THE KYOTO PROTOCOL	An Investigation
What is global warming? Earth has warmed by about 1ºF over the past 100 years. But why? And how? Well, scientists are not exactly sure. The Earth could be getting warmer on its own, but many of the world's leading climate scientists think that things people do are helping to make the Earth warmer.  Is 1ºF such a big deal? The Greenhouse Effect: Scientists are sure about the greenhouse effect. They know that greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer by trapping energy in the atmosphere. Climate Change: Climate is the long-term average of a region's weather events lumped together. For example, it's possible that a winter day in Buffalo, New York, could be sunny and mild, but the average weather – the climate – tells us that Buffalo's winters will mainly be cold and include snow and rain. Climate change represents a change in these long-term weather patterns. They can become warmer or colder. Annual amounts of rainfall or snowfall can increase or decrease. Global Warming: Global warming refers to an average increase in the Earth's temperature, which in turn causes changes in climate. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. When scientists talk about the issue of climate change, their concern is about global warming caused by human activities. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would not be warm enough for humans to live. But if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, it could make the Earth warmer than usual. Even a little extra warming may cause problems for humans, plants, and animals. Link	Greenhouse Effect The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. Because of how they warm our world, these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases. The Earth’s atmosphere is all around us. It is the air that we breathe. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere behave much like the glass panes in a greenhouse. Sunlight enters the Earth's atmosphere, passing through the blanket of greenhouse gases. As it reaches the Earth's surface, land, water, and biosphere absorb the sunlight’s energy. Once absorbed, this energy is sent back into the atmosphere. Some of the energy passes back into space, but much of it remains trapped in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases, causing our world to heat up.
Average global temperature has increased by almost 1ºF over the past century; scientists expect the average global temperature to increase an additional 2 to 6ºF over the next one hundred years. This may not sound like much, but it could change the Earth's climate as never before. At the peak of the last ice age (18,000 years ago), the temperature was only 7ºF colder than it is today, and glaciers covered much of North America! Sea level may rise between several inches and as much as 3 feet during the next century. This will effect both natural systems and manmade structures along coastlines. Coastal flooding could cause saltwater to flow into areas where salt is harmful, threatening plants and animals in those areas. For example, an increase in the salt content of the Delaware and Chesapeake bays is thought to have decreased the number of oysters able to live in those waters.	Global warming may make the Earth warmer in cold places. People living in these places may have a chance to grow crops in new areas. But global warming also might bring droughts to other places where we grow crops. In some parts of the world, people may not have enough to eat because they cannot grow the food that they need.
Premier Kline is very concerned about the costs to the Alberta economy if Canada does ratify this protocol by year's end as Prime Minister Jean Chretien is planning to do.  Kline reminds us that the largest polluters like China and India and the USA are not signing the accord, and that the economic costs of abiding by the pollution standards of the Protocol will hurt Alberta's economy severely and prevent Alberta from having the financial resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily over the next few years.   After a sizzling real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth rate of 5.9% in 2001 and projected growth of 3.2 per cent in 2002, Edmonton's vibrant economy could soften in 2003.  (Gary Lamphier, Edmonton Journal) (glamphier@thejournal.southam.ca )The Accord requires Alberta to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent - or 6 per cent below 1990 levels - by 2012)	According to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase." Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.  Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered. 98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapour); only 2% are from man-made sources. By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University) A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.  Reference Link   Global Warming Global   Warming UCS

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5°C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

• Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),

• Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),

• Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),

• Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),

• Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations’ scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),

• Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer—methane—is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),

• Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and

• Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).

In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

Historical Background

Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

This failure did not surprise me. On a 100 year time scale, the models were predicting a warming of about 1.5° by 1988. The observed change was 0.5°C. That the models continued to fail in the last ten years at the rate that they were failing in the previous century was strong evidence for my original thesis. How much might we have saved, including the notorious Kyoto Protocol, if we had just listened to nature instead of a manmade computer?

By 1995, in its second full Assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of its critics’ position: "When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account...most [climate models] produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is used...There is growing evidence that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases."

IPCC is presenting two alternative hypotheses: Either the base warming was simply overestimated, or, some other anthropogenerated emission is preventing the warming from being observed. IPCC omitted a third source for the error: Perhaps the greenhouse gases were not increasing at the projected rate.

As evidence comes in, the first and third reasons appear to be carrying the day. The direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). Carbon dioxide is not accumulating in the atmosphere at even the lowest rate estimated by IPCC in 1992 (Hansen et al., 1998), and the the second most important greenhouse emission, methane, began to decrease its rate of increase in 1981 (Etheridge et al., 1998), some 15 years before the recent IPCC report that projects an increased rate of emissions for the next 50 years.

