A useful summary

Long-term goals the big hurdle

Tim Colebatch in The Age gives a useful summary of the massive task ahead if the world is really to achieve the 2 degree target:

The only fair basis for determining long-term emission rights is population. At Copenhagen, they are negotiating on total emissions or emissions growth. Yet inescapably, the currency we will end up dealing with is emissions per head.

Ross Garnaut saw this clearly, and made it the central feature of his report's design for a global agreement. He proposed that the world adopt a goal of convergence to equal per capita emissions by 2050. With a 50 per cent cut in global emissions, that implies cutting emissions to about 2.5 tonnes per head.

That implies Australia and the US would have to cut emissions per head by 90 per cent over the next 40 years, and China by 45 per cent. But a poor country like India would be able to expand emissions by 90 per cent. And countries could trade emission rights to meet the target.

Cut emissions per head by 90 per cent? Sounds unlikely, to say the least.

Reasons to be unhappy

Here at Opinion Dominion your blogger generally likes to talk up optimism for the future. But this attempt to look at all empty-ish glasses as in fact being half full has taken a savage beating over the last few weeks, and it's hard not to disagree with Time magazine that it is looking like a dispiriting end to a particularly uninspiring decade. Cases in point:

* An outbreak of aggressive stupidity Part 1: climate change skepticism has never been known for its sense of calm, dispassionate reason, but with the release of the CRU emails, they've just gone bat-sh*t crazy, following their own echo-chamber memes over the edge of the cliff of sanity. It's remarkable how few on the blogosphere drive this: I would guess that Watts up With That, Roger Pielke Snr, Steve McIntyre and Andrew Bolt probably account for about the dispersal of about 90% of all "skeptic" memes.

Bolt in particular shows no interest in counter arguments, although as I have acknowledged before, Watts will sometimes post something that runs counter to a skeptical line. McIntyre seems to have made one half reasonable point in his skepticism career, and has continued to dwell on it for years, as if uncertainty as to accuracy of tree ring proxies really had created a crisis for the whole of climate science. His view of his own self importance seems remarkably over-inflated.

It's not the claimed "skepticism" per se of the followers of these views which is so aggravating; it's the seeing of conspiracies, the "it's always been a hoax", the outright deceptive nature of much of their sloganeering that is driving me to distraction. Any post in a blog headed sarcastically "hide the decline" shows the person is a non-serious partisan player, and makes me want to reach for my pistol. (And no doubt that last comment will be claimed by a 'skeptic' as showing that I am a violence-threatenting fascist out to gun down non-believers.)

These same people take the same shrug shoulders approach to ocean acidification, so there is no point in trying to argue with them that there is fact a matter of at least equal significance as to why CO2 should be reduced. (And my official position remains that acidification alone is enough to take urgent action. An actual drop in global temperatures over the next decade would not change that.)

* An outbreak of aggressive stupidity Part 2: The Coalition parties in Australia have been taken over by the do-nothing climate change "skeptics."

Tony Abbott, a smart enough guy who nearly everyone has liked for his forthrightness as a Minister, saw right-wing skepticism (especially amongst rural folk, who were presumably already glued onto the Nationals anyway) as an opportunity to grab a leadership that he probably figured was never going to evolve naturally towards him.

I predict he will pay for this disingenuous opportunism. I'll certainly not be voting for a party in such complete disarray on such an important issue, and for a leader who has surrounded himself with a deeply unimpressive shadow cabinet.

* The Right in America goes off the deep end: I don't agree with everything Charles Johnson says about how the Right has gone wrong in the United States, and even suspect that he may be unfairly criticising or misrepresenting some figures. But still, overall, it's hard to disagree that the Republicans have been taken over by anti-science "skeptics," have few people left who argue with reason and clarity, and it is indeed a worry that the very strange Glenn Beck is taken seriously by a significant number of people.

It's hard to see from where a plausible Republican Presidential candidate is next going to emerge.

