About those hacked emails…

There are more than enough detailed posts on the web to convince any fair-minded person there isn’t anything in those emails expect proof that climate scientists, like the rest of us, say some rash things on email.  Here is a list of my favorites with links:

Climatologists under pressure: an editorial in Nature

The CRU Hack-Context: from RealClimate

Steve Schneider on Huff Post

The Union of Concerned Scientists

The Pew Center (a very detailed analysis)

A Pew Center editorial

120909

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&w=425&h=344]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6ofn46xUY&w=425&h=344]

The precautionary principle and climate change

friedman-ts-190

Finally, after a multi-year sabbatical of irrelevancy and a long flirtation with American Neocons, Thomas Friedman appears to be back in form.  In yesterdays NYT, he published a great essay about the precautionary principle, relating it, as countless environmentalist have in the past, to the need to consider protecting the environment from potential future degradation that we can never be sure will happen.  Essentially buying life insurance for a highly valuable asset.  I like this argument.

“When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.”

I also agree that there are so many added benefits of reducing CO2 emissions and developing alternative energy sources, it really doesn’t matter whether AGW is real or not.  We should do this anyway.  And as Friedman argues, paraphrasing Dick Cheney,  if there’s a 1% chance that AGW is real, we need to address it given the potentially catastrophic effects.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 8, 2009 in the New York Times

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

“Climategate” was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet. In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research.

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.

As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Abbott’s climate change policy is “bullshit”

Australian politicians are great. Malcolm Turnbull (the ex-leader of the opposition government who was recently ousted from his position) has called the new leader, Tony Abbott’s climate change policy “bullshit“. Tell us what you really think, Malcom? But it’s a fair point – this is Tony Abbot that yesterday declared:

“Notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped,”

The world’s warming has stopped? Really? Wait, we’ve heard this one before. So has Tamino, who apparently is also sick of hearing that “the last decade of global temperature contradicts what was expected by mainstream climate scientists”. To illustrate this nicely, Tamino plotted the NASA GISS data from 1975-2000:

giss1

His solid red line is a linear regression, and the dashed lines 2 standard error (i.e. most data is expected to fall within these lines). So what happened after 2000? Were all the predictions wrong? Did we really see global cooling?

giss2

To quote Tamino:

Gosh. What actually happened is exactly what was expected. Exactly. By mainstream climate scientists. You know, those folks who keep telling us that human activity is warming the planet and that it’s dangerous.

We’re only 10 years into the 21st century, but so far, global temperature has done exactly what was expected by mainstream climate scientists. Exactly. You know — those folks who keep telling us that human activity is warming the planet, and that it’s very dangerous.

This is undeniable. Unless of course you’re in denial.

Yet people continue to deny it. They tell you it’s all a hoax, and to support that idea they repeatedly claim that the last decade of temperature data contradicts global warming.

Note to Tony Abbott: quit talking bullshit, stop peddling opinion as fact, and start being held accountable for every word you say as a politician.

Creating the worlds biggest No-take marine reserve

Screen shot 2009-12-10 at 11.36.04 AM

This week saw an impassioned plea from one of the Indian Oceans foremost marine biologists to create the Worlds biggest no-take marine reserve. The proposal presented by Prof Charles Sheppard at the Reef Conservation UK conference in London is to turn the entire Chagos Archipelago located in the centre of the Indian Ocean into one enormous marine sanctuary.

The bold plan supported by a network of institutions and scientists (the Chagos Trust) involved with conservation and research in the Chagos Archipelago and recently submitted to the UK government would double the entire global area of no-take areas and increase the total coverage of marine reserves by 13%.

But why is this important? The Archipelago contains ½ of the Indian oceans remaining healthy coral reefs, and harbours the world’s largest coral atoll in a quarter of a million square miles of the world’s cleanest seas. Creating the Worlds biggest MPA would prevent one of the last bastions of untouched coral reefs succumbing to the increasing intensity of fishing that is beginning to change these pristine reefs forever.

Creating such an enormous marine reserve would not only protect the internal biodiversity of the Chagos but would serve to add greater resilience to the marine environment of the entire Indian Ocean. Supported by global NGO’s such as the Pew Foundation the Chagos Archipelago would act as a legacy site, ensuring that nations such as the Maldives and the Seychelles, who are only just developing sufficient capacity to manage their reef systems will have the capacity to recover into the future. The Chagos would act as one large source of productivity to support diversity throughout the Indian Ocean.

For those such as myself who were not around the remember the complex politics of the Chagos, they have belonged to Britain since 1814 (the Treaty of Paris) and are constituted as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). In the 1960s and 70s, Britain secretly removed the Chagos Islanders off their islands, to make way for a US and British military base. Only Diego Garcia, where there is a base, now remains inhabited (by military personnel and employees). The other 54 tiny islands add up to only 16 square kms (8 square miles) in total. It is now by far Britain’s greatest area of marine biodiversity.

At a time of increasing appreciation of the marine environment in the UK through the development of the Marine Bill it is time that its other areas of Britains biodiversity such as the Chagos receive similar protection.

Developing the Chagos as a full No-take area was described by Prof. Sheppard as creating an insurance policy for the Worlds oceans. This is critically important at a time of increasing climate change that threatens the Worlds biodiversity.

Whereas many of the Worlds proposed marine reserves involve complex political difficulties the potential of protecting the Chagos Archipelago is politically possible. There are little in the way of commercial fishing interests associated to the Islands, and many of these are Illegal. If any Islanders do ever return to the Archipelago, numbers are likely to be so low as to easily fit into a future management plan, and many of the stakeholders with interests in the islands are currently in support of the proposals.

As the newly established ProtectChagos.org website states “Now, before it is too late, there is an opportunity to save this precious natural environment, creating a conservation area comparable with the Galápagos or the Great Barrier Reef”.

‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’

Screen shot 2009-12-09 at 9.19.16 AM 1

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

COP15: Cold and grey but buzzing with excitement and hope.

copenhagen

The United Nations climate change conference begins in about five hours time.  Being from the other side of the planet, I am significantly jetlagged, awakening from a nightmare at 1 am about a fire trapping me and my family on a hill.  I don’t know if I got away.

As I exited Copenhagen airport yesterday, friendly young Danes wearing COP15 shirts greeted me and directed me to the train which would take me to ‘Centrum’, where my hotel is situated.   The area around the central station is certainly a ‘colourful’ place – complete with streetwalkers, sex shops and Middle Eastern markets.  Not my choice but a consequence of the fact that all other hotels are completely booked up.

The weather is chilly – prompting me to go out this morning to buy some warm clothing.  You see, in a last-minute rush to finish things up at the University, I forgot to consider the weather that would greet me at the other end of the trip.  Perhaps a little ironic given I was headed to a conference on the climate change!

My focus is now on the schedule for the next two weeks. There are literally hundreds of interesting events in talks scattered across the two weeks of the conference.  My contribution will be to address a number of different groups and organisations in order to ensure that the very best and most credible information within my area of expertise (coral reefs and climate change) is available to negotiators and other influential parties.

I am aware that the message must be direct and to the point – much of this will be to remind people that we don’t have much wriggle room.  We can’t talk blithely about 550 or even 450 ppm – this will kill off coral reefs and most other critically important ecosystems. We have no other choice on this planet but to immediately adopt an international strategy to reduce emissions more than 30% by 2050, and 95% by 2050.  Only this will ensure a safe pathway back to greenhouse gas concentrations well below 350 ppm, while at the same time not exceeding carbon dioxide concentrations of 450 ppm on the way.  In adopting this strategy, significant changes will inevitably occur. This is not a business-as-usual strategy but is (as is becoming increasingly clear) the only one which will allow us to survive as global civilisation.

Saying this, I am one of the optimists about Copenhagen. The overwhelming sense of momentum that has greeted me here enthuses me with the belief that Copenhagen will result in a compelling commitment among nations to deal with this planet threatening problem.

And perhaps my next dream will be one from which I will awaken knowing that we did all survive after all!

The Galapagos are feeling the far-reaching impacts of climate change

A new publication in the journal ‘Global Climate Change’ detailing the decline of marine organisms in the Galapagos Archipelago following human exploitation and climate change (El Niño, grazers and fisheries interact to greatly elevate extinction risk for Galapagos marine species) makes for somber reading.

A series of events, including the 1982 El Nino, overfishing and the appearance of urchins that destroy coral, has altered the islands’ marine ecosystems. At least 45 Galapagos species have now disappeared or are facing extinction. That suggests future climate change driven by human activity will have an major impact on the islands’ wildlife.

The report.. found that the islands have yet to recover from the intense El Nino climate event of 1982 to 1982, which triggered abnormal weather conditions. That event destroyed coral reefs in the archipelago, many of which had persisted for at least 400 years. However, overfishing significantly weakened the marine ecosystem’s ability to recover from the devastation caused by the El Nino. In particular, fishermen removed so many large predatory fishes and lobsters from the islands’ seas, that huge numbers of sea urchins were able to colonise the area. They then overgrazed the coral, damaging it further and preventing it re-establishing.

As a result, 45 species are now globally threatened. All live on the Galapagos, and most are found nowhere else. (Read more over at BBC News)

Several species from the archipelago are listed as ‘probably extinct’ (including the black spotted damselfish and the 24 rayed sunstar), and other threatened species include the Galapagos sea lion, marine iguana, Galapagos penguin and pink cup coral.

Interestingly though, it’s not only the the ‘charismatic’ species  are suffering:

Screen shot 2009-12-07 at 9.25.48 AM

Above are two photographs from the Charles Darwin Research Station – on the left from 1974, and the right taken again in 2003. Back in the 1970’s, the rocks were covered by a dominant brown algal species (Bifurcaria galapagensis), which as the name suggests is an endemic species that thrived in the intertidal regions (upto 6m depth). According to researchers at the institute, a mass mortality and dieback occured between January and March 1983, leaving the barren exposed rock that you see in the photograph on the right. This species is now assumed to be extinct since the mid-1980’s, as extensive searches across the entire Galapagos archipelago have revealed nothing.

“The Galapagos, the Rosetta Stone of evolution, is now teaching us about the far-reaching impacts of climate change on ocean ecosystems,” says report co-author Professor Les Kaufmann from Boston University, US.

“Nowhere on Earth are the combined impacts of climate change and overfishing more clearly defined than in the Galapagos Islands,” says co-author Sylvia Earle of the US National Geographic Society.

“Decades of data link recent fishing pressures to disruption of the islands’ fine-tuned systems, making them more vulnerable to natural, and anthropogenic changes in climate.” (Read More)

Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification

blue mussel

John Bruno emailed me a copy of a recent paper published yesterday in Geology (Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification) to comment on here on Climate Shifts – looks like Andrew Bolt has beaten me to the punch.

What you hear on the internet: calcification is greatest under the highest level of pCO2 for three species of invertebrates:

Screen shot 2009-12-04 at 9.26.16 AM

True.

What you don’t hear on the internet: in 10 of the 18 species studied, calfication decreased under the increasing pCO2.

Screen shot 2009-12-04 at 9.26.29 AM

What this study isn’t: proof that OCEAN ACIDIFICATION IS A GOOD THING CAUSE THEY CAN BUILD MORE SHELLS.

The Ries et al study is a great example of how much we don’t know about the specific mechanisms of marine calcification – s0 much so that one of the organisms in the study, the blue mussell (see the photograph above) exhibited no response to elevated pCO2. As Ries points out:

A combination of factors, including the organisms’ ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, the extent of organic-layer coverage of their external shell, their biomineral solubility, and whether they utilize photosynthesis, may contribute to the disparity of these response patterns.

The ecological implications of the study are pretty interesting:

The crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification.  “This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics.  But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,” Ries said. (Read More)

The Reis et al study is also a great example of the media paraphrasing science to fit their selective political agenda. Am I surprised to see variable responses of marine calcifiers to ocean acidification? No, not really – a report in Science last year showed that marine phytoplankton increase calcification and net primary production increased under higher CO2 conditions. Does this ‘debunk alarmism‘? No, not at all.

Launch of a new book on maritime law

Book_Launch_MW_OHG_2009_12_02

Professor Michael White QC & Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (Photo credit: Peter Fogarty)

It gives me great pleasure to launch Prof Michael White’s latest book entitled Australia’s Offshore Laws, which has been published by a the Federation Press. Michael has had a distinguished career. Born in Brisbane, he joined the Australian Navy where he rose to Lt Commander.  In 1969 he left the Navy to study law at the University of Queensland and later at Bond University, where he was awarded degrees and commerce, law and eventually a Ph.D. in law.

After practising as a barrister for 16 years, he became a Queen’s Counsel in 1988.  In 1999, he joined the University of Queensland and became the inaugural Director of the Centre for Maritime Law. Michael has been a active member of the Centre for Marine Studies over the past several years, and has been highly productive in terms of writing.  In this regard, he has produced several books now as part of his role within the centre. Today, we are here to celebrate one of his latest outputs, where he has pulled together all of the Australian offshore laws into one place. Given the scale and complexity of this area, this is quite a significant feat indeed. And the subject matter is very timely.

In a world that is increasingly becoming global – not only through its economic systems but also through the challenges that face it faces from a burgeoning population to a rapidly changing climate – the need for Australia to have a clear perspective on the laws that govern its offshore waters couldn’t be more important. These are the legal instruments with which a vast number of resources and challenges are regulated – from fisheries, immigration, defence, customs and resource extraction.

You only have to think of the recent pressure on Australian resources both internally and externally, and the recent kerfuffle over refugees in our north-west waters to understand how important these laws and regulations are in terms of Australia’s well being. But as Michael has pointed out in the preface, our current structures within this area are “disparate, uncoordinated and overlapping”.

As Michael comments repeatedly in the book, this area is in need of important reform. It looks like he will be getting his wish – the Commonwealth Attorney General announced in September 2009 that the government would be pursuing reform in this area through a bill that will be introduced in 2010 called the “Maritime Powers Bill “. This book looks like it will be one of the key supporting resources for this bill and the subsequent reform of Australia’s offshore laws.

Well done Michael!

Australian Offshore Laws
Published 26 November 2009
Publisher The Federation Press
Hardback/508pp
ISBN 9781862877429
Australian RRP $195.00