For and against the IPCC

From the Beeb; found via Boing Boing:

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR

Argument:

Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth’s surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have expanded in both size and energy use. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the “urban heat island effect”. In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from “proxy” indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.

Counter-argument:

Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn’t resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED

Argument:

Since 1998 – almost a decade – the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming.

Counter-argument:

1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is “cherry-picking”; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.

3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST

Argument:

The beginning of the last Millennium saw a “Mediaeval Warm Period” when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.

Counter-argument:

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today – if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth’s orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: “The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect”. Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.

4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE

Argument:

Computer models are the main way of forecasting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of “garbage in, garbage out”.

Counter-argument:

Models are simply ways to quantify understanding of climate. They will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.

5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT

Argument:

Computer models predict that the lower levels of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming faster than the Earth’s surface. Measurements show the opposite. So either this is another failing of the models, or one set of measurements is flawed, or there are holes in our understanding of the science.

Counter-argument:

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: “For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming”.

6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN

Argument:

Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun’s energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun’s magnetic field and solar wind.

Counter-argument:

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE

Argument:

Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.

Counter-argument:

This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years – a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago.

8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS

Argument:

Before the era of satellite observation began in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard. Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land or shipping. Arctic ice extent was measured only during expeditions. The satellite record for these phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that there is anything exceptional about the apparent shrinkage in Arctic ice.

Counter-argument:

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that “organised reconnaissance” for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can be drawn. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent – its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.

9. WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO₂ IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT

Argument:

The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily increase warming – it depends how the water vapour is distributed.

Counter-argument:

Water vapour is essentially in balance with the planet’s temperature on annual timescales and longer, whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries. The statement that water vapour is “98% of the greenhouse effect” is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.

10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE

Argument:

The Kyoto Protocol will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world’s rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. And some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives.

Counter-argument:

Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world.

In case you’re ever asked. I hadn’t heard of a few of those. Also the BBC version uses “sceptic”, rather than “skeptic” – tsk, tsk.

China’s giant pandas may be running out of food

From Reuters, originally found at China Dialogue:

Giant pandas living in the wild in the misty mountains of southwest China are facing a possible food shortage as bamboo plants, their staple diet, near the end of their lifespan, state media said on Monday.

…

The mountainous region witnessed extensive blossoming of the arrow bamboo, the pandas’ favorite, in 1984 and 1987, when the plants flowered, seeded and died. Hundreds of the endangered animals died of starvation.

One gets the impression that this is a somewhat predictable, possibly even manageable, phenomenon. One would therefore think that steps really ought to have been taken before we started seeing the bamboo flowering, suddenly remembering the Pandas’ food is about to die off.

Alternative Minimum Tax update

I mentioned the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) the other day, briefly. Well. David Corn, plus others at his new deal, cqpolitics.com, have looked into the matter further, as has a fellow by the name of Jeff Birnbaum:

No one says so out loud but Republicans are not as eager to fix the alternative minimum tax as Democrats are. A nice bit of irony, don’t you think?

The AMT was designed in 1969 to make sure that millionaires couldn’t use loopholes to avoid paying income taxes altogether. But during a rewrite, the AMT was not indexed to inflation, which meant that middle-income people started to get hit by it as well. This year, unless Congress acts, 23 million middle and upper middle-income households will have to pay more taxes because of the AMT.

The people who’d be hit hardest, it turns out, live in blue states. California, for instance, would have 1.7 million more AMT payers this year. New York would have a million more. New Jersey would have 750,000 more and Massachusetts would have 500,000.

Besides leaning Democratic, these states also have relatively high statewide taxes, which figures into the AMT calculation. But the fact remains. Red states don’t tend have as many people looking at an AMT tax increase as blue states do.

It’s worth noting that anti-tax Republicans won’t be rushing to vote for the so-called patch of the AMT in the House. In fact, they will largely vote against it, saying that the tax increases used to pay for the fix are harmful to the economy.

