Jennifer Marohasy: September 2007 Archives

« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »

September 30, 2007

Exxon Mobile Saves Tigers? A Note from Ann Novek

Brendan Moyle has previously provided us with alternative ways to save tigers from extinction.

Now the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies states that tiger parts are not necessary for traditional medicines, and alternatives are available and effective. Can this statement from the organisation save tigers?

Excerpts from an opinion letter to the Los Angeles Times , by Vinod Thomas, director general of the Independent Evaluation Group at the World Bank states :

“How has the tiger's fate come to this? The foremost reason is poaching to meet demand for tiger products used in traditional medicines in China and other parts of East Asia. The other crucial factor is the continuous loss of tiger habitat, which is down by about 40% across India in the last decade, along with which has disappeared much of its prey.

"To make matters worse, there now is relentless pressure from tiger farmers in East Asia to legalize the trade in the bones, fur, paws, penis and teeth of their animals. On the surface, the case made for legalizing the sale of tiger parts is beguiling. By flooding the market with parts from farm-raised tigers, it's argued, prices will plummet, reducing the profitability of poaching. A cited analogy: People don't hunt wild turkeys for Thanksgiving when supermarkets overflow with farmed supplies.

"But to reduce poaching, those who raise tigers in captivity would need to undercut the cost of supplying the parts from wild tigers. That's improbable. Poaching in India, by poisoning or with simple steel traps, costs less than $100 a tiger (plus transport and other costs). Raising one in captivity -- even three or more to a cage -- costs about $3,000.

"Conservationists warn that legalizing the tiger trade would be the death knell for tigers in the wild. That's because it will always be cheaper to hunt tigers, and poaching will be less risky if poached parts can be easily laundered -- that is, passed off as coming from captive-bred animals”.

“What now?

"It is essential to deal with poaching and the demand for tiger parts in traditional medicine immediately. The World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies states that tiger parts are not necessary for traditional medicines, and alternatives are available and effective. So there are solid reasons to strongly enforce the international ban on the tiger trade, and for China to keep its 1993 domestic ban securely in place.”

“As the symbol of countries, teams and corporations, the tiger has helped sell beer, sports goods and breakfast cereal. Now it could use some high-profile reciprocity. Support from private corporations -- such as Exxon Mobil's Save the Tiger Fund -- as well as the Asian business diaspora and international agencies could prove decisive. But the moment for action is now. Without immediate financial and political commitments, it will be too late to save this mesmerizing animal”

So can the tigers survive with the help of Exxon Mobile , that Greenpeace has proclaimed as the “Criminal # 1 of the Planet”?

Ann Novek
Sweden

Posted by jennifer at 07:55 PM | Comments (6)

Another One Bites The Dust

VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public'

Excerpt: Gov. Kaine had warned Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views.

"I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction."

Less Visibility in Store After Boss's Departure

Global Warming Views Drew Criticism

By Jackie Spinner Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page B03

Maybe Patrick Michaels should apply to Soros for funding to protect free speech!?

Posted by Paul at 07:34 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

An Inconvenient Youth

Wall Street Journal

'Mom, we gotta buy a hybrid!' Kids are becoming the green movement's stealth weapon, pressuring their parents on everything from lightbulbs to composting. Inside the push to create the littlest eco-warriors.

Inconvenient Youths: Eco-warrior kids go after parents for 'environmental offenses'

Excerpt: In households across the country, kids are going after their parents for environmental offenses, from using plastic cups to serving non-grass-fed beef at the dinner table. Many of these kids are getting more explicit messages about becoming eco-warriors at school and from popular books and movies. This year's global-warming documentary "Arctic Tale," for instance, closes with a child actor telling kids, "If your mom and dad buy a hybrid car, you'll make it easier for polar bears to get around."

Kids on field trips to the Garbage Museum in Stratford, Conn., are sent home with instructions to recycle cans, bottles, newspaper and junk mail. The museum hosted 388 schools visits last year, 42 more than the year before. At one California elementary school, kids are given environmental activities to do with their families -- including one where parents have to yank out the refrigerator and clean the coils to make it more energy efficient.

"Kids are putting pressure on their parents, and this is a very good thing," says Laurie David, a producer of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Ms. David is the co-author of a new children's book, "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," which urges kids, among other things, to petition mom and dad for recycled-fiber toilet paper.

"I know how powerful my kids are," she says. "When they want something, forget it -- all the resistance in the world isn't going to help you."

Inconvenient Youths: Eco-warrior kids go after parents for 'environmental offenses'

Posted by Paul at 07:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Ecological Impacts of Electricity in the Daintree

"How do you think the unique fauna of the Daintree rainforest will fare against anthropogenic global warming?"

The inquiry was put to me last night at the conclusion of a nocturnal wildlife spotting tour and such questions are becoming more frequent.

I answered that I understood that the greatest losses suffered by the inhabitants of the ancient forests of Gondwana were brought about by global cooling and drying via circumpolar currents derived from the break-up of the super-continents; particularly the separation of Australia from Antarctica. A warmer, wetter climate should favour an expansion of tropical rainforest habitat.

Earlier in the day I was dealing with another concern that had previously compelled government intervention to purportedly protect the important ecological values of the Daintree from the adverse impacts of non-renewable electricity generation. On the 7th May 2000, the Queensland Government adopted an amended electricity policy for the area north of the Daintree River:

The extension of mains electricity supply was opposed and, as an alternative, the use of stand-alone power systems was to be supported. (Right of appeal: Not applicable).

The Daintree Futures Study 2000, states (p 99): Underlying this policy … is the belief that renewable energy generation is desirable in the Daintree as a demonstration of commitment to sustainable energy development and sensitivity to the special values of the area.

It had become apparent that our household reliance upon engine generators had increased significantly over the previous six months and solar contribution had declined through the impact of a lightning strike. I had dreaded this inevitability; large, prominent metallic structures strategically positioned to optimize unobstructed access to sunlight (and lightning). Tell-tale burns were revealed on the newer, more powerful 738 watt string of the four-string array.

The Daintree Futures Study 2000, states (p 99): Businesses in the Daintree Cape Tribulation area are currently not eligible for any subsidy programs for RAPS systems. This is despite a statement by the Minister for Mines and Energy in October, 1999 that, “A commercial rebate scheme is also to be introduced”. The lack of a subsidy has likely hampered economic development, as businesses have had to fund substantial capital to establish their generation plant, and higher operating and maintenance costs. The variable cost to generate power privately via diesel generators will be in the order of 25-35 cents/kWh compared to grid subsidised power costs of 10 cents/kWh. Businesses such as hotels and accommodation facilities will have annual power demand of between 50 000kWh and 1GWh per annum (any reasonable size business would have a power demand of 50 000kWh per annum or greater). The additional annual cost, adjusted for company tax, of self-generation versus grid will be in the range of $5 000 to $167 000.

The Queensland Remote Area Power Supplies (RAPS) Trials 1999 (Walden & Behrendorff), summarized data in the fastidiously maintained Daintree Cape Tribulation sites at 82-3% reliant upon engine generation.

