Stephen Harper on climate change:

“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.” (Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2002)

The UK government's meteorological branch, the Met Office, issued a statement yesterday entitled Global Warming Goes On:

Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear – the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise... longer term analyses have shown that current warming is being caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases which have accumulated in the atmosphere and intensified the greenhouse effect by absorbing more of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean.

This long-term warming trend is set to continue as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase. Inevitably this will lead to further impacts on our lives and the world’s natural ecosystems. Heatwaves and droughts are likely to become more prevalent; snow cover is projected to continue to diminish; and sea-ice to continue to shrink.

Global average temperature anomaly from 1975 to 2007, relative to the 1961-1990 average. The black line shows the annual figure. The red line shows the trend over the full 33 years.The blue lines show the varying rate of the trend over 10-year periods.

For Head In Sand Harper:

The methane time bomb (Sept. 23 2008, The Independent)

Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.

They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

Its only a matter of time before Bully Baird seizes upon this, blames climate change on the Russians and the Conservatives will reiterate past deceptions they've deployed implying CO2 isn't an issue; its a natural by-product of breathing, and that plants will only grow better.

Its no secret - long time readers know I regard Harper as the most dangerous politician in the country and that I lament the passing of the Progressive Conservative party. The fundamental difference between the two is the PC Party was strongly pro-federalism and fundamentally centrist and moderate at its core.

The Conservative party believes in a different view of federalism where the central government is made to be as weak as possible, and their overall approach is only centrist and moderate in a superficial sense designed to last only for electoral purposes. Once a majority is in Harper's hand, we can look forward to decidedly radical change.

So its clear I can't support the CPC while Harper and his cronies are at the helm. Yet I won't poke only at them. Last week I indicated it was time to talk about Layton and the NDP so without further adieu...

You'll forgive me for critiquing Layton first through my jaded Harper lends but its true: my principal issue with Layton is he is so fixated on trying to help Stephen Harper destroy the Liberal Party that he's perfectly willing to sell his soul to the devil (yes, that would be Harper) damn the repercussions.

Sure, I realize Layton's strategy isn't a one-election gambit. But really, does he believe the Liberals won't come back stronger next time? It will happen. In the meantime I shudder to think that an effective Layton campaign might gain him a marginal number of additional seats yet lose the country to a Harper majority.

Still, this fixation of mine with Layton's short term / long term strategy aside, my real issue with the federal (and provincial) NDP is their climate change policy. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. Dan Garner, Ottawa Citizen

When Layton talks about "big polluters" he conveniently leaves out one of the largest... you and me. Avoiding talking about our own personal responsibility is a populist tactic that Harper employs. I'd hoped Jack was above that.

I'm all in favour of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, seeing both as a necessary component of a workable greenhouse gas / migration away from fossil fuel strategy. We have to change our behaviour. If one really believes that climate change is a pressing serious global issue then one's politics will be informed by that belief. The NDP plan for the environment is only a start because it doesn't focus attention on personal responsibility and in that manner their plan is as bad as the flunking Conservative plan.

Here the Green and Liberal party policies make more sense. They are both designed as if they really believe it. Layton goes part way there while the Conservative plan goes nowhere. The Sierra Club has done a platform review (PDF) of the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, and New Democrat parties. All parties get a passing grade except for the Conservatives who flunk right out with an F.

At this point in the election the environment isn't getting the prominence it should, thanks in no small part by the ruthlessly brilliant (and un-Canadian in my opinion) Conservative stream of attacks designed to cut that leg out from under Dion. Had the NDP also joined the carbon tax bandwagon, this would have pushed Harper into a corner. However I think Ms. May stands a chance at turning the page back to environmental issues.

If that does happen, both Harper and Layton have something to fear. Provincial NDP leader Carole James also has, quite wrongly in my opinion, put a lot on the line in opposing Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.

Eventually all modern economies in all jurisdictions will end up putting a real price on carbon. Even Stephen Harper will be forced to deal with this at some point. Any leader that says they will not put a price on carbon is woefully uninformed or lying. They all know they need to do it, that international pressure will one day force their hand. Best be honest with people now and get going.

Yes, I realize being honest with people is frequently a losing electoral strategy. Still, as inept a campaigner as Dion appears to be, I give him high marks for being committed enough to the issue that he's doing the impossible: trying to sell during a highly competitive election a difficult to understand policy that includes the word "tax". Maybe an advertisement of some regular folks having a coffee in a doughnut shop, calculating their Green Shift tax savings on an envelope... might make more headway with the average voter.

On the subject of energy taxation, the following article by Dan Garner, published today in the Ottawa Citizen, is a worthy read. Please go on past this excerpt:

Harper economics: Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. More >

Washington State University researchers recently completed a study concluding that consumption patterns, and human population growth, are the principal factors underlying our species' impact on the planet's ecology. Driving the Human Ecological Footprint, by Thomas Dietz, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York, puts the spotlight on population growth and affluence as the principle factors driving the growth in human-caused environmental stressors.

