Amid the hullabaloo about the carbon tax and Clean Energy Future plan, few seem to spot its critical discrepancy. It recognises that maintaining a safe climate requires stabilising carbon pollution in the atmosphere well below the levels around which the plan is built.
Opening a major climate conference in Melbourne this week, Peter Christoff summed up the plan as a “politically astute first step” among the “nasty, brutal and short-term debate” and “mud-wrestling over costs” that we currently have in Australia.
Christoff noted the “profound mismatch between Australia’s short-term targets and what is needed.”
The plan is politically astute because the suite of compensation and tax cuts it contains give it a chance of gaining enough public acceptance to allow the government to survive the next election.
But it is also profoundly inadequate. The emissions reduction targets it is built around will still lead to devastating impacts of climate change on a global scale in coming decades. It is setting us up to fail.
The “avalanche of science” the Prime Minister spoke of when announcing the plan tells us what we can expect to lose even if we achieve the targets the plan is based upon.
What science says
A little over a month ago the Prime Minister accepted delivery of a new report summarising climate change science, The Critical Decade.
The Prime Minister said in response to the report:
“Climate change is real. The science is clear – man-made carbon pollution is making a difference to our planet and our climate. We’ve got to get on with the job of cutting carbon pollution and having a rational debate about it.”
The report discusses how we stay within a global emissions budget that will keep the mean rise of global temperatures beneath 2°C. This is the level adopted by 114 countries, including Australia, in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.
Holding global temperature rises beneath 2°C requires carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and other factors driving climate change to be stablised around 450 parts per million (ppm) or less. We currently have levels of 390 ppm and rising by 2 ppm each year due to our pollution.
For Australia’s most iconic ecosystem, the Great Barrier Reef, the consequences of going over 2°C and 450 ppm will be catastrophic.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, one of the world’s leading experts on the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reefs, tells us, “any semblance of reefs to the coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park today would vanish”.
The Clean Energy Future plan recognises these consequences:
“Studies indicate that warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius will overwhelm the capacity of many of our natural ecosystems to adapt. With that level of warming, for instance, the survival of the Great Barrier Reef will be in jeopardy as higher ocean temperatures and acidity levels cause major changes to coral reefs.”
Where the plan will take us
The Clean Energy Future plan says quite a bit about stabilising carbon dioxide around 450 ppm in the atmosphere, thereby allowing mean global temperature rises of 2°C. The long-term goal to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by 80% by 2050 is based on this target.
The trouble is that the compensation package and the rest of the plan are based around a 5% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2020 – a target that is based on stabilising carbon dioxide around 550 ppm in the atmosphere, thereby allowing mean global temperature rises of 3°C. The opposition’s “direct action” approach is also based on this target.
The modelling of the economic impacts of the plan by Treasury spells this out.
It is true that the plan proposes a new independent body, the Climate Change Authority, to advise the government so there may be stronger interim targets than 5% by 2020. But that possibility seems remote.
The government and opposition’s policies to reduce Australia’s emissions by 5% in 2020 both aim at levels of carbon pollution that are expected to be “catastrophic for the majority of coral reefs across the planet“.
The paradox is that in Australia there is bipartisan support for protecting the Great Barrier Reef at the same time as there is bipartisan support for allowing carbon pollution to exceed levels that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef.
Glass half-full
Despite the profound inadequacy of its interim targets, the Clean Energy Future plan is a positive step when compared to the likely alternative of no comprehensive national action at all.
Frank Jotzo summed this up well:
“Although the carbon pricing scheme has its warts, the negotiations between Labor, the Greens and the Independents have also produced some genuinely positive outcomes. The package will not bring big reductions in emissions in the short term, but it can be the first step on the long road to a lower-carbon economy.”
The Clean Energy Future plan is a positive step but it is still inadequate if we want to preserve a planet in which the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs exist in anything like their current form.
Inadequate policies rarely last because reality knocks on the door. The carbon tax and Australia’s overall policy of reducing direct emissions by 5% by 2020 will be only a warm-up event in responding to climate change.
Our policy response should be expected to escalate rapidly in the future as severe impacts of climate change are felt.
Tragically, we are choosing a crisis-driven response rather than a proactive one.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
With the publication of yet another peer reviewed paper (see below) that exposes holes in the IPCC's position, it appears the Carbon tax plan is entirely unnecessary, only serving to hamstring the Australian economy for no environmental benefit.
On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature
Read moreZhaohua Wu • Norden E. Huang • John M. Wallace • Brian V. Smoliak • Xianyao Chen Climate Dynamics.
For the 1980s and 1990s:
"Depending upon the assumed importance of the contributions of ocean…
Ian Ross
Senior Research Officer at University of Queensland
I note that this paper (regardless of its merits, which I am not qualified to assess) also concludes "These caveats notwithstanding, the results presented here further substantiate the reality of human-induced global warming". And even if it were true that "up to one third" of observed warming were due to this proposed multi-decadal oscillation, I really can't see that this negates the whole issue of global warming, which is what you seem to imply.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
I am not implying the absence of a human signal. This paper, if correct, provides further evidence that the magnitude of that signal is likely to be much lower than that promulgated by the IPCC. This is good news.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Marc, I hope this new analysis turns out to be right but, as Ian points out, it still supports the reality of human-induced global warming.
You're overstating the implications of it to suggest it implies that the whole carbon tax plan is entirely unnecessary.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
Once again I am not suggesting there is no human impact, it is the magnitude of that impact that is most important in regard to formulating an appropriate policy response. If this paper is correct and it turns out that future work shows climate sensitivity has in fact been grossly over exaggerated then the tax is a complete waste of time. That the issue of climate sensitivity remains unresolved provides a significant reason to hold back on instituting the government's carbon (dioxide) tax at this time. Indeed if climate sensitivity turns out to be low then the case for action built around CO2 emissions evaporates into thin air.
Time we started shifting our policy response to solving real problems head on rather than chipping away at the edges.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Marc, I wonder why you jump to such an extreme position so quickly. The IPCC merely reflects the large body of science on climate sensitivity. Your talk of things being "entirely unnecessary" and "grossly over exaggerated" is hyperbole that does not reflect the evidence you present.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
In the face of such uncertainty in core elements of the science, taking a wait and see approach is hardly an "extreme" position but merely represents common sense. Working in the engineering profession I am accustomed to the poor outcomes that occur when solutions are applied, without fully understanding the problem. Strange that any disagreement with any part of the climate change story always results in accusations of "extremes". This does little for the possibility of constructive dialogue on the issue.
Perhaps you should take the time to read the paper Chris. I understand that as a lawyer you are unable to appreciate its full implications, but surely you have enough knowledge to think this one through yourself rather than relying on the IPCC to do it for you, based on publications now 5 years out of date.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Dear Marc,
Ian and I are both willing to take the paper on its merits and build a better understanding based upon it but, as Ian pointed out, the paper itself states "results presented here further substantiate the reality of human-induced global warming".
In relation to the IPCC, I note that you were the one who first referred to it. While the IPCC AR4 analysis still appears sound to me, the article posted above referred to a report released last month, The Critical Decade, summarising recent climate science as well as a climate conference that was held this week, which I attended.
You haven't thought this through to suggest that I am rely on publications that are 5 years out of date.
It seems that you are just throwing out poorly thought-out insults to try and inflame the debate so that you can walk away saying "noone listens to me".
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
Chris,
Read moreIt quite clear now that you don't understand the paper. Yes the paper supports the reality of human induced global warming, and as I have made clear a number of time above, so do I. The paper however does not support the notion of "catastrophic" human induced global warming, or :dangerous" global warming. There is a difference which you somehow deliberately chose to ignore.
In fact, if correct, the results of the paper suggests the IPCC have over estimated the human induced component of recent…
Ian Ross
Senior Research Officer at University of Queensland
Well, on the face of it, the paper proposes (not demonstrates) that "up to a third" of observed climate change may be due to a proposed natural cycle. Added to this is the suggestion that "maybe" this might lead to less than 50% of observed warming might be human caused. To me this is a chain of "maybes" and not a good foundation to claim that it "exposes holes in the IPCC's position" nor that "it appears the Carbon tax plan is entirely unnecessary" nor that "climate sensitivity has in fact been grossly over exaggerated". If it had been demonstrated that observed warming was only, say, 10% human caused, then perhaps you could claim it was "grossly overexaggerated". To me, the IPCC estimate still seems pretty reasonable, and a good basis for attempting to reduce emissions.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Marc, you keep jumping to unsupported extremes in concluding "It is also quite clear the science is moving on" based on this one paper.
I'm not sure if you have actually read the paper itself. You say that "The paper however does not support the notion of 'catastrophic' human induced global warming, or 'dangerous' global warming" but those words are not used in the paper.
