Weather, Climate Models and the UK

Staying with the theme of yesterdays blog, here is a prediction about weather for the UK in May 2012:

“Summer will arrive early tomorrow with a 17C temperature swing finally delivering sweltering highes of 27C as experts forecast a sweltering summer on a par with the record-breaking 2003 and 2006 scorchers. Weather Services International, part of the Weather Channel, said the ‘pressure blocking’ system which made recent summers cool and wet has disappeared. Instead, forecasters expect hot and dry high pressure systems, comparable with patterns which delivered the 2003 and 2006 scorchers. WSI chief meteorologist Dr Todd Crawford said: “The last four summers have been fairly wet and cool across the UK.  “We expect a summer pattern more like 2002-06, with above-normal temperatures.” --The Daily Telegraph, 21 May 2012

The UK has been bathed in water almost since this prediction was made. In fact, barring a warm and dry spell towards the end of May, the weather has been persistently dull and wet since April – which was also the wettest in records dating back to 1910.

The potential for severe flooding events across many parts of the country is still a high-risk scenario for the remainder of July too, due to some further heavy and slow moving thundery downpours that are likely to develop towards the end of this week and onwards. Flooding has been widespread, especially in Wales and North Yorkshire.

The general situation for the remainder of summer is now also becoming more and more favourable for the jet stream to remain displaced to the south, hindering any chances of a significant change to a more prolonged and settled period of warmer weather as we progress throughout the remainder of July and into August.

So much for the May prediction based on the very models used to predict climate 90 years from now.

Dont Confuse Weather with Climate - Its That Time Again!

Summer heat and storms bring out the worst in climate warmist. “Hottest summer on record..” (no it isn’t) and we can “expect more unusual storms and damage due to climate change” (no we cant). Weather events have their own historiographies and causes, but don’t confuse weather with climate or climate change with one off events. In fact, global temperatures so far in 2012 have been below the fifteen year average.

But it is a helpful prompt to look at new information about the state of climate science.

First, an important analysis of the veracity of computer models of climate will shortly appear from Ross McKitrick (preview here). Looking at all of the “in use” models he finds that none are especially good at predicting regional climate (when compared to actual data) and that, taken together, the models are based on a limited understanding of climate and a particular model of climate change – one that makes assumptions about the role of CO2. Given that so much of what we see is based on these “virtual science” analysis as opposed to actual data, then we need to treat all of these models with a great deal of caution.

This also applies to polar bear population analysis. The models show declining populations in four groups of polar bears, whereas observation and tagging data suggests that polar bears are actually doing rather well – according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates, polar bear numbers are at least twice as high as in the 1960s (here).

Second, new evidence appears that we have been underestimating how warm it was in the past. The team of scientists (see here), led by Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, suggest that the available tree ring data shows that it was much warmer in the Roman and medieval period than it is today – a time when less CO2 was in the atmosphere than is the case today.  Indeed, their analysis of these data suggest that there has been a gradual cooling over time.

A related study shows that the coral reefs around Australia were wiped out some 4,000 years ago when it was much warmer than it is now by about 2C (here). The culprit in this past case was not C02 but ENSO - the climate cycle responsible for the weather conditions every few years known as El Niño and La Niña events. The timing of the shutdown in reef growth corresponds to a period of wild swings in ENSO. Since corals are resilient, they have regrown after a shutdown that lasted over 2,500 years.

Then we look at the north and south poles. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area. (LINK) In the Arctic things are different. NSDIC shows that the Arctic ice had expanded enough from its lows of 2007 to meet the average level that existed over the last three decades. Another source, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, shows the Arctic ice to have exceeded the three-decade average. While this summer the melt is substantial – the largest in recent times – the recovery and resilience of the region has been demonstrated time and time again (see here). Newly discovered maps of the Arctic sea-ice extent in the earlier decades of the 20th century make clear that the sea-ice extent in the decades around 100 years ago was much less than it is today. In many years, there was virtually a northwest passage clear of ice along the Russian side.

 Critics of the theory of CO2 causing substantive warming (and it is one theory of several) like to point to the suggestion that this is a cooling time. While the models suggest something different, observation suggests that there has been no significant global warming since 1998 (here).  Indeed, there is a growing realization amongst the scientific community that the CO2 theory is flawed. What is emerging in its place is a focus on the role of the sun as a major determinant of climate. New research at the Danish Space Research Institute and Geneva-based CERN has been affirming this cosmic ray-Sun theory, and other prestigious scientific bodies were giving it credence, including the Royal Astronomical Society’s publication of an important new work that continues the ascendancy of this theory ( here).

So, don’t be alarmed by extreme weather events as “evidence of man made global warming”. Keep a critical, scientific mind which is open to evidence based analysis not policy based evidence finding.

Rio Delusions

The draft text for discussion at the RIO +20 summit makes clear that the summit itself is a waste of energy and time. Even the environmental non-government organizations (ENGO’s) attending it think so. Jim Leape, international director general of WWF, hoped that the document would be renegotiated: “It’s pathetic. It’s appalling. If this becomes the final text the last year has been a colossal waste of time.” Friends of the Earth are even stronger in their disapproval, calling the plans “an epic failure”. 

None of this surprises anyone. A process by which representatives from 193 countries have to agree every word, comma and full stop over several months of discussion is not likely to produce much of anything. Yet expectations are always high, especially when thousands of people are attending Rio +20 in the hope of transformative change coming from such a meeting. 

Delusion takes many forms. But the core symptoms of delusion are clear for the green movement. Here is a list:

1. Persistent belief that something serious is happening. This has occurred over the last five decades as we have moved through the threat of the ice age, global warming, climate change, climate disaster, man made natural disaster (another delusion), the threat of sea level rise flooding coastal cities around the world.
2. Disorganized speech. Just listen to Al Gore. While eloquent, he is also disorganized, confused, will not answer questions from audience members unless the question and the audience member has been vetted before hand and will not respond to skeptical concerns.
3. Feeling threatened. Warmists are threatened by evidence that their theory of CO2 causing warming is mistaken. So as to protect their delusion, they adjust the data and increasingly rely on made up evidence (also known as computer models) to justify their delusional beliefs.
4. Grandiose beliefs. Many in the environmental movement belief that they are the keepers of truth and wisdom – a major delusion. They cannot accept that other views or evidence may suggest alternative understanding of either environmental issues or climate change. For example, the idea that the pursuit of profit is a way to end poverty and take care of the environment is something that they reject, despite evidence that this is how poverty reduction has occurred on an unprecedented scale over the last fifty years.
5. Manipulation of facts. Global temperatures are within normal ranges and have not risen dramatically for over a decade, yet the delusionists are persuaded that global warming is occurring. One reason for this is the manipulation (technical “adjustment”) of the evidence and the other is the use of fantasy (also known as computer model) data. When evidence is provided from actual observations of natural events, the delusionists will have an explanation.
6. The use of the bogey man. Whenever skeptical voices are raised about their delusion, delusionists will make use of the “bogey man” (big oil, fossil fuel industry) to try and discredit their adversaries. The fact that their delusions are also supported by “big oil” never occurs to them as a problem.
7. Safety in numbers. There are literally thousands who believe that the moon landings were fabricated. Others are taking the view that homeopathy is based on evidence and is an effective treatment for a range of illnesses, despite repeated demonstrations of its ineffectiveness and non scientific base. A large number of people believe that Jesus visited the Americas (it is actually a Mormon belief). So the warmist delusionists meet frequently to reinforce their beliefs. Just because hundreds of people believe something doesn’t make it true.

The key to delusion, from a psychological point of view, is that the person actually understands that their delusional beliefs are not true, but persists anyway. Here is the clinical definition:

“Non-bizarre delusions typically are beliefs of something occurring in a person's life which is not out of the realm of possibility. For example, the person may believe their significant other is cheating on them, that someone close to them is about to die, a friend is really a government agent, etc. All of these situations could be true or possible, but the person suffering from this disorder knows them not to be (e.g., through fact-checking, third-person confirmation, etc.)” Psych Central based on DSM V.

No one in their right mind expected RIO +20 to be a breakthrough for the planet, yet tens of thousands will attend, including world leaders. No one in their right mind thinks that climate change will kill millions, yet many behave as if this inevitable. No one in their right mind thinks that failure at RIO will mean the end of these kinds of gatherings – we can only hope.

The fact that many will not have aspirations met in Rio does not undermine the support Rio will provide for delusional thinking.

Economic Fairies

The Cameron-Merkel-Sarkozy focus on austerity as the basis for the solution to the European economic crisis – what Ed Ball’s has labeled “Camerkozy” Economics – relies heavily on myth. The myth is that cutting public spending to the bone while pursuing structural economic reforms (especially to labour markets, tax systems and regulation), increasing unemployment and deflating the economy will produce confidence amongst investors and spur growth. This strategy, which ING refers to as “Austeria”, Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics economists, suggests is like wishing for the confidence fairy to appear.

Greeks chose the Euro and are now waiting to see if their elected officials can form a government, which looks unlikely and their exit from the Euro now looks inevitable. Spain’s borrowing rate hit record highs at 7.3% for a 10 year bond and the rise in the UK’s long term youth unemployment is 800% from 2000. In all some 8.2% of Britain’s working population are unemployed. No sign of the confidence fairy there.

Economic growth across the Eurozone and in Europe as a whole is, to say the least, disappointing and this has led to an undermining of asset prices and led to challenges to bank solvency. Governments are slow to react and collective government is demonstrably not up to dealing with the crisis. Confidence is sapped each time a “major fix” is announced – like the Spanish bank bail-out, since such “solutions” do not inspire confidence in the political leadership and will to deal with the crisis.

At the G20 is Mexico the EU Council President, Jose Manuel Barroso, made clear that the EU was not there to be lectured by others, especially the US whose banks he blames for all of the EU troubles. This may be thought of as fairy speech – finding the evil fairy as far away from home as possible. His outburst in Mexico shows why leadership is a challenge in Europe – he is clearly not accepting that the decision to forge ahead with currency union without fiscal and political integration and the decision to bend the rules and ignore the facts so as to admit Greece to the Eurozone or the decision not to toughen banking regulations are the root causes of Europe’s problem. Nor is he accepting that the paucity of leadership in Europe, evident throughout this crisis, is now making the problems worse.

What is needed are measures to stimulate demand. This requires more public spending, more encouragement for corporations sitting on substantial piles of cash to spend and invest, more encouragement for hiring and a strong and relentless focus on reducing unemployment. Though in the short term this may increase debt, this is the price to pay for the moral requirement to create meaningful employment for all able to work. Once growth returns, then Governments can resize their spending.

So as to stimulate the economies of Europe, some labour market reforms and tax reform may be necessary. The focus of tax reform should not be on reducing taxes for the rich but on ensuring equity in tax policy and easing capital investment, stronger use of flow through shares and changes to capital gains tax.

This is a strategy Paul Krugman has been promoting and it has earned the label Krugmania. An analysis by ING suggests that the adoption of Krugmania will lead to a significant boost to employment and GDP growth of between 2.5 and 3% within twenty four months. While this may also lead to some inflation, this is the cost of supporting a strategy focused on full employment.

Britain has started to recognize that Austeria is not working and has signaled that it will invest £140 billion ($225Can billion) in the economy through a complicated scheme supporting private capital through government guarantees. Whatever the merits of the approach (see a critique by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times here), which is aimed at making sure that the £140 billion doesn’t appear on the Governments balance sheet, stimulus aimed at growth is occurring, albeit on a very modest scale. The Government is focusing on how it should effect stimulus, not whether or not to have stimulus – this is what is important here.

If you want the tooth fairy to appear, then you must put a tooth under the pillow. If you want the confidence fairy to appear, you must stimulate economic growth by putting public money into the economy. Fairies will abound.

On the Road to Rio - Distractons

Bjorn Lomborg has been the vilified scourge of the “warmist” environmental lobby for some time – ever since he wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.  His point has been simple – given the uncertainties of climate data and the dubious value of climate modeling (for more, see Ross McKitrick’s piece here), why would we risk the economic future of nations on policies focused on CO2 reduction and a dramatic change in the energy economy of the world.

In a new contribution, posted at the Project Syndicate web site (here), he looks at the agenda for RO +20 and is very critical (read here). His basic point is that CO2 is not at all the largest threat to the environment and its people – the lack of clean water and air quality are. He puts it simple. If we made the bizarre assumption that all natural disasters were caused by climate change (the evidence is that it has no impact on such disasters), then just 0.06% of all deaths in developing countries are caused by such disasters. In comparison, 13% of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution. For each person dying from a natural disaster, 210 people die from polluted water and polluted air (CO2 is not a pollutant).

He also makes other points. For example, that a focus on organic food supplies in Africa is a major cause of death from malnutrition – what Africa needs to do is shift from small scale organic farming to industrial scale farming so as to massively increase food supplies.

He makes the same point about energy. The RIO +20 agenda wants the developing world to make extensive use of wind and solar energy – known to be less reliable, more expensive and problematic than fossil fuel based energy. Why would they promote a more expensive, less reliable energy source for the poorest nations on the planet? Is it naiveté, ideological blindness or something more sinister? In terms of air quality, a great many of the deaths occur from burning dung (an organic commodity). Would they be better served by natural gas based energy (in liquid form)?

A focus on green transport – especially electric cars – ignores the fact that most of these cars are fuelled by coal and natural gas. At $50,000 each they are unlikely to provide a solution to the transport challenges of the world.

It is well worth a read.

On a different tack, but still focused on RIO +20, the developing countries are asking for an annual fund of $30 billion to pay for global governance and their green economic development. They want this to come from the tax on GDP from the developed world – 0.7% of each countries GDP. What they don’t seem to realize is that the other policies they wish developed nations to pursue – especially the 95% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 – will have such an impact on GDP (economies would literally collapse) that they will not be able to pay the 0.7% of GDP. It’s a recipe for international economic depression.

Next week is likely to be a talk-fest without consequence. The organizers have so far failed to secure basic agreement on anything, despite several days of preparatory meetings. It will be a failure, but one at our expensive.

The 3R's for Europe

When the EU offered a relief package to Spain so that Spain could support its ailing banks, crippled by profligate lending for a building boom that went bust, it was thought that this would “buy time” so that the EU could work on a much grander scheme for the Eurozone and its future – a scheme involving forfeiture of sovereignty and the development of integrated economies. The Spanish bail out bought about ten hours of time. Yet another monumental failure by the Merkelites - the harbingers of the strategy now known as “Austeria”.

Now that Spain has had its banks downgraded and its economy is in free fall as it seeks to raise debt driven revenue on the market, Italy is looking more and more precarious. If some significant and insightful leadership does not act quickly, it could get even worse.

What is clear is that the Austeria strategy is not working. What was intended as a correction and a stimulus to confidence is lowering demand, causing a depression and leading to uncertainty and economic disaster, especially for all those who are unemployed. Paul Krugman is right – what is needed in the short term is stimulus linked to a clear vision for a future for Europe which is not based on German imperialism.

A report by ING (available here) looks at the options for the future, based on a solid review of evidence and performance of the Eurozone economies. It proposed three key strategic components: reflation, redistribution and reform. Let’s look at each:

• Reflation – Paul Krugman’s strategy of making strategic investments in public infrastructure so as to create jobs, encourage demand and permit a modest degree of economic inflation as a precursor to reform is at the heart of ING’s thinking. In their strategic scenario’s, Krugmania emerges as the primary opportunity for serious action in the short term. The reform implications are embedded in this Keynesian strategy, but the start is more public spending, not less.
• Redistribution – one way of looking at Greece, Ireland and Spain is that the bailouts they have received are forms of transfer payments – a way of redistributing wealth from rich regions to poorer ones, something Canada has done since it began. Such mechanisms have been driven by crisis within the EU rather than formula and it is a shift to formal regulated mechanisms that is needed. This will come with strings – closer political integration.
• Reform – key reforms aimed at improving the competitiveness and productivity of the private sector in all EU countries (including tax reform, labour market reform and regulatory simplification) are essential for the medium to long term health of the EU. Also important, is a reform of government, especially social policy, health and education and taxation. Some of these reforms could be carried out by national governments and others require EU wide reform (eg. Labour mobility, regulatory reform).

While the EU remains enamored with Austeria, the real opportunities for significant and focused change will pass the EU by. Austeria will lead to failure and a likely implosion. Time for new leadership to step up to the plate.