WARMING ATHEISM GALORE IN AUSTRALIA

The conformist societies of Europe seem to produce very little disbelief in global warming but in Australia it abounds. Three more current articles below

Emissions not making rivers run dry

The current drought is caused by natural climate variation but the collapse of the Murray-Darling basin is due to human mismanagement, says Stewart Franks, a hydroclimatologist and an associate professor at the University of Newcastle School of Engineering.

Prof. Franks points out that drought causes warming, not vice versa. The knowall Greenies never thought of that!

Is the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science. In fact, the drought was caused by an entirely natural phenomenon: the 2002 El Nino event. This led to particularly low rainfalls across eastern Australia. The subsequent years were either neutral or weak El Nino conditions. Significantly, neutral conditions are not sufficient to break a drought. In 2006, we had a return to El Nino conditions which further exacerbated the drought. What we didn't have was a strong La Nina.

Last year finally brought a La Nina event but it was relatively weak. It produced a number of major storm events in coastal areas and some useful rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin and elsewhere. Approximately half of NSW drought-declared areas were lifted out of drought (albeit into "marginal" status) and Sydney's water supply doubled in the space of a few months.

This was the first rain-bearing La Nina since 1999 but proved insufficient to break the drought. In short, the drought was initiated by El Nino, protracted by further El Nino events and perhaps more importantly, the absence of substantial La Nina events.

Despite the known causes of the drought, many have claimed that CO2 emissions are to blame. There have been arguments put forward to justify this claim, all eagerly adopted by various groups, but none of which have serious merit.

A key claim is that the multiple occurrence of El Nino is a sign of climate change. This is speculative at best. Recent analysis showed the nine-year absence of La Nina was not unusual. In fact long-term records demonstrate alternating periods of 20-40 years where El Nino is dominant, followed by similarly extended periods where La Nina dominates. Ominously, the data demonstrates that it is possible to go 14-15 years without any La Nina events. The consequent drought would be devastating but entirely natural.

The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate.

A more recent claim is that higher temperatures are leading to increased evaporation of moisture. The weather bureau acknowledges that rainfall from September 2001 until now has not been the lowest recorded, however much has been made of the fact that consequent inflows have been the lowest. It has been claimed increased evaporation, driven by climate change, can make up this discrepancy. Indeed, Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission has stated that temperatures were warmer, leading to more evaporation and drier catchments.

This is disturbing to hear from the head of the MDBC, as it is completely at odds with the known physics of evaporation. While it sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong. When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun's energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation.

Cloud cover also provides a major control on air temperatures. El Nino delivers less rainfall but also less cloud cover. This has a major impact on the amount of the sun's energy reaching land; far greater than the trivial increase in radiant energy caused by increased CO2. Again, in the absence of soil moisture, air temperatures increase.

These are known and accepted processes of environmental physics and are not contentious. They are ignored because they detract from the simple message that we should sign up to the concept of "dangerous climate change" and an emissions trading scheme. After all, who would pay for carbon emissions if they were not proven to be detrimental? Who would provide extra funds for climate change science if it wasn't a proven significant factor compared to natural climatic variability?

None of the above is to say that CO2 is not having some effect; the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and this is largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions. CO2 is a radiatively-active gas and leads to a minor increase in downward radiation. However, there is no evidence that this is in any way significant, especially when compared to the naturally varying processes that dominate rainfall variability and evaporation.

We do know why inflows are so low and why various ecosystems of the Murray-Darling are in crisis: the system is over-allocated and has experienced a growth in groundwater extraction and in the number of farm dams preventing rainfall from becoming run-off. This is due to a failure of planning, management and leadership from the relevant authorities. Under these conditions, when a prolonged drought strikes, the system collapses. This is a man-made problem but not one that is attributable to CO2.

Craik is not alone in her desire to view CO2-induced climate change as proven and affecting the drought. Numerous politicians, environmentalists and especially scientists have made spectacular leaps of faith in their adherence to the doctrine of climate change over recent years, too many to document here. However, the most literally fantastic claim on climate change must go to Kevin Rudd, who has guaranteed that rainfall will decline over coming decades; one can only assume he's based his view on deficient climate models and bad advice.

