Dr Peter Ridd from James Cook University gave a lecture in Townsville yesterday and it was reported in The Age. Not bad given that he wasn’t pushing a doom and gloom message and doesn’t believe the reef is at risk from global warming. He’s some of what The Age reported:
Risks to the Great Barrier Reef have been overstated and Australians should be more worried about population growth and noxious weeds, a physicist says.
Dr Peter Ridd from Townsvilles James Cook University (JCU) today challenged the widely held view that one of the world’s most important natural assets is in serious decline.
He said the reef, which other scientists predict could be wiped out within 30 years due to global climate change, was in “first rate condition”.
“It’s probably one of the best preserved ecosystems in the whole world,” Dr Ridd, of JCU’s Faculty of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, said.
“I think the only place that’s probably better is Antarctica, and that is because it’s a long way away from any significant population centre.”
His comments came only weeks after scientists warned of a new coral bleaching threat following the discovery of blanched corals off the central Queensland coast.
Dr Ridd said although the reef suffered extensive bleaching in 1998 and 2002, most of it was unaffected and the parts that were damaged “completely recovered”.
“I think some of it is a beat-up and I think we’ve got our priorities wrong,” he said.
“We have around the country some serious environmental issues associated with weeds and indeed with things like population and the growing of our cities.
“We’re not worried about all these other things which are potentially far more important and definitely there, whereas you can argue about the Great Barrier Reef being in jeopardy.”
Dr Ridd, who formerly worked with the Australian Institute of Marine Science – a body which has long sounded warnings about threats to the reef – said coral bleaching was an “adaptation to changing environmental temperature”.
Additionally, pollution from sediment and agricultural run-off was negligible given the reef’s size and how rapidly it was flushed by tides, he said.
In a draft policy paper for new environment group the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), Peter Ridd outlines and discusses the various environmental issues he sees confronting Australia. The paper can be accessed from the home page of the AEF, click here.
I have listed nine reasons why Peter Ridd doesn’t consider the reef is at risk from global warming at an earlier blog post, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Risks to the Great Barrier Reef have been overstated and Australians should be more worried about population growth and noxious weeds, a physicist says”.
Yep. I’m real worried the country is overpopulated and there are too many weeds in the backyard.
Hi Joe
I understand that we have a big environmental weed problem – extending way beyond your backyard. But I don’t know that we have a population problem in Australia – we are about to go into natural decline?
I’m not kidding, Jen, the weeds in the backyard are a huge problem so I know what this guy is talking about.
[Comment edited. 11.16am. by Jennifer]
I spent a number of years in Great Barrier Reef waters. Some of it cruising in my yacht, some of it in the marine area of the tourist industry, & some of it, just passing through.
I have seen vast areas of the Qld coastal land, once converted from leasehold grazing to national park, or crown land, disappear under lantana, & other weeds.
What had once been semi-open woodland, where you could tramp for miles, became almost impenetrable, only traversable by following the wild cattle tracks.
I am probably one of the very few people who have had an interest long distance sailing, & bush walking, & put those interests into practice on the Qld coast.
Believe me, if you get out into the isolated areas you will be worried.
I have also spent a lot of time on the reef, with tourists, & privately, & also believe the reef is only in danger at research grant time.
Hasbeen
I note that Ridd has failed to mention increased acidification of thwe ocean as a result increased ocean CO2 uptake. Many of Ridd’s marine scientist colleagues think this is a mjor issue, including Dr Chris Langdon who is the associate director of the American National Center for Caribbean Coral Reef Research and an assistant professor in marine biology and fisheries at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
Jen, why do you jump with any bit of information that citicises the fact that Australia and in fact the world is undergoing serious issues as a result of poor management practices, whether it be industrial or agricultural.
You say – “Not bad given that he wasn’t pushing a doom and gloom message and doesn’t believe the reef is at risk from global warming”
“Not Bad”, what do you mean by that comment, do you mean you just picked the biggest cherry you could find on the topic, hardly plausible!
Here you are prepared support and listen to the words of Peter Ridd and therefore suggest that the issue is not important.
Peter Ridd is from the Mathematics and Physics department from that faculty (since 1992). Just as Steve Munn previously mentioned, his views do not reflect those held by the experts in that faculty who fall under the Marine Biology and Biochemistry Departments.
I would rather hear a Marine Biologist’s comments than that of a mathematician/physicist who appently has another agenda. I wonder who pays his kick-backs?
Jenny you are meant to be a ‘credible’ writer and a reporter. Perhaps you should do a bit more research on your sources and be just a little transparent, if at all, in your presentation of ‘information’. Otherwise you are just supplying propoganda to those ingnorant enough to consume this and think that its gospel. Which unfortunately many of your readers seem to do.
regards
Capt S
Hi Capt S,
I meant ‘not bad’ because usually The Age runs the doomsayers message to the exclusion of alternative views and some logical debate and discussion. Perhaps The Age is becoming more tolerant of alternative perspectives – which is very much what this blog is all about.