Only the sulfate hypothesis allows the exaggerated notion of climate change any credibility. It is not surprising that this is the one that IPCC continues to champion because it raises the spectre of "dangerous" interference in the climate system, which is what the Framework Convention on Climate Change was designed to prevent. If there is no "dangerous" interference, there is no need for the Convention, or the subsequent Kyoto Protocol, and the IPCC has failed in its mission. The U.N. General Assembly, more than ten years ago, directed the IPCC to provide the basis for the Convention.

Why did it not warm as predicted?

a. The sulfate hypothesis

Are sulfate aerosols responsible for the now-admitted dearth of warming? In previous testimony I have shown how poorly this argument stands the critical test of the data. Suffice it to say that the entire record of three dimensional atmospheric temperature does not appear consistent with this hypothesis. Instead of repeating that argument, I would simply point out that the southern half of the planet is virtually devoid of sulfates, and should have warmed at a prodigious and consistent rate for the last two decades. Unfortunately, we have very few longterm weather records from that half of the planet, and almost all come from the relatively uncommon landmasses. However, we do have nearly two decades of satellite data (Figure 3). They show a statistically significant decline in temperature—exactly the opposite to what the sulfate hypothesis predicts.

b. Was the sensitivity overestimated?

If sulfates do not explain the lack of warming, one option is that the sensitivity to climate change was overestimated. The large warmings predicted by the failed models that back the Framework Convention rely on a roughly threefold amplification of carbon dioxide warming by increased atmospheric moisture. Yet Spencer and Braswell (1997) have found that the expected moisture is not there.

Perhaps even more remarkable is that amount of direct warming by carbon dioxide was also overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). This is the basic driving force behind the entire issue!

c. Was the increase in greenhouse gases overestimated?

Dlugokencky et al. (1998) recently demonstrated that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere—currently 30% of the human greenhouse potential—is rapidly stabilizing. It has done this because its concentration is coming into chemical equilibrium with other atmospheric reactants. His calculations strongly suggest that the concentration will remain stable in the future. The IPCC assumed that, without any controls, the methane warming effect would double by 2050 and increase by 125% by 2100.

Hansen et al. (1998) recently calculated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing at approximately 60% of the rate that is normally projected. Notably, he argues that the biosphere is absorbing CO2 at a rate much faster than anticipated, as he wrote that "Apparently the rate of uptake by CO2 sinks, either the ocean, or, more likely the forests and soils (our emphasis) has increased."

DECLINING PROJECTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING

In the ten years since my first testimony, estimates of global warming to the year 2100 have declined. When the latest findings are factored in, the projected warming is now at the lower limit I noted in 1989. Following is a summary of that decline in median projected warming for the next century:

IPCC 1990 initial estimate: 3.2°C

IPCC revised 1992 estimate: 2.6°C

IPCC revised 1995 estimate: 2.0°C

After allowing for overestimation of direct CO2 warming: 1.7°C

After allowing for flattening of Methane concentration: 1.4°C

After allowing for decrease in carbon dioxide accumulation: 1.0°C

The Nature of Observed Change

Winter Warming

Greenhouse physics predicts that the driest airmasses should respond first and most strongly to changes induced by human activities. These, in fact, are generally the coldest airmasses, such as the great high pressure system that dominates Siberia in the winter, and its only slightly more benign cousin in northwestern North America. When the jet stream attains a proper orientation, it is this airmass that migrates south and kills orange trees in Florida.

A look at the trends in the satellite data—our only truly global record of lower atmosphere temperature—is remarkably revealing. While there is no overall global warming trend, there is a pronounced warming trend in the coldest winter regions.

Balling, Michaels, et al. (1998) examined surface temperature records since 1945 and found also that warming was largely confined to the coldest winter airmasses, in agreement with the satellite. A warming of the coldest, driest airmasses, is by definition, a relative warming of the nights compared to the days. And, by extension, this is the type of climate change that slightly lengthens the growing season, as the coldest temperature occurs at night.

Climate Variability

Michaels et al. (1998) recently examined the surface temperature history in order to answer three questions:

Is the temperature becoming more variable from year-to-year? We found a statistically significant decline in interannual variability worldwide (Figure 4) .

Is the variation from day-to-day increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

Are the number of record high or low temperatures increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

In summary, here is what the climate has done during the greenhouse enhancement: The most notable change is that the coldest air masses of winter in Siberia and North America have warmed slightly. The only change in weather variability has been a tendency towards reduced year-to-year variability.

