Guest post by Richard S. Courtney
There is need for a new policy on climate change to replace the rush to reduce emissions. The attempts at emissions reduction have failed but there is a ‘Climate Change Policy’ that would work.
Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it, and most do.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy since.
But now it is feared that emissions from industry could cause additional climate change by warming the globe. This threatens more sea level rise, droughts, floods, heat waves and much else. So, governments have attempted to reduce the emissions of the warming gases, notably carbon dioxide.
The UN established the Kyoto Protocol which limits the emissions from developed countries until year 2012. But the Kyoto Protocol failed. It has had no detectable effect on the emissions which continue to rise. Now the pressure is on to get a successor to that Protocol for after 2012, and negotiations are being held around the world to decide the new treaty at a conference in Copenhagen in December (CoP15).
But the negotiations have stalled. All industrial activity releases the emissions. Developing countries say they will not limit their emissions, and industrialised countries have problems reducing theirs. China releases more of the emissions than any other country, is industrialising, and says it is entitled to the same emissions per head of population as the US. So, China says it intends to increase its emissions more than four fold. India says the same. The US is having problems adopting a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that would harm American industries and force industries from America to China. The EU adopted a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that collapsed and has not affected the EU’s rising emissions. The Australian Parliament has recently rejected a similar policy.
Politicians have been responding to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol by showing they are ‘doing something’. They have adopted pointless and expensive impositions on energy industries, energy supplies and transportation. And the public is paying the large costs of this in their energy bills.
The Copenhagen Conference will provide a decision because it has to, but that decision will have no more effect than the Kyoto Protocol. And this will put more pressure on the politicians to be seen to be ‘doing something’ with further cost and harm to peoples and to industry.
There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening. But environmental groups are pressing the politicians to act “before it is too late”. And politicians are responding because of the fear of dire consequences from the additional climate change.
Politicians have decided how much additional climate change is acceptable, because they have decided that global temperature must not be allowed to rise to 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century. But they need a method to overcome the urgency which is forcing them to do things and to agree things which do not work.
There is an available solution to the problem. The urgency is because of fear that the effects of the emissions may be irreversible. However, the additional climate change can be reversed, quickly, simply and cheaply. This provides a complete solution to the problems.
There is no need for the Copenhagen Conference to reach a forced, inadequate, and premature agreement on emissions. The Conference needs to decide funding to perfect the methods to reverse the additional climate change if and when that becomes necessary. This decision would give politicians decades of time to conduct their negotiations about what to do to limit the emissions. So, the politicians can agree actions that work instead of adopting things everybody knows do not work.
The solution addresses the cause of the fear of the additional climate change. Every sunbather has noticed it cools when a cloud covers the Sun, and this is because clouds reflect sunlight to cause negative radiative forcing. The fear of the additional climate change is based on an assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and the emissions induce additional positive radiative forcing.
The forcing can be altered in many ways. An increase to cloud cover of a single percent would more than compensate for the warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. There are several ways to increase cloud cover, for example small amounts of sulphates, dust, salt or water released from scheduled aircraft would trigger additional cloud formation. And the carbon dioxide in the air is very unlikely to increase so much that it doubles.
And there are many other ways to reflect sunlight so it is not absorbed by the ground. Crops could be chosen for reflectivity, roofs could be covered with reflective materials, and tethered balloons could be covered in reflective material.
Each of these options would be very much cheaper than constraining the emissions by 20 per cent for a single year. So, any delay to implementation of emission constraints by use of these options would save a lot of money.
Global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 and has been stable since. But it could start to rise again. If it does then use of one or more of these options could be adopted when global temperature nears 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century. This would be a cheap and effective counter measure while the needed emission constraints are imposed. Indeed, it would be much cheaper than the emission constraints. It could be started and stopped rapidly, and its effect would be instantaneous (as sunbathers have noticed when a cloud passes in front of the Sun).
Until then there would be no need for expensive ‘seen to be doing something’ actions such as capturing and storing carbon dioxide. Energy and financial policies would not need to be distorted, and developing countries could be allowed to develop unhindered.
Indeed, there would be no need to deploy the counter measures unless and until global temperature rises to near the trigger of 2 degrees C rise.
The various methods for reflecting sunlight need to be developed and perfected. They each have potential benefits and problems which need to be assessed. But if the problems are detectable they need not be significant. For example, the additional cloud cover could be induced over oceans distant from land. This requires much research.
Politicians know they need to be seen to be ‘doing something’ and they would be seen to be doing something worthwhile. Each counter measure experiment and demonstration provides opportunity for media coverage.
