Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for August 23, 2007

Geoengineering not the answer to global warming – a note from Luke

By

A recent paper by IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth and Aiguo Dai:
Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering

suggests that there would be adverse effects, including drought, as a result of the use of geoengineering in order to offset greenhouse warming:

Abstract
The problem of global warming arises from the buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). One geoengineering solution being proposed is to reduce the incoming sunshine by emulating a volcanic eruption. In between the incoming solar radiation and the OLR is the entire weather and climate system and the hydrological cycle. The precipitation and streamflow records from 1950 to 2004 are examined for the effects of volcanic eruptions from El Chichón in March 1982 and Pinatubo in June 1991, taking into account changes from El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 there was a substantial decrease in precipitation over land and a record decrease in runoff and river discharge into the ocean from October 1991–September 1992. The results suggest that major adverse effects, including drought, could arise from geoengineering solutions.

Hurricane ‘handbags’

By

As Hurricane Dean works its way through Mexico, we are reminded of the debate between those who link Hurricanes with global warming, and those who don’t. Scientists Chris Landsea of NOAA and Greg Holland of UCAR find themselves on opposite sides of the debate. Holland has recently claimed that tropical storms have doubled due to global warming in a new paper with Peter Webster. Landsea has also published a recent paper entitled Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900. Holland is quoted as saying, “….my sense is that we shall see a stabilization in frequencies for a while, followed by potentially another upward swing if global warming continues unabated.” Landsea’s response was to call Holland’s research “sloppy science.”

Roger Pileke Jr, who has several publications on Hurricanes co-authored with Chris Landsea, waded into the debate by asking Webster for his data. Webster told him in no uncertain terms to recreate it himself, so he did.

The storm data set used is divided into halves, each 51 years long:

1905-1955 (51 years) and 1956-2006 (51 years).

The official HURDAT data looks like this:

1905-1955 = 366
1956-2006 = 458

Holland/Webster 2007 looks like this using their storm-count underestimate correction:

1905-1955 = 417
1956-2006 = 458

Landsea also uses a storm-count underestimate correction:

1905-1955 = 529
1956-2006 = 527

It all comes down to which correction is correct.

William Gray has his say here.

Tasmanian Forests – The Wildcard in Australian Politics

By

Over the last decade or so Tasmanian forestry issues have emerged as the predictable wildcard in Australian federal politics. I say predictable because the issue is always there but tends to manifests itself in unpredictable ways.

At the last federal election unionists rallied for John Howard, a Liberal Prime Minister, when Mark Latham, the Labor challenger went ‘too green’ in his forestry policies. Neither political party released its forestry policy until the last week of the campaign. Then a few days out from the election, television images of blue-collar workers cheering John Howard at a rally in Launceston stole momentum from the Labor party in the final days of the campaign.

There is another federal election likely sometime before the end of the year and it initially appeared Tasmanian forestry would not be an issue. Both parties have similar policies including on a proposed pulp mill.

But a now former prime ministerial adviser has decided to very publicly attack the environment minister for apparently supporting the pulp mill.

Geoffrey Cousins says he will campaign against Malcolm Turnbull because he is appalled the Minister has fast-tracked the approval process for the proposed $2 billion Gunns pulp mill in northern Tasmania.

As far as I can tell the pulp mill has not been fast tracked. Rather the greens have thrown as many obstacles in the way as they can over many years, and every time one is lifted out of the way, someone is accused of being undemocratic or fast tracking approvals?

And who is Mr Cousins anyway. Why is the media making such a big deal out of his bully-boy tactics?

Previous posts on this issue include:

Tasmanian Pulp Mill assessment process vindicated by the Federal court https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002209.html

Tasmanian Pulp Mill at Crossroads: A Note from Cinders
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001972.html