I was going to title this blog post ‘Martin Ferguson for Prime Minister’ – but I don’t really know that much about Martin Ferguson.
He gave a great speech in defence of Tasmanian foresters some weeks ago, click here.
Yesterday The Australian newspaper published him asking that we move beyond politics and embrace the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
The speech and the article are revolutionary because Ferguson is a senior member of the Labor Party and he is taking a stand against traditional green politics yet over recent years the Labor Party has not only consulted with, but encouraged environmental activists, including Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), to write Party policy (see the Latham Diaries).
Ferguson is redefining what it means to be an environmentalist and reshaping environmental politics in Australia. In yesterday’s The Australian he wrote:
“Unprecedented world economic growth is creating unprecedented global energy demand, rising energy prices and faster depletion of non-renewable energy resources. These are genuine threats to our future economic wellbeing. Maybe worse, the unequal distribution of energy resources across the world is a real threat to future geopolitical stability.
International initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate have the potential to ease both these tensions. But although greenhouse gas reduction targets may be necessary, any frank review must conclude that the world’s greenhouse emissions are not going down in the short term: they are simply being shifted from one country to another.
After all, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters are not bound by Kyoto. The US, as the world’s biggest emitter, has refused to ratify the agreement. China and India, the second and fourth biggest emitters, are not required to reduce their emissions. And while we are often reminded by the Greens that Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions, let’s not forget there are good reasons for that.
Australia’s relatively high energy intensity has to be considered in the context of the country’s size and its relatively low population density, its climate, its heavy reliance on coal for power generation, and the presence of energy-intensive industries such as aluminium which form the backbone of the nation’s wealth-generation capacity.
That is why it is a significant achievement of the Asia-Pacific Partnership’s first meeting that the aluminium industry in the member countries reached an agreement on working together to reduce emissions. This is essential to overcome the problem of simply shifting emissions from one country to another and at the same time shifting Australian manufacturing jobs and prosperity offshore, to countries with lower environmental standards.
It is extraordinary that the Greens could place the economic security and jobs of their constituents at risk and at the same time advocate a worse greenhouse outcome by displacing Australian industry to countries with lower standards.
It’s time to abandon the political correctness espoused by the green movement. Let’s be real: without getting business on board we cannot achieve anything.
Read the full article by clicking here.
The Australian newspaper continues the theme with its editorial today. The the last paragraph includes:
The reactionary response to the Asia-Pacific Partnership meeting this week demonstrates that support for Kyoto cloaks the green movement’s real desire – to see capitalism stop succeeding. Extreme greens cannot bear to accept that our best chance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will occur when free enterprise has incentives to implement solutions. While power providers and big electricity users will howl, we need a national carbon trading scheme, with permits bought and sold in the free market, as a means of meeting greenhouse reduction targets set by Canberra. And we need tax concessions for industries that develop new technologies to clean up power supplies. In the long term geo-sequestration, which buries carbon dioxide pumped from power plants, may be a solution. And research into technologies to clean the coal burned in electricity generators is already under way, including development of a power plant in Florida designed to deliver much lower emissions. When the incentives exist business will use technology to find a way. For a century London was plagued by pollution that killed people. No longer. People now fish in the great lakes of North America which were once sludgy industrial swamps. And the idea that cars could emit much less pollution would have seemed impossible to environmental doomsayers 30 years ago. They would not have even conceived that commercial cars could run on batteries, with hydrogen power on the horizon. Whatever the extreme greens say, we can address global warming without adopting a medieval mindset that sees electricity as inimical to the environment. This week’s meeting was a practical step forward by six nations whose legitimate energy requires continued use of coal – perhaps with more nuclear energy to follow. It worried environmental activists – because it showed up their messages of doom for what they are – hot air.
What a difference a week can make!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Carbon trading – another revenue scam for government I suspect.
I like this Martin Ferguson more and more.
Common Sense finally in the ALP, about time.
First we get Mundine as President saying listen up, Little Green martian and feel nice issues have kept us in Opposition for ten years.
Now a Ferguson starts using a bit of the little grey cells to quote Poirot.
Wot next will they throw some of their loose cannons overboard, one can only hope.
Democracy is about giving people choices.
I don’t get it – we’re dumping on the greenies saying their doomsaying is hot air. So therefore logically there is no problem with GHGs.
So why is the Asia Pacific pact needed then. Why bother developing hydrogen etc etc..
This is but there isn’t .. hmmmm
Smells awfully like vote buying to me.
Carbon trading keeps the chatterers happy, like wind farms.
Vote buying Phil? who would vote Green now, only a few hairy minded diehards, most are tired of their media stunts.
Rog – so why we need this Pact thing. Why – tell me?
How many voted Green anyway. Labor Party will tell you anything to get back in power.
Firstly it is a counter to the total failure of the Kyoto imposition, only a fool thinks that if you lead a horse to water it will drink.
Secondly it is a counter against the political greenie – Kyoto emotive “argument” (more like a scare campaign).
Two fingers to all the doomsday scare campaigners from the rest of the world. Negativity by its very nature is doomed to fail.
Its not the prescriptive “what you cant do”, its the proactive “what can we do” that will sbe successful.
Cooperation on technological and environment matters is a great way to increase dialogue and ease cultural and trade barriers. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by the unproductive measures of increasing trade tariffs, controlling commodity supply and over regulating lawful activities.
The greens only policy is to drive nations back to a peasant subsistence level through centralised regulation. The world has been there and they aint goin back.
For international and national security against a tidal wave of unreasonable climate hysteria – the APP has to be done.
And it is a way that big business can get money out of we mug taxpayers.
Apart from that Phil, its called taking the wind out your sails.
We can look forward to many committe meetings, procrastination, and hopefully it will slowly disappear into the sunset.
Yes that is right Phil its all hot air. West Australia Bans uranium mining, well until 2009 maybe, but if they were serious about CO2…but then they aren’t. Because as I found out by accident, at an ALP gathering, (don’t ask how, I did) that the Kyoto Protocol was all about shifting wealth from the developed to the undeveloped world. CO2 was the smokescreen which we almost fell for.
Martin Furguson continues the hype and exaggerated DOOMSAYING that established australian businesses are going to up and run to 3rd world countries because of the initial, small kyoto targets – i’ve never see any evidence that this will occur, and i doubt very much that the australian aluminium industry will leave the country because of kyoto.
The editor of the Australian clearly highlights that he has no clue, by indugling in the ridiculous paranoid consiracy theory that environmental thought is about seeing capitalism fail, and by buying the line put out by AP6 that they are the business-oriented approach, and environmentalist thought (and kyoto) is the anti-business approach. He actually argues in favour of carbon trading.
In truth, AP6 is the pro- =certain= business approach, where ‘certain businesses’ includes coal, aluminium and nuclear.
the kyoto approach is the ‘let the market have a clear signal about what is of value, but the market should go out and determine the best solution.’
It’s all very strange – someone from the ALP trots out and tells you something close to what you want to hear and suddenly you’re in love.
OK declaration of interests first.
(1) I have never been pro-Kyoto nor anti-Kyoto. I just assumed it wouldn’t happen for real, it wasn’t enough reduction, USA would never join, India and China would blow the targets away with their growth. I did find it interesting to see what a protocol might look like. All this stuff about ruining the world and conspiracy is such rubbish really – it simply wasn’t going to happen. Stuff that keeps Rog and Louis in a lather.
Very few in the western world would continue to support any goverment that was going to drastically reduce their standard of living. But bizarrely Australia who doesn’t sign gets the land clearing Australia clause inserted and does a swiftie with it?!
(2) I’m not necessarily anti-nuclear. But I reckon most people are. Frankly I would rather Aussies use the stuff than sell it. Worried about getting it back one day in war-head more than anything.
(3) I’m not anti-technology – if we can scrub CO2 from coal, make fusion work, develop a hydrogen economy well and good. Beaut even. Use solar and wind where appropriate – no problems. Sell the ideas and make some money – good.
(4) However I am worried about climate variability (NOW!) and future climate change I think we know enough to be concerned. And perhaps out of all the spin and muddled statements I’d like to believe that the world’s leaders believe that maybe they should do something about CO2. However I reckon if we gave them a quiz on what they’re dealing with they wouldn’t know.
So what’s happened. Lights are still on, my car still works and I have TV and the Internet – world isn’t in Kyoto turmoil at all. But we’re bagging the greens here for going on about climate “issues” and yes they do talk their share of rubbish. But they are making a point that we need to do something about greenhouse. The drum beating stuff gives you the willies though.
But the rhetoric coming out of the Pact is it’s all about “hot air” and cliamte being silly.
WELL WHY THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE DOING ANYTHING THEN.
Either GHGs are a problem or they are not.
I personally reckon it is a problem – a big problem.
I feel somehow that the pact is a smokescreen for doing little and fogging the place up.
What I would like to hear is something like “Dear idealistic greenies and scientists – thank you drawing our attention to the climate issue. Now go away and have a herbal tea and a lie down while we sort out the issue technologically, including make some more money, coz you guys couldn’t run a chook raffle (or Minke raffle)”. “P.S. Give us your silly first attempt at emissions rules called Kyoto and we’ll turn it into a decent trading scheme where carbon has value like gold, silver, wheat and pork bellies.”
But not hearing that at all – boot still being out into climate issue (yay -says Louis but that’s not the point) – so I’m not convinced the Pact is going to deliver anything on CO2 and so we are committed to a globally warmed future.
Therefore might turn my focus to adaptation where we can adapt. i.e It’s ON !
And I am really puzzled why you’re all so happy about the pact. Thought you would have declared it a waste of money and unneeded.
Riiiiight.
Thanks Phil.
“Either GHGs are a problem or they are not”
They are not a problem Phil. Like Galileo’s critics centuries ago, some have got their science wrong.
Louis
Martin Ferguson seems to be trying to exaggerate differences that on the whole aren’t there, and the editorial from The Australian is truly bizarre.
It is not environmentalists – extreme or otherwise – who have prevented the incentive for free enterprise of carbon trading, it’s the Coalition government.
Nor is it environmentalists who have prevented more “tax concessions for industries that develop new technologies to clean up power supplies,” – that would be the Coalition again. Environmentalists and people concerned about good ecomomic policy have complained about preferential treatment for traditional fossil fuel industries over renewables when it comes to grants and other incentives, but that is a different issue.
And what is it with this statement?!:
“the idea that cars could emit much less pollution would have seemed impossible to environmental doomsayers 30 years ago. They would not have even conceived that commercial cars could run on batteries, with hydrogen power on the horizon. Whatever the extreme greens say, we can address global warming without adopting a medieval mindset that sees electricity as inimical to the environment.”
It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone but the darkest of greens would be against electricity, or couldn’t have conceived of technological advances. But only the ultimate environmental neanderthal could suggest that technological improvements to existing energy and transport models can solve it all. I’m sure cars emit a lot less pollution per car than they used to, but there also a hell of a lot more cars doing the emiting and they are on the road for longer – and that’s without all the other flow consequences of road and bridge construction, etc.
