Scientiists from Bristol University say that ocean acidification is ocurring at a faster pace than anytime in the last 65 million years, raising the possibility of a mass marine extinction event similar to what ocurred about 55 million years ago.
Related: Dr Jeremy Mathis on CO2 acidification threatens northern oceans - (KFSK Public radio audio) | European Project on Ocean Acidification Blog | The Ocean in a High CO2 World
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Waratah Coal Galilee mine in Queensland set to become World's largest Coal Mine
Friends of the Earth in Brisbane, Australia have described the proposed Waratah Coal Galilee mine, set to become the world's largest coal mine, as another nail into the coffin of our climate. Waratah Coal's Clive Palmer and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh jointly announced on February 7, 2010 a multi-billion dollar deal which would see a twenty year supply of coal to Chinese power-stations, and a substantial expansion of coal exports."This deal drives another nail into the coffin of our climate. If the project goes ahead, then emissions from the exported coal would equal 20% of Australia's total domestic emissions," said Friends of the Earth spokesperson Bradley Smith on the Galilee mine being declared a 'significant project' .
"This makes a mockery of claims made by Premier Bligh that the Queensland Government is serious about tackling climate change," Mr Smith said.
"The 8000 Ha Bimblebox Nature Refuge near Alpha would be cleared and mined by this project. How ironic that in the International Year of Biodiversity, Queensland still lacks legislation to protect areas of high conservation significance from mining," commented Mr Smith, echoing similar calls from the Mackay Conservation Group.
Bimblebox was purchased in 2000 with the savings of a number of concerned individuals, as well as funding from the Australian National Reserve System program. In 2003, the Bimblebox Nature Refuge Agreement (category VI IUCN protected area) was signed with the Queensland state government to permanently protect the conservation values of the property. Nature Refuges and the protected areas that make up the National Reserve System are not automatically protected from mineral exploration and mining, which in Australia are granted right of way over almost all other land uses.
The Bimblebox Nature Refuge website describes "We are faced with the absurd irony, that in 2009 with all that we know about Australia's biodiversity crisis and the threat of climate change, that a protected area rich in biodiversity and with carbon stores intact could be sacrificed for the sake of producing more climate changing coal."
"This case reveals a stunning contradiction in Australian government priorities and policies, which aim to conserve biodiversity on protected areas, but yet which affords no protection for these areas if minerals are found beneath the soil." says the Bimblebox Nature Refuge website.
"We want to know why the Queensland Government continues to put coal mining first when it is destroying our biodiversity and our climate," Mr Smith said.
The open cut coal mine, projected to be the world's largest, is on the traditional land of the Darumbal indigenous people.
The project involves construction of a railway line 490km to the Port of Abbot Point, where a new coal terminal will be built, and construction of a dam within the Belyando River catchment and a water pipeline from the Burdekin Dam. Waratah Coal website advises the project's estimated total development cost is AU$7.5 Billion.
Queensland is the largest coal exporting state in the largest coal exporting country in the world, accounting for as much as 20% of the global trade, with mining and infrastructure projects set to double coal exports.
Further Information
- Mackay Conservation Group | Northern Central Queensland Dark Future (PDF)
- Why the Waratah coal project must be stopped
- Six Degrees Coal and Climate Campaign
Sources
- Friends of the Earth Brisbane Media Release, Feb 7, 2010 - Galilee coal deal to put another nail in climate coffin
- Bimblebox Nature Refuge
- Waratah Coal website
- Photo - Back Orchid from Bimblebox Nature Reserve website
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Two year Interim Carbon Tax as a compromise to break Senate Deadlock?
Two weeks ago the Greens took up one of Professor Ross Garnaut's suggestions of an interim carbon tax until the nation finalises its carbon emissions reduction strategy. Given the current political deadlock in the Senate, the proposal has received the support of Garnault saying it is "'another politically practical way forward".
The proposal is for an interim two year carbon tax of $23 per tonne carbon tax, and $5 billion for households assistance to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The scheme could begin as soon as July 2010 and would apply only to the 1000 worst polluters in Australia.
"The Greens stand ready, willing and able to work with Mr Rudd and Minister Wong to make the emissions trading scheme workable, but we cannot and will not support a scheme which, as it stands, is nothing more than multi-billion dollar smoke and mirrors." said Greens Climate Change Spokesperson Senator Christine Milne.
The Government's legislation is due to be reintroduced for a third time this month and faces defeat from the Coalition benches for going "too far", and from the Greens for being "too compromised" by too many concessions and free permits to the polluters.
Negotiations between Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and the Greens are continuing. To achieve passage of legislation through the Senate the Government requires another 7 votes: the Greens have 5, then there is Independent Senator Xenophon (who may be sympathetic), and Family First Senator Steve Fielding (strongly tending towards climate change skeptism), or Senators from the Coalition to cross the floor.
"Our interim proposal is designed to be strengthened as time passes, while the CPRS is impossible to strengthen without tens of billions more dollars flowing to polluters."
"The CPRS will not and must not pass in its current form, but this interim proposal has a real chance. Let's seize it and get Australia moving towards the zero carbon future." concluded Christine Milne.
The Australian Conservation Foundation also welcomed the proposal. "Climate change needs big, innovative solutions rather than a piecemeal approach. The bottom line for climate policy is the ability to achieve deep cuts in emissions, and an effective carbon price passes that test." said Tony Mohr, ACF Climate Change Program Manager.
"Businesses want a green light to invest in clean technology, and Australians want a green light on emissions cuts. Both need a price on greenhouse pollution." Mr Mohr said.
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
The proposal is for an interim two year carbon tax of $23 per tonne carbon tax, and $5 billion for households assistance to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The scheme could begin as soon as July 2010 and would apply only to the 1000 worst polluters in Australia.
"The Greens stand ready, willing and able to work with Mr Rudd and Minister Wong to make the emissions trading scheme workable, but we cannot and will not support a scheme which, as it stands, is nothing more than multi-billion dollar smoke and mirrors." said Greens Climate Change Spokesperson Senator Christine Milne.
The Government's legislation is due to be reintroduced for a third time this month and faces defeat from the Coalition benches for going "too far", and from the Greens for being "too compromised" by too many concessions and free permits to the polluters.
Negotiations between Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and the Greens are continuing. To achieve passage of legislation through the Senate the Government requires another 7 votes: the Greens have 5, then there is Independent Senator Xenophon (who may be sympathetic), and Family First Senator Steve Fielding (strongly tending towards climate change skeptism), or Senators from the Coalition to cross the floor.
"Our interim proposal is designed to be strengthened as time passes, while the CPRS is impossible to strengthen without tens of billions more dollars flowing to polluters."
"The CPRS will not and must not pass in its current form, but this interim proposal has a real chance. Let's seize it and get Australia moving towards the zero carbon future." concluded Christine Milne.
The Australian Conservation Foundation also welcomed the proposal. "Climate change needs big, innovative solutions rather than a piecemeal approach. The bottom line for climate policy is the ability to achieve deep cuts in emissions, and an effective carbon price passes that test." said Tony Mohr, ACF Climate Change Program Manager.
"Businesses want a green light to invest in clean technology, and Australians want a green light on emissions cuts. Both need a price on greenhouse pollution." Mr Mohr said.
Sources:
- Australian Conservation Foundation Media Release - Jan 22, 2010 - Greens proposal for price on pollution welcomed
- Greens Media Release, Jan 22, 2010 - Future tax system must deliver safe climate
- Greens Media Release, Jan 25, 2010 - Greens welcome Garnaut backing
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Coalition Climate Policy just "tinkering at the edges" say academics and scientists
While the politicians debate 5% emissions reduction under Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or Tony Abbott's incentive based Emissions Reduction Fund, it may be instructive to go back to what the scientists say we need:
25-40% reduction in emissions by 2020 for a reasonable chance to avoid dangerous climate change and stay under 2 degrees warming.
"The good news", according to Peter Cosier, Director of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, "is that the Coalition has recognised that climate change is a problem. Until now they have been sending confusing messages."
"If Australia is to make its contribution to managing carbon pollution we need to reduce our net emissions by at least 25% by 2020 (and by between 80% and 95% by 2050). This policy doesn't get us anywhere near those targets." said Peter Cosier.
"If we are to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to effectively eliminate all carbon pollution from transport and energy generation within the next 40 years. The only way this can be achieved without causing major economic damage is to drive economic incentives into the energy and transport sectors, so that they begin the urgent transition into a carbon pollution free industrial system. This requires deep emission targets and a price on carbon to achieve such targets with the least short term economic cost and greatest long term economic benefits." said Cosier.
While an Emissions Trading System can be adjusted for greater emissions targets, the coalition's plan contains no plans for deeper cuts. "Cuts to emissions of far greater than 5% by 2020 are required to tackle the climate change issue - this policy does not appear to have any long term plans for deeper cuts into the future." said Dr Helen McGregor, Research Fellow in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at University of Wollongong.
Climate Institute CEO John Connor, described the Coalition plan "This is like a dose of 'carbon Viagra' for an aging, inefficient carbon intensive economy. While there are some positives, it's a high-risk strategy with no long-term plans beyond 2020." He also questioned whether a 5% reduction could be achieved under the plan and it has "no hope of delivering anything near 25% reductions by 2020, which is Australia's fair contribution to avoiding dangerous global climate change."
"The most disappointing aspect of the Coalition's policy is that it aims only to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by five per cent." said Professor Ian Lowe, Emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, Qld and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
"So it has effectively accepted disastrous climate change. The Bali Road Map set targets in the range of 25 to 40 per cent for countries like Australia to give the world a fighting chance of avoiding unacceptable impacts. We should be at the top of that range, since we haven't done the easy cost-effective things to cut emissions. As the alternative government, the Opposition has a duty to consider the long-term impacts of its policy. It appears constrained by its denial faction to propose only measures that are manifestly inadequate." said IanLowe.
Professor John Foster questioned the ability for the Coalition plan to even achieve its target, "Any policy that does not penalise 'base line' growth in emissions by firms and does not have a cap is very unlikely to achieve a 5% reduction target by 2020." he said.
"It is very encouraging to see that the Coalition has recognised, in a policy document, that carbon emissions are a problem, despite the presence of a number of climate change skeptics and deniers in the Party. However, the document looks suspiciously like a carefully constructed bit of politics in the run up to an election." he said.
"For a range of practical and political reasons, I am very doubtful that this policy, as it stands, would or could be implemented in July 2011 if the Coalition was elected to govern. Effective climate change policy is difficult to design and implement - it must involve the introduction of an emission trading scheme and/or a significant carbon tax. So the suggestion that it can be done easily and cheaply is unconvincing." said Professor Foster, who is from the School of Economics at the University of Queensland and is Vice-President of the Economics Society of Australia (Queensland Branch)
The Coalition policy main points are:
The Coalition said their costing of $3.2 billion for the plan will come from budget cuts in other areas according to Coalition Finance spokeperson Senator Barnaby Joyce. So, we are looking at reduction in delivery of Federal government services and cuts to public service staffing levels.
Professor John Quiggin, Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in the school of economics at the University of Queensland said "The Liberal Party plan relies primarily on wishful thinking about the potential for near-costless gains from soil carbon. In the absence of adequate accounting systems, this proposal is vulnerable to massive rorting. The rest of the proposal consists if picking winners that seem likely to appeal to focus groups, rather than providing incentives to find the most cost-effective ways of reducing and offsetting carbon emissions. Taken as a whole, the package and its costings lack credibility."
"The plan includes a number of practical common sense measures for supporting energy efficiency, renewable energy and emission reduction by a number of key sectors. However, in total, it is merely tinkering around the edges and fails to clearly signal Australia's long term commitment to reduce carbon emission. Furthermore, it fails to provide certainty for industry to plan for a carbon constrained economy. " said Professor Wasim Saman who is Professor of Sustainable Energy Engineering and Director of the Sustainable Energy Centre at the University of South Australia
According to Tony Abbott "The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13."
But Dr Frank Jotzo, Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Economics and Government, rebutted "Soil carbon improvements and research on bio-sequestration are worthwhile investments if implemented well, but they are not the answer to Australia's rising emissions from energy use. Neither are subsidies for more roof-top solar panels, which are one of the most expensive ways of saving carbon. What is needed is a strong and pervasive price signal to emitters, through an emissions trading system, perhaps starting with a fixed price to provide certainty in the start-up phase."
"Soil carbon does offer a genuine abatement opportunity, but it is one that also carries risks (how will the policy deal with unexpected emissions of soil carbon from bush fires, for example?). There is, of course, no reason why soil carbon could not be included in an emissions trading scheme -- the difference is probably one of emphasis and relative confidence in potential abatement outcomes." said David Pearce, Executive Director of The Centre for International Economics in Canberra.
While the coalition "commits to the planting of an additional 20 million trees by 2020" the Wilderness Society's climate change negotiator Peg Putt took them to task about protection of Victorian and Tasmanian old growth forests - some of the world's most carbon dense.
"Planting 20 million trees sounds nice but it will be many years before they make any real contribution to reducing emissions. The emissions cuts on offer by intervening to protect the huge old native trees and soils of unlogged forests are available now and they wouldn't come at a cost to consumers." Ms Putt said, "Protecting those forests and the carbon stored in the trees and soils would help Australia not just meet its ridiculously small commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent, but it would help make much deeper cuts."
The forestry record of the Coalition was attacked by Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown, "The Howard government legislated the destruction of Australia's biggest carbon banks - in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, largely for woodchip export to Japan, converting these forests into greenhouse gases. If Mr. Abbott or Prime Minister Rudd were to end the destruction they would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15-20%. '
"Planting 20 million seedlings while cutting millions of trees in mature forests is an Abbott absurdity," Senator Brown said.
Senator Christine Milne, the Greens climate change spokeperson, commented "Both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott have studiously avoided making polluters pay, avoided the tremendous potential of protecting Australia's forest carbon stores and avoided the reality of what climate science demands,"
"Tony Abbott wants to hand-pick which industries or projects are the beneficiaries of what will be a massive funds transfer out of schools and hospitals and into aluminium smelters and new coal fired power stations. This is a 'tried and failed' approach, based on John Howard's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which was slammed by the Auditor General but loved by polluters looking for greenwash. It failed because it paid polluters to do what they were going to do anyway." she said.
Stopping logging of native forests and land clearing were also effectively ignored as immediate sources of emission reductions according to Senator Milne, with a narrow emphasis on soil carbon, "While we are as excited as anybody about the potential of soil carbon, there are very big questions about its permanence and accounting. That is no excuse for ignoring it, but it would be folly to rely on this one area as the centrepiece of an emissions reduction strategy.
"It is, of course, difficult to give credit to Mr Abbott's scheme when he so recently told us he thinks that a 4C temperature rise is not catastrophic." she concluded, in reference to a speech by Tony Abbott made in Adelaide in late January that a four degree rise in temperature would not be catastrophic.
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
25-40% reduction in emissions by 2020 for a reasonable chance to avoid dangerous climate change and stay under 2 degrees warming.
"The good news", according to Peter Cosier, Director of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, "is that the Coalition has recognised that climate change is a problem. Until now they have been sending confusing messages."
"If Australia is to make its contribution to managing carbon pollution we need to reduce our net emissions by at least 25% by 2020 (and by between 80% and 95% by 2050). This policy doesn't get us anywhere near those targets." said Peter Cosier.
"If we are to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to effectively eliminate all carbon pollution from transport and energy generation within the next 40 years. The only way this can be achieved without causing major economic damage is to drive economic incentives into the energy and transport sectors, so that they begin the urgent transition into a carbon pollution free industrial system. This requires deep emission targets and a price on carbon to achieve such targets with the least short term economic cost and greatest long term economic benefits." said Cosier.
While an Emissions Trading System can be adjusted for greater emissions targets, the coalition's plan contains no plans for deeper cuts. "Cuts to emissions of far greater than 5% by 2020 are required to tackle the climate change issue - this policy does not appear to have any long term plans for deeper cuts into the future." said Dr Helen McGregor, Research Fellow in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at University of Wollongong.
Climate Institute CEO John Connor, described the Coalition plan "This is like a dose of 'carbon Viagra' for an aging, inefficient carbon intensive economy. While there are some positives, it's a high-risk strategy with no long-term plans beyond 2020." He also questioned whether a 5% reduction could be achieved under the plan and it has "no hope of delivering anything near 25% reductions by 2020, which is Australia's fair contribution to avoiding dangerous global climate change."
"The most disappointing aspect of the Coalition's policy is that it aims only to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by five per cent." said Professor Ian Lowe, Emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, Qld and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
"So it has effectively accepted disastrous climate change. The Bali Road Map set targets in the range of 25 to 40 per cent for countries like Australia to give the world a fighting chance of avoiding unacceptable impacts. We should be at the top of that range, since we haven't done the easy cost-effective things to cut emissions. As the alternative government, the Opposition has a duty to consider the long-term impacts of its policy. It appears constrained by its denial faction to propose only measures that are manifestly inadequate." said IanLowe.
Professor John Foster questioned the ability for the Coalition plan to even achieve its target, "Any policy that does not penalise 'base line' growth in emissions by firms and does not have a cap is very unlikely to achieve a 5% reduction target by 2020." he said.
"It is very encouraging to see that the Coalition has recognised, in a policy document, that carbon emissions are a problem, despite the presence of a number of climate change skeptics and deniers in the Party. However, the document looks suspiciously like a carefully constructed bit of politics in the run up to an election." he said.
"For a range of practical and political reasons, I am very doubtful that this policy, as it stands, would or could be implemented in July 2011 if the Coalition was elected to govern. Effective climate change policy is difficult to design and implement - it must involve the introduction of an emission trading scheme and/or a significant carbon tax. So the suggestion that it can be done easily and cheaply is unconvincing." said Professor Foster, who is from the School of Economics at the University of Queensland and is Vice-President of the Economics Society of Australia (Queensland Branch)
The essence of the Coalition Climate Change Action
The Coalition policy main points are:
- $2.2 billion fund over 4 years Emissions Reduction Fund for subsidies for polluters to reduce emissions and penalties for increasing emissions more than "business as usual"
- bio-sequestration through soil carbon
- Solar initiatives including an extra $1,000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems capped at 100,000 per year.
- $50million for Geothermal and Tidal Towns Initiative
- planting 20 million trees for green corridors
The Coalition said their costing of $3.2 billion for the plan will come from budget cuts in other areas according to Coalition Finance spokeperson Senator Barnaby Joyce. So, we are looking at reduction in delivery of Federal government services and cuts to public service staffing levels.
Professor John Quiggin, Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in the school of economics at the University of Queensland said "The Liberal Party plan relies primarily on wishful thinking about the potential for near-costless gains from soil carbon. In the absence of adequate accounting systems, this proposal is vulnerable to massive rorting. The rest of the proposal consists if picking winners that seem likely to appeal to focus groups, rather than providing incentives to find the most cost-effective ways of reducing and offsetting carbon emissions. Taken as a whole, the package and its costings lack credibility."
"The plan includes a number of practical common sense measures for supporting energy efficiency, renewable energy and emission reduction by a number of key sectors. However, in total, it is merely tinkering around the edges and fails to clearly signal Australia's long term commitment to reduce carbon emission. Furthermore, it fails to provide certainty for industry to plan for a carbon constrained economy. " said Professor Wasim Saman who is Professor of Sustainable Energy Engineering and Director of the Sustainable Energy Centre at the University of South Australia
According to Tony Abbott "The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13."
But Dr Frank Jotzo, Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Economics and Government, rebutted "Soil carbon improvements and research on bio-sequestration are worthwhile investments if implemented well, but they are not the answer to Australia's rising emissions from energy use. Neither are subsidies for more roof-top solar panels, which are one of the most expensive ways of saving carbon. What is needed is a strong and pervasive price signal to emitters, through an emissions trading system, perhaps starting with a fixed price to provide certainty in the start-up phase."
"Soil carbon does offer a genuine abatement opportunity, but it is one that also carries risks (how will the policy deal with unexpected emissions of soil carbon from bush fires, for example?). There is, of course, no reason why soil carbon could not be included in an emissions trading scheme -- the difference is probably one of emphasis and relative confidence in potential abatement outcomes." said David Pearce, Executive Director of The Centre for International Economics in Canberra.
20 million trees to plant while old growth carbon dense forests are logged
While the coalition "commits to the planting of an additional 20 million trees by 2020" the Wilderness Society's climate change negotiator Peg Putt took them to task about protection of Victorian and Tasmanian old growth forests - some of the world's most carbon dense.
"Planting 20 million trees sounds nice but it will be many years before they make any real contribution to reducing emissions. The emissions cuts on offer by intervening to protect the huge old native trees and soils of unlogged forests are available now and they wouldn't come at a cost to consumers." Ms Putt said, "Protecting those forests and the carbon stored in the trees and soils would help Australia not just meet its ridiculously small commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent, but it would help make much deeper cuts."
The forestry record of the Coalition was attacked by Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown, "The Howard government legislated the destruction of Australia's biggest carbon banks - in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, largely for woodchip export to Japan, converting these forests into greenhouse gases. If Mr. Abbott or Prime Minister Rudd were to end the destruction they would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15-20%. '
"Planting 20 million seedlings while cutting millions of trees in mature forests is an Abbott absurdity," Senator Brown said.
Senator Christine Milne, the Greens climate change spokeperson, commented "Both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott have studiously avoided making polluters pay, avoided the tremendous potential of protecting Australia's forest carbon stores and avoided the reality of what climate science demands,"
"Tony Abbott wants to hand-pick which industries or projects are the beneficiaries of what will be a massive funds transfer out of schools and hospitals and into aluminium smelters and new coal fired power stations. This is a 'tried and failed' approach, based on John Howard's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which was slammed by the Auditor General but loved by polluters looking for greenwash. It failed because it paid polluters to do what they were going to do anyway." she said.
Stopping logging of native forests and land clearing were also effectively ignored as immediate sources of emission reductions according to Senator Milne, with a narrow emphasis on soil carbon, "While we are as excited as anybody about the potential of soil carbon, there are very big questions about its permanence and accounting. That is no excuse for ignoring it, but it would be folly to rely on this one area as the centrepiece of an emissions reduction strategy.
"It is, of course, difficult to give credit to Mr Abbott's scheme when he so recently told us he thinks that a 4C temperature rise is not catastrophic." she concluded, in reference to a speech by Tony Abbott made in Adelaide in late January that a four degree rise in temperature would not be catastrophic.
Sources:
- Australian Science Media Centre, Feb 2, 2010 - Scientists and Academics comment on Coalition Climate Change Policy
- Tony Abbott Media Release, Feb 2, 2010 - Direct Action on the Environment and Climate Change
- Greens Media Release, Feb 2, 2010 - Abbott joins Rudd in letting polluters off the hook with recipe for rorts
- Greens Media Release, Feb 2, 2010 - Abbott absurdity: "20 million trees" while Libs destroy nation's biggest forests
- Climate Institute Media Release, Feb 2, 2010 - Coalition climate plan "carbon Viagra"
- Wilderness Society Media Release - Feb 3, 2010 - Opposition Can't See The Wood For The 20 Million Trees
- Indymedia, Jun 16, 2009 article by Takver - Scientists call for protection of Victorian forests - world's most carbon-dense
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Mildura Solar Power Plant languishes while Coal CCS technology gets funding
About 50 people attended a rally Saturday 23 January 2010 on the Victorian parliament house steps to Save Solar Systems and build the Mildura Solar Thermal Power Plant.
Adam Bandt from the Greens told the crowd that the Federal Government had allocated $400 million in the 2008/2009 budget to the unproven technology of carbon capture and storage, "while you have proven solar technology happening right here in Abottsford that doesn't get a cent, you've got carbon capture and storage getting $400 million of which $150 million has already gone to pilot projects in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland." he said in his speech (Photo and Transcript). Adam Bandt is the Greens candidate for the Federal seat of Melbourne held by Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner.
Solar Systems pioneeed the solar technology of mirrored dishes that concentrate light on a central panel of high-quality photovoltaic material. Due to the pressure of the financial crisis the company went into voluntary administration in September 2009. The Federal and Victorian Government promised $125million in 2006 in total funding for the project, of which only $2million-$3million has been paid.
The Mildura 154Mwh solar power plant would have powered 45,000 homes (the entire Mildura region) and saved 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. Presently power for the Mildura region comes from the Latrobe Valley with a 15% loss in transmission.
