The Sydney Morning Herald recently ran a series of articles on the perilous state of the Lachlan River Valley in central western NSW (Water crisis in west as Lachlan River runs dry, SMH 24/10; Rivers, dams fail Lachlan Valley towns, SMH 26/11 and Everything’s dried up and communities beginning to crack, SMH, 28/11).
While not stated, the implication seemed to be that the current state of the river was unprecedented. Having worked in the area, mapping the geology in 2001 I was slightly suspicious of these headlines and decided to put them to the test.
This has been made much easier thanks to the work of the National Library in Canberra. A search of the National Library’s Australian Newspapers online database, that contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers dating back into the early 1800s, found numerous mentions of past droughts including the intriguing letter to the editor of The Sydney Herald (the for-runner to the Sydney Morning Herald), re-printed below, that suggests things were much more perilous in past times. Indications that Lake Cargelligo actually dried out, prior to extensive land clearing and with CO2 levels much less than they are now, suggests that the role of natural weather cycles has been overlooked as an important factor in controlling water flows down the Lachlan.
While our political leaders are running around in circles searching for a political solution to the so called climate crisis in Copenhagen this voice from Australia’s colonial era serves as a timely reminder that when it comes to the weather, it goes around in circles as well, just a little more slowly.
The Sydney Herald Wednesday 17 April, 1839
Original Correspondence
To the Editor of the Sydney Herald.
SIR,─Having heard a great deal of the fertile banks of the Lachlan River, I left Sydney in the beginning of February, passing through the districts of Argyle and King, to the Narraway River.
The road from Sydney was exceedingly dusty; the water mid feed scarce on the road ; so much so, that parties, to prevent their horse-team from starving, ripped open their straw beds and gave the straw to the horses. In the neighbourhood of Bunowbunow, (the lands of Messrs. Macarthur and McAlister) and from there to Wheeo, the property of Mr. Shepherd, where tolerable good old grass is to be met with, water is very scarce, and many cattle died in water-holes.
Down the Narraway River the water is scarce; the holes dangerous for cattle, the grass scarce, and on passing the Borrower no water to give the horses, nor grass to be found. Came to the Lachlan, below a junction of the Burrower─ no water or grass, the head of the river being sandy and level.
The cattle on the estates of Messrs. Wentworth, Fulton, Redfern, Rankin, and many others, on the upper parts of the Lachlan, are actually starving for want of water and grass. For many miles together the country wears the same dreary appearance; little grass, and less water. For 80 miles down, after which the River becomes narrow and deep, with here and there a deep water- hole; the grass begins to improve, and the, cattle obtain better pasture. The country on the bank of the River for 100 miles down, improves in appearance; large Plains, with a few trees dispersed on different parts; the water still scarce but the feed good. Cattle stations are fixed on the bank of the River, from one to seven miles apart, as water-holes may suit. It is a rule that the River shall be the boundary, and it is common for stations to be placed opposite each other. The whole of the country for l8 miles down the River, was taken up by Bathurst gentry ; latterly Mr. Cartwright, from Bland Plains, went below all with cattle; since which Mr. Shepherd has gone below him; and more than likely there are others below him by this time, as numbers of herds were on their way down the River ─ parties finding it impossible to support their stock on their old runs. The country on the Lachlan is not capable of supporting many cattle, the Plains being thinly grassed, and there being but little forest land, as also very little water.
At present the country is perfectly dry and sound, but should there come heavy rains most of it will be under water. Major Mitchell's track is plain, he kept near the bank of the River as far as I saw; the Lake (as called Cagillowgo), is dry, and nothing but a morass, great quantities of salt rush and a scrub, that is to be found near the salt water, grows on the Plains. The Stockmen and others are in a miserable condition; no sugar, no tea, very little bread, and less meat, the time for supplies being up, and proprietors of stock not having sent their half-yearly supplies. Great talk was about the Blacks. I was pleasingly surprised to find them harmless, peaceable, industrious, and a working people; great numbers are to be seen on the River; at the stations it is common to have one or two men tailing or shepherding a herd of cattle, the women grind, bring water, and do odd work. A bad system is allowed on the Lachlan, as well as in many parts of the Colony, that is, proprietors paying their free men in stock, and allowing them to run with their herd; that system has been a great cause of so much cattle-stealing. A Stockman seeing a good unbranded calf in the bush takes it home and puts his own brand on, being in so distant a part: he can do it with impunity as the proprietor so seldom sees his cattle. A case somewhat relevant occurred the other day, Mr. McKensey has had a free man, a stock-keeper who had cattle. When his master went to inspect his own cattle, he saw a calf with the Stockman's brand on sucking one of his own cows. The man was taken into custody, but on his way to Bathurst made his escape. It is high time that masters do away with the system of paying men in cattle, or allowing them to have cattle. They would find they would gain by giving more wages, (if such be required) rather than pay in stock. The country generally, in the neighbourhood of the Lachlan, is suffering much from the drought, the trees of the forest are withered, and great numbers are dying along acres together for want of moisture. Cattle are to be seen in almost every water-hole, and what is worse the traveller suffers greatly from a similar cause. One of Doctor Ramsay's men, passing in company with a team from one station across the country to the Lachlan, left the dray in search of water, and has not been heard of since. Strict search was made for the unfortunate man, but no remains could be found of him; he was a stranger, and it is supposed that he missed the dray, and perished for want of water.
A TRAVELLER.
April 5, 1839.
