“European homes, offices and streets will have to use energy-efficient lighting by the end of the decade, EU leaders decided on Friday.
“The decision to order a massive switchover that will affect the lives of all the European Union’s 490 million citizens came at a summit of the 27-nation bloc as part of an ambitious green energy policy to fight climate change.
“We are very impressed by the Australian [decision to ban incandescent light bulbs]* and before we came to the summit, we had already been in touch with them and looking at the issue. We support this scheme and hope to take it on, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said. (From Reuters via Woody)
In response to the decision, the question was asked across Europe: How many EU leaders does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: 27.
—————–
* Read comment on the Australian decision to ban incandescent light bulbs here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001899.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Not only is Europe following Australia in its change to light bulbs it is also taking a leaf out of Tasmania’s high achievement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
European emissions are to be slashed by 20% (of 1990 base year) by 2020 as a result of decisions taken at the European summit meeting on 8-9 March. See http://ec.europa.eu/news/eu_explained/070309_1_en.htm
Tasmania with its investment in sustainable forestry over the last decade and half has now achieved a 25% reduction in GHG according the Australian Greenhouse office. This is a remarkable achievement given that the vast majority of its electricity is from renewable CO2 free Hydro power.
Perhaps even more remarkable when green groups are constantly criticizing Tasmania’s environmental record and its forest practices. Perhaps the greens choose to totally ignore the contribution growing trees commercially makes to the removal of GHG.
Even more ironical is that local green groups have already applauded the European move on the ambitious targets yet are lobbying to close down Tassie’s forest industry.
Recommended viewing is “The Great Global Warming Swindle” shown on UK TV last Thursday.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en
You can see Tasmanian emissions monitoring here:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/stateinv/pubs/tas2004.pdf
FRom 1990-2004, TAS emissions from Land use, land use change and forestry dropped from 6,525,850 tonnes to 3,009,500 tonnes, a reduction of 3,516,350 tonnes
1,928,940 of this was from increases in afforestation.
The other 1,587,410 of the reduction was from reductions in deforestation.
Over 1990-2004, TAS emissions went from 11,081,120 tonnes to 7,328,020 tonnes.
In 1990, land use, land use change and forestry emissions were responsible for 59% of Tasmanian emissions – the biggest sectoral contribution to emissions in TAS.
In 2004, emissions from LULUCF – including reductions from afforestation – were still responsible for 41% of TAS emissions.
And recommended review for David is
Swindled indeed by shonks
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
Cosmic rays have unravelled !
P.S. Daid – Nexus is still waiting for you to pop over and discuss your “paper”.
And has the Hydro factored in the methane emissions from rotting trees in dams ?
Do Hydroelectric Dams Mitigate Global Warming? The Case of Brazil’s CuruÁ-una Dam
Author: Fearnside, Philip1
Source: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 10, Number 4, October 2005, pp. 675-691(17)
Hydroelectric dams in tropical forest areas emit greenhouse gases, as illustrated by the Curuá-Una Dam in the Amazonian portion of Brazil. Emissions include carbon dioxide from decay of the above-water portions of trees that are left standing in the reservoir and methane from soft vegetation that decays under anaerobic conditions on the bottom of the reservoir, especially macrophytes (water weeds) and vegetation that grows in the drawdown zone and is flooded when the reservoir water level rises. Some methane is released from the reservoir surface through bubbling and diffusion, but larger amounts are released from water passing through the turbines and spillway. Methane concentration in the water increases with depth, and the turbines and spillway draw water from sufficient depth to have substantial methane content. In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.
Steve quotes the Tas 2004 Inventory from the AGO, as I did, he uses the table showing trends in CO2 emmisions (page 23/24) reflecting a fall from 11.1 to 7.3Gg a decrease of 33%. This is even better that the result I quoted of a 25% decrease, using the same report but using CO2 equivalents (page 33/34) These figures should be shouted out loud by all that see reducing Greenhouse Gasses as a benefit to the environment.
The figures also show the vital importance of supporting forestry both in Tasmania and right around the world.
It is only a pity that the Green politicians remain opposed to sustainable forestry as practiced in Tasmania and remain totally silent on the 25% / 33% reduction by Tasmanian
Luke, next paper written and accepted for publication. You and your other multiple personalities will have to wait for it to come out though. The publishers are very strict. Only fifty more sleeps Luke. In the meantime, here’s a ready reckoner. Each 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is worth 0.001 degrees C, at least until we get to about 600 ppm when the effect dies off. At the same time, plant growth is going to go gangbusters, especially in water-stressed places like our beloved Oz. So don’t be glum, you have so much to look forward to.
