• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for May 2006

‘Australia’s Salinity Crisis: What Crisis?’ ask Ross Coulthart & Nick Farrow

May 26, 2006 By jennifer

“Unless you’re prepared to redo thirty years of scientific research yourself, the debate on this point [the salinity crisis] comes down to a pure question of comparative credibility,” wrote Professor John Quiggin in April 2004, click here. John Quiggin was suggesting that I had no credibility on Murray River issues because my thesis contradicted “thirty years of scientific research”.

In my discussions with John Quiggin over the Murray River, he has been reluctant to consider the evidence. For him, and many others, it’s been a case of backing the orthodox view, also known as ‘the consensus’.

Anyway, some months ago a producer at Channel 9’s Sunday program contacted me. Nick Farrow said that he had heard that I had information showing that salinity levels in the Murray River were falling, not rising. I sent him a copy of ‘Myth and the Murray’.

Some weeks later I was interviewed by Ross Coulthart, also from Sunday, and in the following video clip, click here, which is an advertisement for this week’s program, I am seen stating that we don’t have a salinity crisis, but rather an ‘honesty crisis’.

Peter Cullen (a Director of the National Water Commission), Wendy Craik (head of Murray Darling Basin Commission), John Passioura (CSIRO) and others, are quoted in the clip suggesting the Murray River is not dying and that the problem of salinity may have been grossly overstated. The television reporter, Ross Coulthart, describes it as, “Misguided pessimism”.

To John Quiggin, who has relentlessly attacked me, and my credibility, over this issues, I say:

Maybe I was just a bit ahead of my time.

————————————-
Following is the media release from Channel 9:

Australia’s Salinity Crisis: What Crisis?

The SUNDAY Program
Nine Network Australia
Sunday 28th May 2006 – 9am

Reporter: Ross Coulthart
Producer: Nick Farrow

It’s an apocalyptic story of environmental disaster we all know so well.

The Murray Darling basin is being poisoned by salt. Adelaide’s water supply is threatened, along with some of our most productive farmland – and our beautiful rivers are dying.

It’s a frightening scenario. But is it true?

In this week’s SUNDAY programme, reporter Ross Coulthart takes a look at the real threat posed by salinity – and finds things are going badly wrong in public science.

As Coulthart reveals, some of the claims being used to support calls for billions of dollars to be spent on fixing a ‘looming salinity crisis’ are simply not true.

Salinity is a problem. But it seems nowhere as bad as we’ve been told by environmental groups, government departments and many in the media.

Claims that an area of land twice the size of Tasmania is under threat are false. The reality is a fraction of that. Even top scientists now admit the predictions of a disaster have been exaggerated.

They say this may be because the theory about what causes salinity in non-irrigation areas is flawed.

Worse still, scientists suggest a cheaper and easier solution for salinity problems is being ignored – for very unscientific reasons.

“It’s a disaster for science. It’s a disaster for farmers,” one former CSIRO scientist tells SUNDAY.

Taxpayers have now given Government scientists billions of dollars to spend on efforts to understand and tackle salinity. But how solid is the science behind it?

Watch the SUNDAY Program this Sunday 28th May at 9am to find out.”

And here’s the link to the video promo: http://www.nextgenmedia.com/nine/promo/sunday_060528_vid_300.asx

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Salt

Who Should Look After the World’s Whales?

May 26, 2006 By jennifer

The next International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting is planned for St Kitts in the Caribbean from June 16 to 20. Rumor has it that the meeting will mark a change in the balance of power at the IWC from the antiwhaling to the prowhaling nations.

This would likely result in an eventual lifting of the ban on commercial whaling.

Given the IWC was established to manage whale stocks, and the whaling industry, rather than close it down, so the change may bring the Commission closer to its original purpose.

Interestingly, a recent essentially pro-whaling opinion article in the New York Times, suggested that having the IWC manage whaling was like having ‘the fox guarding the chicken coop’. The article went on to suggest that the responsibility for looking after the world’s whales should be transferred to the United Nations (1).