The company completed a 140-kilowatt demonstration plant on time in October last year. A new production line was near completion at the companies Abbottsford factory capable of producing hundreds of solar receivers per week. Over 100 Solar Systems workers have already been made redundant. They are owed $4 million in entitlements. The remaining 43 employees are on leave without pay.
Solar Systems has also built functioning power systems in three remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which saves about 420,000 litres of diesel and 1550 tonnes of greenhouse emissions each year. The future of these plants is in doubt if Solar Systems is liquidated.
Latest news indicates US-based Matinee Energy is one of a small number of companies negotiating for the purchase of Solar Systems assets. Matinee Energy has an address in Las Vegas, Nevada (Chairman: Mike Pannos) with its website being "under construction" and the domain registered by AMIstudios.com registered through VegasDomains.net.
Don't live in Melbourne or Victoria? Then sign the e-petition to the Australian Government.
More Information:
- Campaign web blog - Save Solar Systems
- The Age, January 22, 2010 - Ray of hope for Mildura solar plant
Friday, January 22, 2010
Climate and Himalayan Glaciers
The climate deniers are gloating again. Glaciergate! Glaciergate! they proclaim. Their outrage is directed against a single sentence in the 1000 page second report IPCC Fourth Assessment of 2007 which states that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The claim is attributed to a 2005 WWF report - not a scientific research report. In mid December 2009 scientists were already questioning the inclusion of the statement.
The actual entry all the halabaloo is about states:
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
Glaciologists in this mid December media background statement lead by Jeffrey S. Kargel from the University of Arizona - Satellite-era glacier changes in High Asia - have labelled it as a bad error. "It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC's review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate."
Glaciers in the Himalayan region are complex, with many showing signs of retreat, some stagnant and a few showing signs of advancing. The presentation says:
So how did the error occur?
It all started with a report on Himalayan Glaciology by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi in January 1999 that was to be presented in July 1999 to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI). Fred Pearce, a science reporter with New Scientist magazine wrote a story published 5 June 1999 titled Flooded Out. In the story he quotes Hasnain "All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating," and reports that "Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."
According to Fred Pearce in New Scientist, 11 January, 2010 - Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - Hasnain "has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was 'speculative'."
WWF picked up the 1999 New Scientist report and included it in a 2005 report on Himalayan Glaciers.
So should this error in the 2007 IPCC report invalidate the whole report? On the contrary, the report was a conservative statement which in many areas - such as sea level rise and the dynamics of polar ice sheet collapse - has underestimated the changes ocurring.
For more information:
The actual entry all the halabaloo is about states:
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
Glaciologists in this mid December media background statement lead by Jeffrey S. Kargel from the University of Arizona - Satellite-era glacier changes in High Asia - have labelled it as a bad error. "It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC's review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate."
Glaciers in the Himalayan region are complex, with many showing signs of retreat, some stagnant and a few showing signs of advancing. The presentation says:
"Many glaciers are rapidly retreating and in eastern Himalaya many glaciers will be much diminished in the next few decades, regardless of carbon emissions, aerosol emissions, and global warming trajectory. These glaciers are already out of equilibrium with existing climate due to late 20thCentury emissions. Further emissions increase disequilibrium."
"Some glaciers may undergo periods of comparative stabilization of length or even growth in mass. Long-term overall trends across South Asia indicate glacier retreat. Some may simultaneously retreat at low elevation and thicken at high elevation as more precipitation falls due to (1) increased evaporation of the warming sea, (2) shifting convergence of Indian monsoon and Westerlies, and (3) the Elevated Heat Pump. The EHP might shrink some glaciers, but might grow others in special topographic circum-stances. Influences of deposited soot/dust also appear important in shrinking glaciers."
"Too few observations of recent fluctuations constrain models of such a complex system, but the past 100 years suggests that the next 100 years will involve mainly retreat."
So how did the error occur?
It all started with a report on Himalayan Glaciology by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi in January 1999 that was to be presented in July 1999 to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI). Fred Pearce, a science reporter with New Scientist magazine wrote a story published 5 June 1999 titled Flooded Out. In the story he quotes Hasnain "All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating," and reports that "Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."
According to Fred Pearce in New Scientist, 11 January, 2010 - Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - Hasnain "has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was 'speculative'."
WWF picked up the 1999 New Scientist report and included it in a 2005 report on Himalayan Glaciers.
So should this error in the 2007 IPCC report invalidate the whole report? On the contrary, the report was a conservative statement which in many areas - such as sea level rise and the dynamics of polar ice sheet collapse - has underestimated the changes ocurring.
For more information:
- Climate Action Centre, Jan 20, 2010 - "Glacier gate" - how the Murdoch press have got it wrong on the Himalayan big melt
- New Zealand Science Media Centre, Jan 19, 2010 - Glaciologist responds to doubts over Himalayan melt
- Andy Russell's Blog (research scientist working on weather and climate science), Jan 18, 2010 - Glaciergate in perspective
- And for the climate change Skeptics side: Climate Skeptic, Jan 18, 2010 - Don't Mistake Other People's Public Confidence for "Proof"
Monday, January 18, 2010
Climate Justice Activists confront New York Carbon Trade Summit
The Second Annual Carbon Trade Summit was held on January 12-13th in New York City, bringing together representatives of some of the most polluting industries, industry associations, carbon financiers, banks, government officials and corporate "big greens." Participants included executives from JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Duke Energy, and many more. (See website)By coincidence the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations was held a day after the Carbon Traders Summit. See article - Greenwash: Investors push Governments for Cap and Trade Action
Climate SOS (www.climatesos.org) and Climate Pledge of Resistance (CPR for the Planet) and others gathered to protest this event. NASA climate scientist James Hansen delivered a letter to the chairman of the summit in which he said:
I am writing to warn you that carbon trading (also called cap-and-trade) will fail to stop climate change, resulting in a world that is increasingly dangerous and problematic for our children and grandchildren, yours and mine. There are many reasons that carbon trading will fail. The important reasons I've outlined for you in the enclosed essay, "The People vs. Cap-and-Trade" (Original PDF), which I've written to coincide with this summit. I ask that you act now to encourage discussion at the 2nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit to focus on policies that will actually have the effect of reducing carbon emissions, rather than false solutions that only distract from the policies that work. I've discussed some of these effective policies in the enclosed essay, especially addressing a fee-and-dividend (also called "carbon fee"), a flat tax on carbon with the proceeds distributed 100 percent to the public. These funds will allow the public to phase in low carbon technologies and life styles, stimulating the economy, allowing us to move to a clean energy future.
If you want the world to be safe and livable for your children, grandchildren, and many
generations to come, I suggest that you act now to support a carbon fee rather than carbon trading.
Speakers at the rally included Dea Goblirsch, organizer with Climate Ground Zero in southern West Virginia, Reverend Billy of the Church of Life After Shopping, who delivered a critique with the fire and brimstone of a televangelist; Chaia Heller, Professor of Gender Studies at Mount Holyoke College, and Father Paul Mayer, co-founder of the Climate Crisis Coalition and religious community leader.
"The same Wall Street bankers who gave us the global climate crisis are trying to own the sky," stated Brian Tokar, director of the Institute for Social Ecology and an organizer of this week's protest events. "Carbon trading is unjust, it will not work, and it is a false solution. It is a dangerous distraction from the urgent measures needed to prevent an ever-worsening destabilization of the climate."
Watch the video of the protest: some great speeches from Father Paul Maher and Brian Tokar. Goes for 25:18.
Read futher reports:
- It's Getting Hot in Here: Climate Justice Activists confront Carbon Trade Summit with demonstration, direct action
- Climate SOS: Climate Justice Activists confront Carbon Trade Summit with demonstration, direct action
Sources
- Climate IMC, Jan 9, 2010 - U.S.: Resist Carbon Trading Action in NYC, Jan. 9 & 13
- Further Videos - EARTHALUJAH! Reverend Billy and Choir at Counter-Carbon Trading Rally, Counter-Carbon Trading Rally
- It's Getting Hot in Here: Climate Justice Activists confront Carbon Trade Summit with demonstration, direct action
- Climate SOS: Climate Justice Activists confront Carbon Trade Summit with demonstration, direct action
- Image from protest by Mobilization for Climate Justice
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Greenwash: Investors push Governments for Cap and Trade Action
Australian, European and U.S. investor groups representing $13 trillion in assets said in a statement issued at a meeting at the UN in New York on Thursday "we cannot wait for a global treaty," They called on the U.S. Congress and other global decision-makers "to take rapid action" on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies that will accelerate clean energy investment and job creation.
Why the strong push from the Investment sector for Government Climate Action? It could be just altruism. But, as always the devil is in the detail. In this case, the push is for carbon trading - Emissions Trading Schemes like Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), often referred to as Cap and Trade.
I can understand that these people want the Government to set the rules for climate action and reducing carbon use - this gives the market predictability and stability for basing investment decisions on. But these same people have a vested interest in another financial market - the carbon market. It's another way for them to make money. All well and good, except if it fails, so does the prospects for avoiding dangerous climate change.
The meeting was the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor George Soros, and former Vice President Al Gore.
Australia was represented at the meeting by the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) which represents investors of over $500bn across all sectors of the Australian economy, including many retail and industry superannuation funds.
The meeting called for a legally-binding climate agreement this year with comprehensive long-term measures for mitigation, forest protection, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, including a global emission reduction target of 50-85% by 2050, consistent with estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Investors are poised and ready to scale up investments in building the low carbon economy, but without policies that create a stable investment environment our hands are tied," said Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), one of larghe largest public pension funds in the USA with more than $205 billion in assets. "U.S. leadership is critical in this regard, including U.S. Senate action to limit and put a price on carbon emissions."
"What investors need most from national and state legislatures are transparency, longevity and certainty," said Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management and member of Deutsche Bank's Group Executive Committee. "Until the U.S. Congress passes climate regulation, America will be at a competitive disadvantage in the development of renewable energy and other climate change industries."
Al Gore, in his speech, drew upon a report that Investment Managers Still Lagging in Response to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities, pointed out that the vast majority of the world's largest investment managers are not factoring climate-related trends into their short- and long-term investment decision-making,
On emission reductions, the statement said "We call on developed countries to establish emission reduction targets of 80-95% by 2050, with interim targets of 25-40% by 2020. Developing countries should have clear action plans that deliver measurable and verifiable emission reductions compared to projected levels."
The statement called for "national regulators worldwide, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to require companies to disclose to their investors material climate-related risks and the programs in place to manage those risks."
Excellent stuff! But keep in mind most of the people at this summit are part of the financial and investment establishment. They have a vested interest in market based policies to establish a carbon price - in the Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Systems in place in Europe and proposed for the USA and Australia.
Their statement calls for "governments to put in place market-based policies to establish a carbon price that will signal that investments in carbon-intensive projects may yield lower returns, that new and established zero- or low-carbon technologies can be deployed profitably, and that investment in clean energy infrastructure will yield sound returns."
They "call on governments to support robust, transparent, well-governed markets that include mechanisms for directing private financial flows to low-carbon development in developed and developing countries."
Yet an emissions trading system has great dangers of rorting and not sufficiently encouraging investment to low carbon or carbon neutral projects. Stopping government fossil fuel subsidies should be a major priority, and placing a tax on carbon where it is produced, with subsidies to low carbon alternatives and dividends to the population should be considered.
Friends of the Earth UK prepared a report on carbon trading in November 2009 - 'A Dangerous Obsession (PDF)' - in which they outline that carbon trading could be the next 'sub-prime' crisis.
'A Dangerous Obsession' focuses on the buying and selling of a new artificial commodity - the right to emit carbon dioxide - which the UK and other developed country governments want to see expanded into a massive worldwide market.
According to FoE UK the trade in carbon permits and credits, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126 billion in 2008 and is predicted to balloon to $3.1 trillion by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.
Releasing the report in November Friends of the Earth's international climate campaigner and author of the report Sarah Jayne-Clifton said: "Pushing a world carbon market as part of a global agreement to tackle climate change risks a double whammy of financial and environmental disaster.
"Carbon trading is failing dismally at reducing emissions, yet allows speculators to grow rich from the climate crisis and hands politicians and industry a get-out clause for polluting business as usual.
"Science tells us rich countries must act first and fast to cut their emissions at home if we are to avert climate catastrophe - and support poorer countries with adequate public money to grow cleanly and adapt to the effects of climate change which they are already feeling.
"The credit crunch has taught us that Governments, not markets are best placed to safeguard our future - at this critical point in the fight against climate change Ministers must step in and lead the way with a new, direct approach to tackling carbon emissions to create a safe and green future for us all."
So what will Australia's CPRS do? Emissions won't begin to fall until 2033, according to Treasury modelling. And the reason they will fall then is the 'predicted' introduction of 'clean coal' technology and import carbon permits from developing countries. Sounds pretty shonky to me. Climate greenwash!
Background
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Why the strong push from the Investment sector for Government Climate Action? It could be just altruism. But, as always the devil is in the detail. In this case, the push is for carbon trading - Emissions Trading Schemes like Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), often referred to as Cap and Trade.
I can understand that these people want the Government to set the rules for climate action and reducing carbon use - this gives the market predictability and stability for basing investment decisions on. But these same people have a vested interest in another financial market - the carbon market. It's another way for them to make money. All well and good, except if it fails, so does the prospects for avoiding dangerous climate change.
The meeting was the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor George Soros, and former Vice President Al Gore.
Australia was represented at the meeting by the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) which represents investors of over $500bn across all sectors of the Australian economy, including many retail and industry superannuation funds.
The meeting called for a legally-binding climate agreement this year with comprehensive long-term measures for mitigation, forest protection, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, including a global emission reduction target of 50-85% by 2050, consistent with estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Investors are poised and ready to scale up investments in building the low carbon economy, but without policies that create a stable investment environment our hands are tied," said Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), one of larghe largest public pension funds in the USA with more than $205 billion in assets. "U.S. leadership is critical in this regard, including U.S. Senate action to limit and put a price on carbon emissions."
"What investors need most from national and state legislatures are transparency, longevity and certainty," said Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management and member of Deutsche Bank's Group Executive Committee. "Until the U.S. Congress passes climate regulation, America will be at a competitive disadvantage in the development of renewable energy and other climate change industries."
Al Gore, in his speech, drew upon a report that Investment Managers Still Lagging in Response to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities, pointed out that the vast majority of the world's largest investment managers are not factoring climate-related trends into their short- and long-term investment decision-making,
On emission reductions, the statement said "We call on developed countries to establish emission reduction targets of 80-95% by 2050, with interim targets of 25-40% by 2020. Developing countries should have clear action plans that deliver measurable and verifiable emission reductions compared to projected levels."
The statement called for "national regulators worldwide, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to require companies to disclose to their investors material climate-related risks and the programs in place to manage those risks."
Excellent stuff! But keep in mind most of the people at this summit are part of the financial and investment establishment. They have a vested interest in market based policies to establish a carbon price - in the Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Systems in place in Europe and proposed for the USA and Australia.
Their statement calls for "governments to put in place market-based policies to establish a carbon price that will signal that investments in carbon-intensive projects may yield lower returns, that new and established zero- or low-carbon technologies can be deployed profitably, and that investment in clean energy infrastructure will yield sound returns."
They "call on governments to support robust, transparent, well-governed markets that include mechanisms for directing private financial flows to low-carbon development in developed and developing countries."
Yet an emissions trading system has great dangers of rorting and not sufficiently encouraging investment to low carbon or carbon neutral projects. Stopping government fossil fuel subsidies should be a major priority, and placing a tax on carbon where it is produced, with subsidies to low carbon alternatives and dividends to the population should be considered.
Friends of the Earth UK prepared a report on carbon trading in November 2009 - 'A Dangerous Obsession (PDF)' - in which they outline that carbon trading could be the next 'sub-prime' crisis.
'A Dangerous Obsession' focuses on the buying and selling of a new artificial commodity - the right to emit carbon dioxide - which the UK and other developed country governments want to see expanded into a massive worldwide market.
According to FoE UK the trade in carbon permits and credits, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126 billion in 2008 and is predicted to balloon to $3.1 trillion by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.
Releasing the report in November Friends of the Earth's international climate campaigner and author of the report Sarah Jayne-Clifton said: "Pushing a world carbon market as part of a global agreement to tackle climate change risks a double whammy of financial and environmental disaster.
"Carbon trading is failing dismally at reducing emissions, yet allows speculators to grow rich from the climate crisis and hands politicians and industry a get-out clause for polluting business as usual.
"Science tells us rich countries must act first and fast to cut their emissions at home if we are to avert climate catastrophe - and support poorer countries with adequate public money to grow cleanly and adapt to the effects of climate change which they are already feeling.
"The credit crunch has taught us that Governments, not markets are best placed to safeguard our future - at this critical point in the fight against climate change Ministers must step in and lead the way with a new, direct approach to tackling carbon emissions to create a safe and green future for us all."
So what will Australia's CPRS do? Emissions won't begin to fall until 2033, according to Treasury modelling. And the reason they will fall then is the 'predicted' introduction of 'clean coal' technology and import carbon permits from developing countries. Sounds pretty shonky to me. Climate greenwash!
Background
- Investor Network on Climate Risk, Jan 14, 2009 - Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly to Adopt Strong Climate Change Policies
- The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy (PDF). The Investor Statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors. The groups are the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).
- Investor Network on Climate Risk, Jan 6, 2009 - New Report: Investment Managers Still Lagging in Response to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities
- Friends of the Earth Australia Media Release, Nov 5, 2009 - carbon trading 'the next Sub Prime' - new report
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Arctic Oscillation, the Northern Hemisphere big freeze and Climate Denial
While Australia sizzles, much of Europe, North America, China and Asia has been subjected to snowstorms and freezing weather disrupting trade and transport with climate deniers chortling that global cooling is here. But further north - Eastern Siberia, Alaska, Northern Canada and Greenland, average winter temperatures are actually warmer - caused by the climate pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation.
The Arctic Oscilliation is a winter climate pattern in the Northern Hemisphere defined by difference in air pressure between mid latitude air pressure and the air pressure over the Arctic. When low pressure predominates in the Arctic, the winds confine the extremely cold air and the Arctic Oscillation is called positive. When the pressure system weakens, allowing the cold air to slide south and warmer air to gather in the Arctic, the Arctic Oscillation is said to be negative.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center "Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia."
Climate sceptic meteorologist Anthony Watts has written about Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years? based upon the Daily Mail article - The mini ice age starts here - that put forward 'a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years'. The article is based upon their mis-interpretation of the research of prominent IPCC researcher Professor Mojib Latif.
Latif's team published research in the Journal Nature in 2008 regarding natural fluctuations in ocean temperature that could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. That cooling in the oceans could on occasion offset global warming. The scientists stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend.
However Mojib Latif, Professor for Climate Physics at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, told the Guardian newspaper - Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research - that: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."
"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it." Mojib Latif said.
Mojib Latif made a key presentation at the World Climate Conference 3, held in Geneva in September 2009 where he conjectured that it "may well happen that you enter a decade or maybe even two, when the temperature cools relative to the present level" but that "the jury is still out about the relative contribution of this internal variability". You can read Key excerpts from Mojib Latif's WCC presentation on Deep Climate. His remarks were reported and misrepresented by science journalists and particularly climate sceptics that we would actually see a decade or two of global cooling.
In an email published by Deep Climate Mojib Latif clarified "what I said is that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offsset global warming for a decade so that there may be not much of an additional warming. I showed a prediction that was published last year in the science magazine 'nature'."
"I also pointed out that the British group issued a competing forecast for the next decade. They predict that global warming will continue at the rate of the last decades. Thus, and I made this very clear, there is quite some uncertainty about the short-term evolution. Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter, the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions."
Latif projects a likely average warming of 0.18C in the next decade, and 0.35C in the following decade as part of the overall warming trend - not a trend for cooling.
Meanwhile, we are likely to see further weather records broken in the deep freeze or the sizzling heat, part of weather variability, changing climate patterns and a long term global warming trend that scientists attribute to human caused CO2 emissions. Regions will continue to be affected to varying degrees by regional varying climate patterns like the Arctic Oscillation.
Sources
- NASA Earth Observatory, Jan 9, 2010 - Winter Temperatures and the Arctic Oscillation
- National Snow and Ice Data Center - The Arctic Oscillation
- The Guardian, Jan 11, 2009 - Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research
- Daily Mail, Jan 10, 2010 - The mini ice age starts here
- Deep Climate, Oct 2, 2009 - Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif's remarks out of control
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Australia's Climate is sizzling
South east Australia has just sizzled through another heatwave. Of course it is just weather which has a natural variability. One weather event can't be pinned down as the result of climate change. Climate change is about trends and averages. And the trend is its getting warmer, we're sizzling.
In Melbourne on Monday night the thermometer stayed well into the low thirties, finally reaching a minimum of 30.6 degrees at 8.50am on Tuesday, the equal highest overnight minimum on record, last seen on February 1, 1902. Record equaled.
The Bureau of Meteorology reported that 2009 was the nation's second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910, with the decade being the warmest on record. Annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90°C above the 1961-90 average. It was noted that the second half of the year, with Australia, Victoria, South Australia and NSW all recording their warmest July-December periods on record.
The heatwaves in January and February 2009 set a new Melbourne maximum temperature record of 46.4°C, new State maximum temperature records for Victoria (48.8°C at Hopetoun) and Tasmania (42.2°C at Scamander), and contributed to the Black Saturday bushfires. It was also the warmest August on record. A heatwave during November across central and southeast Australia, lead to a record 8 consecutive days of maximum temperatures above 35°C in Adelaide, and numerous maximum temperature records across southern and eastern Australia, especially in South Australia and New South Wales.
South Australia is Cooking
The temperature is really cooking in South Australia with 2009 the warmest year on record with the mean temperature of 1.3°C above average for South Australia as a whole, since average temperatures records started in 1910. 2009 was the 17th consecutive year that above average temperatures has occurred.
In many locations around South Australia record warmest nights were recorded in 2009 when averaged across the year as a whole. For Adelaide it was the equal warmest year, along with 2007, with mean annual temperatures 1.3°C above average. For many inland locations across the state it was the warmest year on record.
A record breaking heat wave across South Australia in the first half of November 2009 with Adelaide experiencing 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November. New November heatwave records were also set for many regional towns in South Australia. The heatwave has dried out much of the grasslands and bush exacerbating the fire danger with the extreme temperature conditions, low humidity and strong wind conditions. Catastrophic Fire Danger warning was issued for two regions.
Sources
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
In Melbourne on Monday night the thermometer stayed well into the low thirties, finally reaching a minimum of 30.6 degrees at 8.50am on Tuesday, the equal highest overnight minimum on record, last seen on February 1, 1902. Record equaled.
The Bureau of Meteorology reported that 2009 was the nation's second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910, with the decade being the warmest on record. Annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90°C above the 1961-90 average. It was noted that the second half of the year, with Australia, Victoria, South Australia and NSW all recording their warmest July-December periods on record.
The heatwaves in January and February 2009 set a new Melbourne maximum temperature record of 46.4°C, new State maximum temperature records for Victoria (48.8°C at Hopetoun) and Tasmania (42.2°C at Scamander), and contributed to the Black Saturday bushfires. It was also the warmest August on record. A heatwave during November across central and southeast Australia, lead to a record 8 consecutive days of maximum temperatures above 35°C in Adelaide, and numerous maximum temperature records across southern and eastern Australia, especially in South Australia and New South Wales.
South Australia is Cooking
The temperature is really cooking in South Australia with 2009 the warmest year on record with the mean temperature of 1.3°C above average for South Australia as a whole, since average temperatures records started in 1910. 2009 was the 17th consecutive year that above average temperatures has occurred.
In many locations around South Australia record warmest nights were recorded in 2009 when averaged across the year as a whole. For Adelaide it was the equal warmest year, along with 2007, with mean annual temperatures 1.3°C above average. For many inland locations across the state it was the warmest year on record.
A record breaking heat wave across South Australia in the first half of November 2009 with Adelaide experiencing 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November. New November heatwave records were also set for many regional towns in South Australia. The heatwave has dried out much of the grasslands and bush exacerbating the fire danger with the extreme temperature conditions, low humidity and strong wind conditions. Catastrophic Fire Danger warning was issued for two regions.
Sources
- Bureau of Meteorology, Jan 5, 2010 - Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009
- Bureau of Meteorology, Jan 5, 2010 - South Australia's 2009 Annual Climate Summary
- Australia IndymediaIt's getting hot in here - November heatwave 'classic climate change weather'
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)