Hey, while I am pretty much 100% convinced in anthropogenic global warming, I am willing to listen to well put counterarguments. Finally, after the littany of Sydney Morning Herald columnists and the Loony Lord sideshow from the UK, finally I find a piece of work that makes me scratch my head and go “hmmmm”.
Archive for category International
I have been asked by one of the lurkers that is to shy to post to comment on the effects that a one-half page section of an 838 page report issued in 2007 by the IPCC will have on the credibility of all the predictions of the IPCC with regard to climate change. In reality, virtually none. In the world of spin being generated by climate change skeptics about the issue, probably also none. But they are once again attempting to use this one-half page as an attempt to discredit all of the work done by the IPCC. As in the case of the email scandal that was the subject of my November 30 posting, the skeptics are claiming that this is the smoking gun that discredits all the work of the IPCC. But does it?
First let’s list out the errors that were found by an expert on glaciers in the half-page section about glaciers in the Himalayas:
• The rate of glacier receding was stated as being faster than the rest of the world – when in fact it is the same as the rest of the world;
• The date by which the glaciers will disappear from the Himalayas was transposed from 2350 to 2035;
• The amount of shrinkage stated exceeds the total amount of glacier coverage by a factor of ten – whopper of an error that should be seen by even a casual observer;
• The section is attributed to popular science press (via the WWF) rather than a peer reviewed science journal – as the IPCC always tries to stress its scientific basis; and,
• A math error is obvious in the shrinkage rate of a particular glacier (the Pindari Glacier) – once again a simple error that could be picked up by anyone that can read and has a calculator handy.
So all up, I’d have to agree with the scientist (and IPCC glaciologist) that identified the problem for all the skeptics to crow about – the half page is doo doo, it doesn’t belong in the report, and most of the above errors could be easily found through some simple copy-editor doing their job properly before publication. But does it invalidate all of the climate change science, or even the portion on the loss of glaciers – uh no. More likely it was someone rushing to meet a publishing deadline that got sloppy in their exuberance do do some good in the world.
But it sure makes for some good controversy, and we all know that the media loves that, so it gets a lot of coverage over several days. A lot of coverage in comparison to something that came out the same day, for instance, with the GM executive Bob Lutz telling reporters at an auto show: “It [climate change] has got nothing to do with CO2, it’s got everything to do with solar activity, and when the solar flares stopped and the sun has been unusually quiet almost to the point of worrying people, then global temperatures go down.”
That’s great Bob, but see, here’s the thing. Actual scientist write shit down. Not just summary reports for public consumption, like the problematic half-page above, but things like their assumptions, data sources, methodologies , calculations and a lot of other boring crap that we can comb through, analyse endlessly and critique. On the other hand, dickheads like Bob Lutz never have to prove anything. Now, I don’t doubt that solar flares do have some effect on the earth, but where’s the proof that they are the only driver of climate change as opposed to all of the otherwise scientifically proven effects that industrialization have had since 1900? And where is the date showing that solar flare activity correlates with the land, water and air temperature variations, rather than ajust a few years of air temperatures in isolation? It isn’t anywhere is the fact. But Bob gets away with whatever he wants to say and then the journalist move on the next controversy that might actually have some legs since there is some actual factual record to debate. But Bob gets to make his point and skeptics get to point and say, “see, that proves it”, rather than be held to account as the actual scientist are. So we talk about the science for a few days or a few weeks and the public is left with the impression that maybe the science is dubious.
This report further supports my conclusion of 30 November that scientists need to remain diligent and punish bad science harshly. But in doing so, scientists should feel good about science, because in treating bad science harshly, they are further supporting the scientific method.
And the final truth is this: anyone who believes this half-page of errors invalidates climate change research in full is never going to be convinced of anything on the subject anyway. That’s why they will keep buying crappy cars from Bob Lutz as long as the government wants to keep it from going bankrupt as it would in a just world. Let’s also hope they own property near the water line.
James Hansen, a top NASA scientist who helped bring attention to the dangers of global warming more than 20 years ago, wants Copenhagen to fail.
That’s right, and from the dude who is like the godfather of climate change science.
His major complaint seems to be that the Danish plan reduces emissions over 40 years, which he says is too long, and we will be in a disaster by then. I tend to agree. However, we will also need to recover from that disaster, and having a long term cut in CO2 emissions will also be part of that solution, in real or in spirit. Let me explain.
James is saying that any cap and trade type ETS, won’t work fast enough and that a straight energy tax is what is required immediately. If I ran the show worldwide, I would agree with him, do that immediately, and stifle all debate as strong as required to maintain my control on power. And believe me, you’d have a shit fight on your hands, taking on all business that use energy worldwide, and the energy intense ones most of all. But I would do it, because I believe fundamentally that James is right, and we are either at or just past the point where we must act to stop anthropogenic climate change. However, I am not ready to go join the rapturists, and unless we find a way to reduce emissions soon, and possibly reverse feedforward loops in climate change, we might not be ok long term, like as a species.
