Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Ian Mott

A Note to Ian Mott on Global Warming And Coral Reefs

By

Dear Ian,

The Center for Biological Diversity contends that staghorn coral and elkhorn coral are “the first, and to date only, species listed under the Endangered Species Act due to threats from global warming.” Kieran Suckling, the policy
director of the Center, “We think this victory on coral critical habitat actually moves the entire Endangered Species Act onto a firm legal foundation for challenging global-warming pollution.”

The Center for Science & Public Policy has published a report taking a closer look at the scientific evidence, which reveals that the impact of global warming on the overall health of coral species is likely to be positive–towards increased species diversity and richness and habitat expansion–and there is evidence that these changes are already underway.

The hope that this endangered species designation will somehow become a tool for global warming legislation is grossly misplaced. Global warming will likely be a benefit to elkhorn and staghorn corals, especially along the
Florida coast where increasing ocean temperatures should encourage coral reef development further and further northward.

The report is available at http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencecenter/coral_reefs_and_global_warming.pdf

Paul Georgia, Ph.D.
Center for Science & Public Policy
Frontiers of Freedom

Government Misrepresents Extent of Land Clearing: A Note from Ian Mott

By

The latest satellite (SLATS) data on Queensland clearing is now available and it provides an interesting insight into how data can be presented in a way that is quite remote from the truth on the ground. The report, Landcover Change in Queensland 2004-2005 can be seen at www.nrw.qld.gov.au/slats

The annual average area cleared in the period was 351,000ha of which 172,000ha (49%) was remnant vegetation with the remaining 179,000ha (51%) being non-remnant woody regrowth. When this was broken down into Carnahan vegetation classes some 193,000ha (55%) was of a type that would not be included within the meaning of forest under the National Forest Inventory. That is, it was “Tussocky or Tufted Grasses” and other vegetation types that have less than 10% foliage cover and are less than 2 metres tall. This presentation still does not allow us to determine what proportion of the 158,000ha (44.7%) cleared remnant vegetation was actually non-forest vegetation types that may actually benefit from tree removal to restore the grassland/shrub ecosystems.

The report has fine tuned a previous practice of breaking the data into relevant grid squares with a colour code to indicate the area of land cleared in each square. Previous reports have used 30′ X 30′ (Lat/Long) grid cells that covered an area of approximately 280,000 hectares with codes indicating cleared area from <100ha to >5000ha for each cell. This produced a map with numerous lurid dark tones but which told us very little, other than the fact that somewhere within a square measuring 53km by 53km was somewhere between 0.01km2 and 50km2 of clearing.

This has now been broken up into 7’30” X 7’30” (Lat/Long) grid cells that cover approximately 17,500 hectares but these still retain the same colour codes for the same cleared area categories and produce a map with lots of little coloured squares that give the appearance of widespread clearing activity. These can be seen at Figure 8 P18 of the current report.

But the most interesting aspect of this presentation is what it does not tell us about the clearing. The graphic below is an enlargement of a 700,000 hectare scene to the west of Charleville which is recorded as one of the hotbeds of clearing in 2004-2005.

The lower presentation is an enlargement of the SLATS Report while the upper presentation indicates the information that is readily available and could be incorporated into the presentation if the political masters were willing to provide a budget for the truth.

Each of the grid squares has been broken up into 700 smaller squares of 25 hectares each (25 across and 28 down) so we are able to show the actual area of pasture, remnant, and woody regrowth in each grid cell. This then enables one to show each years clearing activity in the respective proportions of regrowth and remnant clearing. More importantly, it allows the viewer to gain an understanding of the relevance of that clearing in relation to the local landscape. Obviously, a large amount of clearing in a cell with a low level of remnant (eg. at E2 below) is of more concern than a cleared fence line in a cell with 75% woody remnant vegetation cover.

When the actual clearing is presented in direct spatial proportion to the area of the grid cell and the area of woody vegetation, we get a much more honest appreciation of what is taking place.

Charleville Remnant B.jpg

Of the approximately 3,450 grid cells indicating clearing activity in the report, more than 3,300 of them were in the two least cleared categories, showing cleared areas from 0 <100ha and 100 <500ha in each cell. The remaining 147 cells were easier to count and, after allocating a modal value in each class, we were able to determine that approximately half of all clearing, some 175,000ha, was cleared from these few cells. After allowing for a modal value of 300ha in the second lowest category and a roughly estimated proportion of 9% (or 300) of the 3300 remaining cells being in the second lowest category this indicated that another 90,000ha of clearing took place in the second lowest category. And this left only about 86,000ha of clearing taking place on the remaining 3000 cells at an average area of only 28 hectares per cell.