In the review of a book titled ‘Marine Mammals and Northern Cultures’ (2), Ian Stirling from the Canadian Wildlife Service asks the question:

“How did whales of all species become “a global resource”, thereby giving the international community license to tell local people what they could or should do (or not do).

Regardless of one’s personal views, this is not a trivial question and it applies to more resources than whales. Although not discussed [in the book], that question might also raise a parallel question about whether the international community should have a significant influence on the regulation of harvest of whales, cod, krill, large predatory fish, or a host of other marine species, especially given what the fate of many has been at the hands of various users, both commercial and non-commercial.”

What has the international community been good at managing? Where are the success stories in wildlife management and at what level were the programs developed and implemented?

——————–
References

1. ‘ Save Your Whale and Eat It, Too’ by Philip Armour, published May23, 2006, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/opinion/23armour.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

2. ‘Marine Mammals and Northern Cultures’ by A. Kalland and F Sejersen, with contributions from H. Beyer Broch and M. Ris. ISBN 1-896445-26-8. ($CDN $35.00 – see website for specifics on shipping costs). Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 349 pp.
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/polar//pdfs/CCIPress-Kalland-MMNCFlyer.pdf

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

Fudging Figures on Murray River Salinity: More Shame on CSIRO

May 24, 2006 By jennifer

CSIRO, Australia’s largest scientific research organisation, released a two-part report* last Friday on ‘water’ in the Murray-Darling Basin, a region often referred to as the food bowl of Australia. The icon within this region is the Murray River and salt levels in the river have long been considered an indication of the region’s health and the sustainability of Australian agriculture.

The report reiterates “salinity … as one of the most serious environmental issues in the Basin” and suggests that “stream salt loads” and “stream salinity” will increase. Part 1 of the report is 48 pages and Part 2 is 29 pages but there is only one graph of Murray River salinity and it was drawn in 1988, some 16 years ago. It is computer-model generated and interestingly begins in 1920 even though first recording were not made until 1938.

Salinity Gph CSIRO Feb06.JPG

In my opinion it is both sad and deceitful that the CSIRO won’t show us what salinity levels really look like but instead keeps republishing a dated and misleading graph from a computer model.

Would you like to see what salt levels are really like?

Here’s a plot of yearly average stream salinity from when recordings where first made in 1938:

salinity Yearly Averages.JPG

This graph is based on data that I recently requested and received from the Murray Darling Basin Commission.

A plot of all the daily readings for Morgan, a key site as its just upstream from the off-shoots for Adelaide’s water supply, also shows a downward trend for the last 20 years:

Salinity all data May06.JPG

This data was also sourced from the Murray Darling Basin Commission and the last data point represents last Friday, 19th May 2006.

It’s good news that salt levels are falling. But no-one will acknowledge it!

A common ‘excuse’ given for the low stream salinity levels is that it’s been so dry, “It doesn’t rain so much in the Murray-Darling Basin anymore”. But hang-on, a plot of rainfall for the Murray-Darling Basin shows no recent drop-off. The last very dry year was 2002 and that wasn’t unusually dry in the scheme of things.

BOM MDB.JPG

The graph is from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, click here.

Perhaps so much funding is dependent on the perception that salinity is a continuing problem, and so many reputations have been made on the myth, that there is almost an obligation to repeat the falsehood?

I reckon it matters that CSIRO and others keep misleading the Australian public on this issue. I reckon it matters that the federal government just announced another $500 million for the Murray River on the pretext that river salinity is a continuing problem.

* The reports are titled ‘The Shared Water Resources of the Murray-Darling Basin’ by Kirby M et al. 2006 and ‘Risks to the Shared Water Resources of the Murray-Darling Basin’ by Van Dijk, A et al 2006 published by the Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra and prepared by CSIRO Land and Water as part of the Water for a Healthy Country National Flagship Program.

