ADVERTISE FROM GOOGLE

Global warming

(2) CLIMATE PANEL REACHES CONSENSUS ON REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS

International Herald Tribune, 4 MAY 2007


By Andrew C. Revkin

The world needs to divert substantially from today's main energy sources within a few decades to limit centuries of rising temperatures and seas driven by the buildup of heat-trapping emissions in the air, the top body studying climate change has concluded.

In an all-night session capping four days of talks in Bangkok, economists, scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries agreed early Friday on the last sections of a report outlining ways to limit such emissions, led by carbon dioxide, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal and oil.

The final report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said prompt slowing of emissions could set the stage later in the century for stabilization of the concentration of carbon dioxide, which, at 380 parts per million now, has risen more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution and could easily double from the preindustrial level within decades.

The report, which awaits only formal adoption this afternoon, concluded that significant progress toward that goal could be made in the next 25 years with known technologies and policy shifts, but would still need to be followed by a century-long transition to new energy sources that come with no climate impacts.

Several authors, while declining to discuss specific results before the report was formally adopted, said its message was clear.

"We can no longer make the excuse that we need to wait for more science, or the excuse that we need to wait for more technologies and policy knowledge," said Adil Najam, an author of one chapter and an associate professor of international negotiation at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. "To me the big message is that we now have both and we do not need to wait any longer."

The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could rise an additional 90 percent by 2030 if nothing is done.

Carbon dioxide is particularly important not only because so much is produced each year - about 25 billion tons - but because much of it persists in the atmosphere, building like unpaid credit card debt.

To stop the rise, report authors said, countries would need to expand adoption of existing policies that can cut emissions - like a fuel tax or the binding limits set by the Kyoto Protocol - while also increasing research seeking new energy options. This work would include pushing for advances in solar and nuclear power.

The meeting ended just after dawn Friday in Bangkok with several authors of the report saying that there had been relatively little last-minute fighting with government officials over details. China had resisted language that implied big cuts would have to be made in fast-growing developing countries, which will soon surpass rich countries as the dominant source of greenhouse gases.

According to several authors, the final version estimates that bringing global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 to levels measured in 2000 would require a cost on released carbon dioxide of $50 to $100 a ton, roughly on a par - in terms of fossil fuel prices - of an additional 25 cents to 50 cents for a gallon of gasoline.

The report projects that this shift might cause a small blunting of global economic activity, resulting in an overall reduction of perhaps one-tenth of a percentage point per year through 2100 in the world's total economic activity, the authors said.

Some of the experts and government officials involved in the final discussions said in telephone interviews and in e-mail messages that the costs could be substantially greater than that.

But a variety of participants, including some from the United States, said in interviews that it was hard to argue against such an investment, given the potential costs of inaction.

William Moomaw, a lead author of a chapter on energy options and a professor of international environmental policy at Tufts University, said that he saw evidence that big cuts could happen.

"Here in the early years of the 21st century, we're looking for an energy revolution that's as comprehensive as the one that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century when we went from gaslight and horse-drawn carriages to light bulbs and automobiles," Moomaw said. "In 1905, only 3 percent of homes had electricity. Right now, 3 percent is about the same range as the amount of renewable energy we have today. None of us can predict the future any more than we could in 1905, but that suggests to me it may not be impossible to make that kind of revolution again."

This is the third report this year from the climate panel, which was formed under the auspices of the United Nations in 1988 to brief nations periodically on risks from human and natural changes in climate and options for limiting dangers.

In February, one team of experts concluded with near certainty that most warming since 1950 has been driven by the rising concentrations in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

A second working group reported last month that the warming trend was already measurably shifting weather, water and ecological patterns, and that hundreds of millions of people faced risks by mid-century ranging from lost water supplies to inundated coasts should trends persist.

European officials have said the climate panel's reports will be stressed when climate policy comes up at the next meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized powers, which takes place next month.

The panel's report on emissions options is also expected to play a role in shaping the next round of talks seeking new binding emissions restrictions after those set under the Kyoto treaty end in 2012. Those talks are scheduled to take place in Bali in December.

Copyright 2007, IHT

============
(3) SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, WG III

IPCC, 4 May 2007

Summary for Policymakers IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III
Contents
A. Introduction
2
B. Greenhouse gas emission trends
2
C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (until 2030) 9
D. Mitigation in the long term (after 2030)
21
E. Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change
27
F. Sustainable development and climate change mitigation
33
G. Gaps in knowledge
34
Endbox 1: Uncertainty representation

FULL REPORT


=============
(4) TECHNOLOGY TO CUT CO2 NOT SEEN BEFORE 2020

Reuters, 3 May 2007

By Tom Bergin

LONDON (Reuters) - Clean energy technologies that could dramatically cut carbon emissions are unlikely to be widely adopted before 2020, and even then only if western governments offer big financial incentives at home and abroad.

Most scientists believe man-made CO2 emissions, largely caused by burning hydrocarbons, are the primary cause of climate change in the half century

A draft report by the United Nations climate panel is expected to this week again call on nations to cut their CO2 emissions to avoid a climate catastrophe.

However, even the greenest developed nations are struggling to curb rises in CO2 production and emissions from developing nations like China and India are rocketing, as their booming economies require more and more energy.

New technologies are seen as the only way for mankind to cut CO2 emissions to acceptable levels, and still enjoy a decent standard of living.

Many scientists believe CO2 capture and storage (CCS) -- burying CO2 in underground reservoirs -- is the most politically acceptable, technologically feasible and economically viable way to make big CO2 cuts, followed by advanced biofuels.

Steve Koonin, scientist at oil major BP, said these technologies could realistically allow developed nations to reduce CO2 emissions from around 2015 and developing countries to cut from between 2030 and 2040.

However, government-sponsored financial incentives would be needed, he added. BP itself has applied for government help to build a CCS and power generation plant in Scotland.

CARBON CAPTURE

Around 40 percent of man-made CO2 emissions are caused by electricity generation, so scientists say it is key to focus on this source.

While some environmentalists advocate wind power, its capacity to replace coal and gas-fired power plants is limited by the intermittent nature of gusts and a shortage of suitable sites.

Solar and wave technology require unforeseen technological breakthroughs before they could play anything more than a tiny role in meeting power needs.

Nuclear could make a big impact but high build cost, long construction lead time and public hostility, mean even replacing existing plants is a struggle.

CCS, which involves storing CO2 in depleted offshore oil fields or in aquifers, porous rock beneath the seabed, is seen as offering a realistic prospect of material CO2 cuts.

"We've got several hundred years of storage for the whole European Union in the saltwater aquifers in the North Sea," Professor Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of geology at the University of Edinburgh, said.

The UK has promised a one-off subsidy that could help bring the first commercial-scale power generation and CCS facility online in 2011 or 2012.

The EU plans 12 CCS projects by 2015, and wants the technology to be installed in all new EU power plants after 2020, Haszeldine said, adding he does not expect more than a handful of projects to be operating globally before 2020.

However, firm frameworks of long-term incentives must be in place before companies will invest in CCS technology on a large scale.

Incentives could involve charges for emitting CO2 or rewards for storing it. Both strategies would inevitably lead to higher taxes or higher energy bills.

This may be tolerable in western countries, but developing nations are not keen to limit their growth with such measures.

"I keep asking the question who's going to pay for CCS in China and India, given their other development needs, and nobody's got any credible answer except 'the developed countries'," Koonin said.

SECOND-GENERATION BIOFUELS

Road, rail and air transport fuels account for around 20 percent of global emissions, making this another key focus.

Biofuels -- transport fuels made from crops -- have been touted as the solution and the EU has said it hopes that by 2030, biofuels will account for 25 percent of transport fuels.

However, biofuels do not always cut CO2 use. Environmental groups have said forests are being cleared in Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia to make way for plantations that will produce palm oil, a key feedstock in some biofuels.

Also, inefficient production methods mean a liter of fossil fuel is sometimes consumed in the production and distribution of a liter of biofuel, Professor Nick Syred, UK representative on a panel which advises the EU on implementing measures to cut CO2 emissions, said.

A new generation of biofuels is needed to yield big CO2 cuts, Syred said. The aim is for biodiesel and gasoline substitute ethanol, to be produced from non-food crops and waste biomass. This would allow fuel to be produced with much less land and energy than is needed for current generation fuels.

Western oil majors including Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc are sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into second generation biofuels such as cellullosic ethanol, but only test production facilities have been built so far.

Analysts do not expect large-scale manufacturing until 2020 at the earliest.

"These technologies can deliver but it's not going to be a quick fix ...
coal and oil are simply too cheap," Syred said.

Copyright 2007, Reuters

=====================
(5) BEYOND KYOTO: AS EUROPEAN CLIMATE POLICIES CRUMBLE, THE U.S. APPROACH IS FINDING VINDICATION

World Magazine, 12 May 2007

Mark Bergin

European company Arcelor Mittal, the world's largest steelmaker, is a model of environmental care. Since 1990, the manufacturing juggernaut has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent, exceeding European targets by two and half times.

Nevertheless, company leaders warn that restrictive government caps on greenhouse gases may soon force the closure of two large factories in France. The resulting dip in production from such a move would press Arcelor Mittal to import steel from far less efficient factories in the Third World, where CO2 emissions restrictions are not enforced.

Hardly an isolated incident, businesses throughout Europe are laying off employees, outsourcing production, and reining in innovation as a luxury no longer affordable. Michel Wurth, president of Arcelor Mittal France, calls the situation "absolutely ridiculous."

But European Union officials managed to avoid broadcasting such difficulties at a White House summit meeting April 30. Instead, German Chancellor and EU President Angela Merkel and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso were eager to highlight common ground with U.S. climate-change policy. They lauded President George W. Bush for taking the issue seriously-high praise for a man committed environmentalists are supposed to hate.

That conciliatory tone reflects a growing realization that Bush's refusal to adopt emissions restrictions is not the vice once imagined. In past years, EU officials chastised Bush for his stubborn rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, a pact adopted by 169 nations to impose mandatory reductions of CO2 emissions. This year, Merkel and Barroso made no mention of the 10-year-old treaty, a stark reversal that underscores a momentous shift in the debate: As Kyoto sputters, stalls, and ultimately fails, the Bush approach proves increasingly credible.

Substantial disagreements remain over how best to move forward in tackling greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists believe are to blame for the planet's recent warming trend. But many policy experts now recognize that the Bush administration's strategy to develop new carbon-cutting technologies presents the only real-world approach to reducing emissions. Absent such technologies, hard caps like Kyoto amount to nothing more than empty green stamps for naïve or disingenuous politicians.


Kyoto-supporting nations are learning that lesson the hard way. The Kyoto accord has wrought substantial economic harm for little environmental gain. Its targets have proved unfeasible, its costs debilitating.

Merkel has witnessed the fiasco firsthand in Germany, where initial Kyoto cheerleading has morphed into nationwide grumbling. The country now stands to pay up to $5 billion in fines when it fails to meet emissions goals by next year. Meanwhile, industry leaders are hemorrhaging funds for a cause that holds little to no chance of success. Those companies threaten to retract investments in new energy sources.

Such difficulties threaten Germany's sizable automotive industry, which employs about 15 percent of the country's manufacturing workforce. New regulations from the European Commission require carmakers to reengineer their high-end models for much lower emission levels by 2012. That burden will likely drive up sticker prices, reduce sales, and provoke layoffs.

Similar problems have sprung up throughout Europe. Beyond Arcelor Mittal, other companies, such as Spanish steelmaker Acernex and Dutch silicon carbide manufacturer Kollo Holding, are choking on the continent's skyrocketing cost of electricity. Acernex has transported production overseas and closed several factories. Kollo Holding must shut down its plant for hours each day and has lost customers to competitors in China.

Despite such economic costs, EU emissions levels continue to rise, illustrating Kyoto's failure on both economic and environmental fronts. In the United Kingdom last year, CO2 emissions from power plants, automobiles, and homes increased 6.4 million tons above 2005 levels-pushing total UK emissions to their highest point since Britain ratified Kyoto a decade ago. The embarrassed government, which has already abandoned its aim of a 20 percent reduction by 2010, now must reconsider whether its proposed 30 percent drop by 2020 is realistic.

Many British environmentalists blame politicians for the failures, but recent polling throughout the EU suggests public opinion has turned against overly optimistic Kyoto-like requirements. Benny Peiser, a researcher at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, expects that greater economic costs will further unravel the continent's once strong green consensus. He suggests that Europe's stubborn unwillingness to admit failure may be the only force preventing an all-out abandonment of Kyoto: "A political failure of the Kyoto process would, without a shadow of doubt, cause incalculable trauma to European pride and standing."

In desperation to meet their targets, European nations adopted a system of carbon-trading two years ago, whereby emissions credits are bought and sold in an international market. The system intends to generate economic incentives for companies to reduce their carbon footprints. But, so far, the artificial market has set the price so low for credits that large-scale emitters can purchase as many as they need without significant financial burden.

The result: Kyoto's goal of reducing the combined emissions of EU nations by 8 percent from 1990 levels by 2012 is highly improbable. In fact, the numbers are likely to continue creeping upward.

Outside Europe, a growing chorus of Kyoto dissent is joining the once isolated Bush administration. Canadian environment minister John Baird announced new emissions targets last month that effectively toss Kyoto to the policy scrap heap. The new standards call for reductions per unit of production, a measuring system that may actually allow emissions to rise amid a growing economy.

Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May was furious, describing such backing down from Kyoto as "worse than Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis." But the plan won't appease economic pain, costing Canada an estimated $7 billion annually.

Such high costs have prompted nations such as China, India, Australia, and Turkey to join the United States in avoiding Kyoto's top-down carbon-cutting method. To the surprise of many Europeans, the U.S. approach of technology investment and voluntary emissions reductions has proved more effective than Kyoto. Figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show that U.S. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion grew 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2004 while European Union emissions of the same kind increased 5 percent.

Furthermore, the U.S. approach presents the only realistic possibility for including the developing economies of China and India in global efforts to reduce emissions. China recently reiterated its opposition to any international pact that would stifle its use of cheap energy to grow its economy. Chinese officials argue that G8 nations got rich by ignoring environmental concerns and that China is due that same opportunity.

If new technologies emerge to reduce emissions without substantially increasing energy costs, China, India, and other developing nations would be able to participate. Such inclusion is critical to global emissions strategies given new estimates from the IEA that China will pass the United States as the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases before the end of the year.

In a meeting last month with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, President Bush expressed his desire that Japan contribute its technological capabilities and expertise to the hunt for new carbon-cutting technologies. The leaders discussed the further development and construction of nuclear power plants, an existing technology that could drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

If Bush has his way, such technology-centered discussions will dominate the global dialogue post-Kyoto, elbowing out talk of top-down emissions caps or carbon-trading schemes. The Bush administration wants nations to operate independently in the drive to cut emissions, an affront to the UN's globalist approach.

New strategies will be fodder for the G8 summit next month in Germany, an opportunity for the fallout from Kyoto to take center stage-and for the proven detrimental treaty to rest in peace.

Copyright 2007, World Magazine

============
(6) "BEIJING NEEDS COAL TO FUEL ECONOMIC GROWTH - AND GUARANTEE ITS VERY SURVIVAL"

NPR, 2 May 2007

by Louisa Lim

Wu Gui has been a coal miner for 34 years. He says coal is a key to China's economic success.

China's manufacturing juggernaut is largely fueled by coal-fired power stations, like this one in Datong, Shanxi province.

Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of all fuels to produce energy. Coal is literally powering China's seemingly unstoppable rise to superpower status, but not without costs to people and the environment.

Coal miner Wu Gui, who has been working the mines for 34 years, describes his role in China's economy as "a glorious job."

"I am making a contribution to the country," he says. "If we couldn't find coal, China couldn't get richer and more powerful, and we wouldn't be able to improve people's living standards."

Beijing is relying on men like Wu to power its future, says Yang Fuqiang of the global Energy Foundation. He notes that China is the world's leading consumer of coal.

China will build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week. This massive appetite for coal means equally huge greenhouse gas emissions.

But Xu Dingming, one of the men in charge of China's energy policy, says coal-fired power plants are the quickest solution to its urgent need for more power.

China has more than 10 million people who still don't have electricity. In rural areas, many children have never seen an electric light.
Coal-fired power plants are not just bringing light to rural villages. They're also powering the factories that make up China's exploding manufacturing base. In the past year, China has added generating capacity that is equal to the whole of France's electricity grid.

But this ravenous demand for electricity is putting pressure on the coal mines - and there's a terrible price to be paid.

In the village of Xishui, 69-year-old Tou Deyue scrambles over the rubble outside his front gate.

"Look how it's all collapsed here," he says. "You can imagine how much worse it was underground."

Each day when he sees the rubble, he's reminded of his loss - his son died inside the coal mine, along with 71 others, in a gas explosion two years ago.

Tou says that the rising price of coal blinded the mine boss to everything. Three days before the explosion, someone had reported a gas leak in the mine. But the boss ignored it and ordered miners to keep working, Tou says. He says the boss only cared about production and profit - not the safety of workers.

China has 5 million coal miners and the search for coal kills thousands of them each year. But there's another price that the whole world will pay in terms of the effects on climate.

Beijing needs coal to fuel economic growth - and guarantee its very survival. Yet its coal habit means it will soon overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, some say as early as this year.

How much money and effort Beijing chooses to put into controlling the emissions will be a critical factor in global warming. If China doesn't act aggressively, its addiction to coal will have a profound effect, not just domestically but on the rest of the world as well.

Copyright 2007, NPR

================
(7) OIL LUBRICATES ASIA-MIDEAST TIES: MAY ALTER GLOBAL POWER BALANCE

The Wall Street Journal, 3 May 2007

By BHUSHAN BAHREE

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A gathering here of Asian and Middle East energy ministers has cast a fresh spotlight on how rapidly the petroleum-rich Persian Gulf and energy-hungry East Asia are intertwining their economies, with potentially significant consequences for the international balance of power.

The Asian Ministerial Energy Roundtable, which met yesterday, surveyed oil demand, supply possibilities and energy-investment opportunities in Asia, where explosive economic growth is helping drive the world economy. The 16 ministers at the meeting -- jointly hosted by Saudi Arabia and Japan -- represent the huge oil exporters of the Persian Gulf region, dubbed West Asia by the group, and such major consumers from East Asia as China, South Korea and India."We discussed today the need for substantial investment in the whole [energy] value chain," Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Naimi said at a news conference. "The numbers are very substantial."

Mohamed bin Dhaen Al Hamli, oil minister of the United Arab Emirates and president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf are spending $270 billion on new energy projects from now to the end of the decade alone. A significant amount of that funding comes from rising East Asian purchases of Middle Eastern energy supplies, as well as from joint energy projects.

The growing ties have broad implications for Western nations as the Mideast and East Asia gain oil-market clout. State-controlled oil companies, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, have taken the lead in developing major new reserves, while major Western oil producers find access to new supplies increasingly limited. Where companies and decision makers once focused on events in Western energy capitals such as Houston, New York and London, these same players are increasingly concentrating their efforts in places like Dubai.

Rising East Asian investment in the Middle East could prompt burgeoning powers China and India to take a more active interest in trying to stabilize the region, while also encouraging Middle Eastern leaders to look East, not just to traditional powers such as Washington and Moscow, as players in the volatile region's diplomacy. In Middle Eastern capitals, decisions made in Beijing and New Delhi could ultimately gain the same heft as decisions made in Washington.

The global nature of the oil market means that all consuming nations likely will benefit from the increased production that results from new investment. The U.S., which has considerable say in oil markets as the world's No. 1 consumer by far, also retains major say by virtue of its role as a defensive shield for the Saudis. Asia's big oil buyers, such as China, have no comparable global military presence, a reality that will temper Asia's rising clout in the Gulf.

Still, the meeting yesterday paves the way for more conciliatory ties between the nations on either end of the Asian continent. That stands in potential contrast to tensions that have flared occasionally between the Middle East and Western consuming nations.

Asia already consumes more oil than Western Europe. The Asian and Persian Gulf ministers meeting here in the Saudi capital represent more than half the world's population, the majority of its oil and gas reserves, and some 70% of the expected rise in world energy demand in decades to come.

The meeting comes as Asian-invested joint-venture refineries, petrochemical plants and gas terminals are popping up all over the region, from Saudi Arabia to Japan. All of this is made possible by Asia's exports of goods and services, which in turn have created a vast and growing appetite for oil in the region, and the Gulf's ability to sate it for a price.

"It's a global virtuous loop" of investment, said William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which monitors oil on behalf of industrialized nations.

Saudi Arabia's Mr. Naimi said two-thirds of oil exports from West Asia, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, go to East Asia. And these shipments account for 70% of East Asia's crude-oil imports.

In Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, some 60% of crude-oil shipments, or 4.5 million barrels a day, now head east to South Asia and East Asia. The kingdom has been signing deals to deliver even more oil to voracious energy consumers such as China and India, even as it expands oil output and invests in refineries at home and abroad.

"The show is not over yet," Prince Abdel Aziz bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's deputy oil minister, said at a news conference Tuesday. The roundtable gathering, he said, allows the participants to "know the future plans of each party" in the talks.

The huge amounts of money that East Asia pays for its rapidly rising oil use are in part being recycled to finance a burst of economic activity in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the largest economy in the Persian Gulf, is undertaking in the next few years projects valued at some $300 billion. Just this week, metals titan Alcan Inc., based in Montreal, signed a $7 billion agreement to jointly develop a huge aluminum complex in the kingdom.

More than $70 billion is being spent by the Saudis on expanding oil production and on joint-venture refineries with Japan's Sumitomo Chemical Co.; France's Total SA; ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp., of the U.S.; China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec; and others.

At a formal dinner welcoming the ministers, the Saudi hosts paid homage to the contiguous regions' diverse cuisines, with a succession of dishes ranging from Persian rice to Japanese soba noodles.

The increasing links between the Gulf and Asia could have deep geopolitical ramifications. The Middle East-Asian romancing at these roundtable conferences -- this is the second, after an inaugural meeting in New Delhi in 2005 -- contrasts with the hostility and suspicion between OPEC and the West in the oil-crisis-ridden 1970s. That standoff resulted in the creation of the IEA, whose primary purpose is to protect the rich countries of the West from supply crises by sharing emergency hoards of oil.

Copyright 2007, WSJ

===============
(8) MORE PERSPECTIVE ON RECENT HURRICANE ACTIVITY

Eric Berger, 2 May 2007

More perspective on recent hurricane activity

A few months ago I referenced a talk given by the National Hurricane Center's Chris Landsea on hurricanes and climate change, and whether the recent upsurge in activity is due to global warming or changes in the way we monitor hurricanes.

Landsea's argument, in contrast to the likes of Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Judith Curry and others, is that observers missed so many storms during the pre-satellite era that a re-analysis of past data might explain why hurricanes seem to have become more common and destructive in the last 30 years.

We missed so many past storms, in fact, that Landsea's research suggests historical Atlantic storm totals should be inflated by 3.2 named storms a year between the period of 1900-1965, and 1 storm between 1966 and 2002, to match the modern era.

He has now published this work in the American Geophysical Union's peer-reviewed EOS Transactions, but, so far, I've been unable to find so much as an abstract online. Landsea sent me a copy of his paper, however, and it includes the intriguing graphic below, which goes a long way toward making his point.

The point made by the graphic is pretty simple -- three-quarters of known hurricanes struck land in the pre-satellite era, whereas only 59 percent do so in the modern era. I think we all know the reason for this discrepancy is that, without satellites, past observers were missing sea-only hurricanes, or "fish storms."

The critical question is how much of an artifact all the new observational equipment has inserted into the Atlantic hurricane dataset. Landsea argues it's rather large, writing in the paper:

"Thus large, long-term 'trends' in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop. Obviously, better monitoring in recent decades will also increase our ability to accurately measure tropical cyclone intensity and duration, though these are beyond the scope of this article."

Others, such as Holland, say the "observational artifact" in past hurricane data is much smaller. But if Landsea is right, the present hurricane activity we've seen in the Atlantic is consistent with storm activity during the last century.

What is becoming clear with Landsea's new work, along with this recent article in Geophysical Research Letters, is that the debate over global warming and hurricane activity remains very far from being settled. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignoring the scientific literature.

==============
(9) AND FINALLY: THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG

The Guardian, 3 May 2007

An attempt to block the DVD release of The Great Global Warming Swindle displays contempt for free speech.

Francis Sedgemore

A recent reaction to a climate change denial documentary broadcast on primetime TV displays contempt for free speech and political ineptitude.

Bob Ward, a former press officer at the Royal Society, has published an open letter to Martin Durkin, maker of a documentary film broadcast recently on Channel 4 television that denies human influence on climate change. The letter is signed by a number of climate scientists and other academics with an interest in climate change.

I have no time for Durkin or his film, but take issue with Ward's letter, which, as reported by David Adam in the Guardian, demands that the DVD of Durkin's documentary be either withdrawn or corrected of its scientific errors.

The open letter states that " ... it is in the public interest for adequate quality control to be exercised over information that is disseminated to the public to ensure that it does not include major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence and interpretations of it by researchers."

If Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle DVD should be withdrawn or corrected, what about Al Gore's hyperbolic An Inconvenient Truth, soon to be distributed to all schools in England courtesy of Her Majesty's government?

Ward complains that Wag TV, the production company responsible for Durkin's film, will not be bound by any Ofcom ruling against Channel 4. Channel 4 is restricted by a code of conduct when it comes to what may be broadcast, but Wag TV as an independent, commercial entity is free to distribute the DVD, and I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.

We are all of us surrounded by wild claims, ideological nonsense, misrepresentations and downright lies. But it is no business of the state, or assemblies of the scientific great and good, to pronounce on what may or may not be published.

So challenge Durkin and show him up as the dissembler he undoubtedly is. But win the battle by force of argument. The data are on the side of those arguing that human beings are largely responsible for current climate change, and do not require backing up with bullying tactics.

Durkin is reported by Raphael Satter in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to have acknowledged two scientific errors, and said that these will be corrected in the DVD. That is an astute move by Durkin, but Ward et al demand that all the errors be removed, and then declare that if this were done, the documentary would fall to pieces.

I'm not so sure about this. Durkin could remove all the blatant scientific errors, and still make a superficial case based on issues that are not clear-cut, and over which there remains some scholarly debate.

Reality is ever thus, yet given the increasing predictive power of climate models backed by hard data, the majority view of climate change is the only credible one to take. But try explaining that to a mass audience. It can and should be done, but not in the combative rhetorical style beloved of the media and a number of scientific protagonists.

Ward is quoted in Satter's article as saying: "Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements. Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."

Strong stuff, but very, very wrong. Free speech does indeed extend to coming out with any old rubbish, and people - even highly intelligent ones - frequently do. Others are free to point out factual errors, and in doing so attempt to convince the masses of the truth.

Like Bob Ward, I complained to the broadcasting regulator about Durkin's documentary. I did so not because I object to the line taken by Durkin, but rather because the filmmaker offered no space for opinions contrary to his own. The documentary was pure polemic subsidised by the taxpayer.

But Ward is going much further than a complaint to Ofcom, both in his open letter and discussions surrounding it. Regarding the demand for "quality control", it is not clear who would be the adjudicators, and even if Ward et al are right about the science (I am convinced they are), this is not a proper way for scientists to behave.

My principal objection to Ward's open letter is that it shows contempt for free speech, and an unwarranted lack of confidence in the ability of the public to think critically. A secondary objection is that it displays political ineptitude, and may prove counterproductive.

Copyright 2007, The Guardian