Following is my review of ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages) as published in The IPA Review, May 2008 (Vol 59/4):
In 2000 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) claimed a species of Cambodian mountain goat, Pseudonovibos sptraits, was endangered with a fragmented population of 2,500 mature individuals. The species was included in the 2003 and 2006 edition of the IUCN Red List of Threatend Species.
But the Pseudonovibos sptrails never existed.
Cambodian artisans had been fooling collectors for years by removing the sheath from the horns of domestic cattle, soaking them in vinegar, heating them in palm sugar and bamboo leaves before moulding and carving the horns and then selling them as wall mounts. There had been no sightings of the goats, and DNA analysis indicated the skull bones to be those of cattle, but the idea of a rare creature that needed saving captured the imagination of the local Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) program manager and he featured the IUCN listing in his fight against land mines and rainforest destruction.
In a new book Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science Aynsley KeIlow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, uses this and other case studies from conservation biology and climate science as examples of ‘noble cause corruption’. The phenomenon is recognised in law enforcement circles where police officers manufacture evidence to ensure a conviction.
The thesis of Kellow’s book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the potential influence of money.
Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences, and he shows how the corruption is facilitated by the virtual nature of much of the science.
After opening with the somewhat comical example of the bogus listing of the mythical Cambodian mountain goat, Kellow gets into the history of conservation biology. He explains how in the early 1980s ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life. The ecosystem approach potentially provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists beginning with the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography.
While the theory could explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonising mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory’s extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally was not justified.
And predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.
It is this approach, in particular the dominance of mathematical models, which makes it possible for groups like Greenpeace to use figures of 50,000-100,000 species becoming extinct every year, with support from the scientific literature, when they would be hard pressed to provide evidence of any actual extinctions.
Furthermore, an ecosystem as Kellow explains is nothing more than a construction: ‘Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off and migrating waterfowl.’
In Science and Public Policy, Kellow shows how the misguided approach to the complexity of ‘ecosystems’ facilitated the subsequent development of climate science as ‘post-normal’ science. Kellow begins by explaining that climate change is an area of science where models inevitably play an important role-there is little scope for laboratory experimentation.
Climate models are constructed using historical data and then tested against the same data. Until about 1996 they produced a warming climate even with constant carbon dioxide. It is a vast undertaking and many scientists involved in modelling future climates have to assume the results of others are correct, and so it becomes partly a construct-dealing with enormous complexity and nonlinear processes.
Furthermore, Kellow details how lapses in scientific standards have occurred-involving the misuse of statistics on emissions scenarios and the incorrect reinterpretation of tree-ring data- which have had the effect of conveniently contributing to the political case for action to mitigate climate change.
The second half of the book is very much about politics beginning with a detailed analysis of the campaign by scientists against statistician Bjorn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World and following with a critique of why there seems to be a closer affinity between environmentalism and left-leaning parties in western democracies and greater hostility towards environmental protection from right-leaning parties.
Kellow argues that there are cultural factors associated with the appreciation of nature that align with political ideologies and that these factors become exaggerated by the now virtual nature of many scientific disciplines. This further facilitates the corruption of science and public policy.
Kellow disputes the claim that the rise of environmentalism simply reflects increasing affluence and a progressive agenda, and considers the history of environmentalism and the myth of the balance of nature in the context of a long tradition of Western thought often involving catastrophic decline from some idyllic past- usually as a result of sin.
The idea of the ‘balance of nature’ persists, even though it is not supported by the observational data, because, if we accept this myth, any change in ecosystems can be attributed to human activity and imparted with a deep social meaning.
Within this paradigm, ecology involves all manner of projections of human values onto observed nature including through the use of terms such as ‘invasive species’ and ‘alien’.
Quoting Robert Kirkman, Kellow suggests that a belief in ecologism provides a moral compass pointing in the direction of holistic harmony, but it is an illusion.
This shift of environmentalism onto a religious plane, coupled with the descent of much of ecology into the virtual world of mathematical modelling has seen the marriage of environmental science to political activism. Classic liberalism, Kellow explains, with its emphasis on separation between the individual and the state, can provide a protection against ‘the darker possibilities of environmentalism’.
The book ends with a warning to scientists to not usurp the role of policy-makers. But rather provide those policy-makers with informed choices.
Indeed public policy is almost never resolved by some piece of scientific information. When science is used to arbitrate it eventually loses its independent status and disqualifies itself.
Science and Public Policy is an important book as a philosophical and historical analysis of environmental activism particularly over the last 30 years.
It will be especially appreciated by naturalists and biologists who remember the good old days when tramping about in work boots observing wild goats at close range or, in my case, collecting live lepidopteron, was encouraged-that is, before the advent of environmental science and sitting at desks crunching numbers for computer models.
Jennifer Marohasy is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
You can buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A good summary, if brief, of the book. It contains a lot of information and well argued recommendations – I needed to read it twice. Science [and scientists] need to be on tap, not on top. Policy is someone else’s job.
The book highlights the similarities between the development of activist environmental science, and the subsequent development of activist AGW climate science. But Kellow stops at policy.
‘Good cause’ corruption has spread to activist implementation in some conservation agencies, undermining due process and the laws they are employed to adminster. Bringing their ‘science’, their law, and their profession, into distrust and disrepute.
Ainsly Kellow deals with this topic from the top down. From the bottom up, those of us who have experienced ‘good cause’ corruption recognise the patterns he outlines. This book is timely.
“Climate models are constructed using historical data and then tested against the same data. Until about 1996 they produced a warming climate even with constant carbon dioxide. It is a vast undertaking and many scientists involved in modelling future climates have to assume the results of others are correct, and so it becomes partly a construct-dealing with enormous complexity and nonlinear processes.”
What a maroon, as bugs bunny used to say. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Maybe he should actually sit down with the scientists and talk to them about their work, rather than just babbling on like an idiot.
“But the Pseudonovibos sptrails never existed.”
What percentage of endangered animals listed are wrong compared to right. My guess would be at least 90%. He’s just cherry picking.
Wrong question SJT, What proportion of so-called endangered species are actually sub-species of a larger population and only owe their rare or endangered status to this bogus segmentation into smaller and smaller groupings?
An example is the “Florida Cougar” that is listed as endangered because the green boofocrats fail to understand that neither the Florida Cougar, the Alabama Cougar nor the Louisiana Cougar give a toss about human state boundaries, especially at mating time.
Another is our own “Little Tern” that is rapidly disappearing, solely due to its penchant for mating with other Terns.
Jackalopes are becoming increasingly hard to find in our area, yet they are not listed as endangered. http://www.sudftw.com/jackcon.htm
Haven’t read the book, but it will be interesting to see how Kellow moves from anecdote to broad application: the goat story was both funny and worrying, but how does he get from instances like that to
“Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences”
Also interesting to see how he justifies closing with
“The book ends with a warning to scientists to not usurp the role of policy-makers. But rather provide those policy-makers with informed choices. ”
That warning assumes that scientists *do* successfully usurp the role of policy-makers, which in my view is not the case.
Perhaps his warning should be that policy makers should not uncritically accept the view of scientists when formulating policy. Again in my view, the govt as a whole generally doesn’t (though i’m sure you could find examples of people who have).
but I’m sure commenters will disagree with me on that. Might get the book to see how Kellow justifies these warnings and claims, though be good if a commenter here could give more of a summary.
I have an example of what Kellow means by “noble causes corruption is rife in the environmental sciences”
In 1990, U.S. policy makers and environmental activists in the Bush Administration were embarrassed by the conclusions of a 10-year, half billion dollar, government-backed scientific assessment that said acid rain was not a problem.
What follows is an account of how EPA Administrator William Reilly delayed release of the report, activists forced costly and unnecessary acid rain provisions into the Clean Air Act, and one scientist was taught a hard lesson in environmental politics.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html
Maybe you Aussies never heard of the acid rain scare, but every American over the age of 30 knows about it. Pictures of browned pine trees were obsequeous on the nightly news. They told us tales of previously abundant lakes filled with trout being rendered toxic and empty of life by the “toxic” rain. They told us it was due to sulfer content in coal fired power plants.
Turns out the soil is acidic due to dead plant matter. Way back before the white men came to America those lakes were toxic due to the natural decomposition of forest litter. Then when Europeans settled and started clear cutting forests, fish which had never lived in some high acid lake found them habitable and prospered.
After “forever wild” legislation stopped the logging in 1915, the watersheds reverted to acid soils and vegetation, and the lakes became acidic again.
This was misdiagnosed as being due to coal.- I’ll bet after you read this more people in Australia will know about it then Americans. That’s how powerful and immoral the eco lobby is here.
Are those Forida cougars the very same ones that raid KFC dumpsters Mott? ‘Bogus segmentation’ eh? So if animals can interbreed endangered subspecies status is not warranted? Populations aren’t important only the ability to mate with something? Yep, that would fit your form. Donkeys and horses and Mott the ass.
Thanks James,
The article on poor old Ed Krug was very interesting. I remember a study in Norway which showed that ‘acid rain’ actually made spruce trees grow faster. I saw no more about it after that. Perhaps the funding dried up, although I think Scandinavian science may be some of the most honest in the world. I’m glad the Danes defended Bjorn Lomborg.
Half bunk James. Recycled mythology.
“Krug and Frink22 originally proposed that increasing the pH of base-poor soils should increase SOM solubility. Although their premise—that surface water acidification would be minimized by the resulting substitution of mineral acids for organic acids—has been widely disproved”
ScienceDaily (Nov. 23, 2007) — Over the last 20 years lakes and streams in remote parts of the UK, southern Scandinavia and eastern North America have been increasingly stained brown by dissolved organic matter. An international team, led by researchers from UCL (University College London) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demonstrates that the colour change is indicative of a return to a more natural, pre-industrial state following a decline in the level of acid rain.
