UN: 2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record

In the December 8, 2009 article "UN: 2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record," Associated Press special correspondent Charles J. Hanley summarizes a United Nations report that may be further evidence of global warming and climate change.

COPENHAGEN – This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said, although Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.

In central Africa and southern Asia, this will probably be the warmest year, but overall, 2009 will "be about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the WMO.

The agency also noted an extreme heat wave in India in May and a heat wave in northern China in June. It said parts of China experienced their warmest year on record, and that Australia so far has had its third-warmest year. Extremely warm weather was also more frequent and intense in southern South America.

The decade 2000-2009 "is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on," Jarraud told a news conference, holding a chart with a temperature curve pointing upward. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

The current decade has been marked by dramatic effects of warming.

In 2007-2009, the summer melt reduced the Arctic Ocean ice cap to its smallest extent ever recorded. In the 2007-2009 International Polar Year, researchers found that Antarctica is warming more than previously believed. Almost all glaciers worldwide are retreating.

Meanwhile, such destructive species as jellyfish and bark-eating beetles are moving northward out of normal ranges, and seas expanding from warmth and glacier melt are encroaching on low-lying island states.

If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace the year 2003. According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

The U.N. agency reported that the global combined sea surface and land surface temperature for the January-October 2009 period is estimated at 0.44 degrees C (0.79 degrees F) above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 degrees C (57.2 degrees F), with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.11 degrees C. Final data will be released early in 2010.

Negotiators at the two-week talks in Copenhagen turned Tuesday to "metrics," "gas inventories" and other dense technicalities, as delegates worked to craft a global deal to rein in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and stem climate change.

Governments, meanwhile, jockeyed for position leading up to the finale late next week, when more than 100 national leaders, including President Barack Obama, will converge on Copenhagen for the final days of bargaining.

Preliminary drafts circulated at the conference showed marked differences between rich and poor countries over how to structure a final agreement. A leaked Danish document that was submitted before the conference came under heavy criticism from climate activists as an attempt by rich countries to exclude them from the bargaining.

"As the talks ramp up and big players put forward their proposals for the deal, it is vitally important that vulnerable countries are part of the debate," Oxfam spokesman Antonio Hill said.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer played down the document, saying it was an "informal paper" and not a formal text for the conference.

In a series of reports beginning in the 1990s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored scientific network, has warned that unless the world is weaned away from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures: the extinction of plant and animals, the flooding of coastal cities, more extreme weather, more drought and the spread of tropical diseases.

Some governments have reacted slowly to the warnings because of concerns over the cost to business and consumers of converting economies to new energy sources, the influence of "old energy" industries on policy, and the reluctance of societies to change their ways.

Although temperatures have fluctuated up and down in the eons before record-keeping, as determined by tree rings, ice cores and other evidence, the causes were natural. The difference now is that they are being driven up by human activity, that modern civilization has many more coastal cities and needs to feed far more people, and that scientists believe humans can head off such dangerous warming.

On Monday, when the conference opened, the Obama administration gave the talks a boost by announcing steps that could lead to new U.S. emissions controls that don't require the approval of the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.

As Congress considers the first U.S. legislation to cap carbon emissions, the EPA finding will enable the Obama administration to act on greenhouse gases without congressional action, potentially imposing federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories.

The announcement gave Obama a new card in what is expected to be tough bargaining next week at the climate conference. In preparation, Obama met with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel for his climate change efforts, at the White House on Monday.

European climate change officials welcomed the U.S. move.

"This is meaningful because it is yet a sign that the Americans have more to offer. My evaluation is that the U.S. can offer much more," EU environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren told reporters Tuesday in Stockholm.

De Boer said the EPA finding gives Obama "something to fall back on."

"I think that will boost people's confidence" at the Copenhagen talks in the Americans' ability to offer more, he said.

The European Union has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, compared with 1990, and is considering raising that to 30 percent if other governments also aim high. EU leaders will have an opportunity to make such a move at an EU summit this Thursday and Friday in Brussels.

In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged fellow Europeans to raise their bid on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to pressure the U.S. and others to offer more at Copenhagen.

"We've got to make countries recognize that they have to be as ambitious as they say they want to be. It's not enough to say 'I may do this, I might do this, possibly I'll do this.' I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30 percent," Brown was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The EU had called for a stronger bid by the Americans, who thus far have pledged emissions cuts much less ambitious than Europe's. The U.S. has offered a 17 percent reduction in emissions from their 2005 level — comparable to a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels.

Whether the prospect of EPA action will satisfy such demands — and what China may now add to its earlier offer — remains to be seen. And success in the long-running climate talks hinges on more than emissions reductions. Most important, it requires commitments of financial support by rich countries for poor nations to help them cope with the impact of a changing climate.

Swedish negotiator Anders Turesson said the U.S. 17 percent reductions "are insufficient and we hope more would come out of that."

He suggested the U.S. buy more carbon credits on the international market, where emissions reductions by developing countries can be credited and sold to the industrialized world.

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

According to the survey "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" published in January 2009:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Of the 3,146 survey respondents, 96.2% of the climatologists engaged in research believe that average global temperatures have increased in the last 200 years and 97.4% of them believe that human activity is a major cause of global warming.

Including all scientists who participated in the survey (most of whom are not climatologists), 90% agree global temperatures have increased compared to levels before 1800, and 80% consider human activity a primary cause.

Citation: Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3), doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

Climate Change: Increasing Skepticism?

In a June 26, 2009 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Kimberley A. Strassel claims the number of skeptics is increasing:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Write to kim@wsj.com

Like many editorials, this one wants the reader to jump to a conclusion. The author says the number of skeptics has increased, with the inference that they are large in number. Yet she never mentions how many scientists believe in global warming. A survey published in January 2009 concludes that for every 260 climatologists who are skeptical of climate change, there are 9,740 convinced of its existence. Admittedly that is not 100%, but 97.4% is close.