References
Original Article available from:
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/12857693
SMH story: Rivers, Dams Fail Lachlan River towns 26/11/2009 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rivers-dams-fail-lachlan-valley-towns-20091125-jrwn.html
SMH Story: Water crisis in west as Lachlan River runs dry, 24/10/2009
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/water-crisis-in-west-as-lachlan-river-runs-dry-20091023-hdce.html
SMH Story: Everything’s dried up and communities beginning to crack, SMH, 28/11
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/everythings-dried-up-and-communities-begin-to-crack-20091127-jwww.html
National Library Online Database
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Only certainty about the climate is that it will change.
Unpublished letter sent to the sydney Morning Herald 17/06
Matthew England (How noisy naysayers led Fielding on a false path, 17/6 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html) takes great pains to explain one of the great contradictions of the theory of anthropogenic global warming: that global temperature has flat lined over the last decade despite constantly rising green house gas emissions. England rightly puts this down to natural variability in the climate system. He points to the warming trend revealed by surface temperature data over the last 150 years as evidence that the warming will continue and even accelerate. What he fails to to mention is that this temperature record is but a snap shot of global temperature that has varied more markedly over much longer time scales both up and down. For instance over the last 1000 years the earth has moved from relative warmth during the Medieval Warm Period to the relative cold of the Little Ice Age, intriguingly under virtually constant greenhouse gas concentrations. Modern temperature records begin during the later natural low point and it is little wonder that temperatures have risen since then as the earth has naturally warmed again. Likewise that we have seen a cluster of warmer years over the last decade is no mystery and merely reflects the fact that we started recording temperature accurately when the climate was much cooler.
One wonders if medieval weathermen were as concerned about climate change as we are or did they recognise the warming as a portent of better times to come that would eventually see the Vikings settle in Greenland, bring bumper crops to Europe and wine making to northern England?
Matthew England is right about one thing; change in the climate system will affect us all. However as there is little we can do about it we are better to spend our limited resources adapting to both positive and negative changes as they arise, rather than sit on our thrones by the sea shore and command the climate to stop. The only certainty about the climate is that it will change.
Matthew England (How noisy naysayers led Fielding on a false path, 17/6 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html) takes great pains to explain one of the great contradictions of the theory of anthropogenic global warming: that global temperature has flat lined over the last decade despite constantly rising green house gas emissions. England rightly puts this down to natural variability in the climate system. He points to the warming trend revealed by surface temperature data over the last 150 years as evidence that the warming will continue and even accelerate. What he fails to to mention is that this temperature record is but a snap shot of global temperature that has varied more markedly over much longer time scales both up and down. For instance over the last 1000 years the earth has moved from relative warmth during the Medieval Warm Period to the relative cold of the Little Ice Age, intriguingly under virtually constant greenhouse gas concentrations. Modern temperature records begin during the later natural low point and it is little wonder that temperatures have risen since then as the earth has naturally warmed again. Likewise that we have seen a cluster of warmer years over the last decade is no mystery and merely reflects the fact that we started recording temperature accurately when the climate was much cooler.
One wonders if medieval weathermen were as concerned about climate change as we are or did they recognise the warming as a portent of better times to come that would eventually see the Vikings settle in Greenland, bring bumper crops to Europe and wine making to northern England?
Matthew England is right about one thing; change in the climate system will affect us all. However as there is little we can do about it we are better to spend our limited resources adapting to both positive and negative changes as they arise, rather than sit on our thrones by the sea shore and command the climate to stop. The only certainty about the climate is that it will change.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sue climate scientists instead
Letter sent to Sydney Morning Herald 1 May 2009.
Dear Editor,
Prof David Karoly argues that coal companies could be exposed to legal action if the climate catastrophe predicted by IPCC computer models eventuates (Dear Coal plants, you’re doomed, 1/5). Spending our precious time, money and human resources tackling a natural climate cycle that ultimately we have no control over, sucks resources from other worthwhile projects such as research for cures for cancer, malaria and flu, reducing habitat destruction, deforestation and improving the standard of living in third world countries, etc. Will Prof Karoly be the one to explain this to the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources stopping the unstoppable? On the flip side I guess, given the climate continues to ignore the models, those adversely affected could always sue Professor Karoly and other activitist scientists and former politicians who seem to have lost all objectivity on this issue.
Dear Editor,
Prof David Karoly argues that coal companies could be exposed to legal action if the climate catastrophe predicted by IPCC computer models eventuates (Dear Coal plants, you’re doomed, 1/5). Spending our precious time, money and human resources tackling a natural climate cycle that ultimately we have no control over, sucks resources from other worthwhile projects such as research for cures for cancer, malaria and flu, reducing habitat destruction, deforestation and improving the standard of living in third world countries, etc. Will Prof Karoly be the one to explain this to the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources stopping the unstoppable? On the flip side I guess, given the climate continues to ignore the models, those adversely affected could always sue Professor Karoly and other activitist scientists and former politicians who seem to have lost all objectivity on this issue.
IPCC: David Copperfield would be proud of you
Upnpublished letter to THE AUSTRALIAN 1 May 2009
Dear Editor,
The issue of certainty is central to the IPCC arguments for action on carbon emissions; if there is a lack of certainty then the need for urgent action is diminished. We often here from IPCC scientists that there is 95% certainty in the science of climate modelling. Yet when we look at the Radiative Forcing Components used in computer climate models reported by the IPCC in Assessment Report 4, the error for net anthropogenic forcing is a staggering 112.5%! Treatment of errors is part of the scientific process and it appears to be very poorly addressed and explained in IPCC reports.That the IPCC manages to turn a 112.5% error into 95% certainty is surely one of the greatest scientific tricks made on the public. David Copperfield would be proud of you, Richard Feynman would not.
Dear Editor,
The issue of certainty is central to the IPCC arguments for action on carbon emissions; if there is a lack of certainty then the need for urgent action is diminished. We often here from IPCC scientists that there is 95% certainty in the science of climate modelling. Yet when we look at the Radiative Forcing Components used in computer climate models reported by the IPCC in Assessment Report 4, the error for net anthropogenic forcing is a staggering 112.5%! Treatment of errors is part of the scientific process and it appears to be very poorly addressed and explained in IPCC reports.That the IPCC manages to turn a 112.5% error into 95% certainty is surely one of the greatest scientific tricks made on the public. David Copperfield would be proud of you, Richard Feynman would not.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Prince of Precaution in Space
Australia's most famous environmentalist, Tim Flannery, has lent his name to a scheme by the world's most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists.
See SMH for full story HERE
I'm sure there's a new book in here somewhere...
See SMH for full story HERE
I'm sure there's a new book in here somewhere...
IPCC process leaves door open to cherry-picking
From today's Australian newspaper by Marc Hendrickx:
IN his praise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Peter Doherty (Letters, 22/4) ignores the fact that the IPCC process is dominated by a small clique of climate scientists who review their own work for inclusion in IPCC reports. This unusual process apparently overrides the generally accepted practice that peer review be conducted by a qualified, anonymous third party. I don’t imagine this sort of review process would be tolerated in the medical sciences. It hardly comprises an honest approach to science and leaves the door open to manipulation and cherry-picking of research results.
Another Nobel prize-winning scientist, American physicist Richard Feynman, described this sort of practice as “cargo cult science”—one that is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”. As Feynman said, “The first principle (of science) is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” The time for honesty and healthy self-scepticism from the IPCC is long overdue lest they continue to make fools of us all.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ipcc_process_leaves_door_open_to_cherry_picking/
IN his praise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Peter Doherty (Letters, 22/4) ignores the fact that the IPCC process is dominated by a small clique of climate scientists who review their own work for inclusion in IPCC reports. This unusual process apparently overrides the generally accepted practice that peer review be conducted by a qualified, anonymous third party. I don’t imagine this sort of review process would be tolerated in the medical sciences. It hardly comprises an honest approach to science and leaves the door open to manipulation and cherry-picking of research results.
Another Nobel prize-winning scientist, American physicist Richard Feynman, described this sort of practice as “cargo cult science”—one that is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”. As Feynman said, “The first principle (of science) is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” The time for honesty and healthy self-scepticism from the IPCC is long overdue lest they continue to make fools of us all.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ipcc_process_leaves_door_open_to_cherry_picking/
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Impish Professor's Cargo Cult
Coming soon from Little Skeptics Press
The Impish Professor's Cargo Cult
ISBN 978-0-9805943-4-8
Inspired by a Richard Feynman’s essay “Cargo Cult Science”
some extracts...
“In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.”
'But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school -- we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. "
"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. "
"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision."
"In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
The IPCC is cargo cult science in action. The IPCC form looks perfect, they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, it looks like science to journalists and is sold as such to the layman, but they're missing something essential, because while the cash certainly is raining in, the observations continue to disagree with the models. It's time the IPCC ended its Cargo Cult mentality!
see http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html for full text of Feynman's essay.
Watch this space...
The Impish Professor's Cargo Cult
ISBN 978-0-9805943-4-8
Inspired by a Richard Feynman’s essay “Cargo Cult Science”
some extracts...
“In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.”
'But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school -- we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. "
"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. "
"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision."
"In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
The IPCC is cargo cult science in action. The IPCC form looks perfect, they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, it looks like science to journalists and is sold as such to the layman, but they're missing something essential, because while the cash certainly is raining in, the observations continue to disagree with the models. It's time the IPCC ended its Cargo Cult mentality!
see http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html for full text of Feynman's essay.
Watch this space...
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Prince of Precaution Unleashed Chocfest Challenge
A special Easter challenge for ABC Unleashed viewers-correctly name the cast of the AGWM 2020 featured in the book and win a free copy of the Prince of Precaution signed by the author. Simply watch the video and lookout for the AGWM2020 ideas forum. The first person to send the names of the 22 attendees to the email address at the end of the video wins a copy of The Prince of Precaution to enjoy with your family. If no one guesses correctly then the entry with the most correct answers will win.
Happy Chocfest everybody!
Happy Chocfest everybody!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Prince of Precaution on ABC unleashed
For a short time you can add your own comments about The Prince of Precaution at the ABC unleashed site here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2532992.htm
How they managed to take a 2Mb video file and turn it into 9 Mb is beyond me! For a quicker download the video is also available on You Tube HERE
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2532992.htm
How they managed to take a 2Mb video file and turn it into 9 Mb is beyond me! For a quicker download the video is also available on You Tube HERE
Thanks to Kevin Rudd's stimulus package a limited number of professionally printed copies in brilliant colour are available for $17.50 plus postage ($2.50 in Australia-regular). See if you can recognise the attendees of the AGWMonster 2020! Who are the spineless bureaucrats? What's hiding in the bushes? These questions answered and more.
Thanks Kev!
Also available after easter 2009 are newly printed versions of "We're not scared anymore Mr Gore-Special edition". Also $17.50. (Thanks again Mr Rudd!)