I do know Peter Ridd, and while I don’t agree with everything he has written in the draft poicy paper for the AEF, he is usually spot on when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef.
I do know something about the reef. One of my first reviews of environmental impacts can be read here: http://www.ipa.org.au/files/wwftext.htm .
If you want a review of the work of a well known doomsayers writting about Australia try this: http://jennifermarohasy.com/data/EE%2016-3+4_Marohasy.pdf .
Thankyou for responding Jen
I quickly read the first article you recommended, and yes there are some points there regarding research outcomes that contradict those beleifs held by the WWF.
The questions I do need to ask though are:
With current agricultural, industrial and urban practices along the Queensland coast, is it not true that there have been significant changes, from the natural state, of estuarine discharges into the GBR lagoon?
And if so, would it not be accurate to assume that some biological components may benefit from these changes, while other components will be detrimentally effected?
Then should we be quantifying the extent of benefits to dis-benefits on those systems, and additionally identifying what effects those components that are benefiting have on the components that are now subsequently failing due to these changes?
My understanding of ecology is that it consists of very complex interactions between individual sub-systems within the larger scope of things. And very small changes in inputs into these systems can have very significant (either positive or negative) effects on the equilibrium and viability of the ecology.
Having said this, and knowing that the outputs from agricultural, industrial and urban activities actually do exist (whether it be sediment, residual chemcals, nutrients, runoff volumes), should we not be aiming to minimise these outputs to the level of that which existed in its natural state. After all, the changes in these outputs in just the last 50 years far outway the natural changes that have occurred over the last say, 10 000 years.
This does bring to mind the point that, should we have the exclusive rights to rapidly change the surrounding systems that support life, or should we be mangaing or infact integrating our practices such that the equilibrium of the ecology around us is maintained for the long term?
I know this is getting a little off topic but I feel it is the core of the issue at hand.
I look forward to your response or anybody else who has an opinion on the topic.
regards
Capt S
Having said
whoops ignore those last two words ‘having said’ I forgot to preview. 8O)
Sensible,
Regarding what you consider to be a core issue:
I think there needs to be more acceptance of change. Change is the only constant in life? The natural world is always changing and evolving.
That said, we/homo sapiens have a great capacity to change natural systems and sometimes for the worst. We can be very destructive.
If we take two very different systems – the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray River – I suggest we should have different objectives for those systems.
We can seek to minimise our impact on the reef and I would suggest there is not much of an impact now.
In contrast we have so change the Murray River it is pointless to try and put it back how it was. Here I suggest we actively manage the system to agreed objectives rather than try and put it back how it was or even to minimise impacts. Let’s go for a healthy river system rather than a natural one. For a discussion of the difference see my ‘Myth and the Murray’ pubication.
Aaah yes, the so-called impacts on the reef line, again. For the record, the biggest killer of coral is fresh water. It is why the GBR does not extend past the mouth of the Fly River in PNG to form one continuous coral reef to Milne Bay and beyond.
And never mind that all the so-called silt run-off that is supposed to come from bare cultivated cane fields seems to spend at least 6 months in some sort of planeteers limbo between the dry season when the fields are cultivated and the wet season when the silt is claimed to be dumped on the reef.
Yes, you did read that correctly, fields are only cultivated every 3rd or 4th ratoon and this is done in the dry season when, surprise surprise, there are no floods to wash this bare soil into the rivers and certainly not enough to wash it all the way out to the reef.
By the time the wet season arrives the cane has grown considerably from the retained soil moisture and has well and truly stabilised the top soil to a point where it would lose as much silt/ha as a paddock full of pasture, ie, background levels only.
Indeed, I think Jen has data that shows cane fields producing the same amount of silt as a rainforest. And there is more evidence, such as old buried fence lines etc, that prove that canefields actually collect silt from upstream sources. A hundred years of continuous deposition doesn’t lie.
But these sort of ‘externalities’ have never bothered the keen minds of the GBR Commission who recognise a blank cheque meal ticket when they see one. And that makes their officially sanctioned defamation of the cane industry a criminal misconduct matter, not just a bit of policy spivery.
The great irony in all this is that if the government or greens were serious about reducing silt discharge onto the reef then they would be building dams to collect a decent proportion of the flood surges that actually do kill coral and do transport silt.
Once again, we have a favourable environmental outcome that has been vetoed by an ignorant metropolitan majority. A veto that is most easily and effectively overcome by forming their own new State.
And OK, Steve Munn, what is the background PH of the oceans? What is the total volume of these oceans? What are the volume inputs of Co2 in comparison to these ocean volumes? And how much will this change the PH of the oceans?
This has the unmistakeable stench of bullshit around it. You raised the issue, so you get the numbers, show us the sources, or spare us the crap.
Ian Mott
Your argument is full of anectodal info, and really doesnt add to the debate. You got to be kidding when you say rainforest produces as much sediment movement as cleared land. You need a lesson in hydraulics and hydrology and especially in particulate movement due to runoff velocities. You would learn that higher friction co-efficients reduce scour potential and erodability rates. Be sure you know what you talk about man!