Whilst some greens are basically anti-market, anti-growth and anti-capitalism, there are many mainstream environmentalists who aren’t, and that includes most serious environmental advocacy groups.
Of course there are differences in this debate about the best way to proceed, but to try to generate polarisation where none previously existed is ridiculous. Sadly, The Australian seems to be taking just as much of an arch-partisan, highly combative approach as the extreme Greens they criticise, which virtually guarantees much reduced prospects of a coherent or effective strategy emerging.
That’s also why Martin Ferguson’s contribution puzzles me, frankly. He seems to be confusing the political tactics and pronouncements of the Green Party with the approach and views of the broader environmental movement. Sure there are strongly held differences over uranium mining, but Ferguson knows that from his own party – he doesn’t need the Greens or anyone else to pick a fight with on that one.
But the suggestion that most environmentalists don’t believe business should be involved in addressing climate change is just silly. Business, on the whole, has done way more than the federal Government has so far. But it can’t just be a little club with the traditional big polluters, and every one else left out, which is what has happened with the Asia-Pacific partnership so far.
And few people deny there will employment impacts by going down the Kyoto road. What Ferguson, Howard and others ignore is that there clearly is the potential for offsetting employment and economic gains – a bit like cutting tariffs and freeing trade actually. They always act like this other side of the equation doesn’t exist, and once they’ve put the blindfold over their own eyes about the potential positives, they accuse others of not seeing the negatives.
It’s not that the Asia-Pacific Partnership can’t do any good at all (although it’s initial goals and activities seem very limited and open ended), it’s that its main effect is to (deliberately) undermine the main agreement aimed at develop a common long-term global strategy.
Ironically, whlist carbon trading can occur without Kyoto, it will work much more reliably within a clearly defined and globally agreed framework – so the so-called pro-business, pro-market people are actually undercutting and stalling on the main market mechanism that has been developed in large part because of the cohesiveness provided by the Kyoto Protocol framework.
Meanwhile, why they manoeuvre for political and economic advantage, and people on the opposite extreme do the same focusing on political opportunities, the emission levels keep rising.
Exactly ! Well said Andrew.
If CO2 is important then we have to deliver some serious savings or we haven’t progressed much at all. The Partnership is open-ended, the timetable unclear, and no guarantees of anything.
The greenie bashing the you lot go on with is simply a smoke-screen for a non-existent problem.
And Louis what you cannot see is that you actually might be one of Galileo’s critics not Galileo ! Your closed mind has all the trademarks.
Andrew,
Your last phrase is the telling issue – “the emission levels keep rising”.
The emission levels of what?
Life.
Of living things. Higher temperatures are an indication of a prolification of life. Living things generate heat.
You therefore want to destory this?
Oh, I see Phil Done has yet again opined from his stygian depths of illumination, intimating I possess a closed mind.
Igorance is bliss and often over Done.
Louis – you are a climate nincompoop as your daily posts indicate so readily. Now popular with climate scientists for some comic relief.
Gosh, My posts are popular with climate scientists. For Comedy Relief no less.
As I with my weekly reading of Zits every Sunday.
In the West Australian.
But being described as a climate nincompoop, now that is an honour.
Done like a Dinner Again.
I am not sure what happened to Martin Ferguson, maybe he had a brain infusion, but for the first time in a long while the ALP has someone who actually made sense without the clutter of party dogma. How long it will last before the unelected ACTU flex their muscles waits to be seen.
Politicians could also practice not preach efficiencies; beliefs held by parties long in opposition should be cast off in favour those that are more productive. I remember the Democrats running with the policy that through taxation they would reduce the use of diesel, to be replaced with petrol. How naive!
The big mistakes of Kyoto, assumption and presumption, should not be repeated.
Unfortunately, not even the Prime Minister, Martin Ferguson or the Editor of the Australian are crazy-brave enough yet to say in public what Phil has finally worked out for himself – that carbon dioxide is not a problem but a benefice.
The support for AP6 merely represents political pragmatism in the face of the Kyoto farce and a rapidly shifting world view on the climate change issue.
First, and wonderfully, there is finally no more talk of the mythical “consensus” on climate change, but acknowledgement that the science is uncertain. The fascinating recent discovery of methane emission by plants is a classic example of both the primitive state of our knowledge of things that affect climate change, and of the utter naievety of those who think that they can deal with it under the malapropism of “greenhouse accounting”.
Second, AP6 – after a lot of meetings, discussion and agonization, which will take time, time during which the climate change debate will advance and CO2 will be discarded as the bogeyman – will end up backing some classic no-regrets policies. More efficient means of processing coal etc. will be discovered, and genuine pollution (i.e. particulates, SO2 etc.; not CO2) reduced. And the simply crazy idea of a carbon tax will disappear, as it has in New Zealand recently.
Thus in due course AP6 will make a contribution to improving energy efficiency and cleaning up pollution but not to dealing with climate change.
Entirely good stuff. But it leaves us with a real issue yet to be dealt with, which is NATURAL climate change (and the degree to which it may be exacerbated by human activity).
