Many academics genuinely believe that promoting anxiety and fear about a problem is a form of valium public service, according to Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, writing in The Times Higher Education Supplement last month.
The articles includes the comment:
The defence of the “good lie” or the “greater truth” is invoked when inflated stories are peddled to raise awareness of an issue. …
Appeals to a “greater truth” are prominent in debates about the environment. It is claimed that problems such as global warming are so important that a campaign of fear is justified. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, justified the distortion of evidence in the following terms: “Because we are not just scientists but human beings… as well… we need to capture the public imagination.” He added that “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified statements and make little mention of any doubts that we have”. With such attitudes widely circulated, is it any wonder that Hurricane Katrina is widely perceived as punishment for humanity’s environmental sins? That advocacy research translates so well into the language of divine retribution indicates how the crusading spirit can destroy the integrity of academic enterprise.
Of course academics are entitled to adopt a partisan role. They also have a right to raise concerns about the problems that capture their imagination.
We are also normal human beings who can get carried away with the findings of our research. Academic passion and commitment make a significant contribution to society. But however noble the ideals that motivate it, the promotion of fear displaces the quest for the truth. Instead of clarifying issues it contributes to a dishonest polarisation of attitudes that invariably closes down discussion. Fear entrepreneurship on campuses, like elsewhere, serves only the interest of intolerance and prejudice.
I reckon the biggest lie from the global warming alarmists is that it is going to get drier as it gets warmer.
On 27th May last year ABC Radio’s World Today had a feature titled ‘Changing conditions means more efficient water use needed: expert’ in which Peter Cullen suggested that as a consequence of climate change there will be more droughts and that agriculture will need to re-adjust. A few months later Tim Flannery was on ABC TV’s 7.30 Report (23rd June 2004) telling us that Australia was going to be affected by climate change sooner and harder than anywhere else on the planet and that Perth may end up a ‘ghost metropolis’ from lack of rain.
That was before the drought broke. I had a look at dam levels in Perth this morning and they keep rising, click here.
Isn’t it true that as it gets warmer it is, on average, going to get wetter? That’s what Australia’s climatologists tell us (Australasian Science, June 2004). That’s why there is more snow falling on Greenland. Furthermore, a paper by Roderick and Farquhar in the International Journal of Climatology (Vol 24, Issue 9, 2004) indicates that contrary to expectations, measurements of pan evaporation show decreases over the last 30 years in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere and also across Australia.
There seems a great propensity to exaggerate water issues and suggest that there is everywhere a shortage.
Media headlines in Queensland’s south east over the last week have focused on Brisbane Lord Mayor’s anger at nearby Gold Coast and Redlands decisions to reduce water restrictions and allow watering of gardens from 4pm rather than sticking with a 7pm to 7am regime. Redlands have a near full dam and completely independent water supply, yet Brisbane’s Lord Mayor wants everyone to suffer the restrictions. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hey – is this a negative reality inversion – a certain sense of deja vu pervades…
Jen’s quote: “Isn’t it true that as it gets warmer it is, on average, going to get wetter?” – who cares about the average in such a big country – might be wetter in Derby but drier in Deniliquin. We could talk about the average Australian use of heaters in winter too – but isn’t very relevant if you live in Darwin.
Check out – http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/
As usual we have the pitfalls of expecting everything to be nicely linear and straight forward.
The effects of global warming do not have to be uniform. There can be winners and losers.
Australia has relatively high interannual and interdecadal rainfall variability, such that the storage capacities of Australia’s large dams are about six times larger than those of European dams for the same mean annual streamflow and probability of water shortfall.
Just because it rains and dams fill up doesn’t mean that future droughts won’t occur. This is the whole problem – the next drought is always just around the corner.
Hey wasn’t the Gold Coast bleating about drought incessantly till recently. If surrounding councils around Brisbane don’t want to be cautious with their water supplies – don’t bother asking for pipelines to Wivenhoe Dam (Brisbane’s main storage) when the going gets tough in future droughts. Sort it out yourselves. That’s fine !