—————————————————-
This Sunday, Channel 9’s Sunday program is planning to feature at story on the Murray River and salinity. I’m hoping that Ross Coulthart from SUNDAY will go beyond the empty rhetoric and show that the emperor has no clothes.

So if you live in Australia, watch Channel 9 from 9am on Sunday.

I’ve written a bit about the Murray River which can be accessed online including an IPA backgrounder, click here, and something for Online Opinion more recently, click here, and for ABC Radio National’s Counterpoint with Michael Duffy, click here. I will in due course do a complete critique of the two-part CSIRO report.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Salt

Feeling Cold & Confused in a Warming World

May 24, 2006 By jennifer

It was all over local radio here in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, this morning … that it was the coldest May morning ever, with temperatures down to -2C. That’s cold for subtropical Brisbane.

As I sat shivering in my little wooden house with no central heating or insulation, I was trying to reconcile this one off measurement and the colour of my hands, with new information on the Bureau of Meterology (BOM) website that says global warming is real, is here now, and that on average its a whole degree warmer in Australia.

Indeed, according to the Bureau:

“Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days.”

But what is perhaps more interesting than this cold May morning in this world of global warming, is that most of the rest of the world has on average, according to NASA, only warmed by 0.6C over the last 30 years or so. I thought the IPCC models said that it was going to get warmer on average in the northern hemisphere before it got warmer down here?

I’ve just found that comment from Gavin at an earlier thread which I interpreted, along with figure 18, to mean it should, in general, not warm as much here in Australia, as it will in the rest of the world, at least not for the moment:

“The basic mistake is to assume that hemispheric temperatures follow hemispheric forcings proportionately. This is incorrect. The biggest factor is the amount of oceans and the effective mixing depths in the southern oceans. This gives a much larger effective heat capacity in the south and so in any transient case the warming is always delayed in the south. This is actually exactly what climate models show. See http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/2005_submitted_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
(fig 18 for instance).”

In summary, according to the models from our best scientists it is going to get warmer on average in the northern hemisphere before it gets warmer in the southern hemisphere, but according to the Australian Bureau of Meterology (BOM) its a whole degree on average warmer here in Australia in the southern hemisphere when, on average, its only 0.6C warmer over the whole world.

And I just wish it would warm up a bit, today, here in Brisbane.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Dam the Yangtze, But Not the Mary?

May 24, 2006 By jennifer

The largest dam in the world, The Three Gorge Dam on the Yangtze River in China, was completed, and ahead of schedule, just last week. And last week controversy errupted where I live in south eastern Queensland, Australia, over plans to dam the Mary River.

Interestingly the proposal to dam the Mary was not part of the blueprint for future infrastructure development released by the Queensland state government just last year, click here for the full report.

Right now, I don’t really have an opinion on whether the dam should or shouldn’t be built. But I would like some information about how much water it is going to deliver relative to other options including water recycling and desalination.

But I guess a problem for government scientists making forward projections is global warming. I guess there is an expectation that the dam will fill with water, yet the same Queensland government last year announced in parliament that we are going to have 40 percent less rainfall in 70 years (or was it 70 percent less rainfall in 40 years) as a consequence of global warming. [ Can someone find the link for me to the comments by Minister Stephen Robinson?]

For anyone interested in reading some of the opinion associated with a new dam proposal in Australia, I’ve been sent the following list of links by a reader of this blog:

http://www.qld.greens.org.au/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=243
http://www.savethemaryriver.com/
http://econews.org.au/story1_14.php?PHPSESSID=d0ba0bfd1dfdf5bb290ec2517a234e2a
http://www.themaryvalley.com.au/html/cms/103/traveston-dam-mary-river
http://www.qld.nationals.org.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=560

It is also interesting that the Queensland government just last year essentially banned dam building in northern Queensland through its Wild River’s legislation. Yet this is where the big rivers are in this big state. The Mary is really a little stream. Perhaps hardly worth the bother of daming?

