Five steps to the climate swindle

Daily we are told that we are wicked to burn fossil fuels.  The carbon dioxide which is inevitably emitted accumulates in the atmosphere and the result is "climate change." If the stories are to believed, large areas of the world will become uninhabitable, either through drought or flood. Crops will wither, rivers will dry up, polar bears will disappear and malaria will become rampant.

You know, it is a big "IF". We could waste zillions for nothing.  Indeed, a zealot called Lord Stern has estimated that it would be worth spending a few trillion dollars each year to avoid a possible disaster in 200 years' time. Because he is associated with the London School of Economics he is believed - by those whose experience of insurance is limited. It is not worth insuring against something that might happen in 200 years time - we will all be dead and beyond caring.

So I decided to examine the hypothesis from first principles. There are five steps to the hypothesis:

1. The observation that the carbon dioxide (CO₂) content of the atmosphere is rising. 
2. The observation that the rise in CO₂ in the atmosphere is largely paralleled by the increase in fossil fuel combustion. Combustion of fossil fuels clearly results in emission of CO₂, so it is eminently reasonable to link the two increases. 
3. The observation that CO₂ can scatter infra-red over wavelengths primarily at about 15 µm.  Infra-red of that wavelength, which should be carrying energy away from the planet, is scattered back into the lower troposphere, where the added energy input should cause an increase in the temperature. 
4.  The expected increase in the energy of the lower troposphere may cause long-term changes in the climate and thermosphere, which will be characterized by increasing frequency and/or magnitude of extreme weather events, an increase in sea temperatures and a reduction in ice cover.
5. These phenomena may make areas of the globe uninhabitable either through extreme drought or flooding in the worst cases, but perhaps more subtly through impacts on the biosphere as a whole to which mankind is unable to adapt.

Thus in this first post I look at the observations of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) content of the atmosphere; in four subsequent ones I will examine each of the other steps.

The observations of the increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere are incontrovertible. There is a continuous record from the Mauna Loa observatory since 1958:

The annual rise and fall is due to deciduous plants growing or resting, depending on the season.  But it is clear that the long-term trend is ever-increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Before 1958, there were only sporadic measurements of CO2. Nevertheless they give a clear indication that there was minimal change in the atmosphere before about 1850:

There was a slight surge in atmospheric levels from about 1910, then a period of near stasis until after 1950, when there was a strong and ongoing increase which has continued to this day.Remember this pattern - it will re-appear in a different guise in our next post.

The conclusion is clear - there has been an increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1950. Next, we will consider what has caused it.

 

Those CRAZY labour laws!

My elder son has recently bought a large farm in the Little Karoo. It is beneath a mountain that I climbed in the days of my youth:

There is a large perennial stream flowing from a gorge, and the farm has the right to much of the water.  As a result, even though the area is semi-desert, the farm has huge potential. It has five houses on it, comes complete with half-a-dozen tractors and lots of other machinery, huge orchards that are drip-irrigated - and yet has been essentially abandoned for five years.

It did not take me long to find the problem.  Labour. There is lots of labour in the area.  In fact, the unemployment levels are among the highest in the country. Yet my son and his brother-in-law, who also lives on the farm, are striving to do it all themselves.  The fruit trees will go, along with the drip irrigation.  Fruit does very well there, but it demands seasonal labour, and the labour laws are against casual seasonal labour. A casual worker who does more than 16 days work for you is deemed to be a permanent employee, and deemed to have a contract and a minimum wage and paid holidays and and and - - -.

There is even a threat that, if the worker should be permanent for more than a year or so, he would become entitled to a portion of your farm.  That threat became law in about 1996, and I saw the effects in the Free State - villages were suddenly flooded by homeless farm workers.  The farmers had said "When we need you, we'll send a bus." Shacks sprang up alongside decent houses, and quiet villages overnight became noisy havens of crime. 

Another problem with the present dispensation is how you ever get to develop skills among your workers.  When I had an interest in farming, we decided our tractor drivers, who were responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the capital equipment that represented our life savings, were underpaid and undertrained.  We sent the drivers off on training courses, we set up planned maintenance schemes, and we offered the drivers bonuses based on their productivity and equipment reliability.  Our labour costs increased, but our tractor costs dropped dramatically and the productivity shot up, so we won handsomely. The only drawback was the neighbours, who complained that we had wrecked the local market for drivers!

