to the Australian Institute for International Affairs, Vic, 14 April,
2016
Dangerous
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction? The Limits of the Paris
Accord
My thesis today is that, despite
the continued claims reported in the media, there is minimal risk that
continued usage of fossil fuels will produce temperatures which become
dangerously high. There is therefore no sound basis for governments to continue
with expensive policies aimed at reducing usage of coal and other fossil fuels,
which are by far the cheapest energy source. The so-called precautionary motive
is not applicable now and is in fact less relevant than it was a few years ago.
Historically, there have been many
examples of doom and gloom which did not eventuate. These include economist
Jevons’s 1865 book expressing concern that excessive usage of coal was
threatening to exhaust coal supplies and stop economic growth. This followed
the thesis promulgated by Malthus in 1800 that population growth must be
stopped and was again utilized in 1968 by US ecologist and demographer Dr Paul
Ehrlich. Then in 1972 a large number of eminent scientists, including five
fellows of the Royal Society, supported Ehrlich. In the same year the Club of
Rome group predicted that, without government intervention, growth would stop
within 100 years and population and industry would fall. For some time we have
also had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC predicting
dangerous temperatures unless we stop using fossil fuels.
By contrast, the 2007 book Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard
North not only rejected the dangerous warming thesis but outlined numerous
other projects proposed by scientists and wrongly adopted by governments.
Increasing numbers of organisations and individuals both here and overseas have
also expressed sceptical global warming views in books and articles, including
a petition by over 30,000 scientists in the US. My talk today draws
particularly on research and advice by physicist Tom Quirk and meteorologist
Bill Kininmonth former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. There
is no consensus that “science” justifies stopping the use of fossil fuels.
My own experience over the 28 years
I worked in Federal Treasury is that professional scientists and economists
often seek government action or funding to prevent wrongly perceived looming
problems. When in 1972 I was temporarily researching at the Royal College
of Defence Studies in London, I was given an “excellent” award for my analysis
of the deficiencies in theses supporting Limits
on the Supply of Resources. When
in Treasury, I authored a publication on the serious deficiencies in proposals
made through United Nations agencies for governments to establish a new international economic order to help low income countries. The NIEO is no longer
pursued.
However, almost all governments and
United Nations agencies still accept the dangerous warming thesis and, through
the IPCC, have tried for over 30 years to reach agreement on action to prevent
temperatures increasing by more than 2ºC since the 19th century. Not only have they
failed, temperatures have also failed to increase over the past 17 years. This
has given sceptical views some recognition.
I want now to consider some
deficiencies in the dangerous warming thesis. I do so not as a scientist but as
an economist with experience in recognizing claims which exhibit many
uncertainties. You don’t have to be a scientist to find mistakes in assessments
made by scientists.
The Theoretical
Explanation Fails to Acknowledge Important Uncertainties
The dangerous warming thesis
derives from the fact that a proportion of emissions of carbon dioxide from
usage of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere. What happens to it there?
The CO2 in the atmosphere is open
to heating from the surface of the earth which is itself open to being heated
from the sun’s radiation. Some of this heating of the CO2 in the atmosphere is
in turn radiated back to the surface and increases the surface temperature as
though in a greenhouse. Hence, warmist believers argue, the apparent increase
in global average temperatures of about 0.7ºC over the past century is
predominantly caused by this so-called greenhouse effect. This is argued to
eventually raise temperatures to levels threatening human existence unless
usage of fossil fuels stops.
One problem with this thesis is
that the heat radiated back to earth from the CO2 in the atmosphere is offset
by evaporation which absorbs heat and thus reduces the “greenhouse” effect.
Expert opinions differ about the evaporation reduction effect but it is widely
accepted as significant.
Let me over simplify the main
aspects of the warming process
- Some of CO2 from fossil fuels
stays in the atmosphere and is an addition to it;
- That remaining CO2 is exposed to
heating from the earth’s surface which is itself heated by the sun;
- This heated CO2 also radiates
back towards the earth’s surface;
- However some of the radiation
back to the earth’s surface is subject to evaporation;
- There is dispute over the net
effect on temperatures.
Another problem with interpreting
the greenhouse theory is that it is based on research made many years ago
suggesting that 55 per cent of emissions from fossil fuel usage stay in the
atmosphere. But recent research suggests that only 16 per cent may be staying
in the atmosphere. Much lower concentrations would of course have much smaller
upwards effects on temperatures.
