Data Quality (30 March 2002)

The U.S. Data Quality Act, 2000 was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2000 and has suddenly emerged as a potential time bomb under all the suspect science which has so permeated public policy in recent times.

It charges the US government to create procedures "ensuring
and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity" of scientific information and statistics disseminated by federal agencies.

The most obvious candidate for review under this new act is the National Assessment, a government publication which contained lashings of political hype and alarmism disguised as science.

Senator James Jeffords of Vermont who is also chairman of the Senate environment committee, said "Opponents of government action to protect the public's health and the environment have latched on to the Data Quality Act and are attempting to misuse it to prevent the public from getting valid information about threats to their well being and quality of life."

What he is saying is that it is OK for the public to be given sub-standard information as long as it is `for their own good'.

This from a senator who showed contempt for his own constituents by accepting their election of him as a Republican, but then crossing the floor of the Senate without doing the right thing and resigning, then offering himself for re-election in his new self-appointed status as guardian of the public's health.

New guidelines for the act say that the more influential the data are likely to be, the higher the quality standard they must meet.  In some cases even studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals will require further confirmation.

This is only common sense in a world where the boundaries between science and policy have become increasingly blurred.  It is unacceptable in a democratic society that anonymous `peer review' by a few in-house peers should impact directly on public policy.  Any scientific findings which have public policy implications should be open to public review and a much higher standard of rigour than currently exists in many sciences, including climate science.

IPCC Leadership (6 Apr 2002)

It looks as though the tenure of Robert Watson, co-chair of the IPCC is now in serious jeopardy.

An election for the post he now holds will  be held at a meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in two weeks - the first such contest since the body was formed in 1989.

The reason is that the US Government has withdrawn its support for Watson, whom it regards as having become too political for what is meant to be an impartial scientific advisory body.

Paul Brown, environment writer of the Guardian newspaper (5 Apr) claimed the Bush administration were "in effect attempting to remove a strong advocate of urgent action to save the planet."

But that's been the whole problem with Watson. A Clinton-Gore appointee - he is an `advocate' who want's to `save the planet'. This suggests a messianic mission inconsistent with his proper role as impartial scientific adviser.

The US state department now says it will support India's nominee for the post, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, director-general of
the Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi.

According to Watson, as quoted in the Guardian, "I have never been political; I have always been the advocate of good science," he said. "Whether governments have policies on global warming is up to them, our job is to point out the facts." 

His denial of being political is belied by his own words and actions of recent years. Let's try one such Watson `fact'. During the 2001 Shanghai IPCC conference, he announced to the world that the 1990s were the warmest decade in 1,000 years.

He stated it as an accomplished fact, with no qualifications or caveats.  Naturally, the claim was widely quoted.  But on what was this extraordinary claim based? - Tree rings, as represented by the `Hockey Stick'

The discredited `Hockey Stick' view of millennial climate was based on a limited number of tree ring sites, even though tree rings do not give annual temperature, but rather indicate favourable or unfavourable growing conditions during a particular year.  This includes rainfall as well as temperature. They don't tell us about the winters, or the nights, or about the temperatures over the oceans (a mere 70% of the planet), and not even about temperatures over all the land, since much of it is desert, savannahs, tundras, ice, mountains etc.

In other words, tree rings is an insufficiently robust base of evidence upon which to base such an extraordinary claim, let alone state it as a categorical unqualified fact.

As if that were not enough, there is a mountain of evidence, fully peer-reviewed, in the scientific literature to show that the medieval period at the early part of the millennium was much warmer than today. (See the latest such evidence below).

This means that for Watson to claim to the world's public, as a categorical fact, a claim which is both hotly disputed among scientists, and for which contrary evidence exists, shows the extent to which he had become an advocate, a `true believer' in the Green apocalyptic world view, thus devaluing his role as a scientific adviser. 

---

Tuvalu Stung (6 April 2002)

The bluff of the Tuvalu government has finally been called.  They were the government group who led the cry about small nations being swamped beneath the waves of rising seas.  Theirs were the coral atolls which the Greens cried crocodile tears over, mourning the `desperate plight' of the islanders.  Tuvalu even wanted international compensation, and for Australia and New Zealand to guarantee `residency' to their 12,000 islanders in the event of inundation.  

The scam was first exposed on this site, citing evidence from a tide gauge installed at Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu. (See Tuvalu Cons the Kiwis (17 Oct 01) and Tuvalu Sting (20 Jul 2001). 

Now the National Tidal Facility, based in Adelaide, Australia, has dismissed the Tuvalu claims as unfounded. They have maintained accurate monitoring of sea level at Tuvalu. According to their latest news release on the issue, `Sea Level in Tuvalu: It's Present State',  the NTF concludes "The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year."  This compares with the IPCC claim of 1 - 2.5 mm/yr for the world as a whole, indicating the IPCC claim is based on faulty modelling.  The IPCC also claims the rate of sea level rise will accelerate.  But the NTF put the damper on that too - "The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

The above graph of maximum, mean, and minimum sea levels at Tuvalu was included in the report, the only significant feature of which are the periodic drops in sea level during El Niño events.  None of the above data was new, or even unobtainable (I got it last year), so the uncritical zeal with which the industry and the IPCC bought into the alarmist Tuvalu claims, indicates the degree to which they had lost touch with science and reality.  Little wonder the US government wants to be rid of the IPCC co-chair Robert Watson in favour of an Indian nominee.

---

March Cold (30 Mar 02)

Some reader comments on the weather this March from the western half of North America -

"I thought I'd update you on our winter weather here in the Seattle area. This year, we are definitely having a colder than normal winter, with above average snowpack in the Cascade Mountains. While much of the U.S. has been basking in record warmth this
winter, that is certainly not the case here. As for our past few summers, they also have been cool. On average, we have three days per year that reach 90°F in Seattle. We have not had ANY day reach 90°since 1998, so that at minimum, assuming we have a normal summer this year, we still have a four year streak of cooler than normal summers. As I prefer cooler weather, I hope that this is a trend of future things to come." 

`Coldest March on record' 
CALGARY - It may be the first day of spring, but it's the coldest one many can remember. Alberta is well on its way to setting a weather record.  The average temperature so far this month has been close to minus 16 degrees.  "The month of March record is minus 13.0," says Brian Steffora,
meteorologist with Environment Canada. "That record was set back in 1899, so its quite an old record, 103 years ago. And like I say, we're at minus 15.6; we're about two and a half degrees below that record yet." 

"I live and work in Calgary, Alberta and the month of March has been brutally cold."

"I wanted to let you know that the month of March 2002 has seen many record low temperatures set in the western provinces of British Columbia (BC), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The cold has lasted longer and was deeper than I have seen in my 30 years in the central part of BC. Many temperatures were in the range of -15°C to -32°C in the interior (continental influence), and Vancouver (west coast) had snow and below freezing temperatures. Highly unusual! We normally refer to the month of March as "break-up", as this is the time of year that the warm weather returns, ice breaks up in the rivers and the ground starts to thaw. Until today, we have been in winter. Today we got to about +8C, which is about normal; spring might finally be close!"

---

A Crack in the `Hockey Stick' (23 March 2002)

A new paper by Esper et al. just published in Science (v.295, p.2250, 22 Mar 02) reports on a study of 14 tree ring sites in the extra-tropical regions of the northern hemisphere. What has caused a stir is that this new study contradicts similar findings by Mann et al. (the infamous `Hockey Stick') which claimed that climate was stable and benign for 900 years - until the 20th century warming. The IPCC adopted the `Hockey Stick', and promoted it heavily in its press statements and publications, while the National Assessment also used it to great effect.  The problem was that the `Hockey Stick' was bad climate science, and became a liability to the industry.  It was subject to widespread criticism, and well nigh impossible to defend scientifically.

