Climate & Climate Change

London-based critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) David Henderson has made some suggestions for reform of the IPCC process in a mini-report titled ‘Challenging the IPCC Monopoly: The Way Ahead’, Download file (104 Kb).

Henderson acknowledges the enormousness of the challenges facing the IPCC and its considerable achievements including in bringing together 2,000 specialists to write and publish “three massive and agreed reports covering the range of issues relating to climate change”. In achieving this Henderson notes that, “the IPCC has established itself in the eyes of its member governments as their sole authoritative source of information, evidence, analysis, interpretation and advice on a whole range of issues relating to climate change.”

That was perhaps the situation in Australia, but since Tim Flannery published the Weather Makers, well according to our federal environment minister, it now informs government policy on climate change issues. 🙂

And this was perhaps the situation prior to the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee Report and the recent US Senate Select Committee Hearings (mentioned in this earlier post).

Building on the momentum from the House of Lords’ Report, Henderson wants the IPCC process to:

1.Include more economists including the central economic departments of participating governments and/or for the OECD to prepare an economic assessment in the context of the upcoming fourth assessment report (due out in November 2007).

2.Replace the ‘peer review’ process Further to the peer review process, establish a formal audit procedure to sit behind ‘the science’ in the fourth assessment report. Henderson makes mention of the American Economic Review policy which requires that data and computer code in sufficient detail to permit replication by others be submitted as a precondition for publication of articles based on the same.

3. Support the publication of “an alternative and rival overall assessment to that of the IPCC”. Henderson provides as an example,the establishment by the US government in the 1970s of an alternative assessment by a small group of experts of the Soviet strategic threat in addition to advice provided by the “authorised established source” which was the CIA. The group of experts, which became known as ‘Team B’, apparently provided a useful report. Given the number of critics of the IPCC process – what about giving them an official role?

There are indeed many credentialed scientists and economists who could be brought in to provide an official counterpoint. Henderson suggests this be through “an international consortium of think-tanks”.

I prefer the idea of a small group of well qualified expert critics forced to work within the United Nation’s IPCC framework and with full access to the drafts of the developing fourth assessment report.

…………..
I am reminded of a comment from Richard Epstein:
“When I’m confident I’m right, I want people to disagree with me out of hand. Otherwise, I run the risk of a kind of complacency which can lead to the loss of a cutting edge. I’m perfectly used to living in a world in which most people disagree.”

UPDATE No. 1
November 2nd, 1pm. I have received comment that David’s report (see link above) states that the audit process should ‘further’ rather than ‘replace’ the peer review process. I have modified the relevant paragraph accordingly.

UPDATE No. 2
November 2nd, 10.30pm.
Ian Castles has asked that I provide a link to the McKitrick paper title ‘Science and environmental policy-making: bias-proofing the assessment process’ TO DOWNLOAD FILE CLICK HERE (204KBS). Ian commented that, “As the initial postings on your site have immediately talked about the ‘hockey stick’ debate, and one of them has questioned whether David is ‘fair dinkum’ because he cites McKitrick, I think that it would be useful if you could provide a link to this paper by one of the two Canadians who initiated the debate. He provides a useful summary of the debate as it stood last April, and also gives some thoughts about improving the IPCC process.
Note that Ross quotes Australian Minister Ian Campbell (p. 287) & explains why Campbell (and the world’s governments) are wrong in assuming that the IPCC processes are rigorous.”

UPDATE No.3
November 3rd, 9.30am
David Henderson has emailed the following issues with my summary of his report (report can be accessed at link in above post):
1. You say that I ‘want the IPCC process’ to ‘Support the publication of an overall and rival assessment’. I don’t say this: I suggest that governments should set up such a mechanism, outside and independently of the IPCC. This is a fundamental point: the suggestions I make go beyond your summary description of them as ‘suggestions for reform of the IPCC process’.
2. I do not suggest that ‘an international consortium of think-tanks’ ‘could be brought in to provide an official counterpoint’. Only governments can take official action, and the idea of a consortium comes under my last heading of ‘The unofficial critique’.
3. I didn’t suggest that ‘more economists’ should be brought in ‘to prepare an economic assessment in the context of [AR4}’. What I say about improving the treatment of economic issues is not closely linked to AR4.

In today’s The Age Geoff Strong repeats federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell’s announcement of last week in The Australian, and Tim Flannery’s recommendation in The Weather Makers, that we should stop debating the science of global warming and just accept a human influence on climate.

But why would a secular society that respects evidence and the scientific process ever stop researching and debating an issue as important as climate change?

Let’s say we all broadly accepted the pronouncements of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Tim Flannery’s and Geoff Strong’s of the world – that is we all broadly accepted anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Wouldn’t we nevertheless still encourage debate and discussion and fund scientists to continue to scrutinize the emerging theories and test the predictions?

We still fund scientists to challenge and debate Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity.

As I understand it, the difference between science and a religion is that the latter is essentially faith-based. There is no real potential for debate of the core issue. Growing up in a Christian community I’ld always been told belief in God is ultimately a question of faith.

I am an atheist, however, I respect those who believe in God and I don’t challenge their belief, because I understand that it is ultimately a question of faith.

Is this how we want to proceed with global warming issues? If this is the case then let’s remove the discussion from the discipline of science and let us proceed as we might with an issue of faith.

I hear the followers of Tim Flannery et al say, but Jennifer, it is not that we don’t want discussion, it is just that if there was less debate there would be more action.