There is evidence of long-term rainfall decline along the east coast of Australia (particularly the central Queensland coast – but also SE Qld), and in south-western Australia over the past 100 years.
There seem to be circulation changes in our region causing these effects from inter-decadal influences, aspects of both greenhouse warming and stratospheric ozone depletion.
The Southern Oscillation Index shows an apparent trend since about 1970 towards prevailing El Nino conditions. We have had many El Ninos and very few La Ninas. The IPCC believes that climate change will create El Nino like mean conditions in the southern Pacific.
The drought of 2002 has had a more severe impact than any other drought since at least 1950, because the temperatures in 2002 have been significantly higher than in other drought years. The higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. The 2002 drought is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
And now NOT contrary to expectations radiation levels have fallen through aerosol pollution in some regions (Roderick and Farquhar) – remove that pollution and you will have a greater warming flux. It’s a story that makes sense and illustrates some of the complexities in the story.
Greenland answered in Antarctica thread previous.
AND if we going to debate Schneider let’s use the full quote – not the selective cut that many make … (very very norty – smack on wrist !!)
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.I hope that means being both)”
John Quiggin discusses at length
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php?p=1861
CSIRO modelling currently shows a lot of uncertainty in rainfall for Australia. Some areas see more rain, others see less, others could go either way.
But the CSIRO modelling also shows that evaporation will increase across the whole country. The overall moisture balance will also deteriorate across almost the whole counntry.
Add to that, weather like Sydney has had the last few years (several v.heavy summer storms and flooding) followed by a dry autumn/winter/spring might mean plenty of annual rainfall, but scant rainfall that can actually be used.
Sydney’s problem is exacerbated by the aging infrastructure used to service a growing population.
The main dam is in a dry rainfall area and the smaller dams are not linked. The ex Premier was big on zero population growth and more parks for bushwalking and plundered the revenue from water rates for “feel good” greenie projects.
Same on the central coast, Wyong shire has the Mangrove Creek Dam which is situated in a well known rainshadow area; Mardi or Ourimbah would have been much better. No doubt local politics came into play, Nimbys are everywhere. Mangrove dam has never ever been full, not even 50%. As a consequence the shortage of water is limiting growth so they are going to pipe some down from the Hunter (which fortuitously put its dams where it rains and has excess capacity). Development in the Hunter is going gangbusters.
Thats democracy for you.
http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/hennessy%5F2000b.htm
The CSIRO web site shows and declares quite categorically that Australia is getting wetter. ie more days with > 1mm of rainfall and more rain in total. So whats the beef.
I got home from a trip interstate to read my Puviometer and find that we have had double the average in rain for this time of the year. I then looked up the CSIRO/BOM rainfall figures for the period since 1870 and found that you could draw a horixontal line through the lot, meaning nothing out of the ordinary.
Further I note that PDone ackowledges that there are winners and losers in AGW. In a previous blog some where, I was criticised by the degreed types for also suggesting that this was so, and that because of this any economic analysis should consider the economic benefits and well as the economic losses caused by AGW. Only then do policy makers have a proper handle on the extent of the “problem”. But the incompetent Eurospivs in Geneva managing the IPCC think other wise.
What a joke. But at least it keeps sundry serial bloggers occupied.
Political and administrative inefficiencies and untruths are swept under the “global warming” carpet.
Malcolm, that page clearly and categorically says ‘parts of Australia’, rather than all of Australia.
It says that, since 1975, there has been no country wide trend, but individually some states have got wetter, and some drier.
You might find this useful for getting a great view of what’s going on:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
This brochure:
http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/projections2pp.pdf
features some projections on both temerature and rainfall. It includes the paragraph:
“Evaporation and moisture balance:
Warmer conditions will lead to increased evaporation. When this is combined with the simulated changes in rainfall, there is a decrease in available moisture. This means greater moisture stress for Australia.”
Damn lies and statistics. Depends on what statistic you’re using. Number of rain days, rain intensity etc. Sure rain days and rain intensities may have changed in parts.