Assuming we have not passed the point of no return with regard to overall average warming, then the major advanced economies (in terms of lower energy intensity, or $/GDP, but high overall emissions) are going to have to cap our emissions and reduce them over time. No question about it. And as they do that, industries in those countries will have to either directly reduce their emissions themselves, or get someone else to do for them, through the only flexible compliance method specifically identified in the Kyoto Agreement, an ETS. They are proven to work, use economic drivers and markets for efficiency, and can be on the whole fair and egalitarian (just as Wall Street can be).
So I hope Copenhagen succeeds, although I don’t like the track record of the politicians anymore than James does. Copenhagen would be a real coup if we could also get some countries to sign up to firm commitments on the real issue, so we can quit worrying about how much CO2 we put out in total.
See, while the spirit of the long-term solution will retain emissions reduction, the functional design of it should be an energy intensity tax (or a mix of energy intensity limits for equipment, facilities, industries, etc.), much like vehicle efficiency standards, which improved the fleet so much in the USA beginning in 1978. Pity they didn’t keep that up. So, what we really need long term is for everyone in the advanced and the developing world to sign up to energy intensity targets. Otherwise they will continue to install more high-CO2 emitting, low energy efficiency crap, like they are doing now. It may surprise you to know that coal fired electricity production not only has the largest installed base (50% of production) but that it is also the fastest growing rate of new plants that are being installed (primarily in China, Russia, India). So, as James is saying, we better get cracking on that, or we will also be in need of a zombie plan even if the big emitters now all achieve fantastic reductions in CO2 emissions.
I am all for a good conspiracy theory to pass the time, but mostly due to the fact that they are a good read, rather than that they lead to a fundamentally modified understanding of reality. The latest from the climate sceptics is that they believe to have uncovered a vast conspiracy on the left to falsify science in order to win the argument on climate change. They site mass volume of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia in England, one of the centres where climate change research is being carried out, and a participant in the IPCC. Now, like all good conspiracy theories, it starts out with some kernels of fact and possibly even the smoking-gun of fraud.
According to the best news report of the substance with regard to the issue in the American Academy for Advancement of Science (publishers of the peer-reviewed journal Science) the facts are that the Director of the Climate Research Unit there asked other scientists to delete data that might be the subject of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. But why would they do such a thing? Well further examination of the emails shows that the motivation was, that ,“. . . colleagues feared that releasing information would draw them deeper into disputes with amateur scientists, who would use it to create new controversies and cut into their research time.”
Now, while I could understand the motive, if say, I had to argue science with a demonstrable moron such as Steven Fielding on a repetitive basis. However, deleting information subject to a FOIA request is against the law, so regardless of the motive, one or more people at the University of East Anglia could face some heat and possibly prosecution. And good thing when they do. Just as I would want someone like Dick Cheney to face the music if we could prove he lied, I don’t want liars and obfuscators on my team. The rules are the rules and they apply to all.
That being said, there is no proof in all these hacked emails that any of the people who were asked by others from England to delete files or data aver did so, and coordinating such a mass deletion across countries, institutions and by other scientists would leave a trail, even if it were attempted. In fact, the hack that resulted in the release of the information was very possibly caused by one of the scientists asked to do something improper instead leaked a bunch of the information. That is, unless Occam’s Razor wins out, because in fact one of the scientists left their email and data wide open to the outside world by including their password in their email address. And let’s face it, you aren’t going to run a very good conspiracy with people like that involved.
So basically, despite an inappropriate (or possibly illegal) request by one person, there no evidence in the information released that there was a multi-organisational, worldwide conspiracy to modify data, carry out false modelling, or alter the peer-reviewed system of the IPCC for arriving at their conclusions on climate change.
The rules of science are that one sound data set can prove all the science before it wrong. Unfortunately for the climate change sceptics, this is not that data set, and for the time being, I will stick with the peer-reviewed science on the side that demonstrates anthropogenic climate change as being real and a problem. Anyone still with me?
For an amusing side of this story, watch as the chaos over the Coalition leadership plays itself out this week. I venture to guess that Fielding, Minchin, Abbott or other climate change sceptics will attempt to use the smoking gun they think they now have to win the argument. They will continue to attempt to tear the other side down, but they will find no bullets in their gun, and they are not be able to offer a substantive alternative explanation of the scientific data we all can agree on. And eventually, their logic on the CPRS will also collapse, either this week, or during the double dissolution election to follow.
Carving Up the Cap
Nov 26
The discussions are shaping up for Copenhagen, as more countries like the US now are floating actual proposals for cutting their emissions, while other countries like China seem to want to refuse to do anything until those that got us to this point commit to paying their fair share. The arguments seem to be shaping up along these lines: Developing countries want the developed countries to “pay” for the reductions required in CO2 by drastically reducing their emissions from a baseline, as they have been the ones that have benefited from the failure to control emissions in the past. The developed countries are more worried about the rates of increase in CO2 emissions from the developing countries, partly because if the developed nations were to agree to reduce their emissions greatly, those emissions reductions would simply be “eaten up” in a few years by growing emissions from the developed world. The answer to getting any sort of binding agreements in Copenhagen (or later) seems to be in finding the metric to balance out both the developed world and the developing world in doing both.
