Sunday, September 11, 2011

Will USA wake up soon that climate change is already here?

On the fires in Texas - like the 2009 fires in Victoria - more precautionary burning wouldn't have made much difference. And it would probably have been dangerous to attempt it any time in the past 12 months - too dry. From Jeff Masters:
As I reported in yesterday's post, there has never been a Texas summer hotter than the summer of 2011. The summer of 2011 now holds every major heat record for the city of Austin, including most 100° days (67 so far), hottest month in recorded history (August, breaking the previous record by a remarkable 2.1°), hottest summer (by 1.1°), and hottest day in history (112°F, tied with Sep, 5, 2000.)

As wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt documents in his latest blog post, the situation is similar across the rest of the state. Seventeen major cities in Texas recorded their hottest summer on record in 2011. Most of these stations had records extending back more than 100 years, and several of the records were smashed by an amazing 3.4°F--at Lubbock and at Wichita Falls.

Neighboring states also experienced unprecedented heat, withOklahoma recording America's hottest month by any state in recorded history during July, and Shreveport, Louisiana breaking its record for hottest month by 3°F in August. Mr. Burt commented to me: " I do not believe I have ever seen a site with a long period of record, like Shreveport, where records go back to 1874, break its warmest single month on record by an astonishing 3°. This is unheard of. Usually when a site breaks its single month temperature record, we are talking about tenths of a degree, rarely a whole degree, let alone 3 degrees! Hard to believe, frankly."

Texas has also had its worst fire season on record, with over 3.5 million acres burned this year, and it's driest 1-year period in recorded history.

While people are trying to control the Texas fires, rain is pelting down elsewhere. More from Jeff Masters:
An extreme rainfall event unprecedented in recorded history has hit the Binghamton, New York area, where 7.49" fell yesterday. This is the second year in a row Binghamton has recorded a 1-in-100 year rain event; their previous all-time record was set last September, when 4.68" fell on Sep 30 - Oct. 1, 2010. Records go back to 1890 in the city.

The skies have now cleared in Binghamton, with this morning's rain bringing the city's total rainfall for the 40-hour event to 9.02". However, another large region of rain lies just to the south in Pennsylvania, and all of the rivers in the surrounding region are in major or record flood.

The Susquehanna River at Binghamton is at 25.18', its highest level since records began in 1847, and is expected to overtop the flood walls protecting the city this afternoon. In Hershey, Pennsylvania, Swatara Creek is 18' over flood stage, and more than 8' above its record flood crest. Widespread flash flooding is occurring across the entire area, and over 125,000 people have been evacuated from their homes.

And read the comments here on ClimateProgress for more about what rainfall records are being broken around the world.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Cadel Evans - You're the Winner of le Tour de France - You bloody beauty!

Cadel Evans - a heart bigger than Pharlap!


You are brilliant! First Australian Winner of le Tour de France.

Congratulations!!!!!


Building on the shoulders of Oppie and the great Phil Anderson, championsRobby McEwen and Stuart O'Grady, cyclists Brad McGee, brilliant Mark Renshaw and all the other great Australians - more here.

And congrats as well to Richie Porte from Tasmania Australia = great ride.

Now for the champion - Cadel Evans - formerly from the Northern Territory now a fellow Victorian.



With congratulations from mountain bike country - the beautiful Mount Beauty Victoria.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

BBC to improve science reporting

The BBC is going to improve its reporting on science, following a "review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science" - as reported in The Guardian:
The BBC is to revamp its science coverage after an independent review highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent controversy of scientific news stories such as climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine by giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints.

The wide-ranging review found the network's science reporting was generally of high quality, and praised the BBC for its breadth, depth and accuracy, but urged the broadcaster to tackle several areas of concern.

Commissioned last year to assess impartiality and accuracy in BBC science coverage across television, radio and the internet, the review said the network was at times so determined to be impartial that it put fringe views on a par with well-established fact: a strategy that made some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.
The criticism was particularly relevant to stories on issues such as global warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given equal weighting to broad scientific consensus, creating what the report describes as "false balance".

The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC in May, June and July of 2009 and 2010.

In his report, Jones lamented the narrow range of sources that reporters used for stories, poor communication between journalists in different parts of the organisation, and a lack of knowledge of the breadth of science.

"The most important aspect is a vote of confidence in what BBC science is doing. It is head and shoulders above other broadcasters. As always, though, there is a but," Jones told reporters on Wednesday.

Jones likened the BBC's approach to oppositional debates to asking a mathematician and maverick biologist what two plus two equals. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the public are left to conclude the answer is somewhere in between.

The report will disappoint some climate change sceptics who hoped it would find the BBC at fault for promoting a green agenda. "There is a consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change exists," Jones said. By failing to move the debate on, the BBC was missing other stories, he added.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Another bit of fluff from political denier & campaigner for devastation by climate, Bob Carter

The Sydney Morning Herald today printed another bit of fluff from the political denier and campaigner for devastation by climate, Bob Carter. It was a response to an article by Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb. Let's hope SMH will now provide 'balance' by making sure the next 99,999 articles it publishes on climate are from climate scientists. (My comments are in dark blue and italics.)

Carter starts with a reference to the editor's lead in to Professor Chubb's article:
IAN CHUBB says the climate change debate is not about politics but science. Would that it were so.
The lead in was wrong - editors seem to get stuff wrong often. This the only time Ian Chubb mentioned debate:
Is the debate, or critique, confined to experts? No. But if ''non-experts'' want to be part of the debate, they have a responsibility to respect the science that has led to the knowledge that we have at hand. In order to make a considered intervention, they need to understand the scientific process and the robust contest of ideas and interpretations that are part and parcel of civil scientific inquiry and which lead us to where we are.

There is no place for deliberate misrepresentation of data either by expert or by commentator. It is easy to make a dollar or two by being the instant expert on everything and substituting decibels for substance.

If only Carter took heed of Chubb's words, particularly the part about misrepresentation and substitution of decibels for substance. But he doesn't, so Carter continues:
But it is not that simple, for there really are two matters at hand, namely the science relevant to global warming and the principle of sound empiricism and calm rational thought to determine important affairs of state (politics).

Alas, in the public debate about global warming, these principles of sound science and sound governance have become entwined with political self-interest by well-funded lobby groups of both the ''save the world'' and ''let's make money'' variety. How's the IPA going for funding these days, Bob?
First, the science. The scientific method is a brilliantly successful technique for discovering, understanding and managing the world around us, born out of the fire of the European Enlightenment. Don't you just love his poetic turn of phrase :)
Sound science is based upon observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses in the context of the principle of simplicity (often termed Occam's Razor). Simple is nice but the world isn't always simple, is it.
Carter then moves into areas about which he knows zilch and understands less:
The unvalidated computer models that now dominate the public face of climate ''science'' are a jungle of complexities, and represent speculative thought experiments not empirically tested science.
The above statement is completely false, whether he is discussing complex general circulation models or simpler models to calculate global temperature. The former are based on known physics, not speculation and thought experiments. The latter are based upon measured temperature observations. Models can be simple or complex. They are not 'thought experiments' - at least not in climate science.
In support of these methods, the former director of the British Meteorological Office, Professor John Mitchell, has said that ''people underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful … Our approach is not entirely empirical''.
I tried to track down this 'quote'. It seems to have originated in a report of a session held in May as viewed through the eyes of a journalist. I did a search and the quote has flown around all the denier website with the usual lightning speed and is roundly misunderstood by all. It is a snippet of a quote, not necessarily accurate, and with no context. Given the source it is not clear a) whether or not it is accurate, or b) to what Prof Mitchell was referring. In any case, the emphasis appears to be on the power of models - which to most people would be self-evident. Maybe Carter is still using pen and paper for everything.

Carter himself misunderstands it and emphasises the - well I don't know what he is referring to in this bit. Maybe someone else can help me out here.
The last part of this statement is only too true, and leads to the discomfit expressed by those such as the British engineering professor John Brignell: ''The ease with which a glib algorithm can be implemented with a few lines of computer code, and the difficulty of understanding its implications, can pave the path to cloud-cuckoo land.'' What is Carter on about? Anyone?
From this point on Carter shows how little he knows about ordinary science that any high school student should understand, and most primary school students should probably know:
Climate science is not primarily about modelling, albeit a powerful tool, but about testing hypotheses against key empirical facts, including:
  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases; True that the effect diminishes as concentration increases - it's a logarithmic relationship. Not true that 'it's a mild greenhouse gas'. CO2 is known as earth's thermostat. Dial it up and the temperature goes up and causes all sorts of other responses to make the temperature go up even more. Dial it down and the temperature drops, and water condenses and all sorts of other responses that cause the temperature to drop even more. CO2 is not mild, it is very powerful.
  • We live in a carbon dioxide-starved world (levels 15 times higher having been reached about 500 million years ago and diminishing since); Patently false. If the world was starved for CO2 why are we alive and how did the earth survive for the last few million years?
  • Carbon dioxide is a vital plant fertiliser; and the point is? (So is nitrogen, phosphorus and a number of other nutrients.)
  • The world warmed in the earlier and latter parts of the 20th century; True and
  • The world has cooled slightly over the past 10 years despite a 5 per cent increase in carbon dioxide.False: 2010 was the equal hottest year on record and the temperature trend continues to rise. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s, which were hotter than the 1960s.
These facts are consistent with the conclusion that enhanced levels of carbon dioxide are good for the environment , and do not cause dangerous global warming. Wrong again. First they are not facts, and second even were they facts they are not sufficient to prove what is contended. The biggest risks are from the rapid pace of accumulation of greenhouse gases. We just don't have time to adapt. The weather this past decade has caused the loss of many lives, shifts of climate, loss of biodiversity. The oceans are rapidly warming and acidifying. It is all happening much too quickly and will be devastating if we don't stop it.
Professor Chubb claims: ''Ross Garnaut has summarised the state of climate science in his recent report.'' But what Professor Garnaut in fact summarised were the official findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an undeniably political body. Professor Garnaut also said that IPCC views are supported ''by the learned academies of science [all disciplines] in all of the countries of scientific accomplishment''. Which invites the obvious response, ''Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?''
The IPCC is an independent non-political organisation. Carter is talking through his hat.
The ''IPCC and most academies'' line is, of course, the argument from consensus, which raises the question: When did you last hear a scientist say ''there is a consensus that the sun will rise tomorrow''?
Is Bob Carter questioning whether the sun will rise tomorrow or is he saying there is no scientific consensus that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Never, of course, for the very use of the phrase ''consensus'' in science tells you that a matter is not settled. Global warming science is not just unsettled but profoundly uncertain and controversial.
Aah - he's trying on a 'gotcha'. I wonder how Carter goes with the evolution 'debate' in the good old USA?
Consensus is a political, not scientific, concept. As Michael Crichton wrote: ''There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.''
Now he is quoting a writer of popular fiction (and climate change denier), who, despite studying biological anthropology and medicine, reportedly believed people created their own illnesses, had astral spirits and other nonsense. So if there is consensus there isn't science. Okay, there goes gravity, relativity, genetics etc etc down the tube. We've got to start all over again from, maybe, Aristotle?
Returning to real science, Professor Chubb said that when ''science is conducted properly, and interpreted after extensive, and critical, analysis, knowledge and understanding is increased and improved. We shift [our views] or confirm what we think.''
Quite so, and nothing about consensus there. But the problem remains of improper science, which is now widespread. Oh?
In particular, the IPCC - which was set up to advise only on the climatic effect of human greenhouse emissions - has shown repeatedly that it is not in the business of shifting its beliefs, whatever the evidence; instead, facts contrary to its convictions are either ignored or neutralised by adjusting the models.
For example, the sun recently entered a quietude unknown since the Little Ice Age. Accompanying this, planetary warming has ceased despite still increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Some solar physicists have issued warnings that strong cooling may be imminent.
I see. Because neither the evidence nor the physics suggests that the world is or should be cooling like 'some solar physicists' think it should - then the evidence and the physics must be wrong? But the world isn't cooling is it, and not showing any signs that it's going to do so. So where does Carter get his odd ideas? Even if the sun were to go very quiet, like a Grand Minimum, it would hardly make a dent in the medium term rise in temperature.
Has the IPCC revised any of its views as a result? Fat chance.
Carter doesn't understand how the IPCC operates. He seems to think there is an organisation that writes reports independently of the latest scientific papers and observations. He doesn't realise that what it is is a coordinating body which, though lots of volunteer effort from experts all over the world, pulls together the latest knowledge based on scientific papers (WG1) and other information (the other working groups).
Professor Chubb also points out the impossibility of waiting for certainty (Godot arrives more quickly) before setting climate policy, and the need for insurance against climate change, two points with which I entirely agree. I doubt Prof Chubb cares tuppence for what Carter thinks.
Good governance on scientific issues is based on the twin principles of prudence and do no harm, especially to society's most disadvantaged. Everything that we know about climate change tells us that it is both dangerous and uncertain. The appropriate insurance is a national policy based on preparing for and adapting to all climate events as and when they happen, irrespective of their cause.
Sounds good, doesn't it. But then Carter contradicts himself:
If, instead, political pressure from lobby groups defeats contestable scientific advice, then Australia will get a swingeingly (sic) expensive, regressive and environmentally ineffectual carbon dioxide tax - and live to regret it.
Carter just said to prepare and take action, now he says don't take action. What gives? We will never know, because that's where the article ends.


Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, a fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and author of the book, Climate: The Counter Consensus. Which means he is a denier of the first order, not a climate scientist, and aligned with the political right wing.

Addendum: For an excellent critique of Bob Carter's recent 'presentations' and the misinterpretations and misreprentations and disinformation he provides as charts - Click here for a post from Tamino on Open Mind

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Canadian Tar Sands Means Game Over - Silence is Deadly

James Hansen writes that exploitation of the Canadian tar sands could be catastrophic. He writes:
...Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline's pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project. An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC AR4 WG3 report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize climate. Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles....

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Critical Decade

Yesterday, Australia's Climate Commission released a new report with important messages:

The following points highlight the key messages arising from the accompanying report The Critical Decade:
1. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.
  • The atmosphere is warming, the ocean is warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps and sea levels are rising. The biological world is changing in response to a warming world.
  • Global surface temperature is rising fast; the last decade was the hottest on record.
2. We are already seeing the social, economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate.
  • With less than 1 degree of warming globally the impacts are already being felt in Australia.
  • In the last 50 years the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled. This has increased the risk of heatwaves and associated deaths, as well as extreme bush fire weather in South Eastern and South Western Australia.
  • Sea level has risen by 20 cm globally since the late 1800s, impacting many coastal communities. Another 20 cm increase by 2050, which is likely at current projections, would more than double the risk of coastal flooding.
  • The Great Barrier Reef has suffered from nine bleaching events in the past 31 years. This iconic natural ecosystem, and the economy that depends upon it, face serious risks from climate change.
3. Human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.
  • A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - with carbon dioxide being the most important - as the primary cause of the observed warming.
  • Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation.
  • Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.
4. This is the critical decade. Decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandchildren experience.
  • Without strong and rapid action there is a significant risk that climate change will undermine our society’s prosperity, health, stability and way of life.
  • To minimise this risk, we must decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050.
  • That means carbon emissions must peak within the next few years and then strongly decline.
  • The longer we wait to start reducing carbon emissions, the more difficult and costly those reductions become.
  • This decade is critical. Unless effective action is taken, the global climate may be so irreversibly altered we will struggle to maintain our present way of life. The choices we make this decade will shape the long-term climate future for our children and grandchildren.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Murray Darling Plan turning into a fiasco, with the Wentworth Group of Scientists leaving the process

Late last year the then Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Mr Mike Taylor, quit because the Government made demands that were not only in conflict with the Water Act but were impossible to achieve.

Now the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have left the process on the grounds that the plan is proposing to let the river die by not ensuring sufficient flow. (A paper on the Murray-Darling by the Wentworth Group can be found here.)
A group of leading scientists contributing to the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's (MDBA) plan has pulled out of the process, calling the plan to fix the ailing river system seriously flawed.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists says it can not be part of a plan which it says will fail to fix the river system but waste billions of taxpayer dollars.