Oh well more dodgy stats I guess (or was it none?) and cherry picks. Will you be publishing anywhere serious this time?
And so I wonder why the pasture plants didn’t seem to grow during the recent drought. Hmmm – maybe it was a lack of rainfall. But that can’t be as there was so much CO2 so I wonder why there was so much drought assistance needed.
Try to get some help David. And Nexy would just love to have you over for dinner.
Whoops – well spotted cinders – should be using total CO2-equivalent, not just CO2 numbers.
Golly galoshes! I love all those CO2 stats. Can anyone tell me how much CO2 the human population of the world produces in, say, a single exhalation? How does this compare with the CO2 avoided by using alternative light bulbs?
Luke,
Cosmic rays, solar activity etc have not unravelled. Indeed RC does a very poor job of explaining why these things are not climate drivers.
The papaers that RC refer to are not written by experts in the field but by proponents of AGW and CO2 as the major climate forcing. And talk about cherry picking, I can understand that the RC guy’s are doing what all researchers do, defending their own research, but some their rationale is not supported by the papers that they recommend.
As for the researchers that appeared on the Great Global Warming Swindle, the concerns that they raised are still to be answered in any meaningful way. Lets face if you or I compile a model we would have to put our assumptions forward for critique, we would have to provide real justification for the parameters that we set for each variable and explain why they gave the result that they did and why they were important. Many GCm’s operate in an information vacuum in this regard. You or I would be rightfully critisised if we did not provide this sort of rationale. Indeed RC calls anyone into account that does not explicitly state these things, and rightly so. However they are very poor at providing the same sort of information and would have to have the thinnest skins in global research when questioned or critiqued.
Peter – you have to be joking that the Swindle doco was anything more than complete bunkum. What a bunch of shonks. A high school student could have demolished it. And if people don’t know what the opposition arguments are by now – be VERY worried.
There’s plenty on GCM literature (not that that’s the relevant point here) – it’s just that most of us never read it and never will.
Basically the cosmic guys don’t have any decent cloud data trends – MSU revisited!
(and was it Nexus who remarked that it’s amusing that those who go on about cosmic rays and warming on Mars may have noticed a lack of clouds on Mars.)
In terms of RC not providing info – WTF – they do this almost to the exclusion of all other related sites.???
Luke,
In regards to having any decent data, I do not believe that either the AGW proponents or opponents have any decent data. That is the problem with the AGW debate, we are operating in a vacuum. I think it was Arnous in an earlier post who suggested that the data sets be cleaned and maintained by an independant body who would provide access to anyone who required it. This way the data sets would be maintained to agreed standards, using agreed protocols etc. The current circumstances are worrying where data is handled diffently as it makes direct comparisons very difficult to begin with, let alone when different scenario’s are modelled over the top.
In regards to the swindle doco, shonks they may be, but shonks with relevent questions that have not been answered to an acceptible standard, even by RC.
The doco was correct on at least on thing and that is many AGW proponents will not permit any questioning or debate to occur (this doesnot necessarily refer to researchers)that is counter to their set ideals, and that is worrying.
Me, I’ve got an open mind on the whole global warming thing. I’m a data junkie by nature and I perceive and enormous amount of cherry picking going on in support of AGW. Also don’t forget that model are just that, models. They are not reality and we do not have anywhere near enough solid data to make some of the inferences that we do. Remember that the vostok ice cores are a very small sample (6-10)and that there is a different sample size (depth) at each core. To be truly reliable we should be demanding much larger sample sizes and consuistent drilling depths for each core. Yes I know that this may appear petty, but if I produced data derived from such small sample sizes I would be crucified by statisticians, green groups and industry alike, with just cause.
If AGW is as imortant as it is claimed by many then where are the calls to provide the funding to do the research properly and once and for all put critisism of this component of the methodology to bed.
The Great global warming swindle documentary gets us back on the subject of the light bulb. The documentary featured one of the new greenhouse friendly lightbulbs in a medical facility in a developing country in Africa. Problem was the solar panels provided to power the facility could either power the light or the fridge keeping the medicines and vacinations cold, but not both. The medical staff had to choose, and they chose the fridge and turned off the light.
I am not sure of what part of the documentary could be “Demolished” by a high school student, but perhaps there is a high school student out there that could counter all the points raised by the Documentary.
When will we see the documentary on Australian Television? In the mean time perhaps we should consider how the theme of Mine Your own Business documentary (featured on this blog) ended up as a theme in this latest documentary “the great global warming swindle.”
So Peter – forget about GCMs for a while – assuming you agree we have have had a sharp warming in the last 30 years (and are over that hurdle) – what’s actually wrong with the CO2 radiative physics story.
And if you’re into data let’s go with the obs then !
As for lack of debate – gee could have fooled me – newspapers and blogs are full of dissent and debate. Actually you should be more worried about the IPCC be got at by the bureaucrats to tone things down (says latest New Scientist).
I have to say I found the documentary palpably dishonest. Genuine reaction. But great propaganda. Of course I didn’t like An Incovenient Truth that much either.
When we will see a genuine shoot-out debate documentary ?
Luke,
Agreed there has been an increase in temps over the past 30 years. Is it a sharp increase? Compared to what? Compared tothe increase prior to 1940, No, not particularly sharp at all. Compared to some of th ereconstructed climate changes, difficult, if not imposible, to say because of the coarseness of the reconstructed data.
I have very real and valid issues in regards to attaching measured data with proxy data. Have a good look at the manner in which the tempeerature is derived from ice cores, it is not an exact science. The ice core temperature proxy data might be precise, but it is unlikely to be accurate.
I have yet to read (anywhere legitimate) that the IPCC bureacrats have toned down the summary findings. Yes some research is now suggesting that some of the model projections are conservative. Conversely there are also some that suggest the opposite, some models are unconstrained or their input parameters are wildly over the top. Which ever it is I do not know, however I suspect that the upper and lower have been dropped off as is often the case.
There is a lack of real debate on many important aspects of climate science. For instance, where is the debate on what constitutes real and representative model input parameters, the reason for their use and their settings within the models. When some of the economic parameters were questioned a couple of years ago the IPCC put up the shutters adn the AGW proponents refused to discuss in any meaningful way their reasons for using the ecnomic inputs that they did.
The truth is I found Al Gore palpably dishonest, but then I expected nothing less from a politician, especially one attempting to rebuild his career. I also doubt that we would see a genuine shoot out documentary as it would have to be dumbed down to such an extent that it would become meaningless rhetoric or it would be too difficult for the average person to understand and so no one would watch.
Luke,
CO2 radiative physics, agreed not enough is known at present. Especially the interactions with other atmospheric gases. Inded our understanding of the role of dihydrogen monoxide in the earths energy budget is at its infancy.
ENVISAT satellite data is now available for H2O at a global scale however we do not know enough about the historical concentrations of H2O and its climatic effects . So how can the role of this most important greenhouse gas over time be determined if the data does not exist.
Luke,
I am very disapointed that you have not yet told me how much CO2 the world population of humans exhales in single breath, or perhaps in a year. I am hungry for such basic information. I need it to make a rational judgement on whether to buy new light bulbs, or encourage Malcolm Turnbull to leave politics, and return to the business arena. Perhaps, in a way, he is already selling fluorescent light bulbs. As a Plantagenet, maybe I can persuade cousin Betty to lock him up in the Tower of London. Australia could then claim a carbon credit for having rid itself of his CO2 exhalations. What think?
3.142 gigatons Davey.
Well Peter – compared to what – so climate just moves like this by itself then ??
only a few 1000 papers – I find it interesting that you can measure the closing of spectral windows from space and radiometers on the ground estimate the flux to be pretty well what the theory suggests – all very coincidental.
Luke,
Has your estimate of 3.142 gigaton(nes) of anthropogenic carboniferous exhalations been published in a refereed journal? Sounds like pi in the sky to me.
Luke,
Poorly explained on my part, apologies. I understand that we can measure the fluxes, ENVISAT data provides some of the measurements. My concern is that the models are designed so that CO2 is the forcing and H2O is reacting as a positive feedback. The literature is inconslusve on this point. Some proponents are stating this, others are saying that CO2 has a negative feedback on H2O.
Yet logically, as the major “greenhouse” gas, H2O cannot only be a response to CO2 forcings, it must in itself provide the bulk of the forcings. Does that mean it creates its own feed back mechanism?
Also as it is notoriously difficult to model cloud cover and cloud formation, duration, density etc is so variable, how do the AGW models explain the impact of cloud cover? From the little that I have read on this topic, very poorly. What mechanisms exist to determine the historical record of atmospheric water vapour? Is it possible to even attempt to do such a thing? Without this sort of information our knowledge of the climate sytem is incomplete, as is our knowledge of the mechanism for increased temperature.
