Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Opinion

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.

The Physics of Global Warming is Complicated: A Note from Barry Moore

By

Physicist and historian, Spencer R. Weart, recently penned an article for the popular blog RealClimate in which he explained:

 

“Physics is rich in phenomena that are simple in appearance but cannot be calculated in simple terms. Global warming is like that. People may yearn for a short, clear way to predict how much warming we are likely to face. Alas, no such simple calculation exists. The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.”

 

This is an admission that we are nowhere near a scientifically proven result with regard to the effect of CO2 on our climate.

 

In another article at RealClimate Gavin Schmidt suggests that all can in fact be explained in six easy steps.

 

Schmidt’s explanation is in conflict with Weart’s article and skips over some key points.  

 

Following are the steps proposed by Schmidt, with my objections:

 

 Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

 

 Here Schmidt notes the average incoming IR (area of the disc divided by the surface area of the world = ¼) X 1366 = 341.5 W/m2 this is reduced to ~240 W/m2 by assuming an average albedo of 0.3 . Unfortunately this completely ignores reflection by clouds which covers approximately 65% of the globe.

 

The actual incoming radiation which is absorbed by the earth’s surface is, therefore, much less. Schmidt’s next assumption is the surface radiation by Stefan’s law (15 deg C avg.) is ~390 W/m2 and the TOA radiation is ~240 W/m2 thus he concludes ~150 W/m2 heats up our atmosphere.  But, firstly we know that a fourth power law cannot be averaged and Stefan’s law is for black body radiators thus an emissivity factor must be assumed which reduces the 390 W/m2. Even more curiously it appears the entire heat balance consists of radiation.  

 

Where are conduction, convection and evaporation factored in, these are just a few of the complexities that Weart was referring to.

 

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

 

Schmidt explains that with the latest technology (as of 1995) the spectrum from space can be analyzed line by line to detect the energy absorbed by CO2.  However there is a qualifier, “For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect.”   

 

Put another way, remove the CO2 and the water absorbs more energy, or take away the water and the CO2 absorbs more.    

 

Step 3:  The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions.  

 

This claim is based on extrapolating from ice core data which some claim underestimates past carbon dioxide levels by 30% to 50%.   There is also the leaf stomata proxy work, Beck’s paper – 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods – and mass balance calculations based on the IPCC carbon cycle data none of which provide the necessary proof that the recent increase in carbon dioxide is unquestionably anthropogenic.

 

Step 4:  Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated.

 

I disagree and Spencer R. Weart would disagree.  Here Schmidt trots out the only formula they have, RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig).  So, if we use 385/280 for the CO2 increase we get RF= 1.7 W/m2 now at 0.75 deg C per 1 W/m2 we get an increase of 1.28 deg C.

 

 

However, if we look at the global temperature change since 1850 it is only 0.7 deg C.  So something is wrong with the calculation as a measure of temperature increase based on radiative forcing from more carbon dioxide.

 

Step 5:  Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.  ( IPCC 4AR Pg.666)

 

Following on from my comments in step 4, this claim is an average based on data provided in the IPCC 4AR which provides a range of sensitivities generated from the IPCC formula and computer programs which attempt to evaluate the interaction of other factors such as water vapour.

 

Step 6:  Radiative forcing multiplied by climate sensitivity is a significant number.  

 

Schmidt explains “that current  forcings  (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium.  Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’.”

 

This statement by Schmidt appears to be saying that the oceans absorb heat but do not experience a temperature change or the oceans absorb the heat but it takes time for the temperature change to affect the atmosphere.

 

The first concept is illogical, with regard to the second a convincing demonstration of the rapid reaction of global temperatures to ocean temperature changes was the effect of the super El Nino of 1998.

 

To illustrate the response of the globe and atmosphere to the sea surface temperatures the following graph shows anomalies for  the global average (top) , the global sea surface (middle) and the global lower troposphere (bottom) temperatures from 1996 to 2008 showing the rapid response to the super El Nino of 1998. 