The group says no less than 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to the Murray-Darling river system in order to fix it, but says it appears that will not happen under the draft plan so it has resigned from the process.

"There's no point in us being part of a process if the process is fundamentally flawed, and unless there is an independent review of the science then we believe it is a fundamentally flawed process," Wentworth member Peter Cosier said.

The group says the MDBA is now aiming to return less than 3,000 gigalitres to the system following angry protests by irrigators when the initial figures and cuts to water entitlements were released last year.

More on the ABC website.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Quadrant article by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth - how confusing

Here is a summary of the points raised by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth in an articlepublished online in Quadrant yesterday (link below). I've loosely grouped the points they made into topics for clarity.  The statements are not direct quotations.  They represent a summary of the main points made by these eminent men in their short article.  I've put my added interpretation in brackets.

What they say about global temperature trends
  1. The temperature is level - neither cooling nor heating.
  2. The earth is cooling.
  3. There has been late 20th century warming.
  4. So what if 2010 was the hottest year on record?
  5. The earth is not warming, or maybe it is warming (but we don't want it to be warming so it isn't).
  6. The sun is quiet so it shouldn't be warming (therefore it isn't).
  7. The Minister has just made it all up.
  8. We don't believe any temperature record that includes the Arctic (and anyway, we don't like Dr Hansen of NASA; he's a bit of a pessimist).
  9. All the thermometers are wrong.

What they say about reducing CO2 emissions
  1. Even cutting CO2, it will take a long time to come out of the atmosphere, (therefore we should keep adding it instead).
  2. Cutting CO2 would stop the rise in temperature and even cause it to decline slightly. (Therefore we shouldn't cut it.)
  3. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is good for the environment.
  4. Australia doesn't pollute any more than anywhere else with the same environmental regulations.

What they say about evidence
There is none.  Tell us, where is the empirical evidence:
  • that warming is caused by CO2 emissions
  • of an increase in weather disasters

What they say about terminology
  • We don't like the term 'carbon pollution', (it's not nice; our friend Carbon would find it offensive).

What else they say
  1. Other things have been the main cause of global warming in the past (therefore it can't be CO2 this time around).
  2. It's a cycle (temperatures don't need a cause to go up and down)
  3. Forty years ago, some scientists thought the world was cooling (therefore it is still cooling, even though forty years ago more scientists said it was going to warm).
  4. We're not sure if global warming is a dangerous problem or not.

    Summarised from this article in Quadrant.

    Believe it or not, one of the authors is an active academic, two are retired academics and one was once a government employee (now a conspiracy theorist).  Will the current academic hold his job after this?  (Probably yes, unfortunately.)

    Saturday, April 9, 2011

    Which companies will advertise on Andrew Bolt's new show on Channel 10?

    How about telling the Channel 10 advertisers what you think of them supporting Andrew Bolt.

    Glen Beck, infamous for spouting ultra-right wing views, has been effectively fired from Fox News. It appears that a large number of high profile advertisers pulled out, not wanting their products to be associated with his unAmerican sentiments. (You'd think the son of Lachlan Murdoch might have learnt a lesson from this.)

    It will be interesting to see which companies support Andrew Bolt. So far he has been able to survive on the ABC Insider's program, which doesn't have advertising, and with a blog buried in a newspaper that has a lot of different journalists, some quite sane and rational. He has never been exposed out on his own before.

    I might even watch one of his television episodes (with the volume turned off) just to see which businesses support him - and write to these advertisers letting them know what I think of their support for him and his opinions. Hopefully a few other people will do the same.

    Thursday, March 17, 2011

    Julie Bishop's followers support a carbon tax!

    Julie Bishop, deputy leader of the opposition (Liberal Party, Australia, welcoming climate catastrophe), ran a survey on her website, checking support for a carbon tax.

    What's that?

    80.2% support a carbon tax!


    75.6% strongly support a carbon tax!


    I grabbed this screenshot of her website last night:


    Now this and all previous survey's on her website seem to have disappeared. What went wrong? Didn't she like what Australians told her?

    Friday, March 11, 2011

    On House Republicans overturning science - by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)

    The Republicans yesterday voted to increase pollution in the USA and to accelerate global warming and make weather disasters worse, more frequent and more widespread. This is what Rep Markey had to say about it:



    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/10/174942/markey-flat-earthers/

    Wednesday, March 2, 2011

    Will democracies survive global warming?

    Down here in Australia we have Sophie Mirabella MP, shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, dog-whistling the crazies to murder and mayhem. In reference to PM Gillard's proposed introduction of a price on carbon, Mirabella said:
    "If Ms Gillard believes Australians want to pay higher electricity and higher petrol prices, she is as deluded as Colonel 'my people love me' Gaddafi."
    Mirabella has joined the list of infamous politicians such as Palin for effectively calling for people to resort to violence.

    Given the trend in US conservative politics to stop any research relating to climate and stop any regulation of pollution; and the trend in Australian conservative politics to not repair damage from weather disasters as well as to not do anything to combat global warming, I fear that democracy will not survive too much longer.

    Mirabella is already dog-whistling for civil war. What will she call for when global warming makes the weather even worse than it has been this past decade? In her own electorate, people have suffered a decade of drought, more major fires burning more land than ever before in a similar time period, and just this summer, deluges the like of which have never been recorded. Still Mirabella doesn't want to take any action to reduce the cause of these disasters. If she and extremists like her in other countries have their way, we won't know what has hit us in a few years time.

    Which countries will do better? Perhaps western-style democracy is not up to the task of dealing with the massive problem of global warming.

    Saturday, February 26, 2011

    Cardinal Pell backs Plimer against the Pope and the Catholic Church

    As discussed in the Sydney Morning Herald and numerous other places, Cardinal George Pell has made a bit of a fool of himself on the record in the Australian Parliament's primary record, Hansard. In line with his numerous pronouncements that global warming is not a threat (such as here), Pell wrote to the Senate to immortalise his lack of understanding of climate science and his faith in a book of 'science fiction' that was penned by a chap called Ian Plimer.

    Tim Lambert has published Pell's letter and the response from Dr Greg Ayers of the Bureau of Meteorology. Dr Ayers explains to the Senate Committee, why Ian Plimer's book is not credible.

    Pell is in conflict with the Pope on the matter of global warming and has probably been in conflict with the Vatican for twenty years or more, on human welfare and environmental matters generally. Here is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI World Peace Day address last year (which refers also to concerns in 1990 expressed by Pope John Paul II):
    4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.

    Click for the Pope's World Day of Peace message - 1 January 2010

    And the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is as strong or stronger on the issue than the Pope and the Vatican, and writes:
    The U.S. Catholic bishops have declared, "At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both 'the human environment' and the natural environment." (Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001, p.1).
    In parishes, dioceses and other Catholic organizations, we encourage efforts to bring about a discussion on climate change that is civil and constructive, that invokes the virtue of prudence in seeking solutions, and that is more responsive to the needs of the poor, both here in the United States and abroad. As Catholics, we have a unique opportunity and responsibility to make a difference in addressing the potential impacts of global climate change, particularly on those least able to bear its burdens.

    The USCCB urges specific action at the personal, state, national and global level; including at the national level:
    The U.S. Catholic bishops are urging that any legislative action on climate change include provisions that: (1) ease the burden on poor people; (2) offer some relief for workers who may be displaced because of climate change policies; and (3) promote the development and use of alternate renewable and clean-energy resources, including the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change.
    Write to your Senators and Representatives in Congress and let them know that you care about climate change and support action on a national level that includes the three key priorities above. For background information on the issue, go to http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate.
    Keep up to date on new science and technology relating to climate change by checking the websites of the National Academies of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/).

    Cardinal Pell backs Plimer against the Pope and the Catholic Church

    As discussed in the Sydney Morning Herald and numerous other places, Cardinal George Pell has made a bit of a fool of himself on the record in the Australian Parliament's primary record, Hansard. In line with his numerous pronouncements that global warming is not a threat (such as here), Pell wrote to the Senate to immortalise his lack of understanding of climate science and his faith in a book of 'science fiction' that was penned by a chap called Ian Plimer.

    Tim Lambert has published Pell's letter and the response from Dr Greg Ayers of the Bureau of Meteorology. Dr Ayers explains to the Senate Committee, why Ian Plimer's book is not credible.

    Pell is in conflict with the Pope on the matter of global warming and has probably been in conflict with the Vatican for twenty years or more, on human welfare and environmental matters generally. Here is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI World Peace Day address last year (which refers also to concerns in 1990 expressed by Pope John Paul II):
    4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.
    Click for the Pope's World Day of Peace message - 1 January 2010

    And the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is as strong or stronger on the issue than the Pope and the Vatican, and writes:
    The U.S. Catholic bishops have declared, "At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both 'the human environment' and the natural environment." (Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001, p.1).
    In parishes, dioceses and other Catholic organizations, we encourage efforts to bring about a discussion on climate change that is civil and constructive, that invokes the virtue of prudence in seeking solutions, and that is more responsive to the needs of the poor, both here in the United States and abroad. As Catholics, we have a unique opportunity and responsibility to make a difference in addressing the potential impacts of global climate change, particularly on those least able to bear its burdens.
    The USCCB urges specific action at the personal, state, national and global level; including at the national level:
    The U.S. Catholic bishops are urging that any legislative action on climate change include provisions that: (1) ease the burden on poor people; (2) offer some relief for workers who may be displaced because of climate change policies; and (3) promote the development and use of alternate renewable and clean-energy resources, including the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change.
    Write to your Senators and Representatives in Congress and let them know that you care about climate change and support action on a national level that includes the three key priorities above. For background information on the issue, go to http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/climate.
    Keep up to date on new science and technology relating to climate change by checking the websites of the National Academies of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/).

    Sunday, February 20, 2011

    The ecology crisis and shrinking biodiversity in a warming world

    I'm putting together a few links on ecology and biodiversity. Most nature lovers will have observed changes in their local flora and fauna in recent years. There will be many more changes over coming years as species are affected by the altered atmosphere and the warming earth, which will have multiple and cascading effects affecting food webs and local habitats. Here is some further reading on the subject.

    Jeff Harvey responded to Eli Rabett's request for reading material and suggested places to start learning about the biodiversity crisis. Dr Harvey recommends the Millenium Assessment Reports as a starting point.

    Bart has posted some useful links on the topic, and the thread includes some excellent posts by Jeff Harvey and Bernard J, though the thread got hijacked further along the way. There is discussion of the Amazon, on inter-relationships and how broken links will have a cascading effect; and the notion of 'extinction debt' and the lingering inevitable death of species.

    My attention was drawn to this observation by Bernard J., because it relates to the mountains I love and look on every day from my window, (although I am not aware of any Gondwanan Nothofagus within walking distance of our place):
    In Australia one good example is the remnant Gondwanan Nothofagus forest associations clinging to the tops of the highest mountain peaks along the Great Dividing Range. Whilst they might be able to persist in warm temperatures, they do not thrive as well as the pyrophilic eucalptus associations at lower altitude. Even slight warming increases the frequency of fire, and the capacity for eucalypts to regenerate more quickly than the Nothofagus will see the latter continue to retreat to the apices in the face of advancing eucalyptus forest, and then blink out when there is no more mountain left. This will remove thousands of species unque to the Nothofagus associations, simply because of the vulnerability of one foundation species.

    This post on climate change and extinction, from Kate at ClimateSight, is worth reading and reading again. In it she looks at how past extinction events provide ample warning of the disaster we face.

    SkepticalScience.com has a post about extinctions, written by Barry Brook.

    Some biodiversity blogs are listed on the Pimm Group website.

    And for those of us who have recently experienced extreme heat, and wondered if we and other species would survive very high temperatures and humidity if it lasted for more than a few days, the answer is probably not, as discussed here.

    An illustration of what happens when one part of the food chain is seriously diminished in numbers, is discussed in this recent article about the current reduction in the number of larger fish in the ocean.

    Some scientists are proposing intervention by eliminating specific threatened species for the greater good of many more species. A topic that would be highly controversial in the public arena, one imagines.

    Wednesday, February 16, 2011

    On morals and ethics and climate science

    Both 'ethics' and 'morality' have their roots in a word for 'customs', the former being a derivative of the Greek term from which we get 'ethos', and the latter from the Latin root that gives us 'mores', a word still used sometimes to describe the customs of a people. - Peter Singer.
    The recent behaviour of O'Donnell et al (referred to in my previous post) raises issues of morals and ethics. Even when a person has a different set of morals, it is expected that they abide by professional ethics. If a person seeks to publish in a professional journal, then it is expected that they will abide by the code of ethics of that profession, even if it is not explicitly stated in the policies of said journal.

    For example, in the case of a journal that has a policy of anonymous review of papers submitted for publication it would be expected that the norm is to not publicly reveal the names of those reviewers even if they became known to the authors of the paper. (Two of the authors who each published posts naming and personally attacking Prof Steig sought and received written confirmation that naming reviewers is a breach of professional ethics. The author who wrote the attack stated that he did this despite making a personal commitment to Prof Steig that he would not reveal his name.)

    Scientists rarely vilify other scientists on the basis of differing professional views. As individuals, scientists might express strongly their personal view of the behaviour and/or opinions expressed by others, but when it comes to discussing differences in the science itself, they are almost invariably polite in public. They argue the merits of the science rather than the attributes of the person, as in this example.

    As far as I am aware, all professions have a similar code of behaviour. For example, it is rare to find a doctor criticising another doctor (which is one reason why it can be difficult to press for medical malpractice). In my own profession, to criticise a competitor to a client would be considered very bad form. The way around this, when one is asked by a client for an opinion about a competitor not held in high regard, is to suggest also considering 'xyz' individual or firm and refer to their experience (without criticising the less-than-adequate competitor). This allows one to to take account of one's responsibility to the client while complying with the professional code of ethics.

    On science blogs, scientists commonly do exactly that. For example, a query as to why scientist xxx is considered 'wrong' would more commonly elicit a referral to papers expressing a different finding rather than a retort such as 'because they are a ning-nong'. (The reference to evidence is how scientists typically respond in public. Non-scientists might use the 'ning-nong' retort! And one might presume that between themselves in private conversation, scientists are not averse to the 'ning nong' retort either.)

    Owners of blogs that cater to climate change deniers and delayers (denier chums) often have no compunction at all about personal vilification of climate scientists. Because they are unable to argue against the scientific facts, many people seem to think the only option they have is to personally attack specific scientists, often even resorting to telling lies about them. Such behaviour should never be tolerated, regardless of one's personal 'beliefs'.

    Thursday, February 10, 2011

    Deniers slam the GATE on deniers

    Deniers and denier chums seem to be doing their best to destroy any semblance of credibility they might have hoped for among gullible members of the public. Hopefully their latest shonky tactics backfire and they sink into oblivion sooner rather than later.

    ClimateGATE:
    First denier shonkiness was shown up after their unfounded 'interpretations' of stolen emails, which were subject to several reviews in the USA and in the UK by eminent persons who concluded that not only were these allegations without any basis, but that the scientists had done diligent and critically important work over decades, informing the world of the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions.

    LisbonGATE:
    Recently deniers and their chums organised what was erroneously titled a 'reconciliation' conference, in which they sought legitimacy by inviting 'prominent' climate scientists to discuss matters such as the purported 'medieval warm period' and 'ice'! The reconciliation efforts included presentation of a t-shirt with climate science going into a trashcan, and false reporting in the press of the contents of an email from Dr Gavin Schmidt, in which he declined the invitation to attend the workshop.

    O'DonnellGATE: Maybe in an attempt to deflect attention away from the disastrous Lisbongate, within a day or so numerous denier websites published erroneous allegations of impropriety by a climate scientist, as alleged by a non-scientist whose work was published in a peer reviewed climate journal. The 'gate' part is apt, because not only did the offender publish reviewers comments, but named the anonymous reviewer and incorrectly described the actions of said reviewer - all in a riot of colourful language on several denier blogs as well as referring his readers to inaccurate allegations in the mainstream press.

    Another perspective on O'Donnellgate can be found in this article, written before O'Donnell and co lost any pretense at decorum, and titled:
    Climate Skeptic Refutes Self, Confirms Antarctica Warming

    It's not only warming in West Antarctica, on the east flights were stopped to Casey in Eastern Antarctica earlier this summer because of the 'heat wave'.

    It is clear that deniers and denier chums have no interest in facts about climate. All they seek to do is try to impugn the integrity of climate scientists, create doubt and foment outrage and denial that we all share responsibility for the weather disasters we're suffering, albeit not equally. Because their attacks on facts are so easily shown to be false, their current tactic is to libel prominent scientists one by one. At the rate they are going, in about 10,000 years they will have libelled everyone currently working in climate science. Not sure how they will keep up with new scholars entering the field.

    Meanwhile it looks as if the world is now on the downhill side of peak oil, weather disasters are too numerous to report and little is happening to address the issue. Indeed, in the USA, Republicans are attempting to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially.

    Saturday, February 5, 2011

    Thursday, February 3, 2011

    Yasi extends its influence

    Down here in north eastern Victoria we were warned to expect flash floods in the next couple of days. The rain has already begun, accompanied by thunder and lightning.

    Here are some time lapse graphics from the Bureau of Meteorology andNOAA showing how Yasi is already extending its influence right down to the south east corner of Australia, more than 2,000 km south of where the eye of Yasi crossed the coastline in Queensland this morning. The warm wet air from Yasi is hitting the air mass coming across from the south west and the low is expected to sit for a couple of days, dumping up to 100mm water and maybe causing flooding here for the third time this summer, with the ground already well saturated.

    Summers here are meant to be mostly dry. With all this rain and humidity the crops are getting diseased with mildew and fungus. At least those that haven't been destroyed by intense rain or washed away in floods.

    It's hot and sticky tonight. This morning we had the low lying mist typical of winter, except it was much hotter.




    Yasi continues to damage, even as it breaks up

    UPDATE 8:30 pm Thurs 3 Feb: The rains that were supposed to hit us in north eastern Victoria are already arriving, accompanied by thunder and lightning as Yasi joins the air masses coming in from the south west.

    Yasi is expected to start to break up soon. It is now a Category 1 cyclone, expected to form a tropical low over the next few hours.

    The TC Yasi system is continuing to bring rains to the Far North Queensland coast, inland Queensland, the Northern Territory and South Australia.

    Tropical Queensland is suffering intense wind and excess rain in the wet season up north. We in north eastern Victoria have just received rain from the remnants of TC Anthony, the cyclone that hit the north Queensland coast a few days ago while Yasi was forming.

    Summer is the predominately dry season down in the south of Australia, but not this season - which is causing damage beyond the flooded areas with diseases spreading through crops because of the unseasonal humidity. In the next couple of days we expect to get intense rain from the outer rings of Yasi as it combines with air moving up from the south. We may get our third (in some parts our fourth) lot of flooding for the summer with very heavy rains on already sodden soils at a time when it should be mostly dry, and many crops would otherwise be getting close to harvest.

    Queensland is not the only state to suffer from excess water. It has suffered enormous damage recently. Victorians are also suffering with about 1/3 of the state under water that spread up to 40 km wide, with some towns submerged under water for more than a week and totally cut off for even longer. Parts of Western Australia and Tasmania have had devastating floods.

    We don't know exactly the situation across the rest of Australia - the media is focused on Queensland. I doubt there will be much notice taken of the roads and bridges that have yet to be repaired from floods in early summer or the January floods or the coming floods. This is understandable, given the enormous job ahead of those in popular populated parts of Queensland and the spectacular circumstances of the Queensland disasters.

    Still, spare a thought for those who cannot travel easily between towns and rural areas across parts of Victoria and those whose livelihoods have been destroyed or seriously harmed in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. And how the damage across Australia will affect the economy and the lives of Australians everywhere.

    Welcome to a warmer world.

    Wednesday, February 2, 2011

    BBC Horizon - Scientists Under Attack - update

    Here is a better quality video of the BBC Horizon featuring Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society. It is a single video on a fast server and much improved definition (click the full screen option for improved viewing).

    Note: the YouTube version is no longer available. You can watch this on the BBC here.


    Tuesday, February 1, 2011

    Current weather emergencies in Australia

    The ABC website lists the current emergencies relating to weather events.  The entire eastern half of the huge state of Queensland in northern Australia, the western half of Victoria in the south east of Australia and important areas of Western Australia are badly affected by floods and cyclones.  Eastern Victoria and south western Western Australia have been affected by bushfires, which, while burning homes and large areas of land, are not significant enough to be listed on this page:


    Wednesday, January 26, 2011

    BBC Horizon with Sir Paul Nurse on climate change and communicating the science

    UPDATE: Here is a link to the complete program, with improved definition:
    http://bundanga.blogspot.com/2011/02/bbc-horizon-scientists-under-attack.html

    Thanks to a post on ClimateProgress, I was able to watch this recent BBC Horizon program via six links on youtube: Note: no longer available - you can watch it on the BBC.

    Some messages:

    Humans are causing the climate to change at such a rapid rate that it is threatening life as we know it today.

    Denier blogger, Delingpole, is brazen (and foolish) enough to say to a Nobel prize winning President of the Royal Society that science is nonsense and peer review doesn't work, at the same time admitting that he, Delingpole, doesn't read scientific papers because he, Delingpole, cannot understand them. (Check out his body language while he is holding forth on his 'opinions' - folded arms, hand over mouth, eye movements etc)

    GM radicals are against genetically modified foods because they believe eating food with genes in it is bad. (Apparently some members of the public are not aware that all plants and animals contain genes, which are essential to ongoing life, growth and reproduction.)

    We live in a world where 'point of view not peer review holds sway'. Scientists have a responsibility to argue the scientific case. Newspapers report the same news items, one reporting a completely opposite account (of the same event) to the other.

    Sir Paul Nurse is a very good ambassador for science. It was a good move made by the Royal Society, to elect him as President.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2011

    GOMMs - ideas for helping out after the Queensland floods

    GOMMs = grumpy old maids and men.
    There have been hundreds of thousands of people affected and thousands of people showing strength and courage beyond bravery. This post is primarily inspired by two such people, Linda Weston and Robert Wilkin from Grantham who were interviewed on the ABC. Click here to watch the video. (Has anyone got a link to the clip itself?) As Linda Weston said - just a bit of extra help will go a long way:
    This is a strong community, it really is. And a lot of people will support each other like they're doing now. But we're just going to need more help with cleaning up and that's basically what it's going to be all about. And if everyone stays strong with what's happening now we'll be fine. Just a bit of extra help will go a long way....We had no rain two years ago. It was that dry we had dust. Now we've got too much rain. What do you do? It's feast or famine. So, you've got to be strong and just keep going. That's the Australian way.
    The aim is to seek some ideas on how we can best help Queenslanders without getting in their way. The mandatory constraints will include: working with the organised relief effort not going off half-cocked; and helping affected people get back on their feet, not taking over from them.

    Disaster plans have different major components, including rescue, relief and recovery. The rescue stage is all hands on deck in a coordinated fashion, doing what can be done as the disaster is happening. The relief stage is getting funds to people who need it, and providing food, clothing and shelter as well as counselling and other services to those in need. Please donate what you can here.

    The recovery stage is huge. It will include rebuilding all the roads that have been washed away. Rebuilding the railway tracks and the airports and the ports. Rebuilding government offices and businesses and homes that have been damaged or totally destroyed.

    The scale of the devastation is unprecedented in Australia's recent history (of the last 200 years).

    Along with the huge large scale efforts just to rebuild basic infrastructure, individual households and small businesses will be wanting to get back on their feet. People will be suffering shock and many will continue to be suffering from the trauma for many months and years. It's hard to be at your most efficient for extended periods under such circumstances. The entire populations of many towns and cities will need help and support, much of which they will get from working together. Maybe a bit of help from outside will get them back on their feet sooner.

    I thought I'd kick off this post with a couple of ideas that would particularly suit the GOMMS, who have more time than cash and who are fit and healthy:

    Recovery working bees: After the 1974 floods, relief weekend working bees were organised to help households clean up. Maybe a few GOMMs (grumpy old maids and men) would be able to give their time to work alongside those getting back on their feet. It would be dirty work but you might make some new friends along the way. There are many grey nomads who will undoubtedly help. This could be a way to find out if the life of the grey nomad is for you :)

    UPDATE: Here is where to volunteer to help out in Queensland:
    http://www.emergencyvolunteering.com.au/

    Respite: Maybe Queenslanders will eventually be ready for some respite. Maybe some GOMMs can open their homes and holiday homes so that those who've been worn out can take a breather in an environment where they are not facing the effects of the disaster every day.

    Would love to hear other suggestions or refinements to the above. If there are a few people who want to band together to do something down the line, post comments here. In a few weeks this disaster may drop off the media radar but the recovery process will have only just begun.

    Please donate to help those in desperate need after the Queensland floods.

    UPDATE: Don't forget those in northern New South Wales who are now being inundated by flood water. Nor those in Western Australia who are trying to recover from record floods in December 2010.

    David Karoly Speaks on Queensland Floods and Climate Change

    Professor David Karoly, a world-renowned climate change expert from The University of Melbourne, is on ABC News 24 at the moment. He is describing the effect of the very strong La Nina on Queensland, combined with the record high sea surface temperatures. According to Prof Karoly, conditions now are similar to the conditions in 1974, except the oceans are warmer because of global warming. That is why the floods of 2010-2011 are worse than the floods of 1974.

    This is only the second time I've seen this strong message on television, explaining the unprecedented flooding in Queensland. The first time was David Karoly as well. Given his experience - he is very brave and I have the utmost admiration for him speaking out so clearly with such strong messaging.

    Let us hope that more and more people get the message.

    Frog weirdness

    For the third night in a row a frog has jumped on me in bed. To get here they had to either climb on the verandah and jump through the window or come in the back door and find their way through several other rooms.

    The first time it was a middle sized frog that jumped on my head, the past two nights the frogs have been tiny little things. The one tonight really seemed like it wanted to stay - it kept jumping back on me and looking at me.

    Too strange. Why are they visiting me in my bedroom, and why are they jumping on me?

    Maybe before putting them out in the garden I should have kissed them to see if a handsome prince emerges.

    (I know this isn't a climate post - or maybe it is. The weather is breaking new records this summer - for rain and rain intensity for a change, not heat. Hence the frogs, I guess!)

    UPDATE: After finding the third tiny frog last night I did a quick walk around the house and found another tiny frog sitting on the top of the skirting board in the kitchen, and another on the floor in the bedroom. This afternoon I found another frog in a bowl under the tap in the front yard. The bowl had filled with water because of the recent rain and the frog was nestled under some grass clippings that had blown into the bowl. It looks as if the recent rain, while causing floods in Victoria in south-eastern Australia, has been good for frogs. (Our floods have not been a patch on those further north, as discussed in other posts.)