Special combo offer - If you order the Prince with Mr Gore postage is free.
Savings are also available for bulk orders (>50)-send queries to littleskepticspress@gmail.com
Payment through PAYPAL ONLY.
Also available after easter 2009 are newly printed versions of "We're not scared anymore Mr Gore-Special edition". Also $17.50. (Thanks again Mr Rudd!)
Special combo offer - If you order the Prince with Mr Gore postage is free.
Savings are also available for bulk orders (>50)-send queries to littleskepticspress@gmail.com
Payment through PAYPAL ONLY.
Send money through paypal to littleskepticspress@gmail.com. Include mailing instructions and you can expect Mr Gore and/or Prince Tim blubbering at your door in no time.
Note that the cost just covers my expenses. If anyone is inclined to donate or buy the movie rights for many many 1000's of dollars please do!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
We're not scared anymore Mr Gore Special Edition
Given "The Prince of Precaution" looks so good professionally printed I have organised a print run for We're not scared anymore Mr Gore: SPecial Edition. This should be available for purchase in the next few weeks. Those who received the original "home made" versions can expect a new copy!
Printed versions of the original version featuring Ms Green will NO longer be available however the Electronic Edition is still available for download via the ABC Unleashed website HERE.
Printed versions of the original version featuring Ms Green will NO longer be available however the Electronic Edition is still available for download via the ABC Unleashed website HERE.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Science not settled on Ozone
Letter sent to Sydney Morming Herald this morning...unlikely to see print...
Dear Editor,
Recent studies (DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.118501) indicate that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) have played a previously unrecognised role in contributing to the formation of the Ozone Hole, something overlooked in Ben Cubby's opinion piece (We saved the Ozone Hole, now its time to save the climate, 27/3). Natural variation in GCR intensity linked to the solar cycle helps explain why the ozone layer has been so slow to recover since CFC's were banned in the 1980s. It also explains why we can expect the hole to actually increase in size this year as we enter one of the deepest solar minimums of the modern era. The story of the ozone layer is not that simple and clearly is not over just yet. The effect of GCR's on the rest of earth's atmosphere and climate remains the subject of continued research with initial findings pointing to a link between GCR intensity and global temperature. The lesson to be learnt is that, despite the claims of a few figures of authority, the science is not settled. Rather than turning the lights off for Earth Hour this year and working in the dark it seems some scientists and perhaps some reporters could benefit from working with the lights on for a change.
Dear Editor,
Recent studies (DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.118501) indicate that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) have played a previously unrecognised role in contributing to the formation of the Ozone Hole, something overlooked in Ben Cubby's opinion piece (We saved the Ozone Hole, now its time to save the climate, 27/3). Natural variation in GCR intensity linked to the solar cycle helps explain why the ozone layer has been so slow to recover since CFC's were banned in the 1980s. It also explains why we can expect the hole to actually increase in size this year as we enter one of the deepest solar minimums of the modern era. The story of the ozone layer is not that simple and clearly is not over just yet. The effect of GCR's on the rest of earth's atmosphere and climate remains the subject of continued research with initial findings pointing to a link between GCR intensity and global temperature. The lesson to be learnt is that, despite the claims of a few figures of authority, the science is not settled. Rather than turning the lights off for Earth Hour this year and working in the dark it seems some scientists and perhaps some reporters could benefit from working with the lights on for a change.
Monday, March 16, 2009
“The Geologists were right!” conversations with working climate scientist Dr Andy Pitman
I received a brief reply from Leigh Dayton, science writer at The Australian after sending her the link to The Prince of Precaution. Leigh didn’t seem to like the idea behind the book and promised to get bigger guns involved to "point me in a more productive direction". The resulting conversation with “working climate scientist” Dr Andy Pitman resulted.
To ensure Professor Pitman is not misquoted-the correspondance below from Professor Pitman and myself has not been edited.
We start with THE PITMAN CHALLENGE
...in the end Sir Robin ran away!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:30 PM
To: mhendrickx; Dayton, Leigh
Subject: Warming discussions
Hi Marc,
I am not sure whether you want to genuinely engage on this in a scientific sense with the climate science. If you see Bob Carter as a source of science (or Al Gore, or Bjorn Lomberg) then it is hard to have a scientific discussion. Clearly, one would not decide exactly where to drill for oil based on a movie or an economist - and nor would one use a movie or an economist to resolve or communicate climate science. Similarly, while the 3rd International Geological Congress may be the best source of recent science on geology, it is no more a source on climate science than a IAMAS meeting would be a place to learn about plate tectonics.
So, questions:
1. you say "since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind" what literature ? I am unaware of any published literature that casts doubt (or that has not since been resolved)about global warming.
2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.
Lets be specific here.
(a) your statement is not true. Indeed, Chapter 6 of the IPCC report, written by geologists and palaeoclimate scientists use geological evidence (in part) to demonstrate the reality of the science of glboal warming.
(b) which key physical processes **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?
(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ? Some you might suggest like abrupt changes in ice sheets, abrupt loss of soil carbon, methane release etc that are missing would hardly reduce the projected warming ...
3. You state" I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood" Well, I fully agree - but the latest science suggests that change is actually in the wrong direction ... that the climate models under-predict the warming.
4. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! So here is the crux. "You consider" that 1oC is not a catastrophe. So, I agree ... but the models are not projecting 1oC ... we have already warmed 0.7oC DESPITE the last 5-6 years being dominated by La Nina. The models are projecting rather more - particularly at regional scales. While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others.
