Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Cooling, Not Warming by 2030: Bob Foster

By

Bob Foster, member of the Lavoisier Group and reader of this blog, claims the sun drives climate and the next little ice age will be in 2030.

Following is an edited and illustrated extract from a longer piece at Warwick Hughes’ blog, click here.

“The Sun is the primary long-term driver of climate. Solar activity can be predicted, and if the Sun keeps playing by the rules, the next Little Ice Age cold period will be fully developed by 2030, Figure 1.

bobfosfig1ver2.JPG

(from Theodor Landscheidt 2003, New little Ice Age instead of global warming, Energy & Environment v. 14 no 2,3 pp.327-50. The paper is available at http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm )

Variable upwelling of cold water in the equatorial eastern Pacific is the primary driver of climate at the decadal level. Inflection points in the length-of-day (LOD) trend correlate with regime changes to more or less cold-water upwelling, and LOD trend reversals correlate with planetary inertial forcing of the Sun, Figure 2.

bobfosfig2.JPG

(from Theodor Landscheidt )

This second graph shows the relationship between inflection points in the LOD trend and zero phases in the rotary force applied by the giant outer (Jovian) planets to the Sun.

20 Years Since Chernobyl

By

Twenty years ago, on 26th April 1986, there was a disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine, which was then part of the Soviet Union. There was no containment building and a plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and the eastern United States resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. It is regarded as the worst accident in the history of nuclear power.

There is, however, on going dispute about how many actually died as a result of the disaster. Michael Crichton puts the figure at just 56, blog post here. Greenpeace claim the death toll was a lot higher. There is some discussion at Wikipedia:

“A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths; 47 accident workers and 9 children with thyroid cancer, and estimated that as many as 9,000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million, will ultimately die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). For its part, Greenpeace estimates a total death toll of 93,000 but cite in their report “The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.”

In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the disaster a WHO report entitled ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident’ was produced, to read the overview click here.

Following are some excerpts:

“In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident. While a large number of these cancers resulted from radiation following the accident, intense medical monitoring for thyroid disease among the affected population has also resulted in the detection of thyroid cancers at a sub-clinical level, and so contributed to the overall increase in thyroid cancer numbers. Fortunately, even in children with advanced tumours, treatment has been highly effective and the general prognosis for young patients is good. However, they will need to take drugs for the rest of their lives to replace the loss of thyroid function. Further, there needs to be more study to evaluate the prognosis for children, especially those with distant metastases. It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

… While scientists have conducted studies to determine whether cancers in many other organs may have been caused by radiation, reviews by the WHO Expert Group revealed no evidence of increased cancer risks, apart from thyroid cancer, that can clearly be attributed to radiation from Chernobyl. Aside from the recent finding on leukaemia risk among Chernobyl liquidators, reports indicate a small increase in the incidence of pre-menopausal breast cancer in the most contaminated areas, which appear to be related to radiation dose. Both of these findings, however, need confirmation in well-designed epidemiological studies. The absence of demonstrated increases in cancer risk – apart from thyroid cancer – is not proof that no increase has occurred. Based on the experience of atomic bomb survivors, a small increase in the risk of cancer is expected, even at the low to moderate doses received. Such an increase, however, is expected to be difficult to identify.

… Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting and not to radiation exposure.”

So it would seem the number of people that died as a direct result of the accident has probably been grossly overstated and may be as low as 56. There has been an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer particularly in individuals under 18 years of age at the time of exposure to the radiation. The thyroid cancer has proven manageable but not curable.

Anzac Day & the Man from Snowy River

By

It was a public holiday here in Australia today, because of ANZAC day. Across the country we remembered the men and women who went to war, particularly the men who fought at Gallipoli during World War 1.

Noeline Franklin (from Brindabella and the Miles Franklin family) emailed me exactly a year ago asking that on ANZAC day we might also remember the horses that went to war.

About 160,000 horses from Australia went to WWI.

Australia’s mounted soldiers included stockmen from the High Country – mostly volunteers who took their own horses.

The story goes, that at war’s end, many of these men were asked to shoot their horses. The horses could not come home.

For Noeline, the brumbies that now roam the High Country are their descendants and represent “the free spirit of our people and the horses who never returned”.

Many of the horses that went to war from Australia were known as ‘walers’. According to Michael Keenan’s ‘In Search of a Wild Brumby’: “The initial breed was English thoroughbred stallions joined to mares with genetic links to the draught horse. Over the decades the genetic pool was deliberately widened to produce a hardy horse, suitable for the unpredictable stresses in a battle environment. Such breeds as the Welsh pony, Timor pony and the wild brumby were introduced to refine what became known as the ‘classic waler’, with fine clean legs and bone, wide barrel-like chest, short back and a broad head. Unlike the thoroughbreds, the waler could hump weights for long distances, endure searing heat, survive on any available grass and, if called upon, unleash bursts of speed only marginally slower than their big cousins.”

There are now plans in place to rid most National parks of brumbies including horses identifed as ‘classic walers’ because they are considered ‘exotics’ and not a natural part of the Australian bush. The above picture is from the savethebrumbies.org website which describes the slaughter of over 600 brumbies in the Guy Fawkes River National Park six years ago.

