Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

If we made rice more expensive, Paul Morrella, it's more likely that people would eat more bread or potatoes. There might be good (or bad) policy reasons for doing it, too.

A good policy reason might be that water,a scarce public resource, has been provided to agriculture at a price much less than its value. The policy is to adjust the price so it reflects the value of the resource. The consequence is that water intensive products, such as rice, become relatively more expensive than less water intensive products, such as wheat or potatoes. Consumption of rice falls, of bread and potatoes increases, and the scarce water is better allocated.

Overall, there is a rise in the price of food, but a rise that is, theoretically at least, minimized by the efficient market allocation of the scarce water. Since it is the government that is selling entitlements to the scarce public resource, it receives the revenue, which, again theoretically, it can devote to appropriate compensation.

You have probably noticed that there are a number of "theoretically"s, and be appropriately skeptical of the will or ability of a government to actually deliver on the promise. The problem, though, is demonstrated in the Murray-Darling. There is not enough water, and much of what there is goes to water intensive rice (and cotton), at the expense of more efficient water users, and, in particular, of the long term agricultural viability of the basin.

It's the same with CO₂ emissions. There is no cost, but there is a price. The price is the consequences of global warming, which include, for example, more (and more severe) heat waves, droughts and bushfires, with consequent deaths and economic costs. That's if global warming is happening, and whether it is happening or not is a matter of fact, whatever we believe. I believe, on what I think is compelling evidence, that the earth is warming.

If CO₂ emissions continue unchecked, the price will be unacceptable. The task is to find a mechanism which will reduce global emissions to a level where the price is acceptable. The only feasible way is through a global system of regulation that incorporates ways of efficiently distributing emission rights and appropriate compensation, and stimulates new, low-emission, technologies. Cap (to regulate the emissions) and Trade (to efficently distribute rights, and generate revenue for compensation and stimulation).

Paul Morrella, I've had a look, and can't quickly see many specific predictions. What I have found, quite easily, are a number of pages dating back to at least 1994 where it is more or less explicit in the description of El Niño that it is a period of global warming. The less explicit describe it as a warming, either regionally, or without specifying the overall global effect. Note that a prediction of large scale regional warming (which is what El Niño is) without a corresponding cooling implies a global warming. Also note that given the age and history of the www, pages identifiably more than a few years old are pretty rare.

Here is the earliest example I've found (Predictions of ENSO), which does refer to a specific (but regional) prediction. Copyright is 1995:

The first coupled atmosphere-ocean forecast of short term (i.e., months to years) climate was made soon after the development of a simplified coupled model to simulate the ENSO phenomenon. This forecast, which predicted the growth of warm SST in the tropical Pacific one year before the onset of the 1986/7 warm phase of ENSO...

Here is a specific global prediction dated November 1998 El Niño and Global Temperature:

Based on the the assumption that the Southern Oscillation is the primary driver of year-to-year global temperature, with a 6 to 9 month lag time, we can now predict that since the SOI has now gone sharply into La Niña mode in the last 6 months, global temperature will follow (with the predicted time lag) and fall to below the zero line (the long term average of temperature) in the next few months. The latest monthly value for temperature was +0.33°C in October 1998, after reaching a peak of +0.72°C in April. Since the SOI moved into La Niña mode in June, we can expect global temperature to fall below the zero line by March 1999.

with a follow-up:

Since writing the above article over 15 months ago, global temperature did indeed fall below the long-term average by March 1999. Since then, the earth has continued in La Niña mode with consequent below-average temperatures as measured by the satellites. Temperature continues to closely track the SOI with a time lag.

That's it for the predictions I've found, but there are quite a lot of pages attributing record global temperatures to the 97/98 El Niño. The implication is that subsequent years will be cooler, as long as the El Niño variation is greater than any underlying trend.

