This week I had the privilege of hearing Professor Fred Singer, the noted anthroprogenic global warming (AWG) “sceptic” speak at a lunch time session at the think-tank Civitas. Professor Singer is well known for his views and has been much maligned by the extreme wing of the climate change movement, people he labelled “warmistas”.
In the presentation Professor Singer went through the latest scientific evidence on global warming. The conclusions that he came to were:
- there is no evidence of global warming
- the IPCC is finished.
The report behind Professor Singer’s remarks, which is an update on the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (2008), can be found at:
Without diving into the detailed science and numerous charts the summary points are:
· There is a substantial disparity between observed atmospheric trends and those derived from the IPCC climate models.
· The chaotic variability of climate models, i.e. the fact that you get different results every time you run them, can be overcome by running the models five, ten or more times. In practice IPCC models have one, two and never more than five runs.
· Independent climate data does not verify the reported rise in surface temperature between 1979 and 1997.
· Finally, there is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Solar activity may be a major cause of decadal scale climate change. This is supported by analysis of 14C and 18O in stalagmites which suggests a strong association between the solar activity and temperature. As Professor Singer says, we can agree that the temperature on Earth is not likely to affect the sun’s output so in this case correlation does suggest causation!
The over-reliance on complex models, the disparities between models and observations, an interest in astronomy, and the fact that when I started in the energy field scientists were worrying about global cooling, have always led me to be an AGW sceptic. Some of my thoughts were expressed in a Matrix research note New Energy & Clean Tech Review (27 October 2010) and an unpublished piece in January 2010. The idea that we understand the atmosphere, and its interactions with the sun, well enough to predict temperature rises for the next fifty to hundred years is absurd. We just don’t know enough. Starting from an astronomical perspective, rather than a meterological one, we know that a) the sun is very big (just to remind you how big – 110 times the diameter the Earth and a power output 27,000 billion times the average power usage of global society) b) the sun is dynamic and c) we really don’t know very much about it and its interactions with the Earth (a good argument for increased space science spending!).
It seems to me that what has been happening over the last few years can be illuminated by referring to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm model of how science changes. Kuhn describes how in any time period work in science is dominated by a prevailing paradigm and most work is carried out within that paradigm and therefore supports it. Eventually cracks appear in the paradigm and heated debate (not necessarily based on the science) begins with the “establishment” working to suppress any research that undermines the paradigm (think Climategate). Finally enough evidence is produced that the prevailing paradigm is over-thrown and a new one comes into force. Examples include:
· The detection of the ozone hole by satellite data was initially put down by established scientists in the field to “instrument error” until it was confirmed by ground based equipment operated by the British Antarctic Survey.
· X-raying of pregnant woman gained popularity in the 1950s based on the idea that below a certain threshold level of exposure to radiation there was no effect on health. Following the rise of X-raying pregnant women there was an increase in infant leukaemia. When this link was first identified it was denied by the establishment, the data discredited and not followed up. The epidemiologist who first identified the problem, Alice Sewart, was regarded as a maverick and rubbished by the establishment.
The climate change paradigm came into force very quickly compared to normal paradigms, aided by several factors including; a natural human fascination with catastrophes, governments looking for a new enemy in the post Cold War world and business finding new ways to make money such as renewable energy subsidies and carbon trading.
Fred Singer is adamant that the IPCC is finished. I agree but the situation is more complicated. The AGW paradigm is clearly deeply flawed and public and political support for the global warming agenda is waning. Unlike other scientific paradigms, AGW is overlaid with; an international bureaucracy, government bureaucracies and legislation in most countries, subsidy programmes for renewable energy in many countries, educational systems, hundreds of NGOs devoted to the cause, and large pools of capital assembled to invest in renewable energy to take advantage returns secured by subsidies and regulations – a governmental, social and financial paradigm. This huge inverted pyramid of vested interests sits on the point of climate science and right now it looks like this small foundation is crumbling. However, the size and power of the vested interests means that whatever the science says it will take time to change direction. Politicians find it hard to admit they were wrong and they will only do so if driven by public opinion, a public opinion that in the UK at least (and probably in most countries), does not to want to pay the high cost that current policies will force onto energy consumers.
What does this mean for clean technology investors? It does not mean that we should stop looking for cleaner and cheaper sources of meeting our needs for energy services; heat, light, motive power etc. We are facing many other global and national energy challenges particularly around security of supply and the rising demands of developing countries. Any technology, however, that relies on subsidies cannot be sustainable. The use of conventional wind and solar technologies may continue to grow and in certain markets, particularly where power supply or grid infrastructure is limited, may make economic sense. Elsewhere we are likely to see a gradual dismantling of subsidies although in most markets I wouldn’t expect retro-active changes – that is too damaging to the general investment climate. I should say I would also advocate removal of all subsidies for all types of energy including oil, coal and nuclear – let’s have a truly free energy market. Even if energy prices rise due to supply constraints producers of existing wind and solar technologies will need to aggressively innovate to bring costs down or go out of business.
There is a bright future for new clean technologies based on real innovation that bring costs down to competitive levels. I see great potential for advanced solar technologies and of course, above all, for energy efficiency which is usually NPV positive at existing energy prices and not subsidy dependent. Similarly there will be huge opportunities for new energy storage technologies that can achieve cost levels that allow them to offer services such as balancing into the electricity system, support deployment of cost-effective intermittent technologies and price arbitrage. Any clean tech proposition, whether energy related or not, has to either offer significant cost savings compared to the conventional technology or provide new and better services – those are the real drivers of technical change – not subsidies. Clean tech innovations have to be cheaper, better and have a positive effect on the environment.
Steven Fawkes
8th September 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment