There is an "urgent need" to help developing countries adapt to impacts of climate change, UK Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson has said. Nations were experiencing environmental changes as a result of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, he told MPs. He said he was hopeful that an action plan and funding would be agreed at a climate summit in Africa next month. But Mr Pearson added that the talks on the Kyoto Protocol were unlikely to deliver new global emission targets.
He made his comments while giving evidence to the Commons Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into how the UN Kyoto Protocol will progress after the current period for emission targets ends in 2012. Mr Pearson said that it was helpful that the talks on the protocol were being hosted by an African government. "Climate change is a huge issue when it comes to Africa. There will certainly be a strong focus on adaptation in Nairobi because it is one of the most pressing issues facing countries in sub-Saharan Africa today," he said. "A large number of the countries that did not sign up to Kyoto are very small emitters and they are not a big part of the problem. "But they are going to be affected by the climate change that is already in the (atmospheric) system," the minister told committee members.
The two-week summit will look at what progress has been made by the legally binding agreement that requires industrial nations to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. Delegates will also consider what system should be adopted when the current period ends.
Earlier this month, the UK government co-hosted a climate conference in Mexico for the world's top 20 polluting nations. The two-day informal gathering brought together ministers from G8 industrialised countries and developing nations to try to reach a consensus on the issue. When asked by Labour MP David Chaytor whether the meeting undermined the UN negotiations, Mr Pearson disagreed. "The key thing was to continue to build international consensus on the science and practical actions in terms of what needs to be done," he told the committee. However, he said it would be very difficult to get ministers from 189 nations at the Nairobi summit to reach an agreement on what should happen after 2012.
A number of nations, including the US, the world's biggest polluter, favour technological advances rather than targets to reduce emissions. "I would love to say that I feel confident that everyone is going to Nairobi with the expectation that there is going to be a long-term international agreement, but I do not think that is going to be the case," Mr Pearson conceded. "What we can realistically expect... is to hopefully agree an adaptation work programme and an adaptation fund which will be important issues for developing countries."
Source
NEW STUDY: "SEA-LEVEL RISE NOT ACCELERATING"
In a revealing new study of globally-distributed sea level time series, Jevrejeva et al. (2006) analyzed information contained in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level database using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis, removing 2- to 30-year quasi-periodic oscillations and determining nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions, which they combined to produce the mean global sea level (gsl) and mean global sea level rate-of-rise (gsl rate) curves depicted in the figure below.
With respect to the results of their analysis, Jevrejeva et al. say their findings show that "global sea level rise is irregular and varies greatly over time," noting that "it is apparent that rates in the 1920-1945 period are likely to be as large as today's." In addition, they report that their "global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ñ 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 matches the 2.6 ñ 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise found from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data."
With respect to what Jevrejeva et al. describe as "the discussion on whether sea level rise is accelerating," their results pretty much answer the question in the negative; and in further support of this conclusion, they note that "Church et al. (2004) pointed out that with decadal variability in the computed global mean sea level, it is not possible to detect a significant increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000," as is clearly evident from the bottom portion of the above figure.
These observations make us wonder why late 20th-century global warming - which climate alarmists describe as having been unprecedented over the past two millennia - cannot be detected in global sea level data. We are even more intrigued about the matter in light of the fact that the warming that initiated the demise of the Little Ice Age - which by climate-alarmist contention should have been considerably less dramatic than the warming of the late 20th century - is readily apparent in the central third of the above figure. Likewise, we are perplexed by the empirical fact that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration - which climate alarmists claim is primarily responsible for the supposedly unprecedented global warming of the late 20th century - experienced a dramatic increase in its rate of rise just after 1950 (shifting from a 1900-1950 mean rate-of-rise of 0.33 ppm/yr to a 1950-2000 mean rate-of-rise of 1.17 ppm/yr), yet the rate of mean global sea level rise did not trend upwards after 1950, nor has it subsequently exceeded its 1950 rate-of-rise.
Clearly, either something is drastically wrong with climate-alarmist theory, or something is drastically wrong with the pertinent real-world data. Although many people choose to believe the theory over the data - or they promote the theory in spite of believing the data (or they simply ignore the data) for philosophical or political reasons - we find it much more compelling - and satisfying - to both believe the data and act in harmony with that belief.
Source
Abstract of the study mentioned above follows:
Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records
By S. Jevrejeva et al.