Indeed, over the past seven years, not only have fuel prices skyrocketed, but residents and business-owners within the Daintree Cape Tribulation community have carried the cost of supply, maintenance and replacement of components, at as much as twenty-times the total cost per kilowatt-hour of other Queensland consumers.

It is incongruous, to say the least, that the excision from the distribution area was for the stated purpose of conforming with the government’s environmental policies, when its consequences include hundreds of concurrently running engine generators with their noise, fuel and oil spills. For a community with a regulated conservation management responsibility, generators simply do not make the grade.

Posted by neil at 06:50 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

Greenhouse 2007, 2-5 October 2007, The Hilton, Sydney

"GREENHOUSE 2007 is a unique opportunity to hear the latest findings in climate science, and discuss the implications for Australia and the region.

Approximately 50 of the world's leading climate researchers will attend, including John Church, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Jerry Meehl and Kevin Trenberth.

We are also pleased to confirm that Dr Jim Peacock, Australia's Chief Scientist, and Prof. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, will be presenting at GREENHOUSE 2007."

Program here.

Palaeontologist Tim Flannery will also be there.

As a UK taxpayer, I expect I'll be helping to foot the bill for the likes of Phil Jones and Sir David King. Colloid Chemist Sir David is perhaps best remembered for his claims that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, and Antarctica will become the only habitable place on Earth, thanks to global warming.

Thanks to Luke Walker for alerting me to Greenhouse 2007.

Posted by Paul at 01:43 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

Bush Goes Green (Sort Of)

White House Press Release

President Bush Participates in Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to the State Department. I'm honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here.

Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world's response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world's major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.

Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.

This progress points us in the right direction, but we've got to do more. So before this year's G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today's meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Applause.)

Still awake?

James Hansen: “I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros"

Hansen wrote: “I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP [Government Accountability Project] did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000 (that's a lot of Mercedes). Whatever amount they got, I do not see anything wrong with it. They are a non-profit organization. Seems like a great idea to have some good lawyers trying to protect free speech.

By the way, in case anybody finds out that George Soros INTENDED to send me $720,000 but could not find my address, please let me know! We are pretty hard pressed here.”

To buttress his position, Hansen copied a letter sent by GAP and his counsel to NASA chief Michael Griffin asking for assurances he would "not be punished for exercising his rights under the First Amendment, Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and the Anti-Gag Statute to share his internationally-renowned expertise on climate change."

Direct link to Hansen’s response here.

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org:

NASA’s James Hansen Claims He’s Being 'Swift-boated' by Critics

Posted by Paul at 01:02 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

September 28, 2007

Europe's CO2 Emissions Rising Faster and Higher Than US Emissions

Those Europeans Say the Darnedest Things

Chris Horner

September 26, 2007

Today’s Washington Post story was replete with pompous and absurd proclamations – the pompous being the Danish Environment Minister claiming that she and her ilk “are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf but on behalf of the planet.” The condemnations of the US included “unusually blunt language” about how the rest of the world are waiting for the US to act, and that it is the US resistance to adopting a particular approach to addressing emissions that jeopardizes the climate. Not China, India, Mexico and 155 countries representing the vast majority of emissions seeing theirs skyrocket; certainly not the EU.

Although that specific assertion begs the question, no mention was made of actual emissions (sidebar: this story was written by Juliet Eilperin, who has this beat and is by no means new to the story. Putting aside that the administration has only once uttered something that can be called a robust comparison of US and EU performance, it remains baffling that she and her peers can continue writing as if what it is now well understood were never in fact revealed.)

givne that the European Environment Agency may play rhetorical games but it makes no secret of the fact that Europe is not lowering but increasing their emissions, which are up since Kyoto was agreed not down, this struck me as possibly clever groundwork-laying for that which ultimately must publicly come to pass: Europe explaining away the gaping chasm between global warming “world leader!” rhetoric and actual emissions performance. We would’ve cut them but we’re waiting on the US to do something. Don’t laugh, that wouldn’t be all that aberrant for Brussels, Berlin or Paris.

Regardless, yesterday’s vulgar display prompted me to tally the comparative, real emission increases in US and EU, given I have heard the counter “well, in percentage terms, but…” when I point out that EU emissions are increasing faster than the US’s under any modern baseline (that is, since Kyoto was agreed and the EU commenced its breast-beating).

We know that the US CO2 emissions are going up at a much slower rate than the EU-15 ("Europe" per Kyoto). We know that, as a result of the EU-15's obvious failure to reduce emissions, even Cf. 1990 (with the gift that that baseline was to them, for reasons of unrelated UK and DE political decisions), the EU-likes to redefine Europe. They do this to boast on the EU-25 doing this or that -- usually, being on target to meet its [sic] Kyoto promise...there not being an EU-25 Kyoto promise, but one collective promise for the EU-15 and 10 different other individual promises, plus 2 countries that are exempt from Kyoto. They do this now as a way to ride the economic collapse of Eastern Europe, reclaiming the hoped-for benefits of the 1990 baseline that slipped away for the more developed EU countries.

However, having a higher percentage increase for even an economy smaller than the US's (EU-15) means that one might actually produce a larger real emission increase as great or greater than the US. One cost of redefining one's self as is convenient is that it allows others to do so, possibly guaranteeing that a larger real emission increase is the case.

It turns out that a quick review indicates that real EU-25 CO2 emissions have increased more than the US since, say, 2000, by a third as much (133.1%) in fact. If my numbers are right, that means +177.7 MMT for the EU-25 in 2005 Cf. 2000, as compared to the US's +133.5 MMT 2005 over 2000, per the Energy Information Administration numbers (I have only just done this and do not know how it holds for older baselines, e.g., 1997 being the only potentially relevant year).

And oh, dear, even without the EU-10, the EU-15, "Old Europe" – a smaller economy than the US's – increased emissions by 161.67 MMT to the US's 133.5 over the same period; that is our climate hectors have increased real emissions more than the US’s, in real terms, by 21%.

So there is no need to rely on the "in percentage terms" qualifier when noting that Europe's emissions have risen faster than the US's (as Kyoto defines Europe). Instead, it appears that Europe's emissions (as Kyoto defines Europe, and certainly as Europe defines Europe, including for these purposes) have not only increased much faster than the US's but also that the EU has increased CO2 emissions much more than the US.

It seems the only thing standing between Europe and a reality check is a White House calling them on their bluster.

globalwarming.org

Patrick Moore to CCNet:

Excellent comment by Chris Horner on the fact that EU CO2 emissions are increasing faster than the US. Does this confirm the US position that technology is the key, not political targets?

Perhaps the Danish Environment Minister is not aware of the fact that Denmark has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of the EU 15? Yes, they have 18% wind energy but the other 82% is all fossil fuel. Denmark has no hydro-electric because it is flat and they have no nuclear because they are anti-nuclear. Denmark produces 11 tonnes CO2 per capita whereas Sweden, the lowest per capita of the EU 15, produces 6.3 tonnes per capita, in a colder climate. Sweden's electricity is 50% hydro-electric and 50% nuclear, i.e. no carbon. France has the second lowest at 6.8 tonnes per capita, primarily due to 80% nuclear electricity. Germany produces 10.2 tonnes per capita with only 30% nuclear and a lot of fossil fuel. It is clear that given comparable per capita GDP, CO2 emissions per capita are largely governed by electricity generation technology. The more nuclear, hydro-electric and wind the lower the emissions.

France and Germany provide a stark comparison. France has 80% nuclear, low per capita emissions, and is the only country in Western Europe with a large surplus of electricity for export. Their electricity technology is in line with climate policy. Germany, under the Social Democrat/Green alliance, voted to phase out all their nuclear plants. The only possible replacement is either domestic dirty brown coal or Russian gas, both of which would increase CO2 emissions above present levels. At the same time the German government has committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 by 2020. These two objectives can not be attained simultaneously thus Germany has logically inconsistent and dysfunctional policies for energy and climate. Meanwhile Germany is importing billions of dollars worth of nuclear energy from France. And Chancellor Schroeder, who presided over the decision to shut down the nuclear industry, took the job of European representative for Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, immediately after stepping down. Talk about creating your own job.

It is clear to me that until the "green" movement recognizes that nuclear and hydro-electric are the primary technologies capable of getting us off fossil fuels, they will remain a primary obstacle to the realistic achievement of CO2 emissions reduction.

Patrick Moore [pmoore@greenspirit.com]

Posted by Paul at 08:37 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack

Blog Posts and Comments Policy

Blog Posts are for discussion - we don't necessarily agree with the content. Comments of a personal nature, particularly by unverifiable or anonymous posters, may be deleted.

Regards,

Paul Biggs

Posted by Paul at 05:58 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

Marc Morano's Round Up For This Week

Woody Harrelson calls for green activism

Excerpt: Woody Harrelson called for more anti-oil activism at a media and technology conference Thursday, though he declined to say how far he was willing to go personally as a protester. "In spite of the fact that there's an increase in awareness of what's going on in terms of polar ice caps melting and just global warming generally ... oil companies don't seem to be making much of a change," the 46-year-old actor said. Harrelson was at the "Picnic" conference, which has a green theme and features a contest in which British billionaire Richard Branson will award $700,000 to the winning idea for an environmental project. "Certainly (oil companies) just want to get as much out of the ground and make as much money as possible before they transition into anything else," Harrelson said. "So I still think it's time for some strong activism, especially as it relates to our dependency on oil."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-et-ap-harrelson27sep27,1,1133949.story?coll=la-celebrity-news&ctrack=1&cset=true

Update: NASA’s Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report

Excerpt: Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations. Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter - you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! - they would have found Hansen's name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123): < > Here, in Soros Foundations' annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that "The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy." As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don't find this newsworthy. Think they'd be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official? While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added): note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000). Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed - that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science -- is actually available in this annual report. Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

U.S. Senate Hearing on Global Wamring & Sea Level Rise

Excerpt: Senator Inhofe detailed the latest peer-reviewed science that counters global warming led sea level rise fears. “Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s. According to multiple peer-reviewed studies, current temperatures in Greenland have not even reached the temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s. It is important to note that 80% of man-made CO2 came after these high temperatures were reached in Greenland. We have seen global average temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years,” he explained. (LINK) Dennis T. Avery, of the Hudson Institute, testified that the recent warming cycle is tied to natural climate factors. “The natural climate cycle is apparently driven by the sun, and the warmings are unstoppable,” Avery said. Avery co-authored the 2006 book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" with atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=435fb939-802a-23ad-40c2-677f4b36edbf

'Too Late To Avoid Global Warming'

Excerpt: A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now "very unlikely" to be avoided, the world's leading climate scientists said yesterday.

The latest study from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic – are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/milmo190907.htm

VA’s Skeptical State Climatologist Forced out for views?

Excerpt: The Washington Times reports that prominent global warming skeptic and Virginia State Climatologists Patrick Michaels was pressured to step down from his post over the summer. The Times writes: "Mr. Michaels has been a leading skeptic of global-warming theories. Although he thinks global warming is real and influenced by humans, he contends it is caused primarily by natural forces.” The administration of Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, asked Mr. Michaels last year to refrain from using his title when conducting non-state business because of fears his views would be perceived as an official state position. The governor's office said Mr. Michaels, appointed by Gov. John N. Dalton, a Republican, was not a gubernatorial appointee, contending that the climatology office became UVa.'s domain in 2000. Mr. Michaels, 57, called his resignation a sad result of the fact that his state climatologist funding had become politicized, compromising his academic freedom. "It's very simple," he said. "I don't think anybody was able to come to a satisfactory agreement about academic freedom."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/global_warming_and_freedom.html

Intellectual dishonesty in peer review? (Climate Audit)

Excerpt: On Sep 21, 2007, Hugues Goosse, the Climate of the Past editor responsible for the Juckes article, published a statement saying that a revised version of the Juckes et al article had been submitted to “conventional” refereeing and accepted on Sept 21, 2007. He said: “On the other hand, the authors disagree with one reviewer on some points for which no clear consensus could be gained from published literature. The arguments of the authors appear reasonable from our present knowledge of the field and are presented in a balanced way. As a consequence, I decided to accept the paper for publication in Climate of the Past.” I presume that I was the “one reviewer”, although Willis Eschenbach and Mark Rostron also submitted critical reviews. Under CP policies, authors are supposed to respond to review comments. I’ve collated my review comments together with Juckes’ replies. It is remarkable how insolent and unresponsive Juckes’ comments are. In virtually every case, I’ve provided a detailed and analytical comment and Juckes virtually never makes a direct and straightforward reply, rebutting the comment in straightforward terms. See what you think.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2105

Academic Misconduct Alleged in Climate Research

Excerpt: The European Science Foundation just wrapped up the first World Conference on Research Integrity. Held in Lisbon, this historic three-day conference drew hundreds of scientists to address what they call the "open sore" of science -- the falsification or misrepresentation of research data. < > Keenan filed a Freedom of Information Act claim to find the source of Wang's data -- a report written jointly by the U.S. DOE and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He quickly found a smoking gun. The data came from only 84 stations, 60% of which had no history whatsoever, and the report claims "details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, observing times ... are not known." Of the 35 remaining, over half had moved large distances (one station moving as many as five times) or had serious, known inconsistencies in the record. The report specifically contradicts Wang's claims, concluding that "even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization." Keenan immediately filed a formal allegation of fraud against Wang, a charge which is pending investigation at this time. Why is all this important? Because even though the Earth is warming, the rate of warming is critical. Even the IPCC admits natural factors are responsible for some of recent temperature rises. The entire theory of anthropogenic global warming hinges on one factor -- whether the rate is too fast to be explained by natural causes. Put simply, if UHI effects really are raising temperature readings substantially, the primary justification for human-induced global warming vanishes. Kaput.