As Ian points out, the paper itself says "the results presented here further substantiate the reality of human-induced global…
Read moreMarc Hendrickx
Geologist
Chris,
It's not based on one paper, but on a number of recent peer reviewed papers that show things are not as bad as they are being painted by alarmists such as yourself. Take these two papers that show for instance the doomsday scenarios for the great barrier reef are not as bad as that suggested by OveH.
Firstly there's this one that went unreported in June - Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) by Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess…
Read moreMarc Hendrickx
Geologist
I am surprised that Chris has not owned up in his disclosure statement to being a member of Al Gore's Climate Project (http://theclimateproject.org). He has been trained to present Al Gores Inconvenient Truth Slide show, and has done so at least once in Brisbane in 2008 (http://www.brisbanepowerhouse.org/events/view/the-climate-project)
Chris, when you presented this show did you include reference to the nine key scientific errors, found by a UK High Court judge?
It's now quite clear where Chris is coming from.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Marc, do you read the papers you say support your views?
The two you referred to accept the mainstream science that considered climate change and ocean acidification pose major threats to coral reefs.
The first article you referred to was Osborne K, Dolman AM, Burgess SC, Johns KA (2011) Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009). PLoS ONE 6(3): e17516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017516, is available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Hi again Marc, you'll find out lots more about me if you read my PhD, which is available at http://www.envlaw.com.au/phd.pdf
When I started my PhD in 2001, I thought that fishing and land-sourced marine pollution were the major threats to the GBR.
My views changed as I got further and further into the literature. The major bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 were a shock to me and made me realise that climate change was a massive threat to the GBR.
Towards the end of my PhD research I had the chance…
Read moreMarc Hendrickx
Geologist
Chris,
Read moreYou obviously have not read Hugh Sweatman's reply to Hughes insubstantive comment:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d26482744h00ju74/
"Hughes et al. (Coral Reefs, 2011, in press) challenge our interpretations of the changes in coral cover observed on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) between 1986 and 2004 (Sweatman et al. in Coral Reefs 30:521–531, 2011). They question whether we can accurately assign all causes of coral loss; we contend that this makes no difference to the observed changes…
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
A cunningly bizarre response Marc. You are good at throwing red herrings when you run into a deadend.
As I pointed out (and you know doubt read but choose to ignore), Sweatman et al (2011) agree that climate change poses a major threat to coral reefs so relying upon them does not advance your argument at all.
You throw in the advice on cults to distract attention from the fact that the evidence you put forward to support your original points is hollow.
Nice try but you are not fooling anyone other that yourself.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
I haven't run into a dead end Chris, sadly it's just that it's not worth my while continuing a conversation with someone for whom Climate change has clearly taken on a religious significance.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Another red herring Marc.
Your evidence and reasoning doesn't stack up so you run off crying believing in climate change is a "religion". That's the last port of call for someone who can't prove their argument but doesn't want to admit it.
Nick Kermode
logged in via email @hotmail.com
Nice work Chris! Marc's last comment is pure gold, although not as rare!
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
For me there are big question marks over Hoegh-Guldberg's work contending that "...carbonate coral reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef are unlikely to maintain themselves beyond atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 450 ppm...". This flies in the face of geological evidence showing abundant corals thriving contemporaneous with atmospheres (and corresponding sea temperatures) well above that level. The most likely explanation (it seems to me) is that while individual coral species may not survive changed conditions at a particular location, other better adapted species will expand to fill the niche. The question then becomes whether this will happen quickly enough for the reef systems to be maintained. The experiments depicted above are too short-term to cast any light on this.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Most coral reef researchers would have agreed with you up until about 1998. The massive coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 produced a sea-change in opinion amongst these researchers.
The view that corals are highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification due to burning of fossil fuels is now widely accepted.
The article that brought this home for me was Berkelmans R, De’ath G, Kininmonth S, and Skirving WJ, “A comparison of the 1998 and 2002 coral bleaching events on the GBR: spatial correlation, patterns and predictions” (2004) 23 (1) Coral Reefs 74.
It recorded massive coral bleaching across wide swathes of the Great Barrier Reef in 1998 and 2002. Very scary stuff when you think of the projected temperature rises in coming decades.
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
Thanks for the link, Chris, but this paper doesn't address the conundrum of the geological evidence for much more robust coral systems. I'd be interested in any work that does.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Have a look at Hoegh-Guldberg (1999), available at http://www.reef.edu.au/climate/Hoegh-Guldberg%201999.pdf and see if that answers your queries. It has references for past extinction events severely affecting corals and its analysis indicates that the current rates and magnitude of changes in temperature and aragonite saturation levels will severely impact corals.
I understand the current mainstream scientific view is that vestiges of coral reefs will probably survive in small refuge areas with unusually mild conditions but that the current extent and diversity of corals will disappear in coming decades if current rates of carbon dioxide emissions continue. Corals survived past extinction events in a similar way - in small refuges - but this will still be catastrophic for the majority of coral reefs and the fisheries and people who currently depend upon them.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Another publication that might answer you queries is Charlie Vernon's book, "A reef in time: the Great Barrier Reef from beginning to end" (Harvard University Press, 2008).
Unfortunately it is not available online, although you can view some of it at http://www.amazon.com/Reef-Time-Great-Barrier-Beginning/dp/0674026799#reader_0674026799
It is a synthesis of current science written in a popular format. Chapter 5 deals with "Mass extinctions and coral gaps" when corals virtually disappeared.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
I've dusted off a copy of Charlie's book from the top-shelf of my library.
He notes at the start of Chapter 5 on page 68:
"The fossil record indicates that mass extinction events have affected reefs as much as or more than any other ecosystem on Earth. These events, five in total, were all due to global environmental upheavals that have been linked to a wide range of causes. Reefs took an immense interval of time - many millions of years - to recover from each of these great extinctions."
If you and to read more and you don't have easy access to a copy of the book Mark, I can scan a copy of Chapter 5 and email it to you. Copying one chapter of a book is allowed under Australian copyright laws. My email is chris.mcgrath@uq.edu.au
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
Chris, I greatly appreciate your offer to go to what would be a significant amount of trouble on my behalf. However, from your descriptions, and a bit my own googling, I am not sure that the literature proffered is not barking up the wrong tree as far as my query is concerned. The nub of my issue is the times when there were NOT mass extinctions - yet CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than today and coral reefs were present if not widespread (e.g. early-mid Eocene >1000 ppm, 8-12°C).
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Charlie's book is the best source I can recommend although I'm sure there are other publications covering the history of corals over geologic timespans.
Chapter 7 deals with "The Cenozoic Roller Coaster". There is considerable discussion about the Eocene around pages 114-117 but I can't see a simple quote that easily answers your questions.
I am happy to scan and email this chapter to you or post you my copy of the book for you to read and send back.
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
Chris, that is a remarkably generous offer. I really ought to visit my local university library (I just checked, it's in there) before putting you to such trouble. As it happens, Google Books does afford a substantial though incomplete look at Chapter 7, but I couldn't see a neat answer there, either.
In the meantime, I have found the following paper: http://www.electronic-earth.net/3/19/2008/ee-3-19-2008.pdf (Kiessling and Speijer 2008). Quoting from it: "The consequences of the recent warming…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Yes, Chapter 7 talks about numerous information gaps for the late Eocene and Oligocene.
If we look at the recent evidence, in articles like Berkelmans et al (2004) that I referred to above, there is extensive bleaching even under current levels of climate change. That is what sends alarm bells ringing for me.
Looking at their persistence over geological timescales is important, but if reefs are devastated in coming decades by rapid climate change and ocean acidification and take centuries or millenia to recover it is meaningless on human timescales.
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
Looks like some people at UNSW have followed up my suggestion for a paper on this subject ;)
"Corals may adapt to warming
The University of New South Wales
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Coral reefs are among the ecosystems most severely threatened by global warming, but hopeful new evidence has emerged that some coral species may be able to adapt to warmer oceans."
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20121203-23204.html
Note the apparent adaptation described is well and truly within human timescales.
Rob Painting
climate science blogger
Oh, I'm sure some coral will adapt, whether enough will survive to stave off ecosystem collapse is the big question. Note the comment in the article:
"While these results are encouraging, Dr Guest says, it does not necessarily mean that the global threat to reefs has lessened....."
The elimination of coral from the equatorial regions during very warm episodes in Earth's past could be a portend for the future. And coral, of course, are only one component of a healthy coral reef ecosystem, cructose coralline algae are more vulnerable to ocean acidification than coral, and they are critical to coral reef function.
The real clincher for me, is that coral reef cover keeps declining. This trend is global, and occurs even in pristine areas. 30% of coral eliminated in less than half a century is not encouraging.
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
More confirmation that forecasts of a catastrophic decline of coral reefs, at least in broad ecosystem terms, have been exaggerated:
"In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought – but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely."
"The emerging picture, he (lead author Professor Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University) says, is one of ‘winners and losers’, with some corals succeeding at the expense of others. Rather than experiencing wholesale destruction, many coral reefs will survive climate change by changing the mix of coral species as the ocean warms and becomes more acidic."
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20121604-23312.html
Rob Painting
climate science blogger
As far as I'm aware coral cover globally, and on the GBR, continues to decline. The GBR has had a respite from major mass coral bleaching events for 9 years now. Given normal seawater temperatures are conducive to rapid re-colonization and re-growth it's not too much of a surprise that areas have recovered.
But the current La Nina-dominant period is unlikely to persist much longer, sooner or later the climate will switch to an interval dominated by El Nino. Depending on the 'flavor' and intensity of El Nino which develops, mass coral bleaching could return with a vengeance. It's going to happen at some point, as the oceans continue to absorb heat, and coral exist near a high-temperature threshold, the real question is how badly will it affect the GBR?
Again, it's useful to understand that calcifying marine life, and ancient coral in particular, have proven to be rather poor at adapting to ocean acidification in the past. Hence multiple coral extinctions through time.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
I take it that this is the conference about a 4 degree rise in temperature, rather foolishly named because given the small change in temperature since 1976 it looks like we could emit as much CO2 again and we'd warm the planet by less than it's warmed since 1976.
I also see that you are still claiming that Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg says that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat. Has he managed yet to explain the physics by which the atmosphere warms the ocean? I still await this explanation…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Dear John, nice of you to join this thread. I disagree with you analysis and, again, I caution you about including them in your PhD thesis.
To understand the implications of rising temperatures for corals, you may want to track down the article I mentioned to Mark, above:
Berkelmans R, De’ath G, Kininmonth S, and Skirving WJ, “A comparison of the 1998 and 2002 coral bleaching events on the GBR: spatial correlation, patterns and predictions” (2004) 23 (1) Coral Reefs 74.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Mike, you avoid the issue for the second time or no is it now the third? Why?
You supported Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's evasion of the question on another subject on these same web pages but when pressed neither you or Ove would explain what physics you believed could heat the ocean.
If someone claimed in a paper that the sun had a core of iron then wouldn't you expect that person to justify their claims?
I'm asking you to justify your support of Ove's claims (and Ove to justify his own) but it seems that you can't.
Your response amounts to "Go ask someone else". Now why should I do that? Why can't you justify your statements?
Is it, as I suspect, that you really can't?
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Well, yet again, we have a couple of red herrings raised by Marc and John that have totally swallowed any real discussion of an interesting piece.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
nice to see you still have the blinkers on Felix.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Yup, that's me Marc, blinded by science!
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Can an individual paper radically change scientific views on a particular aspect of science? Indirectly, this question has come up multiple times during climate discussions on "The Conversation", including the discussions above.
Can an individual paper radically change scientific views on a particular aspect of science? The answer is yes, but only once the results have been verified and confirmed by many independent researchers.
Most papers that appear to radically change views on a particular aspect of science end up not being confirmed by multiple independent researchers. Generally, the authors of the original papers are not incompetent nor untrustworthy scientists (although there are noteworthy exceptions). Instead, this negative outcome merely reflects the challenging nature of original scientific research.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
Completely agree! It quite clear more work is required, and in light of that, why not hold back on introducing this policy founded on ignorance.
Hamish Jackson
Physician
Marc, you state "This paper, if correct, provides further evidence that the magnitude of that signal is likely to be much lower than that promulgated by the IPCC. This is good news". It certainly would be, because despite the massive efforts by concerned, well informed people globally, it seems current levels of social change are not up with what current consensus science says is necessary to avoid massive damage. If your recent 'pivotal paper' is correct in it's downgrade AND confirmation of anthropogenic…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Marc, it is plainly wrong to say "this policy is founded on ignorance".
You seem to work on the basis of the fallacy that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. There is no field of science or knowledge that we know everything in.
There are many, legitimate areas of uncertainty and evolving knowledge in relation to climate science but there are also "multiple, independent lines of evidence each converging on a single coherent account" (as Naomi Oreskes puts it) that human-induced climate change is real and a major problem.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
Naomi Oreskes is not a climate scientist but a political activist.
To state that the government's policy " is founded on ignorance" is merely a stating the facts.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Hi again Marc, we'll have to agree to disagree about Naomi. I think she is a very good thinker and writer.
Again, you jump to extremes by using the words "founded on ignorance".
