Tag Archives: Science & Politics

Rapid increase in fish numbers follows creation of world’s largest marine reserve network

Posted on by
1

So the results on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning are in, and according to new research published in Current Biology, the evidence strongly suggests a rapid increase in fish numbers in no-take areas. Not that this in itself should be so surprising (a decrease in fishing = increase in fish numbers!), but to date previous studies have shown varying results as to the effectiveness of no-take reserves. The rezoning of the GBR back in 2004 resulted in 33.4% of the reef being declared as a no-take marine reserve, essentially closing these areas from all fisheries (recreational and commercial). At the time this created considerable controversy from the community (leading some misguided ‘scientists’ to claim "the over-fishing thing doesn’t have a shred of credibility, as an overall thing"), and numerous critics over the years have highlighted the lack of direct monitoring to show the effectiveness of these reserves.

In short, the work by Garry Russ and team shows that after only two years following the zoning, fish density of a primary target species (the coral trout) increased by 60-70% when compared to unprotected areas. Even more interesting is the finding that the 2006 coral bleaching event in the Keppel Islands caused a decline in the density of fish in the region. With the government debating stronger protection for the GBR, the evidence that these no-take reserves are boosting populations of target species across huge scales (>1000km) is encouraging not only for the GBR but for fledgling marine parks across the globe.

Here is the abstract from Current Biology:

No-take marine reserves (NTMRs) are much advocated as a solution to managing marine ecosystems, protecting exploited species and restoring natural states of biodiversity [1, 2]. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that effective marine conservation and management at ecosystem and regional scales requires extensive networks of NTMRs [1, 2]. The world’s largest network of such reserves was established on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in 2004. Closing such a large area to all fishing has been socially and politically controversial, making it imperative that the effectiveness of this new reserve network be assessed. Here we report evidence, first, that the densities of the major target species of the GBR reef line fisheries were significantly higher in the new NTMRs, compared with fished sites, in just two years; and second, that the positive differences were consistent for multiple marine reserves over an unprecedented spatial scale (>1,000 km).

True colours? Liberal bid to delay emission trading scheme.

Posted on by
Reply

The Australian, Lenore Taylor and Matthew Franklin | June 25, 2008

COALITION frontbenchers are pushing for a delay in the introduction of emissions trading in a move that threatens bipartisan support for the main mechanism to cut greenhouse gases and tackle climate change.

With Labor committed to introducing emissions trading by 2010, several Opposition frontbenchers have told The Australian they favour a delay amid concerns about the potential economic costs of a carbon trading scheme.

But Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull and climate change spokesman Greg Hunt insisted last night the Coalition would stick with its election commitment of supporting emissions trading by 2011.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seized on doubts about the Opposition’s commitment to accuse it of reneging on its pre-election promise to support an emissions trading system.

Under an emissions trading system, polluters such as coal-fired power stations that cannot meet greenhouse gas reduction targets will be forced to buy carbon credits on an open market. This is expected to force the cost of services such as electricity and transport higher as companies adapt to the new environment. Continue reading →

Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later

Posted on by
Reply

James Hansen on June 23, 2008

Tipping Points Near

Today, I will testify to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was under way. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise, it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control. Continue reading →

What does abrupt climate change look like?

Posted on by
Reply

For some time now, I have been fascinated by the growing evidence that the earth’s climate has undergone extremely rapid changes over relatively short periods of time. Although very rare over the past million years, events such those associated with the Bølling-Allerød and Younger Dryas periods (11k to 15k BP) have attracted growing interest, especially in what they can tell us about the sensitivity of the climate to small shifts in forcing factors. Steffensen et al (2008) have just published a fascinating and detailed study of these phenomena within the Greenland NGRIP ice core. In this paper in Science, they report on the rapid switches between glacial and mild conditions that occurred periods as short as 1-3 years! Knowing what we know today, these periods must have been associated with vast disruptions to our planet’s climate and biological systems. It is fascinating to think that this disruption immediately preceded the rise of human civilizations in many parts of the world (adversity spawning invention?). While we do not have any clear understanding of why these events occurred (or for that matter, their impact), they serve as reminders of the volatility of the earth’s climate. Further investigation of these rapid spikes in the earth’s climate will no doubt yield some interesting yet foreboding science.

Does humanity have the foresight to save itself?

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Lynas is well known for his excellent book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet from 2007. In a recent edition of the Guardian (June 12 2008), he reports on the outcome of the Stockholm Network think tank examining current and future responses to climate change. The think tank concluded that the present scenario, which is called “agree and ignore”, and one which is referred to as “Kyoto Plus”, will not result in emission reductions before 2030.

The consensus within the modeling community is that we will exceed 450 ppm if global emissions do not begin to decline within the next 8 years. At this point, as argued here and elsewhere, we will lose coral reefs, wet tropical rain forests and many other high biodiversity systems. We will almost certainly enter in a period of very dangerous climate change at this point. Food and water security will decrease and conflicts will escalate.

The third scenario is termed “step change” and is particularly interesting and plausible. In this scenario, major catastrophes driven by climate change over the next decade lead to robust international commitments to cap emissions. Interestingly, this is done by regulating fossil fuel heavy companies as opposed to individuals and governments. Whatever the mechanism, however, many of us believe that this type of shock maybe required before any real action begins – a result of the apparently eternally optimistic nature of humankind.

Pity it has to be this way. Why can’t we just wake now and avoid all the pain? Read Mark Lynas’s account of why this will not happen.

Continue reading →

From the climatic sidelines: Stephen Schneider (Stanford University, IPCC) on the global warming debate

Posted on by
Reply

Effective science is often dogged by the antics of skeptics who look out the window and say, “look the temperature didn’t go up this year yet CO2 did – I rest my argument, enhanced greenhouse driven global change is not occurring”. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University discusses this issue and more in a response to Don Aitkin (the political scientist and author of ‘Good science isn’t about consensus”):

“Such contrarians ascribe to the false god of falsification, that is, a critic finding one or even several lines of argument contrary to mainstream consensus who then claims they have falsified the conventional conclusion. That’s how simple science used to be done. For example, if you have a liquid in a test tube, and you want to know if it’s an acid or alkaline, one piece of litmus paper can falsify a wrong preliminary hypothesis. But in complex system science, like tobacco and cancer, or greenhouse gas build-ups and climate change, hundreds and even thousands of studies are needed to build a consensus. A few dozen exceptions do not remotely falsify the vast preponderance of accumulated evidence. System science is based on preponderance of all the evidence, not on a few exceptions.”

[audio:https://climateshifts.org/climateshifts/audio/orr_20080518.mp3]

Click above for the full audio of Schneider’s response, or read the full transcript over at the ABC (link)

More on the coral-sunscreen ‘issue’

Posted on by
Reply

I’m not entirely sure why the “sunscreen causes coral bleaching” story is doing the rounds in the news again (see here and here – it seems to make for a very media-friendly story), but i’m still amazed at the mileage these authors are getting from a highly questionable study. I’ve debated this before on Climate Shifts with Robert Danavaro, the lead author of the study. Statements such as “New research highlights sunscreen as major cause of coral bleaching” are stretching the findings and conclusions of this paper to ridiculous extremes – the concept that “sunscreens may now be posing a significant risk to marine life” are missing the point. Durwood Dugger, the founder of the aquaculture company Biocepts wrote an excellent critique in response to my last post:

The authors conclusions “We conclude that sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, can potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans.” are neither valid or supported scientifically, they are rather the author’s theories. While pieces of this research are informative – they are informative only under the exact conditions under which they were demonstrated – improbable levels of sunscreen contaminants. Essentially they don’t support any conclusion other than in the experimental environment described in the research – that the experimental levels of various sunscreen ingredients produce increased short term viral activity.

I don’t doubt for a second that sunscreens kill corals – almost anything will cause mortality in high enough doses. A colleague of mine put this succinctly in a previous article:

“Any contaminant can experimentally damage a coral under artificially high concentrations. The amount [in the wild] must be tiny due to dilution,” commented Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Queensland.

“Imagine how much water a tourist wearing one teaspoon of sunscreen swims through in an hour-long snorkel. Compared to real threats like global warming, runoff and overfishing, any impact of sunscreen is unproven and undoubtedly trivial,” he said.

“UQ is the climate for a Smart State hat trick”

Posted on by
Reply

I didn’t write this but thought you might like to know of my good luck!

UQ News, 21st May

A University of Queensland expert who pioneered research linking climate change projections with coral reef distress is the 2008 Smart State Premier’s Fellow.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is the third UQ researcher to win the government’s top science prize, now in its third year.

He was one of the world’s first scientists to show how projected changes in global climate threaten coral reefs including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

“For some time now Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has been saying that unless we act to protect the Great Barrier Reef, we could see a situation where in 30 years’ time we won’t have much of our wonderful Reef left,” Premier Anna Bligh said as she announced the award at UQ in Brisbane today (May 21, 2008).

With Professor Hoegh-Guldberg leading a scientific session at an important climate change and oceans conference in Spain, Premier Bligh presented the award to his partner in research and life, Dr Sophie Dove.

The five-year fellowship gives a boost of more than $2.5 million to Great Barrier Reef research by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and a large team. The Queensland Government’s $1.25 million contribution is matched by UQ, and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority are also sponsors.
Continue reading →

Tim Flannery’s radical climate change ’solution’

Posted on by
Reply

Scientist Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky.

But he says it may be necessary, as the “last barrier to climate collapse.”

Professor Flannery says climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.

Australia’s best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world – and it’s much worse than he thought just three years ago.

He has called for a radical suite of emergency measures to be put in place.

The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth’s stratosphere to keep out the sun’s rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

“It would change the colour of the sky,” Prof Flannery told AAP.

“It’s the last resort that we have, it’s the last barrier to a climate collapse.

“We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we’re trying to achieve.”

Prof Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year, said the sulphur could be dispersed above the earth’s surface by adding it to jet fuel.

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.

“The consequences of doing that are unknown.”

(Read More)

Draft carbon capture legislation unveiled

Posted on by
Reply

RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson today unveiled draft legislation to establish the world’s first framework for carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS).

Mr Ferguson said it involved capturing greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly from coal-fired power stations, before they reached the atmosphere.

The gas is then injected and stored deep underground in geological formations similar to those which have stored oil and gas for millions of years, he said.

“With 83 per cent of Australia’s electricity generated from coal, no serious response to climate change can ignore the need to clean up coal and the Government’s establishment of a CCS framework represents a major step towards making clean coal a reality,” he said in a statement.

“CCS is essential for the long-term sustainability of coal-fired power generation and the potential of new industries such as coal-to-liquids, which could improve Australia’s liquid transport fuel security.”

Mr Ferguson said the draft legislation had been referred to the House of Representatives Primary Industries and Resources Committee to conduct comprehensive review before the bill was introduced to Parliament later this year.

The legislation establishes access and property rights for injection and storage of greenhouse gases into a stable sub-surface geological reservoir in commonwealth waters more than three nautical miles offshore. (Read More)