Probably no scientist on either side of the AGW debate doubts that natural climate change is a hazard, and many would say that future coolings are potentially more dangerous than warmings. As for any potential natural disaster that we can neither predict nor prevent (tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc.), we need to develop RESPONSIVE strategies to ameliorate the negative effect climate change events when they occur. Easy to say, but amazingly (to my knowledge) not one nation has even asked the right question yet, let alone shaped up sensible plans. This won’t be expensive to do however, since all it requires is the redirection of a small part of the funds currently being squandered on greenhouse agencies like the AGO and its state equivalents. (At the same time, it would be a very good idea to put scientists rather than bureaucrats into the senior management roles in our new Climate Planning Agency, thus maximising the chance of established science principles ruling over bullshit in the planning process).
And as for whether human activity might exacerbate the risk of climate change, and, if so, in what direction? That is clearly a subject on which there needs to be a lot more research. Rest assured there’s lots more discoveries like “plants produce methane – duh!” yet to be found.
Cathy.
Not bad analysis Cathy.
Couple of followup points.
There used to be a time (only a decade ago) when climate change science was looked on as boutique and an issue for 2030 or 2070.
It wasn’t so much natural climate change but high climate variability that was the issue – on a variety of scales – weeks to months, annual to to inter-annual and perhaps decadal. The biggie were the El Nino and La Nina phenomena which we know causes havoc around the world in terms droughts, floods, pestilence and human health issues. Billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and has been going for thousands of year. The longer scale Pacific Decadal Oscillation (if it actually exists) might make these events worse or milder. And at a shorter tiem scale people look at the Madden Julian Oscillation for planting and selling opportunities. In other words there would be big benefits to come from useful seasonal forecasts (footnote for Rog – they would never be unlikely to be grater than 70% accurate and a forecast can’t make it rain !!).
There have been major international efforts hidden away against the glare of attention on climate change – see
http://iri.columbia.edu/
for the latest global forecast.
If you knew an El Nino drought was coming you might sell stock early, not plant at all, plant different crops, vary your fertiliser rate, stockpile coal, spray early for mosquitos, adjust inventory levels from farms to ships. There is big money to be made. Many have forgotten about our considerable ongoing climate variation and extremes which we have always had to deal with.
However I remain convinced that CO2 will make these extremes worse and our farmers will have to make the adaptations (or not). No ice age soon – 60,000 years plus away !
My Country
by Dorothea Mackellar (1885 – 1968)
The love of field and coppice,
Of green and shaded lanes.
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins,
Strong love of grey-blue distance
Brown streams and soft dim skies
I know but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror –
The wide brown land for me!
A stark white ring-barked forest
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die-
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.
Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the Rainbow Gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold-
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze.
An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land-
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand-
Though earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.
Cathy – Please tell us how these elevated CO2 levels are a benefit? Plants can only use more CO2 if they have sufficient water and other nutrients.
I can’t really understand how slapping a tax on something, then allowing people to trade their tax liabilities can be construed as a free market. It’s just another tax.
I’m also interested in these grants that the fossil fuel industry gets. I really thought it was a highly taxed industry, especially at the level of the consumer.
From my limited understanding, some areas of the industry get a reduction in tax burden for what are considered nationally important reasons, or to help comply with government objectives such as greenhouse gas reduction.
Whereas renewables get given money to help fund their development otherwise private industry would not be able to afford to develop them?
Gosh, Ender, I didn’t know that.
The other benefit, of course, is MILD warming (a few tenths of a degree), which is likely to be an entirely good thing.
Cathy
Ripples of bitter discord from the left; can the ALP survive Ferguson?
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/01/15/princelings/
Cathy – without being ornery – the warming we end up with depends on what we do globally about CO2. Asia Partnership might give a result or not much at all. No result will be more than a few tenths of a degree.
Certainly the rhetoric from the partnership is putting the boot into “climate alarmism” making me think it’s more about the energy business than CO2. Also distancing from carbon trading.
The degree of “average” warming isn’t really the issue – it’s a “change indicator”. The devil in the detail is what happens to extremes – heatwave incidence, drought, floods, intense storms, storm surge from cyclones etc. Ender is correct in than the CO2 will only help if you have a positive evapotranspiration balance. Notice how the AGo are now trying to spin positive benefits after lining up like soldiers to the new Partnership.
A warmer drier Australia would not be a good result for us overall but this is likely to be where we are going, if not already sampling.
I didn’t say doom – end of the world – but would be significant problems for land managers hit with decling terms of trade and already greater community demands for sustainability of resources and biodiversity.
The point of Dorothy MacKellar poem above is about Europeans from ordered woods and gardens living in a fairly nasty fire, flood, drought episodic environment. History shows time and time again we don’t get it.
For example our dam storage sizes already have to be many times world average size to cope with the climate variation (except say South Africa).
Dorothy Mackellar lived at a property called Torryburn, in the Hunter Valley, and it is said that the poem was inspired by a drought they were experiencing at the turn of the century. The place has been brown and green many times since then.
Since that time Tooryburn has changed hands and under the influence of Rob Ferguson (partner in Magic Millions) became an exclusive thoroughbred stud with best of facilities.
Since then it has changed hands for many millions and is undergoing further expansion, no doubt to facilitate the annual “shuttle stallion” breeding season (they fly in expensive stallions from the northern hemisphere in purpose built jumbos)
I wonder what Dorothy Mackellar would say if she saw the place today. Could she have possibly imagined the scope of todays developments? Would she be a good person to advise on future growth plans?
I think not.
“the warming we end up with depends on what we do globally about CO2”.
The sun also has an effect.
“CO2 will only help if you have a positive evapotranspiration balance.”
Not sure what you mean. There is evidence of CO2 fertilisation, in bristlecone pines, for example.
