|
The
Yukon
Protocol ... by
Freddy Hutter, TrendLines Research (2009/8/23)
Marsh Lake, Yukon
Canada ~ Most of the cumulative co2 in the atmosphere today was
contributed by the developed nations. From this point on, the
greater of emissions will come from China & India. Their is a
shared responsibility to address this unique problem to avert a
deterioration in global climate.
 It
is apparent from this chart (by Carmen Difiglio) that the USA, EU,
Japan, China & India had together contributed 700 million tonnes of
energy related co2 emissions from 1900 to 2005. It seems
ethically unreasonable to prevent developing nations (DNs) from the
same deforestation and primary industries that aided modern
societies to get where they are, The actions within DNs that
are needed to prevent erosion of global climate as we know it come
with an economic price. Since it takes more than moral
suasion, DNs could be moved to better practices by financial
subsidy.
In that regard,
Freddy Hutter of TrendLines Research is proposing the
Yukon Protocol. It
incorporates the creation of a Climate Change Mitigation Fund that
would be available for DNs to draw upon to "green up" their
infrastructure. An IPCC panel would arbitrate disbursements
from the CCM Fund at their discretion and meeting its priorities.
Qualifying projects could include preservation of rainforests and
partial subsidization of non-fossil power generation (say $1
Billion/GW of installed nuclear, solar, wind & hydro).
The annual
sourcing of the Fund would be a levy on all UN countries that is
equal to their pro rata share of the cumulative energy related co2
emissions to 2005. Taking the charted nations as example,
based on the USA's 310-mt emissions, America would pay 44% of the
global allotment to the fund ... say $31 Billion for its initial
levy. The EU would contribute 33% of the global allotment
based on its 230-mt of emissions ... $23 Billion in this example.
Japan's 50-mt 7% emissions would generate a $5 Billion levy.
China's 90-mt 13% of emissions generates a $9 Billion levy.
India's 20-mt 3% emissions generates a $2 Billion levy. As
other nations agree to the Protocol and are added to the chart, the
preliminary ratios and respective levies would be similarly reduced.
Update 2009/9/23:
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown came on board today with his
commitment to the Yukon Protocol principle. In today's NY
Times,
he will advocate for a $100 Billion
fund to be sourced by 2020. Brown is in NY for the annual UN
Head of State addresses.
by
Freddy Hutter, revised 2009/8/15
For
the last million years, Earth has been in a glacial cycle that is
orbitally forced and known as the Milankovich Cycle. It is
about 175,000 yrs and is one of about seven orbital and solar cycles
that have major effects on Earth's temp. The harmonics of those
cycles determines whether the amplitudes are high or low.
Volcanoes also play a minor part. In the graph below, it is
seen that as the temp drops as each glaciation progresses and sea
levels drop 125 metres (400') due to lack of meltwater, the lowered
ocean volume/temp/volume impedes the absorption of co2 (which
increases in the atmosphere) and allows ocean bed methane hydrates
to percolate to the surface and into the atmosphere as well.
These co2/methane bombs occur very quickly and bring an immediate
end to the ice age cycle and an interglacial era commences.
The mid latitude glaciers melt, the oceans rise back to normal
levels and the temp commences a slow steady decline as the cycle
repeats:
Earth's temp had been on a downward trend for 8,000 years:
And
aside from the Medieval Warm Period anomaly, that pattern was
consistent until the 1976 GHG anomaly as seen in this 2006 NRC
correction of the former and controversial "hockey stick"
presentation:
Nat'l Research
Council
-
Instead of GHGs, most
climatologists were watching the strongest solar flux. This 10Be
(Beryllium) analysis confirms tree ring
proxies that Earth has just come thru the warmest cycle due to solar
flare effect in a thousand years. The Peak was
in 1980:
-
-
-
10Be proxy
analysis
-
|
It appears to
TrendLines Research that the main factor behind this enhanced solar activity
was the harmonic of three major solar cycles having a joint
maximums in the 1980 vicinity. There was a culmination
of the 98 yr period Gleissberg Cycle (as shown in the graph below
illustrating sunspot activity ... a proxy for solar ray flux)
just as an apparent 220 yr cycle and the common 11 yr
cycle were in the finishing stages. |
|
Another intriguing component of solar activity is the effects of time between
cycles. Altho solar maximums are known to occur every 11 years, in
actuality the span has varied from 7 and 17 years betw cycles. There
exists a correlation betw the groupings of the short cycles and higher avg
temp's on Earth and lower temp's when there are groupings of the longer
cycles. These Armagh Cycles seem to have a 200-yr cycle similar to the
that shown above. The question arises whether the global heating is
associated with the increased total activity, as above, or the increased
frequency of activity as below. Or, is it a combination ... where a series
of heavy duty maximums often happens in short groupings? This view of the cumulative effect of
solar ray flux by looking at its moving average can be compared to the working
of your furnace: short cycles are like the furnace coming on often and for
short periods as opposed to long sessions which are needed after the house has
been allowed to cool down each time. Technicians will tell you that it
takes much less energy to keep the house warm with short cycling. |
Put this all together in a global perspective
and temp's are up 0.6C in the last 100yrs. That's what
all the fuss is about. Just over half a degree. And everything from
forest fires to heat waves to tornadoes to janet jackson's lifestyle are being
blamed on this minute global warming. No scientist worth their salt
believes that. The media and alarmists often take interannual weather
anomalies out of
context when discussing natural disasters revealing their inability to
differentiate weather from climate.
This chart
illustrates the geographic temp variances over the 1981 to 2006 time frame ...
0.45C overall
nasa 2007
At
left, it is seen that since 1981 there has been virtually no temp change at the
South Pole; just under half a degree at the Equator; and almost a 2C rise at the
North Pole. Both these graphics illustrate the deviation
from the 1951-80 era AVG TEMP.
|
Below is an
excerpt for North America from the Hadley Centre's
2004 GCM scenario for 2100AD
using the IPCC SRES A1B scenario. This incorporates the premise of a 7
Billion population, 3% increased global and North American precipitation, very
high economic growth, and high co2 emissions. Sea levels would rise 60cm
by 2100 and another 50cm by 2200AD. The B1 scenario is more likely, with
lower emissions assumed due to oil/gas/coal depletion, but the A1B model below shows what we
might call an outcome more worse than probable: |
Temp in C
More about models and scenarios
New & Recent Climate Trend:
But
in 1977, normality of nature was altered by Human activity.
Scientists found evidence of ozone depletion over the South Pole and
their alerts to the global community resulted in the Montreal
Protocol and a worldwide effort to reduce CFC emissions into the
atmosphere. Today the ozone hole is manageable and emissions
are reduced to less than 1950 levels.
The
CFC episode caused scientists to keep an avid vigil on atmospheric
health and it was shortly noticed that GHG emissions, particularly
co2 (carbon dioxide) & ch4 (methane) were increasing dramatically
rather than continuing their normal down cycle within an
interglacial period. Similarly, temp was increasing rather
than falling as had been the general case for 8,000 years.
While methane has stabilized and is in fact dropping, co2 is
increasing in a correlation with fossil fuel burning. The
graph below illustrates the extraordinary exponential growth of co2
& methane over the last three decades:
The
challenge is for the USA, Europe, China, India & ROW community to
expand on the Herculean effort to resolve the CFC danger and apply
that same success in efforts to combat GHG emissions:
The
undeniable culprits are our dependence on fossil fuels. They
have allowed modern continents to "go forth and multiply" and allow
progress of our cultures, but we are presently finding out the
potential terrible cost that must now be mitigated:
Research by Jim Hansen of NASA indicates that the chances of holding
Earth to a 1C temp rise with a 450-ppm limit on co2 is quite slim.
Holding temp's under 3C by 2100 with a 585-ppm co2 limit depends on
oil & gas production attaining a plateau mode and "stretching
reserves" rather than evolution of the conventional peak and decline
model. Fortunately, this scenario is based on the liberal
reserve base and reserve growth of oil and gas within the USGS World
Petroleum Assessment 2000. That was 1676-gb Oil Reserves and
about 669-Gb of Reserve Growth. Natural Gas is similarly USGS
defined. For coal, Hansen uses the even more liberal IPCC
estimation of proven reserves rather than that of EIA.
The
graph below also addresses the 1000-Gb of reserve attributed to
non-conventional Oil. By Hansen's calculations, the 585-ppm
co2 limit is maintained by burning only conventional oil and natural
gas reserves and and the allowance for reserve growth. The
study assumes that all emissions from non-conventional oil
(heavy/tar sands), nat'l gas (methane hydrates) & post 2010 coal
plants will be sequestered:
Sea
level rose 20-cm (8") in the 20th Century. It will rise 35-cm
(14") in the 21st Century. And another 55cm (22") by 2300.
In 2006, NASA realized that the IPCC target of 800ppm co2 (the one
that shoots off the top of the infamous graphs) was a miscalculation
(but that didn't stop Al Gore from using it!). James Hansen
revealed that co2 level of 381-ppm would probably rise to (only) 585 by 2100 as Global Temp
increases 2.8-C (4-F) by the end of this Century:
 hansen
2006, nasa
Nov 11 2007 - (revised 2007/12/12)
NASA's James Hansen has since cautioned that Global atmospheric co2 should
be kept below 450ppm to avoid crossing the tipping point of rapid
climate change. Based on the EIA Business as
Usual Scenario (BAU) with its Peak Oil date of 2016 @ 96-mbd,
it appeared that the planet was headed for a 585ppm co2 Peak in
2125:
And, TrendLines Research analysis of the present trends for both Global & Mauna
Loa Hawaii co2 data concurs as the trends are headed for a point
somewhere between 520 & 680 (as seen by the yellow and coral
extrapolations in the chart below).
Our analysis shows that co2 growth is
increasing (annual increases have risen from less than 1ppm annually
to 2ppm/yr). But it is also seen that the 16 Greenhouse Gases as
tracked by the NASA GHG Index are growing more slowly (1% annually
rather than 2%/yr) thanx to headway in the methane and CFC fronts.
There is more good news. The updated NASA study (Hansen/Kharecha)
of fossil fuels contribution is based partly on a 2003 EIA/Wood
study that forecasts Peak Oil occurring at the rate of 96-mbd in
2016. Our latest 2007 compilation of the
Depletion Scenarios
presently has an AVG indicating Peak Oil is postponed 'til 2013 and a
lesser 93-mbd Peak Rate. With this softer fossil fuel
contribution coupled with mitigation initiatives in the coal fired
power generation sector, recent coal reserves data and renewed interest in nuclear generation,
co2 models should indicate a co2 Peak of 425ppm in 2025
(fuchsia trend):
Nov 21 2007 - (revised 2008/5/5) Unfortunately, a lower
and more rapid peak is not the famed silver bullet for Climate
Change woes. Note that while atmospheric co2 levels track
upwards with emissions, they do not follow the post peak downward
path. By 2100, co2 will have declined to only 350ppm ...
taking us back to 1988 levels.
Most co2 remains for a hundred years
and traces linger for almost a millennium. Below we see co2
peaking in 2025 at 408ppm. The premise for this target is the
imminent peaking of the fossil fuel forcings:
Peak Oil in 2016.
Peak Coal in 2025. Peak Nat'l Gas in 2035.
The infamous Al Gore graph spike (the
stepladder one) is pure fantasy. That absurd 800ppm peak was based on
an upward spike in co2 associated with the 1998 El Niño. It
can be identified on the Mauna Loa chart above. The 2001 IPCC
Report, while well intentioned, applied an extrapolated exponential
increase in co2 and temp's based on that anomaly. Observations
over the subsequent 10 years have shown that while the co2 emission
rate is indeed increasing, it is not at the alarming rate suggested
by scientists and social engineers of the IPCC 2001 era.
A further development has been the
realization that the GDP/Energy Demand scenarios within IPCC 2001
were overly optimistic in the sense that they assumed that such
growth accompanying increases in population and rising disposable
incomes in the developing world (mostly China & India), cannot be
fueled by fossil fuels. There isn't enuf oil, coal or nat'l
gas left in the ground to feed the magnificent projected Demand. The target
growth will likely still take place, but instead will be
accommodated by efficiencies, conservation and nuclear generated
power.
So one must ask "where is the
dramatic increase in co2 that alarmists were claiming?" Simple
answer: The 800ppm projections in IPCC 2001 were mostly based
on extrapolations of severe co2 accumulations due to the record El
Nino of 1998. Once levels subsided, the newer extrapolations
are showing that sub-700ppm levels are more probable. Further,
even those recent 450 to 700 scenarios are based on crude oil production peaking
in 2037 at 101-mbd. Our own TrendLines Peak Oil Depletion
Scenarios AVG says Peak Oil is more likely in 2019 at a much reduced
91-mbd. This would translate to a 2025 peak of co2 @ 408ppm in
our most recent study.
here is a real time view of co2:
Methane concentrations in Barrow Alaska:
Global Growth Rate of Methane in atmosphere on downward trend:
Another group of alarmists are
the camp espousing that the melting tundra will unleash lethal
concentrations of Methane. Well, we all know how warm the
Arctic was when the Vikings came to Labrador. Here's a chart
showing the absence of a spike then or in any hot spell since the
Medieval Warm Period:
There are many rumours of ocean sea level rising out-of-control.
Below we see eustatic sea levels rose 2mm/yr or 20cm (12") thru the 20th Century.
GWA
Yet when we improve
the resolution to view the last 16 years, it is clear that the rate
of rise has only adjusted to 3mm/yr. Note that the
2006/2007/2008/2009 alarmism
surrounding polar melt water is not reflected in this
presentation. Since 2005, the long term rate of increase for sea level
has ranged from 2.84mm/yr to 3.33mm/yr, thus projecting an ocean
rise of 28 to 33 cm (12") by 2100 AD. The data slope shows no
dramatic growth rate is in play as the McDoomers claim. It
is going to be quite hard to flood the third storey of Manhattan
skyscrapers at this
rate. What was Al Gore thinking?
|
![[New!]](images/smallnew.gif){kind=small}
Freddy
Hutter of TrendLines Research proposes the 
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif){kind=small}