Submission to the UNFCCC.
Preamble:
Australia has been promoting the increased use of renewable energy, mainly in the
form of solar and wind power, because of the belief that emissions of carbon dioxide,
CO2, into the atmosphere, as a result of burning fossil fuels to generate electric
power, and the production of iron and cement, are causing dangerous increases in the
world's average temperature. In an attempt to counteract this increase in carbon
dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, billions of dollars have been spent, or
committed to the installation of solar and wind power projects, and to research into
these technologies.
Comments on Australia's climate change position.
No Government, federal or state, in the last 20 years has made any attempt to hold a
due diligence enquiry, encourage a balanced public debate or discussion, or made any
attempt to educate the general public about the relevant facts. This has happened
despite the fact that many scientists have made our politicians aware that the facts do
not support the proposition that carbon dioxide is having any significant effect on the
world's climate. They have been ignored.
Instead, this Government has adopted the Direct Action policy, which is patently
pointless and defies logic. No cost / benefit analysis has ever been put in the public
arena. The savings proposed even if the RET is achieved, will be wiped out by a
factor of ten when the coal we are exporting is burnt. The Prime Minister has recently
endorsed the coal exports as good for humanity! There is muddled thinking going in
Canberra!
These politicians, most of them with no scientific training, have only listened to
scientists and academics who receive research grants to study the climate, or who are
in the growing renewables industry and are hoping to gain with the proliferation of
wind turbines and solar power. They are following, without any questioning, the lead
of the USA and the United Nations, neither of which has justified its position. The
USA has in fact put carbon dioxide on the poisons list! Due diligence demands that
input is received from independent sources, not just from those with vested
interests. It is very disappointing that at least those politicians educated in the law,
accounting and journalism, for example, seem unable to recognise a flawed thinking
and analysis process. It is disgraceful that these same people are prepared to spend
many billions of dollars without any rigorous analysis, at a time when budgetary
constraints are hurting such programs as health care, education and the NDIS.
Those promoting the notion that the emissions of carbon dioxide will cause
catastrophic warming have made many predictions, none of which have come true.
The media generally have supported such disgraceful and unfounded behaviour, and
our politicians have failed dismally to take these people to task and demand much,
much better from the media, our scientists and academics.
Australia deserves much better than this!
Due Diligence and Definition of the Problem.
Logic and good business practice demand that the first step in understanding and
solving any problem is to define exactly what the problem is! Having defined the
problem, the relevant facts must be assessed and tested for validity, and proposed
solutions similarly tested for efficacy and cost - in other words a business case must
be prepared and critically evaluated. Due Diligence demands that the response to this
problem should be based on facts, not supposition, assumptions and bad science, and
input sought from independent sources, not just from those who stand to benefit from
the possible conclusion of the enquiry. .
My definition of the problem is: Quantify, on a sound scientific basis, the capacity
of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, to affect the
world's climate.
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation.
The proposition that our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are causing
environmental and economic damage, without offering any proof of this, turns the
Scientific Method, as understood by scientists and engineers, on its head. Those
proposing such a scenario ought to offer proof, but instead, are putting the onus of
disproving this proposition onto others. Fortunately, this is not difficult scientifically,
but it will be socially, because so many people have blindly accepted this unproven
proposition, and really believe that they are "saving the planet."
In the following Due Diligence Exercise, I have relied on facts, supported by suitable
references, to demonstrate that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have
negligible effect on the climate of our earth, but rather will enhance the growth rate of
all plants, thus helping to feed the world's growing population. It is also apparent that
the proposed reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, through achieving the
Government's Renewable Energy Target, will have negligible effect on the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but it is instead a benefit to the
agricultural industries. Australia's fossil fuel power stations emit very tiny amounts of
real pollutants in the form of the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, and particulates.
These power stations are in line with world's best practice. Substituting some fossil
fuel power generation for renewable power is unnecessary, costly, and flies in the face
of good science and logic.
Australia is trying to solve a climate "problem" which does not exist, with a solution
which can have no significant effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Our scientists, and particularly our academics, have failed to follow well
established scientific principles in addressing this issue. Billions of dollars are at
stake, and Australia deserves a much better response than has so far been
demonstrated by our scientists and politicians. This is an issue of such national
importance that the Australian Government must take charge of the agenda and insist
on good science based on facts.
My recommendations are:
1. That a further Due Diligence exercise be carried out by the Australian
Government, with input from independent scientists, and that the proponents
of renewable energy be asked to provide factual evidence to support their
claims. A report from this independent enquiry must be made available to the
general public, and open to question.
Part of this exercise should be the education of the general public about the
facts relating to carbon dioxide. The previous Government provided a booklet
to every household explaining how the Carbon Tax would work. A similar
booklet outlining the sort of facts presented here would be a good start, and it
would promote informed public debate. There has been very little of that!
2. Government should cease further funding for the renewables industry until it
can be confirmed that there is a problem, and that the currently proposed
solution is effective.
3. Given that the Government encouraged firms into this industry, consideration
should be given to recompensing those who would suffer loss because of such
a decision. There is a place for renewable energy, but at present Australia's
fossil fuel based power industry is efficient, non-polluting, and far more
economic than wind or solar energy.
The Due Diligence Exercise.
When the facts are examined, there is no doubt that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has increased in the last 60 years. There is no doubt that
the 1990s were generally hotter than the previous decades. However, it is not logical
to then assume that one has caused the other, without a sound scientific explanation of
how this could be. In fact, the plot of world average temperature against CO2
concentration, over a longer period, confirms that there is no strong relationship. The
apparent correlation in the 1990s is simply a coincidence. For the last 15 years there
has been no apparent relationship. This alone completely destroys the assertion
that CO2 is causing the world to warm.
The graph below shows the relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and
the average world temperature from 1979 until 2013. From 1983 until 2003 it is
possible to observe that CO2 concentration and temperature exhibited an approximate
straight line relationship, which of itself does not lead to the conclusion that one is
causing the other. However, before and after these years it is quite clear that these
two variables are independent. Further examination of the CO2 - temperature
relationship over some centuries confirms that there is no obvious correlation! Such
data is readily available through a web search.
This point is the crux of the matter, and it is usual for many proponents of AGW as a
driver of the climate, to claim that virtually any unusual weather event is due to the
CO2 in the atmosphere. This is quite illogical and is not supported by the facts
further outlined below. Of course climate change is ever-present - it has been evident
for thousands of years, and all the climate forces are still operating. As scientists and
logical thinkers, we MUST be able to demonstrate with FACTS that carbon dioxide is
influencing the climate, before we begin to look at solutions to reduce CO2 levels.
Why is catastrophic warming being predicted?
This graph clearly shows that the green line, the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere, has been steadily increasing. The temperature fluctuations about a mean,
the blue line, shows a very poor correlation with the CO2 level.
The following facts confirm that CO2 is not a driver of climate:
1. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 300 parts per
million (ppm) 60 years ago, to the current 400 ppm. This increase amounts to
100 ppm, or 0.01% of the atmosphere! This is quite a tiny amount in a huge
thermodynamic system. The explanation that as a greenhouse gas, the CO2
causes warming of the earth's lower atmosphere, which leads to extreme
climate events such as droughts, has never been backed up by facts!
To any logical thinker, and to someone familiar with physics, this tiny
fraction of CO2 causing climate effects would seem very unlikely. However,
we must keep to the facts!
If CO2 has been influencing the climate by warming the atmosphere, what is
the temperature record over many decades, going back to the pre-industrial
age, and before the CO2 concentration started to increase? Steve Goreham
and Robert Brooks answer this question in References 1, 2 and 3.
This fact, and the fact that no warming has taken place for the last 15 years,
have caused those promoting the alarmist view, to change the problem name
from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." This deceptive move
apparently justifies any abnormal weather event being classified as caused by
CO2 emissions. Note that no scientific explanation of just how this
happens if it is not through warming, is never offered! I note also that no
scientific explanation, that is provable using basic physics, has ever been
offered to show conclusively that CO2 is capable of driving the climate.
2. Part of the Climate Change alarm is that extreme weather events are now
more severe or more frequent. This is simply nonsense, and any search on the
web will demonstrate that. Just two local examples - Australia's worst
recorded cyclone was Wahine in 1899, with a storm surge of more than 3
metres, and many lives lost in north Queensland. The Brisbane flood of 1893
was far worse than any since then. Three cyclones within two weeks
travelled much further south than usual, bringing extraordinary rainfall to
southern Queensland.
The proposition that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing extreme
weather events is totally unsupportable.
3. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is the primary plant food. Only trace
nutrients and water come from the soil - it is CO2 and sunlight which create
the woody bulk of trees, the carbohydrates in all grain crops, and the fruit of
all orchards. This is perhaps the cruellest lie being perpetuated by our
politicians, but not rebuffed by scientists. I have yet to hear a biological
scientist make any sort of protest about this distortion.
We as yet cannot completely quantify the carbon cycle, but it is clear that
huge amounts of CO2 are generated in the oceans by decomposing vegetable
and animal matter, and undersea volcanoes. Burning of fossil fuels, wood and
the metabolism of every living animal emit CO2 into the atmosphere. As the
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, so does the rate of reaction of
CO2 in photosynthesis reactions. The result? Crops grow faster and this will
be a significant benefit in feeding the world in years to come.
How effective would achieving the RET be in reducing the carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere?
Even with our limited understanding of the CO2 mass balance - the flows into and out
of the atmosphere and the total inventory in the atmosphere and in the oceans, make it
clear that anthropological emissions from burning of fossil fuels are tiny, and the
programs that governments have come up with to "control climate change" are quite
absurd!
The atmosphere contains about 2000 billion tonnes of CO2, and total world emissions
from fossil fuels and cement production amount to about 25 billion tonnes per year.
The oceans contain about 50 times the atmospheric weight of CO2 dissolved in the
oceans, and the earth's topsoils contain an unknown but substantial amount. There is
continuous transfer of CO2 between these CO2 sinks, and from the atmosphere and
the oceans into plant material by photosynthesis. Australia accounts for 1% of the
total world carbon dioxide emissions, or 250 million tonnes of CO2. The plan is to
reduce this amount by about 5% through renewable energy projects. That is, the plan
is to reduce Australia's emissions by about 12.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
We know that China and India, while building some renewable energy installations,
are increasing their emissions of CO2 by many times what Australia plans to save.
The net result of Australia's RET, even if successful in building the target renewable
generating plant, can have no effect whatever on CO2 concentrations. It will be
money completely wasted, and better spent trying to solve real problems. Robert
Brooks comments on Europe's similar wastage in Reference 4.
Finally, I want to emphasise that Australia is not being served well by its scientists.
In Reference 5 I have placed a link to a presentation by USA physicist John Droz,
who explains in some detail the flawed thinking by many scientists with regard to
Climate Change. He discusses the related problems associated with
Environmentalism, the relationship between Science and Engineering, and some real
problems in the teaching of science to children.
This is a lengthy document, but well worth reading in terms of science, and the usual
approach to the climate change issue.
R J McCulloch B E (Chem) B Econ
Reference 1.
A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
Posted on September 10, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate
change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report,
titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II
shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global
warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing
dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been
remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse
gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization
and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the
IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the
governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies
imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade
markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy
mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and
many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former
Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate
change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition
Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than
9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a
credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in
2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the
University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that
IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made
warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the
climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on
global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first
scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was
translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as
an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more
than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40
scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical
science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the
physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global
climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and
observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and
weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of
only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a
recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere
cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of
the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous
natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than
0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have
occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions
of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate
change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat
temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries
and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose
we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate
change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project
supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and
Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive
Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book
The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change
Mania.