Don Monteith, Senior Research Fellow at the UCL Environmental Change Research Centre, says: “A huge amount of carbon is stored in the form of organic deposits in soils, and particularly in the peatlands that surround many of our remote surface waters. In the past two decades an increasing amount of this carbon has been dissolving into our rivers and lakes, turning the water brown.
Nature 450, 537-540 (22 November 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06316; Received 22 December 2006; Accepted 24 September 2007
Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry
Donald T. Monteith1,11, John L. Stoddard2,11, Christopher D. Evans3, Heleen A. de Wit4, Martin Forsius5, Tore Høgåsen4, Anders Wilander6, Brit Lisa Skjelkvåle4, Dean S. Jeffries7, Jussi Vuorenmaa5, Bill Keller8, Jiri Kopácek9 & Josef Vesely10,12
Abstract
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain recent, widespread increases in concentrations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the surface waters of glaciated landscapes across eastern North America and northern and central Europe1, 2, 3. Some invoke anthropogenic forcing through mechanisms related to climate change3, 4, 5, nitrogen deposition6 or changes in land use7, and by implication suggest that current concentrations and fluxes are without precedent. All of these hypotheses imply that DOC levels will continue to rise, with unpredictable consequences for the global carbon cycle. Alternatively, it has been proposed that DOC concentrations are returning toward pre-industrial levels as a result of a gradual decline in the sulphate content of atmospheric deposition8, 9, 10. Here we show, through the assessment of time series data from 522 remote lakes and streams in North America and northern Europe, that rising trends in DOC between 1990 and 2004 can be concisely explained by a simple model based solely on changes in deposition chemistry and catchment acid-sensitivity. We demonstrate that DOC concentrations have increased in proportion to the rates at which atmospherically deposited anthropogenic sulphur and sea salt have declined. We conclude that acid deposition to these ecosystems has been partially buffered by changes in organic acidity and that the rise in DOC is integral to recovery from acidification. Over recent decades, deposition-driven increases in organic matter solubility may have increased the export of DOC to the oceans, a potentially important component of regional carbon balances11. The increase in DOC concentrations in these regions appears unrelated to other climatic factors.
critical comments:
“Atmospheric deposition can affect soil organic matter (SOM) solubility through at least two mechanisms—by changing either the acidity of soils or the ionic strength of soil solutions, or both. Acid deposition and sea salt can exert similar short-term effects on both processes. Krug and Frink22 originally proposed that increasing the pH of base-poor soils should increase SOM solubility. Although their premise—that surface water acidification would be minimized by the resulting substitution of mineral acids for organic acids—has been widely disproved, SOM solubility has since been linked to soil pH in laboratory23, 24 and field23, 25 studies; soil equilibrium models26 now include the pH dependence of SOM solubility. Soil pH also determines the solubility of aluminium which, when released during the process of soil acidification, can bind with organic molecules, neutralising high-affinity binding-sites and thereby triggering SOM coagulation27.”
“Evidence for our conclusions thus derives from three lines of support: (1) a plausible mechanism; (2) experimental studies showing that our proposed mechanism is capable of causing the observed DOC response; and (3) temporal and spatial coherence of both the ’cause’ (changing atmospheric deposition) and the ‘effect’ (changing DOC levels). Our results provide the first clear, large-scale demonstration that DOC concentrations are sensitive to changes in acid deposition, and, therefore, that declining surface water acidity (mediated by decreasing acid deposition) is being partially offset by increasing organic acidity. Furthermore, they suggest that DOC fluxes from these regions to the oceans may be returning to levels more typical of pre-industrial times.”
“Although acid deposition has affected large parts of Europe and North America, it has not been a global phenomenon. These findings emphasize, therefore, that evidence of rising DOC in these (well-studied) areas should not be misconstrued as evidence of rising DOC in unmonitored waters globally.”
Good one James. That was fascinating. I remember the acid rain scare. I didn’t know that about Krug. It truly is a cautionary tale.
Good read James,
It clearly shows a parallel, to the present CC situation. If you are not prepared to toe the line you will be ostracized.
Luckily times are a changing, at least in this debate.
Pity about Ed Krud and all other scientist in a similar position.
Anyone found any quantitative measurements of acid rain on which this hypothesis is based?
Such as published papers noting comparison between rain and acid rain chemically, from samples collected?
That would be the first port of call I would make before doing a Lukism.
James
Good summary – but it’s guvmint science and hence always politically tainted.
And it’s bunk Louis. Utter bunk. Disproven. Wrong. Pseudoscience that you love. Louis prefers ciggy company science.
Jennifer,
Thanks for the post – though your timing is less than perfect! I’m up to my eyebrows in drafts of theses and exam scripts (not to mention assessments of ARC grant applications), and have to go to Launceston tomorrow for a Senate meeting, but I’d be happy to answer any questions from posters when I can. (I will not, however, respond to trolls who lack the courage to put their own names to their invective. Memo SJT: I’m involved in a climate-oriented CRC and the IPCC; I get to talk to – and observe – plenty of scientists; even the ones I disagree with are prepared to stand by their opinions).
I should correct a spelling error: the name of the Khting Vor is not ‘Pseudonovibos sptrails’ but ‘Pseudonovibos spiralis’.
While I do not deal wih the science associated with acid rain, and do not wish to comment on that, it is an example that relates to my main point about the convenience of some ‘truths’ for both interests and normative positions.
I was researching electricity planning in numerous electric utilities, including Ontario Hydro, in the late 1980s (published by Cambridge University Press as ‘Transforming Power’ in 1996), and the plannners there were extremely concerned about acid rain – so concerned they were happy to advocate closing a coal-fired station. They were also (at a very early stage) very concerned about climate change. You might recall the Toronto Conference (not an official intergovernmental conference) and the ‘Toronto Targets’ it ‘adopted’.
Both of these concerns were convenient for Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Provincial government, the uranium miners and the Atomic Energy agency that was promoting the CANDU reactor because they reinforced the case for further nuclear construction. This is a classic example of what what Langdon Winner referred to as ‘reverse adaptation’, or the adaptation of ends to available means. Put another way, problems are frequently ‘selected’ because they advantage particular means. I wrote a piece on this for the Academy of Social Sciences a couple of years back in a Policy Paper dealing with climate policy under uncertainty, still available from the ASSA website. (Those who think the science is settled would do well to read the paper in that volume by John Zillman, former WMO President and BOM director; yes SJT, I’ve spoken with John).
Anyway, the excitemnt of a Senate agenda awaits, but I’d be happy to repsond to any polite questions or points of discussion.
Let me close by setting out the difference between the estimates of species extinctions advanced by Greenpeace using the species-area model (50,000-100,000pa) and the number of documented species extinctions according the the IUCN: fewer than 2pa. There’s an awful lot of cherries to pick from!
Helen – thanks for readng the book; reading it twice is above and beyond the call!
An excellent review Jennifer of Kellow’s book. I was particularly interested in the attack on Lomberg by Paul R. Ehrlich and his associates. Ehrlich’s strong connection with malthusian doctrine expressed in his “Population Bomb” gives a strong argument that the alarmist agenda may be more about hatred of humanity than anything else. The tribe of chattering classes on this blog counter Kellow’s work by “What a maroon, as bugs bunny used to say. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about” from SJT. I know who has no idea. That entity of many names Luke counters by changing the subject, pathetic. Again I challenge them if they actually believe to show evidence that they have reduced their CO2 to 3 tonnes a year. So warmists put your money where your mouth is or do you just hate humanity?
DHMO,
Germaine Greer has a nice essay in which she notes that Ehrlich describes when he first became concerned about over-population: in a taxi in the middle of Delhi. She suggests it was not just humanity, but what we might call the ‘problematic other’ that concerned him.
Greer, Germaine (1984) ‘The Myth of Overpopulation.’ In Germanine Greer, Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility. London: Picador.
One of the fun points I make against Ehrlich is that his acolytes attack Lomborg for not citing enough peer-reviewed articles (despite the fact the task he sets himself is to look at data such as UN statistics). In the Population Bomb, Ehrlich cites as an authority for a discussion of the fertility of Colombian women an address by one of his Stanford colleagues to the Palo Alto Kwinanas Club!
Luke
Perhaps why don’t is because you can’t.
So you resort to the only weapon left – denigration of your opponents by abuse.
So I assume you cannot come up with one scientically described paper describing the difference between rain and acid rain from measurement, hence your intemperate reaction.
Aynsley
” should correct a spelling error: the name of the Khting Vor is not ‘Pseudonovibos sptrails’ but ‘Pseudonovibos spiralis'”.
Thank heavens for that. I was wondering whether it was a transliteration of Latin spoken by someone with a speech defect, or, more likely, a spelling error made on the label of the manufactured “horns”; but once I worked out that no normal Roman could have uttered that word, (especially considering their method of writing numbers), I guessed it might have been a typo.
(Since the Romans excelled in trade and commerce, one still wonders how they counted using their, to us, incomprehensible notation).
Aynsley I read your book with great interest and greatly appreciate the information you presented. The way you presented the political aspects of the climate change debate gives an insight into the overall process. I recommend to anyone who has not read it get a copy and read it. My particular interest is increasingly environmental computer models. You may be interested in the definition given by a modeler in a book I am currently reading. the definition is “a quasi realistic model of a virtual reality”
James Mayeau,
Great stuff! The fact that the “acid rain crisis” has quietly faded into history, seems to vindicate Edward Krug more than the EPA.
“a quasi realistic model of a virtual reality”
In other words a fictionalised interpretation of a fiction.
No wonder most of us problems countering Luke’s arguments when none of us have any experience whatsoever in that field of endeavour.
Erratum: “of us HAVE problems”
DHMO,
Thank you for your kind remarks. One of the best takes on climate science is that provided by Spencer Weart in his (magisterial) history of the phenomenon, where he states that because modelling (of necessity) involves teams of people rather than individuals, collective decisions must be made, and this is inevitably either a political process (disputes are arbitrated) or a social process (some defer to others).