We analyze the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database of sea level time series using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis (MC-SSA). We remove 2-30 year quasi-periodic oscillations and determine the nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions. Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ~ 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6 ~ 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements. However, we show that over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5 ~ 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s, and resulted in a mean sea level rise of 48 mm. We evaluate errors in sea level using two independent approaches, the robust bi-weight mean and variance, and a novel "virtual station" approach that utilizes geographic locations of stations. Results suggest that a region cannot be adequately represented by a simple mean curve with standard error, assuming all stations are independent, as multiyear cycles within regions are very significant. Additionally, much of the between-region mismatch errors are due to multiyear cycles in the global sea level that limit the ability of simple means to capture sea level accurately. We demonstrate that variability in sea level records over periods 2-30 years has increased during the past 50 years in most ocean basins.
ENERGY CRISIS IN EUROPE
Good tidings for Europe's energy markets are in short supply. The continent now suffers from an overall decrease of peak generation margins, insufficient infrastructure investments, higher energy prices and snail-paced progress in market liberalization.
Most worryingly, Europe barely has enough energy to keep its kettles whistling. The razor-thin margin between electricity supply and demand fell to its lowest-ever figure of 4.8% in 2005 and early 2006, a percentage point lower than the 5.8% margin in 2004. Extreme weather conditions have not helped: Europe saw record-breaking high temperatures in the summer of 2005, which led to a much greater demand for air conditioning systems. Severe cold snaps during winter 2005-2006 and low rainfall in Spain and France resulted in very high price spikes.
Spain is the country most in trouble. (See " Continental Divide.") Real capacity margins decreased to -4%, despite an increase in generation capacity of 8%. Some countries, such as the U.K. and Ireland, have successfully addressed the margin issue through greater investment in generation capacity.
However, the continent as a whole is crying out for investment. A year ago, business consultant Capgemini estimated that European governments needed to invest 700 billion euros ($878 billion) over the next 25 years in electricity generation plants. In its 2006 European Energy Market Observatory report, Capgemini acknowledges that investments grew again during 2005, but the continent's five-year commitments are still insufficient to restore a secure supply situation.
"You may wonder why the governments don't invest more," says Colette Lewiner, the energy, utilities and chemicals global sector leader at Capgemini. "The risks are very large, as it involves very long-term investment. Secondly, there are long procedures to get approval on building, say, a nuclear plant. It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant these days; before, it would have taken five years."
Investment in generation needs to keep pace with soaring energy prices. Spot electricity wholesale prices surged by 70% in 2005 compared with the previous year, with peak prices up to 270 euros ($339) per megawatt hour. This followed hot on the heels of large increases in energy prices in 2005 compared with 2004 (oil and gas increased by 53% and 38% respectively), high prices for carbon dioxide emission rights and tight supply and demand conditions.
The double-digit increases in retail prices has caused customer dissatisfaction. In Europe's competitive retail markets, higher "churn"--customers chopping and changing their energy providers--reflected this annoyance over price increases. The highest levels of customer churn during 2005 and early 2006 were in the U.K. and Nordic countries.
Russia's control over a key faucet helps to keep energy prices high. Despite the freezing temperatures, Europe was sweating at the start of this year when President Vladimir Putin cut off gas supplies through the Ukraine. Although the Kremlin quickly turned the gas back on, it was a stark reminder that the EU's long-term energy supply plans depend heavily on Russian gas. "It is now clear that Gazprom is using its gas supply position and pipeline ownership to put pressure on Western and Eastern European utilities with a successful plan to get into the gas retail business," says Lewiner.
The European continent is also failing to keep its promises on the environment. Despite the implementation of the European Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme in 2005, it is highly unlikely that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations. The overall EU commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 8% on 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Yet in 2005, the 15 members of the EU were 300 million tons of carbon dioxide away from meeting their Kyoto protocol objective, with the notable exception of the U.K., whose prime minister, Tony Blair, has implemented a stringent National Allocation Plan that meets with ambitious Kyoto goals.
Europe's energy market is also not as liberalized as Brussels' mandarins would like. There are interesting tensions at work between the EU's utopia of a deregulated and liberalized market and the die-hard protectionists who exist within the superstate's jurisdiction. True, a merger and acquisition wave has begun, but not in the fashion the EU's Competition tsarina, Neelie Kroes, prefers. It started earlier this year with Spanish company Gas Natural's hostile bid for its compatriot Endesa, which was followed by a friendlier takeover proposal from German company E.ON. However, Kroes ruled two weeks ago that Spain broke EU law in putting restrictions E.ON's efforts to buy the company.