I’m talking total annual rainfall BoM’s site
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
Spatial maps. Not time series for the whole continent.
Have a look at the decadal series – a number of maps. Tell me what you see. I put it that overall averages across the entire nation or state are useless if you’re in a drying patch !!
And drying patches seem to be occurring where most of the people live.
Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, SE Qld, and Central Qld have all had problems with water supplies in recent years – you can blame infrastructure but dam levels have fallen and rain has not been forthcoming. Of course it may rain and get you out of trouble for a while but is there an underlying trend?
Malcolm what do you think the benefits of AGW are for Australia and the world ?
And Rog what political and admin inefficiencies are being swept under the carpet – it’s just the old right wing record of conspiracy isn’t it
Not sure what you mean Phil, Sydney and Wyong ALP strongholds.
The most important variable in respect of urban water supplies is not rainfall or evaporation but, rather, catchment water yield. And Brisbane’s catchment yield is seriously degraded by Aila’s (Keto) whimsey. The locking up of the forests (50% of catchment) without attention to the excess competition (for water) by post harvest regrowth has substantially altered the water yield for any given rainfall event. The work of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology suggests that this has altered the water yield by about 0.2 megalitres/ha.
SLATS data (see http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/SLATS) from Landcover Change in Qld 1999-2001 reveals 450,000 hectares of woody vegetation in the 900,000 ha Stanley/Brisbane/Sth Pine catchments. And this means about 90,000 ML of lost yield, worth $90 million in retail sales each year.
Thats enough for 450,000 households or 1.2 million people. Unlike climate change it is fully under our control, provided the ideological blinkers are removed.
I would have thought no rain means no water – unless you’re in the Great Artesian BAsin?
So it wouldn’t be simply that it hasn’t rained in the catchment much??
You’re saying there has been a significant hydrological impact of new trees/regrowth in the Wivenhoe catchment in recent decades ??
Their SLATS SEQ report says
For the Brisbane River catchment the most recent 1995-97 clearing rate is 19% higher than the
1991-95 rate but less than the 1988-91 rate. See figure 3.
Regrowth is occurring at a rate equal to approximately 15% of the clearing rate. The majority of
this regrowth is replanting of plantations or regrowth following harvesting within State forests.
Total wooded cover Brisbane catchment 1988 was 50.53% while 49% in 2001. Stanley 61% in 1988 and 58.21% in 2001. Looks stable to me.
Of course we can clear fell the entire D’Aguilar scarp if you like. Dam would be a good sediment trap.
Doesnt matter how you want to cut and dice it Phil, local govt has failed to provide sufficient resources for a growing population – another nail in the coffin of The Socialist State.
Nah – its rampant water wastage by unnecessary industries like nurseries that are the cause of the problem. And ruining our bushland by spreading ornamental weed pests.
Shower with a friend, geta rain water tank back in, and stop hosing the damn driveway. And bring back the boom gate between Qld and NSW – if you don’t have 3 generations buried here you’re not allowed in (Tassies and WA’s excepted). No more rampant growth of non-contributors driving up the water consumption and ruining the transport and health system too. It’s not Pete’s fault – too many southerners and J Patel was a foreigner anyway. So that’s what you get.
And besides we’ve dammed almost everything that can hold water by now anyway.
Once we have sealed the border we can implement 100% death taxes on all assets to redistribute the income fairly and limit all salaries to no more than $40,000 per annum which should limit consumption of our valuable natural resources. And ban all forms of negative gearing. We should immediately round up and destroy all cats and dogs. Ban non-native ornamental plants. We can then introduce a carbon tax and a statewide enviromental levy to return the place to pre-European status. This is what we are planning to do after we win power at the next election. Will you join us?
Oh – and bring back Joh’s Special Branch so we can keep files on any known right wing industry advocates and anyone with strange ideas we don’t agree with – like Louis. Obviously a potential risk and needs to be monitored closely.
Sounds reasonable Phil, you could get a job as don Gueverra, the face of peace that sold a million green T-shirts.
