Martin Ferguson Breaks Rank
Posted by jennifer, January 14th, 2006 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
I was going to title this blog post ‘Martin Ferguson for Prime Minister’ – but I don’t really know that much about Martin Ferguson.
He gave a great speech in defence of Tasmanian foresters some weeks ago, click here.
Yesterday The Australian newspaper published him asking that we move beyond politics and embrace the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
The speech and the article are revolutionary because Ferguson is a senior member of the Labor Party and he is taking a stand against traditional green politics yet over recent years the Labor Party has not only consulted with, but encouraged environmental activists, including Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), to write Party policy (see the Latham Diaries).
Ferguson is redefining what it means to be an environmentalist and reshaping environmental politics in Australia. In yesterday’s The Australian he wrote:
“Unprecedented world economic growth is creating unprecedented global energy demand, rising energy prices and faster depletion of non-renewable energy resources. These are genuine threats to our future economic wellbeing. Maybe worse, the unequal distribution of energy resources across the world is a real threat to future geopolitical stability.
International initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate have the potential to ease both these tensions. But although greenhouse gas reduction targets may be necessary, any frank review must conclude that the world’s greenhouse emissions are not going down in the short term: they are simply being shifted from one country to another.
After all, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters are not bound by Kyoto. The US, as the world’s biggest emitter, has refused to ratify the agreement. China and India, the second and fourth biggest emitters, are not required to reduce their emissions. And while we are often reminded by the Greens that Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions, let’s not forget there are good reasons for that.
Australia’s relatively high energy intensity has to be considered in the context of the country’s size and its relatively low population density, its climate, its heavy reliance on coal for power generation, and the presence of energy-intensive industries such as aluminium which form the backbone of the nation’s wealth-generation capacity.
That is why it is a significant achievement of the Asia-Pacific Partnership’s first meeting that the aluminium industry in the member countries reached an agreement on working together to reduce emissions. This is essential to overcome the problem of simply shifting emissions from one country to another and at the same time shifting Australian manufacturing jobs and prosperity offshore, to countries with lower environmental standards.
It is extraordinary that the Greens could place the economic security and jobs of their constituents at risk and at the same time advocate a worse greenhouse outcome by displacing Australian industry to countries with lower standards.
It’s time to abandon the political correctness espoused by the green movement. Let’s be real: without getting business on board we cannot achieve anything.
Read the full article by clicking here.
The Australian newspaper continues the theme with its editorial today. The the last paragraph includes:
The reactionary response to the Asia-Pacific Partnership meeting this week demonstrates that support for Kyoto cloaks the green movement’s real desire – to see capitalism stop succeeding. Extreme greens cannot bear to accept that our best chance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will occur when free enterprise has incentives to implement solutions. While power providers and big electricity users will howl, we need a national carbon trading scheme, with permits bought and sold in the free market, as a means of meeting greenhouse reduction targets set by Canberra. And we need tax concessions for industries that develop new technologies to clean up power supplies. In the long term geo-sequestration, which buries carbon dioxide pumped from power plants, may be a solution. And research into technologies to clean the coal burned in electricity generators is already under way, including development of a power plant in Florida designed to deliver much lower emissions. When the incentives exist business will use technology to find a way. For a century London was plagued by pollution that killed people. No longer. People now fish in the great lakes of North America which were once sludgy industrial swamps. And the idea that cars could emit much less pollution would have seemed impossible to environmental doomsayers 30 years ago. They would not have even conceived that commercial cars could run on batteries, with hydrogen power on the horizon. Whatever the extreme greens say, we can address global warming without adopting a medieval mindset that sees electricity as inimical to the environment. This week’s meeting was a practical step forward by six nations whose legitimate energy requires continued use of coal – perhaps with more nuclear energy to follow. It worried environmental activists – because it showed up their messages of doom for what they are – hot air.
What a difference a week can make!
Like Mann is statistically dodgy?
Bjorn is well argued and referenced. They’re your criteria, Phil, and good ones.
Climate Audit is a good site, too. They don’t censor comments like RC.
Warwick Hughes is well argued and referenced. His conclusions are different to yours. He allows adverse comments.
The Lavoisier site is well argued and referenced. Why don’t you like any of these sites?
Well Paul – suit yourself – but I find tons of rubbish and untruths myself. Seriously !!
Bjorn has reams of statistical and climate difficulties despite being well referenced, but alas not peer reviewed and would not stand that test of critique.
