Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
August 27th 2018 print

William Kininmonth

Paris Is No Longer Relevant

With The Lodge flushed there is a possibility of post-Turnbullian sanity, with the first priority being to re-evaluate Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement. As a nation, we are pauperising ourselves in a cause demonstrably false and easily discerned as such

eiffel broken IINational energy policy is failing to satisfy what has been described as the trilemma of objectives: meeting national commitments for emissions reduction under the Paris Agreement; providing affordable energy; and ensuring continuity of supply.

There is potential flexibility for adopting different technologies to provide affordability and continuity of supply, but governments are tightly constrained by the need for national emissions reduction.

Australia is further constrained by policy shackles of its own making. Legislation is in place that rules out the most obvious technology readily satisfying the policy trilemma: nuclear generation. The reluctance to consider nuclear is baffling considering that seventy percent of France’s electricity generation is from nuclear and the global nuclear increase from 2016 to 2017 was a not inconsequential 65 terawatt hours. That is, nuclear provided more than 10 percent of the global increase in electricity generation, the equivalent of 10 new Hazelwoods.

This essay will appear in the September edition of Quadrant, which has not yet reached the shops. It has been released early because recent events in Canberra raise the hope that, at last, policies eschewing carbonphobia for rational policy might yet emerge.

Not surprising, the government’s favoured option of renewable energy, in the forms of wind and solar, is saddled with the burden of intermittency; there is no generation when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. In addition, expansion of the renewable base requires considerable reallocation of public funds from other infrastructure and social needs (schools, hospitals, transport, etc.).

As each day passes it becomes clearer that the federal government is finding the competing objectives of the policy trilemma impossible to resolve. The costs of overcoming intermittency and the subsidies to promote wind and solar expansion are driving electricity prices for consumers through the proverbial roof. In addition, major industries that underpin our national prosperity are threatening to close or relocate overseas.

It is time to re-evaluate our national commitment to the Paris Agreement and its requirement for emissions reduction. As a nation, are we pauperising ourselves in a cause that is now demonstrably false?

The basis of the Paris Agreement is the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. Computer models of the climate system, which few scientists understand, are invoked to project global temperature rise as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increases. The most recent assessment from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that global temperature is projected to rise between 1.5oC and 4.5oC for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.

Few dispute that human activities, especially burning of fossil fuels, are causing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to increase. Since the beginning of the 20th century the concentration has increased from 280 ppm to more than 400 ppm.

Similarly, few dispute that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will increase global temperature.

The ongoing debate amongst scientists is about the sensitivity of global temperature to carbon dioxide and the role of natural variability. Is the sensitivity in the range of 1.5oC to 4.5oC as projected by models or is it in the range 0f 0.5oC to 1.0oC as alternative analyses indicate? If the latter, then the anthropogenic influence is lost within the likely bounds of natural variability. Any attempt to regulate climate by emissions control is wasted effort.

There are now 38 years of reliable satellite and related climate data that give new insights into global and regional trends over the period of most rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We are now able to better resolve the competing anthropogenic and natural contributions to recent climate change.

Planetary warming of recent times has its origins in the surface layers of the equatorial oceans. If we plot sea surface temperature (SST) and lower troposphere temperature anomalies then the standout feature is the recurring warming associated with El Niño events and cooling associated with La Niña events. With El Niño events there is reduced upwelling of deeper cold water into the warm surface layer, and with La Niña events there is enhanced upwelling of cold water.

Air temperature is less than the sea surface temperature, meaning that energy is flowing from the tropical ocean to the atmosphere. Moreover, because the atmospheric temperature is linked to the ocean temperature through convection the air temperature follows the ocean temperature fluctuations. The correlation between the equatorial sea surface temperature series and the lower tropospheric temperature series is 0.88.

kininmonth chart 1

The influence of the fluctuating equatorial sea surface temperature on air temperature is global. The correlation between the equatorial sea surface temperature and the global lower troposphere temperature remains relatively high at 0.69.

The temperature of the lower troposphere faithfully follows that equatorial ocean surface temperature. As the ocean warms more heat and latent energy are pumped into the atmosphere. Much of the additional heat is transported poleward by the atmospheric winds.

In addition to the strong year-to-year fluctuations of equatorial sea surface temperature associated with El Niño events there was a warming trend over the 1979-2017 period of 0.11oC per decade. The warming of the tropical lower troposphere over the same period was 0.12oC per decade, and that of the globe 0.13oC per decade.