What Has Happened to
Temperatures and Fossil Fuel Emissions (Figure 1)
Figure 1 compares what has
happened to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global surface temperatures
since 1900. The temperatures, which are those used by the IPCC, are shown by
the purple squares line. The CO2 concentrations are shown by the brownish
circles, with the continuous line marking the periods of the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation. This PDO reflected natural influences on temperatures
arising from the replacement of cold water along the western Pacific
coast of the North Americas and obviously had no causal connection with fossil
fuel emissions.
What picture emerges from this over
the period since 1920?
First, CO2 concentrations increased
by 30 per cent as growth in world economies brought strong increases in
emissions from fossil fuel usage. But average global temperatures increased by
only about 7 per cent, with a rise from 14.7 to 15.8ºC
 |
Figure 1: CO2 measurements at the South Pole from ice cores and direct measurements and average global
temperatures as published by HadCrut4 and used by the IPCC .The continuous line from 1920 marks the
periods of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. |
In short, temperature levels have increased much less than the increase in CO2 concentrations. A comparison of the two time series clearly indicates that there is no correlation between changes in the two. This comparison is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Variations in temperature
and atmospheric CO2
PERIOD
|
Pacific Decadal
Oscillation Phase
|
Global Temperature
0C increase per 10 years
|
CO2 at the South Pole
Annual increase in ppm
|
1922 - 1947
|
Warm
|
0.13 +/- 0.02
|
0.40 +/- 0.03
|
1948 - 1976
|
Cool
|
-0.02 +/- 0.03
|
0.85 +/- 0.03
|
1977 - 2000
|
Warm
|
0.16 +/- 0.03
|
1.49 +/- 0.01
|
2001 - 2015
|
Cool
|
0.08 +/- 0.04
|
2.01 +/- 0.02
|
What this shows is that there were
two periods, one from 1948 to 1977 and one from 2000 to the present, during
which temperatures were relatively stable even though CO2 concentration levels
increased quite strongly (except for the 1940-50 period where atmospheric CO2
may have decreased).
The figure also shows a period when both temperatures and CO2 concentration
levels increased (from 1977 to 2000) but where the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
was clearly a major contributor to the temperature increase.
It is only in the period from 1922 to 1947 that changes in concentrations and
temperatures appear to be correlated. But usage of fossil fuels would then have
been relatively small.
My assessment is that this analysis
makes it very difficult to justify the conclusion by the IPCC and others that a
causal correlation exists between changes in temperatures and CO2 concentration
levels.
Paris Meeting
of COP21 in December 2015 (Figure 2)
At the end of
2015, 189 countries
submitted pledges to the twenty-first meeting on climate change (COP21) in
Paris. These pledges are voluntary and there is no supervision of progress
reports to the UN. It is of some interest that the submission by Bolivia
declared that capitalism is “a system of death” while North Korea will have no
difficulty in further reducing its emissions as already virtually no electric
lights are on at night.
The following
analysis by Tom Quirk is based on the top 12 countries for broadly defined
greenhouse gas emissions which cover 72% of the world total (for 2012 the total
was 10.85 Gt C in CO2-equivalent while total CO2 emissions were an estimated
9.68 Gt C in CO2. Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
CDIAC)
The pledges
have been standardized to be from 2012 to 2030 as countries have chosen various
starting points to indicate their plans. For greenhouse gas emissions the
pledges would see a 23% increase (from 7.83 Gt C to 9.59 Gt C) for the 72%
fraction which have been analysed.
 |
Figure 2: Pledges from the top 12 countries for greenhouse gas emissions.
This covers 72% of global emissions The pledges are standardized to be
from 2012 to 2030
|
It is clear
that China is both the major contributor to the increase and the source of the
greatest uncertainty. The 75% increase indicated in Figure 2 is a “best
estimate”. The pledge from China is a peak in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030,
with best efforts to peak earlier. The aim is to source 20% of its energy from
low-carbon sources by 2030 and to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% of
2005 levels by 2030, potentially putting it on course to peak by 2027.
There was no
discussion on limiting CO2 emissions from forest and peat fires. No estimates
of these emissions are included in the total which are now about 50% of global
CO2 emissions and occur in the Amazon basin, sub-Saharan Africa and Indonesia.
In short, even if pledges are met total emissions could be even higher than
pledged – or quite a bit lower.
However what
is clear from the pledges is that China and India will become the largest
emitters of greenhouse gases with rises in the standard of living in both
countries. Why should they curtail their growth?
Accuracy of Temperatures
(Figures 3 & 4)
There are also questions about the
accuracy of the temperatures published by official agencies and used by the
IPCC.
First,
published daily temperatures are calculated only by averaging the minimum and
maximum. However, what if Australia’s average temperatures were calculated from
temperatures recorded every 30 minutes?
 |
Figure 3: Temperatures measured at 30 minute intervals through a 24 hour day.
The solid black line is the weighted average of readings every 30 minutes.
The dashed red line is the average of the minimum and maximum temperatures |
Research by Tom Quirk shows that,
in the central desert region (such as Alice Springs), the average over 30
minutes is about the same as with the averaging of minimum and maximum (Figure
3). But in coastal and inland areas (such as in Cairns) averaging of minimum
and maximum produces temperatures about 0.6ºC higher than if the averaging is
done on a 30 minute basis. This research suggests an overall upward bias in the
published daily Australian temperatures of 0.3-0.4ºC.
Second,
it appears that the Bureau of Meteorology calculation of Australian
temperatures has not taken account of the heat island effect which keeps
temperatures up when recorded in large built up urban areas.
 |
Figure 4: BOM records of direct maximum and minimum temperatures at the BOM office
in central Melbourne and at Laverton airport. The central Melbourne minimum would be
much lower if account was taken of the urban heat effect |
Figure 4 comparing maximum and
minimum temperatures at the BOM office in central Melbourne with those at
Laverton shows similar maximum temperatures but much higher minimum for central
Melbourne because more heat is retained in urban Melbourne.
Thirdly, although a recent review
of temperature records of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology stated that it
could not conclude whether there has been an upward or downward bias, it
indicated that there was uncertainty about the adjustments made to “raw”
temperatures by the BOM. Submissions by independent experts justifiably claimed
the adjusted temperatures had an upward bias.
What conclusion can be made about
the accuracy of the temperature increase of about 0.8ºC of a degree since about
1900? One possibility is that about half is incorrectly calculated and the
other half may well reflect natural causes. But even if the published data was
accepted, it is relevant that temperatures were higher in the Medieval Warming Period
(about 800 -1,100 AD and also in the Greco-Roman warm period (600 BC - 200 AD).
Yet there were few fossil fuel emissions then. In fact, temperatures in those
periods were likely higher than the scare temperature promulgated by warmists
that they should not increase by more than 2ºC since industrialization.
Droughts and Rainfall
(Figure 5)
Much attention is given in the
media and elsewhere to areas experiencing below average rainfalls and droughts
and claims are made that these illustrate the effects of global warming.
However, an examination of the variations in Murray Darling Basin’s annual
rainfall clearly shows no connection with levels or variations in Australia’s
average temperature. Indeed, there is no statistically significant change in
MDB rainfall since 1900 (Figure 5).
Past
Australian droughts occurred when global temperatures were lower than now and
wetter years occurred when such temperatures were rising. There is no reason to
expect that to change.
 |
Figure 5: Yearly rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin. Average value is 470 mm.
There is no significant trend in rainfall through this period but with large variability- standard
deviation of 111 mm with rainfall extremes of a minimum 258 minimum in 1902
and a maximum of 809 mm in 2010 |
Antarctic and Arctic Ice
Sheets –Sea Levels and the Reef (Figures 6 & 7)
Sea levels have been increasing over recent years and, if higher
temperatures caused large ice sheets and glaciers to melt, sea levels would
rise further and low-lying land would become more susceptible to flooding. In
fact, some owners of properties close to the ocean are already being stopped
from development by measures that have been introduced by councils because of
such alarmism (Figure 6).
However, IPCC reports have
predicted much higher sea levels than actually occurred. Satellite measurements
of sea levels from 1994 show an average rate of increase which, if continued,
would result in levels about 30 centimetres higher by 2100. Most
residences would readily be able to protect themselves against such an
increase.
 |
Figure 6: The global mean sea level figure was made using satellite altimetry
and processed by the University of Colorado at Boulder. Note that the rate of
increase is 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/year for1992 to 2015. If the rate of increase continues
at about 3 mm a year, sea levels would reach about 30 cm in 2100. That is consistent
with the IPCC's projection of 19-59 cm by 2100 and would not involve any significant
flooding of low lying lands. . If the rate of increase continues at about 3mm a year,
in 2100 average sea levels would be about 30cm higher than now. Note the apparent
influence of the 1997-98 El Nino.
|
As to ice levels (Figure 7), until recently the extent in the Arctic had been falling even
though global temperatures were not increasing.
However, melting ice in the Arctic
has no effect on sea levels because the ice there is already floating in the
sea. Canada’s North West passage has in fact been navigated in earlier periods
when fossil fuel usage was low.
In the Antarctic, the total ice
area there has been increasing and recently reached record levels. Break offs
of sections of the Antarctic ice sheet attract media attention but such
break-offs are normal. Satellite data covering the past thirty years show a
distinct cooling of the Antarctic region.
Changes in Northern and
Southern Icecaps
Changes in Northern and Southern
Icecaps
 |
Figure 7: Arctic and Antarctica ice extent. The maximum extent occurs in February
in the Northern Hemisphere and in September in the Southern Hemisphere.
Summer minima occur in September and March.
The Northern Hemisphere ice extent is decreasing with reducing maximum and
minimum extent. Note that the slopes for the fitted straight lines give the change per decade |
As to the Great Barrier Reef, alarmism by conservation bodies has been shown to be
unwarranted by the declaration last year of an international heritage agency that the reef is not
in danger of destructive bleaching. Most of the reef recovered from the
bleachings of 1998 and 2002, which probably resulted from the temporary warming
of sea water during the light winds which occur at the time of El Ninos and
that limit the flow of cooler water across the reef. There are present concerns
about the reef but the Reef Authority says it is too early to assess the extent
of damage from bleaching.
David Attenborough claimed in
his ABC program last week that the reef is ten thousand years old, which
suggests that it has already experienced temperatures higher than the present
ones.
Any action by Australia to reduce
emissions would not help to protect the reef unless there is an effective
international agreement by major emitters.
Temperature Measurements
and Predictions (Figure 8)
A key temperature test is to examine the predictions used by the IPCC which have been calculated
by modelling. Figure 8 shows that none of the supposed expert modelling used by the IPCC as a
basis for its predictions coincides with actual temperatures published and shown in the figure as
observations. The published measured temperatures are much lower than the model predictions.
The marked difference shown between global temperature predictions and measurements published is
still said by some to support the dangerous warming thesis. The difference for the years 2001 to the
present is said to be missing heat that has gone into the ocean. But little or no increase in ocean
temperatures has occurred and the missing heat has not been found. Most scientists do accept that, if
atmospheric CO2 were to be doubled from the existing 400 ppm to 800 ppm, this would be likely to
raise the global temperature by 1C.
But models predicting rises of 2C to 4C to the end of the century do not take account of evaporation
from the oceans, which reduce upwards radiation.
Bill Kininmonth has published estimates of the temperature increase taking into account evaporation.
These predict global temperature increases of less than 1C and there is some satellite evidence to
support this approach.
 |
| Figure 8: A comparison of modelled and actual measured temperatures by Roy Spencer, Uni of Alabama at Huntsville. The solid continuous black line is the average temperatures from 73 computer models. The circles and squares are temperature observations from balloons and satellites. The published measured temperatures are much lower than the model predictions. |
Further, although the effects of
the phase changes in the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations are seen in the
temperature and CO2 time series, the influence of the oceans on the atmosphere
is not well accounted for in the computer modelling. In fact, since the timing
of these ocean changes is not well understood, their future effects cannot be
projected by computer modelling.
Conclusion
I summarise my assessment as
follows. There are fundamental faults in the statistical and scientific
analyses used to justify the need for early comprehensive mitigatory action by
governments; claims of a consensus on the IPCC science have no credibility and
account is not taken of the long history of faulty analyses by scientists more
generally; examination of the temperature and CO2 concentrations data indicate
that any green house effect on temperatures to 2100 is likely to be very much
less than the IPCC (and other believers) predict; there is no satisfactory
explanation of why temperatures did not increase during two lengthy periods
when fossil fuel emissions did so; new research adds to existing evidence that
temperature increases in the last 100 years or so have been considerably
overstated; new research also suggests that the extent of carbon dioxide in
atmospheric concentration is much smaller than previously thought; there is no
substantive evidence of threats from rising sea levels or melting of sea ice in
the Arctic or Antarctic; there is no evidence of any significant change in
average rainfall or that droughts and other severe weather events are likely to
occur more frequently. As pointed out by analysts such as Ridley, the increase
in carbon dioxide over the last century has been beneficial in allowing and encouraging
additional growth of vegetation.
In a word, my assessment is that
the best policy for governments, businesses and individuals is to adapt to
changes in climate and welcome the additions to CO2.
Des Moore, a former
Deputy Secretary of Treasury, is Director of the Institute for Private
Enterprise. Tom
Quirk trained as a nuclear physicist at the University of Melbourne where he
took courses in meteorology. He has been a Fellow of three Oxford Colleges
See also Companion Posting by Dr Tom Quirk - COP21 Pledges for greenhouse gas emissions