So tell us all, Luke, exactly where did the graphs in the doco stop in a way that you claim is fudging. What I saw were graphs ending at the same horizontal point (in time) with one value high while the other was underneath. I remember thinking at the time that it did not continue like the value above but that was merely the tricks played on the human eye when two moving objects (in this case, lines) seem to mimic each other but stop.
And tell us all about the mosquitoes in the tundra? Didn’t Al gore have a bit to say about malaria moving north?
And what about all those “environmental Journalists” (now there’s an oxymoron) with such a vested interest in flogging a story. Or what about the Possum Researcher who can only get funding if he studies the impact of climate change on possums? Do you seriously expect us to believe it doesn’t happen on a regular basis?
Anyone who has ever filled out a successful funding application knows exactly what sort of buttons need to be pushed.
And Real Climate fudged big time with the radiation stuff. They debugged solar radiation and sidestepped cosmic radiation which was the key issue.
Ian – and all those TCA or IPA people flogging us a line – gee EVERYONE has a vested interest. Spare us. Anyone can throw crap liek that.
Try and get a grant on climate change up through the AGO if you think it’s easy !
How exactly did they fudge rsdiation – you’ll have to elaborate.
Peter – read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
Speaking of feedback !
and
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 795 – 796
DOI: 10.1126/science.1119258
Water Vapor Feedback in Climate Models
Robert D. Cess
General circulation models (GCMs) are highly sophisticated computer tools for modeling climate change, and they incorporate a large number of physical processes and variables. One of the most important challenges is to properly account for water vapor (clouds and humidity) in climate warming. In his Perspective, Cess discusses results reported in the same issue by Soden et al. in which water vapor feedback effects are tested by studying moistening trends in the upper troposphere. Satellite observations of atmospheric water vapor are found to agree well with moisture predictions generated by one of the key GCMs, showing that these feedback effects are being properly handled in the model, which eliminates a major potential source of uncertainty.
Luke,
You disappoint me. In my current state-of-the-art Advanced Critical Fractal Climate Model (ACFCM) I will now have to treat all biota as externalities (BAE). Either that, or assume that they have all stopped respiring, rotting, burning and photosynthesizing (ASRRBP). Otherwise the model becomes too difficult (MBTD), and I won’t be able to keep up my career path quota of at least two publications a month (ALTPAM), with trips to overseas conferences (TTOC). My last hope is Jim Lovelock – he may help me with a model of black and white daisies (MOBAWD). On the other hand, climatologist Al Gore might have a few ideas (CAGFI).
Davey Davey Davey – it’s obvious if you recheck the celestial constant in your parameterisation.
Fanx Luke, I niver fortov dat.
P.S. I won’t get my cousin Betty to lock YOU up in the Tower.
Well, I dunno, I MIGHT if you’re not careful …
Bitch
Luke,
Ok, I’ve waded through your links on water vapour feedback in GCM’s and followed a number of other links via RC. Having had to re-read a number of these papers to fully understand what they were on about and I still come to the conclusion that the models handle this very important variable very poorly. It seems that some of the GCM’s may account for water vapour “properly” (as far as our current state of knowledge and technical expertise allows). others, often referred to indirectly but not mentioned explicitely in the literature, apparently do not.
The question then must be asked who is it that determines what accounted for “properly” means? I suspect that it means conforming to a particular paraigm.
The models that are apparently not accounting for water vapour in the “proper” manner must therefore be built upon a different water vapour paradigm. Is this so? As with many scientific journal papers there is a healthy dose of ego embedded within them.
Right Luke, that’s it … dreep,dreep… dreep, dreep … Hello? Oh, it’s you Phil. Yiasou koumbari. Is Betty available? Yes, it’s Divey from Strylia …
Peter – well that’s a big In Your Opinion – more info pls or hard to respond.
Peter
TGGWS raises questions. But not scientific questions. Lindzen has been asked to put up a paper on these points he raises, he hasn’t. Christy has had to sign off on his own errors in the satellite data. Wunsch disowns the documentary. The rest are just commentators and nutters. They were once scientists, but they aren’t any more. They don’t do science, just tut tutting. Let them get out there and do some real, scientific leg work.
David Archibald, could you please contact me on – redrobin888@dodo.com.au – it has nothing to do with global warming.
Thanks