next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
The following letter is a rebuttal of John Christy's defense of his Kyoto Commentary (sent to SustMar as Kyoto Commentary Part 2). =============================================================================== 27 June 2002 Commentary CBC Radio 1 Dear Mr. Wark, Last week I sent you a letter on a Commentary by Mr. John Christy of the University of Alabama. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Christy responded to my letter, sending a copy to you and to Mr. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In his response, Mr. Christy stated that he wanted to "clear up some misunderstandings" with respect to my letter. I have read Mr. Christy's response and believe that it does not clear up misunderstandings. > > From Mr. Hughes: > > First, carbon dioxide is the "lifeblood of the planet" and planets > > need it; from this, Mr. Christy concludes that more carbon dioxide is > > a good thing. Although it is true that some plant species do benefit > > from additional carbon dioxide, recent research has shown that carbon > > dioxide alone is not sufficient to help plants -- moisture is also > > required. If global climate models prove correct and droughts occur > > in major crop growing areas, additional carbon dioxide from > > anthropogenic sources will be of little value. > > ** This view is absolutely false. With extra CO2 plants require LESS > moisture to produce the same bulk due to the reduction in the size of > the stomatal openings when inhaling CO2 (i.e. more CO2 requires smaller > openings which reduces the amount of water vapor lost to the outside). > This is established in numerous scientific studies. Recall, plants > evolved and flourished when CO2 concentrations were up to 10 times what > they are today. It is very worrying when a scientist makes a pronouncement that something dealing with climate change is "absolutely false". Yes, studies have shown that stomatal openings reduce in size in elevated CO2 environments (for example, see Gray et al, Nature 408, 713 - 716 (2000)). On the other hand, scientific studies have shown that elevated CO2 does not enhance plant production during drought (for example, see Smith et al, Nature 408, 79 - 82 (2000)). Other scientific studies raise questions about reduced microbial activity due to elevated CO2 levels (for example, see Hu et al, Nature 409, 188 - 191 (2001)). > >From Mr. Hughes: > > Second, Mr.. Christy criticizes global climate models that suggest a > > warming of the lower atmosphere, referring to his satellite research > > with Roy Spencer, claiming that "temperatures in the lower atmosphere > > hasn't changed much at all". What Mr. Christy doesn't tell us is > > that research conducted in mid-1998 has shown that the orbital decay > > of satellites (about one kilometer per year) influenced their > > readings. When the orbital decay is taken into account, the > > atmospheric temperature readings from satellites show a warming trend > > (as opposed to cooling). > > ** Orbit decay is but one correction applied to the satellite data and > this corrects a spurious cooling signal as you indicate. However, there > are two other major adjustments that correct spurious WARMING signals > (east-west satellite drift and influences of heating of the sensor due > to changing sun angles). All corrections, including orbit decay, have > been applied to our data. The literature covers this quite well (e.g. > Christy et al 2000 J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., IPCC 2001, Christy et al. > 2001 Geophys. Res. Lett. and many more). In addition, the satellite > data have been independently verified by international groups using > balloon measurements (see IPCC 2001, Hurrell et al. 2000 BAMS, Stendel > et al. 2000 Climate Dynamics, Gaffen et al 2000 Science,etc.). There > simply has not been significant warming of the bulk of the atmosphere > where models indicate such warming should be occurring (if extra CO2 is > warming the planet). What surprises me about this particular issue > (satellite data) is the unwillingness of some to accept hard core, > independently validated scientific findings. There are three issues at play here: surface temperature measurements, satellite-based measurements, and the climate models. Climate change skeptics have tried to use the difference between surface temperature measurements (which indicate a warming) and satellite-based measurements (which show a lack of warming) as proof that the atmosphere is not warming. However, in 2000, a U.S. National Research Council panel, which included Mr. Christy, unanimously concluded that the lack of warming detected by the satellite data could not be taken as evidence that the surface temperature measurements were suspect. Skeptics have now changed their tactics, saying that the discrepancy between the satellite and surface measurements calls into question the best climate models. Mr. Christy's response to this was that the models "require improvement [but] it is not right to say that they are useless" (Nature, 404, 233 (2000)). With respect to the satellite-base data, the most recent IPCC report from Working Group 1 (of which Mr. Christy is a member) is extremely conservative and not as clear-cut as Mr. Christy would suggest (IPCC 2001). It raises questions about equipment (balloons, satellites, and so forth), temporal sampling errors because of short data sets (for example, much of the satellite data comes from measurements between 1979 and 2000), and spatial sampling errors (for example, due to incomplete surface measurements). In short, research is still required to explain the differences between what has been observed and the models. > >From Mr. Hughes: > > Third, Mr. Christy suggests that Kyoto isn't worth signing because its > > effects on global temperature will be so small that it can't even be > > measured. Although there is some truth to this claim, Mr. Christy > > overlooks the fact that Kyoto is simply the first of a number of > > protocols that will be required to stabilize the climate. > > ** Climate is never stable. It will always be changing, therefore, > nothing will ever be done that will "stabilize the climate." Regarding > other Kyoto-style measures, I can only live in fear of what unelected > bureaucrats might wish to inflict on the average guy. However, I am > quite optimistic that future energy sources will be developed which use > less carbon (or none), but these will be developed by people who want to > be rich, famous, accomplished or solve an interesting challenge. It > won't happen from a legislative mandate. Just think about > transportation over the past 100 years. A single horse required several > acres of hay for fuel, produced horrific waste, was very inefficient > etc. Today we make a small incision into the earth for oil and extract > energy at a 10:1 ratio (1 unit spent to acquire 10 units of energy.) > Tomorrow, we will improve even on this (not with wind or solar power > however - these require too much space, too much subsidy, are too > inefficient and too unreliable.) I'm confident that a free and > innovative society will continue to develop new sources of affordable > energy. First, let me correct my original statement; "stabilize the climate", should have read "stabilize CO2 levels". It is interesting that Mr. Christy uses transportation to dismiss Kyoto: * "The average guy" probably has a lot to thank those unelected bureaucrats and legislative mandates for. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) legislation helped increase U.S. (and eventually Canadian) automobile fuel economy (over the objections of the major automobile manufacturers). Lead was removed from gasoline because of legislation (this time over objections from major oil companies). Seat belt legislation also comes to mind. * Yes, all it takes is a "small incision into the earth" and we have access to vast petrochemical riches. Of course, this overlooks some of the unfortunate side effects of these incisions: look at Ogoniland in Nigeria and Prince William Sound in Alaska. * If subsidies for wind and solar are bad, then presumably subsidies for the oil industry are equally bad. It's the U.S. taxpayers who pay [albeit, indirectly] for the U.S. military to guard the oil lanes in the Persian Gulf. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve cost the U.S. taxpayers between $320 to $400 million dollars annually during the 1990s. * And those fields of hay? Many lost to urban sprawl. It is easy to dismiss solar and wind when you live in an industrialized country and have access to grid-based electricity. But spare a thought for the two billion people worldwide (i.e., one-third of the world's population) who have no access to electrical supplies. Or of the more than two billion who suffer severe unreliability of electricity supply. Although 95 percent of people living in industrialized countries have access to grid-based electricity, less than 30 percent of people in developing countries can say the same. Local or distributed generation (i.e., wind and solar) is ideal for people who live in these situations and, if implemented properly, Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will allow them access to these technologies for a better life. > >From Mr. Hughes: > > Mr. Christy goes on to say, "Canada is a tremendous asset to the world, > > all because of its affordable energy". He should have been a bit more > > specific and identified the United States as the part of the world > > that benefits from our (fossil fuel-based) affordable energy. > > ** I for one am most grateful to be a neighbor of Canada and for our > mutual trade of many commodities, including energy. I suspect that most Americans are more than grateful for our "mutual trade" in energy, as required by Chapter 6 of NAFTA. The restrictions placed on what Canada can do with its energy, the softwood lumber dispute, and the recently announced U.S. farm subsidies, are making many Canadians ask themselves why we agreed to NAFTA. At this week's Conference de Montreal, people are asking why only eight percent of Canada's trade is with the EU, while almost 80 percent is with the U.S. Sincerely, lh. Larry Hughes, PhD Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2X4, Canada v: 902.494.3950 f: 902.422.7535 e: larry.hughes@dal.ca u: http://www.dal.ca/~lhughes2 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- SUST-MAR TIP: messages to sust-mar must be plain text format (no HTML) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects