Tech Talk - of Alaska, Libya and the belated bleat of awareness of a problem

I have written in earlier posts about the problems that the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) will face, as production declines below 500,000 bd. The conclusions from that post are pictorially summarized in a graph in the recent edition of the Oil and Gas Journal.

Figure 1. Declining throughput through TAPS showing the points of concern (OGJ)

Looking at current figures, in September the pipeline had an average throughput of 524,181 bpd against the year-to-date average of 528,092 bpd. It has just passed below the upper limit at which operational difficulties can be anticipated, due in part to the flow being too slow to keep the temperature high enough to prevent wax from separating from the fluid, and starting to block valves and critical infrastructure. Because of the long lead times, and high capital requirements for the development of new fields in the Arctic, and the likely probability that these will not yield significant production until at least 2025, the article is pessimistic about both the fate of the pipeline, and future Alaskan production.

Despite those declines OPEC remains optimistic, in their October Monthly Oil Market Report that the world producers can continue to meet global demand as they foresee it rising to an average of 89.7 mbd this year, and then going up to 90.8 mbd on average next year. They foresee, for example, that non-OPEC supply will increase this year by 1.1 mbd (to 54.1 mbd) led by production gains from the USA, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Sudan and Sudan. Next year they see an additional non-OPEC growth of 1.2 mbd with Canada replacing Kazakhstan among the five countries that will make up this additional production. In contrast OPEC itself is reducing production, with overall production reported to be down 390 kbd in September.

The gain in crude oil production seen in the US, which has risen from 5 mbd to an average of 7.3 mbd in the first seven months of this year has had a significant impact on these projections, though the change in the mix of product now available to the Gulf refineries will continue to have some impact on the overall import picture. This is because, as the EIA note, some of the heavier crude refineries along the Gulf are tied to foreign producers including Pemex of Mexico, PDVSA of Venezuela, and Saudi Refining (for a combined total of just under 2 mbd).

Yet it remains difficult to sustain the optimism that OPEC project. Libyan exports, at one time running up around 1.25 mbd remain down at some 90 kbd, due to tribal disruptions and internal political disputes that show little sign of resolution.

Figure 2. Recent Libyan oil production (Energy Policy Info)

Certainly the physical ability to return to around pre-disruption levels has been demonstrated, but the weakness of the central government does not indicate that the political problems will be resolved in the near future. And until they are there is the best part of 1 mbd being with-held from the market. This drain from global supply is not yet disruptive since it has, to date, been largely picked up by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

The picture from the combination of Sudan and South Sudan following the division of the one country into two has not been promising, however it appears that the overall total decline has now been halted, and recent reports have raised production to somewhere between 190 kbd and 240 kbd.

Figure 3. Change in oil production from Sudan and South Sudan following the division of one country into two. (Council on Foreign Relations )

The IEA is not optimistic that the return to production will be as smooth as others think:

“Industry sources have been quoted as saying that restarting oil production could take six months or even longer, since the lines have been filled with water and because some wells were not closed properly.”

The OPEC projection that overall Sudanese production has returned to the 240 kbd level may, therefore, be still an optimistic estimate. The increase to 175 kbd following the repair to the pipelines from the Majnoon field in Iraq is encouraging (although the high level of violence that continues in that country does not give high confidence that the pipeline might not be struck again.)

The increased production from the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan – anticipated to rise to 75 kbd - has again been hit following system leaks so that this increased production that OPEC had anticipated has, again, been postponed.

And while production has now started from the Espirito Santo in the pre-salt fields off Brazil, it is not clear whether the production gains will offset the declines that have occurred in Brazilian production in recent months.

Figure 4. The Espirito Santo floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel (Shell )

Just as there is a perception that the United States is heading toward independence in energy needs (a fallacy I have written about several times in the past), so there is a perception that OPEC is becoming a less critical supplier. This is far from the case. KSA has been producing over 10 mbd for the last months, in order to offset the loss in Libyan oil to the market, and the combined production of KSA, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar now supplies 18% of global demand. This is only the second time that this number has been that high in the past 30 years. It comes at a time when the Middle East is supplying 25% of Chinese oil demand, as that country passes the United States to become the largest importer of oil.

Figure 5. OPEC oil production (numbers compiled from secondary sources (OPEC MOMR October )

This comes at a time when the world still wonders about the actual oil balance as it flows in and out of China.

Unfortunately the picture that is emerging continues to show that OPEC is tending to be overly optimistic in its forecasts for production, which does not bode well for future supplies of fossil fuel.