Anyway I encourgae you to read critically and asking youself if this an old argument, is there a counter position, have they explained it to me well enough. At least compare and contrast. And alwayts be worried when the science text suddenly stops and you’re in a political rave.
Warwick’s big test of course is to get published. Then we’ll see. Good luck to him in this.
RC has plenty of strong comments that rampantly disagree with their position.
Paul – I can only say good luck sifting through it all.
P.S. I think the Mann issue if FAR from settled and has taken far too much emphasis anyway.
P.P.S. Despite all the blathering the IPCC process continues on fearlessly and formally assessing the state of the science. The contrarian stuff is really a side show for we bloggers. There will be another assessment report and I think it will be even more certain than previous. Of course whether the world wants to listen or do anything about it is another matter.
Phil – You have a touching faith in the objectivity of the peer review process.
I agree the Mann issue is far from settled, I think the dust will fly over this. Too much emphasis? You’re joking! It’s central to the vaunted peer review process.
I have no idea if Warwick is submitting papers for publication. Of course, the acceptance or not of his work by the AGW establish has no bearing on its validity.
Too much emphasis as if that’s the only issue or the whole of AGW hinges on Mann is what I’m implying.
The reason Warwick needs to publish to do a couple of things (1) in a congent publication show what he’s on about (b) is the temperature record is corrupted by incorrect data – show us what difference it makes – none, a little, some, heaps ??? (c) some else always should look at your stats (d) as a courtesy to the work that he’s attacking
IMHO I simply don’t know if his arguments make any difference. Publish a paper in an accepted journal saying they do and we’ll all sit up and take notice. There are two published papers refuting heat islands as issues. Otherwise it’s only blogging and really the science world doesn’t see it nor care. So it many of make not be valid – but it’s all for naught if you don’t get it to the attention of the world’s science bodies.
And as for the science club being a closed shop – well scientists love to get the drop on their colleagues and overturn the apple cart. Everyone would love to publish something revolutionary or heretical. See plants methane. But you have to be right and have some proof – you can’t just be raving on.
But usually outsiders don’t get the drop on major science process – as a large number of very bright people have already looked at the issue. You have to ask yourself – do I really think they haven’t looked at any of this. Would they be that stupid (only very occasionally is the answer yes). But don’t be deterred from trying !!!
To get back to your original point, Phil, when you ask, is global warming fact or not? You are dumbing down the argument to black or white.
Most of the sceptical posts on this site and elsewhere have cautioned against assuming global warming is absolute fact. They have highlighted that it is a modelled scenario with numerous untested assumptions and relationships. And they have concluded that it is a low probability scenario that needs a great deal more work on it before it could possibly justify taking a (Kyoto)sledge hammer to the world economy.
But this low probability scenario is sufficient to apply a proper precautionary approach by taking practical measures within a functioning market economy to reduce inputs that MIGHT be creating a problem.
The greens have forgotten that the precautionary principle was not designed to be a blank cheque for the most disproportionate response they can think up. It was always intended to produce measured, proportionate and cost effective responses to realistic threats.
I think forget greens – sideshow and noisy distraction at best.
A major representation of the world’s best scientists through their publishing record in various areas have through the IPCC process produced some very dry indigestible stste of the science information about where increased atmospheric CO2 might be heading. There are unknowns but a fair bit a stake they say – and once you get the CO2 up there you’re practically stuck with it.
You have a current warming trend that the only plausible reason seems to radiative forcing from extra CO2. It ain’t solar.
It’s a very hard call. Humanity is not good at this stuff. We’re not good at managing droughts and climate “problems” that we already have.
If it were myself I would prefer a market mechanism using Asia Partnership technologies, but also make carbon a commodity of value, and set some “realistic” targets to at least rein in growth of CO2 somewhat. I don’t that would ruin the world and make actually increase global domestic product through innovation.
But from where I sit – Kyoto is gone (was never there really and not enough), Asia pact won’t deliver anything more than a better way to burn coal. Public won’t touch nuclear. So CO2 will keep going up.
Incidentally I think the climate scientists now having been mauled as the messenger are giving up and moving to quietly refining the science and working on adaptation. Pessimistic that any reponse will be taken before major climate changes occur and the public want to know “why”.
I enclose some empircal evidence on greenhouse forcing using pyranometers for your perusal.
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing -
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
ALSO
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land. INDEX
TERMS: 0325 Atmospheric Composition and Structure:
Evolution of the atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere
(0315, 0325); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309);
1640 Global Change: Remote sensing. Citation: Philipona, R.,
and B. Du¨rr (2004), Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing
solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937.