A reader of this blog asked I post this link:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314
from Anon !!
——————–
Anon!! could make for a good pen name?
Thanks Anon, will take a really good look at it later. But first up, the worlds oceans are alkaline with a PH of 8.2 with a range of 0.3 units. So it is wrong to describe a reduction in the alkalinity of a substance as ‘acidification’.
More importantly, the report completely relies on the well discredited pre-industrial Co2 levels that have been inferred from the Vostock Ice Cores. The variance between the pre-industrial and present day Co2 levels has been shown to result from pressure changes within the ice rather than actual variations in Co2 over time.
And in any event, the estimated change in PH between the reported Co2 levels is only 0.1 unit so this imaginary change in Co2 would only amount to 1/3rd of the current normal range of variation.
And even if it were appropriate to extrapolate from the current data to year 2100 then the change would still leave alkaline oceans with a mean PH of 7.7.
The paper has also assumed that only the top 100 metres of ocean will undergo this change. They recognise that deep ocean upwelling etc does take place over the medium term but do not appear to have adjusted for this fact over the past industrialised century and a half or the comming century to 2100.
But thank you, Anon, and Steve, for drawing my attention to this classic exercise in the art of self delusion. There looks like lots of fun in it yet.
And as for coral destruction by acidic ocean water, the test will be how much fresh (non-alkaline) water they can be exposed to at river mouths without tossing in the towel. I was getting boored with the usual stuff. Aaah the numbers, don’t you just love em?
Hi Jennifer, yes and thanks
” think there needs to be more acceptance of change. Change is the only constant in life”
I most certainly agree with you on that, ‘change’ is inevitable in all areas.
It is when change occurrs too rapidly for us to see any immediate effects is what concerns me. And post industrialisation has seen the rate of change ‘skyrocket’, so to speak. 8O)
Do you suggest this statement you made, should therefor encompass the requirement for changes in our practices and ways of life in order to accomodate the imbalances that occurr along with change. Especially in areas where the outcome of change was unknown until its effects (whether positive or negative) become evident.
Like for example the process of veg clearing along creeklines to maximise availible land, however that ‘change’, after a significant period of operations resulted in massess of erosion and sediment movement that was detrimental to both agricultural production and environmental health. And our natural response to that was to get out there and quickly re-vegetate the creeklines and erosion gullies to resemble, if only slightly, that which existed in its former natural state.
Does that not support the need to be changing our practices and way of life such that the newly (ie the past 50 years) ‘changed’ outputs from our industry and lifestyles do not have unforseen consequences in the near or distant future?
May I repeat my concept of the need to ‘integrate’ more closely to slow changing natural processes.
We have just had a new baby and it is all the things that I got to see as a child that I want for him to be able to experience in the future. I feel it is not right to deny him that in such a short time.
Maybe you could create a thread on this topic, I think it would be interesting.
regards
Captain Sensible
Ps you are also correct about the Murray, although what would constitute river health, and what could be done in order to acheive that. I would think from our current stance it would be the management and minimisation of outputs from anthropocentric activities. What do you feel it would be.
To Ian Mott and Steve Munn
It seems quite logical that the slight change in pH due to CO2 levels would be bufferred by the sheer volume and circulation of the waters of the ocean. Although if changes occurred at the sea surface, particularly in the areas around the GBR this could potentially effect corals as this is where the coral ecosystems exist. We would need a marine biologists input for this topic to verify this.
Fortunately though, there is no large scale industrialisation immediately to the west of the reef, as acid rain would have a far more damaging effect on localised pH values of waters circulating around the reef.
Regards
Capt Sensible
It would appear that the extent of Steve Munns knowledge is defined by google hits;
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/02/14/global-warming-and-careerism/#comment-44740
Ian your criticisms of the paper don’t amount to much.
1. The word ‘acidification’ is reasonable given that it describes the movement along the pH continuum, also given that the first step is the addition of a weak acid when CO2 is absorbed by sea water. Using ‘acidification’ to describe the process is not calling seawater acid as you misread it.
2. They’re not basing their argument on “actual variations in Co2 over time”, but on the rapid increases in ATMOSPHERIC CO2. Hence, an increase in the rate of oceanic absorption that exceeds the pace of the CO2 cycle and therefore causes acidification (at a rate that may exceed the tolerance of key organisms).
3. They aren’t overlooking the effects of oceanic mixing and they do admit to uncertainties in that regard. The carbon cycle is a slow one: 100,000 yrs, and the isocline means that surface waters are well layered, they only mix in limited areas (eg upwelling, downwelling, and particular turbulence, shallow waters).
“..it takes many centuries for the downward mixing of CO2”
a “delay arises because it takes tens of thousands of years for mixing to take place throughout the oceans”.
Compounding this, “Warming of the oceans, as a result of global warming, may also reduce the rate of mixing with deeper waters..”
This rate of change is at least 100 times higher than the maximum rate observed over hundreds of thousands of years or much longer, so rapid it will significantly reduce the buffering capacity of the natural processes that have moderated changes in ocean chemistry over most of geological time.
4. As to your dismissal that it’s only an “imaginary change” of 0.1 unit:
“Seawater pH is a critical variable in marine systems; even small changes will have a large impact on ocean chemistry.”
More heat tolerant corals tend to be chunkier, less attractive types. It’s not the existence of coral reefs at the GBR which is at risk, but the wonderful diversity and beauty, and the extent and location of the reefs.
Coral bleaching reduces reproduction – corals take 3-5 yrs to reach sexual maturity and live to 20 yrs. Fecundity is skewed to some older individuals. Changes in currents and wind patterns may affect reproduction as reefs are patchily distributed and connected by currents which distribute sediments, nutrients and larvae.
So far reefs have shown resilience, but if regular warming and the location of hot spots exceeds the thermal tolerance of corals the survival and composition will be reduced. Recurring episodes of prolonged warming could cause reefs to maintain a state of early succession or become dominated by macroalgae.
If warming (and storm damage of shallow reefs) happens more frequently, this may outpace the adaptive ability of corals and their zooxanthellae. Heat stress also appears to make corals more vulnerable to pollution and diseases.
Really, Whose This? When you say, “You got to be kidding when you say rainforest produces as much sediment movement as cleared land”, all I can ask is, when did I say that? And are you referring to recently cleared land, any cleared land, typical cleared land?
I did say that a paddock full of cane will produce similar silt loads to a rainforest. And if you go back to the basics of volume, velocity and friction co-efficients you would realise that by the time a cane field is innundated the volume is very high but the velocity is low and the friction co-efficients are actually higher for the cane than a rainforest floor full of leaf litter. That, when combined with the cane’s location on river deltas and flood plains, is why they actually accumulate silt rather than loose it.
This is further reinforced by the practice of holding in the flood waters at full depth and then letting it out after the river level drops. This ensures that the roots and lower stem is not cooked in the hot shallow water that is produced by slowly receding flood water. Any suspended sediments that have not already settled on the cane ground are minimal.
And any time you want to compare sediment loads from a patch of rainforest and a paddock of Kikuyu then by all means drop us a line. Some pretty good friction co-efficients there as well.
But of course, none of this made it into the CSIRO sedimentation models (not hard data) that was used by the GBR Commission. Jen can tell us much more about this than I can. And far from this being anecdotal, it is common knowledge on general farming practices that was completely ignored by people trying to carve out a nice little research earner on the backs of a demonised farming community. Don’t it just make you feel so proud?
But nice try at picking out a pedantic irrelevancy to avoid discussing the main points. Better luck next time, man.
Captain S said, “And very small changes in inputs into these systems can have very significant (either positive or negative) effects on the equilibrium and viability of the ecology”. To which Field Marshall Mott felt the need to respond, Yes and no, some of the time.
The most conspicuous feature of ecological systems, particularly in the tropics, is the tremendous natural and cyclical range of variation within them. The mighty Burdekin has gone from full on megaflood to a two year zero flow within a few years. And most of the anthropogenic changes in all the related ecological systems are still well within this range of variation. Ditto for coral reefs and cyclones.
So all this portrayal of the environment as some sort of hyperfragile teenage nymph who needs counselling after every seasonal event, followed by extended refuge in the diary’s of Anais Nin, is really stretching the patience somewhat.
A significant effect on an equilibrium creates a new equilibrium. A significant effect on an ecosystem could be nothing more than a bad hair day.
Ian Mott says: “This has the unmistakeable stench of bullshit around it. You raised the issue, so you get the numbers, show us the sources, or spare us the crap.”
Sheesh! You have a great talent for foul language. Congratulations if you think that advances your case.
If you type:
acid coral “climate change”
into Google Scholar you will get plenty of citations for papers in the peer reviewed literature dating back a decade that identity increasede oceanic CO2 uptake as a problem for coral reef formation.
In fact any ocean creature that produces a calcium carbonate exoskeleton will be affected. There is nothing special about this since calcium carbonate chemically reacts with carbon dioxide. This is elementary high school chemistry so I am surprised as to why Ian Mott smells the stench of faecal matter.
May I suggest a change of undergarments?
>More importantly, the report completely relies on the well discredited pre-industrial Co2 levels that have been inferred from the Vostock Ice Cores. The variance between the pre-industrial and present day Co2 levels has been shown to result from pressure changes within the ice rather than actual variations in Co2 over time.
Ian I would love to know the source for this statment (I can guess). Unless we see pressure like those in the sun’s core(triggering nuclear fussion) it is a physical impossibility to transform CO2 into something other than CO2 in air bubbles in ice.
These fanciful ideas of pressure converting CO2 into something else have never been reproduced in the laboratory. you know why? The answers very very obvious.
A nice discussion of oceanic acidification is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification . If you don’t believe it, suggest you buy yourself a fisk tank, and blow CO2 into – a friend did it and all the snails died and their shells disolved (though the plants loved it!).
Still not convinced, prehaps you might look at history – http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18625044.700.html .
Coral bleaching can wait for another day. It certainly don’t look pretty.