Given that a group of environmental scientists have just released a letter calling for increased investment in nuclear power since, to quote James Hansen:

Hansen, who’s now at Columbia University, said it’s not enough for environmentalists to simply oppose fossil fuels and promote renewable energy.

“They’re cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need” is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen told the AP.

This comes a bit late, since as I noted recently, it takes over a decade to build a new nuclear power plant, and with the current schedule for existing plant closures moving inexorably along their timetable, this may presage a decade of power shortages. We shall see!! But in the meanwhile we had better hope that those folk concerned over the possible shut down of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline because of inadequate flow are being just a tad pessimistic.

Predictions of climate change

There are a couple of controversial items that have made it into the mainstream press recently that seem to have stirred a little controversy, and which are worth at least a mention. (And please note that the original post has been updated).

The first was the Opinion piece in the WSJ back in January in which 16 scientists wrote that there was no need to panic over Global Warming. They note, in their letter

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Their letter received a response from a group that included some of the more prominent (and funded) of the climate change advocates, which avoided the discussion of funding, but rather spoke to the eminence of those who are forecasting gloom.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

(You will note the little unsubtle ad hominem at the end.)

The original authors have now replied. I will quote the reply under the fold, but the first part of their response points out that, for major surgery, it is often best to get a second opinion, and to look at the record of the proposed scientists. They then put up a graph of the accuracy of the IPCC predictions for temperature rise, which I thought worth repeating.

IPCC projections for temperature rise, against reality. (WSJ)

UPDATE There is a response to the more recent letter on RealClimate which complains that the WSJ plot does not include error bars, and that, when those are included, that recent temperature plots fall within the range of the predicted models. I have appended that plot to the end of this post.

Te response begins thus:

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. . . . . . . . . .In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure.

They point out that the heat that was to have raised the temperature has now been suggested as having gone, instead, into the oceans, but point out that there is no evidence to sustain that theory.

They note that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age (for which there is much evidence) and prior to the LIA there was the Medieval Warming Period, and before it the Holocene Climate Optimum, neither of which can have been caused by greenhouse gases but which instead point to a natural cycling of temperature, which current science has not disproved as a cause of the current warming period. And they also express concern about the statement that "decarbonization would drive decades of economic growth."

Of course a wind farm, or solar farm employs significantly less workers than a coal mine (though arguably more than an oil or gas well - though not if one includes the refineries - since when it gets to power station levels both should surely balance out). I rather suspect that this is not the end of the discussion, and that the debate is starting to get a little more public exposure than it has been able to achieve in the past.

In passing I should note the small furor about the release of some of the documents from the Heartland Institute, mastered by one Peter Gleick, who was a MacArthur Fellow, has confessed to dishonestly obtaining and then releasing them. Not apparently that this is stopping the climate change advocates from pointing out the money that the Heartland Foundation has (though virtually none report on the relatively roughly hundredfold larger size of the sums of money being put into work that advocates climate change - but with money comes power and access, and the Heartland group has much less). I guess just because you're a recognized genius doesn't mean that you can't do stupid things.

However, the other thing that is worth a comment is that there seems to be a growing recognition that biofuels may not be the savior of the atmosphere that they have been purported to be. Apparently the Friends of the Earth have issued a report which indicates that switching to biofuels won't have much effect on cleaning up the air, in fact the switch may make things worse. At the same time the switch may cost drivers in Europe something on the order of $24 billion a year. And in the process of looking into the topic there is another new report (unfortunately behind a paywall) which suggests that much of this was known before the regulations were put in. Bishop Hill has a post on the report, which suggests that some un-named, but central and powerful individual, was able to manipulate the EU into making the moves that have led to the adoption of the 10% biofuel requirement, without adequate consideration of the evidence. Apparently none of the non-supportive data was made available. I wonder why that sounds familiar?

And in passing, and closure, I wrote, in the past about Dr. Hansen's predictions of global warming that were one of the seminal events that got the climate change movement the financial success that it has since achieved. It is interesting to take the graph he used, and add some of the data from the plot above. It would appear that more than one computer model has been falsified. Because Dr. Hansen's models seem to use a different zero, I have slightly adjusted the values from the curve above to extend the data on actual temperatures relative to those predicted. You can see that they are starting to fall below the values that Dr. Hansen predicted would only be achieved if there was a radical reduction in carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases - which hasn't happened, and so would perhaps indicate that the effects of said gases are less than he was predicting.

Projected temperature rise anticipated by Dr Hansen (Dire Predictions)

The plot which RealClimate have used as a rebuttal is this one.

Real Climate plot showing the error bars that they state exist for the models.

It is an interesting point though since all the model error bars are conflated makes it difficult to see how much validity there is to the argument.

Incidentally Profesor Lindzen gave an excellent talk (pdf) at the Houses of Parliament in the UK the other day. It got favorable coverage in the Independent.

UPDATE: There have been a couple of posts over at Watts Up With That? (WUWT) that provide better versions of the plots than the one I gave above. The first points to a presentation by Dr. Evans, which contains this plot:

Temperatures as measured by satellite against Dr. Hansen's predictions in 1988.

The other compares the IPCC predictions with actual temperature data, and quotes a post by Clive Best, that contains this plot:

IPCC predictions of long-term temperature change.

Political will amidst climate uncertainty

I don’t expect that there will be many tsunamis in Germany over the next century, nor, apart from the occasional man-made earthquakes that can come from potash mining, do I expect the country to suffer any major damage from an earthquake. Seriously, I rather suspect that the German government has the same view of the future. But that has not stopped them from deciding to close all nuclear power stations within the next eleven years, using the recent events in Japan as one of the justifying reasons.

Germany gets about 25% of its current energy supply from nuclear power, and about 17% comes from the sustainable sources such as solar and wind. But the problem, in part, is that these become unreliable sources in winter, with lower wind speeds and shorter, darker days. Yet, without a balance sheet having been presented that will show where the lost power will come from, the decision has been made, on apparently political grounds, that nuclear must go.

There comes a time in the affairs of Government when a commitment is made to a policy that makes it virtually impossible for those in charge to later reverse the decision. This decision by the German government is one such probably irrevocable decision, and it seems that the step that the British Government recently made in their commitment to a “green” anti-carbon future for the UK, is another.

A limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases to be emitted by the UK between 2023 to 2027 has been proposed to cut Britain’s emissions by 50% from 1990 levels.

The ultimate goal is to get the emissions down 80% by 2050. The evidence that these “green” technologies will support existing levels of power and production is becoming more debatable. Thus the powers-that-be anticipate that there should also be a cut in energy demand from the general populace. In the case of Germany this target is about 10% of their current consumption.

The commitments to turn away from existing technologies with the capacity to supply energy at an acceptable financial price, and instead to rely on wind and solar, technologies that are not as consistent in providing power when needed, comes at a time when there has been enough experience with sustainable power that the advantages and disadvantages are becoming more evident. Though, before discussing that I should explain that, writing as I do about coming shortages of oil, the reality is that the world is going to need whatever energy supplies it can find in the coming years and that includes energy from wind, solar, geothermal and hydro.

But there is a growing question as to the real practicality of some of the “green” solutions being proposed, and also questions on their cost. One such, for example is the book “The False Promise of Green Energy”. This epitomizes a growing body of criticism that takes a hard look at the costs and energy actually produced by the “green revolution” and concludes that they not nearly as beneficial in reality as they have been made out to be. I don’t agree with a lot of the philosophy that drives the Foundation that published the study, leaving the energy future to the marketplace to find answers to me indicates a failure to understand the size of the problem that is developing. Nevertheless the book does raise some legitimate concerns over the drive to commit to the “energy solution of the day.” For a while at the end of the last Administration in the United States, cellulosic ethanol was going to be that White Knight. Mandates were to provide a market to justify the investment in large plants required to have any increment on national supply. Well it turns out that those getting the money were more optimistic than realistic, and those targets have been scaled back.

Today the solution of choice still remains wind power. The cost has come down, and particularly on-shore, the reliability of the plant has gone up. Unfortunately the other partner in the success of the technology is a natural one, and the consistency and strength of the wind to drive the wind turbines has not been as good. The John Muir Trust examined the record,, and reported last January,

The research found over 395 days, the wind farms could have produced 17,586,000 MW hours of energy running at full capacity. In reality, 3,881,900MW hours was generated, equivalent to 22.07 per cent.

And over the past two years, wind generation across the sites fell below 20MW on 123 separate days for a combined duration of 25 days. For a total of nine days, output dipped below 10MW, barely enough power to boil 3,300 household kettles.

More recently the Telegraph has noted

The Coalition has drawn up plans to open more wind farms in an effort to meet Britain’s European Union target of providing 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.More than 3,600 turbines are expected to be installed in offshore wind farms over the next nine years.

But statistics suggest that the winds that sweep across the British Isles may be weakening. Last year, wind speeds over the UK averaged 7.8 knots (8.9mph), a fall of 20 per cent on 2008, and well below the mean for this century, which stands at 9.1 knots (10.5mph).