When that 28ha of clearing is proportionately represented on our improved data presentation below it would occupy just one of the 700 small squares in the cell. And when viewed in proper proportion it then becomes clear that the overwhelming majority of the scenes where some clearing has taken place, that clearing is of extremely marginal ecological impact. Indeed, it is at a level that would be barely detectable with the naked eye.

But it is in the allocation of this clearing (or current absence of it) between remnant and non-remnant at the grid cell level that provides the real “smoking gun” of systematic institutional deception. This is because a 28ha clearing event on an inland property is more than likely to be either fodder harvesting for stock or clearing for a fence line etc. And we know that mulga pulling for stockfeed is done on a long term rotational basis of 15 to 25 years. And that interval is more than sufficient for past regrowth to return to remnant status, being more than 70% of “normal” height. This provides grounds for informed speculation as to what proportion of remnant clearing, the assumed worst impact, is actually concentrated in small events of minimal consequence while the major events are primarily of non-remnant woody weeds.

We won’t actually know for sure unless we demand that this information, that is already at hand, be presented in a manner that properly informs the community. Anything less is serious misrepresentation by omission.

Ian Mott

Monthly Maxima and Minima and What it Means: A Note from Ian Mott

By

Hello Jennifer,

Further to recent posts on the need for new perspectives on Global Warming that can only come from revised graphical treatment, I enclose two graphs that provide us with valuable information on the exact nature and threat potential of Global Warming.

The decadal change in the UK between the 1980’s and 1990’s produces a mean change in the order of 0.58C which exceeds the change in global mean temperatures for the past half century.

The mean temperature for 1980-89 was 9.52C while the mean for 1990-99 was 10.10C.

The global mean is made up of a number of such station records and it is important that we examine a station that exceeds the global mean so we can get a better understanding of how and when the actual warming has taken place.

In each decade the monthly maxima and minima are plotted with a decadal mean, maxima and minima value.

UK Temp record_31392_image001 (2).gif
[graph changed 29th June 2007 – following discussion and for ease of interpretation – data the same]

The most important thing to note is that most of the temperature increase is observed in the higher minimum monthly values rather than higher monthly maximums. And most of that has been in the winter months. For example, the lowest monthly mean for a February in the 1980’s was -1.1C while the lowest February in the 1990’s was +1.5C, the lowest mean for a December in the 1980’s was 0.3C while the lowest mean for a December in the 1990’s was 2.3C, and the lowest monthly mean for a January in the 1980’s was 0.8C while the lowest mean for a January in the 1990’s was 2.5C. These three months account for 0.525C of the decadal change of 0.58C.

But comparing the two graphs also makes three things very clear. They are;

1. An increase in an annual mean temperature is sourced from changes that take place throughout the year, not just in the form of extreme mid summer temperatures as the climate mafia has encouraged the world to think.

2. Most of the temperature increases that contribute to a higher annual mean temperature are entirely within the normal range, in this case in the UK that is between -1.0C and +19C.

3. Of the 12 monthly maximums and 12 monthly minimums that make up an annual mean temperature figure, only two, the midsummer months, pose any sort of risk of exceeding the values that the full suite of flora and fauna at any given location have already proven they can cope with.

This latter point is critical in the light of the Climate Mafia’s continually repeated claim that small changes to the global mean temperature can have far reaching implications for the biosphere. As can be observed in the UK data sets, the rise in Autumn, Winter, Spring and Summer minimum temperatures, and the rise in Autumn, Winter and Spring maximum temperatures, poses zero to minimal threat to any of the flora and fauna species that have experienced those conditions. Indeed, in most cases this is an unambiguous benefit.

And even the threat from the higher midsummer maximums has been overstated for most of the planet. In the case of plant species there is no particular temperature at which an entire forest, species or genotype will suddenly collapse and die. The weaker individuals will die off first and their death will free up soil moisture and nutrients for the remaining ones. The end result will be a slightly lower density of vegetation cover with a slight compositional change in favour of grasses rather than trees in much the same way that composition changes with latitude and rainfall at present.

The same will apply with fauna. The weak will die off first as they already do in drought with a smaller core population that will then breed vigorously in response to the next cyclical change, as they have done for millennia. So next time you hear about “major implications” from minor changes in global mean temperatures, just walk the poor dears slowly through the monthly minimums and maximums that make up an annual mean temperature and ask them which species are put at risk by suffering through a mild winter.

Ian Mott
Australia

New Perspective on Global Temperatures: A Note from Ian Mott

By

Hello Jen,

It has been obvious for some time now that the world has been encouraged to regard temperature changes as being overly significant by the use of anomaly graphs that use the entire vertical scale to portray the extent of the temperature change.

This has denied the public the opportunity to view the changes in relation to their relevance to normal temperatures. So I thought readers might be interested in seeing the familiar data in a new perspective.

temp_image003.gif

Regards,
Ian Mott

Rising Sea Levels or Just Sinking Islands: A Note from Ian Mott

By

Hello Jen,

Our national broadcaster, the ABC, has struck again with a new low in responsible journalism.

In ‘PNG – That Sinking Feeling’, broadcast last night as part of the ‘Foreign Correspondent’ program, reporter Steve Marshall has trashed any credibility the ABC had left on environmental reporting.

The unambiguous message in the documentary and all the introductory material was that here was firm “evidence” of rising sea levels producing climate refugees.

The most powerful scene was of one islander and the reporter standing waist deep in water where the islanders father had once had his veggie patch. The implication being that sea levels had risen by close to two metres over recent decades.

The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands.

The Islanders appear to have been convinced that they are the victims of rising sea levels and global warming, no doubt from a procession of publicly funded planet ponces.

But if Marshall and the program managers at ‘Foreign Correspondent’ had been able to deal with more than one variable at a time they would have drawn the inescapable conclusion that the islands are sinking.

Instead they appear to have manufactured a piece of green propaganda that neatly dovetails with Al Gore’s thoroughly discredited claim that Pacific Islanders are already being displaced by rising sea levels?

What I find most offensive is the way a group of islanders who are confronted by a serious problem appear to have been exploited.

If the ABC can get something this simple completely wrong, then what does that tell us about the veracity of their reporting on much more complex issues elsewhere?

Regards,
Ian Mott

‘Snow Job on the Snowy’ by Ian Mott

By

As the Murray Basin gets another “summit” for it’s troubles it is timely to take a good hard look at the facts behind the last river to get the “can do” swagger from our politicians and environmental saviours. In October 2000 the Feds, NSW and Victorian governments gave us another “milestone” in the great pantheon of environmental achievements. They agreed to return 21 per cent of the Snowy River’s water that has hitherto been captured in the dam system and sent down to the Murray irrigators.

The hype merchants and word molesters were out in force. They had “saved an Aussie icon” and “restored the mighty river to its former glory”. There was no room at all for the fact that these custodians of the public good had just seriously impaired the contributive value and efficiency of a public asset, the dam system and related power generating capacity.

But that is only small beer compared to the character, scale and extent of the gross misrepresentation of facts that had been introduced into the policy process, without any apparent challenge by the professional officers involved, leading up to this decision.

A good grasp of the kind of arguments put by the self-appointed saviours of the Snowy River, prepared by East Gippsland Independent State MLA, Craig Ingram, can be seen here. If this MP has made similar representations to the Victorian Parliament then there are grounds to investigate whether he has engaged in grossly misleading and deceptive conduct.

He informed us that:

“The value of the Snowy River to the Australian people is beyond calculation. Right now, this national icon lies at death’s door. The once mighty Snowy River has been reduced to a series of small, stagnant pools, choked with weeds and sand. Seawater is intruding upstream and native fish are fast disappearing”.

Note the clear implication that river flow is negligible and that this condition is present over the entire length of the river system. This perception was reinforced under the heading “a matter of equity” with the claim that “Australians are asking for 28 per cent of the original flow to be returned to the Snowy River”. And who, one may ask, could possibly argue against an apparent restoration of a river from 0 per cent to 28 per cent of its former flow?

But let’s put this into perspective. This 28 per cent amounts to about 330,000 megalitres or 1.3 times the total volume used each year by the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane. It was followed by the claim that, “the water needed for the Snowy can come from efficiency savings in irrigation”.

They quoted Professor John Lovering, former Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, as saying, “just a 10 per cent improvement in irrigation and farm management practices could deliver one million megalitres of extra water to irrigators”. And then implied that a simple, unstated, back-door, tax-in-kind, of 33 per cent of the farmer’s gross, hard won, efficiency gains, on top of all their existing tax obligations, was all that was needed to fix this “matter of equity”.

No one asked if any other segment of the broader community was being asked to hand over a full third of their gross efficiency gains over more than the next decade. Per capita productivity gains in Australia are generally in the order of 1per cent per annum and those gains are already taxed at between 30 and 45 per cent. But the parties to this water agreement, both Liberal and Labor, thought nothing of taking the first 33 per cent as water tax, oblivious to the fact that the farmers would subsequently be taxed another 30 to 45 per cent on the remainder. The effective tax on these farmers productivity gains would be 55 to 60 per cent.

In blissful ignorance, it was such a simple, seductive concept that it was easily taken up by otherwise intelligent departmental officers, who lacked either the time or inclination to think the matter through.

The Alliance lists as references:

1994 scoping report commissioned by NSW and Victorian Governments. Recognises 28 per cent of the Snowy’s original flow is needed to reinstate the ecological function of the river;

1996 expert panel of scientists conclude that insufficient water is released from Jindabyne Dam to maintain a healthy ecosystem. They recommended 28 per cent;

1998 Scientific Reference Panel of the Snowy Water Inquiry conducted by NSW and Victorian Governments supports a minimum of 28 per cent.

The ACT Environment Commission also gets into the act with the narrow perspective of the Snowy River Shire when it claims, “The scheme diverted close to 99 per cent, or 520 gigalitres each year, of the Snowy River flow into the Murrumbidgee and Murray River system. This left the Snowy River with only 1 per cent, or nine gigalitres, of its average annual flow. A decision in 2002 saw this environmental flow increased to 38 gigalitres each year, or 6 per cent of the total flow.”

But it then includes a very important rider, stating, “No estimate of the volume of water that escapes the Shire in the various river systems, where that water is not captured by the scheme, is available”.

You see, all the claims about absent flows, and so on, have been in relation to the minor portion of the river system immediately below the dams. And both the public, and the policy process, has been encouraged to assume that this applies to the entire river system. But as each additional tributary joins the river on its way to the sea the more “healthy” the river becomes.

Indeed, the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority provides the first glimmer of evidence that the Snowy system is not quite as bad as it has been made out to be. It has a map showing entirely unmodified tributaries (listed for their heritage values) and a photo of what looks like a very healthy river.

It is not until we go to the Australian Natural Resource Atlas that we get closer to the real story on the Snowy River.

Total catchment area = 1,589,600 hectares

NSW catchment area = 894,000 ha

Victoria catchment area = 685,600 ha

NSW mean annual runoff = 1,317,000 megalitres of which 513,000Ml is captured in dams.

Victoria mean annual runoff = 863,000Ml plus 804,000Ml from NSW.

And this tells us that about 1,664,000 megalitres out of total catchment runoff of 2.18 million still makes it to the sea at Marlo. So we have a river system which has numerous tributaries that still exhibit zero disturbance in normal flows and allow the lower river to still deliver 76.3 per cent of total runoff into the sea.

The claimed requirement for another 330,000Ml, deemed by the above mentioned “expert panels” as the minimum required to restore the ecological function of the river, would send 91.5 per cent (1.99 million Ml) of total runoff into the sea.

Note that there is some discrepancy in the Alliance’s maths. If 330,000Ml is 28 per cent of flow then total flow would only be 1.18 million Ml not the 1.317 million Ml reported by ANRA as the NSW share of the runoff. What we do know with absolute certainty is that no mandate would have been given by the public to undermine the efficiency of expensive infrastructure for the dubious benefits of lifting river flow from 76.3 per cent to 91.5 per cent.

But wait, there is more. The Victorian part of the catchment is still largely timbered so we can assume that the runoff volumes from the Victorian portion are close to the original pre-settlement volumes. The same cannot be said about the NSW portion where, outside of the National Parks and reserves, extensive clearing has increased the runoff volume from pre-settlement volumes.

The Australian Natural Resource Atlas has good, but apparently limited access, data on the extent and type of original vegetation and the extent of subsequent clearing. An exact area is not available but by visual estimate about 66 per cent of this part of the catchment has been cleared. And from this we can make a reasonable “guestimate” at the change in runoff volumes since settlement.

We also know the mean annual rainfall at Bombala is 645mm which is quite evenly distributed throughout the year. This even distribution is also present at Nimmitabel with mean annual rainfall of 690mm. And from the work on 21 Victorian catchments by Holmes and Sinclair in 1986, as reported in Vertessy et al, 1998, “Predicting water yield from Mountain Ash catchments”, we can determine the changes in yield with some accuracy.

Where there is an annual rainfall of 700mm a forest will use 650mm while 50mm is runoff. If you clear that forest to pasture and, assuming it is not overgrazed, it will use 545mm of rain with 155mm of runoff, an increase in yield of 210 per cent.

So when we look at the catchment below the dams and above the state border we find 1/3rd uncleared land that produces 100 per cent of presettlement water yield and 2/3rds cleared land that produces 310 per cent of pre-settlement water yield. And this means that the current runoff of 804,000Ml represents (1x 0.333 + 3.1 x 0.666 = 2.4) 2.4 times the original pre-settlement flows.