This comparative analysis shows that population size and affluence are the principal drivers of anthropogenic environmental stressors, while other widely postulated drivers (e.g. urbanization, economic structure, age distribution) have little effect. Similarly, increased education and life expectancy do not increase environmental stressors, suggesting that some aspects of human well-being can be improved with minimal environmental impact. Projecting to 2015, we suggest that increases in population and affluence will likely expand human impact on the environment by over one-third. Countering these driving forces would require increases in the efficiency of resource use of about 2% per year. More >

Hat tip: EnergyBulletin.net

Eleven of the warmest years of the past one hundred and fifty seven years have occurred in the past thirteen years, reports the BBC from the Bali climate change conference. 2007 placed among the top ten years despite the an overall cooling influence this year resulting from La Nina conditions.

Warmest 10 Years
1998     0.52C
2005     0.48C
2003     0.46C
2002     0.46C
2004     0.43C
2006     0.42C
2007     0.41C*
2001     0.40C
1997     0.36C
1995     0.28C

* provisional

In related news, at the Bali international climate change conference wrapping up today our country was awarded a record number of Fossil of the Day awards, an unwanted distinction doled out to those countries most seen as obstructing progress in climate change negotiations.

What a performance for Conservative Environment Minister John Baird, the all-blather no action minister and Stephen "Hot Air" Harper.

Wanting to look at solar irradiance against global temperature anomalies in more detail (than in my last article on climate) and over a longer time period, I prepared a chart comparing global temperatures to solar irradiance over the period of 843 to present times.

Solar radiance and temperature data going back hundreds of years is obviously reconstructed information, interpreted and extrapolated based on other factors ranging from tree-rings to sun spot observations to particle measurements in ice cores and so on. As you can see, there is a significant difference in the data sets (Bard vs Lean); the chart I prepared in a prior article contains only solar irradiance from direct observation which, while more accurate, spans only 30 some odd years. Sunspot records have been kept for much longer, and date back hundreds of years.

Click on image for full-size chart

NASA (source of the balance of these images; check link for data and discussion) analysis meets up with that from the IPCC: while there is a solar impact on temperature change, solar activity is but one of many causative factors which can not on its own explain the temperature anomalies we are experiencing.

NASA pegs the influence of the sun as approximately 1/5th that of CO₂, which is more or less in line with conclusions made by both the U.S. NOAA NCDC and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

If you've not already done so, I recommend reading the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (PDF), a readable piece published as part of its latest report, released 17 November 2007, which helps put context around the science they are relying upon to drive their policymaking agenda.

In an installment coming soon, I'll try to outline where I am going with all of this.

The attached charts represent compilation of data I gathered while doing some policy research recently. My goal was to obtain and present available data on:

• Fossil fuel production
• CO2 observations in the atmosphere
• CO2 observations from polar ice samples
• CO2 emissions
• Solar radiance observed
• Sunspot counts
• Global temperature anomalies from mean

The purpose of this review was to establish a baseline set of information which political policy discussions could refer to. I did not set out to compile these charts to prove or disprove a particular hypothesis nor to validate or invalidate a particular policy position.

Some data sets I was only able to locate for certain periods; the attached charts show a modern view from the mid 1950's to 2006, as well as an industrial age perspective from 1880 through to 2006. I also reviewed data spanning longer time periods but wanted to include in the charts data which covered similar spans of time. Links will be provided herein and in coming articles.

I examined and utilized data available from many sources and countries ranging from the leading per capita energy consumer, the United States and its Department of Energy CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) to the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Raw data is available by the bucket load, although in some cases (methane for example) the data is not nearly as plentiful as other data sets.

I have a background in data analysis, primarily from a financial markets perspective. My experience has taught me the importance of recognizing trends; without introducing opinion into the discussion, it is possible to recognize the following:

1. CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is increasing in a well established upward trend

2. Fossil fuel production follows a similar trend

3. Fossil fuel production and CO2 observation trends do correlate with temperature anomaly increases observed over the past forty to fifty years.

4. Solar radiance and sunspot cycles do not strongly correlate with the increase in temperature anomalies. The U.S. NCDC further adds:

   With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. (Source)

Data sources: The time series depicted in the charts is annual; some data sets were provided in finer resolutions (days or months) and in those cases I consolidated the available data into a simple annual average.

1. UN IPCC
2. U.S. CDIAC
3. U.S. NOAA NCDC (National Climatic Data Center)
4. U.S. NOAA NGDC Solar Irradiance Data
5. U.S. EPA Methane Information site
6. GreenHouse Gas Online: CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide 1000AD-Current

One chart referenced no longer available - 2008.10.15

This is the year of climate-change awareness, and politicians all over the globe are coming to recognize that their futures will in large part be decided by how they are perceived as acting on this issue.

Harper has so far been able to deflect much of the attention away from his own party's shortcomings - which are real and substantial - on the file. Yet the climate-change issue remains Stephen Harper's Achilles heel.