If the current power systems (often nuclear and coal) are to be done away with, as the current European Governments seem set on achieving, then they should, were they morally responsible, also indicate the sources, costs, power and true likelihood of being able to replace existing power plants with a viable alternative. Those answers are often given in general terms and rely on projections (such as, for example, that wind will produce 30% of nameplate capacity) that are now being shown to be wrong. This seems a more certain way of destroying the future of our children than the threat of carbon dioxide level rise, though one would have to look hard to find many that recognize this reality. Politicians have grasped an approach and now use the threat of climate change to justify policies that cannot be easily undone.

The same is equally true about the opinions of the validity of the models that are used to justify these decisions. Changes in the reliability of the models, as data is acquired and time passes are often largely not to be admitted. For example, one of the more prevalent aspects of the global warming argument is that the accelerating rise in sea level is going to lead to the swamping of land around the globe well within this century. That later prediction has largely been based on models, but a series of buoys was placed around the world to give a more accurate assessment of the rise in sea-level. As this data has become more widely available and over a longer time, so it has been possible to discern the trend.

Sea level change over the past eighteen years (U of Colorado )

If one looks at the second half of the plot (green and orange) it is possible to conclude that, if anything , the rate of sea level rise is slowing down. This despite the increased quantities of carbon dioxide that have been added to the atmosphere.

That view of this data by Dr James Hansen, the “guru” of the AGW world, has now been announced through the Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) in the form of a paper “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications” . And while it lays the blame on the slow-down on volcanic activity and a solar minimum, nevertheless it recognizes the phenomenon

Although the accuracy of ocean heat uptake in the pre-Argo era is inherently limited, it is clear that heat uptake in the Argo era is smaller than it was during the 5-10 years preceding full Argo deployment, as discussed by Trenberth (2009, 2010) and Trenberth and Fasullo (2010).

Yet with this evidence of a stability in the ocean temperature, the IEA has just announced a major increase in CO2 emissions, which leads them to predict that the temperatures will rise, around the globe, by 4 deg C by 2010, and that many of us will drown.

It would seem that even as the science becomes less certain, so the politicians who cling to it, become more determined to implement an answer that may no longer be correct.

Incidentally I was down in Florida last week, and one of those I met with was bemoaning that the oranges that used to be grown in Northern Florida (Jacksonville) can now only be grown economically further south in the state due to the colder climates of recent years, ah!

The Climate Change debate in 2010

So what is the New Year going to bring in the way of the Climate Change debate? I went over to RealClimate where they are acclaiming the accuracy of climate predictions, despite showing a graph which falsifies them. The graph is claimed to show how well Dr. Hansen’s predictions from 1988 have held up. (I have removed the trend lines from the graph below which otherwise comes from their site). It actually does the opposite.

The RealClimate plot showing the data reported as being the actual temperatures (in color) as opposed to the values predicted by Dr Hansen, which are shown in shades of grey and black.

In Dr. Hansen’s paper he gives the conditions for the 3 curves as:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

As the media keep telling us we have continued to see the carbon dioxide levels rise at the rate predicted to yield curve A; yet the actual temperatures as reported by the folks above, is falling below line C, that which Dr. Hansen stated would require a rapid curtailment of GHG. Didn't happen! The predictions are therefore wrong.

There are two points that will likely come up in the next year as the discussion continues. Firstly – while RealClimate tries to tie the reported temperature changes to prediction B and thus to a continued and ultimately dramatic rise in global temperature, there are those who argue that there may be a period of “stabilization” or a “pause” before the temperature begins to rise again. The problem with that argument is that if you accept the extreme state, as Sharon Begley did in the Kindle edition of Newsweek for Jan 4th (but not yet in the electronic version – hence the longer ref), then there should be no “pause.” In the original paper Dr. Hansen claimed that there were no natural forces they could include that would explain the rise in global temperature and that it could only be explained by the GHG. Yet now we have natural forces that folk are rushing to use to explain the lack of acceleration in global temperatures. You can’t have it both ways, for if natural forces can explain the temperature changes that stop the runaway global warming that Dr Hansen et al were predicting, then they are of sufficient magnitude that they could have been responsible for the rising temperatures that we have seen so far. (Since they are causing the difference between the colored and grey lines which are now reaching levels equal to the actual temperature rise that has been seen).

To distract folks from noticing this, I expect that we will continue to see exaggerated claims for the impact of GHG in the columns of those reporters and editors who (at least nominally) are supposed to look at both sides of an issue. The degree with which they are willing to distort the data is something I have commented on before (relative to Bangladesh and Egypt for example), but which is again illustrated by Ms. Begley. In a recent piece on the impact that dams have on local weather and rainfall, she continues her diatribe against those who question GHG impact and illustrates her point using a paper recently in EOS. That paper shows that the changes in land use and land cover brought about by the presence of a large dam, and the lake it generates, can alter regional climate by, for example, increasing rainfall. Papers are quoted in that article that argue that it can lead to heavier rainfalls and changes in rainfall patterns, enhancing thunderstorms. (Part of it comes from the lake and part from the increased activity, whether farming or a larger urban environment supported by the dam).

Effect of dam on local precipitation (after Eltahir E.A. B. and Bras R.L. (1996) “Precipitation recycling”, Rev. Geophys., 34(3), 367–378.)

This has actually almost nothing to do with global warming – but that does not stop those who wish to blame the woes of the world on GHG from co-opting it. And the concerns that they bring include that heavier rains will threaten the stability of the dams. (Side note – since I have taught classes that include dam stability I must confess to not quite following why they feel that is the case, since properly designed dams should be able to cope quite easily, since it is what they are designed for – and the additional rain might even help with hydro-electric power generation, which is a concern in areas where drier spells (such as in India this year) otherwise are a problem.

Well that was a bit more of a digression than I had intended, but it illustrates the first point I wanted to make, that science be damned those who are selling the disasters to be caused by global warming are not going to be dissuaded by the odd actual fact, but will instead continue to exaggerate and tie in events that may not, in fact be related.

The second forthcoming event may have some impact on this, with the inquiries that are being carried out into the goings on in the CRU in England, and with Dr. Mann at Penn State. The ramifications of these are potentially quite significant, since, as the graph at the top shows, the CRU interpretation of the measured temperatures lies very close to that reported by GISS. Now there are some questions as to the accuracy with which the CRU data was interpreted, and those codes are now being scrutinized as the global data becomes more openly available. One can presume, potentially that this year will produce a more open, and therefore more willingly accepted register of actual global temperature changes. What will be interesting to see is whether this will also keep the values close to those reported by GISS. The investigations by E.M. Smith suggest that questions could be raised about the way in which the global temperature is being assessed by that office, and the withdrawal of this process from immediate public scrutiny may or may not be allowed to stand, but will continue to raise questions as to the honesty of the resulting product.

In short there is going to be lots to debate about in the coming year, and though I suspect that each of the two camps will continue to talk past the other, and to their own set of believers, there may be enough real knowledge that falls out of the slowly opening process, that we may be more convinced of what is truly going on.

Dr Hansen was wrong - let's change the subject

I have pointed out in recent remarks, that if the debate on climate change were being conducted under normal scientific conventions, then the predictions that were made by Dr. Hansen back in 1988 would, by now, be considered to have been proved false, since the predictions that he made on global temperature rise, and the path that temperature would take, have not followed his models. His predictions were based upon:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

The carbon dioxide path has continued to move along the path predicted for scenario A, yet the temperature rise through today has not only failed to accelerate with it, as Dr Hansen predicted, but instead is much closer to following along the temperature curve predicted for scenario C.

Comparison of Dr Hansen’s scenario predictions against actual temperature anomalies (deg C) (prediction here and actual temp from GISS) Baseline 1951-1980 mean.

I took the data from the plot of temperature predictions that Dr Hansen provided, since it allows me to easily read the predicted temperatures, and I then re-plotted the data with the actual temperatures from the GISS website as the black lines, since the original plot only went as far as 2005. I did note that the tabulated data were slightly different from those of the actual temp data plotted in the 2005 curve, and used the more up to date ones for the entire series.

If one looks at the above comparison that Dr Hansen which is extended from the one made in 2005 the difference between the actual temperature and his predictions clearly show that the actual (black) temperatures are falling away from all but the C scenario (blue) a predictive future which was only supposed to occur if we did ameliorate carbon dioxide emissions. There is no accelerated warming, and there was no amelioration of the rising carbon levels, and so his predictions fail.

However, rather than discuss this rather interesting fact, the global “warming” community has managed, yet again, to divert discussion by dragging debate over a different topic of their choosing, so that this primary point can be hidden from public debate. Their topic centers on whether the globe has been warming at all, an issue that depends very much on where your temperature starts. They might have been somewhat embarrassed to begin with 1998 (as some more realistic of the proponents recognize, following their earlier use of that temperature to show how fast the temperature was going up). However the commentators have chosen, very carefully, to attack the suggestion that the temperature might be cooling, rather than the more relevant issue that the global temperature is not following the models. When you can’t argue, then change the subject.

Now, for what it is worth I have made clear that I am more convinced by the hundreds of peer-reviewed publications (such as those referenced by Jean Grove in The Little Ice Age, or by Brian Fagan in his books) that document the Medieval Warming Period and its predecessors and the intervening cold periods, such as those of the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age. Thus the fact that the present warming period has not reached the extent of the last warming period, let alone those before it, does not unduly disturb me. (That is evidenced by the ground conditions – such as permafrost - in the Arctic inter alia, and the positions of the ecotones in Europe). Yet it is sadly a denigration of true scientific debate to see how vociferously those arguing for AGW change the topic, or readjust the data whenever they seem at the stage of losing a point in the debate.

If one accepts that we are in this cyclic series then arguments about whether by some fraction of a degree or other the temperature was warmer in 1934 than 2005 in the United States become significantly less critical. The question then becomes whether this Warming Period is significantly less warm than the last, or the one before that. The Roman period was apparently warmer than the Medieval one (the evidence coming among other things from the Roman ruins appearing out of the ice in the Alps), and both were warmer than we are now. But we also need to go back to those periods and see what the conditions were that developed in different parts of the globe (such as the extended droughts in what is now California) and learn from that information, and take precautions accordingly, recognizing what we might be facing as the climate changes. For if we do not learn from history, then we are bound to repeat it - as once was said.

The question as to why these periods existed – or whether the intervening cooling periods are the anomalies – is probably a much more worthwhile study, but given the urge that folk have to change the way in which energy is produced, and the vast fortunes that hang on the changes in policy that are being debated, somehow I don’t see much attention being given to those questions soon.

Climate Hypotheses and the falsification thereof

There is much discussion in climate related circles about this topic being a scientifically based set of events, conclusions and predictions. In scientific circles when new ideas come along they are generally accorded the title of hypotheses and they are then subject to review, with the potential that they will ultimately be discarded because they have been shown to be wrong, or falsified as the technical term would describe it.

Essentially – to use the examples from Wikipedia, if I say that some men are immortal it is not possible to falsify the statement, since I just might not have met one of the immortals yet, but if I say all men are immortal, then production of the first dead body proves the hypothesis wrong.

The question then arises as to how much error a hypothesis is allowed, before it is considered wrong.

For instance I was looking at the Real Climate website, and noted their arguments about the data that they believe falsify Svensmark’s theories on the impact of Galactic Cosmic Rays on global climate. I find this a bit amusing really, since while they are quite happy to argue about falsification when it comes to theories that differ from theirs, they appear remarkably insensitive to seeing the shoe put on the other foot, when it comes to discussions of climate warming. (And incidentally there is some evidence that what Svensmark said is correct. (Which might be why folk, not generally considered to be idiots, are funding him).

RC's previous post, for example discusses the possibility of a pause in the steady progress of global warming that their theories have projected is still going on.

Trends in Global Temperature (from Real Climate – and previously from GISS)

Now the thing is that there is obviously some natural phenomenon going on that would (were greenhouse gases the villain they proclaim) negate the increasing effect of those gases over the past decade. And that has an impact on an earlier study.

It should be remembered that when the whole issue of global warming was first brought to large-scale public attention, one of the arguments made for the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate was that the models of climate behavior without consideration of the influence of greenhouse gases, showed relatively little change over time.

Predicted global temperatures from 13 models run by James Hansen (from Dire Predictions)

You can see that from 1965 the graph set is pretty flat, with all models showing no significant change over the period. Thus, if one accepts that there is something natural that is precluding the global temperature following the theoretical prediction, then one must go back to one of the underlying hypotheses that Dr Hansen proposed - namely that there are no natural phenomena that will likely have any significant effect on global temperatures over the period of time that we are all concerned about. Given that RC is now saying that there are natural causes that are transiently diminishing the effects of carbon dioxide on global temperatures, it would seem that they are concurrently arguing that the initial premise upon which Dr Hansen built his case has now been falsified.

Now when we look at the predictions with greenhouse gas in them then the graphs show that temperatures match those predicted when greenhouse gases are included.

Predicted global temperatures from Hansen’s models (blue), against actual temperatures (red) (from Dire Predictions).

However if one then looks at what Dr Hansen projects from 2000 to 2010 and beyond, one gets a very distinctive upturn in the predicted temperatures:

Dr Hansen’s predicted global temperatures under 3 scenarios (A business as usual; B moderate gas emissions and a volcanic event of significant magnitude; C a volcanic event and reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide by 2000). (Again from Dire Predictions).

Looking at where we are actually at relative to those three scenarios – which have temperature anomalies of A – 1.1 degrees; B – about 1 degree; and C about 0.65 degrees, one can see that the actual temperatures from the top graph are actually closest to following line C at the moment with an increase of somewhere around 0.55 degrees, which is below even the increase that that model predicts, although it does predict a lowering value, suggesting that we have already reached the target for 2012. . However this result, given that carbon dioxide levels have not fallen as predicted, suggests that the model predictions, once outside the range of conditions that prevailed at the time they were written, are not correct. In fact one could conclude that if Dr Hansen’s predictions are summarized into the hypothesis that, without the control of greenhouse gases exemplified by those measures he calls for in scenario C, that global temperatures will increase unacceptably, then this hypothesis has been falsified.

Now Real Climate argues that global temperatures should actually be considered higher, since there is insufficient data from the Arctic, which is considered to be warming much faster than the rest of the globe, and were that considered, then the models and readings would be much closer. . (Interestingly, however, when the ocean temperatures from the North Atlantic are looked at, they now appear to be declining, perhaps falsifying that argument before long).

North Atlantic Heat content (after Tisdale )

The problem with the RC argument is that is that it was the available temperature readings, relative to the model predictions that were touted as being so close in performance (graph 2) during the global warming period of the last part of the last century. Changing the data base as one moves along a line of predictions is generally frowned upon.

There is some growing body of opinion that projects that – just as with curve C above – the global temperature may stabilize around current temperatures for a total of as much as 30-years, before beginning to rise again. That is inconsistent with the predictions of the models used in the above work. Thus it seems only rational to conclude that if there is no discernable increase in temperature, on a consistent basis, in the near future, that the climate change arguments that hang on these graphs for justification must themselves be considered to be falsified.

That would be the scientific conclusion, and were this really a scientific debate then this would be a subject of discussion. Since, however, this has long passed beyond the point where it has become an article of faith with many folk, and the weakness of the foundations on which the Climate Change debate is really built is not to be considered, then one is left wondering how many years of obfustication we must tolerate before the recognition that it is worthy of considerable debate actually occurs.

If you claim to be scientific, then be so

When I was taught basic science and engineering it was understood that if you proposed a hypothesis, or theory, and ran an experiment where the results went against the theory, then the theory was wrong. It is a precept I have used all my professional life to help lead a technology from being some lab curiosity to the point where it is a multi-billion dollar industry, with still more potential applications poised to move it into a second generation of growth. We did this by getting some ideas, and then running experiments to see if they worked, and then, when the results showed the original idea wrong, modifying our ideas, and then trying another experiment.

Under the modern penchant for description it is a process that is being referred to as the “scientific method,” albeit to us it was just a logical way of making progress. To make progress one must constantly be willing to look at the data, and re-analyze the underlying concept you have been applying as more data becomes available. Sounds logical doesn’t it. And yet that is not what one has seen, or is likely to see in the future, when folk discuss the drivers for what may, or may not be, the warming of our planet.

Back 20 years ago Dr Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) gave testimony before Congress that suggested, given the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that the world temperature would continue to rise, as this gas forced retention of a greater percentage of the solar radiation that the Earth was receiving. Spring forward a decade and that warming is no longer occurring. Proponents of the idea have gone from touting each year as being hotter than the last, to muttering that the last 10 years have been the hottest on record (while failing to mention how short that record really is) and with global temperatures falling even that “ten-year” ploy is likely soon to be no longer accurate. But does that cause the world to pause and consider that, perhaps, the global warming theory is wrong. Not at all, suddenly scientific thinking on the subject is closed. That step, and the unwillingness of the AGW proponents to engage in open rational debate, with all relevant data available for public scrutiny, should begin to get you worried.

Just this last week there are reports of an EPA official suggesting that perhaps the EPA should consider what has happened in the last three years, not just the information available from before that time. And, in the mode of the Administration practice, he was of course quietly told to shut up and get on board with the plan. How easily we slip from outrage when this was suggested to be done to Dr Hansen, to accepting when it is done, and apparently got away with by the current EPA Administration.

The argument that is made at the “Real Climate” types of website is that all these issues have been raised and answered before, and that therefore, inter alia, no new information, except that supporting their arguments will be tolerated. And yet there is no scientific rebuttal given, no “here is the graph that proves you wrong!” No instead there are the ad hominem attacks that the proponent of this new question is not a “climate scientist.” The Wegman report noted how small the group of climate scientists are that seem to control the literature, and how incestuously they have interacted in writing papers and conducting research. Heaven forbid, apparently that anyone with an ounce of scientific training be able to look at a graph and determine whether it is rising or falling. We are however, literate and can read graphs that show among other things that Alaskan glaciers are advancing, but discussion of that is improper apparently without the right qualification.

But even with the right qualification, if your ideas on global warming are incorrect, then regardless of qualification and the knowledge that you have, your presence is unwelcome in the company of your peers. So it appears is the case of an expert on polar bears.

But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with the views of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching into the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

I begin to become quite concerned that we are starting to see the deliberate suppression of scientific views and information, a deliberate withholding of information from the public on the realities of climate change, as opposed to what those now in power want us to believe, regardless of fact. There is a denial of the latest information, and a distortion of the record, such that folk don’t have to face the reality that the original hypothesis, that increased carbon dioxide levels produce accelerating global warming, is wrong.

We have just seen the Waxman:Markey bill pass the House with the prospect of a myriad regulations that will likely, despite the claims of the legislation, likely reduce employment in the county. Why, because as the regulation forces renewable energy sources not just to supply an increased demand for energy but to displace existing energy sources then we lay off those now working to supply that energy. Once a wind turbine is erected it does not take a climate scientist to realize that the number of folks employed from that point in feeding that power into the grid is close to zero. Contrast that with the miners who mined the coal, the railway workers who transported it, and the power station employees that ran the plant that converted it into electricity, all of whom now get laid off. Common sense tells you that this is a job reduction program, but then who said this whole effort was about logic and rational discussion?

P45. Pick Points

Talking with the utility companies the other week, they had noted that, while there was still a planned growth in using natural gas for new power stations, the rising cost was giving some of them second thoughts. Well on Friday Speaker Pelosi noted on her blog that she and Senator Reid had sent a letter to the Acting Architect at the Capitol, asking that the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) switch from burning both coal and natural gas to just natural gas. Turns out it is not that easy – the plant now burns 65% natural gas and 35% coal (down from 49% in 2007). There are cost, technical and political problems in making the changes, but Dr James Hansen is pressing them hard. (isn’t he still a civil servant?). But even the Guardian seems to having the odd second thought

Peter Huber and Mark Mills – in their outstanding 2005 book about energy, The Bottomless Well – made this point clear, declaring: "Economic growth marches hand in hand with increased consumption of electricity – always, everywhere, without significant exception in the annals of modern industrial history." . . . The second problem with Hansen's prospective coal ban: scale. According to the latest data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the countries of the world now consume the coal equivalent of about 63.8 million barrels of oil per day. That's the energy equivalent of about 7.5 times the daily oil production of Saudi Arabia. Where will the world find a replacement for such a vast quantity of energy? And how will it pay for it, particularly now, given the worldwide recession?

Hansen doesn't offer any ideas. And frankly, aside from a huge push for increased nuclear power (a move that I favour) no one else has any reasonable ideas either.

Well there is supposed to be a march of protest tomorrow, so we will see how it goes, but the weather may snow it out. ”It's no accident that he's announced he'll be on hand to get arrested. (Hansen that is).”

Tehran looks as though it may be getting into the LNG business, with talks progressing with Total. At present LNG seems to be moving from shortage to surplus, making it tougher for those in the business to succeed. Remember that Russia has just become a supplier (though mainly to Japan) but there are markets developing in India, for example, who are looking to double deliveries this year, as the Gujarat terminal expands. It will help if the global surplus lowers price for India.

India is a gas deficit country. Power and fertiliser plants consume 70 per cent of the gas available in the country. Inadequate supply of gas forces them to operate at 50-60 per cent of capacity. At present, power plants in the country are getting 34-35 million standard cubic metres per day (mcmd) supply against the requirement of 70 mcmd.

Currently, spot LNG is trading at $8 per million British thermal units (mBtu), whereas naphtha is trading at $13 per mBtu in the spot market. In December, LNG was trading at $10 per mBtu, whereas naphtha was trading at $7.04 per mBtu.

At the same time the disputes over coal supply also seem to be coming to an end, with supplies guaranteed at least at 90% of actual supplies last year.

Meanwhile the Russians are beginning to invest more in floating nuclear power plants. Four more are to be built to bring power to the northern coast region of Siberia. Although delays are reported, the first plant is scheduled to be ready in May 2010. The region for which the plants are destined has large deposits of uranium. Elkon being reported to have about 6% of the worlds reserves. Production is planned to reach 3,000 tons by 2015. But some of that production may be needed for the upgrade of Russian nuclear forces . Don’t forget that the Miss Atom 2009 contest is coming up.

Russians are also investing in coal, with the purchase of the Bluestone Coal Corp, although the domestic industry appears to be in some trouble. Bluestone currently mines coal around Beckley, W. Va and has estimated sales of around $23 million, with 180 employees. The price was $425 million plus shares for a $4 billion deal.


Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has introduced a bill to permit oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, from directional wells that are drilled outside the refuge's borders. The state is also considering supporting renewable energy with a new line of credits.

It was only last week that the thought of a pipeline across the Sahara was floated, but it is already getting threats from a major Nigerian militant group .