The findings of this latest study are shown in the above chart.  The red line is the now largely discredited `Hockey Stick' version of climate history since 1,000 AD, while the blue line is the version of climate history now claimed by this new study.  The dotted lines are the error ranges.  According to the study, the climate of the last millennium was anything but stable and benign. The Little Ice Age during the middle part of the millennium has been restored to its full glory, fully 1°C cooler than today, while the Medieval Warm Period has been partially restored, peaking around 950 AD.

Interestingly, the Mann `Hockey Stick' reconstruction of temperatures, also based on tree rings, began it's series neatly at the year 1,000 AD, some 50 years after the Medieval warm peak reported in this study.   The new study claims that the Medieval Warm Period shows up all across the extra-tropical northern hemisphere, not just in Europe, and that its warmth was comparable to that of recent years.  The big difference of course was that the Medieval warmth was done without the assistance of extra greenhouse gases, which means there is nothing unprecedented about today's temperatures.  The most likely cause of both the Medieval warmth, the Little Ice Age, and the modern warmth is the variability of the sun, which has seen enhanced activity during the later 20th century.

But is this new study now the correct version of millennial climate history?  Far from it.  While restoring the Little Ice Age to its rightful place (evidence for which abounds in glaciological studies from all over the world), it does not portray the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, much warmer.  Published and peer reviewed evidence from a variety of proxies from all over the world show conclusively that conditions were warmer early in the millennium than they are now (details of some of that evidence here).  Until that scientific wrong is righted, this study will only amount to a partial restoration of the historical reality, not a complete one.

Siberian Tigers  (19 Feb 2002)

A new report from the BBC says that endangered Siberian Tigers and Siberian Leopards are being hit by `freak weather conditions threatening them with starvation. 

Heavy snowfalls in the Russian Far East could all but wipe out the deer and boar which the tigers and leopards feed on. 

Snow in the region is reported to be up to 1.5 metres deep, making it difficult for the grazing animals to find food in the forest . 

In a break from their usual tree-worship, environmentalists have cleared 150 kilometres of road to bring food into the region and have been cutting tree branches to provide grazing.

It makes a change from the usual `global warming killing wildlife' hype from environmental groups.

Beer Crisis?  (15 Feb 2002)

Beer sales are down 10% this summer in Tasmania, thanks to the unusually cool summer we have just had.  Other parts of  Australia have also had a much cooler summer than normal.

New U.S. Climate Policy (15 Feb 2002)

President George W. Bush has made an irrevocable decision to discard the Kyoto Protocol as far as US participation is concerned by announcing a separate policy on climate.   [ His full speech here ].  He has set two priorities for the US - to clean the air, and to address the issue of global climate change in the context of  scientific uncertainties. 

He has flagged new `Clean Skies' laws designed to dramatically reduce the three most significant forms of pollution from power plants, namely sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.  According to Bush, "We will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from current levels.  We will cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent.  And, for the first time ever, we will cap emissions of mercury, cutting them by 69 percent.  These cuts will be completed over two measured phases, with one set of emission limits for 2010 and for the other for 2018." 

His approach aims to `protect the environment', `prolong the lives of thousands of Americans with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as with those with heart disease', and to `reduce the risk to children exposed to mercury during a mother's pregnancy'.  The new laws will operate via a market-based cap-and-trade system for which he expects to have broad support in Congress.

But on climate, he was more circumspect - "Now, global climate change presents a different set of challenges and requires a different strategy.  The science is more complex, the answers are less certain, and the technology is less developed.  So we need a flexible approach that can adjust to new information and new technology." 

He stated goal is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions "relative to the size of the US economy", by cutting  greenhouse gas intensity (or how much is emitted per unit of economic activity) by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This latter approach is somewhat vague in comparison with his Clean Skies proposal.

