Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Climate Change Less Threatening to Declared Reserves?

By

Last August, a panel of scientists from the Australian Greenhouse Office and the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), called on the federal and state governments to expand the number of nature reserves in Australia in a bid to protect animal populations from climate change.

Following on from Queensland’s climate-linked plan of doubling its declared reserves, the Federal Government has now pledged $180 million to expand the National Reserve System.

“Today’s announcement will help protect key habitats at a time when native species such as the mountain pygmy possum, tree kangaroos and hare wallabies need them most – as they struggle to adapt to the impacts of climate change,” Mr Garrett said.

WWF‘s Protected Areas Policy Manager, Dr Martin Taylor, said the $180 million funding boost was a promising step toward saving Australia’s wildlife from a “decade of neglect”.

“National parks and nature reserves are the proven best and most secure method of arresting declines of threatened wildlife toward extinction and buffering nature against climate change,” Dr Taylor said.

A little over 11 per cent of Australia is presently reserved, which is apparently less than many developing countries. However, associating declared reserves with protection unfairly suggests Australia is eighty-nine percent unprotected.

The irony of the entire exercise is that it is underpinned by an environmental ethos, held by the majority and enunciated through the bidding of elected representatives, but only if others pay it for. As far as I know, there has never been a transfer of reserved land into private-ownership for improved protection. It has only ever been the other way. Australia incrementally increases its reserve system, leaving an ever-decreasing off-reserve portion.

Perhaps a more inclusive and cost-effective national approach would be possible if our elected representatives represented the protective interests of land-holders off-reserve.

Willis Tries to Dismiss His Own Ocean Non-Warming Research

By

Roger Pielke Sr has taken issue with comments on a nationalpost.com blog by Josh Willis titled, ‘Josh Willis on climate change: Global warming is real.’

Willis is an author of the recent paper on data derived from the ARGO network, which shows no warming in the upper 700m of the ocean over the past 4 years:

The national post blog comment by Willis begins:

“As a scientist, I always enjoy it when people outside my field take an interest in oceanography. But I was a bit disappointed to read Lorne Gunter’s column: Perhaps The Climate Change Models are Wrong, March 24.

It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

Pielke Sr says:

Josh Willis is a well respected scientist and his views merit consideration. In this case, however, Climate Science concludes that he is misinterpreting the significance of his data analysis. He agrees that

“Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years”.

He dismisses this though by claiming that

“…but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. “

Where are these model results that show lack of upper ocean warming in recent years? There is an example of a model prediction of upper (3km) ocean heat content for decadal averages in Figure 1 of

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270-274,

but they did not present shorter time periods. Nonetheless, since Figure 1 is presumably a running 10 year average, the steady monotonic increase in the model prediction of upper ocean heat content (the grey shading) suggests that no several years (or even one year) of zero heating occurred in the model results. The layer they analyzed in the figure is also for the upper 3 km but in Figure 2 the Barnett et al study showed that most of this heating was in the uppermost levels.

Thus the lack of heating in the upper 700m over the last 4 years does conflict with at least the Barnett et al model results!

What the upper ocean data (and lack of warming) actually tells us is that if global warming occurred over the last 4 years, it was in the deeper ocean and is thus not available in the short term to the atmosphere.

Indeed, if it is in the deeper ocean, it likely more diffused and therefore could only enter the atmosphere slowly if at all. This heat could also have exited into space, although the continuation of global ocean sea level rise suggests that this is less likely unless this sea level rise can be otherwise explained.

The other heat stores in the climate system are too small (and the atmosphere has clearly not warmed over the last few years). Global sea ice cover is actually above average at present (the Antarctic sea ice is at a near record level). The continued sea level rise indicates that the heat is in the deeper ocean (which is not predicted by the models).

Finally, there is also no “unrealized” heat in the system. This is a fallacy of using temperature trends as the surrogate for heat trends as has been reported Climate Science (e.g. see, see and see).

Josh Willis too easily dismisses the significance of his research findings.

Can Cedric Save his fellow Tasmanian Devils?

By

Australian experts say a Tasmanian Devil called Cedric could hold the key to the survival of the embattled species.

The world’s largest marsupial carnivore is facing extinction from a mystery facial cancer.

But scientists say Cedric appears to be naturally resistant to the contagious tumours which have killed half the devil population in Tasmania.

BBC website: ‘Hope over Tasmanian Devil cancer’

SEE ALSO:

International bid to save Devils
22 Oct 07 | Asia-Pacific

Experts tackle the devil’s tumour
20 Feb 07 | Asia-Pacific

Bites spread fatal ‘devil’ cancer
02 Feb 06 | Science/Nature

Comparing Rates of Warming: Anthony Watts and Basil Copeland

By

The general impression one gets from the popular press is that over the last few years there has been accelerated global warming from the elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In fact global warming has stalled since 1998.

But there was warming during the early part of the 20th Century, and the rate of warming then was almost identical to the rate of warming at the end of the century.

HadCrut_Watts.png

“Without getting into details (ask questions in comments if you have them), using HadCRUTv3 the rate of change during the early part of the 20th century was almost identical to the rate of change at the end of the century. Could there be some sense in which the warming at the end of the 20th century was a repeat of the pattern seen in the earlier part of the century? Since the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions was much lower in the earlier part of the century, what could possibly explain why temperatures increased for so long during that period at a rate comparable to that experienced during the recent warming?

Read more here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-1/

In The Dark – A Few Nights Late

By

There has been some criticism of the administrators of this blog for not posting something on Earth Hour. Apparently the contribution from Art Raiche wasn’t enough.

Anyway, by popular demand, here is a piece by Rex Murphy in Canada entitled ‘The darkness that is Earth Hour’:

“Tonight, in cities across the country and, indeed, such is the contagion of ostentatious and cost-free do-goodism, in cities around the world, there will be celebrated – if that’s the word for so twilight an exercise – something called Earth Hour.

The central action of all these Earth Hours is pulling out the plugs on every “needless” electrical appliance and turning out a whole lot of lights. Toronto puts the goal most succinctly: “to make the city as dark as possible for one full hour.” Does this mean, I wonder, a night session of City Council? As a shortcut to utter bleakness, the idea is unassailable.

Between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., there’s going to be a jamboree at Nathan Phillips Square that the very agreeable Nelly Furtado will be highlighting, or perhaps lowlighting in this case. Ms. Furtado, I gather, is an Earth Hour ambassador, and it is a tribute to the seriousness with which she takes that appointment that this global-touring artist will give a “primarily unplugged” performance.

I wonder what “primarily” means here. Will there be – gasp! – electrical cables, microphones and giant display screens at Earth Hour’s ground zero? Is this the electrical bulldozer in Earth Hour’s Amish barn?

I see from the news reports that Toronto’s yoga crowd is really into going dark. Any number of them are going to be holding classes by candlelight, which, it is certain, will mightily stay the rising of the waters and the melting of the polar caps that are the imminent dread of all thinking people everywhere. I don’t know if the fatal combination of light bulbs and yoga made it into the great list of free association cautions of An Inconvenient Truth, but they should have if they didn’t.

Read more here: http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080328/wcorex29.html

There was a letter in the local Blue Mountains Gazette on March 19 from a Paris Portingale, suggesting, “In preparation I have bought thiry or so torches, the big ones, which I will be tying to the light fittings.”

And a friend of mine said he drove about Brisbane, presumably with his headlights on, taking photographs of the event.

Phase Out Coal-Fired Power Plants: Open Letter from James Hansen

By

27 March 2008,
The Hon Kevin Rudd, MP,
Prime Minister of Australia,
Australian Parliament,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600.

Dear Prime Minister,

Your leadership is needed on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants and carbon dioxide emission rates in your country, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today’s children, and especially the world’s poor, hinge upon our success in stabilizing climate.