Weart summarises the situation with a particularly felicitous phrase: climate sceince is inescapably a social construction, but it is not only a social construction. That does, however, underline the need for sceptical contestation (meaning no attempts to close debate by the use of rhetorical terms like ‘denier’) and the need for the testing of hytpotheses against data (data that is subject to Steve McIntyre/Anthony Watts standards of audit and transparency) rather than the interpretation of any troublesome observation as ‘consistent with models’. That is inherently unscientific, but all too typical of the field.
Quasi – “having a resemblance” so reconsidering the phrase “a quasi realistic model of a virtual reality” one interpretation might be:
” a model that resembles virtual reality”.
This description has to rank with Astrophysical black holes which are reifications of mathematical singularities and as nonsensical.
Is it climate science hence a “quasi” religion?
Aynsley,
So you put, in the most polite of terms, that climate science isn’t.
Some of us worked that out decades ago when forced to study it’s academic predecessor at university as undergraduates.
Louis,
I wouldn’t go that far! Much of it is not, in the sense that it does not demonstrate adherence to testing falsifiable hypotheses against observations, but it should be possible to do so. I quote I give from IBM is appropriate: The problem with simulation is that it is like masturbation: if you do it too much, you begin to mistake it for the real thing.
Sounds like Aynsley has signed up with the deniers. But we always knew that.
Spanglers – gee ever wondered why the acid rain issue has disappeared.
Anyway as usual the blog reinforces the view that objectivity is impossible if people can’t read. Louis have you ever considered that you have a very large amount of “special” knowledge that nobody else has – perhaps you’re just lucky eh? And all this knowledge is fabricated from “first principles” with no need to refer to any other works.
Aynsley,
Oh, I understand that and most young geologists these days think mines are found in computer simulations as well, (hate being sent to the field to collect data), but climate, like geology, is hard to test empirically, (not mineral exploration of course, since hypotheses in that area are instantly tested with drill holes), but in the grander narratives we have such as plate tectonics, etc).
Astronomy is in a similar position being in a virtual cul-de-sac in which simulation and mathematics are the principal tools of analysis.
How do we practice the scientific method in these areas when experiment isn’t possible?
The only recourse is to ensure that the fundamental assumptions are empirically determined, and in the case here, climate science, that doubling CO2 results in a specified increase in global surface temperature.
Empirically proven? No.
That’s the problem.
Luke,
My handicap is my training as a scientist, and hence the use of the scientific method.
From your posts here you haven’t suffered this intellectual ordeal and seem happy to accept quasi models of environmental fictions uncritically.
Aynsley as someone who works as an Analyst/Programmer in a major Government computer system I could not agree more. We have about 40 to 50 people employed as Developers, Testers, Business Analysts, Project Leaders and Business users. Our system will not affect the economic prosperity of the planet but it is tested extensively to ensure the correctness of its results and audited. GCMs have super computers but as yet I am unable to find enough information to show a rigorous attention to principles of software engineering. For instance I have one of the GISS models (source and documentation) as yet I have not found information as to the development processes. Yes there are about 20 people but what is the development team structure and is this a full time task or not? 30 years of experience tells it is not easy to produce error free computer systems. Rigorous testing of systems that affect all our lives is essential. I do not think such testing is possible with GCMs you only get probabilities. We are quoted 90% probability they are right. I wonder if said “Mr Gore about this next air trip to the next KYOTO conference there is a 10% chance of crashing + 0r – 5%” would he fly?
That is one of the reasons there are independent teams working on GCMs. I do find it curious, though, that ignorance on your part counts as proof of anything. Using your logic, I’d like to see proof they aren’t just sitting around sipping cocktails all day served by women in playboy costumes. Without evidence otherwise, it’s entirely possible.
DHMO
And probabilities are only methematical expressions of belief, no?
Luke
any references to scientific papers on acid rain? Per previous posts?
So the theory of Acid rain is, at least here, disproved from lack of evidence.
So the theory of Acid rain is, at least here, disproved from lack of evidence.
http://www.vtwaterquality.org/bass/htm/bs_acidrain-vt.htm#freqd
Lakes are still acidic in Vermont.
http://www.mainesalmonrivers.org/cgi-bin/webdata_pro.pl?_cgifunction=form&_layout=news&keyval=news.new_id=7
Rivers are still acidic in Maine.
http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/news/pdfs/Acid%20Rain%20-%20Maine%20Sunday%20Telegram,%20Dec%202002.pdf
Money quote from that PDF (don’t bother clicking) – ORONO — A pollutant that is an important component of acid rain has declined substantially across the northeastern United States during the past decade. But the change has so far resulted in little improvement in the overall chemistry of the region’s acidic lakes and streams, according to a new national evaluation of the 1990 Clean Air Act.
“The bottom line is that in most regions there’s been a tiny improvement in the acidity of lakes
and streams,” said Steve Kahl, director of the University of Maine’s Sen. George Mitchell Center
for Environmental and Watershed Research, who led the evaluation for EPA.
Louis,
I agree with you on the problems of making adequate predictions about the whole climate system – but then if you CAN’T generate accurate predictions you shouldn’t use expressions like ‘the science is settled.’ I agree that the recent flatlining doesn’t amount to an end to warming, but what has caused it? A sudden re-emergence of sulphate aerosols that were fudged in the models (even though we had inadequate data) to tune them to the post-war decline that we now have to reinterpret thanks to a few dodgy bucket samples? There are still particular observations that are falsifiabe: assumptions about positive feedback from water vapour. Jennifer has previously pointed to the first results from Aqua that don’t fit the prediction. (Another scientist I know tells me the same ‘problem’ exists in the radiosonde data). If that does turn out to be the case, then future warming would be substantially more moderate – perhaaps more in line with the observed relationship between CO2 and tempterature OBSERVED over the past century or so. It’s the preference for the modle results over observations that is the problem – a tendency even James Hansen has criticised.
Interesting stuff. I believe there is an emerging need for historians of science.
I do not consider that history will regard our modelers with the esteem they feel is warranted.
Hissink – your inability to research is legendary.
“So the theory of Acid rain is, at least here, disproved from lack of evidence.” _ WHAT THE – on James’ say-so coz that’s what YOU would like to believe and op-ed on some kook. LMAO.
5 minutes work would give you heaps of evidence.
James – why would you expect instant recovery?
A. Kellow, thank you for joining the discussion. As a lurker here, I thought I would weigh in with my 2 cents. I appreciate that you are here and it will help people such as I to get familiar with your work, even if we don’t buy your book. Hope you don’t mind too much. I was wondering if in your book you pointed out the all, too typical, human condition of having to make a decision with incomplete information; and how this facilitates those with a definite “vision” of what the “truth” is? After all models give us the ability to go wrong with the utmost confidence of being right…apologies to R. Heinlein.
Whether acid rain is true or not in terms of damamge seen in the East Coast U.S., people are paid to look at such and make reasonable suggestions to their potential abatement. I have found that this interface, of unknown science and desired outcome, is often the most interesting in environmental or ecological considerations.
For several posters: People remember winners more often than losers. Such as was it DDT or PCB’s that caused fragile shells/eggs. No matter what the truth is, use or refusing to use DDT for malaria control had impact. Note for those who want to knock or defend IPCC, malaria was eradicated in temperate areas with DDT. It is considered a “tropical” disease because the DDT program was less effective for tropical areas due to life cycle constraints, not that the original complaint of building Washington D.C. being a malarial swamp was untrue, or that one of the major problem areas for malaria was the Balkans, perhaps shades of Dracula, lol.
Ainsley, two reads is no big deal. I often start with a fast read to get the argument of the book. Then if the book warrants, follow with a slower read to absorb more details. Your book, though expensive, warranted the second read. Well presented, well referenced, well done.
To lurker here; G’Day John.
Yes; Aynsley writes his stuff brilliantly and all that, good on him too but were are on Bookseller’s Inc here. BTW I suspect he is a good bloke after comments by other sources closer to home.
However I don’t believe a word of it.
Reasons? Its all purely academic in style and design with a highly focused agenda that favors “free enterprise”. Aynsley works in a state that must maintain industrial development at any cost according to a few at the top of their enterprise.
Glancing through this thread for the first time this morning I noticed the discussion re acid rain. Luke picked up on it too. Anyone working in our post war industry would know about the extensive campaigns to clean up flue gasses and other effluents over decades, at least in the western economies. That btw was my biz on and off downunder.
There is another guide that dates Aynsley’s stuff and it’s the parallel programs in our manufacturing for transport industries with their clean up of emissions along the way to greater fuel and capital efficiencies we so desperately need in this expanding world of human enterprise.
This week I wrote about government support favoring continued manufacturing of the midrange family car in contrast to our needs at the small and big ends of engine design.
For instance trucks evolve here via the innovation of small business in Tasmania, not the other way round. Supporting that skills base is far more important than academia.
DHMO: As one who was at the commissioning end of automation in engineering and science longer than most, there is a simple way to ground all systems when ends don’t meet. We get on the phone and talked to the guy still in the field.
Creating an empire out of “data” sets is as much a minefield as maintaining the “sand” castle on the high tide line. We begin by pegging the claim and that the bit requiring experience.
” Aynsley as someone who works as an Analyst/Programmer in a major Government computer system I could not agree more. We have about 40 to 50 people employed as Developers, Testers, Business Analysts, Project Leaders and Business users. Our system will not affect the economic prosperity of the planet but it is tested extensively to ensure the correctness of its results and audited. GCMs have super computers but as yet I am unable to find enough information to show a rigorous attention to principles of software engineering. For instance I have one of the GISS models (source and documentation) as yet I have not found information as to the development processes. Yes there are about 20 people …..”
This post by you DHMO is excellent and most telling.
I would also like to add that if one applies the basic rules of Systems Analysis and Design it begins by creating a proper Problem Definition.
With AGW, all they have done is do some slick modelling, that is poorly tested against reality and now trying to force the issue with policy makers as to what the Problem is.
The Policy makers in turn are not doing any real home work and relying upon the the IPCC,which is mainly comprised of people who are party to these dubious models in the first place (if not the very same people),to now produce the Problem Definition. If I have learnt anything in IT over the last few decades it would be that this is a recipe for a disaster.
With that clown Garnaut now just accepting it all as a given fact, then one just has to give up and let it run its course ..with the outcome highly likely to be to our detriment.
..and they call themselves scientists.
Thank you Gavin. I am a professional in the environmental field for just over 20 years. I would say that sometimes acedemia as in “Its all purely academic in style and design with a highly focused agenda that favors “free enterprise” “could apply even more to the proponents of AGW or even the drought of the Murray Darling Basin minus the “favors free enterprise” quote. Consider the MDB and comparing the current drought and the “Federal” drought (hope I have named all these correctly, I am from the USA). I note that one item that should not be disputed is that population and therefore agriculture would make the current drought significantly different from the federal that would not support AGW, and was a bit glossed over. When one considers that Australia has been encouraging exportation of agricultral goods, the tendancy to irrigate in the basin would be greater than just population or coloric intake of Australians would indicate. The reason for the encouragement is that committments to Walmart and other “discount” buyers are long term committments that can usually only be achieved with irrigation not natural rainfall. To compare pan evaporation rates or just the effect of temperature with the discussion of a water basin now in a modern agricultral setting with agricultral at the turn of the past century is more than a bit naive. Not that it contradicts AGW, but to use this as a discussion without inputs and outputs is at best “desktop jockey syndrome” at its worst, which we in America would translate as your “acedemia that favors free enterprise” quote. I would expect that the authors of many of the papers discussed these issues and it would be correct and enlightening for both sides to post the appropriate quotes to show how modern impact effects such claims as AGW imprint that is plainly visible in the Murray Basin, or not.
Such enlightening quotes from this book, or contrary articles would be well recieved by all that wish to discuss this book.
For he is Aynsley Kellow
And he’s a jolly good fellow
Oh he’s a jolly good felloooooow!
And so say all of us (except Luke and SJT).
Seriously, in the madhouse of climate drivel, Aynsley is a refreshing voice of sanity. Gary Gulrud mentioned the importance of history to science. Some of us believe that both natural and social sciences are largely impossible without an awareness of history.
David Hume said that ‘History is not only a valuable part of knowledge, but opens the door to many parts, and affords materials to most of the sciences.’ Humanities rule, okay?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p345.htm
From the Oregon Petition, letter K page,
“… T. Krueger, Loren L. Krueger, Burke B. Krueger, Thomas A. Krueger, James D. Krueger, MD, EDDWIN H. KRUG, Keith Krugh, Geddy J. Krul, MD, Jack K. Krum, PhD, Glenn L. Krum, Ann …”
Sickeningly obsequious Brown Davey esq (sellout, now march up the back on demos)
The importance of history – “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana
– obviously meant for matters of climate variation and use of the land.
And so any good manager needs to know whether the last 100 hundred years is a good guide for the next 100.
(Federation drought – J Pittman). http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/drought1.htm
Some have termed the current drought – “the Millennium drought”.
Not to be confused with the Millennium Falcon
http://www.javierayuso.com/starwars/ships/MillenniumFalcon.jpg
Of course George also said “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” But what would he know.
Bugger orf Davey.
James re http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p345.htm – which shows why California has earthquakes. Go on – ask why.
George Santayana properly quoted:
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians.”
Geez Davey I hope you can get the brown stain off your nose.
>In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted
Obviously in the last stage too…
Are we allowed to post nonsense?
What am I thinking. Luke is in permanent
residence, so of course we are.
Aynsley Kellow, to you, Ed Krug, and all the
unsung heros who have raised the Distant Early Warning,
I salute you.
SJT
Do you realise you put your foot in your mouth with practically everything you write here. Refering to me you said “that ignorance on your part counts as proof of anything. Using your logic, I’d like to see proof they aren’t just sitting around sipping cocktails all day”. This the most stupid thing I have read in a long time. You are saying that someone who understands a great deal about computer systems should just accept anything on faith just by being told. Everything I know about the production of computer systems causes me to reject the gospel of the climate modelers. Only someone with an IQ of a sheep would accept anything with no understanding of how such results are come by. You seem to have faith and belief not much else.
James, according to those papers, Ed Krug is slill only a young feller [60], what’s he do these days?
Luke, we know about the “millenium” drought.
Australia has one going on all the time somewhere.
Good grief – my conclusion re acid rain was on target after all – thanks to checking up who Ed Krug is. Thanks James – worthwile distraction while I abuse MapinfoPro for some Excel sheets hassles.
“Some people don’t like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.
It was a message that environmentalists didn’t want to hear. One woman hissed at him, “You need to take a reality check.”
I wonder if the hissy woman is actually a US version of Luke?
This statement is compelling:
“Because much of the soil in the Northeast and eastern Canada is acidic, many scientists simply assumed that acid rain ran off directly into streams and lakes and made them acidic. Unless acid rain was stopped, the problem would intensify and more and more lakes and streams would become unfit for fish and other aquatic life.”
The parallel with CO2 is eerie – paraphrasing it – many scientists simply assumed that CO2 entering the atmosphere would warm it.
It’s basically politically correct science.
“Are we allowed to post nonsense?”
You did, so why bother asking?
All this denier gullibility in the words of the messiah is most amusing.
Obviously not this Messiah http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home/welcome.html Apparently died and buried in Kashmir and thus not about to return.
Climate realists are not expecting any Messiah to appear, though expecting impending doom by the climate alarmists smacks more of the expected ending times before the Messiah arrives than anything else.
John: The problem with all smarties who merely learnt things from a book, is they have a limited grasp on truth at the grass roots.
As I look out my window at the Brindabella skyline I notice all of it fits neatly between a pair of half open Venetian blind slats. Lets say there is virtually no deviation apparent from this position and my house must be built dead level, however I used to do weekend sorties up there with the local SES studying two way radio propagation for emergencies. Mt Coree is quite high at 1421 m but there are some big shadows underneath.
Since you mentioned the MDB I say it has a parallel as far south as Hobart in terms of drought and an old tree there can tell us much about the climate and other major natural events, as would one from Hans Heysen country. I returned to Tasmania in 1967 and traveled the burnt country where many unfortunate people and towns suffered on a particularly bad day.
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/drought.htm
Raging bushfires are another indicator of our climate variability. Keeping up with the science of our native forests and wildfire impacts is a must as we exploit the landscape.
Dismissing the probability of climate and sea level change is just too easy. Maintaining the viability of natural resources is a complex business too, if it be low grade ore near the granite a mile under or milk and potato yields above. Making measurements and creating data bases is only one step. Establishing a simple reference is mandatory.
Sensationalizing yarns and creating fake goats is not the way to go about it however I recall one story that leaves the listener with a useful impression of conditions at a particular time for Australian forces stationed in the islands north of this country during WW2. Lads left behind Macarthur’s final push pulled up their beach protection and used star pickets to make Samurai swords with battle wear as “souvenirs” for any passing Americans Understanding Oz tradition and knowing a farmer could make a piece of steel into any tool, I believed it. Proof of the scam came years later via a volunteer metal restorer working on rusty relics in the Annex of the War Memorial.
My question is, does this sort of detail change history?
Enlightenment is not a club thing hey
Krug’s a dud like our good mate Solomon. Pure bull !
In 5 mins a quick whip around gives about a gazillion studies that drives a Mac truck through the utterly stupid arguments that have been received so uncritically here by the resident blog gimps.
yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/ab3097d1d9bebc7a85256cbe004e0a35!OpenDocument
scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=22&idContribution=1168
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070928101154.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050322120331.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001023171305.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000814021041.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990315081321.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990512075448.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991007101057.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980928072644.htm
But don’t bother reading them or you’ll have to give up banjo lessons.
As for our mate Solomon well well well …
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/who_is_lawrence_solomon_and_wh.php
What a guy ! What a dude. 5 minute on him and NPP is pretty interesting too. Ah yes the sweet sweet smell of manure on freshly laid astroturf. Wonder it didn’t get a run in Aynsley’s book eh?
Luke does not show how amazingly stupid arguments have been received so uncritically by examples and does his usual, bone lazy, method of URL deluge to support his case.
Luke, you haven’t made your case because you attack the man not the argument.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070928101154.htm
Read this article and you will find that they sampled the creeks and lakes etc but no mention of sampling rain.
So they assume it’s due to acid rain when it could be due to other causes.
Anyone know of any data on the chemical composition of rain and whether rigorous sampling programs of rain analysis over areas alleged to suffer from acid rain effects are reported anywhere?
Gavin,
Nonsense, Nonsense and more Nonsense. “I say it has a parallel as far south as Hobart in terms of drought and an old tree there can tell us much about the climate and other major natural events,”. Trees can tell us many things but climate is not one of them. The ability to determine whether it was good rainfall or optimum temperature that resulted in a trees growth just does not exist. Yes some dendrochronologislts have made a number of academic studie sin this regard but central to all of these is the use of other data to try and determine either rainfall or temperature. This does not even take into account a myriad of other influences on growth such as nutrient availability, soil type etc. All that we are really able to determine from tree ring analysis is that a growing season may have been above average, or average, or below average. Indeed we would need a very long chronological sequesnce to even determine such factors.
Dendrochronology is one of the most difficult forms of analysis and is not for the faint hearted. Matt Brookhouse at the ANU is doing some interesting work with Eucalypts but for other than snow gums the methodology is still suspect. Perhaps it is even with snow gums.
John F. Pittman: ‘I was wondering if in your book you pointed out the all, too typical, human condition of having to make a decision with incomplete information; and how this facilitates those with a definite “vision” of what the “truth” is? After all models give us the ability to go wrong with the utmost confidence of being right.’
John, my paper on climate policy under uncertainty is available as a free download at:
http://www.assa.edu.au/publications/op.asp?id=75
I’d recommend the paper by Warwick McKibbin, especially if you are interested in how policy mechanisms such as tradeable emissions permits might incorporate the uncertainty inherent in climate change. McKibbin’s proposal does not require a ‘cap’ as is required with a ‘cap and trade’ regime, such as is being pursued by Garnaut in his review in Australia. (Garnaut is a fine economist, but you’ll be lucky to find any publication track record prior to his current commission by his former Third Secretary in the Beijing embassy; McKibbin has a long list of publications in climate change).
Ironically, electric utilities had to develop approaches to electricity planning that explicitly incorporated the costs of uncertainty; the climate change project includes the same mistakes as the old deterministic approaches to forecasting followed by the utilities in the bad old days, best described by the observation about planning in India, where it was once observed that more was known about the future than about the present or the past.
The most egregious example of this is probably the Stern Review: assume real costs of extreme weather events escalate at REAL rate of 2% pa; discount future costs ande benefits at a rate of about 0.1% (according to estimates by good economists like Dasgupta and Nordhaus). Not surprisingly, we should pay an enormous price NOW to avoid these future costs. Just don’t tell the public that half the costs that justify this action occur after the year 2800. It helps justify high taxes, though it increasingly looks like the British public is not buying it. Incidentally, Stern’s rate of of time preference, Britain should be saving about 97% of it’s current GDP for the future, but it only has a saving rate of around 16%. Still, Sir Nicholas is now Lord Stern, so he’s been well rewarded for his efforts.
Climate change inescapably presents a problem of making decisions under uncertainty, and there are ways of approaching it as such, rather thanm assuming we know with any real certainty what the future will hold in a non-linear cuopled system. The McKibbin prescription is one approach; the Garnaut approach assumes he knows what the cap should be – which he doesn’t (indeed, can’t).
Pandanus: “Trees can tell us many things but climate is not one of them”
You may have missed my comments re snow gums and their twisting forms when growing under stress. Eucalypt habits do record change including climate.
Another tree I have looked at in various locations is messmate, E oblique. It achieves giant status in some places and is long lived.
Louis writes:-
>Anyone found any quantitative measurements of acid rain on which this hypothesis is based? Such as published papers noting comparison between rain and acid rain chemically, from samples collected?
And:-
>Anyone know of any data on the chemical composition of rain and whether rigorous sampling programs of rain analysis over areas alleged to suffer from acid rain effects are reported anywhere?
Then writes:-
>does his usual, bone lazy, method of URL deluge to support his case.
In the meantime we get sweet FA from Louis, who is too bone lazy to look anything us himself, except a Sciencedaily URL!!! Classic.
Travis
The Science daily link was Luke’s first link in his post which I used to show he had not really read it.
So back off before you make a totall ass of yourself.
Just in case the Travis’s here don’t understand, but when a scientists measures the pH of a lake or river or water way, one assumes that during the period of study relevant rainfall in the catchment areas was also chemically tested to support the hypothesis that it was acid rain that caused the acidification of the creeks, rivers and lake under study.
So my request for that information is valid and made because I can’t find any.
And I wait, as I await Ender’s proof that biomass when buried to the pressures and temperatures associated with diagenesis capable of spontaenously producing kerogens.
Travis
You also seem to be chronologically challenged – your listing of my posts is basically wrong – you have put my posts out of sequence and thus lied.
Normal for your side.
One thing is for certain; while we had photochemical smog, everyone could see it.
What’s the bet? The longer we procrastinate over the viability of tradable climate uncertainties on the futures market, the more likely it becomes that we get a stern regulatory regime like we had with growing industrial pollution through the 1960’s and 70’s. Aynsley, anyone?
Travis,
I erred, it was Luek’s third url which I checked and posted here, not his first.
Apologies offered.
Oh booring Louis. Grow up and do some reading. You’re rabbitting and talking so much drivel that you’re an embarrassment. .
Gavin,
The initial premise that emitting CO2 is a problem, is scientifically flawed.
As I understand it, Stern’s proscription is simply to tax human breath.
Anyone who thinks carbon trading is a useful thing to do is barking mad.
Luke, I just realised, you post black posts! The equivalent of black holes – densely featured items of ought.
(wonders why Luke and his loonies keep baiting me, since the net effect is to boost my web-footprint, which might not be what they want, but hey, stupid is as stupid does)
Louis are you really that dense – you’re dealing with guys who do this professionally – you’ve read one piece of utter drivel from James and off you go on an ill-informed ridiculous rant. I’ve just read one of Evans’ papers in Global Change Biology and I think any further discussion would be wasted on halfwits like you. Yes you tedious little man they do have the full history of these research areas.
“Louis are you really that dense – you’re dealing with guys who do this professionally ”
What lie?
And Luke, you have yet to come up with any evidence for my requests for measured data on acid rain.
That no one else seems to be able to supply the information strongly suggests that it does not exist.
Perhaps the reason for the silence here.
Re my reply to Gavin
Taxing human breath can be extrapolated to taxing human activity that uses resources (hydrocarbons) essential to life.
Our burning of hydrocarbons as a species should be condsidered normal – whether life as a simple bacterium or as a complex assembly like an animal, life exists because of the availibility of energy, hydrocarbons.
We are a carbon-based life-form and taxing carbon is nothing more than taxing life.
Louis: “you have yet to come up with any evidence for my requests for measured data on acid rain”
Mate you aren’t trying either
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DA113BF93AA25755C0A96F948260
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/environ/acid.html
Gavin
Neither of your quotes detail measurement of rain which is deemed acidic for the areas in contention.
Fail.
Folks: Most of the stuff I googled on acid rain and burning sulphur was for school kids.
Louis the geologist and Aynsley the expert author would have read that famous book “The Peaks of Lyell”. It documents the history of Queenstown in Tasmania where sulphur clouds from copper smelting devistated forests for miles around.
As I tramped that region there was plenty of time to contemplate bothe the history and the evidence.
BTW I saw the last smelter working.
Another process at Burnie started to “burn” the trees on Round Hill however the acid plant was closed down before those hills became denuded.
I’m sure Aynsley has access to details. Lets ask him hey
Gavin,
I too went there, observed the effects of mining, and remain ambivalent – the stuff we mined was, is natural.
Your problem, intellectually, not mine, it’s natural unless you propose banning metal deposits.
‘Densely featured items of ought’. I like that. Good description of GCMs.
========================
What next?
Condemming the Canadian Beaver for making dams?
Hissink we’re not your private research wing – there’s a massive literature on this subject – get off your lazy butt and read it before talking any more rot.
There is a massive literature on Canadian Beaver Dam building.
Gosh!
Luke, why did you post a series proving Krugs
point, and then you pretend it meant the opposite.
Do you get paid to lie?
Luke you asked way up in the thread – if I expected instant results.
Maybe not in lakes, but in rivers and streams, hell yes.
Even in lakes I expect more then a tiny sporatic improvement, which can be detected one year and not the next, or by one investigator and not the next.
Jennifer – could you add a bibliography/hotlink for recommended reading?
A. Kellow thanks. It was an interesting read. However, in terms of economics, it would appear that using a free market approach would still be the most economic and effective method for both mitigation and adaptation. This is due to the continued misuse (political) of funds, and that at present energy consumption is increasing. The unintended consequences applies to the proposed “Blueprint” as it applies to all government actions. The lobbying efforts for yearly permits could easily swamp the long term objectives and encourage cheating or free-riding. However, whether $1 or $10 a ton, it increases costs and generates a “false” signal to the economy. With the rapid increase in fuel costs, and expected long term trend due to India and China, why propose a cost (regulatory requirements ALWAYS incurr cost or cannot be expected to be enforceable) when prices are already growing faster than GDP? The old term of nega-watt has been making a comeback. I note that the public protest mentioned has decicedly increased in the past year. Increased cost of fuel has already encouraged consumers and industry to reduce their carbon footprints -mitigation. At present, economic concern has led the US to reject the typical cap and trade tax scheme in favor of free market due to the concern that the economy will be so poor that adaptation will be unaffordable. With these new inputs, can a successful agument be made to support typical regulatory intervention rather than free market incentives? If so, what form would they take in today’s energy/economic market and what is expected for longterm, i.e. China and India continuing to develop and are proceeding with manufacturing automobiles designed for their needs?
I also am curious, as an aside, on your opinion of the present economic policies that encourage and have caused less energy efficient industry in China and India to replace more energy efficient industry in other countries. With this trend continuing, has not the world committed itself to mainly adaptation rather than mitigation? And at increased carbon loading? But to propose trade tariffs at this point would encourage increased instability in the world market that already has several economies strongly influencing a repeal of mitigation. Increased costs due to tariffs or taxes will tend to only increase the political pressure to stop mitigation.
Gavin,
I published a paper on NW Acid at Burnie in the 1980s, after my first stay in Tasmania. Unlike Queenstown, where the problem was mostly roasting ores, but partly using surrounding trees for fuel, NW Acid was an early attempt to use sulphur from metal ores to produce sulphuric acid, rather than elemental sulphur. The plany had problems and closed after pressure from residents, too close to whom it had been sited. But the idea was a good one – SOx are recoverd from Xtrata’s Mt Isa smelter to prouduce acid and then high test superphosphate using rock from Phosphate Hill and gas from the Jackson field.
John F. Pittman,
There is a big problem with modelling COx emissions trading on SOx, which is essentially what has happened. The problem with most policy responses (including Kyoto) is that they actually ignore the science on the characteristics of the substance.
One problem is the uncertainty with COx over effects that are, if you like, chronic, whereas the impact of SOx is more acute. CO2 is a problem of ‘stocks’ (accuulated levels), whereas Kyoto focuses on annual emissions as if it were a problem of ‘flows’.
CO2 has a notional residence time of 100 years, yet it also has a logarthmic effect, so the effect of China’s emitting a tonne now is less than Germany or the UK emitting one in 1900 as it industrialised.
I pointed out in a short piece in Nature last year that the misrepresentation of the science of CO2 has serious consequences for the development of international policy. As Brazil pointed out in the Ade Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (where the Kyoto architecture was developed), burdens should be allocatedon the basis of historical contributions. This made (by the base year of 1990) Europe the largest contributor, NOT the US. (It’s changed a bit since then). Because of the flow definition and the 1990 base year problem (Britain’s ‘dash to gas’ and Germany reunification bbegan that year), Kyoto required least of those who had doen most to cause the problem.
This remains the sticking point in post-Kyoto negotiations, though Japan is arguing for an end to the 1990 base year problem.
But the time element means emissions by India and China now are less important, though they would become more important with time if Annex I parties did mitigate. That’s why the acceptance by China of aspirational targets related to energy efficiency in the Sydney Declaration was significant, because they accepted ANY target for the first time and there is time and opportunity (they can probably improve energy efficiency 30% at no cost).
My understanding is that China is building the first hypersupercritical pulversied coal power station, with efficiency in the high 40s. Ausralia’s best is (supercritical) Milmerran at around 40%, but better than 25%+ in La Trobe Valley brown coal stations. Integrated gasification combined cycle will give even better, and facilitate carbone capture.
There’s a lot to be gained by the churning of plant over time, and fuel-switching to gas, and that will happen. But I also like the ‘Hansen Alternative Scenario’ that draws attention to other forcing agents that can be mitigated more easily (in a technical sense), at lower cost or with substantial co-benefits.
The best example is the inefficent combustion of biofuels in place like India. The forcing effects of black carbon soot have subesquently been confirmed in a paper in Nature last year (I could dig out the reference for you, but Luke could probably Google it for us all), but indoor air pollution currently kills c150,000 mostly women and children pa.
The problem is getting the policy sufficiently informed by the science in the face of efforts by the likes of the EU who are advantaged by the current problem construction and the NGOs who want it to be all about CO2. (Even Hansen was excoriated for suggesting a problem definition that didn’t suit the preferred solution).
James why would Krug’s article have a picture of him taking a water sample in a naturally occurring acid water Australian stream? SO WHAT – pure paff. Does the occurrence of naturally occurring systems in another part of the world mean anything? He could also have taken a picture in the Amazon or any number of places in the world with naturally acidic waters.
So James do you get paid to lie and astroturf.
Do you get paid to list a single article out of context, with no reference to any modern literature, no other reading, and assert that it solely is correct.
What gives you the right to cherry pick some partisan bullshit from redneck central and parade it as the real deal.
So I might the same – this is what skunkwatch says about Reason Magazine. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation – why am I not surprised eh?
There is a large international literature on acidification. The chemistry is complex. You have not looked at any of it.
If you think you should get instant results in waterways after acidification – well documented unnatural acidification which has nuked the local fauna and changed lots of surrounding chemistry – with some ongoing pollution still about – well aren’t you a massive dill.
James – do seriously think we came down in the last shower (of acid rain !)
Disgraceful.
I’m still waiting for Louis to provide some links to show he can read other’s work and understand it.
As for blaming others for your ‘web-footprint’, since my last post there has been a total of 27 posts, of these 14 have been from you, and of these 10 are utter tosh. As for your comment…
>(wonders why Luke and his loonies keep baiting me, since the net effect is to boost my web-footprint, which might not be what they want, but hey, stupid is as stupid does)
You proved that effortlessly!
Regardless of my chronological order for your comments Hissink, it comes to the same conclusion. You are too lazy to provide referenced information yourself yet criticise your opponents when they do.
Travis
I am still looking for papers documenting the PH values of rain that is tghought to cause the acidification of lakes and rivers. So far I have been unsuccessful. Luke’s links were science daily reports written by journalists.
I have a vague idea the data doesn’t exist.
So You accuse me of being lazy?
And just how does pointing to a link indicate I can read other’s work and understand it?
You are like Ender – he has still to show how biomass can be transformed into kerogen at diagenetic pressures and temperatures to prove petroleum is fossil fuel.
And I am wondering where are the measurements of rain demonstrating its acidity for the bodies of water that are interpreted to be acidic as a result of acid rain.
And I see Luke has escaped into the “its very complex and here is all the chemistry” but hey, how about some rain measurements to accompany the scientific paper detailing the acidity of the water ways?
It’s eco-science – politically biassed science.
Utter drivel Hissink.
You haven’t even twigged to what’s going on in Monteith’s paper. You want some science papers that you won’t read do you??? You know full well that anything tabled will be summarily dismissed by yourself.
No matter how much you’ve been utterly embarrassed on your total level of ignorance of science processes, you’ll still rabbit on.
And yes you are bone lazy.
Written by “science” journalists doing specialty reports on science. The ScienceDaily reports are quick skim of research trends and breaking papers in major science (gee I didn’t realise that says Louis) – even a complete numb nuts could chase down the full papers behind those stories and quickly realise that science may just have a few clues and that the issue is international in scope. All of which I note you have made no comment on.
So what do you Hissink, think of the trends in North America and Europe mean with respect to DOC?
Do you think ANC is the African National Congress?
You answer is:?? …………………….. This I have to wait for. Is that crickets chirping?
And oh look there’s a whole bloody monitoring network http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/msc/as/acid_poster_e.html that measures sulphate deposition. OMIGOD !
Hey Hiissink – what’s this a picture of:
http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/msc/as/images/collect1.gif
Might it be a …………… hmmmm ……. let’s see …… hard – hurts to think …… hmmmm…. I give up …..
oh could it be a An Environment Canada Acid Precipitation Collector – no it’s a pigeon nest box.
And to think all I did was ask for papers detailing the measurement of pH in rain water……. from such humble starts such monumental Lukisms develop.
Ah the price of profaning the litany of eco-religion.
So waiting for your answer mate ! Come on put up time …. you’ve bought in – finish off or desist !
A Kellow thanks for your insight and I agree that the SOx model may have been a bit oversubscribed. Though I would like to point out that even though due to the assumed natural log relationship of CO2 forcing and temperature means that what China emits now has less impact than what occurred in 1900, that same relationship works in the opposite sense as we try to approach 1990, 1980, 1880, take your pick. The easist and cheapest CO2 reduction will have the least effect. This is implicit from the model. The most important will be the hardest. (For those not used to this type of relationship, it is a common problem expeirenced in designing equipment and solutions for almost all physical relationships and is commonly referred to as the law of diminishing returns). Implicit for this relationship and the economic models are several points. As you pointed out, increased CO2 has less effect and therefore it would pay for all to “cheat” now. As we get closer and closer to the setpoint; it gets harder and harder. Therefore it pays for an individual entitiy to cheat and go for a “free ride”. The problem is that we have now bounded the problem such that it pays to cheat at the beginning, and it pays to cheat at the end. In such cases unless draconian measures are taken, hardly likely in democratic nations, the free market solution has a chance to work, but the regulatory approach between cheating and unintended consequences has a less likely chance to succeed. The study we use in the US is the New York City Rent regulations. They were designed to provide lower rent and in particular low rent housing and accomplished the opposite. At present, we can see the same effect occurring in China and India. I think it would be a poor assumption to think that other underdeveloped nations would not use either model (China or India) to start developing themselves and “cheat” since it pays to. Eugene P. Odum and Howard T. Odum prior to 1987 established that energy use, development, and man were entwined. At present, man does not “develop” without using energy and the cheapest, most readily accessible energy is still fossil fuels.
>Ah the price of profaning the litany of eco-religion.
No Louis, the price of being critical of research without necessarily providing alternative data to back up your views. THAT is called good science, something you hold in high regard one minute then disgard the next. I’m not talking about your thoughts or anecdotes, but literature or reports. To be fair, you are nowhere near as bad as Schiller, who provides zip, but you both have the tendancy to banter inanely, trying to be ‘funny’ when cornered before slinking off into the cybersphere.
Science Daily reports may be written by journalists, but they are usually rooted in some sort of published science.
Isn’t Ender waiting for you to cough up some facts and figures on something?
Let’s see what is this a plot of???
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=phLab-mg&PlotSize=Small
Oh look a pH trend from here: ….
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?net=NTN&id=NH02
nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=SO4-mg&PlotSize=Small hmmmm sulphate going down
nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=NO3-mg&PlotSize=Small and wow nitrate too
Oh look a whole network !
http://bqs.usgs.gov/acidrain/index.htm
You’re a mug Hissink. perhaps you could teach them about JORC or JOKE – ROTL !
“Acid Rain Watershed Interactions Revisited:
Until recently, the scientific consensus has been that acid-rain-watershed interactions are those of processes which predominate in deep, well-drained mineral soil and the waters derived from them. In such watersheds alkaline minerals dissolve to naturally impart alkalinity to surface waters and normally acid components in rain would be neutralized.”
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/docs/letters/NatureAcid08B.pdf
Scientific consensus? That means they don’t really know, do they. Monteith then describes an alternative hyopthesis in the letter to Nature.
And I also came across the NADP site and yes, it’s all a non problem as the EPA was initially told in the first place.
Such a big problem that the last maps are for 2006, and the acidic rain (pH ~4.3) is restricted to the NE portion of the US in those maps. Nothing in California! Just weakly acidic rain due to carbonic acid.
My initial question was that if Scientist A discovered an acidic lake, were pH measurements of the rainfall into that lake taken to support the hypothesis, and is it described in any paper.
I haven’t found one yet.
So I suspect acid rain has more to do with the acid trips you indulge yourself with than physical reality, especially if its all based on “scientific consensus”.
NO ! -you asked for acid measurements. NOW you have them and are changing your tack.
Your reference merely summarises what I comprehensively referenced above from NATURE 2007 and you DID NOT read.
Your reference says in conclusion:
“Nevertheless, while the more comprehensive
hypothesis more comprehensively explains the data, Monteith et al. (2007) show that
acid-rain-organic-acid-interaction to be the predominant one for the watersheds of acidsensitive
regions of Europe and North America.”
Krug is old hat mate. He’s only a small part of a larger story.
And yes – you go study the European literature on the subject. Heaps of measurements.
At least to get on the page Louis. You do the chemistry on the depositions in the measuring network (which only hours ago you doubted the existence of) – what do you think these compounds would so in solution. Geologists of course probably don’t do chemistry. – using yourself as a case study.
Here’s a major 2007 Finland study across diverse systems http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/4/3249/2007/hessd-4-3249-2007-print.pdf
If that doesn’t convince you, believe whatever you like as you’re probably on Kimberley Gold.
You have to watch James – he’s trying it on continuously.
It’s quite reasonable to find naturally occurring acidic lakes and streams. So what? Nature is diverse. And different watersheds have very different hydrology, geology and vegetation as well as varying pollution histories. Of course the situation will have apparent anomalies to the uninitiated.
Anyway all this was a valuable little object lesson in the rampant promulgation of denialist doggy doo and inability to view any skunk astroturf reference in the greater scientific context.
Louis – literature review ability = 0/10. Grade F for fail. LMAO mate.
Luke
Interesting Finnish paper but they did not collect any rainwater for analysis, just noted that European sulphur emmissions decreased during the study period which they attribute as the cause for the reduced acidification.
Which is my one and only point – why were the local rains not chemically analysed in the particular study you cited. If the theory is acid rain then surely one would analyse the rain falling into the catchment areas to test it.
Or is it like AGW – a belief based science? Who knows but Greenie science has to be assumed suspect from first principles – it’s the precautionary principle.
Aynsley: Did you see NW Acid in operation?
I had a mate who worked there on controls for the duration. He showed me right through the plant in its heyday. Anyway; I think you should explain to Louis how bad sulfur fumes are.
Louis: Given you should understand the roll of acid in metallurgy (flotation cells); I’m going to gloss over pH measurement in process terms and go on to a simple problem. Low ph solutions used in pyrite ore separation are relatively easy to measure with the cell agitation and slime movement. PH in clean water is much more difficult so I used to challenge lab techs everywhere to calibrate their meters at ph 7 using only distilled water.
The thing is the closer we get to a pure something the harder it is to find it. Try tuning your clock radio to a distant station. Measuring ph deviation in rain water consistently is just about impossible with normal gear.
While searching for ph in metallurgy I found this appropriate statement however the whole article is worth reading
“Extrapolating data always carries with it a certain risk which becomes greater as the interval, over which the extrapolation is made, is increased. Nevertheless, if a trend in the data is firmly established and one can be confident that the factors leading to this trend will be unchanged over the interval in question, the extrapolation can be carried out with reasonable confidence. So it is with predicting the future”. Professor Ian Ritchie 1998
http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=277
Gavin,
I find it scientically strange that a theory of acid rain has scientific papers which don’t systematically measure the properties of acid rain, such as its pH and or chemical content. I get the impression acid rain was deemed to be true by common consent because of the sulphur emissions from industry.
Measuring pH consistently in rain water is just about impossible? So does that mean the theory of acid rain was created from a theory/belief rather than from observations requiring it?
Just like human induced global warming, not something observed but invented for which scientific facts then had to be subsequently found.
All I asked for was chemical evidence for acid rain in the form of rain water analyses supporting the hypothesis of acid rain. There seems to be a shortage of this data, hence my puzzlement.
This prompts me to look again at those US sites which document ph readings etc. Just what was actually being analysed.
Correction
Since 1989 there is a lot of data, which I don’t argue with, just that when Greenies allege something as being bad due to human activity, then one needs to excessively skeptical.
The greenie biofuels craze has landed us in an agricultural and water crisis, for example.
Louis: When I looked at the links above (thanks Luke) there is surprising detail however my most important impression at first glance was how low the ph range was even with the improvements, presumably from recent industrial clean ups.
“The greenie biofuels craze has landed us in an agricultural and water crisis, for example” as a statement is quite irrelevant and serves only to highlight some odd reference points given the whole world is now concerned with further hap hazard production of sulfur gases.
btw SO2 is easily converted to SO3 even in the atmosphere. Do a little reading on the next step and H2SO4
“If the theory is acid rain then surely one would analyse the rain falling into the catchment areas to test it.” well that’s the point isn’t Louis – they have – like for years dude. Just because someone else other than the authors may have done it seems to trouble you. I mean maaaate – there’s only massive national monitoring systems in many countries. Why don’t you have the data JORCed by now.
“All I asked for was chemical evidence for acid rain in the form of rain water analyses supporting the hypothesis of acid rain.”
I missed it – hmmmm (I wonder if Louis has done any chemistry) –
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=phLab-mg&PlotSize=Small
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=SO4-mg&PlotSize=Small
Isn’t it interesting that SO4 declines and pH increases. Perhaps that’s because acid rain is really about sulphate deposition. Like – “a duh”
Louis Hissink I checked on the data available from the link that Luke kindly gave. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/trends/trendplot.asp?action=trendplot.asp&siteid=NH02&inpanalyte=SO4-mg&PlotSize=Small I went to a site down the road from me. It included data such as pH both field and lab data. The actual collection site is a weather station located in a field. The lab pH’s are samples measured of the rain in the lab. The results are marked this way since due to temperature, pH can change substantially from the time it takes to get the sample to the lab. However, the sulfate concentration will not.
I do not make any claims one way or the other about acid rain, than to note that this data is from rain; and the pH is most often done in the lab and in the field.
Going on vacation for a week. Later.
John F. Pittman
I am quite aware of that data, abut no one has answered by initial question, so I will leave it at that. Argument by resort to authority and of course the usual patronising sneering questioners of the eco-litany receive here makes it basically a waste of time.
Well that’s because as an arch shonk you keep moving the goal posts
(1) there’s no data – but then oh bugger there is
(2) then there’s no pH rainfall measurements – then oh bugger there is
(3) now it’s something else
So Hissink modus operandi – is pull some bogus unsubstantiated idea out of his backside and create a diversion. Mate that’s why we dropkick you every chance we get. Shonks need a regular wacking.
Luke,
Moving the goal posts? Still looking for a paper which describes and acid lake and then shows the measurement of the rainfall (wet deposition I think it’s called) in the study area supporting it.
Still waiting for it.
Sigh ………
– the Covered Catchment Experiment at Gårdsjön, Sweden, after Ten Years of Clean Precipitation Treatment is quite conclusive.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2l40r2438h8195x/
Filip Moldan1 , Richard A. Skeffington2, Carl-Magnus Mörth3, Peter Torssander3, Hans Hultberg1 and John Munthe1
(1) IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
(2) Department of Geography, The Aquatic Environments Research Centre, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, United Kingdom
(3) Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract The Covered Catchment Experiment at Gårdsjön is a large scale forest ecosystem manipulation, where acid precipitation was intercepted by a 7000 m2 plastic roof and replaced by `clean precipitation’ sprinkled below the roof for ten years between 1991 and 2001. The treatment resulted in a strong positive response of runoff quality. The runoff sulphate, inorganic aluminium and base cations decreased, while there was a strong increase in runoff ANC and a moderate increase in pH. The runoff continued to improve over the whole duration of the experiment. The achieved quality was, however, after ten years still considerably worse than estimated pre-industrial runoff at the site. Stable isotopes of sulphur were analysed to study the soil sulphur cycling. At the initial years of the experiment, the desorption of SO4 from the mineral soil appeared to control the runoff SO4 concentration. However, as the experiment proceeded, there was growing evidence that net mineralisation of soil organic sulphur in the humus layer was an additional source of SO4 in runoff. This might provide a challenge to current acidification models. The experiment convincingly demonstrated on a catchment scale, that reduction in acid deposition causes an immediate improvement of surface water quality even at heavily acidified sites. The improvement of the runoff appeared to be largely a result of cation exchange processes in the soil due to decreasing concentrations of the soil solution, while any potential change in soil base saturation seemed to be less important for the runoff chemistry over the short time period of one decade. These findings should be considered when interpreting and extrapolating regional trends in surface water chemistry to the terrestrial parts of ecosystems.
http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639%2F0044-7447(2003)032%5B0170%3ARFAIES%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1#i0044-7447-32-3-170-b3
The question of possible recovery from surface water acidification was intensely discussed in the late 1970s and early 1980s (1) and was a key motivation for international agreements on large and costly S-emission reductions. In Europe, these questions have been part of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) (2). The potential for extensive recovery from acidification has been demonstrated through several “roof” experiments in Europe, where all anthropogenic S was removed from precipitation. The RAIN experiment (Reversing Acidification In Norway) (3) and the Covered Catchment Experiment at Lake Gårdsjön, Sweden (4), showed a relatively rapid decrease in sulfate runoff, and improvement in the acidification status of the water measured as acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). The first documented observations of recovery trends in surface waters as a consequence of reduced S-deposition in Europe were from Galloway, southwestern Scotland (5). More recently, widespread evidence of recovery has been observed across large areas of Europe through the international program ICP Waters (6, 7), the EU project Recover: 2010 (8, 9), and numerous national-scale studies. A large-scale overview study (6) suggested that many regions had shown early signs of recovery during the 1980s, but that the rate of recovery appears to have accelerated during the 1990s. Within Europe, however, spatial heterogeneity has been evident, with the clearest evidence of recovery from parts of Scandinavia where deposition changes have been large.
http://www.rrcap.unep.org/md/malereport/2003/Stakreport/Attn5_Acidificationrisk.PPT Fascinating – the area sof lowest pH rain seem to be associated with industrialisation and air pollution. Who would have throught…..SEE slide 13 !!
Louis: we come back to the cart and horse thing. As I should have said; your ph sample goes off while you hold it.
An acid lake would be very interesting.
I tell this yarn about the time I lost tons of acid over months between two tanks about a km apart. A workmate found it one day while cleaning round the plant with a 2” fire hose.
The whole sizzling embankment and bushland next door finally exploded before he decided it was time to run for cover. I can still recall his wild expression and mud splattered face. Luckily; none of the flying rocks got him.
Luke: We must remember that a lot of bio damage from acid rain occurs in the forest above ground where the H2SO4 is strongest.
Louis, Gavin, and Luke.At the time I was studying acid rain, large internet databases were not available. The link that Luke provided was typical of what we were studying. The conclusions were that acid rain had large effects in southeastern US and areas such as Scandanavia. The data from areas such as USSR and China were suspect due not only the Cold War, but the apparent unconcern of communist states to address polution. The situation in the NE US of man enhancing the water due to farming was different and was stated at the time to be in select areas and its extent was limited. Gavin, in the US and international, the fact that acidrain affected the down wind neighbor more than the originator, was taught as the reason of the interstate and international regulatory framework i.e. it had to be done this way since legally the affected entity did not have legal recourse against the originator. Loius, I have not looked at the data itself to determine what was actually measured, or its consistancy and basis. The papers I am familiar with stated or assumed that the acidification downwind of SO2 sources was caused by the increase in SO4 in water. I also know that in my area of SE US, care had to be taken not to blame the wrong component because rain in this area can be acidic without substantial SO4. It has been a long time since I looked at these early works, so I would not state their basis one way or the other without looking in some detail. The paper Luke linked to is typical of what we saw after implementation of regulations which were used to acknowlegde success of the program.
There is currently a great debate over the location of proposed gas fired power generation in Canberra.
see the-riotact.com/?p=7501
I noticed someone referred to a previous situation in Victoria where there was intense debate around the proposal to replace the old Newport coal and oil fired power station and its electricity generators with a big new gas fired plant to rival the brown coal generators to the east of Melbourne. Newport is just 4 km from the CBD and the tall chimney built in the early 1970’s to replace the old short flues stands alongside our other towering landmark, Melbourne’s Westgate Bridge over the Lower Yarra River.
Newport as it was, traditionally supplied the metropolitan transport grid. This major industrial region is where I worked on a number of smaller furnaces during their transition to meet fresh EPA (Vic.) standards. Our interest in fuel technology, power generation, emission control and the public debate over discharge rates and heights was at that time was intense. However the details escape me.
Seeking records of changing sulfur emissions re acid rain and other concerns I came across an excellent presentation on “fossil” fuels. Note: I almost forgot Victorian brown coal although naturally half full of water is actually very low in sulfur content.
“Fossil Technology – Fossil facts and figures”
“This is a collection of information from different resources and represents the situation in 2005 / 2006. Sources are the International Energy Agency (France), BWK (Germany) and Australian sources”.
“The problem is mainly CO2 emission from fossil fuels. That adds to the problem that nearly all of this fuel comes from non-renewable sources”
http://www.spare-exchange.com/fossil_technology.htm
What is coal? See this outline (Louis)
http://www.rocklandsrichfield.com.au/PDF/What%20Is%20Coal.pdf
More on clean coal technology “Supercritical Conventional Coal Plants”
“Thermal efficiency is a measure of how much useful energy can be extracted from a given amount of coal. Thermal efficiency in coal-fired power generation has increased from about 5 per cent in 1900 to an average of 38 per cent for modern pulverised fuel (pf) power plants. Every 1 per cent increase in thermal efficiency results in a 2-3 per cent decrease carbon dioxide emissions”
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm
From “The State of the Environment Tasmania” where I also worked in industry over several decades – an “Index of Atmosphere Issues”
“This chapter details atmosphere and air quality issues affecting the health, environment and economic well-being of Tasmanians and provides an overview of the characteristics of the atmosphere and climate. The chapter also describes the global and regional changes and trends affecting Tasmania, and highlights the condition of the State’s air quality, the pressures placed upon it and the management responses to these pressures. It focuses on changes since the first State of the Environment (SoE) Report for Tasmania (SDAC 1997), although earlier baselines are used where data are available and relevant for describing conditions, trends and changes in the environment”.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/index.php
Newport Power Station: See the case study.
http://www.environment.gov.au/education/publications/epa/modules/module7.html#act2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49786582@N00/271104690/
http://www.railgeelong.com/location/power-station-and-oil-lines#-power-stations-
More influences, see “Subsidies to the Use of Natural Resources” Environmental Economics Research Paper No.2 (1996) and “The enhanced Greenhouse effect”
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/economics/subsidies/subs4.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49786582@N00/271104690/
http://www.railgeelong.com/location/power-station-and-oil-lines#-power-stations-
More influences, see “Subsidies to the Use of Natural Resources” Environmental Economics Research Paper No.2 (1996) and “The enhanced Greenhouse effect”
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/economics/subsidies/subs4.html
A. Kellow you “pointed out in a short piece in Nature last year that the misrepresentation of the science of CO2 has serious consequences for the development of international policy. As Brazil pointed out in the Ade Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (where the Kyoto architecture was developed), burdens should be allocatedon the basis of historical contributions. This made (by the base year of 1990) Europe the largest contributor, NOT the US. (It’s changed a bit since then). Because of the flow definition and the 1990 base year problem (Britain’s ‘dash to gas’ and Germany reunification bbegan that year), Kyoto required least of those who had doen most to cause the problem.
This remains the sticking point in post-Kyoto negotiations, though Japan is arguing for an end to the 1990 base year problem.
But the time element means emissions by India and China now are less important, though they would become more important with time if Annex I parties did mitigate. That’s why the acceptance by China of aspirational targets related to energy efficiency in the Sydney Declaration was significant, because they accepted ANY target for the first time and there is time and opportunity (they can probably improve energy efficiency 30% at no cost).”
I found this a very interesting read. Thank you for your thoughtful input. I do not know whether “free-market” arguments will make or have made the rounds in your arena, but here in the US, well arguable or not, free-market ideas and actual “blame” assigning will most probably be on the agenda, especially in the US Senate.Does your article in Nature address these aspects as they may well be linked together here in the US?
JFP: “here in the US, well arguable or not, free-market ideas and actual “blame” assigning will most probably be on the agenda”…yeah well, it had to come down to where did it all start?
In my posts above I tried to outline a general case for the whole spectrum of modern industry. Sure; the fossil fuel sector has been wise in shoring up its defenses against public intervention over practices in recent decades but from any point of view our switch to natural gas in the short term must be applauded in terms of reduced CO2 world wide.
Starting with the source of the problem is always best. Demand for cheap power and transport has driven our industrial growth for too long. Monitoring the gross effect from the outside has been too hard. Shifting the blame to greenie programs is too easy.
My sympathy remains with the grass roots of industry where the natural growth of technical expertise also R & D is often overshadowed by the economic agenda. Winding up the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) by the Kennet Government is just one case of throwing the baby out with the bath water that I could mention. On the other hand I don’t miss the all powerful HEC that once ruled Tasmania. Arms of government that measure our changing environment must be independent.
With several exceptions, alumina and steel smelting I have had virtually free access to the problems of monitoring most forms of manufacture from the inside. I say free markets don’t achieve best outcomes when considering widespread distribution of benefits to local communities scattered round the globe. Finding places of convenience was also too easy when it comes to shortcuts and profits.
Perhaps I should mention the food industry here. The one with the day job has a simple line, “if your grandmother can’t recognize it, don’t buy it”. The latest industry fad, hiding things with “numbers” beats the raw prawn cooked for “your convenience” in Thailand.
Dissociation with a products origin quickly becomes habit. Even Mattel got caught.
John; the USA has a lot of wising up to do yet.
John F. Pittman:
There are some promising signs in terms of the negotiation of an international instrument that might be worth something. The reliance on strong moral suasion (including an erroneous attribution of blame) and scientific consensus (what Peter Haas called ‘epistemic consensus’) has not worked with Kyoto. Indeed, Haas, in his seminal article in 1990, predicted it would not, but Mustapha Tolba as the UNEP Director General wrongly modelled climate change negotiations on the Montreal Protocol.
The disconnect between the powerful underlying interests and the ever more desperate efforts to drive agreement with claims about what the science says we should do, backed by blaming and shaming, have simply produced what Arild Underdal calls the ‘vertical disintegration of policy’: things are agreed, but not delivered upon. (Someone once said in the EU that those first to agree to environmental policy directives were usually those least likely to implement!)
There are a number of us now starting to reach similar conclusions about the failure of Kyoto (Prins and Rayner, David Victor, etc) who see value in limiting ambition and building trust and understanding (what Underdal calls the ‘law of the least ambitious program’). This is how most successful regimes have been developed, but Kyoto has been a matter of ‘more haste, less speed.’ The supposed urgency has – in Prins and Rayner’s view – led us to waste 15 years on the flawed Kyoto model.
The real progress internationally is occurring in the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) sponsored by the US – essentially the G8+5 plus the Asia Pacific Partnership” the 16 heavy hitters accounting for over 80% of emissions. (Indonesia and Brazil are there, so forest emitters are there).
Nationally, the best policy response is probably a hybrid emissions trading scheme (a la Mckibbin-Wilcoxen), with additional permits issued or withdrawn as knowledge changes (we don’t really know what size the cap should be) with international trading only by governments when verification can be assured. (Would you buy a carbon permit from a party in Russia, or from a Third World country where governance systems cannot assure that carbon sinks will be managed for five years, let alone 25?)
In short, there are sensible ways of approaching the problem appropriately viewed as one of uncertainty, but the problem is you’re likely to be labelled a denier if you stick your head above the parapet.
I’ll take Louis’s lack of comment as it’s all too hard when confronted with some facts.