Our results should be integrated with a recent study of U.S. stream flow by Lins and Slack (1997). In an investigation of undisturbed sites, they found no change in the frequency of highest flow (flood) events, but a decrease in the lowest flow (drought) events.

We are not entering a world of increased variability, unpredictability and peril, but rather the opposite. If this is a human interference in the climate, it is hardly "dangerous."

The Kyoto Protocol: How Much Warming is Prevented?

This analysis assumes the IPCC’s "consensus" estimate of 2.0°C of warming by the year 2100 in the absence of substantial emissions stabilization. Please note that my testimony indicates this is a considerable overestimation.

The Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by a remarkable 43% for the 2008-2012 average, compared to where they would have been if we continue on the trajectory established in the last two decades. The economic costs are enormous, they are but not the subject of this hearing. What are the climate benefits?

Wigley (1998) recently calculated the "saved" warming, under the assumptions noted above, that would accrue if every nation met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. According to him, the earth’s temperature in 2050 will be 0.07°C lower as a result. My own calculations produced a similar answer. Wigley is a Senior Scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. If one assumes the more likely scenario that warming to the year 2100 will be approximately half of the IPCC estimate, the saved warming drops to 0.04°C over the next fifty years.

This is no benefit at an enormous cost.

*****

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

Pictures included with testimony

References

Balling, R.C., Jr., et al., 1998. Cli. Res., 9, 175-181.

Dlugokencky, E.J., et al., 1998. Nature, 393, 447-450.

Etheridge, D.M., et al., 1998. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 15979-15995.

Hansen, J.E., et al., 1988. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364.

Hansen, J.E., et al., 1998. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 95, 4113-4120.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment.

_____, 1996. The Science of Climate Change.

Lins, H. and J.R. Slack, 1997. Amer. Geophys. Union, San Francisco. Abstract. 12/8/97.

Michaels, P.J., et al., 1998. Cli. Res., 10, 27-33.

Myhre, G., et al., 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2715-2718.

Spencer, R.W. and W.D. Braswell, 1997. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.

Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2285-2288.

Rock uneasy about Kyoto costs

Industry Minister Allan Rock broke ranks with federal cabinet colleagues over the Kyoto accord Tuesday, suggesting it could hurt Alberta's competitive position and living standard.

After telling a business audience Canadian industry has to be more competitive, Rock acknowledged the Kyoto agreement could further erode the country's ability to compete with the Americans, who have rejected the deal.

"I was talking about productivity and innovation, but I can scarcely do that and at the same time go forward with a step that might hamper productivity," Rock told reporters after an address to an Economic Development Edmonton luncheon.

"So let's get the facts, let's have a rigorous analysis of what Kyoto means. As minister of industry, I can't be the advocate for business interests while there are concerns about the prospect of ratifying Kyoto."

His defence of Alberta interests contrasts with his earlier role as health minister, when he opposed the province's push for private health facilities.

Rock's comments Tuesday on Kyoto make him the most senior federal minister to question ratifying the accord, although Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal said Monday that Ottawa won't ratify it until satisfied it is workable.

Environment Minister David Anderson, who supports the agreement, has been travelling the country to sell it. It is supposed to be ratified later this year.

The agreement would reduce the levels of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels. Because emissions are produced by the burning coal and petroleum, Alberta's energy sector faces the greatest impact.

Federal and provincial officials are to release reports later this month or in early May on projections of the economic costs of ratifying the accord. Estimates now range from a low of $5 billion a year to a high of $40 billion.

Rock agreed Alberta industry should know the full impact before it is ratified.

"Albertans and Canadians are entitled to know what ratifying Kyoto will mean for our industry and our economy," he said. "I think there are some hard questions that need to be answered and I don't think any decision about ratification can be made until these questions are answered and the facts are understood."

He said the issue has been complicated by the refusal of the United States to adopt the agreement.

"If the Americans aren't in it, what does it mean for our competitive position? Lets get those facts and have a discussion before we consider ratifying it."

Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor, who argues the accord would drain up to $40 billion a year from the Alberta economy, will announce a strategy next month that will have emission targets similar to the ones contained in the U.S. government's greenhouse gas reduction proposals.

By liking Alberta's targets to those of the U.S., Taylor believes the province won't be risking its competitive position for the sake of reducing emissions.

© Copyright  2002 Edmonton Journal

 Link          Link       Fact Sheet       America Pulls Out    Environment