The question remains: was the warming trend due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or was it associated with a trend of reduced upwelling of deeper cold water, as with El Niño events? There are more data to assist in resolving the question to favour natural variability of the climate system. kininmonth chart 2

Carbon dioxide is well mixed in the atmosphere and we might expect similar regional warming trends in each of the hemispheres. This is not the case. Maximum warming of recent times, at 0.25oC per decade, has been over the North Pole region (data from Lat 60N-85N). Over the South Pole region there has been no detectable warming in the lower troposphere.

Surface air temperature for the North Pole region shows that the warming trend is not uniform across all months. The warming trend is warmest during the cold winter months and at a minimum during the warmer summer months. That is, the warming trend is greatest during those months when transport of excess solar energy from the tropics is greatest.

We can be confident that the gradually warming equatorial ocean surface is providing more energy to the overlying atmosphere to be transported poleward. We also know that the maximum transport by the atmosphere is during the winter months, thus explaining the maximum warming trend in winter.

The pattern of warming over the North Pole region indicates that seasonal thawing of land and sea ice is occurring earlier, and freezing is occurring later. It is not surprising that the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased over recent years and mountain glaciers have retreated. There has also been a positive benefit: the growing season over high northern latitudes has lengthened and the potential for food production has increased.

It should be noted that during the previous interglacial, about 120,000 years ago when there was no anthropogenic influence, the global temperature was warmer, the Greenland ice sheet was significantly reduced, and sea level was about 2 metres higher than at present. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the major determinant of global temperature and climate.

The warming of the lower troposphere over the southern hemisphere, especially the South Pole region, is an enigma. The reason for less warming may be associated with the differing disposition of land and ocean over the two hemispheres. There is evidence of warming of the Southern Ocean suggesting an uptake of heat that is not available over the continental regions of the northern hemisphere.

The surface air temperature over Antarctica exhibits a similar seasonal pattern to the Arctic but with reduced magnitude. There is a warming trend during the winter months but that is offset by a cooling trend during the summer months.

The observed pattern of planetary warming over the recent 38 years is consistent with reduced upwelling in the surface layer of the tropical ocean. Unfortunately, the ocean circulations and their variations remain the great unknowns of the climate system. The reported slowing of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream is, however, consistent with a slowing of the ocean overturning (the thermohaline circulation) and reduced tropical upwelling. The likelihood is that the observed warming of recent decades is largely a consequence of internal variability of the climate system and has little to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The IPCC, the source of scientific advice for intergovernmental climate negotiations, has downplayed the role of internal variability. For example, in its 2001 Third Assessment Report the IPCC claimed, “The warming of the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability, as estimated by current models”. That is, model characteristics were used to justify the model projections, a very unsound scientific practise!

It is also worth noting that the observed 1.2oC per century rate of global warming of the lower troposphere is less than the lowest model projections. A continuation of this rate of warming would not exceed the 1.5oC aspiration of the Paris Agreement until the 22nd century.

The observations point to recent warming being a result of internal variability of the climate system and not anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. A reversal of the cyclic warming trend that has been evident since the early 17th century would mean that investment in emissions reduction has been and will continue to be a wasted effort. The nation would be left with an expensive but fraught energy infrastructure based on wind and solar, and with social infrastructure for education, health, etc. continuing to be substandard because of a misallocation of resources.

Climate science is not settled. Four decades of observations highlight that computer models have exaggerated the influence of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. The Paris Agreement has been negotiated from faulty premises.

The government must recast its energy policy and focus on availability and low cost. This is the only way to redress the ongoing misallocation of resources that is depriving infrastructure and social services. A key factor underpinning national prosperity must be relatively cheap and reliable energy.

Note: Data quoted are freely available from the sources: Sea surface and near surface air temperatures are from the US NCAR/NCEP reanalysis data set; Lower troposphere temperature are from the version 6 satellite analyses of Spencer and Christy (University of Alabama at Huntsville)

William Kininmonth was supervisor of climate services in the Bureau of Meteorology and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-Science, 2004) and contributor to Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (Carter and Spooner, 2013).

Comments [14]

  1. Charles says:

    I’m not so sure that humans have been responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the IPCC the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2 compared to natural sources varies between 3 and 4 % and has done so for the last 30 years. This means that there may have been a small increase by humans to CO2 in the atmosphere, but that is only roughly proportionally equal to the amount that has been derived from natural sources (oceans, land, vegetation, etc.).

    In addition, 280 ppm has been described as the default amount of CO2 that should reside ion the atmosphere, but the work by Ernst George Beck (2008) who looked at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from historical records which included over 90,000 measurements going back about 150 years, found that it cycled between 330 and 425 ppm during that time. On 3 occasions it reached at or close to 425 ppm with the last event being in the early 1940′s.