I have no doubt that they believe what they say. But it’s also true that they have less at stake than the Democrats in preventing the AMT from reaching the middle class. If Congress fails to act, there will be a lot more angry Democratic voters than Republican voters.

The silver lining? The only way to finally get rid of the AMT will be a tax reform so sweeping that it will probably also have to solve the other major problems our government faces, from Social Security to health care. The AMT woes could end up forcing the government to finally get down to serious work.

The ‘fix’ of the AMT, plus the increase in tax on carried interest, plus a bundle of other changes, are all a part of said overhaul:

Charles B. Rangel ’s mammoth tax code overhaul checked in Thursday at a cost of $1.3 trillion, as the House Ways and Means Committee chairman unveiled his ambitious fiscal agenda.

The bill’s broad strokes have been known for weeks, if not months: repeal of the alternative minimum tax, expanded benefits for middle-income taxpayers, higher income taxes for the wealthy, a corporate tax rate cut and an array of tax-raising provisions to offset the cost and make the entire package revenue-neutral.

…

Republicans pounced swiftly, denouncing the plan as a huge, unnecessary tax increase.

“Imposing higher taxes at this time will doom our economy, put people out of work and cost the federal government revenue that is badly needed, if in fact we’re going to balance the budget,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.

Rangel defended his approach, pointing out that compared with current law, the bill is revenue-neutral.

“We are not raising taxes,” he said.

Eco 1 students! This is a perverse, not to mention extreme, form of bracket creep.

Crooks and Liars isn’t a bad starting-place for one to get a feel for Boehner, before listening to a single thing he says. Shooting from the hip, of course, it would behove one to remember that Boehner was a part of the GOP when it had over a freaking decade to do something with the budget besides borrow shedloads of money, leave every child and poor person behind, drowning or both, and run the economy into the ground. The Gingrich revolution and every Republican that had to resign in disgrace along the way doomed the US economy. But I digress. If we can ignore the party that brought you John Kerry’s 350 tax increases.

Following the tip from David Corn, I used the data from The Tax Foundation to compare the AMT burden from 2005 (the most recent year they had):

The US average is yellow; the states are blue or red, according to the 2004 Presidential elections. Red State/Blue State is kind of a dumb game, so one can also use the 2006 Congressional election results to make some bars purple:

The first reminder is – at least to me – the weirdness of the poor people repeatedly electing politicians that they cannot possibly comfortably afford (returning to the likes of Boehner). One can see, though, just whose constituency is most affected by the creeping Alternative Minimum Tax (soon to be popularly known as the Alternative Middle Class Tax – you saw it here first!). Virginia becomes the biggest football – once red, now purple, and high up the list. The GOP probably ought to reconsider its “sucks to be a Democrat” approach to, well, everything, frankly. Wankers.

To return to/close on the analysis of David Corn:

Assuming the rest of the electoral map doesn’t change from 2004, capturing Virginia’s 13 electoral votes would not put a Democrat over the top in 2008. But there’s more: Ohio is No. 12 on the AMT list. In 2004, Bush claimed the state with a 118,000 vote lead, about 2 percent. Since then, the state Republican Party has imploded, due to various corruption scandals that have thrown GOPers out of office and, in some cases, into jail. It’s not too hard to imagine a damn tight race there in 2008. If a couple of thousand angry AMT victims in Ohio decide to vote D instead of R, that could help the Democrat bag the election-tipping Buckeye State.

Sure, there’ll be a lot of other factors that determine what happens in Ohio and Virginia. But the so-called ticking time-bomb of the AMT could end up detonating beneath the Republicans.

Notes From russia (2)

A few pages more from Notes From Russia, by Alexei Plutser-Samo. The sorts of similarities one can see between both the Soviet and modern Russian artefacts of government, economy and society and many other governments today (particularly including the likes of the US and UK) are quite astounding, really.