http://www.dailytech.com/+Academic+Misconduct+Alleged+in+Climate+Research/article8988.htm

Wetlands Methane Counteracts Kyoto Emissions Cuts

Excerpt: new study that will appear in Thursday's journal Nature revealed that methane being released from bogs in what is now Great Britain likely contributed to global warming 55 million years ago. Maybe more importantly, when you add up the methane being released from wetlands around the world, it could completely counteract all the carbon dioxide emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. < > As reported by National Geographic Wednesday (emphasis added throughout): Huge belches of methane from bogs in what is now Britain likely contributed to global warming some 55 million years ago, a new study says. The emissions probably amplified an ancient and extreme global warming event that heated Arctic Ocean waters to a balmy 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23 degrees Celsius). The finding adds weight to the idea that methane being released from wetlands today may accelerate modern global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/methane-wetlands-counteracts-kyoto-protocol-s-emissions-cuts

Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming

EXCPERT: Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners. "I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html

Posted by Paul at 05:24 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

New Paper in Science Magazine: Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age

Published Online September 27, 2007
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1143791

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Establishing what caused Earth’s largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be key factors responsible for this warming.

Summary at EurekAlert

Extract:

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate. I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea. The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago. “What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said. But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward. Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence. In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began. Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

Posted by Paul at 04:50 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

September 27, 2007

New Research Challenges Established Ozone Hole Theory

Nature 449, 382-383 (27 September 2007)

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Quirin Schiermeier

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Extract:

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The abstract of the original paper is here.

CCNet's take:

CCNet 161/2007 - 27 September 2007 -- Audiatur et altera pars

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON MAN-MADE OZONE HOLE MAY BE COMING APART

If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.
--Markus Rex, News@Nature, 26 September 2007

Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart.
--John Crowley, Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, 26 September 2007

Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely. Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.
--Neil Harris, University of Cambridge, 26 September 2007

The new measurements raise "intriguing questions", but don't compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. "We're starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on." He says that he finds it "extremely hard to believe" that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
--Quirin Schiermeier, News@Nature, 26 September 2007

Posted by Paul at 08:42 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

Pumping Water to Stop Climate Change

James Lovelock's plan to pump ocean water to stop climate change is reported in the UK's Daily Telegraph today, 27th September.

A plan to save our world from extreme climate change by pumping cold water from the depths of the oceans is outlined today by James Lovelock, the scientist who inspired the greens.

James Lovelock is best known for his ideas that portray Earth as a living thing, a super-organism - named Gaia, after the ancient Earth goddess - in which creatures, rocks, air and water interact in subtle ways to ensure the environment remains stable.

Today Lovelock, of Green College, Oxford University, outlines an emergency way to stimulate the Earth to cure itself with Chris Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey who is now the director of the Science Museum, London.

They believe the answer lies in the oceans, which transport much more heat than the atmosphere and, covering more than 70 per cent of the Earth's surface.

They propose that vertical pipes some 10 metres across be placed in the ocean, such that wave motion would pump up cool water from 100-200 metres depth to the surface, moving nutrient-rich waters in the depths to mix with the relatively barren warm waters at the ocean surface.

This would fertilise algae in the surface waters and encourage them to bloom, absorbing carbon dioxide greenhouse gas while also releasing a chemical called dimethyl sulphide that is know to seed sunlight reflecting clouds.

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History

I was at Burrima in the Macquarie Marshes yesterday for the launch of an important piece of research by Gillian Hogendyk:

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History, published as an Occasional Paper by the Institute of Public Affairs, September 2007.

Speakers included Don Burke (Australian Environment Foundation), Professor David Mitchell (Charles Stuart University) and Bertie Bartholomew an elder from the Wailwan people. It was the closing remarks from Gillian Hogendyk that I found most inspiring:

"I hope this paper brings about a moving on from past disputes, and that all groups in the Macquarie Valley can begin to work cooperatively towards our common goal: a healthy, viable Macquarie Marshes, and healthy, viable Macquarie Valley communities.

The time is right to achieve something really worthwhile for the Marshes. Currently there is a total of almost $206 million dollars of both State and Federal money on the table for the recovery of threatened wetlands in NSW. Surely the Macquarie Marshes, recognised both nationally and internationally, can benefit from this commitment.

However the right decisions for the Marshes must be based on the right information. This is where I hope my paper can be part of the solution. If I could put the message of my paper in a nutshell it would be this:

The Macquarie Marshes are in trouble, and have been for a very long time. We have been told that the solution is simply to buy more environmental water and send it down here. This solution completely ignores some fundamental problems. We now know that a significant part of the environmental water is regularly diverted, and doesn’t reach the Nature Reserves. We know too that large levee banks have been built upstream of both Nature Reserves. We know that the South Marsh has serious erosion problems and the North Marsh has salinity problems.

The good news is that solutions are possible. Like everyone here today, I would like to think that in the future my children and grandchildren will be able to visit and enjoy the Marshes.

Many of those present today have given me great encouragement and have added significantly to the content of my paper. In 2005 thirty Macquarie River Food and Fibre members dug into their own pockets to finance the purchase of this property ‘Burrima’. This was a pivotal moment in the whole marsh debate, as we can now lead by example and show people the results of our rehabilitation efforts here.

Thank you to all the owners of Burrima, to Don, Jennifer, and David for giving your support today, and to everyone who has worked so hard to make this day such a success. Thank you also to Bertie for welcoming us to the country of his ancestors, the Wailwan people."

Macquarie Marshes grazed and ungrazed.jpg
This photograph taken by Jennifer Marohasy yesterday (September 26, 2007) shows a grazed area within the Macquarie Marshes adjacent to the northern nature reserve in the north marsh. To the east of the fence line (within the ungrazed northern nature reserve) are reed beds.

Posted by jennifer at 06:45 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Failed Wheat Crops and a Note from Bill Kininmonth

When somebody is down on their luck they are fair game for getting a cheap swipe. Drought continues [in Australia] and so the rural community are in the gunsights. It is the farmer's environmentally unfriendly land management practices that are contributing to global warming, so it is said . It might never rain again! Repent and implement green-friendly practices (shoot the stock and plant native trees) and all will be well!

The drought is continuing despite the earlier predictions that a La Nina is with us and should have brought good winter rains. Obviously man-made global warming.

Unfortunately folklore highlights the 1982-83 El Nino when Malcolm Fraser called an early election during a drought, he lost the election to Bob Hawke and immediately the drought broke with good late autumn and winter rains. Bob Hawke was thenceforth recognised as having divine qualities.

The truth is rather more prosaic. El Nino droughts often break in autumn as they are followed by a rapidly developing La Nina, but not always. If the break does not come in autumn then the next likely period is late spring after the equinox. The current La Nina commenced as a rather weak event but is gathering strength. The Climate Prediction Center in Washington is backing its development. There has been a very active summer monsoon over Asia reflecting the benefits of the La Nina event. A late spring break for Australia after the equinox remains a good prospect.

Rather than further scaring the rural communities with fairy-tales about man-made global warming our communitiy leaders would do better to acquaint themselves with useful knowledge about climate and its prospects and reassure the farmers and their families that climate is only following a well-worn cycle. It would seem that government assistance is available as support and the prospects for rain are not hopeless. Life on the land is tough and survival depends on optimism grounded in fact, not pessimism enhanced by fairy stories.

Bill Kininmonth

Macquarie Marshes 145.jpg
Jennifer Marohasy took this photograph yesterday (September 26, 2007), it was one of many failed winter wheat crops that she saw north of Dubbo in central western New South Wales

Posted by jennifer at 06:15 AM | Comments (27) | TrackBack

Valid Criticism or an Attempt to Discredit Carbon Offsetting?

The following article appered in The Sunday Times on 23rd September: The ‘carbon offset’ child labourers, Indians work off West’s holiday guilt.

Extracts:

Pumping furiously on a foot treadle in the afternoon heat, six-year-old Sarju Ram is irrigating her impoverished family’s field, improving the crop and – without knowing it – helping environmentally sensitive holiday-makers assuage their guilt over long-haul flights to dream destinations.

But Sarju and her four brothers and sisters working flat out in a clump of trees that provide scant shelter from the sun illustrate a growing argument over claims that British environmentalists’ efforts to curb greenhouse emissions are inadvertently fuelling an increase in child labour.

Sarju’s family is a beneficiary of Climate Care, an organisation that helps some of Britain’s leading public figures and companies to offset their carbon dioxide emissions by funding sustainable energy projects.

Customers of British Airways are among those who have been encouraged to log on to Climate Care’s website and calculate how many tonnes of greenhouse gases their flights will generate, and how much it will cost to neutralise the impact on the atmosphere. A flight to Barbados for a family of four, for example, generates 7.55 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which will cost them £56.64 to offset.

Climate Care uses the money to help persuade families such as Sarju’s to give up labour-saving diesel pumps and buy human-powered treadles instead. It claims that by using the treadle, a family will save money on diesel and hire charges, earn more from increased crops and cut the carbon emissions that would have been produced by the pump.

Last week Indian experts criticised the scheme, saying it was promoting child labour and forcing poor farmers to work harder so that wealthy air travellers could enjoy exotic holidays without worrying about the environment.

“The problem is the number of times child labour is involved,” claimed Ashutosh Pandey of Emergent Ventures India, which advises companies on clean technology.

“It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”

Michael Buick, a spokesman for the Oxford-based Climate Care, confirmed that children were working the pumps it promotes, but said that people had to focus on the benefits to the whole family.

He said his group was proud of its scheme, which had led to more than half a million foot treadles being sold, and had won several awards. Four reports had identified major benefits.

According to Buick, critics are mistaken in claiming that diesel pumps are better than human-powered alternatives, because they are costly to run. The treadles meant farmers could rely on increased crops.

Buick said that by “all mucking in” families were able to increase yields and earn more to pay for children to go to school. The extra income also meant fathers could stay with their families rather than leaving them to look for work in the cities.

“If mum is planting and harvesting, the daughters help out. It’s just a different way of life. The phrase ‘child labour’ is emotive. It implies factories, but these are family farms where everyone gets stuck in, watering the crops and taking a turn on the treadle pump,” he said.

Posted by Paul at 04:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 26, 2007

No! To An Extended Holocene - A Note from Peter Harris

One of the essential prerequisites for the IPCC case for extended global warming is the claim that we face an extended Holocene because orbital geometry now is similar to the 400KY (Stage 11) interglacial which lasted for 28, 000 years.

Based on the paper by Berger and Loutre (2003) it is claimed that the extraordinarily long Stage 11 interglacial period resulted from the low orbital eccentricity at the time, and now we have similar eccentricity and should therefore expect an extended Holocene. (IPCC TS 6.4 1.5)

It is reported that “It is very unlikely that the earth would naturally enter another ice age for at least 30 000 years” (IPCC TS 6.2.4 “Robust Findings”)

This position is completely without merit.

An analysis of FIG 1. below shows the orbital forcing during the 400KY precedent compared to the present configuration and it can be seen that we are very close now to the tipping point like that which led Stage 11 into the following ice age.

NO EXTENDED HOLOCENE.bmp

FIG.1 QUINN, LEVINE, RAYMO ET AL ORBITAL GEOMETRY VS CLIMATE
(AA) Projection at present insolation, (BB) Projection of Glaciation, (X) Paillard

The position (X) shows the insolation maximum at 427KY which triggered the Stage 11deglaciation. (Paillard 1998) The following small dip in insolation was not sufficient to reverse the warming trend . “The Interglacial thus lasts an additional precessional cycle, yielding a total duration of 28 000 years.” (IPCC 6.4.1.5)

This is the so called precedent for an extended Holocene. This is the reason given by IPCC for the “Robust Finding” that it is very unlikely that the earth would enter another ice age for at least 30 000 years. But as shown in FIG.1 there is no such change in insolation now and Solar Forcing is in rapid decline.

Projecting present Solar forcing (insolation) (AA) back to the 400KY precedent we intercept at exactly 400KY which corresponds to the collapse of the Stage 11 interglacial climate as it enters the following ice age.
The collapse of the Stage 11 interglacial occurs when the insolation decline is similar to today.

From this analysis, based on the Solar Forcing from present global geometry which has been accepted as the external signal for climate, the contention that it is very unlikely the Earth would naturally enter another Ice Age for at least 30 000 years is unsafe.

There is good reason to expect the imminent termination of the interglacial because of the coincident action of 3 major cyclic processes.

1. Insolation in rapid decline similar to the 400KY precedent.

2. We are near the end of the nominal 100KY glaciation cycle.

3. The present interglacial is near the average age for termination.

We are also witnessing some major natural processes which occur at the end of each interglacial such as the slow down of the MOC and polar ice melt.

It is time to plan for the coming Ice Age.

Peter Harris
September 2007

Posted by Paul at 05:43 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

That Phrase 'Holocaust Denier' Again

This article 'Ahmadinejad: The New Boogeyman' compares 'Holocaust denial' to global warming denial:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. Let me ask this provocative question: so what?

Of course, I understand that people have a visceral reaction to that claim. It is grossly untrue, offensive and ignorant. But we are also told how dangerous Ahmadinejad is because he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. I fail to see that connection.

There are countless people all across the world that deny many things that are patently true -- and we don't go to war with them over it. Senator Inhofe (R-OK) denies global warming. As far as I know we are not planning on invading Oklahoma over it.........

The writer seems to be ignorant of the fact that whilst the Holocaust actually happened, the global warming catastrophe is a computer modelled prediction, not a fact.

Posted by Paul at 04:41 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 25, 2007

Australia's Top Policeman: Climate Change 'a Bigger Threat Than Terrorism'

Climate change 'a bigger threat than terrorism'

CLIMATE change, not terrorism, will be the main security issue of the century, with potential to cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, Australia's top policeman believes.

In a surprise foray into the politics of global warming, Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty described how climate refugees "in their millions" could create a national security emergency for Australia.

His provocative comments, made in a speech in Adelaide last night, are likely to be diplomatically sensitive after he described a scenario in which China was unable to feed its vast population.

Law enforcement agencies would struggle to cope with global warming's "potential to wreak havoc, cause more deaths and pose national security issues like we've never seen before", Mr Keelty said.

"It is anticipated the world will experience severe extremes in weather patterns, from rising global temperatures to rising sea levels," he warned.

"We could see a catastrophic decline in the availability of fresh water. Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people, en masse, would be on the move.

"Even if only some and not all of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century."

Greenpeace Rumbled

I rather liked this letter in yesterday's UK Daily Mail, so I thought I would share it:

Red alert on Greenpeace

IS GREENPEACE more powerful than UK voters? Its lawyers are demanding a judicial review of the Government's decision to reconsider its attitude towards nuclear power.

Would that we could do the same about Greenpeace's undemocratic decision to cover the world with useless and damaging windfarms, a course of action which almost all governments are following.

I know why we can't: it would take too much money. How democratic is a democracy which allows rich lobby groups to influence its policy? Greenpeace seems to be awash with money: how much of it comes from the wind industry (i.e. taxpayers' money)?

Greenpeace's co-founder Patrick Moore was right: 'They (Greenpeace' s new management) have become far more extreme, their politics little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.'

As he points out, much of the environmental movement today tends to be strongly anti-human, anti-science, anti-business and anti-civilisation - as well as highly misleading. Greenpeace isn't green and doesn't want peace. It's red and it wants power.

I don't particularly care for nuclear power myself, but I don't like an organisation that pretends to be green while destroying our natural surroundings for its own gain - financial and political.

MARK DUCHAMP,

Pedreguer, Spain.

Posted by Paul at 04:54 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

Criticism for AP Article 'Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History'

The Associated Press article 'Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History' is criticised here.

The article begins:

Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.
In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Global warming—through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding—is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians—the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what—the question is when."

Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."

Critics included John Christy:

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated that the AP mischaracterized his views on sea level in the article promoting climate fears a hundred years from now.

“[My] discussion [with the AP reporter Seth Borenstein] was primarily about the storm surges which come from hurricanes - that's the real vulnerability. The sea level is rising around 1 inch per decade, but sea level is like any other climate parameter - its either rising or falling all the time. To me, 16 inches per century is not a significant problem to deal with. But since storm surges of 15 to 30 feet occur in 6 hours, any preventive strategy, like an extra 3 feet of elevation, would be helpful,” Christy wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press blog.

“Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris. I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm – about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn't seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend,” Christy explained.

Posted by Paul at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 24, 2007

US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Assessed

Science magazine 21st September:

Extracts from: Panel Gives U.S. Program Mixed Grades

An expert panel says the Bush Administration deserves “a pat on the back” for advancing the science of climate change. But the scientists assembled by the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) have serious concerns about the management, funding, and emphasis of the $1.7-billion-a-year Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). President George H. W. Bush created the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 1990 to bring under one umbrella the government’s efforts to understand climate change. In 2002, his son reshuffled the climate deck to create CCSP. Last week, the NRC panel took the first outside look at that program and concluded, says chair V. Ramanathan, an atmospheric scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, that its efforts to understand how and why climate has changed and to make predictions are “proceeding well.”

Ramanathan says he’s troubled by the program’s limited success in “assessing [climate change] impacts on human well-being and adaptation capacities.” Those assessments would require reliable forecasts of climate change at the regional if not the local level, Ramanathan notes, a capability the world’s climate modelers are still struggling with. But gauging impacts on humans and figuring out how humans might adapt to climate change will take far more than the $20 million per year now spent within the program on social science studies, the committee said. It will also take better communication between the program and business interests, other agencies, and the general public. For starters, 21 synthesis and assessment reports were due from CCSP by now, but only two have been delivered.

Posted by Paul at 04:30 PM | Comments (38) | TrackBack

Of Cattle and Conservation

…In another part of Australia, cattle grazing has been identified as detrimental to World Heritage values, by potentially initiating soil erosion, altering under-storey vegetation and fire regimes. Cattle grazing has also been associated with the introduction of weed species such as pasture crops and assisting in the spread of other weeds.

The Wet Tropics grazing policy is to phase out cattle grazing within the WHA as leases expire unless there is a demonstrated benefit for World Heritage management and no prudent and feasible alternatives are available. Some grazing is already being phased out under the State Forest transfer program.

Interestingly, cattle have historically played their part in establishing the conservation significance of Queensland’s Wet Tropics. In 1971, a couple of long-term Daintree rainforest residents returned home from a weekend in Mossman, to find four of their cattle dead. Suspecting foul play, they called in the Department of Primary Industry’s divisional veterinarian.

Strychnine-like poisoning from alkaloids was found to have caused the deaths, from large, partially masticated seeds in the digestive systems of the cattle. Herbarium records revealed the re-discovery of a lost species of Calycanthus, but upon recognition of peculiarities and most significantly the variable expression of three or four cotyledons, the species became Idiospermum australiensis.

At the time, there were only eighteen families of primitive flowering plant known to exist world-wide; Idiospermaceae became the nineteenth family. Its discovery stimulated intense botanical interest in the rainforests of the Daintree, which in turn revealed a living museum of plants and animals of exceptional antiquity.

It is also interesting to note that from the early nineteen-hundreds until its re-discovery in seventy-one, the rainforest dinosaur Idiospermum australiensis was being selectively logged under its common name Ribbonwood. Axemen were familiar with special qualities of the plant, along with some seven hundred other species of rainforest cabinetwood timbers, as well as the complex rainforest habitats in which they grew.

Posted by neil at 11:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Melbourne Benefits from Killing Barmah Brumbies

Public submissions in response to the Draft Feral Horse Management Plan for Barmah Forest close today.

The plan proposes the removal of horses from the Barmah Forest firstly by using lure and trap techniques over two years, which will commence following the approval of a final plan. The removal program would be reviewed annually and all feral horses are proposed to be removed from the Barmah Forest within five years of the program commencing. The involvement of key stakeholders will be through comment on this draft plan. The feral horse removal program will be managed jointly by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria.

In a note from Angela Downey of the Great Divide Team:

Earlier this morning we received notification that the Victorian Government and their able assistants, not content with killing the Legend of the Man from Snowy River, by their banning of the Mountain Cattlemen and their Barmah counterparts, it seems now they are set to remove another icon of Victoria's heritage under the guise of saving the environment and questionable animal humanity reasons.

On Monday members of Parks Victoria will set about removing 150 brumbies from the Barmah Forest which covers an area of 75,000 acres. It is claimed this small number of horses are causing severe damage over this huge area.

A decision was made to remove the animals from the park following this years harsh drought and with another to possibly to follow, with the implication that this small number of brumbies would place the environment and the resident native fauna under undue stress due to competition for feed and water. Many of the horses live in small family groups and are spread throughout the park. No doubt it has been a harsh year for them and many of the other animals.

However no mention has also been made of the contribution to the lack of feed made by other feral animals such rabbits, wild pigs, goats, foxes, dogs and cats all of which inhabit the forest. Such other feral animals often have massive explosive populations and cause direct and monumental damage to the environment.

An option of using helicopters with snipers on board to do the deed was considered but due to the potential of a similar outcry such as the furor over the Guy Fawkes National Park slaughter of 2000. During that episode many horses were shot but died a slow and agonising death from bullet wounds.

The Victorian National Parks propose to round up the Barmah brumbries, destroy any stressed and old animals on site and remove the rest to the abattoirs.

These animals would be obviously suffering due to the current dry conditions as would the native fauna. . They are more than happy to leave the suffering native fauna to their own devices in the Park while also making little impact on the removal of other feral fauna with populations of thousands which happily munch their way through tonnes of native flora and fauna, digging holes, slopping around in bogs, and bulldozing their way around the Park.

The removal of the Brumbies will have little impact on the environment of the Park. One has to question the governments motives in removing this small population of an Australian icon and part of our heritage.

If Parks Victoria are actually so concerned with the plight of the brumbies there are other options out there.

Further recommendations have been made by the Victorian Environment Assessment Council in its River Red Gum Forests Investigation Draft Proposals Paper (which states):

Domestic stock grazing has occurred in Barmah forest for several generations. The average of 2000 (summer) and 800 (winter) head of cattle agisted in the forest has been reduced in response to recent drought conditions, culminating in the destocking of the forest for the 2007 winter term. There are also 7 current grazing licences covering a total of 78 hectares and with a total carrying capacity of 112 Dry Sheep Equivalent that would be included in the proposed national park. Grazing with domestic stock is incompatible with national park status and will not be permitted in the proposed park. As well as domestic stock, Barmah forest is also grazed by feral horses and deer which, together with feral pigs, should also be promptly removed from the proposed national park to protect its highly significant natural values.

In Chapter 4 of the report, Social, economic and environmental implications, a candid expression of economic impact is made:

A team of consultants led by Gillespie Economics was commissioned by VEAC to independently assess the social and economic implications of VEAC’s proposed recommendations. The consultants concluded that the proposed recommendations would result in a net increase in economic value to Victoria of $92 million per year excluding the costs of environmental water. The breakeven price for environmental water would be between $1320 and $2880 per megalitre. Most of the benefits from the proposed recommendations result from non-use values for environmental protection, which are heavily dependent on adequate environmental water. These benefits would accrue mostly to people outside the Investigation area, especially in Melbourne, while the costs of the proposed recommendations would be largely borne within the Investigation area particularly in the areas near where public land timber harvesting and grazing are focussed. The towns of Cohuna, Koondrook, Nathalia and Picola are likely to be most sensitive to these effects, as they would be occurring in the context of the contraction of local economies and populations in these areas that has been experienced in recent years.

This is yet another abrogation of environmental responsibility in a seemingly endless succession, as defined within the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.

As people and communities are included in the definition of the environment, the threat of serious or irreversible socio-economic damage (as identified by the consultants) should bring the precautionary principle into play. Under the policy principle of intergenerational equity, the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. And, environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

Posted by neil at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 23, 2007

Czech President Václav Klaus to the UN: Global Warming Hysteria or Freedom and Prosperity?

One can tell – with a high degree of confidence – what topics are expected to be raised here, this morning when it comes to discussing the key challenges of today’s world. The selection of the moderator and my fellow-panelists only confirms it. I guess it is either international terrorism or poverty in Africa. Talking about both of these topics is necessary because they are real dangers but it is relatively easy to talk about them because it is politically correct. I do see those dangers and do not in any way underestimate them. I do, however, see another major threat which deserves our attention – and I am afraid it does not get sufficient attention because to discuss it is politically incorrect these days.

The threat I have in mind is the irrationality with which the world has accepted the climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind and the irrationality of suggested and partly already implemented measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity, the two goals we consider – I do believe – our priorities.

We have to face many prejudices and misunderstandings in this respect. The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one – recently born – dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.

I spent most of my life in a communist society which makes me particularly sensitive to the dangers, traps and pitfalls connected with it. Several points have to be clarified to make the discussion easier:

1. Contrary to the currently prevailing views promoted by global warming alarmists, Al Gore’s preaching, the IPCC, or the Stern Report, the increase in global temperatures in the last years, decades and centuries has been very small and because of its size practically negligible in its actual impact upon human beings and their activities. (The difference of temperatures between Prague where I was yesterday and Cernobbio where I am now is larger than the expected increase in global temperatures in the next century.)

2. As I said, the empirical evidence is not alarming. The arguments of global warming alarmists rely exclusively upon forecasts, not upon past experience. Their forecasts originate in experimental simulations of very complicated forecasting models that have not been found very reliable when explaining past developments.

3. It is, of course, not only about ideology. The problem has its important scientific aspect but it should be stressed that the scientific dispute about the causes of recent climate changes continues. The attempt to proclaim a scientific consensus on this issue is a tragic mistake, because there is none.

4. We are rational and responsible people and have to act when necessary. But we know that a rational response to any danger depends on the size and probability of the eventual risk and on the magnitude of the costs of its avoidance. As a responsible politician, as an academic economist, as an author of a book about the economics of climate change, I feel obliged to say that – based on our current knowledge – the risk is too small and the costs of eliminating it too high. The application of the so called “precautionary principle,” advocated by the environmentalists, is – conceptually – a wrong strategy.

5. The deindustrialization and similar restrictive policies will be of no help. Instead of blocking economic growth, the increase of wealth all over the world and fast technical progress – all connected with freedom and free markets – we should leave them to proceed unhampered. They represent the solution to any eventual climate changes, not their cause. We should promote adaptation, modernization, technical progress. We should trust in the rationality of free people.

6. It has a very important North-South and West-East dimension. The developed countries do not have the right to impose any additional burden on the less developed countries. Imposing overambitious and – for such countries – economically disastrous environmental standards on them is unfair.

No radical measures are necessary. We need something “quite normal.” We have to get rid of the one-sided monopoly, both in the field of climatology and in the public debate. We have to listen to arguments. We have to forget fashionable political correctness. We should provide the same or comparable financial backing to those scientists who do not accept the global warming alarmism.

I really do see environmentalism as a threat to our freedom and prosperity. I see it as “the world key current challenge.”

www.klaus.cz

Posted by Paul at 08:24 PM | Comments (36) | TrackBack

Global Warming and The Karri Forest: A Note from Roger Underwood

Articles in The West Australian newspaper on 15th and 17th September 2007 suggested that global warming will lead to the virtual disappearance of Western Australia’s iconic karri forest. The articles quote Dr Ray Wills, a research scientist at the University of Western Australia's Geography Department, who asserts that karri forests could be reduced to small pockets and marginal remnants in the years to come. He bases this view on projections that the southwest of Western Australia (WA) will become warmer by 2 to 3 degrees in the years ahead, and on the assumption that this warming will in turn lead to a decline in rainfall to the extent that karri will basically die out.

Karri forests are part of the so-called “southern forests” of Australia’s southwest corner. They comprise about 1.3 million hectares of pure karri and karri mixed with jarrah, marri and red and yellow tingle. Apart from several outliers, such as at Boranup (near Margaret River) and Porongorup (east of Mt Barker), all of the present karri forest is found in areas with a long-term annual rainfall of >1100 mm.

However, the present karri forest is also a remnant. Analysis of pollen in geological strata has demonstrated that karri once occupied a very much wider area; indeed it is still possible to find typical karri forest understorey in moist gullies in the northern jarrah forest. The shrinkage of the karri forest appears to have resulted mainly from a decline in rainfall many thousands of years ago.

Karri is well able to survive much higher temperatures than those predicted. The species is adapted to a present-day climate which every summer experiences well above the average temperature, including days over 40 degrees. I have successfully grown karri in Perth and the Darling Ranges, regions with much warmer average temperatures than the lower southwest, and I even succeeded in establishing karri in my arboretum in the Avon Valley where the temperature exceeds 40 degrees day after day from January through to March. Karri was unaffected by these high temperatures. What killed them was winter frosts not summer heat. A feature of the current natural distribution of karri is that frost is very rare and when it does occur it is relatively mild and short-lived.

I believe that a predicted rise in average annual temperature of 2-3 degrees per se will not worry karri, especially if this occurs as a result of milder winters rather than hotter summers.

The problem of lower rainfall is another matter, and already forests all over the southwest of WA (especially wandoo and tuart) are observed declining in the face of below-average rainfall in recent years. The karri forest has also experienced a similar reduction in rainfall, but is not yet showing the same drought symptoms as wandoo and tuart. If there is another substantial decline in the current rainfall pattern, it probably will, unless some action is taken by forest managers.

Luckily something can be done to ameliorate the impact on the karri forest of lower rainfall. This is a well-planned and professionally conducted program of thinning of overstocked regrowth forests plus regular (7-9 year rotation) mild prescribed burning across the whole forest area. Such a program will lead to a higher proportion of rainfall getting through to recharge soil moisture, and will ensure less competition for water at the root zone. Prescribed burning will also reduce bushfire fuels and render old growth forests less susceptible to conversion to dense rainfall-gulping regrowth by high intensity summer fires.

Opponents of thinning and prescribed burning will immediately rise up and condemn this strategy, claiming that it will cause “a loss of biodiversity”. There is no scientific basis for this fear. But if no action is taken and Dr Wills’ doomsday predictions are correct, the biodiversity is going down the tube anyway. Even a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will not stop the 2-3 degree killer temperature rise according to Dr Wills.

It is my understanding that the jury is still out on the link between a projected higher temperature due to global warming and a projected lower rainfall. Never mind. Even if “normal” rainfall patterns return to south-western WA, the forests will be healthier and more biologically diverse if overstocked regrowth stands have been thinned and mild burning undertaken to reduce fuels and thus minimise high intensity wildfires. And if the predictions of Dr Wills and his colleagues are right, well-managed forests will be better able to cope if a still-drier climate eventuates. The other good thing is that both thinning and burning are standard forestry operations which have been conducted for generations and subject to a great deal of research and monitoring. We know how to do it and that it will work, with no environmental downside.

Incidentally, Dr Wills is by not the first distinguished scientist to predict the extinction of Australia’s southwest forests. In the 1970s geography Professor Arthur Connacher predicted that logging for woodchip-quality logs would result in the “desertification” of the karri forest. Thankfully this has not occurred. And in the 1980s ecologist Dr Wardell-Johnson warned of the imminent loss of the tingle forests on the south coast due to “continental drift”. Australia was at that time thought to be drifting towards the equator at a rate of a few millimetres per century. It has also been too early to detect any evidence of this calamity.

Roger Underwood worked as a forester in the karri forest in the 1960s and 1970s.

Posted by jennifer at 04:56 PM | Comments (7)

James Bond versus Norweigan Whalers: A Translation from Ann Novek

Following is my summary from an editorial in Norwegian paper Fiskaren:

“In October many celebrities will gather to celebrate 30 years with Sea Shepherd, including Mick Jagger, Martin Sheen, Orlando Bloom , Uma Thurman and Pierce Brosnan among other super stars together with their cheque books.

Norway has been under heavy international criticism for its whaling policy. To counter this , Norway has presented facts after facts to defend its whaling policy. Even if the Embassies will not be attacked by anti-whalers, what consequences will show up if a new “whale war” blows up?

Probably it will mainly harm the seafood industry and the country’s image.

Sea Shepherd will arrange the history’s biggest “ Save the Whale’s Party”.

Sea Shepherd might feature images of the attacked whalers “ the Nybraena”, “ the Willassen Senior” and “ the Elin –Torild” on the big screen and as well featuring video sequences of whale’s dying in agony to the tunes of Rolling Stones.

The revenues from this gala evening will be bigger than the revenues from Norwegian whaling. Revenues that can pay new ships, direct actions and media campaigns.

With James Bond and Mick Jagger in the frontlines it might be a tough battle for Norway.

However, the Coastal Party, that represents most whalers, made this statement after the sinking of the Norwegian whaler, “Norwegian authorities must now act to promote minke whaling , as a means to save fisheries in the North. It’s a traditional, sustainable and eco-friendly industry that international extreme animal rights activists mustn’t ruin”.

Ann Novek
Sweden

Posted by jennifer at 02:47 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

More and More Polar Bears in Davis Strait

There was some discussion earlier this year at this blog about polar bear numbers. We couldn't seem to agree whether numbers were increasing or decreasing and what would happen to bears if all the sea ice melted.

Well according to Dr. Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has just completed a three-year survey, polar bear populations along the Davis Strait are healthy and their numbers increasing.

According to Stephanie McDonald writing for The Northern News Service:

"Taylor and co-worker Dr. Lily Peacock have been working for the past three years on a polar bear inventory in the Davis Strait, the first in the area in 20 years. The Davis Strait encompasses the area from Cape Dyer on the eastern side of Baffin Island, through Cumberland Sound, and continues on to the area surrounding Kimmirut.

"Parts of Ungava Bay in Quebec and sections of Labrador are also included in the Davis Strait.

"The results of their study have yet to be released, but Taylor revealed last week that the numbers would be contrary to those released by the U.S. Geological Survey.

"Results will confirm hunters' impressions, that the polar bear population is productive," Taylor said.

Last year 841 polar bears were counted in the survey area and halfway through this year's survey, approximately 600 have been counted. Taylor estimates that this year's number could be as high as 1,000.

"When he started working for the Department of Environment 12 years ago, Sowdlooapik said that only one or two polar bears would wander through Pangnirtung in a year. Now, he receives almost daily reports of polar