France's Suez and Gaz de France gave Kroes another headache when they announced their merger hard on the heels of the news that Italian utility Enel planned to bid for Suez. These mega deals, which still need to hop over many hurdles both at the country and EU level, are taking attention away from a handful of smaller transactions, including the desire by larger players to start investing in "new frontier" countries such as Russia. "However," says Lewiner, "if they go through, they are likely to trigger additional mergers and acquisitions in a chain reaction, potentially creating an oligopolistic market, contrary to the unbundled and competitive free market that the EU would like to see."
Source
A LIFESAVING KILLER RETURNS
The 2006 Nobel laureates are in the spotlight, but a recent piece of news -- an announcement from the World Health Organization -- calls to mind a Nobel laureate of an earlier era. When the Swiss chemist Paul Muller was awarded the prize in medicine in 1948, he was hailed "as a benefactor of mankind of such stature" that he would require "the humility of a saint" to inoculate himself against hubris. Fortunately, Muller was not given to arrogance. He described his great discovery as merely "a first foundation stone" in the "puzzling and apparently endless domain" of pest-borne plague. It had come as a surprise to him, he said modestly, to have discovered a chemical formula "so useful in the fight against diseases in human beings."
"Useful" hardly began to describe it. As Time magazine noted, Muller's chemical "kills the mosquitoes that carry malaria, the flies that carry cholera, the lice that carry typhus, the fleas that carry the plague, the sand flies that carry kalaazar and other tropical disease." Thanks to his discovery, "the tropics are becoming safer places to live; because of it, typhus" -- a deadly scourge long associated with wars and disaster -- "was no serious threat in World War II." The name of this miracle formula? Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane -- better known as DDT.
To anyone who grew up in the 1970s or 1980s, the notion that DDT was ever celebrated as a lifesaver might come as a shock. The very initials now seem sinister. Ever since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was published in 1962, DDT has been stigmatized as a terrible environmental poison, more curse than cure. In Carson's telling, DDT caused cancer and genetic damage in humans, and wreaked havoc not only on the insects it was intended to kill but on birds and other animals too. It was a poison that grew in concentration as it passed up the food chain, ultimately contaminating everything from eagles' eggs to mothers' milk. Carson recounted frightful tales of DDT's demonic power. "A housewife who abhorred spiders" sprayed her basement with DDT in August and September -- and was dead of "acute leukemia" by October. "A professional man who had his office in an old building" sprayed with DDT to get rid of cockroaches -- and landed in the hospital, hemorrhaging uncontrollably; eventually he too was dead of leukemia.
But in retrospect, such alarming anecdotes seem little more than urban legends. In the words of immunologist Amir Attaran, a fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, "The scientific literature does not contain even one peer-reviewed, independently replicated study linking DDT exposures to any adverse health outcome" in human beings. Yet if Carson's science was shaky, her influence was undeniable. "Silent Spring" galvanized the emerging environmental movement and fed a rising hysteria about pesticides and other chemicals. Within a decade, DDT had been banned in the United States. Eventually every industrialized nation stopped using it. Under pressure from Western environmentalists and governments, DDT was widely suppressed in the Third World as well.
The results were catastrophic.... Today, the global malaria caseload stands at more than 300 million. The disease kills well over 1 million victims yearly -- some estimates run as high as 2.7 million -- and the vast majority of its victims are children in Africa. "Such a toll is scarcely comprehensible," Attaran and several colleagues have written. "To visualize it, imagine filling seven Boeing 747s with children, and then crashing them -- every day."
The demonizing of DDT, albeit with the best of motives, ended up causing tens of millions of deaths from malaria. Rarely has the law of unintended consequences operated with such lethality.
Now, at long last, that may change. In a historic shift, the WHO last month reversed its 30-year-old ban, and strongly endorsed the indoor use of DDT to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria. (The use of DDT on crops, which Carson had linked to the thinning of bird eggs, remains prohibited.) The WHO emphasized that DDT presents no health risk when sparingly applied to the inside walls of homes. And it urged environmentalist diehards to abandon their opposition to a proven lifesaver. "I am here today to ask you, please help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment," implored Arata Kochi, director of the WHO's global malaria program. "African babies do not have a powerful movement ... to champion their well-being."
Sixty years after Paul Muller's great achievement was honored with a Nobel Prize, its potential may at long last be realized. A "silent spring" more hellish than anything Carson envisioned -- a million children dying needlessly every year -- may finally be coming to an end.
Source
***************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment