UN IPCC SCIENCE REVIEWED- Fair Farmers group
Following is an analysis by the Fair Farmers group of the effects of
an ETS on the farming sector. It draws attention to many deficiencies
in the IPCC based science used to justify an ETS applying to the
sector and calls for an independent inquiry before any action is taken
to proceed with the scheme.
UN IPCC SCIENCE REVIEWED *
It seems reasonable to expect sound evidence-based science should
support climate projections which justify the introduction of an
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). An ETS will have a profound adverse
impact on the economy, including the farming sector, consumer energy
costs and major energy intensive industries, without achieving any
significant reduction in global emissions. This paper highlights some
of the scientific issues relevant to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) projections.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections
have in fact already been widely challenged by highly regarded
scientists in Europe, the US, and Australia. They include 64 prominent
German scientists who have called on the Chancellor to reconsider her
views. Several of those signing the letter are UN IPCC scientists and
the letter states “the UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility”.
Moreover, new research information has become available since the last
UN IPCC report, introducing further questions and demonstrating that
the science is evolving rapidly.
Examples of factors which the IPCC and its supporters have not taken
into account, thus leading to serious errors in projections, include;
· Recent analysis of satellite data by noted American expert Dr Frank
Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems shows that the rainfall and humidity
in the atmosphere have been underestimated by a factor of three in the
IPCC models. Future temperature projections would be substantially
reduced if this was corrected because moisture in the atmosphere is a
result of evaporation. This reduces the rise in surface temperature as
energy is needed to turn water into water vapour.
· There have been reductions or absence of increase in surface global
temperatures in three periods covering 56 years out of the past 128
years. In a former ice age, carbon dioxide was 12 times the present
level. Antarctic ice cores have shown that in the past, rising
temperatures have preceded an increase in carbon dioxide. Clearly
temperatures have not risen with carbon dioxide levels.
· The “greenhouse effect” relies on absorption of heat radiation from
the earth’s surface by gases including carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and its radiation back to earth to cause temperature
increase. Science has long recognised however that as the
concentration of carbon dioxide increases its ability to absorb
radiation decreases. Indeed, its capacity to absorb radiated heat is
greatly diminished at today’s level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
On the basis of this science the university of Chicago MODTRANS model
projects that if all the earth’s known coal and oil reserves were
burnt, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would
only double and in so doing increase global temperature by only 0.3 to
0.6 degrees centigrade.
· A recent report refers to an increase in ocean temperature which in
the view of the IPCC supports their case for global warming. However,
models are not able to explain or predict present or future ocean
temperatures because the timing and impact of increasing or decreasing
upwelling ocean currents is not understood.
Oceans cover 70% of the world’s surface and are a powerful determinant
of global temperatures. Up welling ocean currents are important
because 90% of sea volume is near one degree centigrade. Warm surface
currents form near the equator. Starting in 2000, Argo, a new system
for ocean temperature measurement was deployed with over 3,000 ocean
buoys. It is reported as showing a slight fall in temperature since 2004.
· While methane is reported as having increased dramatically in recent
decades as a result of human activities, in particular agriculture,
levels for the past 15 years have in fact varied in a pattern
following El Ninos. This may be a reflection of plant decay during El
Nino induced droughts.
Recent research (Dr T. Quirk “Energy and Environment” in press) shows
the increase in methane emissions during the 20th century can be
explained by the dramatic increase in natural gas use and leakage from
inefficient transmission and distribution systems. Proper maintenance
of the Russian pipeline system and replacing cast iron distribution
piping by continuous pipe has reduced this source so that it is no
longer significant. Agricultural emissions have not caused any steady
increase in atmospheric methane. This is clearly seen from 1990 onwards.
Grazing animals may account for 20% of annual global methane
production but this is clearly balanced by breakdown. Indeed
preliminary analysis by Professor Mark Adams, Dean of Sydney
University’s Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
suggests that bacteria in the soil oxidize and remove the methane. In
addition, methane oxidises in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide.
Grazing animals do not produce carbon they only release what has been
fixed from the atmosphere by the pasture they consume. The system
recycles carbon on a short cycle and is therefore carbon neutral.
· Much is made of the Arctic ice melt, but historically there has been
great variability in Arctic temperature following changes in
temperature of ocean currents. In the Middle Ages there was cropping
and grazing in Greenland at a time when manmade emissions were
insignificant compared to the present. The current melt could well be
a return to conditions experienced in the Middle Ages as a result of
changing ocean currents, and not man-made emissions. In contrast,
Antarctic Sea Ice is showing an increasing trend.
