Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Supernovae Affecting Global Climate and Ocean Biodiversity and Productivity

By

REMEMBER Henrick Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen and cosmic ray theory [1]: the idea from these Danish physicists and climate scientists that global climate may be mediated by changes in the flux of galactic cosmic rays because cosmic ray are conducive to cloud formation?

Henrik Svensmark has just published a new paper: now available for download in full from the front page of the Royal Astronomical Society’s website [2] and the subject of a detailed post by Anthony Watt [3].

The new paper focuses on local supernova rates (rates of explosions of large stars) and suggests that high rates of explosion could coincide with colder conditions on planet earth. The paper draws a correlation between long-term changes in sea-level and supernova rates and marine biodiversity and productivity over the last 510 million years.

Dr Svensmark goes as far as to hypothesis that the biodiversity and primary productivity of the oceans depends on the supernova rate; somewhat counter intuitively that glacial conditions will result in increased primary productivity.

“A simple working hypothesis, suggested by carbon-isotope data for the past 4 Gyr (Svensmark 2006a), is that primary productivity increases in glacial conditions, perhaps because of better nutrient supplies, caused by a more vigorous mixing in the oceans during cold conditions. This hypothesis would predict the following.

(i) 
A drawdown of CO2 from the environment in glacial conditions. Since organic productivity consumes CO2, there should be an impact on the levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2. High productivity draws down CO2, until ultimately the productivity rise is halted not only by exhaustion of nutrients, but also by the scarcity of CO2, which should prevent a total loss of environmental CO2. Conversely, low productivity should result in an accumulation of underemployed CO2.

(ii) 
Due to the increased organic productivity, an increase in the heavy stable isotope of carbon, 13C, is expected in the oceans during glacial conditions.

I’m fascinated.  But not convinced.

H/T Neville.

*******************

[1] Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate (Part 1) https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/2008/04/cosmic-rays-clouds-and-climate-part-1/

[2] Henrick Svensmark 2012. Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Links here:
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/full

[3] Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth at Watts Up With That? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/svensmarks-cosmic-jackpot-evidence-of-nearby-supernovae-affecting-life-on-earth/#more-61941

Beach Mounds Not Middens

By

WALKING on the beach this afternoon I took some photographs of beach mounds. I’m referring to piles of shells and pebbles regularly positioned between, and parallel to, the high and low tide marks.

Are these beach mounds a consequence of the ebb tide dragging the sand away from the shells and pebbles or a consequence of swash action dropping shells and pebbles?

During periods of global sea level rise there is typically an overall increase in the amount of sand deposited along a beach.

But a small change in the relative strength of the ebb tide can presumably significantly change the patterns we see on beaches. How different would our beaches look if global sea levels were falling rapidly?

Large mounds dominated by a single shell species near Weipa on Cape York Peninsula (North Queensland) were once considered aboriginal middens but may in fact have been beach mounds. According to Tim Stone from the Australian National University they are not middens by rather a natural consequence of local chenier plain development.[1]

********
[1] Shell mound formation in coastal northern Australia by Tim Stone
Marine Geology, Volume 129: 77-100. 1995

Abstract
Shell mounds are late Holocene deposits typically dominated by a single shell species. In northern Australia these mounds are associated with prograding coastal plains. The largest and most numerous are at Weipa on Cape York Peninsula. Archaeologists claim that these mounds were formed by generations of shellfishing Aborigines. This hypothesis is false because most of the shells from the type-site are of a similar radiocarbon age. Mapping and augering of two contrasting shell mound environments along the Mission River at Weipa demonstrates that mound formation is a natural consequence of local chenier plain development. This is supported by shell ages from across the Weipa landscape. The shell mounds at Prumanung originated as a coarse shell berm. The large mounds on the Uningan plain originated as small shell cheniers. The only reasonable explanation for the transformation of these natural shell deposits into tall, steep-sided mounds is the mound-building behaviour of the Orange-footed Scrubfowl Megapodius reinwardt. Similar mounds composed predominantly of sand and gravel are also present at these localities. The strong likelihood that the shell mounds are natural shell deposits raises serious questions about basic principles of shell midden archaeology. New methods for distinguishing between cultural and natural shell deposits are needed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025322795001018

When The Facts Change: Mark Latham and Robert Manne are Stuck

By

FORMER Labor leader, Mark Latham, is clearly not an empiricist, though he claims to be and he claims that another leading Australian advocate for anthropogenic global warming, Robert Manne, is also an empiricist and always quick to change his mind should the facts change.

Indeed the opening comments in his long opinion piece, published in today’s Financial Review, suggests that it’s all about evidence and that the evidence is on their side. But as the piece progresses Mr Latham shows that he has no concept of evidence, but that the average Australian just might. The piece is essentially an appeal by Mr Latham to a belief in experts while lamenting that ordinary Australians no longer seem to believe in global warming. Mr Latham writes:

“At face value, society’s small-talk about the weather is frivolous. But in the debate about global warming, it is a highly significant habit. Everyone is an expert on the weather, so why shouldn’t they have a strong opinion on climate, regardless of what the professional researchers say? This is a recurring problem for climate-change believers and lobbyists: how to separate, in the public’s mind, short-term events from long-term trends. Most people are inherently empirical, relying on the things they see around them was a way of gauging the future; the practicality of Aspirational Australia.

“Weather events are commonly extrapolated into discussions about climate change, even though this is akin to using daily sharemarket bulletins as a way of comprehending Kondratiev economics (50-year patterns in the business cycle). Five years ago, at the beginning of the debate, Australia’s drought conditions were seen as synonymous with global warming. It was a simple equation: dryness equals heat. Now, with record rainfall and flooding along the east coast, this notion has lost credibility. Wetness equals coolness.”