Richard S. Courtney
Energy and Environment Consultant
Richard S. Courtney is an independent consultant on matters concerning
energy and the environment. He is a technical advisor to several UK MPs
and mostly-UK MEPs. He has been called as an expert witness by the UK
Parliament’s House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and also House
of Lords Select Committee on the Environment. He is an expert peer
reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in
November 1997 chaired the Plenary Session of the Climate Conference in
Bonn. In June 2000 he was one of 15 scientists invited from around the
world to give a briefing on climate change at the US Congress in
Washington DC, and he then chaired one of the three briefing sessions.
His achievements have been recognized by The UK’s Royal Society for Arts
and Commerce, PZZK (the management association of Poland’s mining
industry), and The British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Having been the contributing technical editor of CoalTrans
International, he is now on the editorial board of Energy & Environment.
He is a founding member of the European Science and Environment Forum
(ESEF).
h/t to Barry Hearn
Another example for Joel is the medicalization of any departure from normality. No need to actually talk about it, once it gets up momentum it’s obvious to many that they can make money by jumping on the bandwagon.
And again natural causes to temperature rise during the first half of last century is blamed on CO2.
He says that we must prevent the temperature from rising more than 2C above the start of last century. But why? During the first half of last century the CO2 had not risen enough to have any significant effect on temperatures. 0,4C during the first half was not caused by CO2. Even IPCC says that CO2 increase during first half of 20th century was not high enough to affect tempertures in any significant way.
So if any temperature rise should be prevented it should be the rise that was caused by humans from the last half of 20th century, if there are any significant AGW at all.
I think that on the coldest day of the year we need to hold hearings investigating the advantages of 4C.
Why is a 2°C global temp rise a problem? Warmer is better.
Maybe the governments of the world should work on protecting human rights and liberties instead of central planning for a non-solution to a non-problem.
I know, I know, you don’t need to remind me. Authoritarians require mass hysteria in order to control people, land, industry, wealth, and everything. If the masses are not in a tizzy about something, then they won’t need high-paid control freaks to order them around. Everybody will just go about their private business and won’t obey orders from on high.
Scientists on the public dole will not get paid if there is no pending doom to study. Barges filled with money will not be dumped on their doorsteps. I feel their pain; I really do.
But all things considered, longer growing seasons, more rain, more biological productivity, warmer winters, etc. are more to my liking than the opposite. I see no need to chill the planet. Another Ice Age glaciation will be upon us soon enough. Let’s enjoy the warmth while we have it.
Jack Hughes (21:01:58) :
“I vote to do nothing.”
I agree. Let’s wait 10yrs, observe and figure this beast out. The last 10yrs sure haven’t been anything to panic about…
Ed
Santa: PLEASE bring me plenty of Snow this year!
Yikes!
Let’s just make things worse.
Nothing like a pair of sunglasses to protect you from a nuke test.
I, for one, am not in favor of releasing sulfates as a remedy for global warming.
Humans have had a long history of just digging a deeper hole.
Examples?
Deforestation of the Mediterranean.
The Mayan collapse.
Salinization of almost every irrigation project.
Levees on the Lower Mississippi.
I would be far more inclined to change our behavior –
i.e. reduce carbon emissions gradually –
And adjuct to the impacts of warming –
Than try to add most eye of newt to the witches brew.
Paul Vaughan (19:08:13) :
“Sensible contingency plans cover both cooling & warming.
Sensible rhetoric about emissions focuses on toxicity (not anthropogenic computer-climate fantasies).”
Agree.
savethesharks,
Would this suffice?
“I believe that Richard is trying to point out that it is possible for the lawmakers to drop the failed emission control schemes and work on something far cheaper and and much less damaging to economies of the world.This would then have them back off and consider the alternatives that can take a few years to discuss and decide,while the worlds climate continues to cool down,thus stopping the mad rush “to do something to fight climate change” anyway.”
The remarks were:
———-
cedarhill (18:44:30) :
It’s interesting that all these schemes require energy. Energy in simply enormous amounts. Yet no one is really developing US energy resources and the rest of the world will be hard pressed to just meet demand from population growth. It would be better to develop strategies to just live with the changes than set off on a fool’s quest for ideas to alter something you’ve not the power to attempt.
———-
Agreed!
.
But don’t expect the fools to listen.
Too many great comments!
Mike Bryant (19:37:15) :
I’m with Joel… the only sensible thing is to destroy capitalism to make the world safe…
INGSOC (19:48:28) :
How about consistently nailing a 5 day forecast first, then moving on to the Dr. Evil stuff?
@Kevin Kilty (19:07:51) :
“[…] Maybe the real answer is mass therapy for people who feel compelled to micromanage both humanity plus our planet.”
Let me just say to the gov advisors in all seriousness- please dont do it. Don’t try and geo-engineer the planet when you just dont know what you’re doing – it scares me it really does. I can run from your stupid gov and stupid taxes but if you mess-up the atmosphere no-one can run.
And BTW, cloud seeding is a temporary effect and will not help. Your reflective roofs policy will not help.
This is more of a reflection on the lamentable state of education in the UK and the ridiculousness of the current “government” there.
Dissapointing shallow article from such an apparently well qualified climate specialist. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified as the CO2 level is driven by temperature, not the other way round.
However, climate is always changing and we do need to invest to mitigate the effects of this change on humanity. I don’t think tampering with nature is ever a good idea.
This article is all well and good, but don’t underestimate the government’s wont to throw money at engineering schemes as well. What difference does it make if we are taxed into submission to stop emissions, or to actively engineer earth’s temperature? I have a feeling the smart money will cozy up to Uncle Sam either way. Do nothing is the correct approach, all others lead to empty wallets. I, for one, would like to see a wall erected around D. C. Send all the politicians home for a year or ten, and then we can start having interviews to hire a twentieth of them back again.
Mike
“he fear of the additional climate change is based on an assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and the emissions induce additional positive radiative forcing.”
Well Richard, I have to disagree. The fear is not so much of the “forcing” as the response. Politicians are listening to scientists who tell them that the response to the “forcing” will be terribly large, catastrophic even. The “response” is the sensitivity. And if it is small, then there is no need for alarm. Well, we can assess the sensitivity now and the recent data analyses have been indicating that it is indeed the case that the response is small. The problem is that politicians have gotten themselves so worked up into a frenzy-and their constituents in the process-that there is no derailing the train with cold hard facts….So I reluctantly agree that there may be a need to come up with an “out” for the pols…
“And there are many other ways to reflect sunlight so it is not absorbed by the ground. Crops could be chosen for reflectivity, roofs could be covered with reflective materials, and tethered balloons could be covered in reflective material.”
I wonder if you were to take a survey of environmentalists how many of them would know that trees can contribute to global warming because of their albedo as referenced to in this current new scientist article.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/08/trees-are-going-up-in-the-worl.html
“Assuming the trees continue to expand their territories upwards, it’ll be interesting to see what effect they might have on albedo; that is, how reflective the ground is. Trees are pretty dark, so tree coverage generally leads to a low albedo, and a tendency to absorb more warmth ”
Then again over at science daily they are telling us that removing trees caused global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817073502.htm
“Massive burning of forests for agriculture thousands of years ago may have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide enough to alter global climate and usher in a warming trend that continues today, according to a new study that appears online Aug. 17 in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews.”
I am very happy to know that the science is settled.
IMO, This is the sort of lose, unconnected thinking that has brought us to this point in time where economies are on the verge of being damaged and huge resources spent to control something that is not controlable.
I think it’s significant that Richard Courtney has said “Global temperature has not reached the high it did in 1998, and has been stable since. But it could start to rise again.” All we’ve heard for years is that the temperature WILL rise again and that the last few years are just a statistical blip. Maybe some people are beginning to get second thoughts.
I take issue with Richard Courtney’s post in its entirety. Fittingly his Sunday school Pharaoh analogy did set the precedent for a surprisingly childish article:
A typical spin-start?
“Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it…” Immediately, the anthropogeic global warming theory debate is phrased as “Climate change”, placed within the goalposts of being a “serious problem” and deemed that goverments ultimately address climate – not scientists.
The additional climate change?
“There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening…” And:
“…Politicians have decided how much additional climate change is acceptable…” And:
“…However, the additional climate change can be reversed…“ And:
“…the cause of the fear of the additional climate change…”
What on earth is “additional climate change?” His first mention of this phenomena infers we already know – surely not anthropogenic, as that would be a monumnetal admittance? Additional to what? Normal climate change with some extra “additional” on top? And so we now have:
Fear of additional (anthropogenic?) climate change?
“…the fear of dire consequences from the additional climate change.” And:
“…because of fear that the effects of the emissions may be irreversible…” And:
“…the cause of the fear of the additional climate change…”
Using fear and catastrophism as tools to shape public opinion in support of the funding for measures to counteract an imagined additional climate change, of which he readily accepts that there is no clear evidence:
“There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening…” (!)
But we still need some (less) of your money for daft ideas.