The rules of supply and demand never go away

However much oil has eased, this idea that oil prices will fall again as the US economy slows down is (a) technically correct, but (b) wildly off the mark. The US economy just isn’t as big a deal as all that, these days. Emerging markets are easily making up the difference, even now.

The stunning rise in energy prices, fueled by an increasingly volatile and unpredictable market, seemed to pay little attention to the warnings over the health of the U.S. economy. Last week, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the economy was headed for slower growth. The message prompted a sell-off on Wall Street and stoked new fears of a possible recession.

Asked whether he was concerned that a slowdown in the United States could reduce demand for oil there, Naimi said: “We do not wish any country to go into a recession, particularly the biggest consumer in the world. We hope it doesn’t happen, and we’re not planning on that happening.”

Why in hell should it pay much attention to the warnings over the health of the US economy (warnings including, by the by, the latest from the IMF)?

The argument runs along these lines: supposing oil is in fixed supply (it could be merely inelastic: it makes no real difference to our analysis). Then a boost in world oil demand, coming out of emerging economies, increases the price:

Oil prices of P₂ increase the costs of production; they increase prices, generating inflation; the inflation devalues incomes and household wealth, lowering consumption and investment. Remember the equation for macroeconomic equibilibrium:

Aggregage Demand = Consumption + Investment + Government Expenditure + Net Exports

So, increase oil prices and decrease Aggregate Demand/Aggregage Incomes. Demand for goods and services declines; the US demand for oil shifts downwards/inwards, as does the world demand for oil:

However. While this is going on, those emerging markets still are advancing, in some cases quite rapidly. Each country can expect a similar pattern to emerge as the one above, but many are also under-writing economic growth (or, as with China, trying to avoid unemployment. Iran, trying to avoid more riots. Motives vary), so the impact of appreciating oil prices is muted.

The curve D₃ is simply not likely to return to the position of D₁. Arguments that oil will go back to the low low prices of yore rely upon this outcome. Simultaneously, and depending upon one’s views, some or more of the following may also occur:

1. Declining yields from oil fields

We’ve seen this already and, certainly in the short-term, we’ve seen it with political or climate instability. Supply shrinks. The effect on prices? Dramatic.

Specifically, appreciating oil prices. Supposing that occurs simultaneously with increasing global demand (the scenario in which people like me believe):

2. More technological innovation (a) more oil

Another argument is that, as oil prices appreciate, we’ll be able to go after the less-cheap stuff. I.e., we’ll go out and find/tap more oil:

In this version, prices stay the same. Or, rather, they appreciate to P₂, but then return to P^* as more supply is brought on-line (this gets back to OECD demands that OPEC increase their output – assuming they can).

3. More technological innovation (b) more alternative fuels

Another argument still is that, as oil prices appreciate, our rocket scientists will figure out how to fuel our cars with the indignation of environmentalists, or something. What will this achieve? First, demand should shrink, as oil-demanders become biofueld-demanders (for example). Second, as more substitutes for oil come to the market, the demand curve for oil becomes more elastic – such that changes in demand have less of an impact on prices:

Even if oil yields continue to shrink, the decline in supply (to some undrawn S₂ < S₁) will generate less of a price increase than is currently the case, with inelastic demand for oil.

The question then is, which is more likely to occur? Like I said above: it depends upon whose science you believe; whose data you believe; whose econometrics/economics you believe. I’m with the peak oil crowd: I think supply is declining. I think appreciate oil prices are hurting, and will continue to hurt, the US economy, but I think other economies are going to advance anyway: I don’t think oil prices will return to anything like the levels we’ve come to enjoy in the US.

I’m also, therefore, with the Clusterfuck Nation crowd. The US economy is built on cheap oil, and we won’t have it anymore. So far we’re running on our advantage in terms of refining capacity, but that won’t last long, either. That world oil price is going to stay pretty high – a lot higher than levels at which many US (and many European) industries can make money. Our exurban, strip-mall lives are in trouble.