David
The interesting thing about this new ocean acidification boogeyman is that the Royal Society guys appear to have completely discounted the impact of thermohaline cycles. And this would seem to be at variance with the whole “Atlantic Conveyor Collapse Ice Age” scenario.
They have clearly assumed zero operation of thermohaline cycling within a 250 year model and not even a 1% annual mixing from a neat 100 metre depth of surface mixing.
And the reason they have completely excluded any further mixing is that even a 1% annual mixing beyond the 100 metre depth of ocean, when projected over 100 years, equates to a doubling of the volume of water that the Co2 will mix with. And this will mean a halving of the actual reduction in alkalinity from 0.5 points to only 0.25 points. So even after a century of modelled mixing, it would still be within the existing range of variation in ocean alkalinity.
So lets not beat about the bush here fellas. Does the thermohaline cycle exist or not?
What is the estimated volume of upwelling and (downwelling?) each year? and what percentage of the upper 100 metres of ocean does that represent?
The average depth of the oceans is circa 4000 metres and these guys have assumed that Co2 mixing only takes place in the top 2.5% and are then expecting us to believe that thermohaline cycling of the whole body will have zero impact on that upper 2.5%. [exit flying pigs]
For the problems associated with ice core data see http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
And on the topic of sediment loads being dumped on the GBR, we need to properly assess the silt loads from firestick farming before we attack farmers for supposedly making things worse.
We know for a fact that firestick burning was widespread throughout the major catchments flowing onto the reef, and that it took place over all but the wetest months. We also know that this practice has become much less prevalent since these catchments were balloted after WWII.
And we know that firestick burning took place on a wider range of slopes and landforms than is currently devoted to cropping.
And we also know that cropping only takes place on less than 2% of the country and mostly on flat land. And cultivation usually takes place in the dry season with crops actively protecting soil by the on-set of the wet season.
And we also know that bare, friable earth, of the kind produced by burning, produces the most sediment flows over the full range of rainfall intensities.
And the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this information is that total sediments being deposited onto the GBR must have declined with the significant reduction in firestick burning. And it follows that cultivation for cropping, in the dry season, on primarily flat land is taking place at only a fraction of the scale that would be needed to match the sediment loads produced on a routine basis over the past 40 millenia.
And as the reef has evolved in the face of those sediment loads over those past millenia, how could the current decline in sediment loads possibly pose a threat to that reef?
Please explain?
Ian, funny that the only author that Jaworowski can quote for CO2 is himself, and the paper is published in a journal I bet no one on this list has ever heard of. Doesn’t this seem strange to you?
>3. Jaworowski, Z., T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? The Science of the Total Environment, 1992. 114: p. 227-284.
Ian says “the only conclusion .. is that total sediments being deposited onto the GBR must have declined .. only a fraction of the scale that would be needed to match the sediment loads produced on a routine basis over the past 40 millenia.” Ian do you pull this stuff out of thin air? Do you have any supporting evidence for your various silting claims?
****
“QUANTIFICATION SEDIMENT FLUXES ENTERING THE GREAT BARRIER REEF SINCE EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT”
“The dramatic increase in both the baseline and flood peaks heights that is evident in the coral Ba/Ca record from 1870 onwards, indicates an ~x4 to x8 increase in sediment flux to the inner GBR. This occurred immediately after European settlement which began in the 1860’s.”
From Terrestrial Runoff into the Inner Great Barrier Reef : Direct Evidence from Corals for Major Increases in Anthropogenic Fluxes Since European Settlement, Malcolm McCulloch et al, ANU & AIMS
****
“Suspended sediment loads are on average predicted to have increased by 15 times.”
“Sediment export to the coast has increased by as much as 6 times.”
From “Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment Transport in the Burdekin River Catchment”
****
Further:
“..plantation clearfelling large amounts of organic material enters the system. Soluble organic material from these pine plantations significantly stimulates the photosynthetic capacity of (toxic cyanobacteria) L. majuscula during laboratory trials. Parallel studies have also shown organics derived from pine plantations form soluble iron complexes far more rapidly than other natural organics.”
From LAND-BASED FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH BLOOMS OF THE CYANOBACTERIA LYNGBYA MAJUSCULA. Simon Albert et al
Thinksy, all that material is self serving stuff from an industry in search of a funding dollar. I place much more store on Bob Carter’s coral cores which show no change. And as for the attributed increase in sediment post 1870, clearing didn’t get started at any significant level in the Burdekin until after WWII and didn’t get to significant levels until 1970.
And please note the use of the words, “sediment loads are on average PREDICTED to have increased by 15 times”. So was it a stab in the dark?
So spare me the endless worthless quotes. Somone needs to explain why broadscale firestick burning did not produce a higher sediment load than comparatively limited cultivation in a context of reduced burning.
This sediment emperor appears to have no clothes.
And David, given the vested interests at stake and the reliance on the ice core interpretations I don’t find anything strange or funny about a claimed dearth of references by Jaworowski. So either refute his arguments or accept them. My respect for scientific consensus went out with Y2K and salinity on the Murray.
