Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for August 30, 2007

Next Ice Age Delayed by Man-Made CO2?

By

A news release from the University of Southampton, UK:

Next Ice Age delayed by rising CO2 levels

Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

According to New Scientist magazine, which features Dr Tyrrell’s research this week, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity.

Dr Tyrrell’s team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

The world’s oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed.

Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon.

The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age.

Dr Tyrrell said: ‘Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn’t matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.’

Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth’s orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important.

Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

Dr Tyrrell is a Reader in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science. This research was first published in Tellus B, vol 59 p664.

Stopping Logging Won’t Stop Global Warming: A Note from Norman Endacott

By

Save the Forests: they are crucial to reducing CO2

This is the call to arms which we get from Professor Brendan Mackey, Professor of Environmental Science at the ANU, in the Opinion Section of the Melbourne’s The Age of August 7, 2007. The heading was followed by a sub-heading which makes the unequivocal assertion that “Stopping Logging Will Help Solve the Global Warming Problem”.

He gives us a farrago of nonsense about the capability of the world’s forests in turning back the tide of man-made CO2 emissions, provided mankind will but leave those forests alone, without fire protection, unmanaged, un-logged, unharvested, and un-regenerated.

He focuses on Tasmania, and complains about the recent Labor endorsement of the status quo, wherein the Forest Management Agency (Forestry Tasmania) manages Tasmania’s public forests on Multiple Use and Sustainable bases.

On August 1st, Jon Faine who conducts ABC’s popular morning talkback radio programme, anticipated the doomsday scenario of Prof. Mackey concerning Tasmania and CO2 emissions. In an interview with Kevin Rudd on Labor policy, he accused Rudd of propounding a contradictory policy – on the one hand supporting the Government’s stand against Global Warming, and on the other hand commending the forestry status quo in Tasmania.

Professor Mackey and Jon Faine have acquired the same mindset, most likely from such sources as the Greens and the Wilderness Society, with all the accompanying anti-forestry baggage.

I will endeavour to tease out some of the falsehoods embedded in the Mackey article.

These are my counter-arguments:

(1) Tasmanian land-use statistics, present and past, indicate that today’s forest boundaries embrace land which stands at 66% of the hectares of forest that existed in 1803. Virtually no forest diminution occurred in the 20th century or later

(2) Furthermore, within Tasmania’s late 20th and early 21st centuries we have seen a prodigious area of Public Forest landscape dedicated as National Parks, Wilderness, Valleys of the Giants, so-called “Old Growth Forests”, Cool Temperate Rainforests, and “Forests of High ConservationValue”, also forests with romantic-sounding names, like “Tarkine”. These areas have been excluded from timber utilization in perpetuity.

(3) These swashbuckling logging exclusions occurred under the auspices of the Helsham Enquiry , the RFA Agreement, Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement 2005, and the 2004 pre-Federal Election horse-trading between Howard, Latham & Paul Lennon . This all happened within the span of a couple of decades. The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania has produced a set of progress maps which show the cumulative extent of reservations, as percentages of total forest. The cumulative % figures are : 1982 – 14%, 1992 – 21%, 2001 – 40%, 2006 – 47%.

Reserved Land in Tasmania.jpg

Considering the situation on mainland Australia :

(4) If Prof.Mackey is advocating a vast Australia-wide plantation programme, as a supplement to the “saved” native forest, where is the productive land to be found? From compulsorily acquired farmland? If so, has he studied the problems of agricultural macro-economics on the national scale?

(5) Prof. Mackey claims that one hectare of mature, tall,wet forest can store the equivalent of 5,500 tonnes of CO2. This seems an extraordinarily large figure, and takes a lot of believing., especially as he blithely tosses it into the ring seemingly as an Australia-wide average. Probably he has this figure embedded in one or more published peer-reviewed “scientific” papers. If so, one would be interested to see how such an enormous figure matches up with the fact that cool temperate rain forest with a tall eucalypt overstory is seriously atypical of Australia’s forest landscapes. The land occupied by our overall forests is generally much less propitious to biomass production than his model. Low and unreliable rainfall( less than 800 mm), shallow and infertile soils (less than one metre depth) and low productivity are the norm. He further confuses the lay community by comparing all this with 1300 cars emitting exhaust fumes over one year, presumably continuously.

(6) Has Dr Mackey compiled a stratified map of Australian forests and potential forest areas, giving himself guidance in factoring hectares and biomass productivity classes into his computations? That would seem to be a sine qua non, to an expert on this subject.

(7) He does not appear to give any credit to the foresters of our country in their pursuit of Multiple Use and Sustainability. To him, their mission in life is simply to flog woodchips off to Japan.

(8) He manages to convey to us that the diminution of a forest is a greenhouse crime, but to do so with the alleged objective of producing pulpwood or woodchips would seem to be infinitely more reprehensible than any other usage. This gratuitous and unfavourable mention of woodchips divulges his covert philosophical linkages with green activist groups.

(9) In his baseless conviction that UNDISTURBED Australian forests are the answer to Australia’s alleged greenhouse problem, Prof. Mackey has lost the ecological plot and fails to grasp the myriad of complexities, constraints , limitations , roadblocks, perils , even stubbornness of Nature,which stand in the way of his masterly “green solution”.

Any forester worth his or her salt, is familiar with the manner in which a tree or forest stand passes through its life cycle (or in forester’s jargon, it’s rotation). Here are the stages in the cycle, starting from the initiation of an Australian afforestation event (natural or artificial), assuming eucalypts, and focussing on biomass (carbon) accumulation :

a) Juvenile phase – insignificant biomass production, grading through to significant and accelerating.

b) Sapling/ Pole phase – rapid growth in height volume and carbon content

c) Middle Age phase – maximum rate of growth in biomass

d) Mature phase – plateau effect, extending over decades.

e) Overmature phase – rate of growth of biomass in decline, verging on the static

f)Senescent phase- absolutely static growth, and tree health now a consideration, plus attack by insect and fungal parasites and saprophytes, leading inevitably to the forest giving up its store of organic matter to the atmosphere as CO2.

g) The first symptom of this disintegration of the forest overstory is the progressive shedding of the dead branches. The last stage is gravity consigning the mortal remains to the forest floor, to join the invertebrates, microbes, and of course the CO2 stream.

h) The question arises – what does Nature have in store for this “residual” forest area, which will have bitterly disappointed Professor Mackey by not retaining its carbon store and forest cover for more than a miserable couple of hundred years. No mention of the word “PERPETUITY” anywhere . That concept seems to be the preserve of Foresters !

i) If we search diligently for the evidence of this failure of our forests to perform to Prof. Mackey’s greenhouse aspirations, we could find the above ecological drama playing itself out in its final phase, in some veteran Eucalyptus regnans stands in Victorian Central Highlands, or Tasmania’s Florentine, Styx & Weld Valleys.

Norman Endacott.
(Retired Forester)

Geoffrey Cousins Should Visit Us: A Plea from Timber Workers in Tasmania

By

High profile Sydney business man Geoffrey Cousins is running a campaign against a new pulp mill proposed for the Tamar Valley in Tasmania. His campaign appears to haver resulted in the federal government deciding to delay their decision by at least six weeks. But how much does Geoffrey Cousins really know about the forestry industry?

Timber Communities Australia extends a public invited to Mr Geoffrey Cousins to visit and meet with Tasmanian timber dependent families.

Tasmanian timber families are only to willing to share with Mr Cousins their pride in being part of Tasmania’s sustainable forest and timber industries and provide him with the opportunity to see both sides of the picture.

“Mr Cousins admitted on local talk back radio this morning that he had not meet with timber dependent communities and we what to help him over come this failing” Barry Chipman Tasmanian State Manager Timber Communities Australia said today

“So far he has only heard outrageous claims, and we are very willing to assist him in seeing for him self just where the proposed pulp mill will be and how well our forests are managed”.

Mr Cousins Insurance Company sponsors the WWF Climate Change program, and this will be an opportunity to learn how Tasmanian forests are removing greenhouse gasses and that the proposed pulp mill will reduce greenhouse gasses.

“If Mr Cousins is prepared to meet with both sides, we are convinced he will be a supporter not a critic of the proposed pulp mill”

As a businessman he should know how important it is for Australia to reduce its deficit in trade of timber products.

“The Bell Bay Pulp Mill has the potential to reduce this balance of trade deficit by $400 to $450 million each year (20 to 25%).”

TCA would endeavour to assist him to visit Five Mile Bluff the site of the ocean outfall, as we wonder if he is aware that the Federal Department of Environment and Water “has not identified any likely significant impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters from the proposed pulp mill.” [Recommendations Report Paragraph 36]

TCA also wonders if he is aware of how ECF pulp mills and for example wineries, co-exist in harmony in other parts of the world including France, Portugal and British Columbia, in fact right around the world with no adverse impacts.”

“We hope Mr Cousins will accept our invitation before he further puts at risk the social and economic well being of timber dependent families throughout Tasmania.” Mr Chipman concluded.

Already an Aluminium Smelter in the ‘Pristine’ Tamar Valley: A Blog Post by Graham Young

By

If you were planning a pulp mill there could hardly be a better spot [than the Tamar Valley in Tasmania]. What’s more, the area is so settled that only an idiot, or someone who hadn’t even bothered with the minimum of research, could call it “pristine”…

Read the full blog post here which shows that the proposed site for the pulp mill in Tasmania is next to an established aluminium smelter in the supposedly pristine Tamar valley: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002259.html

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory – a note from Marc Morano

By

[Note: This is devastating new climate research submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, which continues to show how the entire man-made global warming fear movement is “falling apart.” See earlier EPW Blog: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Breaking News:

Excerpt: Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.” The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Michael Asher

August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.