Steve copmments on warmer means more evaporation, NO not necessiarly, an all too common fallacy. You cannot necessiarly say much from average temperature alone. Evaporation depends on solar radiation, dryness of the atmosphere (vapour pressure deficit) and wind. Warming largely at night or increasing humidity, decreasing wind or radiation then evaporation might decrease and seems to be doing so globally.
Direct warming effects and changes in circulation patterns could shift evaporation all over the place at a regional scale.
Decreasing diurnal temperature range a very common observation these days.
Australia as a whole is getting wetter (as BoM web site time series show). This is mainly due to increases in summer rainfall over much of the western half of the continent. However, south-west Western Australia suffered a decline in winter (and annual) rainfall around 1970 from which it has not recovered. Elsewhere, although there are medium term drying trends particulalrly over the most populous regions there is, as yet, no evidence that they are statistically significant (i.e. unusual in a historical context). This may alter if the dry conditions persist.
Smith, I.N. (2004) Trends in Australian rainfall – are they unusual? Australian Meteorological Magazine, 53(3), 163-173.
I think climate change is a great way for governments to collect more taxes and persuade us all that Nuclear Power is the only way to go.
Lets face it guys GLOBAL WARMING IS BIG BUSINESS.
How can they justify that global warming will create higher seas? Higher temperatures will cause higher rainfall in regions that never had rain before…Wont higher rainfalls cool the surface temperature? If not what about the ice caps?? Have you ever put a block of ice in a class of water…check the difference when it has melted…Now tell me….higher temperatures…higher rainfall….higher evaporation….Cooler surface temperatures??? any takers…
This debate’s a bit old now, but that last comment was really, really daft. Evaporation only cools things down while it moves the heat elsewhere – in case you hadn’t noticed there is no elsewhere to take it (only this one old Earth here).
Global warming means that it is more difficult for heat to leave the planet due to ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere. The heat gets here as light, and is converted to heat when it hits stuff. The amount of light hitting Earth is the same, heat is leaving more slowly, therefore the Earth is warming up. When water heats up it expands, so the ocean level WILL rise over several decades, all other things being equal.
The Earth’s weather is due to the uneven temperature distribution from equator to poles, plus a little coriolis. More heat means more uneven temperature, means more weather. Of all kinds.
Except that there are so many things we don’t understand about the weather/climate: effect of rainfall on ocean circulation, effect of dust on rainfall, effect of heat on dust production, effect of temperature on change of vegetation, effect of change of vegetation on conversion of light to heat, effect of change of vegetation on rate of evaporation, effect of change of vegetation on greenhouse gas levels, effect of change of vegetation on production of dust, etc, etc, etc. This is not a simple system.
Global warming could lead to a new ice age, global warming could lead to a hotter, wetter world, global warming could lead to a hotter drier world – we don’t know yet.
Global warming WILL lead to massive change.
What happens if China dries up – you think that 1.5 billion Chinese are just going to sit there and starve? Or Indians? Or the U.S., or Russia, or the Arabian states, or Africans? If we are not very, very lucky (I discount the possibility of politicians actually doing anything until it’s gone bad) then it’ll get very nasty indeed.
G’day
Humans do seem to like a scarey story and the powers that be find it much easier to introduce changes when we are scared. Do yourselves a favour and google search “the great global warming swindle” you’ll find a google video of a UK documentary. Very very eye opening.
It goes for around an hour
enjoy
Rod
PS this is not to say that we have no problems, just that we should use facts not fabrications to fix them
I was stunned to see over 450mm of rainfall fall in the Mangrove Mountain area in the NSW Central Coast and yet the Mangrove Creek Dam went up by a lousy 6%. 400mm of rain is a phenomenal amount in that area and I expected the dam level to go up by 5 to 10 times 6%.
In 1997 when the main Sydney Warragamba dam catchment received a fall like that it went from 55% to oveflowing. And Warragamba’s capacity is three times the size of Mangrove Creek dam. So just what is the problem ?? (1) Overly small or narrow catchment ? (2)Poor hydrography (loss of rainwater through groundwater flows)(3)Something else ?
It just isn’t making sense.