For the sake of identification, I am a United States citizen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Columbia University Earth Institute. I am a member of our National Academy of Sciences, have testified before our Senate and House of Representatives on many occasions, have advised our Vice President and Cabinet members on climate change and its relation to energy requirements, and have received numerous awards including the World Wildlife Fund’s Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal from Prince Philip.

I write, however, as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, USA. I was assisted in composing this letter by colleagues, including Australians, Americans, and Europeans, who commented upon a draft letter. Because of the urgency of the matter, I have not collected signatures, but your advisors will verify the authenticity of the science discussion.

I recognize that for years you have been a strong supporter of aggressive forward-looking actions to mitigate dangerous climate change. Also, since your election as Prime Minister of Australia, your government has been active in pressing the international community to take appropriate actions.
We are now at a point that bold leadership is needed, leadership that could change the course of human history.

I have read and commend the Interim Report of Professor Ross Garnaut, submitted to your government. The conclusion that net carbon emissions must be cut to a fraction of current emissions must be stunning and sobering to policy-makers. Yet the science is unambiguous: if we burn most of the fossil fuels, releasing the CO2 to the air, we will assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet. Achievement of required near-zero net emissions by mid-century implies a track with substantial cuts of emissions by 2020. Aggressive near-term fostering of energy efficiency and climate friendly technologies is an imperative for mitigation of the looming climate crisis and optimization of the economic pathway to the eventual clean-energy world.

Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms.

Feasible actions now could still point the world onto a course that minimizes climate change. Coal clearly emerges as central to the climate problem from the facts summarized in the attached Fossil Fuel Facts. [See note below] Coal caused fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air today, and on the long run coal has the potential to be an even greater source of CO2. Due to the dominant role of coal, solution to global warming must include phase-out of coal except for uses where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Failing that, we cannot avoid large climate change, because a substantial fraction of the emitted CO2 will stay in the air more than 1000 years.

Yet there are plans for continuing mining of coal, export of coal, and construction of new coal-fired power plants around the world, including in Australia, plants that would have a lifetime of half a century or more. Your leadership in halting these plans could seed a transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem.

Choices among alternative energy sources – renewable energies, energy efficiency, nuclear power, fossil fuels with carbon capture – these are local matters. But decision to phase out coal use unless the CO2 is captured is a global imperative, if we are to preserve the wonders of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being.

Although coal is the dominant issue, there are many important subsidiary ramifications, including the need for rapid transition from oil-fired energy utilities, industrial facilities and transport systems, to clean (solar, hydrogen, gas, wind, geothermal, hot rocks, tide) energy sources, as well as removal of barriers to increased energy efficiency.

If the West makes a firm commitment to this course, discussion with developing countries can be prompt. Given the potential of technology assistance, realization of adverse impacts of climate change, and leverage and increasing interdependence from global trade, success in cooperation of developed and developing worlds is feasible.

The western world has contributed most to fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, on a per capita basis. This is not an attempt to cast blame. It only recognizes the reality of the early industrial development in these countries, and points to a responsibility to lead in finding a solution to global warming.

A firm choice to halt building of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 would be a major step toward solution of the global warming problem. Australia has strong interest in solving the climate problem.
Citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one coal plant after another, and major changes can be anticipated after the upcoming national election.

If Australia halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world.
There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet.
Prime Minister Rudd, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must solve the coal problem now.

For your information, I plan to send a similar letter to the Australian States Premiers.

I commend to you the following Australian climate, paleoclimate and Earth scientists to provide further elaboration of the science reported in my attached paper (Hansen et al., 2008):

Professor Barry Brook, Professor of climate change, University of Adelaide Dr Andrew Glikson, Australian National University Professor Janette Lindesay, Australian National University Dr Graeme Pearman, Monash University Dr Barrie Pittock, CSIRO Dr Michael Raupach CSIRO Professor Will Steffen, Australian National University

Sincerely,

James E. Hansen
Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
United States of America

To see letter with attachments click here:
www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd.pdf