But what can you do today? How can you hope to develop skills when you can only afford to employ someone for two weeks?  I know of one Free State farmer, with a few thousand hectares of mielies, who has taught his 55-year-old wife to drive a multi-million rand combine harvester.  It is very impressive to see her hauling herself up into the cab, and driving off in impressively straight lines - "All done by GPS!" she tells us later over coffee, after harvesting a few thousand tons of corn by 11 a.m.

I suppose the good news is that COSATU and the ANC government have finally found something to fight about.  At present, it is pensions, and whether the workers should be allowed to access their savings before retirement. I hope the government wins this one.  It may give them the courage to liberalise labour laws. We need jobs. Putting restrictive laws in place may protect those fortunate enough to have them; they also prevent those needing a job from having one.

The Paris "Agreement"

All the excitement, the back-slappings, the hubbub is over, and the 40 000 have jetted back home. COP21 has come and gone. We have now had time to assess all 32 pages of the Paris Agreement.

In spite of the claims about saving the planet, there is little for your carbon comfort. Much of the Agreement has to do with noble intentions: ”Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.” (Article 4.2) Legally binding? No! And wasn't there something about the path to Hell being paved with good intentions?

Much of the Agreement has to do with accounting: “Parties shall account for their nationally determined contributions. In accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals corresponding to their nationally determined contributions, Parties shall promote environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency, and ensure the avoidance of double counting - -.” (Article 4.13) It will be nice to be able to tell how rapidly we are committing carbon suicide (if indeed we are), but it is difficult to see how this is going to save the world.

An issue largely left unresolved is what to do about the big emitters who have emerged since 1992, when the Convention on Climate Change came into being. It is all very well for the Agreement to say “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention. “ (Article 9.1), but there is no clarity of who is ‘Developed’ and who ‘Developing’. Which category does China fit into? Or South Africa, for that matter?

On the money, the Agreement is gloriously vague: “strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation.” (Para IV, 54) In other words, for all the pious promises, S100 billion a year will not be available soon.

You will understand that I am seriously underwhelmed by the Paris Agreement. The fact that it is little more than hand-waving is made clear by Article 28: “1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification - -. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt - - of the notification of withdrawal, - -” An agreement from which you can opt out any time you feel so inclined? That’s no agreement!

As the Romans would have put it, “The mountains have been in labour, and given birth to a little mouse.” (Horace)

The hot-air balloon has gone up!

The 21st Conference of Parties has ground to a halt, predictably late. It has produced a 31-page Paris Agreement. It looks very like previous agreements, with much gnashing of teeth over climate threats. It is full of pious decides, also decides and further decides. But nearly all the decisions are about forming new committees, or making progress on earlier decisions. Decisions on real action are conspicuous by their absence, which is probably a merciful release for us all. The basis for carbon-cutting is the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDC's. Most nations were urged, after COP 20 in Lima,to dream up ways they could cut their emissions. Many responded. The UNFCCC sausage machine ground up the INDC's and found that by 2030 the world would emit some 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, rather than the hoped-for 40 million tons. Note that the INDC's are only intended - there are lots of good intentions paving this particular path to hell. But right at the end, it becomes clear that all this teeth-gnashing has worn the poor molars away: "1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. 3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement." Some agreement!

Copious Parisian hot air.

I thought you would really REALLY like to know how the Paris talks are progressing. With three days to go to reach a consensus, I have the feeling that consensus is still a long way away: "Each Party shall regularly prepare, communicate [and maintain] [successive] ### and [shall][should][other][take appropriate domestic measures] [have in place][identify and] [pursue] [implement] [[domestic laws], [nationally determined] policies or other measures] [designed to] [implement][achieve][carry out][that support the implementation of] its ###]." I don't like to ask about "###" - I fear it may be something naughty and unfit for readers of this blog. But there it is, in all its triple hash glory, for all the world to see. What will they get up to next? The mind boggles at the idea of 40 000 people descending on poor Paris, to waste each others time in this way. Do they sincerely believe that they can control the global climate? Are they honest in their ambition? Do they really have a clue just how strong Mother Nature really is? Can they possibly be blind to how energy has made this world a better place to live in? Is it credible that the future they seem to believe in will prove achievable within the lifespan of those born today? Slowly the world is coming to the conclusion that violent storms must have stripped the UNFCCC emperors of their clothing - either that, or they were never properly dressed in the first place. Expect more hot air from Paris!

A really bad proposal!