Sure, to get maximum fertilisation effect you may need optimum nutrient and water levels, but that’s not the same as saying you need optimum nutrient and water to get any CO2 fertilisation.
It’s as simple as this – if you use fertiliser in a drought you’ve wasted your money. You won’t see a response. Indeed this is an applications of El Nino- Southern Oscillation foecasting used in the Australian wheat industry. It’s the same with CO2 – not enough soil moisture and you won’t see a response – CO2 isn’t Jack’s beanstalk i.e. magical stuff. Soil moisture is a product of rainfall minus evaporation.
There is no doubt you can get good effects in the lab with many crop plants and sometimes in the field. Aquarium hobbyists into plants dope their tanks with CO2 to increase growth as water is a CO2 limited environment for frehwater plants.
Results from FACE (free air CO2 experiments) around the world are not straight forward. Google on FACE CO2 and also add Australia for more info on local scene. Sometimes you get yield increases, sometimes you don’t
CO2 also affects different plant metabolism differentially C3 and C4 mainly.
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/39866
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_plants
Rangland ecologists think that C3 woody plants may displace C4 grasses in woodland savannas under higher CO2 converting the ecosystem in a more woody less grazing productive environment. Woody weeds and shrub invasion are a big problem in Australia. This is already occurring through less fire and overgrazing.
So CO2 isn’t magic stuff – it depends whether you have enough water to utilise it and C3 plants may do better under higher CO2. Also boreal conifer forests in Europe, Russia and Canada are reported to be near maturity which means their ability to fix lots more CO2 may be limited.
Who might benefit is a USA or Canadian wheat farmer, enjoying warmer temperatures, longer seasons, more CO2 and maybe somewhat more rainfall. Australian wheat farmers may not be so lucky. Climate change doesn’t have to reward or punish everyone equally – there will be winners and losers.
Complex eh ?
Dorothy wasn’t advising on anything. But she did paint a VERY accurate picture of our Australian environment and the shock of distance from Europe. And she did love our environment as many of us do. Is simply descriptive.
How often is Australia in drought and how millions have been spent on drought aid since 1990 Rog ?? Google that !!!
How many major land degradation episodes have been induced by overgrazing in drought combined with commodity price economic cycles? Google that and report back !
Do you know what havoc drought plays with rural economies and families. Landholders sometimes bankrupted and sometimes driven to suicide. Read Jill Ker Conway’s “The Road from Coorain” about the effect on families.
The Hunter – what a boutique pleasant environment. Up the road from Sydney. Horse studs indeed.
Rog – your comment belies you lack of basic knowledge of the Australian environment. But then again you nursery guys are protected from real variation.
C4 plants appear to be an adaptation to hot dry conditions. Also, only 5% of plants are C4. I’m not sure what the relevance to CO2 fertilisation is.
Of course, increased water use efficiency may benefit sub – Saharan Africans.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N2/EDIT.jsp
Complex eh ?
Relevance of the 5% = sugar cane, maize & sorghum are C4s and many tropical grasses which a whole beef industry is built on. Relevance to CO2 is that C3s and C4s have different adaptability. In mixed system woody weeds and shrubs make choke out grasslands and a myriad of other subtle ecological changes. C4s are recent in an evolutionary sense. Typical C3 plants include: barley, sunflower, rice, tomatoes, wheat, peanuts, cotton, sugar beet, oats, and most trees.
Watch that CO2 science site – they’ll always try to have one on – the last comment is pure speculation and at current levels of CO2 increase you’d be going to measure an effect over background variability. Google on FACE experiments and check out some real science.
Cathy – “The other benefit, of course, is MILD warming (a few tenths of a degree), which is likely to be an entirely good thing.”
How do you know that the warming will be mild? Even mild warming can change rainfall patterns.
Paul wrote “I can’t really understand how slapping a tax on something, then allowing people to trade their tax liabilities can be construed as a free market. It’s just another tax”.
It becomes a market the same as anything else with a value becomes a market. In part the notion is also that the tax is adding a cost as way of trying to get some of the externalities factored into the price/cost.
The fossil fuel people did quite well out of the Greenhouse Gas Abatament Program, and it looks like they will be getting priority for further government support to research geosequestration technology,
This discussed the carbon dioxide fertilisation and improved water use from amospheric CO2 change well. The bottom line is that increased ecosystem biomass has already started and will continue for decades.
Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models
W O L F G ANG C R A M E R ,and others
The possible responses of ecosystem processes to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration
and climate change are illustrated using six dynamic global vegetation models
that explicitly represent the interactions of ecosystem carbon and water exchanges
with vegetation dynamics. The models are driven by the IPCC IS92a scenario of rising
CO2 (Wigley et al. 1991), and by climate changes resulting from effective CO2 concentrations
corresponding to IS92a, simulated by the coupled ocean atmosphere model
HadCM2-SUL. Simulations with changing CO2 alone show a widely distributed terrestrial
carbon sink of 1.4±3.8 PgCy±1 during the 1990s, rising to 3.7±8.6 PgCy±1 a century
later. Simulations including climate change show a reduced sink both today (0.6±
3.0 PgCy±1) and a century later (0.3±6.6 PgCy±1) as a result of the impacts of climate
change on NEP of tropical and southern hemisphere ecosystems. In all models, the
rate of increase of NEP begins to level off around 2030 as a consequence of the `diminishing
return’ of physiological CO2 effects at high CO2 concentrations. Four out of the
six models show a further, climate-induced decline in NEP resulting from increased
heterotrophic respiration and declining tropical NPP after 2050. Changes in vegetation
structure inØuence the magnitude and spatial pattern of the carbon sink and, in combination
with changing climate, also freshwater availability (runoff). It is shown that
these changes, once set in motion, would continue to evolve for at least a century even
if atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate could be instantaneously stabilized. The
results should be considered illustrative in the sense that the choice of CO2 concentration
scenario was arbitrary and only one climate model scenario was used. However,
the results serve to indicate a range of possible biospheric responses to CO2 and climate
change. They reveal major uncertainties about the response of NEP to climate
Global Change Biology (2001) 7, 357±373
Phil – I wonder what credibility you give to the mustelid site you linked to on another thread, given the author, also a RC contributor, is a former member of the UK Green Party, and thus has an interest in findings that support the concept of fossil fuel caused global warming?
I have the impression you think all “contrarian” sites are shonky and only proponents of AGW practice pure untainted science.
Andrew – your answer illustrates to me why the Democrats are a spent force. Only a socialist would seriously think that tax concessions to comply with onerous government regulations constitutes a “subsidy”.
Yep – and a practising climate modeller with the British Antartic Survey – heavy stuff. Unlike many contrarian sites William gives no quarter to anyone including his own colleagues – read some threads that give him own some stick. His motto is “Taking science by the throat”. I am not using him as an appeal to authority – however he produce well argued and referenced articles, and he does know his climate. He has commented on this site too.
You should take his written material on face value and make a personal evaluation on the quality of his argument – same with RC.
I have personally not seen a decent contrarian site yet. I know everyone will groan – but you do not get quality arguments backed up with references such as on RC. And unlike Louis – you can get in there and test it with them in the comments if you’re cocky. Many do ! They will also usually tell you when they don’t know or science is uncertain.
Detribe – ASKING this site to believe a model(s) !!!
I might but they won’t.
Actually I would be sceptical too (gee can I be sceptical).
You’re flat out measuring an impact in the field within the bounds of experimental error. You have to separate out climate, fire, CO2, and herbivores – termites, grasshoppers, macropods, ferals etc. Hard stuff. The Greenhouse Accounting CRC has difficulty in estimating Australian NPP – different answers from different models. I’m not saying there is no effect but CO2 on a whole ecosystem is complicated stuff. May take years to equilibrate in terms of biomass and species mix.
Google on some international and Australian FACE experiments and tell me what you think.
Andrew, do the Democrats actually have any policies or are they just a group of angry depressed people? I cant see how they can ever lead, by being always negative they are always in reverse.
Try to cheer up a little, every drought is broken by rain.
Phil Done again uses the fallacy argument ie; “I have personally not seen a decent contrarian site yet. I know everyone will groan – but you do not get quality arguments backed up with references such as on RC.”
What Phil Done + clones fail to understand is that because RC is not argued against does not mean that RC is correct. It just means that RC does not justify deploying resources to argue against.
oooo – I’m mortally wounded. Et tu Rog !
>>>>> It just means that RC does not justify deploying resources to argue against.>>>>
Or it might mean “drat I didn’t think of that”, “I’m stumped”.. … “wow that’s a big word”, or “I’ll just be very quiet and still and hope they don’t notice”
Go and help Louis write some sci-fi.
Phil – “You should take his written material on face value and make a personal evaluation on the quality of his argument – same with RC.”
Thanks for the gratuitous advice. I never said you were using Connolley as an appeal to authority, simply asking if his background affected the way you appraised his work. I don’t remember any comments from you about the green lobby lining up behind Kyoto, or how the government funding of “greenhouse” research may affect the conclusions reached.
Have you read “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, by Bjorn Lomborg? It is a well argued and well referenced book. And not sceptical of AGW, but very critical of the IPCC scenarios.
Greenhouse accounting sounds very much like an all pervasive Big Brother accounting for each and every human action in order to control our behaviour.
As Lenin remarked last century about Sydney and Beatrice Webb, they were his useful idiots.
Missing from the climate debate is a latter day Lenin, though not missing are the useful idiots.
I’m sure the very serious scientists involved in the Greenhouse Accounting CRC would be most unimpressed by your grossly pig ignorant remark. I suggest you apologise forthwith.
Louis the charltan and peddler of fraudlent scientifc claims! A modern day politically motivated rhetorical gangster who will say anything.
Phil – Why do you say the CO2 science site will try to have one on? Shouldn’t their arguments be taken on their merits?
Whoops my invisible field collapsed! Phil Done has noticed me.
I have no intention of apologising Phil. I never directed my comment to anyone, just the abstract concept of Greenhouse Accounting.
The day I apologise to an abstraction has yet to dawn.
I think Phil Done is being overly pessimistic about CO2 fertilisation effects that promote plant growth. Instead of wikipedia offered by Phil why not read the real scientific literature?
The best review on field effects of atmospheric CO2 and it effects on plants says the following:
QUOTE
Free-Air CO2 Enrichment
(FACE) was developed as a means to grow plants in the field at controlled elevation of CO2 under fully open-air field conditions. The findings of FACE experiments are quantitatively summarized via meta-analytic statistics and compared to findings from chamber studies [in this review]. Although trends agree with parallel summaries of enclosure studies, important quantitative differences emerge that have important implications both for predicting the future terrestrial biosphere and understanding how crops may need to be adapted to the changed and changing atmosphere.
Summarizing the FACE experiments as a whole, the results provide the best evidence yet that the elevation of [CO2] predicted for mid-century will result in a ###substantial increase in vegetative and reproductive production, ###decreased transpiration, and decreased tissue quality, with respect to protein and N content of leaves (Figure 6). There are significant differences in the response of C4 and C3 species, and among C3 functional types (Figure 6), which suggests that the elevation of [CO2] will, and likely already is, altering competitive balance within plant communities. Overall increases in production and photosynthesis in FACE are broadly similar to projections from chamber studies. However, there are significant differences in the apparent response of leaf chemistry (cf. 30). Most importantly, only a small increase in [Leaf area index] LAI is indicated, and this is not statistically significant. ###Many current models of global vegetation response to rising [CO2] assume an increase LAI (reviewed in 27). This is not supported by the FACE studies (Figure 6) and consequently suggests these models may ###overestimate future evapotranspiration and photosynthetic carbon uptake at the landscape level.
ENDQUOTE
Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2004.55:591-628.
RISING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE:
Plants FACE the Future. Stephen P. Long,Elizabeth A. Ainsworth,
Alistair Rogers, and Donald R. Ort
Paul – CO2 science – yep and found scientifically dodgy. Like Bjorn in parts. IMHO – but why ask me – ask other professionals in the field.
Detibe – excuse me – but it was I why brought up FACE actually but anyway.. … it mentions the differential C3/C4 species balance issue, I note decreased tissue quality, so I’m not sure what you’e on about ??? My wiki googles were simply for a canned explanation of C3, C4 and CAM for Paul’s edification.
Where were the studies conducted ? And what was the climate regime ?
Like Mann is statistically dodgy?
Bjorn is well argued and referenced. They’re your criteria, Phil, and good ones.
Climate Audit is a good site, too. They don’t censor comments like RC.
Warwick Hughes is well argued and referenced. His conclusions are different to yours. He allows adverse comments.
The Lavoisier site is well argued and referenced. Why don’t you like any of these sites?
Well Paul – suit yourself – but I find tons of rubbish and untruths myself. Seriously !!
Bjorn has reams of statistical and climate difficulties despite being well referenced, but alas not peer reviewed and would not stand that test of critique.
Anyway I encourgae you to read critically and asking youself if this an old argument, is there a counter position, have they explained it to me well enough. At least compare and contrast. And alwayts be worried when the science text suddenly stops and you’re in a political rave.
Warwick’s big test of course is to get published. Then we’ll see. Good luck to him in this.
RC has plenty of strong comments that rampantly disagree with their position.
Paul – I can only say good luck sifting through it all.
P.S. I think the Mann issue if FAR from settled and has taken far too much emphasis anyway.
P.P.S. Despite all the blathering the IPCC process continues on fearlessly and formally assessing the state of the science. The contrarian stuff is really a side show for we bloggers. There will be another assessment report and I think it will be even more certain than previous. Of course whether the world wants to listen or do anything about it is another matter.
Phil – You have a touching faith in the objectivity of the peer review process.
I agree the Mann issue is far from settled, I think the dust will fly over this. Too much emphasis? You’re joking! It’s central to the vaunted peer review process.
I have no idea if Warwick is submitting papers for publication. Of course, the acceptance or not of his work by the AGW establish has no bearing on its validity.
Too much emphasis as if that’s the only issue or the whole of AGW hinges on Mann is what I’m implying.
The reason Warwick needs to publish to do a couple of things (1) in a congent publication show what he’s on about (b) is the temperature record is corrupted by incorrect data – show us what difference it makes – none, a little, some, heaps ??? (c) some else always should look at your stats (d) as a courtesy to the work that he’s attacking
IMHO I simply don’t know if his arguments make any difference. Publish a paper in an accepted journal saying they do and we’ll all sit up and take notice. There are two published papers refuting heat islands as issues. Otherwise it’s only blogging and really the science world doesn’t see it nor care. So it many of make not be valid – but it’s all for naught if you don’t get it to the attention of the world’s science bodies.
And as for the science club being a closed shop – well scientists love to get the drop on their colleagues and overturn the apple cart. Everyone would love to publish something revolutionary or heretical. See plants methane. But you have to be right and have some proof – you can’t just be raving on.
But usually outsiders don’t get the drop on major science process – as a large number of very bright people have already looked at the issue. You have to ask yourself – do I really think they haven’t looked at any of this. Would they be that stupid (only very occasionally is the answer yes). But don’t be deterred from trying !!!
To get back to your original point, Phil, when you ask, is global warming fact or not? You are dumbing down the argument to black or white.
Most of the sceptical posts on this site and elsewhere have cautioned against assuming global warming is absolute fact. They have highlighted that it is a modelled scenario with numerous untested assumptions and relationships. And they have concluded that it is a low probability scenario that needs a great deal more work on it before it could possibly justify taking a (Kyoto)sledge hammer to the world economy.
But this low probability scenario is sufficient to apply a proper precautionary approach by taking practical measures within a functioning market economy to reduce inputs that MIGHT be creating a problem.
The greens have forgotten that the precautionary principle was not designed to be a blank cheque for the most disproportionate response they can think up. It was always intended to produce measured, proportionate and cost effective responses to realistic threats.
I think forget greens – sideshow and noisy distraction at best.
A major representation of the world’s best scientists through their publishing record in various areas have through the IPCC process produced some very dry indigestible stste of the science information about where increased atmospheric CO2 might be heading. There are unknowns but a fair bit a stake they say – and once you get the CO2 up there you’re practically stuck with it.
You have a current warming trend that the only plausible reason seems to radiative forcing from extra CO2. It ain’t solar.
It’s a very hard call. Humanity is not good at this stuff. We’re not good at managing droughts and climate “problems” that we already have.
If it were myself I would prefer a market mechanism using Asia Partnership technologies, but also make carbon a commodity of value, and set some “realistic” targets to at least rein in growth of CO2 somewhat. I don’t that would ruin the world and make actually increase global domestic product through innovation.
But from where I sit – Kyoto is gone (was never there really and not enough), Asia pact won’t deliver anything more than a better way to burn coal. Public won’t touch nuclear. So CO2 will keep going up.
Incidentally I think the climate scientists now having been mauled as the messenger are giving up and moving to quietly refining the science and working on adaptation. Pessimistic that any reponse will be taken before major climate changes occur and the public want to know “why”.
I enclose some empircal evidence on greenhouse forcing using pyranometers for your perusal.
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing –
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
ALSO
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land. INDEX
TERMS: 0325 Atmospheric Composition and Structure:
Evolution of the atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere
(0315, 0325); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309);
1640 Global Change: Remote sensing. Citation: Philipona, R.,
and B. Du¨rr (2004), Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing
solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937.
AND
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura,
and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and
strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
Ian
It is getting worse – some greenhouse effect calculations on the climate sceptics group for Martian CO2 are producing numbers which contradict the belief in the greenhouse effect. So far two quite different approaches were adopted, both analyses coming to the same general conclusion. I expect it will appear in Realclimate sometime.
There is a suggestion that the Greenhouse Gas concept itself might be flawed though considering how mainstream that idea is, I doubt anything will change soon. It has reached the status of a core belief so it will be resistant to contradiction.
Louis – the Martian CO2 business has been on RC for months
Anyway your Martian CO2 stuff on your blog is idiotic – get back to Warwick’s blog and answer my substantive claims about your rampant dishonesty and total lack of any analysis in your blog. How you passed geology I’ll never know.
You are clueless about what you are talking about. Ask any physics lecturer.
Better still – you explain here now how the greenhouse effect supposedly works .. .. come on – for the readers .. ..
Have we not wandered a little from the topic of Marn Ferguson? As a lapsed Labor voter, I am happy to hear some sense, at last, from a member of that party. Of course politicians will say things that win them votes. That’s how they become, and remain, politicians. Don’t blame them, blame the system, if you must. It’s called parliamentary democracy. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than any other system I know.
Sorry Davey -deeply suspicious it’s vote buying. But like to think you are right. However the the disconnect that the climate but is rubbish but we still need to do something is illogical.
Maybe some companies already get it and don’t need pacts to get moving.
http://www.bpalternativenergy.com/liveassets/bp_internet/alternativenergy/index.html
Good point, Davey. All very well to have one little beacon of common sense in the party but it will mean diddly squat if it comes without a complete ethics transfusion for all those “poisonous young men in suits” that, as Tom Burns put it, “wouldn’t make a labor man’s armpit”.
Hey Louis – I’ve told you why you’re wrong on Mars in Warwick’s blog but you haven’t read it have you. Waiting for the penny and Louis’s pants to drop .. .. I’ll leave it for you as an exercise. In the mean time keep digging a bigger hole. I’ve got a bet running on how deep you go.
I read it Phil and I disagree with your view that your comments are substantial.
Oh Rog – really – I’m heartbroken – I stayed up all night writing it too.
Anyway – so you tell me why Louis is wrong then.
Incidentally some dogs will lie anywhere. Louis had been bagging string theory – now he’s quoting a string theorist when it suits him. Oh the sweet smell of hypocrisy. You need to keep check on your character.
One last post (cros my heart and hope to die) to substantiate the CO2 fertilisation and water saving effects that to some extent counteract global temperature increases:
Crop losses to water shortage may exceed those from all other causes combined. If agriculture is to feed the world’s burgeoning population, yields of water-limited crops must be improved substantially. Efforts to accomplish this have concentrated on increasing the fraction of available water that crops transpire and increasing plant water use efficiency(biomass produced per unit of transpiration. These and other components of crop water economy will be affected by anticipated global changes, changes that include correlated increases in both atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and mean temperature.
Yield of water-limited crops is determined by crop water use and plant water use efficiency, each of which will be affected by the anticipated rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and concomitant increase in temperature. At the leaf level, a given proportional increase in CO2 concentration generally elicits a similar relative increase in transpiration efficiency (ratio of net photosynthesis to transpiration). The increase in transpiration efficiency may result both from an increase in photosynthetic rate and a decrease in stomatal – conductance.
Feedbacks involved in scaling from leaf to crop constrain the increase in net carbon gain and reduce the anti-transpiration effect of CO2 enrichment. As a result, the increase in crop water use efficiency at high CO2 typically is less than 75% of that measured at the leaf level. By accelerating crop development and reducing harvest index, higher temperatures often erode yield benefits of improved water use efficiency at high CO2. The fraction of available water that is used by crops could increase with CO2 concentration because of greater root growth and faster canopy closure, but these effects have received scant study. Field experiments indicate that CO2 enrichment will increase crop water use efficiency mainly by increasing photosyn-thesis and growth. Yield should be most responsive to CO2 when temperatures approximate the optimum for crop growth. Elevating CO2 can ameliorate negative effects of above-optimal temperatures, but temperatures near the upper limit for crops will depress yields irrespective of CO2 concentration.
Implications of Atmospheric and Climatic Change for Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency
H. Wayne Polley*
Published in Crop Sci. 42:131–140 (2002).