If we are going to get to where we think we need to go, we need to do something along the lines of limiting average temperature rise to 2C, which translates into something like limiting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to about 350 parts per million by volume (ppmv). To achieve this balance is going to mean a cap of emissions worldwide, which will be reduced over time to get where we need to go. It is not as simple as just dividing up the contributions to this cap by what contributions are now, which means developed economies get more since they started making the emissions first. We also can’t just divvy up the contributions to the emissions cap on a per capita basis, since that would mean that developed nations would have to reduce their emissions (and lifestyles) to those equivalent to the developing countries. But a balance can be struck, and possibly in ways that may not drive us all into economic ruin.
The US, most of Europe, Japan, Australia and other developed countries should be willing to make very challenging cuts to their 1990 base emissions, and in exchange India, China and the rest of the developing world should be willing to accept limits in their rates of emissions increases, or a limit in their per capita emissions which is lower than that in the developed world. Negotiations should focus on the definitions of developed/developing, and the size of cuts and per capita limits required worldwide to reach the goal. Negotiations can start with the voluntary unilateral cuts and commitments to go farther if others do their bit, as Australia has proposed to do. This is why I have advocated having our CPRS completed before the Copenhagen meeting.
If an international agreement is reached, we can then get on with achieving it, and despite the costs, it won’t have to ruin economies worldwide. I will post in the near future on why I don’t believe the costs will be significant in the overall scheme of things, even if the miniscule chance of the overwhelming scientific opionion proves to be incorrect!
Are we not men?
Nov 24
[reprinted from August 2009]
In a previous article, I touched on an issue about which the Coalition in Australia has coalesced, namely taking a wait and see attitude to Climate Change, based on what comes out of the USA. I got to thinking about this issue further this morning when I watching on ABC Breakfast the speculation about whether or not Nathan Rees may see a coup in the near future. A name of a woman was dropped as someone up and coming in the Labor Party, and then quickly dismissed by the ABC commentators as still having a US accent, so unlikely to be acceptable. This was accepted without dispute by all those she was engaged in conversation with, and included no discussions of the substance of any positions held by the woman. And I got to thinking, hell that’s stupid, but its probably right, even I wouldn’t trust me on first impressions, given my accent. And it dawned on me that there is a third issue why the Coalition position on the CPRS is a loser, even amongst the Nationals.
Basically, why would we as Australians accept that anything the USA would produce programatically would be good for Australia? Do they have a history of doing things in Australia’s interest, particularly when it may be in conflict with their own self interest? On tariffs, subsidies and any number of other trade issues, nope. In my 15 years an Australian citizen alone, I have see the US dump steel, wheat, and other commodities into world markets and significantly damage Australia industries at the time. Hell, W even signed into law a major subsidy for their steel industry right after the Australians were the first to commit troops to an Afghanistan effort – BEFORE EVEN BEING ASKED TO DO SO! This is also the mob that tried to come gut our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in their last round of trade negotiations with Australia. Hey, far be it from me to be a US basher, but there’s no way I trust these arseholes with defining my CPRS.
Remember also that the US is likely to produce nothing in the next sitting session of their Congress. They are currently heavily distracted with health care, and whether to require all their citizens to get health insurance coverage through the same private health companies that have been ripping them off, denying them treatment, and putting the US in a position where it pays twice as much as the next major industrialised country for health care per capita, but is raked by the UN 37th in health care performance (proudly next to Costa Rica). Of course their Congress and President could pass a strong government run public option for health care and demand that pharmaceutical companies negotiate on price with a large public entity, but let’s face it the Democrats are in power there, and they are likely to be too big of pussies to move anything like that through, despite their filibuster-proof majorities. So don’t even expect the US to even get to the climate change issue, and get a bill through both houses and signed into law. Remember, they are several years behind us in the legislative effort, and even we haven’t got our well discussed and heavily negotiated CPRS through yet. If we wait for the Yanks it will be another lost opportunity, and by the time we get around to it, we will be selling summer timeshares in the Antarctic.
Finally (and potentially most importantly), what are we, f**king sheep? We have to wait around for the Yanks to move on this because they are smarter than us? or more determined to make a difference? or perhaps maybe more morally and ethically prone to leadership than we as Australians are? Sure they represent the bulk of the problem on an emissions basis, and if they, China and India don’t make some moves, it will make stuff-all difference what we as Australians do.
But the fact is, we are smart enough, we do know how to develop and run a CPRS trading scheme that will set a real market for carbon emissions, and begin to internalise the cost of those emissions. And the country I embraced the culture of when I signed up is also brave enough to show some leadership and ignore the lies and doomsayers about the new economy. Sean shared a interesting article from the ACF that exposes some corporate lies in relation to the NGERS/CPRS reporting in relation to what those same companies are telling their shareholders. It’s a worthwhile read for investors as well as those interested in the CPRS.