  2. 50 million years before humans were around to take the blame Earth was 15 degrees hotter; the equator was still 28C but Antarctica was 10C and covered in Antarctic Beech trees, which can still be seen in the border ranges between NSW and Qld. As you say the extra heat speeds up transport to the poles.
    Earth is a living organism. Earth figured out what to do with carbon dioxide billions of years ago; Earth invented RUBISCO which turns carbon dioxide into sugar for us all to eat, and oxygen for us all to breathe.
    Rubisco is the commonest protein on Earth and there is an increasing amount of rubisco in response to the current increase in carbon dioxide. [as you say the growing season has increased and with more carbon dioxide plants need less water]. So stop worrying and leave it to mother Earth.
    Maybe New York will have to move to Antarctica but if you look at a picture of New York 100 years ago, you will readily see that most of the buildings have been demolished anyway.

  3. ianl says:

    An interesting adjunct to this article is one recently published on various known geological aspects of glacial and interglacial periods (ie. ice ages and between):

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/#more-24256

    Based on the evidence presented, CO2 plays no active role, or at least one of insignificance. Comments following this article tread an uninformative path, although one that is well-worn.

    • Biggles says:

      Dear ianl, Shame on you as a educated man for drawing attention to more waffle with the ‘next glaciation’ link. However, your post accidently illustrates a salient point, and that is that ‘global warming/climate change’ is the gift that keeps on giving to governments, ‘researchers’, windmill and solar rent-seekers, scribblers, sundry radio & TV wafflers, banks, financial entrepenuers etc. i.e. everyone but the poor schmuks who pay for the whole damned fiasco through declining living standards.

      I agree that increasing CO2 plays no part in heating the planet at the present concentration. The heat uptake/concentration relationship is logarithmic, so much so that CO2 has contributed half of all the effect it will ever have by 20 ppm. At 400 ppm we could burn every combustible object on earth without contributing any extra heat to the atmosphere due to increased CO2.

  4. Biggles says:

    Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. Sadly, though the article above purports to take aim at the Paris Agreement, it invokes most of the usual waffle and obfuscation about ‘fossil’ fuels, sensitivity to carbon dioxide, anthropogenic influence, ocean temperatures, El Nino/La Nina, polar ice, thermohaline circulation and IPCC reports.
    The primary influence on climate is the activity of the Sun, although you will never see that mentioned by people such as Kininmonth et al. Solar records show that the Earth is entering a cooling phase expected to be similar to the Maunder Minimum as the Sun heads into a Grand Solar Minimum. In short; it’s the Sun, stupid!

    • LBLoveday says:

      I don’t profess to know to a degree even approaching certainty, what, other than the Sun, can and, or, does warm Earth, but a recent visit to Bandung, a West Java city where I lived for 2 years 30 odd years ago was instructive to me. It has tropical weather, back then relatively cool due to its high elevation, and there is small day-to-day and month-to-month temperature variation – Wikipedia gives average daily maximums for 1974-1994, neatly encompassing the period I lived there, varying in the narrow range 26.7 (Feb) to 28.9 (Sep & Oct), which is about right; I used to say, “Max every day 28, min every night 18, never need a/c or heater, never need a jumper, never need a blanket, ideal”.

      It is now noticeably hotter; I noticed it, locals who have lived there all their lives complained of it, and watching the weather reports since confirms it – it’s now commonly 30-31 maximum; 28 a “cold day”.

      So why? Again I can’t know with certainty, but the extra 3 million or so people living in the greater metropolitan area, many housed where there used to be forests, the concrete toll-roads, the extra million++ of vehicle, pumping out heat from their engines and exhaust gases, the acres of paved parking areas around the new shopping malls, cannot rationally be overlooked as the cause; whether the extra CO2 they may generate has any general effect I can’t know, but I can’t see how it has a specific effect on Bandung, and I yield to real experts like Vic Forbes, whose writings on the scam I find best, and presume it has little general effect at most.

      Local temperatures, if not weather, must be influenced by local human activities, as in the Bandung example.

    • Hey Biggles, Kininmoth’s hypothesis includes the Sun! How else does SST change, other than by absorbing the Sun’s radiation? Think about it and just settle down.

      • Biggles says:

        The Sun’s energy which warms the Earth is in the visible part of the spectrum. It does not heat the atmosphere on its way in. On reaching the surface the energy shifts wavelength into the infrared in which form it heads back to space, (minus the bits that dry your socks, etc.), encountering the greenhouse gasses en route. The greenhouse gases get all excited and bang about warming the rest of the atmosphere. The warm atmosphere heats the sea surface. If it didn’t, the sea temperature would be the same at all depths.