How the Global Warming Bill Will Affect Your Wallet

How the Global Warming Bill Will Affect Your Wallet

By Matthew Bandyk
Fri Jun 12, 1:21 pm ET

In the coming weeks, Congress will likely consider a massive global-warming bill to create a new cap-and-trade program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama praised the bill, dubbed "Waxman-Markey" for its co-sponsors, as a vital step to "create millions of new jobs all across America."
But Obama and supporters of the bill are now facing a litany of charges that the bill is not a good deal for American consumers. Critics on both sides of the political aisle complain that the bill does both too little and too much. Environmentalists say it's too industry-friendly and doesn't do enough in making major inroads against climate change. In May, Greenpeace and a number of other environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen sent a letter to Congress that said they cannot support the bill on grounds that it gives too many favors to polluters and "does not do what the science says is necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming and to rescue the climate." Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that the bill goes too far in regulating energy prices and would cost an American family an average of $1,500 a year in energy bills. That estimate, however, varies from what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted for similar cap-and-trade plans. Here are a few things to know about Waxman-Markey:
[See 5 Future Technologies That Will Slash Home Energy Bills.]
What's in the bill? Cap and trade sets a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a factory, business, utility, or other energy producer is allowed to emit. Waxman-Markey would set a cap that's intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020. The trade part gives greenhouse-gas emitters--which include some factories and energy producers--opportunities to buy a certain number of permits that allow them go over the cap. The government sells these permits in an auction, which creates a market for carbon permits. Since the price for emitting carbon dioxide would be set by all the individuals and organizations competing in the auction, the idea is that cap and trade is a more "free-market" method of controlling pollution than the government simply taxing or regulating it. The market for carbon permits is estimated to grow to $60 billion by 2012 if the bill is enacted.
Impact on consumers. No one knows exactly how much the Waxman-Markey bill will cost Americans. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Senate Committee on Finance that cap-and-trade program costs for energy producers would be "passed along to consumers of energy and energy-intensive products," (which would be in the form of higher prices). The CBO estimates that a 15 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 through a cap-and-trade plan would cost the average American household $1,600 a year, with low-income households carrying a heavier burden. Lower-income households tend to spend more of their income on energy than higher-income households, because it is difficult to cut back on necessities like heating. The costs of the Waxman-Markey would differ from the CBO's estimate in a few ways. The costs could be greater because the billaims to reduce not just carbon but other greenhouse gases such as methane. The costs could also be lower: When the federal government auctions off the permits, it gets revenue back that is likely to be spent.
What will it save me? Some of the money raised from auctions will go to the consumer. For example, to try to reduce the impact of the bill on those with low incomes, Waxman-Markey would create a new tax credit that will give some money back. The CBO estimates that in 2012, this tax credit would amount to $161 for a single person or $359 for a five-person household. That year, only single people with incomes of less than $23,000 or families with at least two children making less than $42,000 would be eligible for the tax credit.
Free allowances. Here's what's upsetting Greenpeace and some other environmental groups: Instead of auctioning off of all the permits to pollute, Waxman-Markey would give many away free, thus decreasing the amount of revenue that could be returned to Americans. The CBO calculates that from 2010 to 2019, Waxman-Markey will give the government $693 billion to spend in the form of free allowances. Most of these allowances go to states, natural gas distributors, and federal agencies. But these freebies might not be so bad for consumers, as they could ease the burden on energy utilities, thus decreasing the $1,600 CBO estimate of how much Americans would spend in annual energy costs. Robert Stavins of Harvard University calculated that 53 percent of the total allowances are being spent on consumers for purposes like home heating.
[See Finding the Pork In the Obama Stimulus Bill.]
Here are some of the other provisions of the bill that allocate money not directly related to consumers.
Rebates for "tradesensitive" industries. Waxman-Markey also gives breaks to businesses worried that the bill will reduce their competitiveness with other countries. As a result, the bill now includes rebates for "trade sensitive" industries, which will be worth up to 5 percent of the allowances. According to the legislation's text, the EPA must publish a list of industries that will qualify for a rebate by no later than June 30, 2011. How trade-sensitive an industry is will be determined by the EPA based on the industry's reliance on imports. Businesses that fall into this category will get a rebate from the federal government to ease the cost of polluting less. One worry is that businesses will have the incentive to become more trade-sensitive in order to get the rebate.
Offsets. Critics of the bill claim that its biggest loophole comes in the form of 2 billion tons of "offset" emissions--30 percent of total emissions in the U.S. This is the amount of emissions that are not capped, but that polluters can merely offset through other Earth-friendly methods--say, by planting trees. But a report from the Government Accountability Office found that projections on how much carbon is saved by these offsets are "inherently uncertain," and that this uncertainty poses a challenge to the credibility of carbon offsets. In other words: A business could claim an offset in order to get around the cap.

Government Policies to Save Energy May Include Painting More Things White

According to a May 22, 2009 article by Agence France Presse entitled "US wants to paint the world white to save energy"

LONDON (AFP) - US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.

The Nobel laureate in physics called for a "new revolution" in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.

Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.

It was a geo-engineering scheme that was "completely benign" and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth.

For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed "cool colours" which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades.

And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said.

Speaking at the start of a symposium on climate change hosted by the Prince of Wales and attended by more than 20 Nobel laureates, Chu said fresh thinking was required to cut the amount of carbon created by power generation.

He said: "The industrial revolution was a revolution in the use of energy. It offloaded from human and animal power into using fossil fuels.

"We have to go to a different new revolution that can severely decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the generation of energy."

To what extent should the government promote policies such as this? This is at the heart of one´s belief in the appropriate roles for government.