AND
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura,
and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and
strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
Ian
It is getting worse – some greenhouse effect calculations on the climate sceptics group for Martian CO2 are producing numbers which contradict the belief in the greenhouse effect. So far two quite different approaches were adopted, both analyses coming to the same general conclusion. I expect it will appear in Realclimate sometime.
There is a suggestion that the Greenhouse Gas concept itself might be flawed though considering how mainstream that idea is, I doubt anything will change soon. It has reached the status of a core belief so it will be resistant to contradiction.
Louis – the Martian CO2 business has been on RC for months
Anyway your Martian CO2 stuff on your blog is idiotic – get back to Warwick’s blog and answer my substantive claims about your rampant dishonesty and total lack of any analysis in your blog. How you passed geology I’ll never know.
You are clueless about what you are talking about. Ask any physics lecturer.
Better still – you explain here now how the greenhouse effect supposedly works .. .. come on – for the readers .. ..
Have we not wandered a little from the topic of Marn Ferguson? As a lapsed Labor voter, I am happy to hear some sense, at last, from a member of that party. Of course politicians will say things that win them votes. That’s how they become, and remain, politicians. Don’t blame them, blame the system, if you must. It’s called parliamentary democracy. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than any other system I know.
Sorry Davey -deeply suspicious it’s vote buying. But like to think you are right. However the the disconnect that the climate but is rubbish but we still need to do something is illogical.
Maybe some companies already get it and don’t need pacts to get moving.
http://www.bpalternativenergy.com/liveassets/bp_internet/alternativenergy/index.html
Good point, Davey. All very well to have one little beacon of common sense in the party but it will mean diddly squat if it comes without a complete ethics transfusion for all those “poisonous young men in suits” that, as Tom Burns put it, “wouldn’t make a labor man’s armpit”.
Hey Louis – I’ve told you why you’re wrong on Mars in Warwick’s blog but you haven’t read it have you. Waiting for the penny and Louis’s pants to drop .. .. I’ll leave it for you as an exercise. In the mean time keep digging a bigger hole. I’ve got a bet running on how deep you go.
I read it Phil and I disagree with your view that your comments are substantial.
Oh Rog – really – I’m heartbroken – I stayed up all night writing it too.
Anyway – so you tell me why Louis is wrong then.
Incidentally some dogs will lie anywhere. Louis had been bagging string theory – now he’s quoting a string theorist when it suits him. Oh the sweet smell of hypocrisy. You need to keep check on your character.
One last post (cros my heart and hope to die) to substantiate the CO2 fertilisation and water saving effects that to some extent counteract global temperature increases:
Crop losses to water shortage may exceed those from all other causes combined. If agriculture is to feed the world’s burgeoning population, yields of water-limited crops must be improved substantially. Efforts to accomplish this have concentrated on increasing the fraction of available water that crops transpire and increasing plant water use efficiency(biomass produced per unit of transpiration. These and other components of crop water economy will be affected by anticipated global changes, changes that include correlated increases in both atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and mean temperature.
Yield of water-limited crops is determined by crop water use and plant water use efficiency, each of which will be affected by the anticipated rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and concomitant increase in temperature. At the leaf level, a given proportional increase in CO2 concentration generally elicits a similar relative increase in transpiration efficiency (ratio of net photosynthesis to transpiration). The increase in transpiration efficiency may result both from an increase in photosynthetic rate and a decrease in stomatal – conductance.
Feedbacks involved in scaling from leaf to crop constrain the increase in net carbon gain and reduce the anti-transpiration effect of CO2 enrichment. As a result, the increase in crop water use efficiency at high CO2 typically is less than 75% of that measured at the leaf level. By accelerating crop development and reducing harvest index, higher temperatures often erode yield benefits of improved water use efficiency at high CO2. The fraction of available water that is used by crops could increase with CO2 concentration because of greater root growth and faster canopy closure, but these effects have received scant study. Field experiments indicate that CO2 enrichment will increase crop water use efficiency mainly by increasing photosyn-thesis and growth. Yield should be most responsive to CO2 when temperatures approximate the optimum for crop growth. Elevating CO2 can ameliorate negative effects of above-optimal temperatures, but temperatures near the upper limit for crops will depress yields irrespective of CO2 concentration.
Implications of Atmospheric and Climatic Change for Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency
H. Wayne Polley*
Published in Crop Sci. 42:131–140 (2002).