But then Bush states his bottom line.  "Our nation must have economic growth -- growth to create opportunity; growth to create a higher quality of life for our citizens.  Growth is also what pays for investments in clean technologies, increased conservation, and energy efficiency."  This is in direct contrast to the Kyoto approach which was manifestly anti-growth.  "We will promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions.  And we will work to safely improve fuel economy for our cars and our trucks."   In effect, he is demanding that any climate policy must work within normal economic activity, not cripple it as the Europeans would do with the Kyoto Protocol.  Looking to the future, he added - "If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound science justifies further action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include broad-based market programs as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment."  Note his caution about `sound science', implying that a lot of the `science' around today is anything but sound, a caution this website fully endorses.  

As for the Kyoto Protocol, Bush was scathing and uncompromising - "My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem.  Because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments and new technologies.  The approach taken under the Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target.  It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.  As President of the United States, charged with safeguarding the welfare of the American people and American workers, I will not commit our nation to an unsound international treaty that will throw millions of our citizens out of work." 

However, Bush also promised that the United States would "not interfere with the plans of any nation that chooses to ratify the Kyoto protocol",  a clear reference to the European Union which will now have to fund, on their own, all the grandiose wealth transfers and economic growth cuts which the Protocol envisioned.

Summarising what could become the `Bush Doctrine' on climate, he said - "To clean the air, and to address climate change, we need to recognize that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. Affluent societies are the ones that demand, and can therefore afford, the most environmental protection.  Prosperity is what allows us to commit more and more resources to environmental protection.  And in the coming decades, the world needs to develop and deploy billions of dollars of technologies that generate energy in cleaner ways.  And we need strong economic growth to make that possible." 

Soon after Bush's speech, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, made a public statement that Australia would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol without US and developing country's participation.  Since President Bush has read the final funeral oration on the protocol as far as the US is concerned, it is now a dead letter here in Australia too.

`Deep Convection' Vindicated (10 Feb 2002)

Two new papers in the February 1st edition of Science (Wielicki et al. p.841,  and Chen et al., p.838) report that tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and the NASA authors are at a loss to know why. [This NASA media release gives a summary]

Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere , and more clouds. The extra vapour warms the ocean further, causing even more warming, more evaporation, more clouds, and so on until the final warming becomes up to 6 times larger than the initial CO2 warming which triggered it. A neat and simple formula for Armageddon, based on an unproved `positive feedback' from CO2. In that way, the models can make a hot greenhouse mountain out of what is really just a lukewarm CO2 molehill.

But nature has thrown all that in the air. Tropical cloudiness has been decreasing as measured by infra-red detectors mounted on satellites. Since the outgoing radiation from the earth must equal what comes in from the sun (Thermal Equilibrium), any increase in outgoing infra-red radiation must come at the expense of decreased visible light radiation, namely the reflected light from cloud tops. In other words, there are less cirrus clouds especially, and by inference less water vapour in the tropical atmosphere.

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, an atmospheric scientist with a distinguished career (and now a global warming skeptic), predicted this very outcome in 1984 (Atmos. Env. 18, 431-434, 1984) by pointing out that CO2 warming would intensify `deep tropical convection', the huge thunderheads that so characterise the tropics. The result would be that while the small updraft zone would increase its moisture, the increased convective activity would dry out the air in the much larger subsidence zone, making for less cloudiness, and - wait for it - less water vapour in the subsidence zone. This drastically weakens the greenhouse effect there.  Ellsaesser saw this process as effectively cancelling out the slight warming effect of CO2. He based his claim, not on theory or modelling, but on the measured effect of the big 1982-83 El Niño which intensified deep tropical convection and made the subsidence zones drier.

Ironically, soon after Ellsaesser's paper was published, one of these latest paper's co-authors, Anthony Del Genio, claimed Ellsaesser was wrong [Nature, 351, 382-385, 1991]. Del Genio arrived at this conclusion by running Ellsaesser's scenario on a climate model, finding that the model could not reproduce the `deep convection' drying effect reported by Ellsaesser. In keeping with the `models are reality' mindset, Del Genio promptly dismissed Ellsaesser's claims.

Now, Del Genio has co-authored a study which completely vindicates Ellsaesser. Even the title of this latest study, "Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s", accurately describes the very process which Ellsaesser first outlined. According to Del Genio in the paper "Equatorial convective regions have intensified in upward motion and moistened, while both the equatorial and subtropical subsidence regions have become drier and less cloudy."  - exactly as stated by Ellsaesser back in 1984.  It prompted the co-author of the companion paper, Bruce Wielicki, to comment - "Since clouds were thought to be the weakest link in predicting future climate change from greenhouse gases, these new results are unsettling. It suggests that current climate models may, in fact, be more uncertain than we had thought."

I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so. The `Deep Convection' mechanism was perfectly sound at the time Ellsaesser described them. It's taken all that time to vindicate them, and by the very scientist who led the original scientific attack on Ellsaesser. These latest findings also vindicate Richard Lindzen's `Iris Effect' which postulates a similar mechanism involving cirrus cloud formation.

Too Hot for Penguins?  (4-Feb-2002)

We have already had recent reports that the extended sea ice around Antarctica this southern summer caught many penguins colonies by surprise, forcing them to make longer marches to the open water. 

But, the industry has found a little corner of Antarctica where it was warmer than usual. According to Independent News, "the numbers of adelie penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula - the most northerly part of the frozen continent - are falling as global warming takes hold."

Hold it right there - as global warming takes hold?  We already have scientific papers to show that the Antarctic continent has been cooling over recent decades, with the West Antarctic sheet growing, not shrinking as previously believed (see story this page).

The reality - as distinct from the ideological hype - is that the Antarctic Peninsula, a mere 2% of the Antarctic continent has indeed been warming, by about 2 degrees, a warming not shared by the rest of the continent or the globe as a whole.  In other words, it is a local warming, not a global one. 

Local warmings happen all the time, have always happened, and always will happen.  

Or take this gem - "Global warming also threatens the food supplies of emperor penguins.  When there is less ice in the sea, populations of krill - a staple in their diet - fall."

Reality - Antarctic sea ice has been increasing slightly in the last 25 years - the writer was just guessing, making a wholly unsubstantiated assumption.

Wind Power Winded (1 Feb 2002)

News from Denmark , the world's largest producer of wind turbines, says that the government there is withdrawing the subsidies it had previously given to wind power. The new Danish government are in favour of cancelling 3 planned sea-based wind farms at a total value of 5 billion Danish Kroner. The wind farms were intended to be built outside Gedser rev, Omø stålgrunde and the island of Læsø.

Cancelling the sea-based wind farms, will save the Danish taxpayers 900 million Dkr per year. The numerous wind turbines in Denmark have distorted the market for electricity and raised Danish electricity prices to one of the highest in the world.  The minister of Business and industry, Bent Bendsen, is concerned about the social and industrial consequences if Denmark keeps building wind turbines as they have far exceeded the safety margin for such unsteady energy supplies. (This was brought home to Californians last year when their wind power investment proved insufficient to protect them from extensive power cuts).

The Danish producers of wind turbines are complaining it will seriously damage their exports due to the loss of economies of scale.  Since the sea based wind farms will not receive subsidies, no more will be built.  There are unconfirmed rumours that planned and existing land based mills will also lose their subsidies within the year.  Without those subsidies many mill owners could end up in financial difficulty.  All these facts and rumours are having an adverse effect on the market for wind turbines. The shares for Vestas, the world's biggest manufacturer of wind turbines have been falling since last year.  The latest Vestas share prince is Kr.184.50 compared with a previous high of Kr.512

The basic problem with the wind turbine industry is that it is dependent on taxpayer subsidies, in other words - politics. Without political patronage, wind power could not justify itself in strictly economic terms.  The industry has ridden the wave of that patronage for several years, the Danish company Vestas being the biggest beneficiary, but now reality is finally setting in - wind power is unreliable, very expensive, badly scars the landscape, and is only useful as a small supplementary source of power, nothing more.  Vestas has sold turbines into Australia, but the sales were only made possible by the political actions of governments to appease the environmental lobby, not by natural market forces.  (Investment analysis here)

Judging by the slide in share prices, investors seem to have woken up from the Green daydream and taken a more realistic assessment of the potential - or lack of - of wind power. It may be a repeat of the dot.com phenomenon, share prices driven to unrealistic levels by political hype - only to fall sharply once investors took a reality check.

(Intel. - J. van Tiggelen and Jyllandsposten, Denmark's biggest newspaper)

  12 Feb 2002 - It's Official - Reuters, 11 Feb 2002 - `Denmark to scrap subsidies for wind power by 2004'

COPENHAGEN - Denmark's new centre-right government will concentrate on competitiveness, instead of a green image and not subsidise installation of new wind turbines from 2004, Economy Minister Bendt Bendtsen said last week. 
Installation of wind turbines has depended heavily on subsidies, not only in Denmark, but all over the world.  "I'm of the opinion that Denmark shouldn't continue to subsidise installation of new wind turbines after 2003," Bendtsen said in an interview. He said electricity from wind turbines was too expensive, denting Danish firms' competitiveness.

Houghton on Sin (6 Feb 2002)

Sir John Houghton from Britain, is the co-chairman of the IPCC (Scientific Group 1, which assesses the science of climate change), and the lead author of the IPCC reports to governments on global warming. In this document, "The Christian Challenge of Caring for the Earth", Houghton equates environmental neglect (as he interprets it) to `sin'. He says -

"When thinking of the sin and evil which results from a broken relationship with God, Christians generally think of sin against people not against the environment. But if we take seriously the clear responsibility of care for the Earth given to humans by God, we are bound also to recognise that to fail in that task is not only a sin against nature but a sin against God. It has been suggested that this new category of sin should include activities that lead to 'species extinction, reduction in genetic diversity, pollution of the water, land and air, habitat destruction and disruption of sustainable life styles'. This new sense of sin could also include the sin of too much talk and too little action!"

So we get the picture. Those of us who live ordinary lives, drive a car to work, use a computer, watch TV, heat our homes, etc. are all `sinners' in the true religous sense. Even to debate such issues is a sin - only action (his action), is acceptable to his version of God.

Houghton goes on - "An important, in fact essential, religious message is that we do not have to carry the responsibility of looking after the Earth on our own. Our partner is no other than God Himself. The Genesis stories of the garden contain a beautiful description of this partnership when they speak of God 'walking in the garden in the cool of the day' (Genesis 3.8). We may wonder what God and Adam and Eve talked about on those evening walks."

From these remarks, it is reasonable to conclude that Houghton regards the Book of Genesis in literal fundamentalist terms. Does he also believe in a 6,000 year-old earth? If so, what of the ice ages and the dinosaurs? When and where exactly does he think God and Adam had `those evening walks'? How does he think humans multiplied from only two individuals - incest? It is problems like these which have persuaded most Christians that the Book of Genesis should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

The entire global warming scare has been built to a large degree on the views of this one man, wielding enormous influence over climate science, the IPCC, the media, academic journals, and world governments (particularly the British government). In exercising that power has he been motivated all along by something other than science or even environmentalism?

It is especially galling that climate skeptics have been pilloried and abused for years by environmentalists and IPCC scientists comparing them to `Creationists'. Yet it now appears from Houghton's article that the top man in the Global Warming industry may himself be a leading Creationist.

`Warnings from the Bush' (4 Feb 2002)

This is the title of a new `peer reviewed' report prepared by `Climate Action Network', an Australian environmentalist organisation. It was expensive, colourful, glossy, and the two `peers' who reviewed the report were both from biological, not climatic, sciences.  (The media called them `scientists' to hide the fact they were out of their field). The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) did their usual sycophantic coverage of the report (as they always do for environmentalist stories) on their TV news.

The claims of `peer review' were largely to present a scientific facade to what was essentially a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated claims. For example, "Mount Kosciuszko, Australia's highest mountain, will lose its alpine environment". That's it, stated as a categorical fact in an isolated paragraph in the summary. Only this weekend, I went bushwalking up to Tasmania's second highest mountain, Ben Lomond, and the alpine environment is very much alive and well with no discernible change to the tree line. Alpine shrubs were growing in abundance.

Or try this paragraph - "The damage caused by climate change will have a negative economic impact on the tourism, fishing, forestry and agricultural industries in regional Australia."   Will? No doubts, reservations, caveats? Such strident predictions allowing of no uncertainty is the stuff of blind ideology, not science.

Take the claim of negative economic impact - a graph by the Bureau of Meteorology and reprinted in the report showed Australia to be experiencing increased rainfall overall, particularly in the western half of the continent - in the world's driest inhabited continent. That's hardly consistent with `negative economic impact'.  We need more rain.

A negative impact on agriculture? A paper in Nature (v.387, p.484) by Neville Nichols of the Bureau of Meteorology showed that warmer temperatures in Australia during the 20th century resulted in increased wheat yields. In addition, biological evidence from all over the world shows all plant life responding positively to CO2 enrichment. So that's a `negative impact'?

Most of the claims throughout the lengthy document were of a similar type - sweeping claims undiluted by any expression of scientific uncertainty, citing references from mostly environmentalist literature.

One section was on `Solutions to Climate Change', the phrase itself breathlessly Canute-like. It is here that the lack of basic understanding of energy engineering shows up most clearly. Vague references are made to setting up `sustainable energy' in de-centralised installations under `community control', but it quickly becomes clear that the authors are thinking windmills - unreliable, highly expensive, and totally dependent on political patronage and subsidies. While denouncing existing power stations and their transmission lines as being `inefficient', they then proceed to gloss over the gross inefficiencies of these `renewables'. They claim transmission lines lose 20% of their energy due to line losses, but demonstrate little understanding of the much larger losses with the windmill schemes, which generate only low voltages and which result in much greater line losses metre for metre (The authors and their `peer reviewers' should read up on Ohm's Law and basic electrical theory to see the reason).

The final section was `Recommendations', in which they said - "Undertake major reform of the electricity industry to encourage greater uptake of renewable energy and a decline in the share of power provided by coal."   Again, the renewables are not exactly specified, just left hanging in the air as simplistic clichés avoiding the engineering realities.  But since Australian public and government opinion is firmly against Australia going nuclear, and since we have only limited hydro resources (climate change might improve that situation), and limited wind resources, the call for `renewable energy' is just empty rhetoric.

But it was all `peer reviewed', if indeed environmental biologists are even competent to peer review climate issues. 

Siberia Comes to Italy (1 Feb 2002)

These pictures were taken on the morning of 19th January 2002 at a place in the large plain of northern Italy about 40 km north-west of Bologna (30 metres above sea level).  Some snow fell there on 15th January. Three days with fog and below freezing temperatures (down to -11.2°C.) followed, so that fog could condense on trees and other objects.
(Thanks to Paolo Mezzasalma for the intel.)

Postscript - 2 Feb 2002 - Part of Venice Lagoon also froze over in early January with temperatures in the region going as low as -19°C. This is all the more remarkable given that the lagoon is sea water, meaning it can only freeze at -2°C, not the 0°C for fresh water. Source here.  (Thanks to Miceal O'Ronain for the intel.)