Our Treasury has finally published a draft bill introducing a carbon tax.  They have been talking about it for years, and one would have hoped that had got it right by now.  They haven't. 

Of course, their timing couldn't be worse. The first protest came from the Chamber of Mines, which has requested a delay in the imposition of any carbon tax for five years.  It deserves every support.  

Our actual carbon emissions today are significantly lower than they were expected to be when the tax was first mooted.  The electricity crisis has increased the cost of power, which has made us more energy efficient, so that we are doing a little more with significantly less. Our economy is struggling for lack of power, but we are emitting about 80 million tons of carbon dioxide less than we were expected to do by this time. So any nudge to do more by imposing a carbon tax could well push our economy over the edge.  

Then we do not know what the outcome of the Paris discussions next month will be, but it is extremely unlikely that we will see any agreement of a legally binding nature, so there is no compulsion on us to try to cut our emissions further. 

It is also unlikely that any funds will be committed to assisting developing countries such as South Africa to reduce their emissions. It is eight years since we offered reductions if we got financial help. According to recent submissions by the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism to Parliament, we have received about R200 million in aid, but we have already committed over R260 billion to adaptation alone. Less than 0.1% aid is no aid at all.  I can only conclude that the developed nations are giving no more than lip service to promised $100 billion a year meant to support such activities.  

The draft Bill that has been published for comment has some extraordinary provisions.  For instance, you could be taxed for burning wood, or wood waste, or biofuels. “Oh, but we will give you 100% exemption!” is the response.  Really? How kind. The Bill doesn’t define fossil fuels or pollution.  Yet it treats carbon dioxide, the source of all life on earth, as a pollutant. 

Meanwhile, the evidence that a warmer world will be a disastrous one is lacking – while we hear daily that record X has been broken, an examination of the data for the past 150 years of warming reveals no trends of increasing frequency of anything other than warmer days - but that is just what you would expect in a warmer world.  

We do not need a carbon tax now. One fears that Treasury may need more revenue, but to raise it in the name of saving the world from a disaster of the world’s making is a very bad idea.

How do you tell if it is "extreme"?

There are constant claims that extreme events are becoming more frequent, but when you really dig down, you cannot see any trends even in long-term data.  Of course, the scaremongers claim that it hasn’t happened yet, but their models predict it is going to happen any day real soon now, just you wait! All agree it has been warming for at least the past 150 years.If there were any effect such as the models predict, surely we would have seen it by now? It surprises many, but there is no detectable trend in extreme events in the historical data sets. 

However, it is not quite straightforward.For instance, how do you define an extreme event, particularly with phenomena that are not normally distributed? Do you only have to consider the high extremes,or must you also consider the low extremes? And how many extreme events does it take to determine a baseline, let alone a trend? 

To illustrate the challenges, consider the longest rainfall record we possess, that of England and Wales, which has monthly data back to 1766. The annual totals are close to normally distributed, as shown in the figure. 

A multi-parameter distribution such as a Weibull would do a better job, but we can treat the distribution as normal for the purposes of this exercise. The average annual rainfall is 918mm with a standard deviation of 119mm. 

We would expect 12.5 extreme events in 250 years, if an extreme event is defined as one that exceeds the 95% confidence limits. The figure shows that there are seven such events above the upper limit and four below the lower, or 11 in total, where 12.5 had been expected.

Given the slight skewness of the data and the approximation of normality, the difference is not significant. What is significant, however, is that there is no detectable change in the frequency of the extreme events.Indeed, to detect such a change with any degree of confidence, you would need far more than eleven events or, in the present case, far longer than 250 years. So those who claim we are facing disaster from “climate change” need to reflect on the fact that even with a generous 95% measure of extremeness, it took 250 data points to approximate a baseline.How can we tell if an event is extreme if we have no baseline? 

Is 95% generous? I think it is.Engineers typically design for the 1:100 year event, not 5:100. For really critical structures, they may use the 1:1000 year event. By and large, the engineers have been successful in protecting us against all manner of natural forces.The Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 devastated Tokyo; it had a magnitude of 7.9. The Great Tohoku earthquake of 2011, which caused the tsunami that destroyed the nuclear reactors at Fukushima, had a magnitude of 9.0 and the rebuilt, earthquake-proofed Tokyo was virtually unscathed.

When you hear that the effects of climate change will fall more strongly on poor nations, realize that it is probably true.However, it actually has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with some poorly engineered infrastructure in those nations.