If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position. If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.
Last point. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting Carter, or other skeptics, for that paper that buries global warming. There is world-wide acclaim, there is that Chair at Cambridge and the thanks of governments the world over. My question is why none of them have published this evidence - but of course the question is rhetorical ... because while every decent climate scientist looks for flaws in the data, the models and the theory we have not been able to find any ...
Professor A.J Pitman: Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 9:56 PM
To: Andy Pitman Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: RE: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution
To: Andy Pitman Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: RE: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution
Hi Dr Pitman,
Thanks for taking the time to respond, my answers are in italics. Note I have taken the liberty of including Bob Carter in our discussion seeing that his credibility on these matters is seemingly the subject of some doubt from yourself and Leigh.
(Comment-Bob was not involved in preparing the response. I just thought he’d appreciate knowing he was being discussed and what Dr Pitman and Leigh Dayton thought about his credibility).
There are many aspects of this debate that interest me, how about we deal with 2 of these. One relates to the science and the degree of uncertainty and one relates to the policy response. As the IPCC is headed by an economist I take it that you would concede that discussion of a policy response should not be limited solely to those who are currently active in climate science but should also include anyone with sufficient experience from a range of backgrounds to provide constructive and meaningful debate on the issue. Climate science itself is a broad field and comprises more than computer modelers, as you allude to below it actually includes geologists so I would consider that Bob Carter has sufficient expertise and experience to meaningfully comment on the science.
So Answers:
1. Published literature that casts doubt about global warming.
Here are a few articles these are by no means all of them. These are particularly relevant to computer climate models which I see as the major area of climate science that requires further work. (note to Leigh this is required reading-I expect some articles in The Oz on these in the coming weeks-a regular visit to the climate audit website wouldn’t hurt)
D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).
Spencer R.W. and Brasell, W.D. Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration. Journal of climate V21, pp5624-5628.
Paltridge,G, Arking, A, Pook, M, 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. DOi 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x
2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.
(a)Chapter 6 of the IPCC report includes one of the most contentious findings in climate science, namely the hockey stick graph that effectively flat lined 1000 years of temperature and gave impetus to the IPCC’s notion that current warming is unprecedented. Looking at recorded history, movement of tree lines over time it is clear it is not. Despite well publicised findings that the statistics behind this study (Hockey stick) were deeply flawed this study continues to be promoted. Perhaps as a “working climate scientist” you can explain why this is the case? What are your views of this debate? Do you regard the supporting “independent” studies that are often cited in defence of this paper as being truly independent? They appear to be anything but. How do you regard studies that show much greater climate variability over longer time periods (eg doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.09.039 ) . In regard to palaeoclimate studies there is no disagreement that there have been past climates that were dangerous to modern humans. As a geologist I note historical climate change every time I step onto an outcrop. Whether the current mild warming can be considered dangerous remains a matter of debate and appears to be apparent only in the models. If the predicted catastrophe is not purely a consequence of computer climate models can you explain how the current warming is dangerous without recourse to using them?
(b) which key physical processes: **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?
Your contention that climate represents average weather over decades (30 years is common) seems a little short especially given longer term natural cycles are apparent in recent and historical data. (For instance the change from the medieval warm period to the little ice age). Given recent discoveries of natural climate cycles (AMO, PDO, IODO) that operate on decadal timescales haven’t you downplayed the significance of natural variation as a factor in recent temperature rises? How are these dealt with in climate models? Given the recent recognition of long term decadal cycles in the Indian Ocean have you had a chance to update models to take this particular phenomena into account? How many other long term natural cycles have we overlooked? Do they result in net positive or negative forcing? Getting back to your question the paper cited above by Paltridge above provides an example of simplification in models that produces an exaggerated response. Here’s a quote from the abstract: “Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.”
(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ?
See (b).
3. You state" I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood" Well, I fully agree - but the latest science suggests that change is actually in the wrong direction ... that the climate models under-predict the warming.
You make the assumption that there is a “right” direction to climate change. There is simply a direction. It’s up or down! Either way we will need to learn how to live with change by adapting to prevailing conditions as we have successfully done as a species for millennia. Can you please let me know what is the “right” temperature and I’ll adjust my air conditioner.
4. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! So here is the crux. "You consider" that 1oC is not a catastrophe. So, I agree ... but the models are not projecting 1oC ... we have already warmed 0.7oC DESPITE the last 5-6 years being dominated by La Nina. The models are projecting rather more - particularly at regional scales.
So the predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of the models? You seem to be contradicting yourself here as the models are main point of contention. The papers cited above indicate problems with the models that indicate that your level of confidence in them is not supported. In light of the three papers above how certain are you that the models are correct? It seems that claiming models as evidence puts you on very thin ice.
While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others. If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position.
Computer models and statistically flawed palaeoclimate studies do NOT constitute strong evidence. Certainly not strong enough to support introduction of the proposed ETS at this time.
If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong (see above papers for a start) that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.
Be careful here Dr Pitman, your words may come back to haunt you “but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.” As Lomborg has pointed out there actually are consequences to spending our time and money tackling climate change-the money could be spent on other worthwhile projects such as reducing habitat destruction, cures for cancer, malaria etc. Will YOU be the one to explain this to all the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources differently?
Last point. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting Carter, or other skeptics, for that paper that buries global warming. There is world-wide acclaim, there is that Chair at Cambridge and the thanks of governments the world over. My question is why none of them have published this evidence - but of course the question is rhetorical ... because while every decent climate scientist looks for flaws in the data, the models and the theory we have not been able to find any ...
When a blog site such as Climate Audit regularly finds tank sized (holes) in the statistics that hold many climate change papers together its time to give the owner the Nobel prize. Perhaps you could do the honours and nominate him, his name is Steve McIntyre. It is apparent that you are obviously not looking deeply enough!
Cheers
Marc Hendrickx
-----Original Message---------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 10:09 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx
To: Marc Hendrickx
Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: Re: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution
Subject: Re: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution
Marc No - I will not debate Bob Carter. It is not worth my time, nor my answers being misquoted. If you wish to take Bob's view of the science there is simply nothing I can do for you. It would be like arguing with the Pope that the bible was written by Allah. It would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science. I really have better things to do with my time. I had assumed that you were actually seeking genuine evidence. My mistake.
And we will leave this discussion here.
thanks. Andy Pitman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent Tue 17/03/2009 7:04 AM
Hi Dr Pitman,
Sad that you take the time to ask the questions but don't want to hang around to answer them. What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?
These are my opinions Dr Pitman, you were debating me!
It seems that The Prince of Precaution is not fiction after all! Perhaps it should have been Prince Andy!
Leigh this would make a great story for The Australian! Headline: Working climate scientist fails debate with working geologist.
Before you go I have one more question. You mention a figure of 0.7ºC as warming over the last 10 years or so.
What you fail to include is any indication of an error on that figure. So some simple questions: What is the error?
How much of this is natural? And how much is due to AGW?
The oft cited IPCC warming predictions that range from about 2ºC to about 6.5ºC also repeatedly fail to include an indication of errors. Is it because compounding errors in forcings over a 100 year period makes the end result effectively meaningless?
Why does climate science seem immune from the normal treatment of errors?
It seems it would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science.
Cheers
Marc Hendrickx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 4:06 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: Re: FW: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 4:06 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: Re: FW: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
(This sent to Leigh Dayton-see emails below-Prof Pitman chose to reply)
Marc,
MH> From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much > credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an > Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record > includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually > indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for > yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm). >
AP: I would agree on Lomberg. I think many of his arguments have merit but he has misunderstood the scale of the problem I think.
MH> Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or "informed Precaution" should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.
> AP: Strongly disagree. Global warming science is as close to certainty as we are going to have. Seriously - there are few areas of science as certain. >
MH:> Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in "dangerous climate change".
> AP: I am not sure who argues we are on a brink of climate disaster - depends what "brink" means. If it means "next decade" I do not think we are. If you want evidece on the dangers of doubling read the attached. There is, of course lots and lots and lots more ... but this is a nice start.
Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent Tue 17/03/09 8:49 AM
Marc
"What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?"
Experience. And your action of first copying in Bob Carter, then Andrew Bolt. This is not a "debate" this is you attempting to score points and misinform. I am not going to play this game.
Andy Pitman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY...SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email exchange Hendrickx/Dayton
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:25 PM
Subject: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Dear Leigh,
The following link might be of interest.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx
http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/03/prince-of-precaution-goes-to-parliament.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Dear Leigh,
The following link might be of interest.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx
http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/03/prince-of-precaution-goes-to-parliament.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi M:
This interests me largely because it, sadly, confuses the findings from climate change science. I have no disagreement about debating what we do about climate change, but am disappointed with this sort of misinformation.
L
Hi M:
This interests me largely because it, sadly, confuses the findings from climate change science. I have no disagreement about debating what we do about climate change, but am disappointed with this sort of misinformation.
L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:05 PM
To: Dayton, Leigh
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi Leigh,
Prior to a trip to Oslo last year to attend and present a paper at the 33rd International Geological Congress I may have agreed with you. However after witnessing the climate change session and the subsequent debate at the conference and speaking with a number of the attendees and since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes. I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! The quicker we start taking policy advice from Bjorn Lomberg and Bob Carter, rather than Lovelock, Hansen and Gore the better.
Thanks for taking the time to look over it. Misinformation? What misinformation? It’s an accurate appraisal of the science of AGW and the potential policy consequences of falling back on the precautionary principal. A copy for every classroom!
Cheers
Marc
PS I have and article in the current issue of environmental geology that might be if interest-to do with asbestos.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1370-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Leigh,
Prior to a trip to Oslo last year to attend and present a paper at the 33rd International Geological Congress I may have agreed with you. However after witnessing the climate change session and the subsequent debate at the conference and speaking with a number of the attendees and since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes. I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! The quicker we start taking policy advice from Bjorn Lomberg and Bob Carter, rather than Lovelock, Hansen and Gore the better.
Thanks for taking the time to look over it. Misinformation? What misinformation? It’s an accurate appraisal of the science of AGW and the potential policy consequences of falling back on the precautionary principal. A copy for every classroom!
Cheers
Marc
PS I have and article in the current issue of environmental geology that might be if interest-to do with asbestos.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1370-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
I’m sorry, M. I disagree profoundly with you. I’ll forward you msg on to working climate change scientists in hope that they have time to point you in a more productive direction.
Meanwhile please bear in mind that Lomborg is an economist and Carter hasn’t published any climate change research, let alone his critiques, in a peer reviewed journal. If he had something that others had missed the journals would be onto it in a nanosecond! They compete for the hottest science.
I do appreciate your correspondence and interest.
L
I’m sorry, M. I disagree profoundly with you. I’ll forward you msg on to working climate change scientists in hope that they have time to point you in a more productive direction.
Meanwhile please bear in mind that Lomborg is an economist and Carter hasn’t published any climate change research, let alone his critiques, in a peer reviewed journal. If he had something that others had missed the journals would be onto it in a nanosecond! They compete for the hottest science.
I do appreciate your correspondence and interest.
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi Leigh,
What an interesting response from a journalist.
The third book in this series will focus on responding to climate change. The emphasis being on adapting to change as it occurs rather than endeavouring fix the climate at a certain arbitrary point as some seem to believe is possible and indeed desirable. I have not thought of a name yet. I’ll send you a preview when it’s finished-probably not until much later in the year.
Note that I look forward to any contact from a “working climate change scientist”.
Cheers
Marc
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi Leigh,
What an interesting response from a journalist.
The third book in this series will focus on responding to climate change. The emphasis being on adapting to change as it occurs rather than endeavouring fix the climate at a certain arbitrary point as some seem to believe is possible and indeed desirable. I have not thought of a name yet. I’ll send you a preview when it’s finished-probably not until much later in the year.
Note that I look forward to any contact from a “working climate change scientist”.
Cheers
Marc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
The second order problem of adaptation to climate change ain’t a new concept, M.
By the way, why do you think Carter and Lomborg are more credible than the numerous scientists world wide who conduct climate change research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
L
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
The second order problem of adaptation to climate change ain’t a new concept, M.
By the way, why do you think Carter and Lomborg are more credible than the numerous scientists world wide who conduct climate change research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi Leigh,
You seem to have misunderstood and misrepresent Bjorn Lomberg’s position. Have you read his book (Cool it?)- he does not argue with the science as presented in the latest IPCC report, he simply points out that there are better ways to spend our limited resources. Among a range of policy measures he actually advocates increased spending on research into alternative energy sources.
From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm).
Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or “informed Precaution” should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.
Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in “dangerous climate change”.
Cheers
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Hi Leigh,
You seem to have misunderstood and misrepresent Bjorn Lomberg’s position. Have you read his book (Cool it?)- he does not argue with the science as presented in the latest IPCC report, he simply points out that there are better ways to spend our limited resources. Among a range of policy measures he actually advocates increased spending on research into alternative energy sources.
From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm).
Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or “informed Precaution” should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.
Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in “dangerous climate change”.
Cheers
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament
Sorry, godda disagree re your assessment of expertise. But let’s leave it there. We do not see eye-to-eye. I see Andy Pitman has already replied to you.
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, godda disagree re your assessment of expertise. But let’s leave it there. We do not see eye-to-eye. I see Andy Pitman has already replied to you.
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Hot off the press!
Copies of the Prince of Precaution are now available for purchase.
Only $17.50 AUD plus postage (allow $5.00 AUD for standard overseas shipments, $2.50 AUD for local orders).
For other information, bulk orders or other enquiries email littleskepticspress@gmail.com
You can even preview the book HERE before you purchase.
The easiest way to buy is through Paypal (http://www.paypal.com/) to littleskepticspress@gmail.com
Select "send money" from the paypal home page and follow the instructions from there. Don't forget to include a mailing address!
The Prince of Precaution goes to Parliament
The following letter was sent to every Parliamentarian with an APH email address. Those without may want to consider re-using it, lest they miss out on important news in the future.
Dear Senator,
You will shortly be asked to vote on the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Please take 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to view the attached video. It provides an important lesson in the application of the precautionary principal to environmental policy.
Will you listen to Prince Tim and introduce an ETS along with other regressive taxes and leave Australia in the dark and or will you apply prudence and ask for more evidence?
An ETS will do nothing for the environment and nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
It is up to you!
If you are interested in a colour paperback copy for your self, or your local school or library please contact littleskepticspress@gmail.com
The attached video can be accessed HERE.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Prince of Precaution: big Tim's little monster
The much anticipated book by geologist Marc Hendrickx is now in pre-press!ISBN 978-0-9805943-2-4
Big Tim is the Prince of Precaution. He has seen an Angry Green Warty monster in the cave off Mint Fry Lane. He rushes back to town to warn everyone. After hearing Prince Tim's hair raising description the townsfolk drop everything to help rid the kingdom of the beast. They prepare for the battle through the harsh winter and eventually they are ready. As they approach the cave to confront the beast they realise it's not quite what they expect it to be. It seems that Big Tim has some explaining to do.
To reserve your copy contact Little Skeptics Press on: littleskepticspress@gmail.com
Special preview price $17.50 AUD plus postage
Special preview price $17.50 AUD plus postage
Some sample pages
VIDEO PREVIEW-view the whole book before you buy!
Prudence rather than precaution unfettered by reason should be exercised in determining a policy response to the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. More pressing social and environmental problems are being lost in the haze as we continue to be distracted by carbon dioxide. Its time our children heard another side of the argument.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Land clearing to blame for extreme weather conditions.
Global warming activists such as Tim Flannery and Clive Hamilton wasted no time this week in blaming the extreme weather conditions that caused a heat wave and helped turn Victoria’s bushfires into a fire storm solely on increased levels of carbon dioxide. However research at the University of Queensland led by Dr Clive McAlpine demonstrates that 150 years of land clearing has also contributed to the warming and drying of eastern Australia leading to increases in temperature and decreasing humidity.
In an Australian first, they applied the CSIRO Mark 3 climate model, satellite data and the DNRW supercomputer, and showed that 150 years of land clearing added significantly to the warming and drying of eastern Australia.
“Our work shows that the 2002-03 El Nino drought in eastern Australia was on average two degrees Centigrade hotter because of vegetation clearing. Based on this research, it would be fair to say that the current drought has been made worse by past clearing of native vegetation. Our findings highlight that it is too simplistic to attribute climate change purely to greenhouse gases. Protection and restoration of Australia's native vegetation needs to be a critical consideration in mitigating climate change.” Dr McAlpine said.
Australian native vegetation holds more moisture, than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this moisture evaporates and recycles back as rainfall and also helps raise humidity. It also reflects less shortwave solar radiation into space, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation.
As high pressure systems slowly pass the southern part of the continent over summer, the air they draw down from the north, passing over cleared land, has been getting hotter and dryer and helps explain this summer’s heat wave. It also may help explain why these bushfires were so intense, probably more intense than those of Black Friday in 1939 and Ash Wednesday in 1983.
Models show eastern Australia was between 0.4 and two degrees warmer, and south-west WA was between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees warmer. My interpretation of these model outputs suggests that most of the warming in South East Australia over the last 50 years could be explained by land clearing alone. In my opinion this does not appear to leave much warming that can be attributed to CO2 in Australia and raises questions about sensitivity of CO2 computations used in other climate models.
Reducing the chances of future extreme weather events then does not depend solely on reducing CO2 emissions but also in restoring vegetation to critical parts of New South Wales and Queensland. Ironically while clearing of vegetation in bushfire areas is required to reduce the intensity of wildfires, restoring native vegetation in central New South Wales and southern Queensland is also required to reduce the intensity of weather events that create the conditions for wild fires in the first place.
Use of CO2 as a scapegoat for extreme weather events has blinded us from looking for other influences on regional climate systems, its time we opened our eyes to other factors that are affecting our weather. The simplistic picture painted by Hamilton and Flannery simply isn’t correct, it is a complex problem with no simple answer or solution. Perhaps they are spending too much time jet setting the climate change conference circuit and need to spend more time in th elibrary.
The views in the article are those of the author. While Dr McAlpine was made aware of this article he may not necessarily agree with all of it. The author recommends Dr McAlpine be consulted for more detailed information about the role of land clearing on climate change in Australia.
Sources
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=13308
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Land-clearing-blamed-for-climate-change/2007/10/28/1193555525054.html
McAlpine C. A., J. Syktus, R. C. Deo, P. J. Lawrence, H. A. McGowan, I. G. Watterson, S. R. Phinn (2007), Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia's regional climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22711, doi:10.1029/2007GL031524. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml
In an Australian first, they applied the CSIRO Mark 3 climate model, satellite data and the DNRW supercomputer, and showed that 150 years of land clearing added significantly to the warming and drying of eastern Australia.
“Our work shows that the 2002-03 El Nino drought in eastern Australia was on average two degrees Centigrade hotter because of vegetation clearing. Based on this research, it would be fair to say that the current drought has been made worse by past clearing of native vegetation. Our findings highlight that it is too simplistic to attribute climate change purely to greenhouse gases. Protection and restoration of Australia's native vegetation needs to be a critical consideration in mitigating climate change.” Dr McAlpine said.
Australian native vegetation holds more moisture, than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this moisture evaporates and recycles back as rainfall and also helps raise humidity. It also reflects less shortwave solar radiation into space, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation.
As high pressure systems slowly pass the southern part of the continent over summer, the air they draw down from the north, passing over cleared land, has been getting hotter and dryer and helps explain this summer’s heat wave. It also may help explain why these bushfires were so intense, probably more intense than those of Black Friday in 1939 and Ash Wednesday in 1983.
Models show eastern Australia was between 0.4 and two degrees warmer, and south-west WA was between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees warmer. My interpretation of these model outputs suggests that most of the warming in South East Australia over the last 50 years could be explained by land clearing alone. In my opinion this does not appear to leave much warming that can be attributed to CO2 in Australia and raises questions about sensitivity of CO2 computations used in other climate models.
Reducing the chances of future extreme weather events then does not depend solely on reducing CO2 emissions but also in restoring vegetation to critical parts of New South Wales and Queensland. Ironically while clearing of vegetation in bushfire areas is required to reduce the intensity of wildfires, restoring native vegetation in central New South Wales and southern Queensland is also required to reduce the intensity of weather events that create the conditions for wild fires in the first place.
Use of CO2 as a scapegoat for extreme weather events has blinded us from looking for other influences on regional climate systems, its time we opened our eyes to other factors that are affecting our weather. The simplistic picture painted by Hamilton and Flannery simply isn’t correct, it is a complex problem with no simple answer or solution. Perhaps they are spending too much time jet setting the climate change conference circuit and need to spend more time in th elibrary.
The views in the article are those of the author. While Dr McAlpine was made aware of this article he may not necessarily agree with all of it. The author recommends Dr McAlpine be consulted for more detailed information about the role of land clearing on climate change in Australia.
Sources
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=13308
http://www.omc.uq.edu.au/news/documents/ModellingImpactsVegetationCover.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Land-clearing-blamed-for-climate-change/2007/10/28/1193555525054.html
McAlpine C. A., J. Syktus, R. C. Deo, P. J. Lawrence, H. A. McGowan, I. G. Watterson, S. R. Phinn (2007), Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia's regional climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22711, doi:10.1029/2007GL031524. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
