Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Skepticism Versus Being An AGW Skeptic: A Note from David Tribe

By

The Australian Environment Foundation had its first conference and AGM last weekend.* There was some discussion on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

In my talk I suggested that in the film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore took away the potential for dissent by making global warming a moral issue. I suggested he turned it into an issue of faith.

I quoted Thomas Huxley (a colleague of Charles Darwin) who once wrote something along the lines of “religion is for morality, science is for factuality”.

I went on to suggest that there is no ‘truth’, however inconvenient, that should not be exposed to the blow torch of healthy skepticism and there should be no claim, however morally appealing, that we are not prepared to test against the available evidence.

After my paper there was some discussion about semantics, in particular, David Tribe made comment that it is important to be clear about the distinction between skepticism and being an AGM skeptic.

He made the same point as a comment at another blog post this afternoon:

“This is a good a place as any for me to repeat my view said previously directly to Jen Marohasy that it’s highly important to be clear about semantic distinction between scepticism and being a sceptic on AGW. The later implying you reject well established findings.

I consider that it is part of scientific ethics to always be upfront about the limitation to current data and theories. That is, to know and freely state where certainty and range of precision lie, and to never have to apologise for expecting that, because to fail in doing this do so is professionally unethical.

To demand clearer statements from IPCC about the validity and uncertainty range of their claims is not necessarily to be in disagreement with the validity of parts of their model, but normal ethical practice in science. For example IPCC clearly failed ethically in the hockey stick episode. The computer model has numerous complex assumptions that are empirically unproven.

I note also there is substantial empirical evidence for solar forcing processes whose mechanisms are uncertain. That does not mean I am an AGW sceptic: I want to see those aspects of the IPCC model tested against this recent interesting solar driving hypothesis as it could mean all the CO2 efforts being advocated (Kyoto etc) are completely unnecessary or indeed counter productive.”

Does David make an important point? Most so-called AGW skeptics are not AGW skeptics. They do not deny that C02 causes warming, but rather recognize the limitations of the current data and theories.

In calling us AGW skeptics, are the AGW alarmists suggesting we deny the physics of carbon dioxide based forcing?

So is my recent blog post entitled ‘How to Become a Global Warming Skeptic’ misleading, because while I accepted the label, and encouraged others to nominate for the label, I also explained that I don’t deny global warming or climate change or that increasing levels of carbon dioxide may drive warming.

Should we reject the ‘global warming skeptic’ label? What would George Orwell of said?

—————————–
* I’ll do a summary of the AEF conference for this blog in due course and link to the conference papers which should be up at the AEF website by the end of the week. In the meantime you can see some of the photos from the conference at
http://www.aefweb.info/display/con2006gallery.html . Some regular contributors to this blog were at the conference including David Tribe and Walter Starck.

Low Temperatures Over Antarctica

By

I received the following note:

“Hi Jennifer,

Tonight the ABC news reported on the large ozone hole over the Antarctic.

On the news, first it was claimed that the large hole was responsible for the record cold weather there. Then that the cold weather was destroying the ozone and causing the hole.

Can you have it both ways?

Cheers, Helen Mahar”

According to ABC New Online:

“Dr Paul Fraser from the CSIRO says the lowest temperatures ever recorded in Antarctica’s upper stratosphere this winter – minus 85 degrees – are the cause.

“It’s certainly the coldest we have ever seen and it requires very cold temperatures to get very significant ozone depletion,” Dr Fraser said.”

And how does this fit with the IPCC global warming projections?

Wyaralong Dam: Water More Expensive Than Desalination?

By

By the end of the recent state election in Queensland, the Labor Party was proposing not one, but five new dams and the the Coalition a whooping eight new dams. The Wyaralong dam is being planned for a catchment just south of Brisbane and west of the Gold Coast in the Beaudesert Shire. Occasional responder at this blog Sylvia Else, has done some research, and claims even desalinated water would be cheaper than water from the Wyaralong Dam:

Hi Jennifer,

I’ve been puzzling over the proposed Wyaralong dam. Given the government’s own cost estimates and the estimated yield, and using an interest rate of 7.5% and inflation rate of 3%, I cannot get the cost of the raw, i.e.
unfiltered, water below $1 per kilolitre, even when I assume a life of 100 years for the dam. I don’t know how much it costs to filter water, but Sydney Water charges 46 cents per kilolitre less for unfiltered water, so filtering is presumably reasonably costly.

This appears to mean that bulk filtered water from Wyaralong dam will be more expensive than desalinated water. With Perth’s desalinator capital and running costs, I get a bulk water cost of $1.02 per kilolitre.

It’s true that the only place one can desalinate seawater is on the coast, but it appears that the government’s intention is that all of the water supply systems should be connected together in a network, so desalinated water could be distributed to anywhere that the Wyaralong dam could serve.

So why build the dam? It seems to make no economic sense, even if the wished for rainfall (based on the next 100 years being like the last) appears.

There was a line in the Hitch-Hikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. When asked why it was necessary to build a by-pass over the top of Arthur Dent’s house, the council official’s reply was “What do you mean, why has it got to be built? It’s a by-pass. You’ve got to build by-passes.”

May be that’s the reasoning being used here.

Regards
Sylvia Else

California – goes for broke on greenhouse – mad, bad or visionary ?