* Even those who are "right" are wrong, Part 1: Just because I think the Republicans are in complete disarray doesn't mean I am particularly impressed with the other side of politics in America. I always thought Obama was over-hyped, as if the ability to deliver a platitudinous speech in a deep voice was all it needed to lead America out of its funk. Well, it's hard to see how I was wrong. He's likely to be unable to convince Americans of the need for serious money to be raised and spent on clean energy; I suspect he will cause NASA to flounder for another 20 years; it seems that he has been unable to get through serious health reform. (That the right wing equates access to reasonable health care for everyone as too much "socialism" is one of the sillier features of the Republicans today. You really get the feeling Republicans just need to travel more.)

* Even those who are right are wrong, Part 2: To deal with a problem you have to first acknowledge it exists. Hence my anger at the skeptics/deniers. But, even if you get over the hurdle, there is still little evidence that those nations that do take climate change seriously can think of anything beyond emissions trading schemes as a "solution".

I reckon the carbon tax proponents simply left their run too late.

I actually wonder whether it's worth worrying about precise targets at all: we simply want governments to raise money for massive investment in research and deployment of clean energy and to just get on with it. It seems the simplest way of doing that is to impose a carbon tax.

Economists have a fear of governments picking favourites, and would prefer to let the market work out the best combination of solutions. But at times when serious and urgent action is needed, nations don't let that happen. It's a bit like the heads of industry telling the generals how they should run a war that it is expected to take 30 years to play out.

I strongly suspect that Bjorn Lomborg is right on this point.

Of course, the Labor Party in Australia has its head in the sand on nuclear power too, which is another reason to grind one's teeth.

* Is Copenhagen worth anything at all at the end of the day? The Wall Street Journal seems to editorially be about the only paper in the world that promotes climate change skepticism. However, they might have a point in this article, which argues that even the most optimistic agreement that seems politically possible is not going to help keep CO2 within the levels needed.
I suppose I should be skeptical of anything the WSJ runs on AGW, and I note that the article seems to be based on continued extremely high economic growth in China. Still, it seems a worry.

* It's been stiflingly hot in Brisbane. The last couple of weeks have been hot and breath-sappingly humid to a degree I am sure is unusual even for Brisbane in early December. There have also been few storms to provide evening relief. It is starting to remind me of the summer of 1998, but we will have to wait and see.

* Why can't directors I don't like fail? This has been a disappointing year for my hopes that Tarantino might have made a career ending film. Instead, we get violence with no redeeming moral context being praised as entertainment again.

Now, James Cameron, who appears to be a complete and utter real-life jerk from all reports, has apparently made a successful CGI heavy film at a time I thought just about everyone was getting sick of CGI, and starting to get leery of 3D too. (It certainly makes going to the cinema a much more expensive exercise.)

Obviously, karma has been proved again as an implausible theory.

* I didn't even like last Saturday's episode of Mythbusters. This is the one where they spent time on looking at the movie inspired myth that putting a person's head into liquid nitrogen for a short time will freeze it enough to make it shatter on a bench top. The movie in question is (apparently) Jason 10, which I presume is another example of the Hollywood slasher/horror/sadism genre which has developed in the last decade and is purely about how to raise the bar in imagining gruesome ways to die.

This was not, in my books, a "myth" worthy of attention, and was far too gruesome a topic for a show with a large following amongst smart kids. I hope they got some criticism for it.

In fact, I am starting to worry that they are running out of myths to deal with. I'll have to put my mind to suggesting some.


OK, that's it for now. For my next post, I will attempt to revert to reasons to be happy.

Returning soon

Awaaay

Space beer

Sapporo taking orders for ISS brew

Sapporo Breweries Ltd. will sell a limited volume of beer made using barley grown from seeds that were stored in outer space under a joint project with the Russian Academy of Science and Okayama University.

The brewer will receive orders for the Sapporo Space Barley beer via the Internet until Dec. 24, making 250 six-packs, holding 330-ml bottles, available at a price of ¥10,000 each, Sapporo said Thursday, adding the product will be delivered to customers in late January. Proceeds will be used for the promotion of science education.

The original barley seeds were stored for five months in the Russian module of the International Space Station.

Good to know the Russians and Japanese have their space research priorities right...

Sonic booms

I see that residents near the northern New South Wales coast were almost certainly shaken by a distant sonic boom last night. (The RAAF was doing exercises off the coast.)

This reminds me: last week's episode of Mythbusters where they were testing the effects of sonic booms on glass, cars and structures was very enjoyable. You can see some clips from it here.

It's a fantastic show, and is about the only thing on TV that is a "must see" every week in my house when new episodes are on. (The boys in the family are a bit more enthusiastic about it than the girls, though. Is that a surprise?)

Nature comes out swinging

Climatologists under pressure : Article : Nature

A pleasingly aggressive editorial in Nature on "climategate".

"Hockey sticks" without tree rings

Another excellent, succinct post from Skeptical Science. (Which, of course, "skeptics" won't read.)

Now it's serious

That Jon Stewart is not always very careful with his analysis was made very clear earlier this year when he opined that Truman was a war criminal for using atomic bombs. In particular, he suggested that it would have more appropriate to set off an A-bomb off shore as a warning first; a view that might make sense if you had certainty that the weapons would always work, had more than two at your disposal, and did not have to make such a massive effort to get even those ones made.

The right wing blogs in the US (correctly) lamblasted Stewart for such careless, off the cuff, thinking.

Now Stewart is being careless and trivialising again, but this time the Right is applauding it, because it's about "Climategate".

What's worse, this wasn't Stewart being put on the spot during an interview, it was a prepared piece. It also tried to have it both ways, claiming at the end that it doesn't prove global warming is a fraud, and trying to ridicule Senator Inhofe for his rabid climate change denial.

It would seem that Stewart, like Monbiot, is not smart enough as to realise that if you offer anything that apparently supports AGW skepticism, AGW skeptics will take it as confirmation that they have "won".

Worse, Stewart's "analysis" of the story was completely trivialising and misleading in exactly the same way AGW skeptics have dealt with it. Going on about the phrase "hide the decline" without knowing the context is completely misleading. (Even Trenberth's "the fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty" comment is not the same worry that it first appears.) Stewart ended by saying that scientists shouldn't "cut corners" because it undermines the science. As far as I can tell, "climategate" suggests nothing about shortcuts at all. It does raise issues about the provision of data for scrutiny, but even then the context of the (often) harassing and time consuming use to which FOI can be put needs to be considered.

This is a worry because Stewart is (apparently) an influential source of news for his mostly young, hip audience. If even he is going to provide ill-informed or context-free discussion of the issue, he is misleading his audience in exactly the same way some of them probably first thought "hey, that's right. Why didn't we just set off an A bomb as a warning first?"

Someone (a scientist directly in the field, not just a political advocate like Gore) ought to be on the phone to The Daily Show and asking for a "right of reply" to put the emails in context. Stewart might claim "but I said I still believed in AGW", but there is no doubt in my mind that he has done harm to the promotion of good science and policy.

State of play

BBC News - Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen

This seems like a fairly well balanced account of the current issue in climate science.

Sports Illustrated covers more than I expected

Of course I don't read Sports Illustrated, but First Things posted about what is probably the oddest paragraph ever written in that magazine:

Whether you consider him genuine or fake, Tebow, at the end of the day, is a Heisman Trophy-, SEC- and BCS-title winning quarterback who goes to class, goes to church and circumcises people less fortunate than him. More people should be so intolerable.

Made me laugh, anyway.

Anything good from Copenhagen?

Barry Brook is feeling very, very pessimistic about anything at all useful coming out of Copenhagen:

In December, we’ll see politicians from all manner of countries strutting around on the world stage saying how seriously they take the climate change issue, why delay on action is unacceptable, and why the world must move towards a low carbon economy — “blah di blah blah blah“. They’ll most certainly earnestly commit to a definite emissions reduction target for some far distant date (probably 2050), and will probably also agree to some vague notion of an in-principle x% cut by 2020 (choose whatever value you want for x — it’s meaningless). Everyone will then head home, and the world will go on cranking up the carbon, much as before.

Then, as we continue to dither and meander our way through the next 10 or so years, the squeeze will start to be felt, with the grip of increasingly severe climate impacts (most notably extreme events and some unanticipated abrupt changes), and energy insecurity, inexorably tightening. Oil and natural gas prices will rise substantially, as unavoidable production shortages begin to seriously constrain business-as-usual. Those who can pay for the oil and its derivatives, or those who have the large remaining reserves, will be set inequitably apart from the rest. Continued rising temperatures, increasingly severe short-term events, persistent rainfall shifts (each with a decent chance of sudden step changes), and so on, will make the reality of global warming starkly apparently to all but the most delusional pea brains. At some point — well within the next two decades I suspect — humanity will, under considerable duress and societal upheaval, move at last into emergency mode.

The only problem with that scenario is that it does indeed appear possible that global warming might not take off again in a big way for 5 to 10 years, thereby failing to supply the crisis that Brooks thinks is necessary, and instead give the re-invigorated skeptics air to continue their campaigns.

In an ideal world, a hold in temperature increases for long enough could actually give some breathing room for the development and deployment of new technology. But, in the very real battle of science, human nature, and politics that is underway, its by no means certain how it is going to play out.

Winners(?) and losers

The Great Beyond: Climate change creates shell-size surprise

Nature reports that a new lab study of several types of sea creatures confirms that some actually grow bigger and better shells in lower pH sea water:

Ries and colleagues from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution grew 18 different species in tanks with differing levels of carbon dioxide. They found seven species had more shell under higher carbon dioxide: crabs, lobsters, shrimp, red and green calcifying algae, limpets and temperate urchins (image top – larger animal grew under higher carbon dioxide).

Another 10 species did worse: oysters, scallops, temperate corals, tube worms, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins (image lower – smaller animal grew under higher carbon dioxide). Only one species was unaffected, the humble mussel, they report in Geology.

That Nature link at the top will probably stop working soon, but the press release it is based on is here. The researchers note that this study is pretty preliminary, as the didn't account for nutrient levels. Moreover, the ecological effect of one species building a bigger, stronger shell is not at all clear:

“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”

Ries concurs that any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. “This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,” Ries said.

In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”

No surprise

Peru officer suspended over human fat killers 'lie'

I didn't post about this story when it broke, as it had too much of the smell of an urban myth about it. Seems my hunch was right.

Another case of "as I suspected"

Quote mining code : Deltoid

Tim Lambert has a careful look at the claim exciting Boltians and others that there was "proof" of data manipulation in some code including in the leaked CRU files.

Appears to be nothing of the sort. But will Andrew Bolt look at this? I doubt he would ever deem it worthy of his time to look at sites which present the other side of a claim made by a AGW skeptic.

The very old party base and email

Climate scorches Liberals' unity

In my arguments about the "grassroots" campaign apparently waged by Liberal Party rank and file to get Turnbull to delay the ETS, I have mentioned that the average age of the party members was pretty old, and older people are much more likely (for unclear reasons) to not believe in AGW.

Well, it seems I was certainly right about the age of party membership:

When the Victorian Liberal Party conducted a review after the Howard government's defeat, it found that the average age of its members was 60-plus. Few younger Australians are climate change sceptics, and a party that retreats to an unrepresentative base is unlikely to be elected.

The other curious thing, though, is that various Liberals have been claiming to have received "thousands" of emails from concerned constituents. Paul Sheehan writes today:

''I have never seen anything like it,'' said Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells when I called to ask why she publicly abandoned Turnbull's leadership on Friday. By yesterday afternoon her office had logged almost 8000 emails and calls opposing the proposed emissions trading scheme.

There is something pretty fishy about this, if you ask me. As the average age of the party member seems to be so old, surely there is a smaller proportion of them who are internet users in the first place.

Paul Sheehan explains how Alan Jones was leading this anti-CPRS campaign in Sydney. I wouldn't mind betting that there has been some young Jones acolytes behind the flood of emails, and that it significantly over-represents the size of the concern.

UPDATE: James Farrell at Club Troppo also worries about Alan Jones undue influence in national affairs. Here are the key paragraphs:

...if it’s true that Jones inspired the letter campaign, it raises two issues. One is the ability of radio ranters like him to exert influence vastly out of proportion to their knowledge and wisdom. This influence corrupts the democratic process: ideally, citizens take information from a range of sources (including the superior blogs) in the market for ideas, and weigh them up, rather than adopt fully formed opinions from one shrill source. It’s not just that these broadcasters are propaganda tools for vested interests; the type of individual whose opininated ravings rate highly also tends to be motivated by quite arbitrary personal prejudices and preoccupations.

In Jones’s case a relevant foible is that he can’t happen to stand anyone who refuses to be sycophantic. He is vindictiveness itself when not shown due deference. It was astounding to see Turnbull stand up to him in the interview last month (read Sheehan for some highlights), and I confess to having lazily thought to myself, it’s nice to see a federal leader refusing to be cowed by this demagogue. What I’d forgotten is that they grovel for a good reason, and in the last week we may have seen the chickens coming home to roost. Now, it’s possible that Jones helped destroy Turnbull at the behest wealthy and powerful interests, but — and this is my point — it may just have been because Turnbull got under his skin. And that isn’t a healthy basis for determining the course of climate policy.

I've never understood Jones' appeal as a broadcaster.

Ziggy agrees with me, at last

Over the last couple of years, I have been saying that part of the problem with converting the Australian public to use nuclear power is that large nuclear power plants usually use large amounts of cooling water, and in Australian would therefore probably be dotted around the coast. This was certainly the suggestion in Ziggy Switkowski's report on nuclear commissioned by John Howard. The image was of 25 gigantic stations taking up nice bits of coastal views (not to mention warmed water being pumped into the ocean.)

As Australians are, I think, particularly fond of a bit of unspoiled coast, planting nuclear power on them is unappealing.

But, I said, what about smaller, new types of nuclear which do not use water, and can be deployed away from the coast and more discretely? It would seem logical that they can also start making a difference faster than all the planning and building that goes into huge nuclear power plants.

Well, I am happy to report that Ziggy agrees. In his column in the Sydney Morning Herald today, he writes:

Compact reactors are expected on the market by about 2015. These reactors are appealing because they are gas cooled (and therefore do not require access to water), can be incrementally extended, are perhaps the size of two shipping containers, can be built underground, and are much less intimidating than a full-scale installation.

The introduction of nuclear power via these smaller installations may be the path which wins Australian community and political support earliest.

Well, about time you caught up with me, Ziggy.

Sounds about right

Why single-sex schools are bad for your health (if you're a boy)

This study from England will apparently show:

....that boys taught in singlesex schools are more likely to be divorced or separated from their partner than those who attended a mixed school by their early 40s.

I am not surprised. I went to a small Catholic primary school and then a State (mixed sex) high school. Many of my former primary school (male) friends went to a Catholic single sex high school. It always seemed to me that their experience gave them a peculiar, competitive and overall unpleasant attitude towards girls. It's hard to describe it exactly, but it still seemed quite distinct to me. Regular religious instruction in high school seemed to have an extremely limited influence on sexual behaviour, too.

I am not sure that it is a good idea for girls either. I was told by a woman I was dating once about how much she hated the social experience of her Catholic high school due to the incredible level of, well, bitchiness between the girls. One might have thought that, in the absence of males to directly compete about, there would be less of that, but apparently not.

It's a small sample, I know, but it's enough for me to want to make sure my kids both go to mixed sex high schools.

Let the healing begin.....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

So the Liberal Party chooses a new leader, who, even before last week's meltdown, no one has ever thought electable as PM, and who has now set himself up as the puppet of the do-nothing AGW skeptics, yet has to work out what policy on the topic he can credibly bring to the next election.

Farce on a spectacular scale!

Possible good outcome: by losing by one vote, will Malcolm be convinced to wait around and have again after the next election? Would he happy leading an Opposition of about 30?