 

 

No pipeline effect here.

 

Furthermore, where exactly is all the extra heat? The oceans cannot store heat “in the pipeline” without increasing in temperature which would create an immediate increase in atmospheric temperatures. Maybe it just does not exist in which case if we recalculate their formula the constant changes from 5.35 to 2.935.  This is quite a change.

 

In conclusion, I agree with Weart, there are no easy answers and the IPCC case is far from proven.  Attempting to explain climate changes by taking global averages and deriving empirical formulae is an extreme oversimplification of a very complex subject and is not valid proof.

 

Barry Moore P. Eng.

Calgary Canada.

No Breast Milk for Swiss Restaurateur

By

Hello Jennifer,

 

Humans have developed some curious rationales for various food taboos.  Now a Swiss restaurateur has been banned from serving dishes prepared with human breast milk.  This ban would seem to be the most convoluted and lacking in underlying principle. 

 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634151/breast-milk-delicacies-off-the-menu

 

On one hand we have most humans on the planet having consumed this product at some time in their life. And the medical evidence is quite clear on the fact that children who do consume this product have higher immunity levels and are likely to perform better on a number of cognitive and behavioural tests.  And the overwhelming view of child health professionals is that, “the longer children consume this product the better it is for them”.

It is also a fact that there is no restriction on the source of this product. So-called “wet nurses” have been part of human culture for millennia and this supply has nearly always been associated with some sort of exchange of money or kind. So there is clearly no cultural objection to the commercial sale of human breast milk for consumption by other humans.

 

There is also no hint of exploitation or coercion associated with the trade as it is entirely within a context of informed consent and conscionable conduct.

It is also the case that devices to assist with the mechanical extraction of human breastmilk are freely available for sale and have been extensively tested and trialled to the extent that there are no issues in respect of health or safety of either supplier or consumer.  Any other issues, in respect of the passing on of communicable diseases etc, are already well catered for (sic) by existing food standards and legislation.

 

So what we are left with is a taboo that is not based on the product itself, not based on the source of supply of that product, not based on the human-to-human dimension of the transaction and not based on the commercial nature of the transaction. It is also the case that there is no prohibition on the non-commercial use of human breast milk, for example, where a woman could use her own milk in a dish prepared for her family.  Indeed, some could argue that this would represent the ultimate act of nurturing by a loving mother or wife.

 

No, this taboo is solely based on the age of the human consumer and the arms length nature of the transaction. Neither of which appear to have any relationship to the actual participants. It is a taboo that is entirely within the mind of non-participants with no identifiable adverse social consequences.

 

And as duly elected “Chief Glutton” of a group of culinary wanderers called “The Restless Palates”, I don’t think I will ever look upon a fine buxom lass in the same light, ever again. It puts an entirely new meaning to the term, “guess who is coming to dinner?”

 

Regards

Ian Mott

 

———————————-

Breast milk delicacies off the menu

September, 19, 2008. NineMSN

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634151/breast-milk-delicacies-off-the-menu

 

Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: A Note from Cohenite

By

As a layman reading the literature and arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) three defining characteristics of those arguments have become apparent.

 

The first is the idea that the science is settled and that there is a consensus in favor of this science. This is wrong and the Oreskes thesis has been repudiated.  

 

Secondly, the pro-AGW literature uses terms of apocalyptic consequence; we read about tipping points, rapid sea rises and extreme weather. Because of this, pro-AGW statements often take on a ghoulish, vulture-like quality with every bad climate event being hailed as proof of AGW. But again, there is no compelling evidence that the climate is becoming more extreme or worse than it has been.

 

The third and most striking characteristic are the computers, the General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are the basis of AGW science. They have informed the msm to the extent that nearly every report confirming AGW (are there any other kind?) begins with ‘computer modeling has shown’…etc.

 

The result of the dominance of GCM’s has seen a growth in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, calls climate virtual reality where there is a persistent conflict between GCM evidence and empirical data.

 

What stands out for me in this debate is the clash between real data and AGW data and the repeated examples where data has been manipulated, adjusted, discarded or subject to arcane statistical methodology so it conforms with the GCM simulations.

 

All of the 10 papers, statements and articles I have selected as the worst of the pro-AGW support literature exhibit the above 3 qualities. Some of them have iconic status and others, while more obscure, present such glaring examples of this matrix science, or climate virtual reality, that they cannot be ignored.

 

1.Dr James Hansen’s 1988 Statement to the US Senate.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

Hansen is the public face of AGW science. This statement establishes all 3 of the defining characteristics. He says “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.” Why then does GISS adjust their US data to stop the ‘30’s being the warmest decade? He says the greenhouse effect is proven; why then does IPCC have to invent the enhanced greenhouse? He takes pride in his “computer climate simulations”. Money for jam for Koutsoyiannis.

 

2. Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Anniversary speech before the US Congress.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798

After 20 years of climate zilch Hansen ups the apocalypse ante; tipping points are now “ominous”, AGW is a “time bomb”, and there is a need to “preserve our planet, and creation.” The public face of AGW is now Moses. Amidst the blatant untruths there is a resonant irony; “The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold…via demagoguery.” Is Hansen the copper or the kettle?

 

3. Michael Mann et al (MBH): Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations. AGU GRL 1999

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

The Hockey stick is the figurehead of the good ship AGW. If anyone says that it is not essential for AGW to prove that 20thC temperatures are higher than any other time in recent history they are dreaming. MBH do so using tree-rings and esoteric statistical analysis (Principle Component Analysis); they ignore discrepancies with instrument data and obfuscate about their sources. McIntyre eats them for breakfast.

 

4. Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann: Robustness of Mann, Bradley, Hughes; Reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.

http://www.cgd.vcar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange.2007.pdf

Before the Hockey stick could be used in AR4 it needed to be rehabilitated after McIntyre’s, and others’, demolition. Wahl et al said they had a new standard for Reduction of Error verification, i.e. zero=skill. McIntyre wanted proof. Wahl procrastinated until AR4 was published and then said the proof was that the new verification had been referred to in their paper. Fidus Achates writ large.

 

5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.”

 

6. Spencer Weart: A Saturated Gassy Argument.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

This is the user friendly version of AGW’s semi-infinite atmospheric model; this model ‘shows’ that vertical layers of CO2 trap and delay the rise of surface emitted IR. If it was right there would be a troposphere hotspot/fingerprint as unequivocally predicted in AR4 by FIG 9.1(c). The satellite and other data collectors show there is none.

 

7. Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008

http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

Concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, Allen & Sherwood repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. Matrix science. Resonant irony; the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and model predicted temperature.

 

8. Rolf Philipona et al: Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface- corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31 2004

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml

2 papers from Philipona who deals with increasing downward longwave (DLR). If the semi-infinite model is correct, as well as a troposphere hotspot, there will be increased clear-sky LDR. This is a crucial point but Philipona’s studies are flawed by statistical method, inadequate study period, selective use of insolation and temperature data and extrapolation from regionalized Stefan-Boltzman.

 

9. AR4, Chapter 2; Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing; Executive Summary; pp131-132.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report?Ar4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

The science is settled. The standard of scientific understanding in the Executive Summary ranges from “very high” to “very low”; the great majority of climate indices have “medium-low” to “very low” levels of scientific understanding; yet the Summary concludes that “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.” Diagnosis: scientific schizophrenia.

 

10. Keenlyside N S, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453, 84-88 May 2008

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Both sides of the debate claimed this paper as proving/disproving AGW. The paper asserts that natural, contrary climate patterns can “temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” To this layman that has a Claytons feel about it, but the kicker is Lucia’s 2001 and onwards temperature analysis; Lucia removed the ENSO and found a decline in post-2001 temperature trend. If there was an underlying warming it would have shown. How can anthropogenic warming be “temporarily offset” when it isn’t there?

 

These papers and articles and statements are the worst because they exhibit all three defining characteristics of AGW science. Some are indefensible, others don’t make sense.

 

 

*******

To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here .

how to overcome the fear of public speaking

The Moratorium on Whaling as a Reflection of the “Muddled Cosmological Beliefs” of the West

By

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1948 at the initiative of the United States to establish a new world order in whaling.   Initially 15 governments were party to the IWC with Japan at the time under occupation and without the right to join.   

 

The Commission’s objectives included safeguarding the great natural resources represented by whale stocks and providing for the “orderly development of the whaling industry” recognising that whale stocks will increase if whaling is properly regulated.

 

But by the 1960s an anti-whaling movement had emerged in the West and the IWC focus started to change.  In 1972, at the United Nations Human Environmental Conference held in Stockholm, the United States lobbied for a moratorium on commercial whaling; a moratorium that came into effect ten years later. 

 

Japan initially took action to be exempt from the moratorium in accordance with Article V of the convention.   Japan made the case that the moratorium infringed upon provisions within the convention in particular that decisions of the IWC be based on scientific findings – at the time the scientific recommendation was that the moratorium was unnecessary – and take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale product. 

 

 The United States threatened that unless Japan withdrew its objection it would revoke fishing allocation for Japanese trawlers off the west coast of Alaska.   Japan withdrew its objection, but the US nevertheless phased out its fishing allocation to Japan.

 

In a book, ‘Reviving the Invisible Hand’, by Deepak Lal, a well known economist born in Indian, reference is made to the West’s obsession with promoting its “habits of the heart” including through the propaganda of the NGOs, most of whom espouse various environmental causes (pg. 233).   Lal explains that the bread and butter of environment groups involves arousing the fear of “Apocalypse Now” (an enduring superstition of mankind) along with the “muddled cosmological beliefs of the West” about how one should live.     

 

He refers to organisations such as the International Whaling Commission as transnational institutions created after the Second World War to legislate our Western morality around the world and that the infiltration and use of these institution by NGOs as source of potential serious disorder (pg. 234). 

 

What the West doesn’t seem to understand is that while Japan, to again quote Lal, joined the bandwagon of globalizing capitalism, they have done this without sacrificing their culture or cosmological beliefs and see the demand from countries like Australia that they give up their tradition of eating whale – a tradition that can be traced to the Jomon Period of approximately 5,500 BC – as a form of cultural imperialism.    Masayuki Komatsu and Shigeko Misaki in ‘Whales and the Japanese’ (The Institute of Cetacean Research, 2003) indicate that the Japanese don’t like others to dictate what “our habits should be” and suggest that the anti-whaling lobby is practicing ethnic and cultural discrimination (pg. 103-104). 

 

At a summit of traditional Japanese whaling communities held in March 2002, it was affirmed that “the basis of Japanese whaling tradition and culture, characterised by the total utilization of the whales and a spirit of gratitude, should be maintained and perpetuated”.   

 

The Japanese have a strong connection to the Shinto and Buddhist religions and believe that deep respect should be afforded animals that are killed so we may eat.   This respect involves not wasting any of the animal and so the Japanese have made a virtue out of utilizing every part of the whale.    There is also a cemetery for whales in the Koganji Buddhist Temple in Nagato City where the fetuses of whales that “did not live to swim in the sea” are buried and kakochos (books of the dead) dedicated to the whales that gave their lives for the well-being of humans.  A service is held once a year in the temple to pray for the souls of the whales.   

 

The Japanese want an end to the moratorium on commercial whaling and the right to continue to harvest whales.  They see the moratorium as reflecting Western arrogance and believe that they will prevail, simply because “we are right”.

 

 *****

This is my fourth blog post on whaling following my recent visit to Japan.  

 

 

Deepak Lal was elected President of the Mont Pelerin Society at its 60th Anniversary Meeting in Tokyo.  

 

The picture was taken in the garden of the Orion Hotel, Chinzanso, on September 12, 2008.