Hence, the total pre-settlement flow from both cleared and uncleared land was 335,000Ml while the cleared land now delivers an additional 469,000Ml to the Victorian part of the river.

This tells us that the original pre-settlement flows at the mouth of the Snowy River consisted of;

863,000Ml from the Victorian portion;

335,000Ml from the NSW portion below the dams; and

513,000Ml from above the dams,

for a total flow of 1.711 million Ml.

And that means that the current mean annual flow of 1.644 million Ml is actually 96 per cent of the pre-settlement flow. In effect, all but 44,000Ml of the 513,000Ml that is diverted from the Snowy to the Murray is already compensated for by the increased runoff from clearing in the NSW portion.

But the downstream observers in Victoria only have visual and anecdotal references to river flows that have occurred after the upstream clearing activity has increased flows. And it is this man-made increase in river flows that they are now seeking to convert to some sort of baseline for an environmental duty of care to minimise harm. But if they succeed in getting the existing agreement implemented they will lock in an entirely unwarranted ecological surplus at the expense of the Murray system and the communities that depend on it.

The facts are that the current 4 per cent reduction in river flows is almost statistically irrelevant in terms of the normal range of variation in rainfall and runoff. For example, the 1st decile event for Bombala is only 457mm (71% of mean) and the 9th decile event is 866mm (134% of mean) for a natural range of 66 per cent of mean.

This is not to say that the 30 to 40km of river below the dam is not significantly diminished, it obviously is. But pouring $50 million worth of valuable water into the ocean is a very silly, indeed, incompetent way of fixing the problem. There is a much better way – based on the fact that the one type of water use that is most suited to recycling is water used for environmental flows.

The Snowy River itself does a great deal to assist in the recycling of its environmental flows. It traces a large, 95km, bend in the section concerned that ends only 27km away from where it starts. So the construction of a short pipeline and pumping system would enable the release of just a single day’s worth of environmental flow which could then be pumped back to the starting point (recycled) to do the same job each day for the next 364 days each year.

This would take place before the steep drop onto the Victorian lowlands and the countryside that the pipeline would need to cross is already cleared with comparatively mild undulation that is well suited to pumping and syphoning.

The key to the feasibility of this sort of recycling of environmental flows is; can we pump a megalitre of water along a 27km pipe with modest head for less than the price that a farmer would pay for the same megalitre? Clearly, the answer is an unambiguous “Yes”.

Adelaide pumps its water 170km from the Murray River, and over a hill, presumably at an acceptable wholesale price.

Farmers in the Brisbane Valley are eager to pay for recycled Brisbane sewerage that will be pumped more than 60km.

The plan to reintroduce recycled water into Wivenhoe Dam will involve a lift of more than 100 metres and more than 40km of pipeline and be reintroduced to the urban water system at a profitable margin on a wholesale price of $170 per Ml.

So even if there was a sound case for restoring flows to the Snowy River then taking good water out of the dams is not the best option. The Greens’ target of 330,000Ml in water savings could be ploughed back into more production that will inject $132 million into towns on the Murray each year. A modest pumping load of 100Ml a day would deliver 36,500Ml of river flow to the actual section of river that needs it while leaving 36,400Ml for farmers to add $15 million worth of crop value to the remainder.

For the moment, the most inefficient water users, and those most reluctant to adopt new ideas, technology and innovations, are the Green movement and their captive departmental minions. Unlike sewerage or storm water recycling, water that is released for environmental flows needs no expensive processing to enable it to be used again, and again. And this capacity for multiple recycling gives it an entire order of magnitude greater priority than all other water efficiency options. We all need to get a lot smarter with our use of water but our self appointed environmental guardians have a lot further to go than anyone else.

More importantly, neither the federal government, nor any of the state governments would be complying with our well defined principles of “proper exercise of power” if they continue to try to develop catchment wide water allocation policies without taking the highly relevant factors of clearing induced changes in water yield, and the potential for recycling environmental flows, into account.

To continue to do so in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence would not only be grossly negligent but may also constitute criminal conspiracy. It has to stop.

Ian Mott,
Byron Hinterland
Australia

———————–
Ian Mott is a third generation native forest owner, miller and regenerator from the Byron hinterland.

A former Sydney and Brisbane Executive Recruiter with his own agency, his interest in the family property has seen him evolve, over the past decade, into a property rights activist and consultant. He is secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies.

A version of this article was first published at On Line Opinion on 23rd November 2006.