There is an enormous amount of science backing up the need to respond to climate change and ocean acidification.
Simply because you do not agree with that science does not mean that policies based on it are ignorant.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Given how many scientific papers are produced every year, there will always be a few that challenge the prevailing paradigm, be it in climate science or any another discipline (e.g., cancer research). To immediately assume that these paradigm challenging papers are correct, before their results are confirmed, and to then make policy (or avoid policy) accordingly would be a mistake.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Director, Global Change Institute at University of Queensland
It looks like John McLean is now claiming that I have failed to explain how the atmosphere warms the ocean, therefore any threat from thermal stress on the Great Barrier Reef is mythology.
Good one John. Looking through your comments - I am a little astounded by your ignorance of the facts and the science.
As you well know (or I hope you know), local sea temperatures are a consequence of the complex interplay between local conditions such as water movement and wind stress, and global factors…
Read moreJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
"One of the key factors that drives mass coral bleaching events, for example, are so-called ‘doldrum’ events, which is when the wind drops and warm seas are heated even further by the sun."
So you now agree with Walter Starck who has been saying for years that any warming was due to weakening winds? I'm sure he'll be pleased to learn this.
Has the Great Barrier Reef now expanded east beyond New Caledonia? The BoM region described as "Coral Sea" is defined as (4°S-26°S, 142°E-174°E), making it…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, it would pay you to look at the in situ data of a coral bleaching so that you can see Ove's view is correct and that you are wrong.
A good reference for this is MacKellar MC and McGowan HA (2010) "Air‐sea energy exchanges measured by eddy covariance during a localised coral bleaching event, Heron Reef, Great Barrier Reef, Australia" GRL VOL. 37, L24703, doi:10.1029/2010GL045291.
They found:
"Results show that clear sky settled summertime conditions were an important factor in this coral…
Read moreJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
I see Mike.
Ove says ...
"One of the key factors that drives mass coral bleaching events, for example, are so-called ‘doldrum’ events, which is when the wind drops and warm seas are heated even further by the sun."
But you quote a paper that says...
Read more"Under cloud‐free conditions with daytime low tides, 41 to 58% of daily total Q* was partitioned into heating the water overlying the reef and the coral and reef substrate (QSwr). This resulted in three days of very high water surface and near bottom…
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Hi again John. Your arguments display a pattern of deliberate misquotes and a desire to downplay anything that you think suggests CO2 is a problem.
As Ove said (and you chose to ignore), "local sea temperatures are a consequence of the complex interplay between local conditions such as water movement and wind stress, and global factors such as the overall heating of the ocean and atmosphere."
It is hard to say this more clearly but I'll try.
The overall trend of rising global temperatures due…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, so I understand your argument, am I correct that you accept that:
1. The Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such as CO2 are rising due to human activities.
Am I right in understanding that, despite accepting these points, you say:
A. Mean global temperatures will not rise significantly because climate sensitivity is very low (much lower than the normally accepted level of a 3 degree rise for doubling CO2).
B. It is physically impossible for the atmosphere to heat the oceans deeper than a few millimeters and the scientists who think otherwise are wrong.
Am I right in understanding your summarising your views in these points?
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Mike you say "Your arguments display a pattern of deliberate misquotes ". No they do not. Ove says one thing, you say another so I am asking which of the two claims is correct.
You continue "...and a desire to downplay anything that you think suggests CO2 is a problem". And why shouldn't I question the dogma Mike when there's no credible empirical evidence that CO2 is having much influence at all? The output of climate models doesn't constitute evidence nor can it sensibly form the basis fromwhich…
Read moreJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
My responses.
1 - You use the term "Greenhouse Effect" but surely you know that a greenhouse operates by completely blocking the convection of warm air and that "greenhouse gases" is a misnomer? Gases that acquire and emit heat by radiation, as well as conduction, don't block the convection of heat. An increase in the concentration of those gases will in fact disperse heat faster in all directions because emissions are in three dimensions.
What you might be trying to say is do I believe that…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, I can never work out if you are replying to my posts. My name is Chris. Who is Mike?
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, great, we seem to agree on the Greenhouse Effect (by whatever name) and that humans are causing CO2 and other GHGs to rise. That's progress.
Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2. You are wrong that the "normally accepted value" .. is about 1 degree", unless you only read Lidzen and ignore the mainstream climate science.
Have a read of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ and let me know which parts you disagree with. Plenty of physics there for you to sink your teeth into.
