When science is undone by fiction.

Jo Chandler

JO Chandler, The Age, June 29 2011

The myth of Climate-gate has endured because of media failings.

GEOLOGIST and long-time climate change denialist Bob Carter materialised on this page on Monday, reprising a weary routine – tiptoeing through the scientific archive to find the morsels of data that might, with a twirl here and a shimmy there, contrive to support his theory that global warming is a big fat conspiracy.

Meanwhile, in real news, the journal Nature Geoscience published a paper by American and British scientists that found West Antarctica’s Pine Island glacier is now melting 50 per cent faster than in 1994 (see below). Continue reading

So surprising? Report finds US climate skeptic Willy Soon has been funded by oil and coal firms

Sounds familiar.  Wonder who is getting similar support? Interesting question.  They mention “Bob, Randy, Walter, Sallie and Dave”?  Could it be?  No, surely not.
Of all the climate deniers, one scientist has been particularly closely involved in the campaign against the climate science consensus for the majority of his career: Dr. Willie Soon.

This Greenpeace investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.

Continue reading

Melting of West Antarctica’s biggest glacier acclererates

Sydney Morning Herald, June 27, 2011

West Antarctica’s biggest glacier is melting 50 per cent faster than in 1994, adding to a global increase in sea levels, US and UK scientists found.

The Pine Island glacier is losing about 78 cubic kilometrs (30 cubic miles) of ice per year, the researchers at Columbia University in New York and the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, said today. That’s up from 53 cubic kilometes in 1994. The study in the journal Nature Geoscience is based on data from a 2009 expedition. Continue reading

“What part of this email is not abusive and threatening?” Skeptically threatening public debate and democracy.

Recently, John Parkinson sent me a threatening and abusive email not too dissimilar to those recently collated by journalist Graham ReadFearn.   In a later exchange, the same individual tried to take the line that this behaviour was not threatening or abusive, and that the scientific community was being too sensitive.  Similar sentiments have been circulated by Tim Blair.  My only response to John Parkinson was “What part of these emails is not abusive and threatening?”.

Here is an illuminating discussion of this issue by Graham Readfearn, released on ABC Drum Unleashed yesterday.

GRAHAM READFEARN, ABC Drum Unleashed, June 10, 2011

Graham Readfearn

You will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f****** neck until you are dead, dead, dead.

Any academic these days who chooses to speak publicly about the impacts or the implications of human-caused climate change can expect to come under attack.

The above note was contained in an email sent to one of these academics, but it is just one example. There are many scientists who over recent years have been receiving notes and communications like this. Continue reading

Climate skeptics are an endangered species?

Gold Coast Mail (June 8 2011)

CLIMATE change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.

The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing.

When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.

Just five per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.

Overall, less than six per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith University researchers found.

“It’s clear that people want the government to do something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal responsibility to act,” environmental and social psychologist Professor Joseph Reser told AAP. Continue reading

The peer reviewed literature has spoken.

Stephan Lewandowsky

STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY

ABC DRUM

Much confusion and spin infects current public discussion of “peer reviewed” research: first we had Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the ABC, who suggested that “distinguished scientists” challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by “peer reviewed research”, although he oddly failed to name such research.

Now we have John McLean, an author of a lone article that was celebrated by some media scribes as overturning the scientific consensus on climate change, cry“censorship” because his response to a devastating deconstruction of his work in the peer reviewed literature was not accepted for publication.

So what exactly is peer reviewed research? How does it work? Continue reading

Bubbling sea signals severe coral damage this century

Dobu Island in Papua New Guinea has active underwater fumaroles (Jennifer Marohasy posted on it a few years back) that seep high concentrations of CO2 into the environment, in turn acidifying the surrounding ocean. These vents have been active for at least 50 years: according to village elders  these seeps have existed at that location throughout their life (the local traditional site name “Illi Illi Bua Bua” translates to “Blowing Bubbles”).

Katherina Fabricius and a collaboration of scientists have published an amazing article in the journal Nature Climate Change looking at a gradient across these seeps and the impacts on coral reef ecosystems. The results are striking:

Seascapes at a, control site (‘low pCO2’: pH~8.1), b, moderate seeps (‘high pCO2’: pH 7.8–8.0), and c, the most intense vents (pH<7.7), showing progressive loss of diversity and structural complexity with increasing pCO2. d, Map of the main seep site along the western shore of Upa-Upasina (marked as grey; map: Supplementary Fig. S1). Colour contours indicate seawater pH, and the letters indicate the approximate locations of seascapes as shown in a–c.

“The implications of the observed ecological changes for the future of coral reefs are severe. The decline in structurally complex framework-forming corals at lowered pH is likely to reduce habitat availability and quality for juvenile fish and many invertebrates. The low coral juvenile densities (including those of Porites) probably slows coral recovery after disturbance, suggesting reduced community resilience. The loss of crustose coralline algae that serve as settlement substratum for coral larvae probably impedes larval recruitment, and the doubling of non-calcareous macroalgae reduces the available space for larvae to settle. Susceptibility to storm breakage would also increase, if internal macrobioeroder densities in massive Porites are indicative of borer densities in other coral taxa and reef substrata.”

Bearing in mind these caveats, our data nevertheless suggest that tropical coral reefs with high coral cover can still exist at seawater pH of 7.8 (750 ppm pCO2), albeit with severe losses in biodiversity, structural complexity and resilience. As pH declines from 8.1 to 7.8 units, the loss of the stenotopic fast-growing structurally complex corals progressively shifts reef communities to those dominated by slow-growing, long-lived and structurally simple eurytopic massive Porites (Fig. 1a,b).

Reef development ceases at 7.7 pH units (980 ppm pCO2), suggesting these values are terminal thresholds for any form of coral reef development.  T

The big question that remains is how elevated sea temperatures will interact with the effects of acidification.  So far, it doesn’t look hopeful (Anthony et al. 2008). More from the BBC and Sciencedaily. Unsurprisingly, no word from Andrew Bolt, Anthony Watts or Jennifer Marohasy.

Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink

Fiona Harvey, Environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 May 2011 22.00 BST

Air Pollution, Canada. Economic recession has failed to curb rising emissions, undermining hope of keeping global warming to safe levels Photograph: Dave Reede/All Canada Photos/Corbis

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.

The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially “dangerous climate change” – is likely to be just “a nice Utopia”, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions. Continue reading

Bolt distorts facts about the Great Barrier Reef again: doesn’t understand or wilful distortion?

Update: Andrew Bolt is at it again.  Either he doesn’t understand the science or he is wilfully distorting the information surrounding the impact of climate change on coral reefs.

See also this previous posting (Bolt gets it wrong again) and this post on record mass coral bleaching occurring right now off Western Australia.

Update: this piece was first published back on Feb 10th, 2009 – I thought it would be worth bringing up to the top to highlight Bolt’s ongoing war against science. Continue reading

Climate Commission science update released

Contribution by Dr Chris McGrath

A useful update on climate science relevant to the Australian policy debate was released today by the Climate Commission, authored by Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, Canberra.

The report is titled, “The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responses”. It provides a short summary of recent climate science and is filled with graphics and key pieces of information for informing the current policy debate.

There are many news reports about it, including the ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian.

In an unexpected move, retiring Liberal Senator Nick Minchin quickly denounced the report as “nonsense” and because it was co-authored by the anti-Christ, Hitler, and Osama bin Laden combined in one.* Continue reading