By

I received the following note from a reader of this blog:

“Last Wednesday the state of California, the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases sued the country’s largest automobile manufacturers, seeking billions of dollars for environmental damage caused by automobile emissions.

It was the state’s latest effort to combat the effects of greenhouse gases. The lawsuit drew praise and criticism for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who filed it on behalf of the state.

“The complaint, which an auto industry trade group called a “nuisance” suit, names General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp, the US arm of Germany’s DaimlerChrysler AG and the North American units of Japan’s Honda Motor Co and Nissan Motor Co Ltd.

Mr Lockyer says he is seeking “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars” from the auto makers in the lawsuit, which has been filed in US District Court in northern California.

Environmental groups have praised the actions to the lawsuit, saying it represents another weapon for the state as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions and spur the auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less.”

“Legal experts had mixed views about the lawsuit’s viability. Sean Hecht, a UCLA environmental law expert, called the approach “not unreasonable” under precedents that go back to English common law.

“It’s novel, but based on standard nuisance law, they certainly have a shot at convincing a judge that the burdens this industry imposes on society are too great,” Hecht said.

But USC tort law expert Greg Keating wondered whether Lockyer was trying to advance an untenable argument that automakers collectively are creating a nuisance by selling cars that emit carbon dioxide. “I doubt it has legs,” he said.

Industry are most concerned and say the suit opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy.”

CNN has run a philosophical piece “Is this the end of the road for the car?”

The lawsuit comes less than a month after California law makers adopted the nation’s first global warming law, mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The bill would require a 25% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases between now and 2020 and is likely to use mandatory emissions caps on power plants, refineries and other heavy industry as well as energy efficiency measures and an emissions trading program.

To reach 1990 levels of greenhouse gases, as the law mandates, experts say California will need to eliminate 174 million metric tons. About one-third would come as a result of an earlier car tailpipe emissions law in California that has been challenged by automakers in court.

Although the economic effects of a mandatory cut in emissions could be sweeping, California has a lot at stake in the battle against global warming, perhaps more than any other state, climate experts say.

Its water supplies, its top industry — agriculture — and its most popular recreational activities all depend on a healthy climate, as do forests, deserts, ocean ecosystems and the species that inhabit them.

Amid concern about worldwide climate change, the Californian Assembly approved the bill by a 46-31 vote. It passed 23 to 14 in the Senate.

California is the world’s 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for 10% of the carbon dioxide produced nationally and 2.5% globally”. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warm1sep01,1,3291716.story

Some commentators have said the whole business will be ruinous for the Californian economy and drive investment out of the state. However others have foreshadowed a big opportunity for trading in emission credits and that the whole initiative will position California ahead of the game. The legislation has escape provisions for “emergency” circumstances. The Economist reports an increasing number of businesses getting “into” climate change.

The emissions cap bill now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that he would sign it. He is running for re-election in November and trailing in the polls. Arnie hypocritically has a collection of eight Hummers but hey – he’s a big guy. Anyway this makes one wonder how much greenhouse reality we all really want.

So are California legislators mad, bad or visionary?“

I wonder how a government that has built roads and freeways for cars to travel on, can now sue car manufacturers for environmental damage from emissions?

Saved from Global Warming by The Sun?

By

When Bob Foster posted a note here in April claiming that the sun drives climate and the next little ice age will be in 2030 he was roundly condemned by many AGW believers.

Now there is an article in New Scientist also suggesting “that the sun is about to enter another quiet period”.

The abstract includes comment that:

“It is known as the Little Ice Age. Bitter winters blighted much of the northern hemisphere for decades in the second half of the 17th century. The French army used frozen rivers as thoroughfares to invade the Netherlands. New Yorkers walked from Manhattan to Staten Island across the frozen harbour. Sea ice surrounded Iceland for miles and the island’s population halved. It wasn’t the first time temperatures had plunged: a couple of hundred years earlier, between 1420 and 1570, a climatic downturn claimed the Viking colonies on Greenland, turning them from fertile farmlands into arctic wastelands.

Could the sun have been to blame? We now know that, curiously, both these mini ice ages coincided with prolonged lulls in the sun’s activity – the sunspots and dramatic flares that are driven by its powerful magnetic field.

Now some astronomers are predicting that the sun is about to enter another quiet period.“

You can read the full article ‘Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?’ by Stuart Clark which was published on 18th September by clicking here.

Richard Branson to Back New Technologies In Fight Against AGW

By

Speaking from New York, Virgin Blue Boss Sir Richard Branson has said transport and energy companies must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies and has pledged to invest US$3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming.

Branson said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years.

It seems that Branson recognizes anthropogenic global warming is an issue that can potentially be solved through new technologies and he plans to invest in new renewable energy technologies through Virgin Fuels.

This approach is consistent with the approach advocated by the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Also known as the AP6, this group includes ‘kyoto dissidents’ Australia and the US, as well as China, India, South Korea and Japan.

Together these countries account for about half of the world’s GDP, population, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The partnership was announced in Laos in July last year and they met for the first time in Sydney in January.

The AP6, like Branson, recognise that the solution to anthropogenic global warming is potentially in the development, sharing and promotion of new and improved technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course this approach will also solve ‘the peak oil’ problem because once we move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels it won’t matter how much oil is left.