  5. johanna says:

    Yet another article on climate and electricity which I mostly scrolled through.

    As I have argued for years on Bishop Hill and other sites, this endless explication of data, as though it might change people’s minds, is futile. The research is not futile, far from it. But, the debate was never about science, it was about politics, hearts and minds, and all that.

    FGS, when will advocates stop filling up valuable space with charts and graphs which could be referenced with a link, and concentrate on arguments which will convince the public.

    Stupendous increases in power prices is possibly the most potent issue in Australia today, and the major political parties are in it up to their necks. It was one of the biggest things that cost our unlamented ex PM his job.

    It’s not about science, it’s about the narrative, as the recent stupid bans on plastic straws and supermarket bags demonstrate.

    Barnaby Joyce used to put up a strong counter-narrative, but has been gelded because of his messy private life.

    We are not lacking in science, but in political leadership.

    • ianl says:

      > “It’s not about science, it’s about the narrative …”

      Self-evident for over a decade now, of course. I have an appetite for the actual science (my own intense interest, I’m a geoscientist) but I’ve recognised for many years that most people have no interest or aptitude.

      As you see, Johanna, my brief comment had just a link. Most won’t bother to use it.

      BUT:

      > ” … concentrate on arguments which will convince the public”

      Such as what exactly?

      I haven’t got a clue how to counter the “save the planet” emotional meme. It is completely impervious to any rationality. What’s your useful, practical suggestion, please ?

  6. Alice Thermopolis says:

    Once a paradigm is in entrenched in the public mind, it is very difficult to get rid of it.

    Galileo exposed the fallibility of the Church and look what happened to him. Had it not been for his age, the Inquisition would have exacted a penalty nastier than house arrest. A few hundred years later, and its teachings are even more popular, promoting its Vatican science, miracles at Lourdes and of course turning Green.

    As for the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” fiction, once the political/bureaucratic class have monetized it – the equivalent of a Church tithe – its continuation is virtually guaranteed.

    They are almost there, with the UN Green Climate Fund, despite its recent internal hiccups. Perhaps the ex-Foreign Minister can sort out the mob around the table, who are far more interested in the amount of money on the table than the stinking uncertainties that riddle the so-called science, especially EWE “attribution” research, integrity of data sets, etc.

    Will the high priests of that field ever be brought to account for their bogus claims, spouted ad nauseum and amplified by megaphones of social media and a sanctimonious MSM?

    Climategate was our Galileo moment. Buried without trace by government committees who had embraced the alarmism without proper due diligence.

    As for the remaining heretics, the passage of time will eliminate them and the world will embrace “climatespeak” as the voice of the West’s new secular religion.

    Remember the opening film at the United Nations 2009 COP-15 Copenhagen/Hopenhagen Climate Conference? A classic in the “mind bomb” genre. An anxious young girl clutches a small white polar bear. After a nightmarish journey through a world of eco-mayhem and environmental catastrophe, she asks viewers: “please help the world”.

    Background voices warn of “hundreds of millions of climate refugees” and chastise those who “still doubt the human influence on this predicted catastrophe.” The 4 minute 14 second video ends with what a psychoanalyst might describe as an infantile fantasy: “We have the power to save the world”.

  7. johanna says:

    As Alice illustrates, the climate industry doesn’t bother with scientific arguments. They go straight for the emotional jugular.

    Where are our ads of shivering pensioners and chilled children because the family can’t afford heating? And, unlike the poley bear lies, these would be based in fact.

    Tony Abbott won in 2013 with the simple slogan ‘stop the boats’ – of course the usual suspects complained that it was simplistic and emotional. They’d rather lose with intact bowties than win in what they consider to be an undignified fashion.

    As with the boats, our so-called conservatives in politics only differ in degree about energy policy, with a few honourable exceptions. As soon as one of the usual suspects squeaks, they back off mouthing platitudes, eyes rolling in fear.

    That’s the problem, and endless charts and graphs might be of interest to a tiny sliver of the population, but achieve zero in changing perceptions among the general public.

  8. Dallas Beaufort says:

    All statutory instruments and their regulations supporting the Paris Agreement drive prices up, Including subsidies.

  9. Biggles says:

    Correction: Delete my last sentence above. Were the atmosphere not heated by the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be minus 15C, which is well below the freezing point of seawater. Some warming of the oceans occurs because of geothermal energy released at depth of course.