Really? As far as I can tell we’ve got Kyoto and while the Australian government hasn’t signed up it is intent on meeting its Kyoto targets.

Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister of Australia nor the President of the United States have recently denied the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Quite the contrary! Didn’t President Bush go along with all the rhetoric at the recent meeting in Scotland? Prime Minister Howard just says it doesn’t make economic sense – he doesn’t argue the science. If the Australian Conservation Foundation and a few others weren’t so opposed to nuclear power we could start putting in place plans to swap from coal to nuclear etcetera and really do something about the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There are no shortage of real technical and political options all of which will have economic and environmental implications.

Couldn’t one of more of these options be pursued while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged?

Unless we want to insist that AWG is a core belief – a faith – then criticism and debate should really be encouraged?

Some of my colleagues were amazed to see The Australian newspaper run Environment Minister Campbell on its front page yesterday with some anxious comments about the threat of global warming.

On the same day former NSW Premier Bob Carr launched a new $10 million institute dedicated to educating us about global warming.

What does it all mean? Here are a few comments, initially from letters to the editor of The Australian and then from the Prime Minister:

Since this is all about greenhouse scaremongering, he [Minister Campbell] should also ask his advisers what the safe level of greenhouse gas really is. That should stump the lot of them. …it is really [also] all about frightening people into supporting the use of nuclear energy for domestic and industrial power generation.
James Stuart, Griffith, ACT, 28th October

At last, the Howard Government acknowledges the very real threat of climate change. But time will tell if it is willing to take some real action on this issue. As the nation with the industrialised world’s highest per capita greenhouse-gas emissions, Australia has an obligation to provide some real solutions. Solar – yes, wind – yes, energy efficiency and renewable technologies – yes, but don’t be mistaken, Senator Campbell, nuclear power will not be in the mix.
Michaela Stubbs, Northcote, Vic, 28th October

I’m pleased that the Environment Minister has come to the realisation that global warming is man-made and a threat to the planet – better late than never. But his solutions to the problem are a bit simplistic – that of exploring all possible technologies as if they will provide the answers. We could make a start by signing up to the Kyoto Protocol…
Harry Cohen, Nedlands, WA, 28th October

If Australia were to sign the Kyoto Protocol in its present form, that would sell out in the interests of Australian industry and Australian jobs. The Kyoto Protocol is anti-Australian jobs particularly in the resource sector because it imposes burdens on Australian industry that it doesn’t impose on like industries in countries like Indonesia and China…
John Howard, Prime Minister, 27th October

Several people have emailed me a piece from the Washington post titled World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005 by Juliet Eilperin. The piece was published a couple of weeks ago (October 13, 2005) and evidently impressed many. It begins:

New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures.

Climatologists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998’s record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.

———————-
UPDATE MARCH 17, 2008

The year 2005 did not end up being particularly hot – 1998 is still the hottest year by far. Here is an updated temperature graph from the best available satellite data from January 1990 to February 2008:

from http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

So carbon dioxide levels are increasing, but not temperature? Why? You can read about Roy Spencer’s findings from NASA’s Aqua Satellite at my blog post of March 2008 ‘Global Warming for Dummies (Part 2)’.

And directly from Roy Spencer at www.weatherquestions.com.

[end of update]
——————————–

The piece published October 13, 2005, ends with this graph that doesn’t actually show any temperature data for 2005. Furthermore, it shows that 1998, rather than last year, is the hottest year on record.

(SOURCE: National Center for Atmospheric Research | *30-year period: 1961-1990)

Anyway, I thought I would do my own quick check this afternoon. I looked up the temperature records at the USA’s National Climatic Centre.

I found some values for the land and sea for 2005 and 1998 and plotted them. This is what the plots look like:

and

Looks to me like it might be anyone’s guess whether 2005 ends up hotter than 1998.

What I am prepared to bet on, is that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will be higher at the end of this year than they were at the end of 1998, View image (from Wikipedia).

……….
Update: 28th October, 10.40 am, added the ‘source’ reference under the first graph from the link as requested in a comment from David.

We’ve been told that Greenland is thinning at the margins,and the glaciers are retreating, but while all this is happening the icecaps are now apparently thickening. This is according to a new article in Science as reported by ABC Online:

“Greenland’s icecap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists says.

The 3,000-metre thick icecap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about seven metres.

Satellite measurements showed that more snow was falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.

Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire icecap was thinning.

“The overall ice thickness changes are … approximately plus 5 cms a year or 54 cms over 11 years,” according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and US institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup centre for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture.

That extra moisture falls as snow below 0 degrees Celsius.”

And some Australian climatologists have said that as it gets warmer it might get wetter. Is it still raining in Perth?

In his new book the ‘The Weather Makers’ (Text Publishing, Melbourne, $32.95) Professor Tim Flannery suggests that the medieval warm period was unique to Europe with “a survey of global temperature records (from ice-cores, tree-rings and lake deposits) showing that, if anything, Earth was then overall slightly cooler (0.03C) than in the early and mid twentieth centuries”. This according to Flannery shows that the “idea of a global Medieval Warm Period is bunk.” (pg 44)

The real bunk is perhaps Flannery’s claim that the world’s leading science journals are telling us that species are vanishing right now as a consequence of climate change. (pg 6)

He is a good writer though, and there is some interesting stuff in the book including his comment there are three agents of change:
1. shifting continents,
2. cosmic collisons and
3. climate-driving forces such as greenhouse.
Flannery writes that while they all act in different ways, they drive evolution using the same mechanisms “death and opportunity”. (pg 46)