>And David, given the vested interests at stake and the reliance on the ice core interpretations I don’t find anything strange or funny about a claimed dearth of references by Jaworowski. So either refute his arguments or accept them. My respect for scientific consensus went out with Y2K and salinity on the Murray.
Ian, will pick through your points one by one.
First, there are dozen (actually 100s) of papers which analyses independent ice core samples and find the massive increase in CO2 post industrialisation. There are also a range of stomatal resistence analyses (though these are less reliable than ice cores) This is the proof.
Jaworowski (seems to have two arguments). The first which relates to a time discrepency in the cores suggests he is rather confused about the process of ice formation. It takes a number of years for bubbles to be fully sealed in ice, with this period varying from around a decade in high snow accumulation areas to around a century in low accumulation areas. This is why 1970 bubbles (for example) don’t match 1970 gas samples. This is all common sense and a simple physical fact.
The second one relating to chemisty is just plain wrong. Suggest you buy yourself a tank of CO2 and ice and compress it (at about -50C) if you don’t believe me, or better still go to your local chemistry department.
>given the vested interests at stake and the reliance on the ice core interpretations I don’t find anything strange or funny about a claimed dearth of references by Jaworowski.
You can be quite sure there is no serious vested interest among scientists. I can’t comment on green groups. Why should climate scientist care whether the current rapid climate change is anthropogenic or natural? If it is natural, then it is even more urgent that we understand it (and prehaps look to control it), which means even more funding for scientist.
>My respect for scientific consensus went out with Y2K and salinity on the Murray.
You make the mistake of extrapolating your experiences without a basis. Do you stop believing in medicine because a doctor makes a mistake? The climate scientists I know have no interest in salinty or professsional views on the matter, and had no relationship to Y2K.
Your experiences in these has no relevance to climate change.
Finally suggest you get out and have a look around. Prehaps ask yourself, why if global warming is so natural does it keep getting hotter (as predicted), why was last year the hottest Australia has recorded, why has eastern Australia just experienced its hottest summer on record, etc.
David
David, I suggest you go back to all the previous posts on Global Warming on this blog and check them all out. You are starting from scratch but flogging a dead horse.
And as for, “You can be quite sure there is no serious vested interest among scientists”, thanks for the laugh. Trust me, I’m a scientist?
And, David, your suggestion that I could duplicate the presures exerted on deep ice in my laundry tub is breathtaking, and does nothing for your credibility. What Jaworowski, a guy who has worked on ice cores since 1968, actually said was;
“False Low Pre-industrial CO2 in the Atmosphere
Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of -15°C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now”.
And for the record, The USA and Russian Antarctic science teams are currently in dispute over the russian plan to drill the last 200 metres through the ice into the fresh water Lake Vostok. The dispute is over the very same sort of contamination of the samples by the drilling fluid that Jaworowski has warned about.
>Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters.
Take Siple core (a famous high accumulation site in Antarctica), the air at a depth of 144m dates back to 1834 (essentially pre-industrialisation). Even if Jaworowski was right about the importance of the chemistry (which he is not), his interpretation that the fall in CO2 pre-industrialisation is due to chemical process in the ice is wrong.
David
The Golden Horseshoe Award: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Dr Mott should apologize for promoting scientific fraud.
I don’t apologise for anything. Especially when I am directed to a blog that simply dismisses out of hand the possibility that the science community is capable of jumping on a funding bandwagon. “more money promoting the contrary view” indeed. As this is not my primary area of expertise I will be seeking additional opinion from people more qualified to assess these claims. And if those opinions support your view, David, then I will recant that portion of my statement. But that is still a very sceptical IF. This was also one of a number of issues raised in relation to threats to the GBR and these have been ignored.
In particular, the silence as to whether it is appropriate to assume that there is no meaningful thermohaline circulation in the Royal Society’s ocean acidification model is deafening. It renders the whole debate about past Co2 levels redundant.
Ditto the very realistic probability that firestick farming would have produced higher sediment deposition onto the GBR than current farming practices.
Ian – I just don’t believe it – you aren’t even going to back down when you’ve come a gutser. That blog site drove a bloody big Tasmanian logging truck through your argument. It wiped the floor with it. Have you read the refutation. Jaworowski is the greatest con artist ever seen. Now you have rammed his ramblings down David’s neck for many comments on the thread. When confronted with some facts that destroy the argument totally – you do a Castles and say “oh I’m not qualified”. Well that is piss weak. And as for your diversionary complaint about their comment about funding (“oh look – a rabbit – let’s chase that for a while”) – try applying for a research grant from any government body and see how easy it is. A few percent get up. The writers are entitled in their indignation to refer to Exxon given some of the utter denialist bilge we’ve had to endure.
And a fascinating thought for all those scientists following the IPCC money trail.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258
“quote:
[Response: Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author or the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones’ time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it’s work that has to be done. It’s grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved.. RayPierre] end quote”
(At this point good form would be to start a fight about hockey stick/Hansen/Schneider and try to divert attention. – “oi Rog or Joe mate – start a fight quick”)
As for acidity – you’ve been screaming about that too and done no homework. It’s as simple as speed of CO2 increase –very fast relative to geological time – the rate of increase is way ahead of ocean overturning. The fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike may be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years.
The following points are made by J.F. Adkins and C. Pasquero (Science 2004 306:1143):
The deep ocean contains nearly all the mass, thermal inertia, and carbon in the ocean-atmosphere system. The rate at which it overturns can therefore have a profound effect on climate. Measurements of the radiocarbon (14C) distribution in the deep sea suggest that the modern ocean overturns approximately once every 1000 years. Radiocarbon [HN2] is an accurate tracer of this process because it is created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays and can only enter the ocean through absorption of CO2 gas at the ocean surface. When the surface water sinks to the deep ocean, it is isolated from the radiocarbon source, and its radiocarbon content decays with its characteristic half-life of 5730 years. Today, there is more radiocarbon in the deep Atlantic Ocean (as a result of deep-water formation in the North Atlantic) than in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific is “older” or less well “ventilated” than the Atlantic. The Atlantic turns over about every 250 years.
As far as firestick nonsense is concerned – protect the tree clearing crowd and the yak farmers against God and the sun coming up in the morning. Talk about ideological polarisation.
The Burdekin is infamous for being flogged out by yaks (actually superb animal genetics from years of fiddling with Bos indicus x Bos taurus crosses – pity they don’t have the decency to die before the landscape does like wussy Bos taurus). Increase in sedimentation rate is well known.
And latest CSIRO work shows grazing is about 3x-5x army tanks for soil loss. Anyway McCulloch, Janice Lough and the ANU/AIMS guys have nailed the story below. Note I am not discussing effects of this on the reef – just that it is happening. Losing your topsoil is bad karma – natural resource science 101 !!
Furthermore it’s your shout for a beer !
and clean up that bloody web site of yours – delete all those contrarian rubbish links and put in two replacement links – one to IPCC and one to Realclimate – and get a hair cut and cut down some of those bloody camphor laurels too.
Letters to Nature
Nature 421, 727-730 (13 February 2003) | doi: 10.1038/nature01361
Coral record of increased sediment flux to the inner Great Barrier Reef since European settlement
Malcolm McCulloch1, Stewart Fallon1,2, Timothy Wyndham1, Erica Hendy1, Janice Lough3 and David Barnes3
The effect of European settlement on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia is a long-standing and controversial issue1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Erosion and sediment transport in river catchments in this region have increased substantially since European settlement6, 7, 8, 9, 10, but the magnitude of these changes remains uncertain1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we report analyses of Ba/Ca ratios in long-lived Porites coral from Havannah Reef—a site on the inner Great Barrier Reef that is influenced by flood plumes from the Burdekin river—to establish a record of sediment fluxes from about 1750 to 1998. We find that, in the early part of the record, suspended sediment from river floods reached the inner reef area only occasionally, whereas after about 1870—following the beginning of European settlement—a five- to tenfold increase in the delivery of sediments is recorded with the highest fluxes occurring during the drought-breaking floods. We conclude that, since European settlement, land-use practices such as clearing and overstocking have led to major degradation of the semi-arid river catchments, resulting in substantially increased sediment loads entering the inner Great Barrier Reef.
Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia
Present address: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, USA.
Firestick my foot !
Been away for a while, Phil? Spleen feel better now? Interesting numbers there.
If Atlantic turns over every 250 years then annual turnover is 0.004 of total ocean volume. As the assumed upper layer with all the Co2 mixing is 100 metres and the Atlantic is an average 4000 metres deep then the annual turnover is 16% of this upper layer volume. (ie 0.004/0.025 = 0.16)
Therefore, a 100 year projection of Co2 mixing in the Atlantic must include a total mixed volume of 16 times the upper layer. It certainly cannot assume that the entire Co2 mixing for that century will be mixed in a static layer.
For the Pacific, with a complete turnover every 1000 years we get an annual turnover of 0.001 of the total volume. But the pacific has an average depth of 5000 metres so the top 100 metres is only 2% of total volume. And this means the annual turnover is 5% of the upper layer (ie 0.001/0.02 = 0.05).
Therefore, a 100 year projection of Co2 mixing in the Pacific must include a total mixed volume of 5 times the upper layer volume.
And as the total change in alkalinity estimated by the Royal Society model is only 0.5 units then we must conclude that in the Pacific the actual change will only be 0.1 units within a natural range of 0.3 units. And this means that the actual change in the Atlantic will be only 1/16th of the modelled 0.5 unit change, or 0.0312 of a unit.
Much ado about nothing really. More on that blogbumph later.
And please don’t call me “Dr” Mott, Vishnu, some might regard that term as an admission of ethical deficit. The term “Mr” did perfectly well for Mark Twain, Henry Ford and Thomas Eddison.
After going back to this blog criticising Jaworowski, I note that at least 8 of the points raised are not of a scientific nature at all, levelling criticism for his apparent political transgressions in contradicting the majority view. And some of them are petty enough to indicate that the blog poster’s criticisms were made with an absence of good will towards Jaworowski, especially the first point where there is no indication that the paper was a record of actual testimony to the Senate.
But the interesting one is point 4]which appears to be suggesting that Jaworowski is somehow at fault for raising potential problems with ice core sampling when no solutions for same are provided. So does this mean that none of us can draw anyone’s attention to a problem unless we already have a solution in mind? I think not.
Perhaps the blogista should tell that to the green/left who spend so much time on adverse impacts without even recognising the prospect of beneficial effects from the same processes.
The pure sophistry of point 10] and the failure, under point 4], to deal properly with the potential problems of ice core sampling is a strong indication that the blog post is primarily a political response rather than a reasonable, scientific one made in good faith.
It has certainly provided sufficient insight to ensure that the remaining technical criticisms will get the close scrutiny they deserve.
Political my other foot – just a bunch of climate guys who know their ice cores.
Ian – the last post plays as the SS Envelope sinks under the waves of a rhetorical ocean of decreasing pH.
Jaworowski = also see the phoney cancer cure of Milan Brych; Stephen Horvath’s hydrogen-powered car; Shrian Oskar’s oil seed scheme; and sundry Storey Bridge salesmen
If you’re interested Ian, I know an agent with some valuable plots left on the moon, great views, low risk of climate change impacts on your living standard, and no soil worries either. Consensus opinion would suggest that it’s not wise to buy land on the moon, but you’re not a man to be persuaded by consensus opinions or credentials.
And now that you have dished up the perceptual positioning, do you have any plans to actually respond to the numbers? They were supplied by you, Phil, after all. I actually suspect the Royal Society numbers are a bit suss. All a bit too neat, really. A neat 1000 year turnover for the Pacific, another neat 250 years for the Atlantic, and another neat 100 metres for the supposed depth of Co2 mixing. Doesn’t it all sound a bit too much like someone has plucked them out of their bum?
Ian – don’t give us that b/s from a skilled artisan of the vernacular such as yourself. Perceptual positioning my arse. I’m giggling at your desperation and tactics – now I’ve spent some time finding you some quality references – get off your bum and give something back besides bumfluff. You’ve come a gutser uncritically promoting con-artists like Jack-boy. I’m starting to think your envelope needs changing as you’re re-writing a lot of science from the hip. Perhaps you’re a genius? Or is it a game to shaft good material simply coz you don’t like it. You tell us what the overturning rates are as you don’t like mine. Maybe it’s two weeks.
So not playing. And it’s still your shout.
(Incidentally – David was spot on ! He smelt the rat of no publications in anything mainstream. Not a clincher – just an alarm bell).
So limited publication is a rat, is it? So all of Bob Carters troubles trying to get his coral core data published was just evidence of a rat rather than the systematic censoring of material?
And don’t you trust your own maths capacity, Phil? It isn’t all that complex. So lets walk through this stuff.
1 Do you accept that a turnover does take place?
2 Do you accept that a fractional annual turnover of the whole ocean will have a greater impact on the upper layer of that ocean?
3 Do you accept that the impact of that turnover on the upper layer will be cumulative?
4 And do you accept that the scenario modelled by the Royal Society makes no provision for that cumulative effect?
There are two minor corrections I would make. The first is that the points on the PH scale are not proportionate so it is incorrect to state that a diffusion of the upper layer of five times its volume over a century would mean a drop of 5 tenths of a point when the model predicted a five tenths decline in alkalinity. But it does mean that the actual impact will be only a fifth of the predicted change.
In fact, the second correction is that a total diffusion of five times the volume of the upper layer will mean that the Co2 mixing will take place in six times that volume because the five volume turnover is in addition to the original upper layer volume.
So come on, I’m just a humble farmer with a calculator.
I didn’t say a lack of publications was a clincher. And at time scientists have lots of problems publishing. Can be a conspiracy or just bad luck/tough reviewers/ornery reviewers/biased reviewers – or maybe you science is dodgy and you deserve to be blocked. Hasn’t seemed to have silenced Bob any.
I’m not defending the Royal Society report so much – I’m simply saying that it appears from Googling in general and looking at a range of Google Scholar papers that there is some evidence the bulk of the worlds oceans take a very long time go round. In the order of 1000 years – so if we drop a coloured ball with zero buoyancy that moves seemlessly with the current – how long does it take to go around the loop in the next century. A tenth of the way simplistically. But can’t on my envelope do all the current calculations, mixing ratios, what layers sizes are, what mixes and what doesn’t, currents and pH buffering calculations to do a good job on working out surface pH from that. Relying on expert oceanographers for some modelling etc.
From my thinking except in the Atlantic our oceanic mixing is very slow compared to where the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will go in 100 years.
So I remain unsure about the assumptions on your now very worn envelope. More info needed.
Incidentally the paleo data says we have had some pretty big pH changes in geological time associated with mass extinction events. So I’m simply saying we need to look at it more closely.
It’s a reasonable question.
Meanwhile yaks are still munching in the Burdekin. Eat more beef and help destock !