Uncategorized

Final preparations are under way for a key UN climate summit that will attempt to reach a deal on what should replace the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.

Talks will centre on whether binding targets are needed to cut emissions.

BBC New website: ‘Nations gather for climate talks’

Eduardo Zorita sent Steve McIntyre an interesting paper from Kiehl, a prominent climate modeler, which analyzes the paradox of how GCMs with very different climate sensitivities nonetheless all more or less agree in their simulations of 20th century climate. Kiehl found that the high sensitivity models had low aerosol forcing history and vice versa. Kiehl observed:

These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.

Eduardo’s take was as follows:

surprisingly the attached paper, from a main stream climate scientist, seems to admit that the anthropogenic forcings in the 20th century used to drive the IPCC simulations were chosen to fit the observed temperature trend. It seems to me a quite important admission.

Kiehl (2007) on Tuning GCMs

BALI, Indonesia: Coal-burning power plants belch pollutants into the air in China, contributing to global warming that experts say has destroyed billions of dollars in crops. In India, melting Himalayan glaciers cause floods, while raising a more daunting long-term prospect: the drying up of life-sustaining rivers.

The two economic giants are becoming increasingly aware of the effects of rising temperatures. But though they are among the biggest contributors to the problem, both say they will not sign any climate change treaty that would slow the pace of their development.

International Herald Tribune: Spotlight on China and India as delegates gather for U.N. global warming summit in Bali

MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE ALARMISTS

Green scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers who found that the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is falling. Their report suggests that a central plank in the global warming argument – that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related disasters – is undermined by the facts. It shows deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since. Average annual deaths from weather-related events in the period 1990-2006 – considered by scientists to be when global warming has been most intense – were down by 87% on the 1900-89 average. The mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, dropped by 93%.

The Sunday Times: ‘Fall in weather deaths dents climate warnings’

Airlines stand to make billions of pounds in “windfall profits” from an emissions trading scheme that was supposed to make them pay for the environmental damage they cause, according to a government-commissioned report.

They will take advantage of the scheme to raise fares substantially, even though their costs will hardly change. The windfall will be highly embarrassing for the Government because it has heavily promoted the trading of aviation emissions to justify its plans to allow air travel to double by 2030.

Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, claimed last week that emissions trading would ensure that the proposed third runway at Heathrow would not add to overall climate-change gases. She said that the scheme would force the industry “to take its environmental responsibilities seriously”.

It will be the second time that an industry has made huge profits from emissions trading. There was widespread public outrage last year when it emerged that British power generators had made more than £1 billion from the scheme, under which industries have to obtain a permit for each tonne of carbon they emit. The theory is that they will become more efficient so that they need fewer permits.

The problem with the power generators arose because they were given billions of pounds of free permits at the start to cover their existing emissions. The same problem could occur with airlines, which are due to join the scheme in 2011, because the European Commission is proposing that they be given enough free permits to cover 96-97 per cent of their present emissions.

The Times: AIRLINES TO MAKE BILLIONS FROM CARBON TRADING

Yes, secondary beer fridges in North American and Australian homes have a significant impact on domestic greenhouse gas emissions. So says a ‘study’ by Denise Young from the University of Alberta, Canada.

Joanna Yarrow, director of ‘Beyond Green,’ a ‘sustainable development’ consultancy in the UK. “Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people – let’s hope it has an effect.”

It certainly had an effect on me. My secondary fridge will need re-stocking with lager tomorrow.

Reported in New Scientist Environment: ‘Beer fridges’ present a gassy problem

Nigel Lawson gave an insightful address to the group who gathered for the Institute of Public Affair’s 2007 HV McKay Lecture in Sydney on Monday. He spoke on the politics and economics of climate change and commented:

“Is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature, which by some happy chance has recently been visited on us, from which small departures in either direction would spell disaster? Moreover, while a sudden change would indeed be disruptive, what is at issue here is the prospect of a very gradual change over a hundred years and more.

In any case, average world temperature is simply a statistical artefact. The actual experienced temperature varies
enormously in different parts of the globe; and man, whose greatest quality is his adaptability, has successfully colonized most of it.

Two countries at different ends of the earth, both of which are generally considered to be economic success stories, are Finland and Singapore. The average annual temperature in Helsinki is less than 5ºC. That in Singapore is in excess of 27ºC — a difference of more than 22ºC. If man can successfully cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3ºC, when he is given a hundred years in which to do so.”

The entire speech can be found and downloaded here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=695

A new Report produced by a coalition of over 40 prominent civil society organisations from 33 countries says that governments should reject calls for a post-Kyoto treaty (“Kyoto 2”) with binding limits on carbon emissions. The report says a better strategy would be to focus on removing barriers to adaptation, such as subsidies, taxes and regulations that hinder technological innovation and economic growth.

From 3-14 December, government officials will be in Bali, Indonesia, for climate talks. They are set to discuss the establishment of a new treaty, dubbed “Kyoto 2”, which would require all countries to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Civil Society Report on Climate Change concludes that such emissions caps would be counterproductive: they would undermine economic development, harm the poor, and would be unlikely to address the problem of climate change in a meaningful way.

It includes four chapters:

1) “Human Ecology and Human Behavior: Climate change and health in perspective” By Paul Reiter http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_22.pdf

2) “Death and Death Rates due to Extreme Weather Events: Global and U.S. Trends, 1990-2006” By Indur M. Goklany http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf

3) “Weathering Global Warming in Agriculture and Forestry: It can be done with free markets” By Douglas Southgate and Brent Sohngen http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_24.pdf

4) “The Political Economy of Global Warming, Rent Seeking and Freedom” By Wolfgang Kasper http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_25.pdf

“Kyoto 2 is the wrong solution. Such a treaty would harm billions of poor people, making energy and energy-dependent technologies, such as clean water, more expensive, and would perpetuate poverty by retarding growth”, said Kendra Okonski, Environment Programme Director of International Policy Network, one of the 41 organisations who published the report.

“Given that nations are having trouble complying with the relatively small emissions cuts required under Kyoto, the economic and social consequences of a Kyoto 2 Treaty could be devastating”, added Ms Okonski.

The Civil Society Report argues that adaptation is the best way to enable people to deal with a changing climate. That means:

• Enabling people to utilise technologies capable of reducing the incidence of disease, such as clean water, sanitation, and medicines.

• Deploying technologies – e.g. flood defences, roads, sturdier houses, and early warning systems – that reduce the risk of death from weather-related disasters.

• Removing barriers to the use of modern agricultural technologies, which would better enable people to adapt to changing conditions.

• Eliminating subsidies, taxes, and regulations that undermine economic growth – thereby enabling people better to address current and future problems.

Other conclusions in the Civil Society Report on Climate Change include:

• Over the course of the past century, deaths and death rates from weather-related natural disasters have declined substantially. It appears that the main drivers of this reduction have been improvements in wealth and technology.

• Mortality from extreme weather events is far more strongly affected by the technologies deployed by humans – such as the construction of houses, roads, and dams – than by climate.

• Human ecology and human behaviour are the key determinants of the transmission of infectious disease. Obsessive emphasis on climate is unwarranted because, given suitable economic circumstances, straightforward strategies are available to ensure the public health.

• If adaptation is not unduly restricted, production of food and other agricultural products, as well as forestry products, will keep pace with growing human demands.

• Foreign aid is being used as a ‘carrot’ to induce poor countries to restrict their emissions. But aid has mostly been wasted or even counterproductive. While there is a case for refocusing aid on projects that have a stronger chance of providing net benefits, increasing aid would do more harm than good.

• Finally, the stick of trade sanctions have been threatened as a means of enforcing the global cap – yet such sanctions harm both parties; a clear lose – lose scenario.

————————————
The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, Produced by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, Published Tuesday 27 November 2007, ISBN 1-905041-15-2, 100 pp.

The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change seeks to educate the public about the science and economics of climate change in an impartial manner. It was established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for intervention and regulation. The coalition includes the Institute of Public Affairs.