—————————
About the Three Gorges Dam, according to Xinhua News:

“The concrete placement of the Dam’s main section was completed 10 months ahead of schedule, which will enable the Dam to start its role in power generation, flood control and shipping improvement in 2008, one year ahead of designated time.

After the cofferdam is demolished on June 6, the dam’s main wall, often compared to the Great Wall in its scale, will formally begin to hold water, protecting 15 million people and 1.5 million hectares of farm land downstream from floodings, which had haunted the Yangtze River valley for thousands of years. Upon the demolition, a new landscape featuring a reservoir with a serene water surface behind the spectacular dam will gradually come into being along with planned rises of the water level.

The Three Gorges, which consist of Qutang, Wuxia and Xiling Gorges, extend for about 200 km on the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze. They have become a popular world-class tourist destination noted for beautiful natural landscapes and a great number of historical and cultural relics. This section of the Yangtze has a narrow river course which is inconvenient for shipping but boasts abundant hydroelectric resources.

… As China’s longest and the world’s third longest, the Yangtze River, together with the Yellow River, nurtured the Chinese civilization. However, its floodings have since long threatened lives and properties of residents along its valley. The latest deluge happened in 1998, which claimed about 1,000 lives and incurred approximately 100 billion yuan (12.5 billion U.S. dollars) in economic losses.”

On the downside I understand more than a million people were displaced as part of its construction and it was to cost about $27 billion to build.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Water

Calling C02 “Life”: New Advertisements from Climate Change Contrarians

May 19, 2006 By jennifer

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has produced two advertisements promoting carbon dioxide (C02) — that’s right promoting C02 — for American television. To watch the video’s click here.

The key theme is that C02 is life giving and not a pollutant. The fact that we breathe C02 out, and plants breathe C02 in, is repeated.

No reference is made to the elevated levels of C02 in the atmosphere as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels. Is it on this basis that C02 has been labelled a pollutant? What is the definition of a pollutant? According to my dictionary it is something that “contaminates”.

I think I could mount an argument for both sides of this debate.

Beyond the elevated levels of carbon dioxide are going to change climate argument, it could be argued as long as it comes out of a car exhaust or chimney stack it is unnatural and therefore a pollutant regardless of concentration.

On the C02 is natural, “we call it life” side, I would ask the question what is the “correct” concentration of atmospheric C02?

Is climate change a moral issue, as much as a scientific issue?

Over at Real Climate the response to the videos has been more emotional than analytical, click here for the post. Though they make some good points regarding the second video and what’s happening to the world’s glaciers:

“They only discuss one scientific point which relates to whether ‘glaciers are melting’. Unsurprisingly, they don’t discuss the dramatic evidence of tropical glacier melting, the almost worldwide retreat of other mountain glaciers, the rapid acceleration of fringing glaciers on Greenland or the Antarctic peninsula. Neither do they mention that the preliminary gravity measurements imply that both Antarctica and Greenland appear to be net contributors to sea level rise. No. The only studies that they highlight are ones which demonstrate that in the interior of the ice shelves, there is actually some accumulation of snow (which clearly balances some of the fringing loss). These studies actually confirm climate model predictions that as the poles warm, water vapour there will increase and so, in general, will precipitation. In the extreme environments of the central ice sheets, it will not get warm enough to rain and so snowfall and accumulation are expected to increase.

To be sure, calculating the net balance of the ice sheets is difficult and given the uncertainties of different techniques (altimeters, gravity measurements, interferometers etc.) and the shortness of many of the records, it’s difficult to make very definitive statements about the present day situation. Our sense of the data is that Greenland is probably losing mass – the rapid wasting around the edge is larger than the accumulation in the center, whereas Antarctica in toto is a more difficult call.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

May 2006
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr   Jun »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital