Tag Archives: Climate Change

Wednesday

Posted on by

The red 'A' marks Xanadu.

Climate Change at Xanadu

What are we doing to reduce our environmental footprint?

Water consumption: Our imported water decreased 10 per cent from 2008 to 2009. In February I am attending a Rainwater Harvesting Technical Workshop run by Marrickville Council and it appears that we can have three tanks; two harvesting the water from the garage and sheds, and a bladder under the house. If we plumb in two toilets and the washing machine and convert the garden irrigation from imported water, we should be able to cut back another 20 per cent.

Energy (electricity): All lighting is by energy saving bulbs. We don’t have air-conditioning but this summer the upper floor retained considerable heat so we are considering turbine ventilators (whirlybirds) in the roof to move the hot air out of the ceiling. Last winter we used the fireplaces burning surplus wood from the renovations.

The Australian Greenhouse Office has stated, “in terms of limiting net greenhouse gas emissions, firewood is generally more favourable for domestic heating than other non-renewable fossil fuel sources of energy” (http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache%3AIROGmHDXTGQJ%3Awww.homeheat.com.au%2Fpdf%2FHeating_Greenhouse_Gas.pdf+wood+fires+greenhouse&hl=en&gl=au).

And when this stockpile is finished we will probably convert to LNG.

Transport: Two people and two vehicles. One is a reasonably efficient Subaru but the other is a gas emitting disaster that:

  • Is used to move dogs, rubbish and earn a modest income
  • Requires a $6,000 dollar transfusion to fix the motor
  • But is decreasingly used as we enjoy public transport.

I have been cycling less this summer due to the heat but anticipate this will change with autumn.

Sustainability: In 2009 we had time to work in the garden and had excellent crops of snow peas, rocket, basil, mint, tomatoes, and capsicums and chillies still to come. I walk to Borsellino Brothers for our F&V and am gearing up to preserving tomatoes after Easter (when the best are cheap).

Meat is an issue. We can’t determine if our beef is grass-fed; we buy cheap frozen chickens that are probably retired battery hens; who knows where the lamb comes from but the goat is halal. I have stopped buying pork due to concern about the treatment of pigs and the antibiotics used. And until recently, did not buy fish because of the dwindling populations of wild fish and the pollution caused by farmed fish. However, since discovering the Nature Conservation Council of NSW “Nice Choice” web site (http://www.nicechoice.org.au/) we have resumed buying the sustainable varieties.

Recycling: Our wastage is minimal; today our neighbours and ourselves put out one red bin (non-recyclable) and two green bins (recycled into mulch); that is for six people. Next week, it will be the plastics, glass and paper pick-up. I see that the Visy paper mill in Tumut converts our cardboard and newspaper into pulp but haven’t tracked down the glass and plastic recycling.

The compost processing is successful (see post on 23 September 2009 for photos of the compost factory). And last year I converted two cubic metres of clay into friable soil by mixing it with gypsum in the compost.

Micro-environment: We have considerable vegetation on three sides of Xanadu (see the satellite photo above) which is very bird-attractive. This has developed over 30 years; the grounds were lawn when we moved in.

Climate Change – Conclusion

This review over four days has been useful. I cannot see the negative aspects of reducing our environmental footprint and our greenhouse gas emissions. I constantly hear or read about the costs of change, economic and social, but they seem to be slight compared with the benefits. I want to see leadership, bi-partisanship politics, moderation of attacks on each other’s viewpoints and some meaningful and practical legislation to move us forward.

Peter Cosgrove, “Lecture 6: Australia’s Future: Paying it Forward”, Boyer Lectures, 13 December, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/stories/2009/2725189.htm#transcript

…I am very conscious of the huge change in direction and the expense and the turmoil and the impact on jobs, entailed in a radical move to non-carbon energy for Australia. But if we don’t do it, a country with our values, a country presently in the top 20 wealthiest countries in the world, a country depended on by millions of people who are our powerless friends and neighbours, how can we expect other nations to act and thus offset our lack of action.

…We can’t have governments and oppositions daily scrapping over the concerted and co-ordinated action we need to take across the national community, if on a balance of probabilities we need to start our action now to avoid the climate change ‘noose’ sometime later in the century….

Today’s Website

“Your Home Technical Manual”, Department of the Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts, http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/index.html

Tuesday

Posted on by

At the front gate -- Geranium or Pelargonium?

Geranium or Pelargonium?

Local gardeners, when talking about “Geraniums”, are almost certainly referring to members of the genus Pelargonium. Long ago they were included in Geranium, but today the pelargoniums have their own genus. One of the distinguishing features is that all the petals of the Geranium flower are similar and are arranged evenly around the centre. On the other hand, the individual Pelargonium flower has an uneven distribution of petals, although this may be a little difficult to observe in some garden cutivars. http://www.calyx.com.au/pelargonium.html

Climate Change – Responses and Action

New South Wales responses are being coordinated by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. In summary:

DECC’s wide range of climate change programs include:

  • strategies to reduce emissions, encourage efficient use of water and promote adaptation to climate change impacts
  • research to better understand the effects of climate change on biodiversity and conservation planning
  • development of a resilient system of protected areas to help minimise the effects of climate change on the environment
  • the Sustainability Advantage Program, which assists business to improve environmental performance.

The broader whole-of-government approach to reducing the impacts of climate change is outlined in the NSW Greenhouse Plan, the NSW State Plan and the Climate Change Action Plan, which is currently under development. Key initiatives include:

  • progressing a national emissions trading and a mandatory renewable energy through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)
  • providing financial support to households, schools, business and industry for water, energy and emission savings through the Climate Change Fund and establishing the NSW Energy Savings Scheme
  • ensuring homes and units are designed to use less potable water and create fewer greenhouse gas emissions by setting energy and water reduction targets through the Building Sustainability online planning tool
  • reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of electricity through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme and establishing new energy efficiency targets under the scheme
  • implementing the $150-million NSW Energy Efficiency Strategy.

Find out more on the following topics on DECC’s climate change website

  • An introduction to climate change, its causes and evidence
  • Information on how climate change will impact NSW
  • Reports and publications on climate change
  • Local, national and international action to combat climate change

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/climatechange/index.htm

Moving from the ‘govspeak’ above is a series of 30 case-studies on greenhouse reduction action featured on the Local Government and Shires website, http://www.lgsa-plus.net.au/www/html/1917-nsw-regions.asp?intSiteID=2

These are encouragingly proactive; curbing emissions and waste and saving money.

In 2008, The Nature Conservation Council of NSW coordinated a series of training workshops for LGA council staff and residents to:

…deliver local forums in urban, rural, coastal and inland locations across NSW. The input of forum participants has informed local council about the views of a diverse mix of the community who have worked together with local experts and facilitators and considered the issue of climate change in detail.

http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2488&Itemid=1133#How%20will%20workshop%20participants%20be%20recruited%20and%20selected

Coming home to Marrickville Council, their ‘Environment’ page at http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/environment/climatechange.htm concentrates on energy (electricity) and oil reduction. This is not a thorough coverage for at the community and individual level, the Council:

  • Has free trees for households suitable for this Cooks River catchment,
  • Has free garden mulch
  • Supports community gardens
  • Operates the “Sustainable Water Planning with Local People” program that aims at reducing imported water and water leaving the catchment. Together with Sydney City, operates the shop front ‘Watershed’ in Newtown for advice on water conservation.
  • In the ‘Business Program’, provides useful advice on reducing energy and waste.
  • And in the “Sustainability in Your Home” page, provides much information on rebates and reducing our environmental footprint (http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/MARRICKVILLE/INTERNET/me.get?site.home&PAGE2237).

Local Government is making the practical advances in contrast with the embarrassing Commonwealth political squabbling and the Koala suited protestors blockading mines, chaining themselves to locomotives and climbing light poles. Since beginning this review on 16 January, I have learnt much and feel I need no longer bother with the media reporting on Climategate, Glaciergate, the IPCC, COP15, anthropogenic global warming, climate skeptics, et al;  CO2 emission reduction, waste reduction, water harvesting and energy reduction is occurring.

Today’s Podcast

“A dinner date with the olympics (2010 version)”, Deconstructing Dinner, 14 January 2010, http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/011410.htm

On February 23, 2006, Deconstructing Dinner aired a one-hour feature titled “A Dinner Date With the Olympics”. The episode was produced alongside the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. The show focused its attention on two of the Games major sponsors (Coca-Cola and McDonald’s). When we think of the Olympic Games, the athletes, the events, we think of human beings at the peak of performance, in optimal physical and psychological states. Sports do after all evoke images of health and well-being. So when two of the Games major sponsors are Coca-Cola and McDonald’s (perhaps the two most targeted food companies in the world for their unhealthy food and their environmental, social and animal welfare practices), it sparked that 2006 episode which deconstructed this seeming hypocrisy. On this 2010 Version of that original broadcast, we revisit with the episode and add some much-needed 2010 updates.

Monday

Posted on by

This orchid only flowered once.

Climate Change – What to do?

As I wrote yesterday, ‘let’s get some sensible action in place’ and for us urban people, there is practical information. I recommend Business Guide to the Low Carbon Economy: New South Wales, November 2009, The Climate Group, http://www.theclimategroup.org/programs/australia/ and am reproducing three pages from this, which summarizes government initiatives. I am impressed.

I haven’t been closely following the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) but now that I have an understanding of the legislation, will watch  Government and Opposition strategies with increased interest.

Today’s Website

GOOD NEWS ON CARBON EMISSIONS!

“Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fall In 2009 Across Australia’s Eastern States”, The Climate Group, 17 January 2010, http://www.theclimategroup.org/our-news/news/2010/1/17/Australia-Greenhouse%20Indicator-Annual%20Report/

Sunday

Posted on by

Near Alice Springs.

Climate Change – The Skeptics

The skeptics base their skepticism on political interference, incorrect modeling and inaccurate data (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy). We can disregard ‘Climategate’ as just another unseemly squabble amongst academics – it was a peripheral disturbance, which served to make me more aware of the controversy.

For the skeptics case see Joanna Nova, (2009), The Skeptics Handbook, downloadable from http://joannenova.com.au/, Formatted to draw attention to the ‘fallacies’ perpetrated by the anthropogenic community (humans are causing climate change) it, on a second reading, lacks credibility. Headings such as ‘The Surgical Strike’ and ‘The Global Warming Gravy Train Ran Out of Evidence’ are journalistic, which I am striving to avoid. However, cutting through the hyperbole, she does summarise the skeptic’s case and leaves me unconvinced.

Then there is Ian Plimer’s, (2009), Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science, Connor Court Publishing, which takes the long-term view presenting information that cold periods have coincided with significantly higher CO2 in the atmosphere. I respect his credentials and agree with his thesis, but what is his point? Why not act on reducing our carbon emissions and our environment-disturbing footprint? Why argue against what will benefit us and future generations?

Over several months I have moved from sympathy with the ‘skeptics’ to ‘let’s get some sensible action in place’. I doubt that chaining one’s self to a coal train, climbing lamp-posts or blockading coal mines will have much effect – it’s the old Vietnam Moratorium syndrome that so attracts the young, and is fun, but has never changed society.

My next inquiry will be to look at the Commonwealth Government’s policies and actions to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Saturday

Posted on by

Trephina Gorge, Central Australia

Climate Change – First Principles

After reading many badly written media reports I am going back to first principles of Climate Change. This began with Andrew Campbell, 2008. Managing Australian Landscapes in a Changing Climate: A climate change primer for regional Natural Resource Management bodies. Report to the Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia (downloadable from the author’s website, http://www.triplehelix.com.au/). Campbell is a firm believer in the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ driven by CO2 emissions and whether one is a skeptic, or agrees with the CO2 effect, he offers practical suggestions for mitigating climate change.

But first, some definitions.

“Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Climate change is the variation in global or regional climates over time. It reflects changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by processes internal to the Earth, external forces (e.g. variations in sunlight intensity) or, more recently, human activities. In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term “climate change” often refers only to changes in modern climate, including the rise in average surface temperature known as global warming. In some cases, the term is also used with a presumption of human causation, as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Climate models use quantitative methods to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface and ice. They are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate. The most talked-about models of recent years have been those used to infer the consequences of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide (see greenhouse gas). These models predict an upward trend in the global mean surface temperature, with the most rapid increase in temperature being projected for the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate#Climate_change

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The trend shown below from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology confirms that we are experiencing increasing temperatures. Additional data and definitions are on http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/.

However, when checking out the ‘Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly’, I found slightly different information where the trend line is not so ominous.

See http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/amtemp.shtml

What is the cause?

External forcing of climate refers to processes external to the climate system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that influence climate. Climate responds to several types of external forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric composition (mainly greenhouse gas concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have caused the temperature changes observed in the past century.

The greenhouse effect is a natural warming process of the earth. When the sun’s energy reaches the earth some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed. The absorbed energy warms the earth’s surface which then emits heat energy back toward space as longwave radiation. This outgoing longwave radiation is partially trapped by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour which then radiate the energy in all directions, warming the earth’s surface and atmosphere. Without these greenhouse gases the earth’s average surface temperature would be about 35 ° Celsius cooler.

Australian BOM

Human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/climch/clichgr1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

In summary, the surface temperature of Australia is rising and greenhouse gasses are increasing. The greenhouse proponents sress that the two are linked. I now need to review why the sceptics dismiss the CO2 connection.

Today’s Podcast

There is a small controversy over school gardens in the USA. Caitlin Flanagan, “Cultivating Failure”, The Atlantic, Jan-Feb 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/school-yard-garden has provoked comment with her thesis that school gardens are teaching students work skills that their migrant parents in California want to leave behind. School should be for better test scores and graduating on to college and a less labour intensive working life.

“The Edible Acre Project”, Agroinnovations, 11 January 2010, http://agroinnovations.com/index.php/en_us/multimedia/blogs/podcast/ is an interesting example of how school gardens have been woven into the curriculum rather than simply picking lettuce.

In this episode we continue with the theme of school gardens and farms. I am joined by Debbie Hillman of the Edible Acre Project, a project in a suburb just outside of Chicago Illinois. Debbie discusses the origins and implementation of the project, the role of a the farm/garden in education, and practical strategies for those looking to develop similar projects in their communities.

Friday

Posted on by

On my way to Randwick this morning.

Climate Change

The Opposition Leader has delivered his first policy on Climate Change. The full text is, surprisingly, unavailable on the web as yet, so any comment will have to wait. Reaction has, however, been swift with derision from Labor governments and this ‘Analysis’ in SMH. Cubby successfully hides any analysis with the the overused cliché. My comments are in italics.

Ben Cubby, “Combative Abbott turns green message on its head”, SMH, 15 January 2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/combative-abbott-turns-green-message-on-its-head-20100114-ma8b.html

TONY ABBOTT’S plan to mobilise a ”green army” and seek battle with the Federal Government over climate change has the ring of a death-or-glory mission: brave, bold and with a minimal chance of success. Abbott knows if he loses he may well be among the casualties.
In what I have read on-line and on paper, missed any hint of ‘battle’, ‘ring of a death-or-glory mission’ and ‘Abbott knows…among the casualties’ .Analysis or hyperbole?