By twisting the warmist position into one which endorses geo-engineering above (what he now accepts as inadequate) emissions trading, he has postulated another excuse for the continued funding of warmist pseudo-science, and the burgeoning bureacracy required to support it:
“The Conference needs to decide funding to perfect the methods to reverse the additional climate change if and when that becomes necessary…” And:
“…a cheap and effective counter measure while the needed emission constraints are imposed…” And:
“much cheaper than the emission constraints…” And:
“much cheaper than constraining the emissions by 20 per cent for a single year…”
And what feat of human endeavour to save the planet now? An increase in cloud cover and sunlight reflection! And how? “…roofs could be covered with reflective materials, and tethered balloons…”. Echoes of Steven Chu’s white paint Star Trek reasoning abound. But don’t worry because this:
“…would give politicians decades of time to conduct their negotiations…” to spend your (our) money.
Utterly fallacious yet betraying the truth
Not only one of the best examples in the art of deploying fallacious arguments in support of AGW that I have seen, but also – paradoxically – a quite conciliatory piece, given that the only way we can logically interpret the phrase “additional climate change” is as anthropogenic, and also that his description of any possible Kyoto based CO2 emissions policies (cap and trade) endorsed at Copenhagen he accepts would be futile as a mechanism for global temperature conrol – as if that in itself isn’t utterly preposterous:
“no need for the Copenhagen Conference to reach a forced, inadequate, and premature agreement…” And:
“But the Kyoto Protocol failed. It has had no detectable effect on the emissions which continue to rise…” And:
“…failure of the Kyoto Protocol … adopted pointless and expensive impositions…”
These are the words of an advocate exposed. A sad but true testimony of the Lysenkoism in the pro-AGW camp.
“Joel Shore (19:41:26) :
Jeff L says:
The base assumption in this paper is wrong – that the goal is to control the climate. What has been seen & proven over the last several years is the REAL goal is increased government control over people.
So, are you saying this is the united goal of most of the climate science community, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences & analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the councils of most major scientific societies like the AGU, the AMS, and the APS? How exactly did they all get together to agree on this strategy?”
How did all the banks, builders, investors, traders, regulators, government’s, to name but a few get together to agree on creating a property bubble?
How exactly does everybody get together and decide on what is socially acceptable or that a certain hair style is in fashion?
I think Sunsettommy hit the nail here. From my all too brief converstaions with Richard Courtney via Facebook, he is one of the “good guys”, he has identified a problem the politicans have. I suspect like he that many politicians realise that there isn’t a probelm, but the fanatical green nazis are poking them with sharp objects (well some of ours have but you colonials may have to go thro a tad more pain first). Now, at the risk of being snipped, the pro-AGW politicos & their hangers-on who haven’t got an ounce of common sense among them, (& I won’t rant about how they really are, I really have a soft spot for all of them – it’s a bog on Dartmoor!) the little darlings have played with their buckets & spades for so long that they have dug themselves into the biggest dammned hole on the planet, out from which they cannot climb without becoming the laughing stock they truly are. Therefore they need a rope ladder, & this is what Richard is giving them in the form of geo-engineering solutions. They can then be seen to do “something” about CC, but of course they can actually do Sweet Fanny Adams. Yes it may be expensive, but not cost the trillions of dollars (US/Can/Aust/HK, etc), pounds, euros, yen, krugerands, rupees, that it would otherwise cost developed western economies.
The only issue I have is that by creating a solution to a non-problem (The UK government is first class at this), one runs the risk of creating a problem for which one has no solution, e.g. cooling the planet then sending us into what may be a premature ice-age for which we are wholly unprepared. After all am I not correct in thinking that the IPCC has claimed that there will be 50k years of interglacial with no scientific evidence to support such a claim? – no change there then! Then again, should man be playing “God” in this way, but that’s a whole different can of worms?
Sunsettommy has hit the nail on the head here. From my all too brief conversations with Richard S. Courtney via Facebook, he has identifed a problem the politicians have. I believe he is one of the good guys here. When the dust settles eventually, politicians will realise their folly that they have played with their buckets & spades for too long, & dug themselves into one heck of a hole out from which they cannot climb, without looking rather foolish but then again that’s never stopped them before. (I have a soft-spot for them all really – it’s a bog on Dartmoor!) Richard has offered them a ladder to climb back up in the form of geo-engineering. This way they can be seen to be doing something, yet they will do Sweet Fanny Adams in reallity (if they know what reallity is).
One proviso, if this is mishandled in some way, we may end up providing a solution to a non-problem that leads to a real problem for which we have no solution, i.e. causing global cooling which drags us into a premature ice-age. In our feeble attempts at playing God we could really screw things up in the process, the very thing we’ve been accused of in the first place. I have a real problem with enviromentalists (empahsis on the last 3 syllables) who think that we have the power to switch climate at the flick of a switch! Anyway if it happened the UK Marxist Greens will be pleased for the polar bears & penguins, but the Marxist Socialists will be upset because 2 million people freeze to death – unemployed!
Joel Shore (18:54:58) :
You assert “3) One of the ironies of this discussion is that so-called “skeptics” often seem to endorse these geoengineering schemes as a better alternative to actually decreasing our emissions even though these skeptics are arguing that we know less about climate than we think we do.”
You need proof. In a big way. You are just soooo wrong.
@ur momisugly Richard S Courtney (23:42:02) : ( Carryover from the previous thread )
Curiousgeorge:
Thankyou for your advise and attempted help.
You say:
“To be effective an argument must be presented to the target audience – those whose behavior or attitude you wish to change – and in a manner, venue, and format that they will be inclined to absorb. It does no good, for example, for me to lecture someone on their failure to appreciate my viewpoint; which is what I see a lot of lately from both sides.”
I very strongly agree.
JunkScience intends to circulate the matter to journal Editors.
But if one cannot get one’s own side on-board then there is no hope with the opposition.
I have been plugging this for years but it has been ignored until recently. I think there are two reasons for the recent interest. Copenhagen is imminent, and the recent success in Australia has demonstratd that direct involvement in the political process can benefit the climate realist cause.
However, only a few hours ago I obtained an email from aclimate realist that said:
“I would think many alarmists would be negative to climate control qua
geo engineering.
Besides, isn’t it tantamont to admitting the AGW or something akin to
it is “real” or authentic? (”If and when …”)
Bunk is bunk, and encouagement to consider “doing something” to
prevent the consequences of bunk to me is pointless.
But I do understand your point as something akin to “buying time ’till
the public forgets” –
… I’m lukewarm. If there are no ghosts, we shouldn’t invent
measures to “counteract” them.”
I replied saying:
“There may be no ghosts but there are dragons; i.e. C&T, CCS, windfarms, etc.
You may be “lukewarm” but you will get burned like the rest of us when the dragons breath on you. You can say “there are are no ghosts” as I do, but I want to slay the dragons, too. People will forget their fear of the ghosts given time.”
Richard
Providing the policy makers with a “face-saving” option as you suggested in your piece may prove helpful, but I think would require an unbearable degree of cooperation from the opposition. I can’t picture Al Gore, for example, surrendering his position; he’s much too invested in it (emotionally as well as financially ).
Your reply regarding “ghosts” and “dragons” is well put, but I think also is part of the problem in that there are many “dragons” some of whom amount to nothing more than distractions. Which dragon to slay is the object of much discussion among those “on one’s own side”, as everyone seems to have a favorite dragon. As has been noted in my part of the world: “When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp” .
Good luck in your endeavor. Will you be attending Copenhagen?
To Joel Shore:
Look at the history of AIDS research and politics in the US to see an example of how politicians, researchers, special interest groups, and the media can form an unspoken alliance to further each one’s own goals. They ALL knew the research showed that sexual transmission to heterosexual men was extrememly unlikely, but fostered an environment which led people like Oprah in 1987 saying things like, “‘By 1990, one in five heterosexuals will be dead from AIDS.” Politicians got more influence over people, researchers got funded, special interest groups got more public monies directed to research they desired, and the media sold more newspapers and had increased viewer ratings.
Now follow the money with AGW.
For the benefit of Joel Shore (18:54:58) :
– If the governments of the world are truly so worried about CO2, then why do they generally refuse to even consider Nuclear power? – which replaces our most carbon intensive fuel (coal) with a fuel that has zero carbon emissions. Why? Because there is nothing it in for them.
– If the government is so worried about CO2 & not about taking money from it’s constituents, then why don’t they follow Jim Hansen’s advise for a revenue neutral scheme ? – it would have the same net effect as cap-n-trade. Answer – Because there is nothing in it for them.
Politicians are opportunists of the 1st order. And Wall Street is too. And they both stand to benefit hugely.
I could go on & on with more examples but I have to go to work – so others please fill in.
The irony here is that this will be the most regressive tax ever placed on a population & will have been done by the liberals.
Joel Shore (19:41:26) :
Jeff L says:
The base assumption in this paper is wrong – that the goal is to control the climate. What has been seen & proven over the last several years is the REAL goal is increased government control over people.
“So, are you saying this is the united goal of most of the climate science community, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences & analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the councils of most major scientific societies like the AGU, the AMS, and the APS? How exactly did they all get together to agree on this strategy?”
Very simple answer Joel, because it is a carefully organized conspiracy.