Political Reform Driven by Pollution in China

By

I am fascinated by China’s growth and wonder about the impact of all this development on the local and global environment. The ‘2006 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: The Nature and Sources of Ecological Progress in the US and the World’ by Steven Hayward at the Pacific Research Institute has an interesting section on China as a case study with some data on air quality and land reserved. The study also suggests that environmental concern is driving political reform:

“Environmental calamities may have become the principal source of political unrest and turbulence in China. In April the New York Times reported on a major riot in the southeastern province of Zhejiang where a crowd of up to 60,000, burned police cars, smashed windows, and injured more than 30 government workers in protest of pollution from nearby chemical plants. The Washington Post followed up on the story in June, reporting that the violent protest, which apparently routed the Chinese government authorities in the region, was at least partially successful: six chemical facilities were shut down or relocated.

This protest is reportedly just one of many occurring frequently in China in the last few years. In July, the New York Times reported another environmental protest in Xinchang, a city 180 miles south of Shanghai, where an estimated 15,000 people rioted for three days “in a pitched battle with authorities, overturning police cars and throwing stones for hours, undeterred by thick clouds of tear gas.”

The object of their ire was a 10-year-old pharmaceutical plant, which the protestors wanted closed or relocated. News of environmental protests spread rapidly across the Internet, spawning imitators throughout the nation on a large—perhaps massive—scale. The Times reported that there are “government figures” showing 74,000 incidents of mass protest in China in 2004 (not all of them necessarily environmentally related). In early December, a protest against a proposed wind-power project turned deadly as Chinese security forces fired on a crowd, killing 10 people.

Hayward goes on to suggest that environmental catastrophies have driven political reform in other parts of the world:

“The Songhua River spill [in China] might be likened to the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, which was one of the galvanizing events in the rise of the modern environmental movement in the U.S.. In a nutshell, the public outcry over the Cuyahoga River (which had experienced fires several times before with little public fanfare) showed that the affluent society no longer wished to be the effluent society. Certainly rising middle-class consciousness is involved with the popular protests about environmental calamity in China.

Perhaps the better comparison is with the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Soviet Union, which helped galvanize political liberalization under Mikhail Gorbachev. As has been demonstrated in numerous transnational studies, there is a strong correlation between various indices of political freedom and environmental performance.24 If China responds to its environmental challenges with administrative decentralization and greater use of market mechanisms and property rights, who knows where it might lead.”

I am interested in reliable sources of information on the state of the environment in China, particularly information on surface and ground water. Is there a best reference?

Darwin Braces for Cyclone Monica

By

“Darwin is preparing to weather the most intense storm ever seen in Australia’s northern waters, with winds of 350 kilometres an hour at the core of cyclone Monica. The category 5 storm is less than 400 kilometres from the Northern Territory capital, ” according to ABC Online.

Some time ago I discovered Jeff Master’s Wunderblog with everything you ever wanted to know about the next hurricane about to hit Florida, and then today I discovered he also covers Australia.

This is what he had to say about Monica and this year’s cyclone season in northern Australia:

“Australia’s hurricane season continues its parade of unusually intense storms this year with the intensification of Cyclone Monica today into a huge Category 5 storm. The 12 GMT advisory this morning from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center put Monica at 165 mph sustained winds and a 892 mb pressure, making it second most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. The most intense Southern Hemisphere cyclone on record was Cyclone Zoe of 2003, which had a 879 mb pressure. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology puts Monica’s pressure at 905 mb, which would make it the fifth strongest cyclone on record. Reliable records of cyclone intensity only go back to the mid-1980s in the Southern Hemisphere, but two of top five strongest hurricanes ever recorded there have occurred this year–Tropical Cyclone Glenda (898 mb) from March, and now Monica.

What’s really extraordinary about Monica is that she came so late in the season–tropical cyclone season is usually over by late April in the Southern Hemisphere. Monica’s formation echoes what happened in the Atlantic last year, with the intensification of Hurricane Wilma to a record 882 mb pressure very late in the hurricane season–October 19. When one adds in the $1 billion in devastation wrought in Queensland by Category 4 Cyclone Larry (915 mb) in March, Australians must feel like residents of hurricane alley in the Atlantic did last year, when three of the six strongest hurricanes on record occurred, causing the most damage ever–what’s going on with the weather?

However, be reminded that the Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean had a very below-normal tropical cyclone season last year, and the Indian Ocean also had below normal activity.”

Another ‘Climate Change’ Letter: Does 41 Trump 1?

By

In response to a letter in the Telegraph on 19th April from the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserting that the evidence for human-caused global warming “is now compelling”, 41 scientists have written to the same newspaper contradicting Lord Rees. Published in the the Telegraph today, the letter claims:

1. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’, and

2. Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

This is the third ‘climate change consensus’ letter in as many weeks, click here for links to previous letters.

Edward Celiz from Bodham Halt, Norfolk, has written to the newspaper complaining that:

“If I read another word about climate change, I shall go mad. Of course the climate is changing. That is what climate does, and has done so for billions of years. Do these scare-mongering pseudo-scientists really believe that puny man can control the unimaginable forces of nature by sticking a windmill on his roof, throwing away his fridge and planting a few trees?

Global warming? Perhaps, but what’s the betting that in a few years they will be telling us that they have got it wrong? That, in fact, the earth is getting colder?

My advice? Leave it to God.”

And I’m an atheist.