Reference 2. Note from Robert Brooks January 2014.
It is time to ignore self appointed experts and apply simple logic to a few facts.
Compared to today:
3,000 years ago the Minoan Warming was hotter than it is today.
2,000 years ago, much the same, The Roman Warming of historical records.
1,000 years ago, the Medieval Warming when Greenland was green and
farmed.
The Industrial Revolution was less than 350 years ago, just after the well
known Little Ice Age.
Obviously to say the present Modern Warming is unprecedented, as so
many experts claim, is just not right.
The official figures tell us the planet as a whole has not warmed at all in the
last 17 years, while CO2 in air has climbed noticeably, sea levels appear
stable, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has been expanding (easily checked).
Cyclones and storms, hurricanes and typhoons have not been exceptional
lately, having decreased in numbers and intensity compared with about 50
years ago. As published in Energy Collective of 27 November 2013, "In the
five year period ending 2013 the USA has seen two hurricane landfalls, a
record low since 1900".
Who thinks we can control planetary climate by limiting our emissions?
With less than 5% of emissions being anthropogenic to start with , any
changes we make to temperature will clearly be too small to be measured
accurately.
The billions of dollars currently being wasted on subsidising inefficient
power generation, repetitive "research" and Fly- In- FlyOut conferences would be much better spent refining our knowledge of
the solar cycles which do affect climate to enable appropriate precautions
to be taken for when the inevitable warmings and coolings arrive.
Robert Brooks, ASTC, FAusIMM, CPMin, MIEAust, CPEng, NM. Mining
Engineer.
Reference 3. Note from Robert Brooks November 2013.
Sooner or later Australia's politicians will have to accept the reality that CO2
has almost nothing to do with climate change, so any Carbon Tax or Emissions
Trading Scheme is a waste of scarce resources. Administration costs are significant
and usually not available to most people.
The current 17 year pause in global warming, while CO2 in air has increased and
Arctic ice cover is back to where it was in 2007, makes a mockery of all of those
terribly expensive computer models.
The regular 1000 year cycle in global temperature, particularly over the last
3000 years where we have a lot of hard evidence should have alerted politicians
as well as scientists. The ongoing failure of predictions and tipping points to arrive is
remarkable and scientists who should know better are supporting the position of the
United Nations' amateurs called experts who are being proven alarmists by a non
compliant planet. Obviously the sun's movements compared with the earth's orbit are
worth more study.
Any doubters should look at the NIPCC's papers published by real scientists.
Robert Brooks, ASTC, FAusIMM, CPmin, MIEAust, CPEng, NM. Mining Engineer
Reference 4. Note from Robert Brooks November 2013.
Our politicians should use logic, "the art of reasoning correctly", when formulating
the laws which so affect our daily lives. Obviously since 1988 many in Canberra and
academia, ignoring logic, are still promoting the discredited theory that our emissions
are causing the world to heat unsustainably.
The Swiss magazine Weltwoche (world watch) took a good hard look at the situation
and concluded that the United Nations' behaviour has been so sub standard that
"anyone that far off is not a scientist, rather he is a fortune teller - and one with a
pitiful performance". For the real science which matches what we see and measure, go
to the NIPCC. Europe has had five colder than average winters in a row and in the last
year Arctic and Antarctic ice has increased remarkably while our emissions have
increased, not least from bushfires resulting from weather and people.
The European Union plans to spend 250 billion Euros each year for the next 80 years
"to mitigate the high temperatures" predicted by the UN. Even if the UN were correct,
which they clearly are not, the Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg has calculated those
trillions of Euros will reduce global temperatures by less than one tenth of a degree.
We should not blindly continue to follow the UN and the EU by spending billions
of our dollars chasing a political ideology which is not remotely connected with
logic.
Robert Brooks, ASTC, FAusIMM, CPMin, MIEAust, CPEng, NM. Mining Engineer
Reference 5. A Presentation by John Droz.
Please check this web site:
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/lockewindpresentation