about 65 million tonnes of stubble.  Much of this needs to be left in the ground to protect soil, retain soil carbon and reduce evaporation, leaving just under 15 million tonnes of remaining stubble to be distributed in a way that is economically viable to collect.

“That would be equivalent to roughly 20 per cent of the volume of the petrol that we use,” Dr Dunlop said.  

Will Global Warming go the way of the Subprime Mortgage?

By

 

Canadians go to the polls on October 14, 2008; just before the US federal election.  Climate change was touted as a key election issue, but that was before the financial turmoil of the last couple of weeks. 

 

According to Roger Gibbins writing in the Calgary Herald, Canadians’ resolve on global warming has cooled with the economy.  Gibbins also commented that:  

 

“The bad economic news has been unrelenting in recent weeks and there is no doubt public support for aggressive action on climate change has wilted in the face of this barrage. With ongoing woes across the border, plunging stock markets, escalating fuel costs and growing uncertainty about Canada’s economic prospects, voter support for aggressive climate change action is weakening. It is hard to concentrate on a complex climate change policy debate when financial institutions are collapsing and RRSPs are evaporating.

 

“The argument that aggressive climate change action is essential for Canada’s economic prosperity is not holding in tough economic times. For the most part, Canadians are proving to be fair-weather climate change supporters.”

 

In Australia the Rudd Labor government is planning for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2010.   The idea is to go with emissions trading rather than for example, a carbon tax, as the market is claimed to be the best place to sort out what the price of carbon should ultimately be, etcetera.  

 

But I can’t see how the whole scheme is anything more than a crock, as the carbon market is entirely a creation of government regulation and therefore totally artificial.

 

Sure there will be those who make money as middle men, brokers for schemes where industry pays for permits to emit carbon dioxide at so much a tonne, but it is artificial, perhaps as risky as a sub-prime mortgage?

 

Indeed, according to blogger and Professor Emeritus, Philip Stott:

 

“With a world likely to cool during the next decade, with a world economy set in austere mode, and with the new politics of China, India, Brazil, and the rest, Big Global Warming’s boom days are surely coming to an end.

“Global warming’ is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.”

Here’s hoping that all this happens, before too much more damage is done.

Old Growth Forest as Official Carbon Sink: A Note from Luke Walker

By

At the United Nations climate conference in Bali last year delegates agreed to include forest conservation in future discussions on a new global warming treaty.  If adopted, REDD (Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Degradation) means that the value of carbon in intact forests can be realized in carbon accounting.

 

Environmentalists see REDD as a useful vehicle for encouraging conservation of rainforests in the Congo, the Amazon and Asia.

 

This new resource has been termed “Green carbon” to be distinguished from grey carbon in fossil fuels, blue carbon in the oceans and atmosphere, and brown carbon in industrialized forests. There is of course really no real colour difference and the colour is merely a metaphor. [1]

 

The Green Carbon agenda received more scientific support last week with a major paper in Nature. Entitled ‘Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks’.[2]  The paper reports that in forests between 15 and 800 years of age, net ecosystem productivity (the net carbon balance of the forest including soils) is usually positive and this demonstrates that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral.

 

The Kyoto Protocol (Marrakesh Accord) definition of a forest makes no distinction between a natural forest and a plantation.

 

Under the Kyoto Protocol definition, a “forest” is:  A minimum area of land of 0.05 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 metres at maturity in situ.  It includes (i) young stands of natural regeneration; (ii) all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres; (iii) areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

 

International negotiations on REDD are still continuing and were high on the agenda at the Accra climate change meeting .  However, is REDD all green? What will happen at Copenhagen in 2009?  A number of international environmental groups raised alarm bells at the Accra meeting, claiming that allowing developed countries to purchase REDD credits would absolve them of responsibility for reducing industrial emissions at home.  Some groups proposed setting firm targets for industrial emissions reductions, which could not be substituted by REDD credits.  Others feared that a REDD mechanism would exclude and threaten indigenous communities and serve as an excuse for land grabbing, or endanger sovereignty in rainforest nations.

 

And, for Australian pastoralists, a key question is whether savanna woodland thickening be considered in the discussions, and if so – is it REDD or rangeland degradation? 

 

Luke Walker

Brisbane, Australia

 

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

[1] Alan Ashbarry has critiqued the concept of Green Carbon in a piece published at this blog on August 11, 2008, entitled: A Critical Review of ‘Green Carbon: The Role of Natural Forests in Carbon Storage’  

 

[2] Old-growth Forests as Global Carbon Sinks,  by  Sebastiaan Luyssaert, E. -Detlef Schulze, Annett Börner, Alexander Knohl, Dominik Hessenmöller, Beverly E. Law, Philippe Ciais & John Grace, Nature 455, 213-215 (11 September 2008)