· Stepping back through geological time shows that life has flourished
in atmospheres where the concentration of carbon dioxide was many
times greater than the present. In fact plant and animal life is
dependent on carbon dioxide and sunlight so that photosynthesis could
build, in the past, the coal and oil feedstock on which we depend.
A fundamental factor in this regard has been overlooked. Before the
earth’s coal and oil deposits were formed all the carbon dioxide
subsequently captured in the coal and oil was in the atmosphere – a
situation which would concern global warming alarmists. However, this
was a period referred to by the eminent scientist Professor Richard
Dawkins as supporting abundant plant and animal life. If conditions
had not been favourable the coal and oil deposits would not have been
formed.
Turning to Australia and the Garnaut Review that unquestionably
accepts the UN IPPC Report. Contrary to the conclusion in the Review,
the evidence shows violent fluctuations of climate are not new.
Further, much of the claimed evidence for climate change caused by
human activity can be understood as the natural variability of the
atmosphere interacting with the oceans.
This was clearly shown and explained in a study of 75 years of
Australian rainfall compared with overseas conducted by Professor Sir
Samuel Wadham, R Kent Wilson and Joyce Wood. They concluded in 1963
that “nowhere in the world is there such a huge area of pastoral land
of such erratic rainfall as this pastoral country of Australia”,
adding that “the immediate effects of violent fluctuations of climate
on the development of agriculture are considerable, but their ultimate
effects are much greater than are normally appreciated.”
Statistical analysis of Bureau of Meteorology records confirms these
observations. For instance, 108 years rainfall measurements in the
Murray-Darling Basin show no trend but random variability.
Despite this evidence the Garnaut Review provides an alarming forecast
that “The best estimate for the Murray Darling Basin is that by mid
century it would lose half of its annual irrigated agricultural
output. By the end of the century it would no longer be a home to
agriculture”. It is a poorly based forecast that will have a human
cost by spreading unwarranted anxiety and fear in the region.
The policy implications of taking action on the claimed importance of
agricultural emissions of methane in the face of a compelling
alternative explanation has serious and potentially devastating
consequences for the farming community – and for the country as a
whole through the threat of reduced export revenue. As an example, a
recently forecast $50 charge per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions
would impose an annual cost of $72,000 for the average cattle producer
and $47,000 for the average dairy farmer. Recognising the burden of
these costs and that kangaroos do not emit methane, the Garnaut Review
suggests meat production could be maintained from 175 million kangaroos.
USA and EU farmers who are excluded from ETS by their governments will
not suffer the foregoing costs imposed on Australian farmers. In the
circumstances it makes good sense for the Australian Government to
also act to remove the uncertainty facing Australian farmers by
excluding them from ETS. We can expect other primary producing
countries and competitors with Australia to follow the lead of the USA
and the EU.
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, very recently stated “It is
morally inexcusable not to act on emissions control.” The question may
however be asked about the morality of proceeding with a scheme, which
will bring hardship to so many, based on science which is incomplete
and thus open to legitimate challenge.
This statement does not show appreciation of the cost benefit analysis
determined by an IPCC adviser. The cost of keeping the global
temperature rise determined by IPCC science below the limit set by the
IPCC, has been estimated by Richard Tol, a well regarded Danish
climate economist and advisor to the IPCC at US$ 40 trillion. In
contrast the cost estimate of climate change is only US$ 1.1 trillion.
So within the limits of long range forecasting it is proposed that US$
40 trillion be spent to save US$ 1.1 trillion. The work was
commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Centre.
To summarise, the reliance of the Garnaut Report on questionable IPCC
science simply does not meet reasonable standards of accountability
for determining a policy with such far reaching economic and social
consequences.
It is time for Government and Industry leaders to call for a
fundamental reassessment of the science prior to deciding to proceed
with ETS legislation. Indeed the US Chamber of Commerce has already
called for a Judicial Inquiry into climate alarmist claims. Recent
polling in the United States shows a growing number and a majority of
voters are sceptical of global warming claims.
Fair Farming Group.
The Fair Farming Group was formed in mid-2009 to advocate for fair and
reasonable treatment of Australian farmers based on sound science. It
comprises members with extensive agricultural experience and business
and academic backgrounds. The group takes issue with the basis of the
UN IPCC forecasts and warns the impact of ETS costs would have unfair
and serious consequences for Australian agriculture.
Directors of the Fair Farming Group comprise. Bob Officer, Andrew
Miller, Richard Morgan, Mark Rayner & John Chambers. Consultant to the
Group, Australian physicist Dr. Tom Quirk.
A shorter version of this paper has been published in the October 2009
edition of the Australian Farm Journal.
* *
*For further information and scientific reference details, please
contact: *
Dr Tom Quirk
Ph: +61 (0)415 549 676