Yep. We have climate cycles in Australia and when it’s wetter, it’s cooler.

Conditions have changed, many so-called experts proven wrong, but many of the arrogant and ignorant appear incapable of an honest reassessment of the evidence.

More here: http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/climate_change_denial_not_just_for_sFAw16a7QU34KIj2tmN4eJ

Answers for Simon Birmingham, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin

By

LATE last year several of my friends sent off postcards as part of the Australian Environment Foundation’s Rivers Need Estuaries Campaign. You can still send a postcard and sign the petition here:

http://listentous.org.au/

There is a choice of message, for example:

Dear Senator,

Maintaining artificial freshwater lakes using 7.6 kilometres of concrete barrages has:
1. Destroyed the Coorong-Murray River estuary;
2. Diverted water from upstream environments and communities to keep these artificial lakes supplied;
3. Not improved the water security of Adelaide.

I ask you to support moves to:
1. Remove the barrages from the Lower Lakes to restore the Coorong-Murray River estuary; and
2. Relocate Adelaide’s water take-off to a proposed lock downstream from Tailem Bend.

Signed K. Smith
******

Just today there has been a flurry of responses from Simon Birmingham Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin to postcards sent last December. The Senator is mostly replying with a form letter as follows:

Dear Ms Smith

Thank you for your email regarding the Lower Lakes.

[Read more…] about Answers for Simon Birmingham, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin

Britain Gives Shale Gas Fracking Green Light: Benny Peiser

By

The UK government on Tuesday backed the exploration of shale gas nearly one year after it temporarily banned the drilling method which triggered two earthquakes in Britain but that has also revolutionised the U.S. energy market. An expert report commissioned by the government said shale gas fracking, a process where pressurised water and chemicals are pumped underground to open shale rocks and release trapped gas, was safe to resume with tighter rules on seismic monitoring and drilling surveys. –Alessandra Prentice, Reuters, 17 April 2012

Lancashire is set to become the centre of Britain’s energy future, after regulators gave the green light for fracking to return. A report published today by the Department for Energy and Climate Change said that energy giant Cuadrilla Resources should be allowed to restart work at its drilling rig in the Lancashire countryside. –Lancashire Evening Post, 17 April 2012

Chris Huhne in particular is renowned for his uninhibited antagonism towards natural gas. At the Liberal Democrat party conference in Birmingham last week he promised to halt a new “dash for gas” because it would undermine the UK’s unilateral climate targets. David Cameron would be well advised not to allow his green minister to squander Britain’s golden shale gas opportunity. –Benny Peiser, Public Service Europe, 27 September 2011

Ministers have been advised to allow the controversial practice of fracking for shale gas to be extended in Britain, despite it causing two earthquakes and the emergence of serious doubts over the safety of the wells that have already been drilled. The advice of the first official British government report into fracking, published on Tuesday, is all but certain to be accepted by ministers, with the result that thousands of new wells could be drilled across the UK. Some groups – including The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the climate-sceptic thinktank led by Lord Lawson – have been enthusiastically advocating the take-up of the technology. But residents in the areas affected have been mobilising against the plans. –Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, 17 April 2012

Many of those who oppose fracking do so not on the basis of the evidence, but out of a more general hostility to fossil fuels. Yet shale gas is relatively clean, and far more secure than other supplies. Sadly, our enthusiasm (in contrast to the Americans’) has been distinctly half-hearted. –Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2012

Can the green lobby win the shale gas argument over environmental objections? I don’t think it can. Ten or 20 years ago it could have won when governments were willing to burn billions, but the economic climate has changed, we’re facing the biggest crisis in decades. No government in the world would give up this opportunity, not even the British government, which is very green indeed. I don’t think the Greens have a leg to stand on when it comes to shale. Shale shouldn’t have any big problem and in all likelihood the government will grasp it with both hands. I cannot foresee a situation where Europe will forgo this golden opportunity. –Benny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 25 October 2011

From the gwfp.org newsletter.
Subscribe at http://thegwpf.org

My Submission to the Murray Darling Basin Authority

By

I’ve just sent off my submission, with John Abbot, on the Proposed Basin Plan.  You can download the document [10MB] here:

https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MDBA_Submission_Marohasy_Abbot_April16_2012.pdf

We conclude:

The Proposed Basin Plan is seriously flawed because it has been developed from false assumptions that there is always a shortage of water in the Murray Darling Basin, there is no potential for significant flooding within the Murray Darling Basin and that any change to natural flow regimes are detrimental to ecosystem health within the Murray Darling Basin.

The Proposed Basin Plan is ostensibly about the environment, yet there is no plan to restore the Murray River’s estuary.   A vast coastal lagoon, Lake Alexandrina, once dominated the estuary but since the building of 7.6 kilometres of sea dyke in the 1930s this area has been managed as an artificial freshwater reservoir to Lock 1.  The reservoir is completely dependent on freshwater stored over 2,000 kilometres away in the upper Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments and is arguably the most degraded of all environments within the Murray Darling.

There are no plans to restore the estuary because the Murray Darling Basin Authority now claims Lake Alexandrina was never part of the Murray River’s estuary and has always been a freshwater lake.  This claim denies a significant scientific literature concerning not only the origin of Lake Alexandrina, but also similar Holocene formations around the southern Australian coastline.  A consequence is that best practice management developed in other parts of Australia for other intermittently open and closed lagoons is ignored.  The current political solution of using water worth several billion dollars to keep the Murray’s Mouth open would be dismissed as absurd if suggested for the management of any similar barrier estuary system.