Your views on the atmosphere not being able to warm the oceans is, with respect, plain nuts.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Mike, you say Your views on the atmosphere not being able to warm the oceans is, with respect, plain nuts."
This is the third or maybe fourth time that you've expressed such a view but not once have you produced any evidence to back your claim.
If you have such evidence then present it, if not then stop making statements that you cannot justify.
Would you allow one of your students to make assertions without being able to substantiate what they say?
(I am fully aware that you might now produce…
Read moreIan Ross
Senior Research Officer at University of Queensland
Hi John, re Point 5 (the climate sensitivity), although one paper is cited in the RealClimate post, I don't think that's implying that the case rests on that one paper. A more extended discussion is available at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm. Hope this helps.
Daniel Lim
Manager, Energy at RMIT University
John, I am curious as to why you keep calling Chris, Mike?
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, let's test your idea that the atmosphere is not able to warm the oceans against everyday experience in the real world. If your idea doesn't stack up against reality, you should be able to agree that is a strong indicator that there are serious problems with it.
Let's imagine it's a hot, sunny day with clear skies and hardly a breeze. Just before sunset a bank of clouds comes over. Now, would you expect the night to be warmer or colder than if no clouds came over?
Common experience would say…
Read moreJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Well, that's taken you weeks to come up with an explanation! Had to ring around your mates did you?
"Climate science explains to us why the night is warmer with the clouds - it's the Greenhouse Effect from water vapour in the clouds trapping in the heat."
I think you'll find that's wrong Mike. The clouds (a) reduce the convection of heat and (b) reduce radiation transfer because the lower side of the cloud warms hence the old Stefan-Boltzman equation (i.e. difference between two Kelvin temperatures…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, I think I've worked out why you call me Mike. You made a mistake the first time you used it but you refuse to admit any errors, however trivial or significant.
Ian Ross
Senior Research Officer at University of Queensland
John, I'm no oceanographer, but it seems to me that if the ocean heat content is increasing, ie global ocean temperatures are rising, then that alone is going to mean that the hottest surface temperatures previously are likely to be exceeded in future, all other factors being the same. Obviously there is a lot of fluctuation (seasonal, El nino etc) but when you start from a higher baseline, the magnitude of the temperature spikes will be correspondingly greater and/or more frequent.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
By the way John, how is your prediction that "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier" going? Did you see the interesting discussion of your prediction at Skeptical Science?
I couldn't see any comments from you so I thought you must be unaware of it - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, see the reference provided by Rob Painting below to the RealClimate post on 'Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean': http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
The physics of what's happening (and why your idea that the atmosphere cannot heat the ocean is wrong) is explained in detail in a four part series, 'Does Back-Radiation “Heat” the Ocean?' posted on The Science of Doom website. The link to the first part is: http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/01/02/heat-transfer-basics-convection-part-one/ (Hat-tip: Badgersouth for this link)
An even simpler explanation to why you are wrong is that the greenhouse effect does not heat the ocean per se, but keeps the heat from radiating into the atmosphere. It is similar to why putting on a jacket on a cold night keeps you warm (Hat-tip: Oslo)
Do you accept that your view is wrong now?
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Don't assume, don't allege, try investigating.
I knew a Mike McGrath and it's easy to accidentally switch a Christain name when you are familiar witha surname. No one had previously drawn my attention to it.
Along the lines of my opening sentence, I've investigated the claims about Barrier Reef sea temperatures and found that there not exactly what some people are claiming them to be .. but I'll leave that for another time, or better yet, write a widely distributed paper or document explaining what the correct picture is.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
The ocean heat content has been disputed over the last few years. If my recollection is correct, there's been accusations of cherry-picking and I think from both sides.
As Chris has mentioned, cloud cover variations may cause warming or cooling down to 100m so whatever the change in heat content, it would jumping to conclusions to attribute them to human activity.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
What's this got to do with the discussion about sea surface temperatures? Did you think a snide distraction or two might somehow help your argument?
I take little notice of Skeptical science website. The average global temperature is tracking lower than last year and there's still 6 months of this year to go. It's simply premature to comment - and was even more so when a few sites started discussing my prediction months ago.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
I have no access to that web site at the moment so I can't comment on it.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Hi John, you obviously have access to the internet so are your banned from RealClimate and/or Science of Doom?
Would you like me to print the relevant pages and email them to you?
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
OK, we'll wait and see how you go.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Thanks for explaining your mistake. Apology accepted. I look forward to reading your paper on sea surface temperatures.
Rob Painting
climate science blogger
<i>John McLean</i> -
The Greenhouse Effect warms the ocean by altering the temperature gradient in the ocean skin layer. Heat is absorbed from the sun in the form of shortwave radiation, and as the atmosphere warms (Greenhouse Effect) this lowers the temperature gradient in the skin layer, slowing the 'flow' of heat exchanged with the atmosphere and trapping more heat in the ocean. Grossly simplified of course, but that's the nuts and bolts.
See this post over at Real Climate: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/comment-page-2/#comments">Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean</a>
And what's with the attitude? If you're the same guy who published that crappy paper on ENSO with Bob Carter and Chris DeFreitas, some humility wouldn't go astray.
Dana Nuccitelli
Environmental Scientist
He's also the same John McLean who predicted the average global temperature would decrease 0.8°C in 2011.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html
A little humility and willingness to learn from his mistakes would indeed be wise.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Rob, thanks for the reference to the RealClimate post on 'Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean'. I found the link to it at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
It seems John has drawn upon the erroneous work of Fred Singer in forming his views.
John, do you accept that your view is wrong now?
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Last time I looked 2011 wasn't over yet. It's a bit premature of you to be crowing about an annual average when the year isn't complete.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Rob Painting, you say "And what's with the attitude? If you're the same guy who published that crappy paper on ENSO with Bob Carter and Chris DeFreitas, some humility wouldn't go astray."
Thank you for your comment, but it was niether erudite, acdemic or scientifically pertinent. It was the kind of ad hominem junk that I've seen on Hot Topic, a NZ site that I expect you are familiar with.
I've taken weeks to provoke an explanation from Chris McGrath. I wonder how much humility you'd show if I took weeks to provide an explanation that you requested.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
"It seems John has drawn upon the erroneous work of Fred Singer in forming his views."
That's another assumption, Chris. You didn't bother to ask first, did you? I wasn't even aware that Singer had commented on this subject until you mentioned it.
That's two baseless claims you've made in the last 1 or 2 days.
Do you rely on assumptions for every claim you make?
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Nice try at dodging the real issue John - do you accept that your views are wrong now?
P.S. Thanks for using my name. It feels strangely like progress in our conversation.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Let's see .. Have you read Rob Painting's article? By my reading it's talking about conduction from a warm surface to a cooler moving fluid, such as would be the case with cool wind over warmer water. That's warm water and cooler air, meaning the heat flow is .. oops ... from the ocean to the air.
The RealClimate article says of the data from the R/V Tangaroa, "The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W…
Read moreChris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
I see you still want to argue the toss on this one John.
Your argument was that it was impossible for the atmosphere to warm the oceans. The RealClimate article directly contradicts this and concludes "it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed."
It also directly contradicts the argument you made above about warm surface temperatures under cloudy conditions not being linked to the Greenhouse Effect…
Read moreJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Did you read the reference that Rob Painting mentioned or did you merely assume that it was correct?
According to an oceanographer that I know, the RealClimate article is very vague on the wavelength. At around 2 microns wavelength the energy does penetrate to about 5cm, but for CO2 dominated wavelengths of around 14 microns, the penetration is less than 1mm, making it negligible.
Your notion - or is it Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's ? - that increased atmospheric CO2 has caused warming of the ocean around the GBR is therefore false.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Doesn't the RealClimate post answer your point directly in the second paragraph?
"However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but…
Read moreDana Nuccitelli
Environmental Scientist
That's a fair point John. Tell you what, why don't we put some money on it? I'll bet you any amount of money you want that your 2011 global surface temperature prediction will be wrong by at least a full half a degree Celsius. I think that's a pretty fair offer, considering that the average global surface temperature almost never varies by more than a quarter of a degree from one year to the next. Your prediction would have to be pretty horrific to be wrong by twice that margin. So what do you say?
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
Dear John,
It has been a week and I haven't heard from you. Do you accept now that your idea about the atmosphere not being able to warm the oceans is wrong? Or, are you just not going to reply?
Rob Painting
climate science blogger
Chris, I'm drafting up an intermediate version rebuttal to this (greenhouse gases heat the ocean) at SkS (Skeptical Science). Will have it finished later this week.
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, I never did hear back from you so I guess you are not going to acknowledge you were wrong.
Rob did write the rebuttal to your point he spoke of. You can read it at http://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
Chris McGrath
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
John, dana has reviewed your predictions after 9 months at http://skepticalscience.com/9-months-after-mclean.html