Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for January 2012

Consensus Against AGW Deception

By

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

So began a recent opinion piece by sixteen scientists published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2011. It is republished here with permission from Bill Kininmonth…

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

[Read more…] about Consensus Against AGW Deception

Sold Down the River by Canberra

By

WHEN former Labor leader Mark Latham was campaigning to win the 2004 federal election, he promised to add 450 gigalitres of environmental flows to the Murray River in his first term of government and an extra 1,500 within ten years.

Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown said he would return 1,500 gigalitres within five years – in half the time.

Back then 1,500 gigalitres seemed like a lot of water.

In a June 2003 interview for ABC Television’s Four Corners, the late Peter Cullen from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists also mentioned 1,500 gigalitres and indicated that volume was scientifically derived.

In their Blueprint for a National Water Plan, the Wentworth Group proposed the water be returned through an annual incremental increase of 100 gigalitres for environmental flow. Based on this 2003 plan, by last year at least 800 gigalitres would need to have been returned to the river.

In fact, when campaigning during the 2010 federal election Julia Gillard said over 900 gigalitres had already been recovered.

The Wentworth Group should be happy with progress.

But it isn’t.

The group now claims no less than 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to the Murray Darling river system. The Australian Greens are also now claiming that a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to ensure the Murray River’s survival and 7,600 gigalitres if it is to be healthy.

What has precipitated such a momentous change in the volume of water required to save the river?

In 2003 the water was apparently needed because of declining water quality and rising river salinity. This was shown to be a furphy: river salinity levels had been falling since the early 1980s since implementation of the salinity management strategy of the Murray Darling Basin Commission.

So now less, not more, water should be needed. But the focus has switched to the bottom of the system with claims more water is now needed to keep the Murray’s mouth open.

Professor Cullen was talking about the Murray’s mouth in that June 2003 Four Corners interview. Had he mentioned the need for a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres back then it would have been considered greedy.

Not any more! Expectations have changed.

I put the change down to two initiatives lead by former prime minister John Howard. In 2007 the Water Act became law, creating priority for environmental water. In the same year $10 billion was allocated for implementation of the associated Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Thanks to Mr Howard, Ms Gillard now has a legal obligation to send a volume of water about equal to the total current baseline diversions for the NSW Murray (1,812/year GL) and also the Murrumbidgee (2501 GL/year) to South Australia every year.

***************
First published in The Land newspaper on January 19, 2012

Talking at the Sydney Institute about the Need to Restore the Estuary

By

I will be speaking at the Sydney Institute on Wednesday 8th February on the need to restore the Murray River’s estuary.

More information here: http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/functions/weekly-seminars/

My talk will be published in the on-line journal The Sydney Papers. The talk will be uploaded on to The Sydney Institute’s website as a podcast soon after the event. Also, it is possible that the talk will be filmed by APAC – Channel 648 on Foxtel and Austar – and will be shown in full soon after the event.

The Average Global Surface Air Temperature for 2011: Ole Humlum

By

“ON the whole, the year 2011 was somewhat cooler than 2010…

In the Northern Hemisphere close to normal or relatively low surface air temperatures characterized most regions. Relatively warm conditions characterised northern Siberia and Russia, especially along the Arctic Ocean coast.

Conditions near the Equator were influenced by the cold La Nina situation, which has prevailed for most of 2011. Most of equatorial Pacific thereby experienced average surface air temperatures below the 1998-2006 average temperatures.

In the Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures were close to average, or slightly below.

The Arctic was a region of relatively large contrasts. Most of the Arctic in 2011 had surface air temperatures near or above the 1998-2006 average, but along the northern coast of Siberia average 2011 temperatures were 3-4 C above the 1998-2006 average. In contrast, most regions just south of the Arctic experienced temperatures below the average.

In the Antarctic regions around the Weddell Sea experienced in 2011 above average surface air temperatures, in contrast to 2010, where the same regions were colder than average. The Antarctic Peninsula experienced relatively low average temperatures in 2011.

Please find below a link which will take you directly to a short newsletter (ca. 1.5 MB) with meteorological information summarised for the year 2011:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_Year_2011.pdf

Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography
Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences
University of Oslo, Norway

The Age of Apocalypse?

By

“When questioned, Jesus of Nazareth had this to say on the subject of the end of the world: ‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’ (Mark 13:32) We don’t seem to have improved on that forecast since and not all the research associates and interns toiling at Mead GHQ crunching all the computers that money can buy have been able to come up with anything more precise.

“But whether or not we get the Big Bang or the Big Whimper, the new decade is going to be haunted by the specter of an approaching apocalypse; a lot of people will think the world is ending, or could end, and the mixture of hope, fear and apocalyptic energy unleashed by that perception will be affecting both national and international politics on an increasing scale as time goes by.” So, predicted Walter Russell Mead on his blog in January 2010, at the beginning of the new decade.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/19/2010s-7-end-of-the-world/

But I’m not sure. The global warming scare appears to have almost run its course. What comes next or what just for this new year, 2012?

Sustaining Australia on 2,500 Gigalitres of Water

By

Yesterday a Murrumbidgee food producer, Virginia Tropeano, had a letter printed in the local Murrumbidgee ‘Area News’ explaining that in an average rainfall year it take 5,000 gigalitres of water to keep the Lower Lakes artificially fresh.

Because of the sea dykes across the bottom of the Lower Lakes, they are totally dependent on water from upstream. In drought years this makes the Lower Lakes completely dependent on water in upstream storages. The only really large and reliable storages in drought years are in the upper Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments because they are the only snow fed catchments.

The Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, wants 4,000 gigalitres more freshwater each year for South Australia as guaranteed supply. Because the Lower Lakes are Ramsar listed and because of the way the Water Act has been written, he is likely to get this water even if he has to take the Murray Darling Basin Authority to the High Court.

I think that in a good year, the most water that is ever allocated for food production in the Murrumbidgee is 2,500 gigalitres. Can someone verify this figure for me? Assuming I’m about right, Mr Weatherill wants all of this water and more.

If you have continued to read this far, and you are not an irrigator, you are probably getting bored with my use of these meaningless figures of thousands of gigalitres. So help me make this a more interesting story.

How much food can 2,500 gigalitres produce?

Farmers in the Murrumbidgee use about this volume of water to produce food.

What types of foods do they produce and how could the total volume, or caloric equivalent, be described in a meaningful way.

For example, can someone let me know for how many weeks or months the population of Australia could survive on food produced from 2,500 gigalitres of water?