The first lines from the abstract of a paper written in 1999 (Sources of global warming in upper ocean temperature during El Niño):

Global average sea surface temperature (SST) from 40°S to 60°N fluctuates ±0.3°C on interannual period scales, with global warming (cooling) during El Niño (La Niña). About 90% of the global warming during El Niño occurs in the tropical global ocean from 20°S to 20°N

It looks like that paper supports my argument that regional references are implying a global effect.

I assume Geo-2000 is from 2000:

The warming effect of El Niño was a major factor contributing to the record high global temperature in 1997. The estimated global mean surface temperature for land and marine areas averaged 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 base period mean. The previous warmest year was 1995, with an anomaly of +0.38°C (WCN 1998b).

El Niño and Climate Prediction goes back to 1994. (It looked early, because it doesn't mention 97/98, but I just found the credits page):

During the past 40 years, nine El Niños have affected the South American coast. Most of them raised water temperatures not only along the coast, but also at the Galapagos islands and in a belt stretching 5000 miles across the equatorial Pacific. The weaker events raised sea temperatures only one to two degrees Fahrenheit and had only minor impacts on South American fisheries. But the strong ones, like the El Niño of 1982-83, left an imprint, not only upon the local weather and marine life, but also on climatic conditions around the globe.

And, finally, one for the kiddies, from kids.earth.nasa.gov and dated 2003.

El Nino, an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific...

El Niño first really came to public notice in Australia during the 82/83 episode. The terrace I was living in at the time cracked, I presume because the subsoil dried out too much in the drought, and the foundations moved. The drought was a major economic issue at the time, and advances in global data collection and computing power were providing the scientific evidence. Since then, El Niño has been a major research focus. Since at least 1995, on the evidence of that first quote, meteorologists have been making temperature (and other) predictions based on it. First regional, then global. Most of those predictions are transient, but I've found a couple. Most are probably buried in the archives of various meteorological institutions - a fruitful research topic, perhaps, for an aspiring Phd.

This bit really cheered me up:

About 97 per cent of emissions growth between 2006 and 2030 is projected to come from developing countries, but China says it wants the developed world to act first as promised.

Of that remaining 3 per cent, you know? From the developed world, what would Australia contribute?

How much difference would it make?

That your comment has received no response so far is a surprise. You have raised a valid point and one which has thus far got past me.

For the most part, I have remained neutral with regard to climate change although I have little doubt that human activity is likely to cause it as I have expressed in the past but knowing what I do about climate change even in the short time span of the last thousand years or so I've given it little thought awaiting more data.

You're right of course, this is high school stuff and the law of entropy will ensure that significant temperature changes will not occur until the ice caps have melted.

Better we don't wait.

Paul Morrella, read my earlier response to Kathy Farrelly about the Bob Carter letter, at It's not a matter of opinion regarding "Climate change is of course happening - it's been happening since the dawn of time". I'll add that, of course, it's been happening since the dawn of time - on geological time scales, and in transient or cyclic variations from diurnal to decadal and longer (although longer is harder to identify). Ice ages are on the geological scale. Major volcanic eruptions typically have effects lasting a few years. El Niño a few years up to a decade. It looks like this newly identifed cycle (thanks for the reference) is over decades.

The current global warming (it is still going on) is different, in that it's not on a geological scale, or cyclic, according to our best understanding - and that's apart from whether it's caused by us or not. The speed of current climate change means that it is very difficult to adapt to, both for us directly and for all life. In particular, for the agricultural species that feed us.

There has been demonstrable warming over the last century or so. (The last few years have been relatively cool, but only compared to the few years before, which is when the all-time records were set.) So there is a valid question: why?

It might be a century-scale natural cycle, but there is no evidence of it in either historical or natural records (eg ice cores or tree rings) - people have looked - and no known mechanism. On the other hand, it could be caused by human activity. Seems far-fetched at first, but there are well over six billion of us. Look at a graph of population over time.

And there is a credible mechanism. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood - differential transparency of various materials to radiation of various wavelengths, and the fact that incoming visible/UV light is re-radiated as infra-red, reflected back by CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, trapping heat. There has been a measurable increase in atmospheric CO₂ and other GHGs. The accounting has been done, and it all adds up within reasonable levels of confidence.

There are transient events (Mt St Helens, Pinatubo) and natural cycles (El Niño, the PDO) which can temporarily obscure any trend. A lot of research is focussed on identifying and better understanding these cycles. It has value in long term weather prediction, too. It helps refine the models, which are getting progressively better, and still showing a long term warming trend. Just like with the report you quoted, Paul.

After the record of 1998, which was the peak of the last El Niño, cooler years were predicted, because historically, and for reasonably well understood reasons, El Niño years are warmer than average. La Niña years, which is where we are now, are cooler than average. I'd assumed that accounted for the current coolness, but I note that the numbers in the Guardian article leave about 0.07C to this newly documented cycle.

The comments on the Fred Pearce article don't make me laugh. Somewhere between sad and angry.

I'll close with a quote from Pearce:

The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.

I'm not enthusiastic about climate change, Paul Morrella, but I think it's happening, and I haven't succumbed to the gambler's fallacy. Here are three different accounts of the fallacy: The Skeptic's Dictionary; The Nizkor Project; and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the best definition:

The gambler's fallacy... is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future.

In climate change terms I guess that would mean that I expect, given the warming trend and the recent relatively cool years that we are in for some particularly warm ones, to compensate. But I don't.

I think we are in for some warm years, but it will just be a return to the average warming we have been experiencing for many decades. We are not dealing with a "random process", or "independent trials". We understand many of the factors influencing global temperature and climate change, though many are mysterious enough to consider random. Average annual temperatures (the usual measure) are not independent - reasonably well understood processes span years, so one year's temperature is correlated to the next. An example is the effect of the El Niño cycle - El Niño warm, La Niña cool, just like over the last decade.

Can you provide a link to the data you are using, and the prediction that it will be cool (relatively) till 2015? I haven't seen it. My prediction is that, if it is serious science, it will include the warning that underlying warming is continuing.

Hello Andrew. Thank you for taking the step of bringing your work out into the public arena and engaging with the public. I wish more scientists would do so. 

You put forward useful analogies, and it is be worth exploring them further.

With regard to the plane, you are right. I would simply sit in my seat and pray. There is an urgent crisis, I have done all I could by electing governments that implemented aviation safety regulations, and I would let the professionals get on with their job. Though I think it unlikely there is a God, have no trouble with putting a bob each way.

If I were diagnosed with cancer, I would consult different specialists with regard to their different treatment options (and I suspect a surgeon may suggest a different option from a radiation oncologist). I would look at probabilities, costs and the painfulness of different options and then consult with my family. The decision would definitely not be made by doctors. My father, for example, with severe coronary disease, chose cataract surgery against medical advice, and died when the blood thinners were removed before surgery. I do not gainsay his decision. 

With regard to cigarette smoking, citizens make personal choices about whether to smoke or not. Smoking causes cancer. But it also reduces weight, increases social networking, sharpens thinking, relaxes....I have elected  governments that have put in complex policy initiatives such as taxes and advertising standards, and more importantly, strict laws to protect against passive smoking.

Climate change is not a simple issue. I personally see little value in Australia adopting an expensive carbon reduction scheme when, for example,  the US doesn't. I also want to maintain my standard of living and employment. There are also other urgent issues such as starvation and war which I think are more pressing.

I do not debate the fact that global warming is taking place. The rate of warming and rate of effects is something scientists disagree about and rightly try to come to consensus on - and will likely get somewhat wrong. What we do about it is my and my fellow citizen's decision. We will listen to a range of people - climate scientists, economists, capitalists, biologists..... (though we may believe some more than others). We will instruct and be led by our politicians.

Finally, certainly business has and uses enormous resources to push a point of view (I get the impression though, that with regard to climate change, a number of companies (e.g. BP?) are speaking up against their commercial interest). But scientists, like all humans, are not themselves unbiased. They have been known to supress research that contradicts their own published theses. Climate scientists also certainly have a vested interest in pushing climate change (eg it increases research funding, exposure).

Cheers

 Jay 

 PS Whenever there is talk of global warming, I recall a high school experiment in which a candle is lit in a shallow bowl of water, and is then covered by a glass. The candle goes out and the water level rises. The lesson was that CO2 is highly soluble. Three quarters of the earths surface is water. None of the stuff climate scientists have put out have bothered explaining to me why we shouldn't rely on our high school chemistry..

Bob Carter's letter may be pertinent, Kathy Farrelly, but it is confused, wrong or misleading on just about every point.

the science of climate change is far from settled,...

True, but he is trying to cast doubt on it because of that. In fact, new scientific research is being published all the time. Most of it confirms various details of climate change, a minority casts doubt. So it is true that the science is far from settled. The fact of climate change is pretty well, and increasingly, settled.

...no consensus exists regarding the degree of danger posed by human activity

True again, but there is close to a consensus that human activity does pose significant danger. There is debate about its degree.

Unfortunately, the first few words of the piece - "If climate change is real ..." - conceal a deep-seated ambiguity between natural and human-caused change that bedevils nearly all public discussion of the global warming issue.

He actually talks about the weather/climate distinction, which causes great confusion, but is not particularly ambiguous (except perhaps at the margins). There are debates about natural versus human-caused climate change, but no particular ambiguity there, either. But it does get caught up in the climate/weather confusion, like, for example, in Carter's letter.

This same confusing ambiguity applies to Steve Rintoul’s letter (2/12) about Southern Ocean change.

No it doesn't. Here's Rintoul's letter, you can make up your own mind.

There is no "if" about it. In the eyes of all scientists, climate change is most certainly real; change is what climate does. Thanks more to Dorothea Mackellar than to scientists, nearly all Australians understand this, and also that we inhabit a continent that is particularly vulnerable to climate change; witness, for instance, both recent drought and storms.

This is just wrong, and is my evidence that Carter is confused. Dorothea Mackellar wasn't talking about climate change, she was talking about the extremes of weather that comprise the Australian climate, in opposition to the boring sameness rural tranquility of the English. That's what Australians have understood, too, though recently a lot of debate has understandably arisen over whether particular extreme weather events are down to climate change or not.

It's the same confusion - climate doesn't cause particular weather events, rather it is the framework in which they occur. If climate science predicts less rain, it doesn't mean a particular drought is "caused" by climate change, it means that droughts will be, on average, more frequent and/or severe.

The additional, and quite proper, question as to whether human carbon dioxide emissions are adding an additional and dangerous warming effect to natural change remains unresolved after 20 years of investigation, and despite the expenditure of more than $US50 billion...

If he wants certainty it will take a lot more than 20 years and $US50 billion. The IPCC puts it at 90% ("very high confidence")

... looking unsuccessfully for the effect.

Again, just wrong. There is lots of evidence that climate change (not just extreme weather) is occurring and that human emissions are the driving force. There is a noticeable absence of plausible alternatives to a human cause.

But because of the economic and social damage that it will cause, thereby hindering our capacity to adapt, the imposition of a new carbon dioxide tax (aka emissions trading scheme) would be a misguided step in precisely the wrong direction.

Stern and Garnaut, who are far better qualified on the economic side, both assert that the economic cost will be minor, particularly if commenced early. They also assert that the consequences of doing nothing will be much worse.

What is "hindering our capacity to adapt" is the failure to account for the cost of the emission of greenhouse gases. It leaves us stuck with coal and oil, blocking innovation because existing, polluting, technologies are cheap. Properly pricing emissions will free our capacity to adapt, by putting innovative technologies on a more level playing field.