But some clever tactics are evident in the speech he gave at the Sydney Institute last night. It is a pitch to what he perceives as a sensible, middle-ground environmentalism that is more concerned with preserving parks and planting suburban nature strips than transforming the economy to run on renewable energy.
The ‘pitch’ as I read it in Abbott’s summary (SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/protecting-the-planet-needs-to-begin-in-our-backyard-20100114-ma09.html) is about mobilizing Australians to re-green the country which does include ‘suburban nature strips’ and to get the rivers flowing.

It relegates climate change and environmental politics to a second-order issue, a view many people familiar with the four terms of the Howard government will be comfortable with. Abbott is betting his credentials on the theory that most people don’t think climate change requires serious action.
I detect a different thread; I doubt Cubby’s view that, “…most people don’t think climate change requires serious action. My colleagues and acquaintances are deeply concerned, a group includes a broad selection of Australians. Many of them are actively cutting their carbon footprint (at some expense).

Yet the world’s most relevant science academies and its best researchers are convinced climate change is a vast and urgent problem.
Clearly Cubby is a prisoner of his ideology to be repeating this discredited dogma – the debate became overheated recently as doubt regarding the analyses and data collection increased.

The Coalition is now way out on a limb, sharing the trembling branch with some US Republicans, Canadian Conservatives and Saudi Arabian princes. And Abbott’s speech would have received the stamp of approval of Coalition climate sceptics.
Analysis? One definition is, ‘the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements. These two sentences represent the SMH’s intellect; little wonder I increasingly glance only at the headlines.

He acknowledges that ”many scientists think” that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea, but does not follow through the logic that this admission entails. Human-induced climate change is a binary issue: it’s either happening or it’s not. If it’s not, why bother reducing emissions at all? If it is, there’s little point in half-serious solutions. Abbott’s new take on environment is an attempt to straddle this divide, simultaneously dog-whistling to climate sceptics while foreshadowing ”direct action” to reduce emissions. There is no mention of tackling the source of emissions and no hint that the appeasement of heavy-polluting industry will end.
‘Dog-whistling’ – “Dog-whistle politics… is a term for a type of political campaigning or speechmaking which employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics). I must be outside the ‘targeted subgroup’

His speech perpetuates the fiction that Australia is in danger of leading the world in climate change action. In fact, Europe has a well-established emissions trading scheme that has little or no impact on jobs and wealth.
I understand that the Cap and Trade policy in place in the UK has driven up electricity prices and power utilities profits and is heavily resented.

But Abbott is on safer ground with his criticism of the Federal Government’s lack of effective action on climate change. The speech is an attempt to present Abbott as a plain speaker, and an antidote to the ”rhetorical overkill” of Kevin Rudd. The public can expect to hear more about Abbott’s practical, hands-on, tree-planting persona in coming weeks.

This ‘analysis’ is a collection smart-arse clichés, hyperbole and inaccuracies. Despite my instincts, I detect a whiff of leadership from the Right, which is refreshing after the hysterical diatribe recently issued in the names of Wong and Garrett.

Today’s Podcasts

“The end of fish”, RearVision, 13 January 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/2767858.htm

We seem to have eaten all the fish in the sea. We caught them because we could; we had the means to do it, with technology that made it physically possible and economically viable.  First broadcast 22nd July 2009. Rear Vision explores the role played by technology in the disappearance of wild fish and looks at some of the reasons why attempts to control it have had limited success.

I bought three Sea Mullet last week, the first fish we have bought for months, principally due to ‘the end of fish’. And they were delicious. On attempting to find out the sustainability of this very cheap fish I discovered http://www.nicechoice.org.au/ which lists Sea Mullet. A useful resource which I understand is no longer maintained due to lack of funds.

Thursday

Posted on by

The MacDonnell Range at Glen Helen, Central Australia

The Cook-Book

The draft was reviewed last night by a knowledgeable food and cooking person; favourably. It has now reached the stage of becoming semi-public so I can get further feedback on the layout and range of recipes and chapters. Current problems are:

  • Indexing – the way I have assembled it doesn’t lend itself to automatic indexing but a solution will appear as I get closer to that activity. It would be handy now.
  • Consistency – is a bit of a mish-mash; some items are capitalized in one recipe, lower case in another.
  • Naming – some recipe titles begin with ‘Lamb’, others may be ‘Kebabs with Lamb’ so I need to develop a naming convention.
  • Assembling the components into one document – Word is notorious for falling apart when working with long documents.
  • Page numbering – because the chapters are stand-alone, I can’t get consistent page numbering.

However, I am pleased with this result so far and will continue to improve on it and solve these problems.

Technical Note

I am migrating the cook-book to the web but to get to this there were some problems. Initially, I had intended to use Microsoft Expression on a Windows server that backs-up my music files. When I moved the cook-book files across from my MacbookPro, I discovered the Word documents could only be read in Wordpad – I hadn’t installed Office on this server.

As I have Parallels Desktop on the Mac and can operate a Windows virtual machine, I updated Parallels, Vista and Office and installed Expression. The only glitch so far is not being able to share folders (directories) despite following the instructions in the manual and the support forums. Not a big issue at this stage.

Positives are that Expressions imports Word and builds the pages automatically. Once I design a suitable template, this makes authoring much simpler. Another is that Expression connects, using ftp, to my server in New Mexico so I can upload files directly from the application. I am impressed – and Vista is faster than I have ever experienced.

Climate Change

Some indication of what the Australian public thinks:

“Nice try Penny, but it’s time to take another look”, The Australian’, 14 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nice-try-penny-but-its-time-to-take-another-look/story-e6frg71x-1225818991552

Before Copenhagen, public support for tackling climate change was strong, with polls showing about three-quarters of Australians backing action. That support will be tested in the next few months as the government moves to reintroduce its CPRS legislation.



Wednesday

Posted on by

Flowers -- Central Australia

Climate Change

As I seek clarification of this issue I continue to read text that is barely understandable and often an exercise in point scoring. The article below by Carmody is an example of ‘barely understandable’ – about halfway through I became lost; the jargon, titles of protocols and the lengthy enumeration of his solution became an exercise in disappointment. As is my practice, quoted selectively

Geoff Carmody, “From Rio to Copenhagen the model was wrong”. The Australian, 13 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/from-rio-to-copenhagen-the-model-was-wrong/story-e6frg6zo-1225818572530

THE UN’s Copenhagen climate conference was substantive failure and procedural debacle. Other assessments are dishonest or delusional. We must learn the lessons of history and adapt climate policy to reflect them.

First, a big-bang synchronised response by all nations to global climate threats is a pipe dream. This was acknowledged in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992 and in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Late last year, Copenhagen amplified this lesson.

Second, nations won’t compromise economic growth by losing industry competitiveness in the name of mitigating climate change. This applies especially in the case of developing economies.

Third, a policy focused on where national emissions are produced, rather than where they are consumed, only made some sense under a big-bang synchronised global response. But it’s been retained since 1992 despite failure to secure such a response. Under a non-synchronised approach, this emissions production model generates national concerns about loss of competitiveness, job losses and carbon leakage. Nations won’t play or will only play dirty, via extensive policy exemptions, using this model.

Fourth, a focus on emissions reduction targets and their distribution funnelled negotiations into sterile, zero sum debates about who will commit to what emissions reduction outcomes when. There has been insufficient emphasis on putting a price on emissions, comprehensively applied and growing predictably through time. This caused many problems, including failure to start pricing emissions globally. No emissions price, no emissions reduction. No surprises there.

Fifth, we have failed to learn the preceding four lessons of history.

There are other lessons. From Rio to Copenhagen, the lesson has been loud and clear: it’s the wrong model, start again.

At this point I abandoned the quest for understanding.

And in the article below, Furedi moves from commenting on the northern hemisphere’s cold, Australia’s hottest decade on record to witch burning – perhaps commentators could abandon their jargon and wit and write for the people.

Frank Furedi, “It’s 15 below zero as weathermen go witch-hunting”, The Australian, 13 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/its-15-below-zero-as-weathermen-go-witch-hunting/story-e6frg6zo-1225818570353

IT is snowing big time in my town in Kent. The family sits in front of the television to discover whether there is more of the white stuff to come. However, instead of an informative weather forecast we are offered a political broadcast. A dramatic sounding voiceover informs us that David Shukman, who is the BBC’s environment and science correspondent, will report “on how one of the longest cold snaps for a generation fits in with theories of a warming planet and global climate change”.

Adopting a solemn tone that hints at catastrophes to come, Shukman announces that it is minus 15C in the Pennines and five cars are stranded before stating, “No wonder many are asking, `What about global warming?’ ” Just in case the cold temperature encourages the British public to assume a degree of scepticism towards climate change alarmism, Shukman reassuringly informs us that the big freeze is not inconsistent with theories of global warming. A swift cut to a chap from Kew Gardens who insists that “snowdrops are already blooming” . Apparently flowering is starting much earlier than previously, which must mean that the world is getting very, very warm.

“Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong,” argue two climate alarmist journalists in The Guardian. Leo Hickman and George Monbiot helpfully inform their readers that “weather is not the same as climate and single events are not the same as trends”. Just in case you are a complacent sceptic, Hickman and Monbiot seize on an announcement made by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology that claims that the past 10 years are officially the hottest since records began. Apparently a rise in temperature in Australia may have direct significance for making sense of harsh wintry conditions in Britain. They speculate that the cold of the north and the warmth of the south “could be related”. It could be, and no doubt their alarmist imagination will have no problems in linking the two as different forms of extreme weather.

This then flows on to sixteenth century witch hunting and public burning at the stake, which leave me still puzzling over this connection.

Today’s Website

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology – Sydney

I use this site several times a day and was quite surprised on 6 January to see the new format. The old text bulletin was abandoned for a pleasing style.

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/nsw/forecasts/sydney.shtml

Monday

Posted on by

Central Australia

Notes from Xanadu

We travelled to Bowral yesterday and enjoyed the Southern Highlands greeness, coolness and difference to our Inner West — very pleasant.

I have now a first-draft of the Cook-Book and am considering how to migrate it to my web server — not quite sure how to format each recipe as a separate page and will begin testing this.

Climate Change

A further example of the sorry debate over this problem:

Jonathan Leake, “Sea-level theory cuts no ice”, The Australian, 11 January 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sea-level-theory-cuts-no-ice/story-e6frg6so-1225817853987

CLIMATE science faces a major new controversy after Britain’s Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit that suggested global warming could raise sea levels by more than 1.8m by 2100. The studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.

Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: “We think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is completely unsatisfactory.” The new controversy dates back to January 2007 when Science magazine published a research paper by Professor Rahmstorf linking the 17cm rise in sea levels from 1881 to 2001 with a 0.6C rise in global temperature over the same period. Professor Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100. Based on the 17cm increase that occurred from 1881 to 2001, Professor Rahmstorf calculated that a predicted 5C increase in global temperature would raise sea levels by up to 188cm.

Critic Simon Holgate, a sea-level expert at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Merseyside, has written to Science magazine, attacking Professor Rahmstorf’s work as “simplistic”. “Rahmstorf’s real skill seems to be in publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen, when they are guaranteed attention,” Dr Holgate said. Most of the 1881-2001 sea-level rise came from melting glaciers that will be gone by 2050, leaving the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets as contributors. But contributions of these sheets to date has been negligible and researchers say there is no evidence to show that will change in the way Professor Rahmstorf suggests.

Professor Rahmstorf said he accepted many of the criticisms. “I hope my critics are right because a rise of the kind my work predicts would be catastrophic,” he said.

And yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to a well-connected climate change proponent and raised my doubts regarding the data and analyses that I have seen so far. I was told that:

  1. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change is a human induced phenomenon.
  2. The Bureau of Meteorology report is unequivocal that the climate is warming. That the previous Director of the BOM disagreed with the current stance was brushed aside.
  3. The complexity of weather leading to often-inaccurate forecasts does not reflect on the BOM’s ability to analyse climate.
  4. Another example of climate change is the acidification of the oceans.
  5. An American neuro-surgeon was quoted as saying if he procrastinated in medicine as the politicians were over climate change, his patients would all be dead. I thought this ironic considering the current insurance debate and litigation in the USA health system.
  6. Earth scientists, who take a long-term view like Ian Plimer, are wrong – unfortunately I can’t recall why.
  7. The fire threat in South Australia was ludicrous as there was nothing there to burn.
  8. I should have another look at the data, as I was wrong.

This is what I remember this morning and I could be mis-reporting him. But I was left with the impression what he said had the same cant I have been reading and listening too from both sides. I came home no wiser. What currently puzzles me is that after a career analyzing data looking for patterns and discontinuities, I cannot make any sense of what is currently being offered as proof by either side.

Saturday

Posted on by

Madeleine snoozing on her bed of pot shards.

Climate Change

On Wednesday (6 January) I wrote, “It would be useful to now see some climate-change opinion polls for a glimpse of what a sample of Australians think about this issue”. I found a result but is it credible?

“Climate change Australia’s greatest economic risk: survey”, ABCNews, 8 December 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/08/2764753.htm

A study of 115 of the nation’s leaders in the fields of politics, business, the community sector and academia has concluded that the greatest risk to the Australian economy for the next decade is climate change. They say Australian businesses will struggle to cope with the flow-on effects of climate change including water scarcity, droughts and bushfires. The leaders were asked to consider 47 key risk areas and rate them according to how likely they are to happen and how serious that risk could be for the Australian economy. Overwhelmingly, they nominated climate change as the biggest challenge.

The Australian Davos Connection is the not-for-profit organisation behind the report, and chairman Michael Roux says the nation’s leaders are calling for action. “It was quite a surprise to me to see what a significant standout environmental-related matters were,” he said. “Climate change is a very significant factor in terms of people looking forward in terms of planning business or policy or just general concern about society going forward.

“One of the things about this report is how many of the risks are related and, of course, one of the key standouts in terms of this relationship is the requirement for innovation, new technologies, new design that needs to be applied and invested in to look for solutions to some of these problems.

“I think there is a real opportunity here for Australia and for business within the Australian context.”

Who wrote this tosh? ‘Standouts’, ‘…people looking forward in terms of planning business or policy or just general concern about society going forward…’, “…one of the key standouts in terms of this relationship is the requirement for innovation, new technologies, new design…”, and so on.

The 47 key risk areas are listed in Australia Report 2010, and the methodology set out with the warning that “…Care is … needed in interpreting the survey results which are not intended to reflect a statistically accurate estimate of the “true” risks to the Australian economy” p 21. And looking at the ‘Risk Landscape’ on p3, I can’t see that climate-change is “… a very significant factor”. What I do see is that the respondents consider extreme storm activity, droughts and heat waves, water scarcity and bushfires have greater than 20 per cent likelihood of occurring. That is not anything new. I wish our ABC would be a little more analytical when reporting these press releases.

I shall look for more random polling of what Australians think about climate change because that will shape our politicians’ behaviour rather than data analysis.

Social Media

While listening to “A Fresh New Year”, Pods and Blogs, 5 January 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/podsandblogs/ my ears tweaked at the interview with Alan Rusbridger of The Guardian, and how his casual use of Twitter caused public outrage at Trafigura’s attempt to block the publication of a parliamentary question. I mentioned this on the 17 October 2009 but never took any action. I am now following him and PodsandBlogs and will see what news arrives.

The Guardian’s article on Trafigura is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/14/trafigura-fiasco-tears-up-textbook and there are follow-up links.