Perhaps our leading climate authorities who have played such a prominent role in fomenting speculation about climate change, and who apparently adhere to the notion that climate is amenable to prediction, should also point out that these models cannot reproduce the observed multi-decadal variability of El Nino and La Nina in anything like a realistic manner. Given the uncertainty of El Nino and La Nina behaviour, one clearly cannot predict the future.

There is no direct evidence of CO2 impacts on the drought, nor is there any rational basis for predicting rainfall in 30 years time. One just hopes that sensible and sustainable management from our leaders will enable struggling rural communities to weather the vagaries of climatic and political extremes.

Source

Rudd's emissions trading scheme is futile

NATURAL climate changes include warmings, coolings and more abrupt steps represented by the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1977. Meanwhile, lurking in the background lies the threat of visitation of another Little Ice Age. The Rudd Government's emissions trading policy deals only with the threat of presumed human-caused warming, and ignores the other all-too-real climate threats. The Government's intended emissions trading scheme, therefore, does not represent proper climate policy but rather constitutes a human global warming policy - which is an entirely different, and speculative, matter.

For the hypothesis that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming has failed the tests to which it has been subjected. One important test is that global temperature has failed to increase since 1998 despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of almost 5 per cent since then. So to say that human-caused global warming is proven to be a dangerous problem is untrue, and to introduce policies aimed at stopping presumed warming when cooling is actually under way is vainglorious.

An emissions trading scheme also will represent an expensive act of futility, because its introduction will have no measurable effect on future climate. Even worse, the costs of emissions trading will be levied disproportionately against the members of our society least able to afford them. Yet everything that we know from the study of past climate change indicates a real climate problem exists, which is the risk of natural climate change, both warmings and the much more dangerous coolings and sudden climatic events.

Study of the geological record reveals many instances of natural climate change of a speed and magnitude that would be hazardous to human life and economic wellbeing should they be revisited upon today's planet. Rapid temperature switches of several degrees within a few years to a decade have long been known from evidence in ice cores and other ancient climate records. More modern instrumental data record similarly rapid changes.

In Greenland during the 1920s five coastal weather stations sustained average annual temperature rises between 2C and 4C (and by as much as 6C in winter) in under 10 years. At the same time, human history records many examples of damaging short-term climatic hazards such as storms, floods and droughts. Nearly all these varied climatic events remain unpredictable.

Human influence aside, therefore, it is certain that natural climate change will continue. In dealing with the certainties and uncertainties of climate change, the key issue is prudent risk assessment. As for other natural planetary hazards, policies to cope with climate change should be based on adaptation to the change as it happens, and include the provision of financial help for those disadvantaged by the change.

Therefore an appropriate public policy on climate change should, first, monitor changes as they occur and continue to do so; and, second, respond and adapt to any changes in the same way that we deal with other damaging natural events. New Zealand already has such a national monitoring and response system in place for earthquake, volcanic and flood disasters, linked to a compensation and insurance system.

The certainty is that natural climate change and variation will continue. But like Holland in the past, adapt we must and will. More research and better policy advice is needed on how best to manage water and agricultural resources, and urban growth, in the context of natural climate changes certain to occur. Even were generous new funding to be provided towards these ends, the net cost would be orders of magnitude less than will be engendered by introducing a fundamentally misconceived emissions trading scheme.

To boot, contingent damage to the economy, standard of living and world food supply would be avoided. Does that sound like a good deal, Minister

Source

Rudd's Warmist nonsense to send power stations broke

Banks and other financial backers of electricity generators believe there is a significant likelihood one or more power companies will go broke if no compensation is provided under an emissions trading scheme. A PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of 15 banks, investors and analysts of the electricity sector found most financiers were still willing to lend to the sector, but were now charging a risk premium because of the current uncertainty over the industry's treatment under an emissions trading scheme from 2010. The survey is included in a supplementary submission to the Rudd Government's green paper by the National Generators Forum. It indicates investors are already looking to reduce their exposure to coal-fired generators, and that most had not started factoring in the risk of a carbon price until 2005.

The main threat of liquidation would be triggered by a major devaluation of generators' assets if an emissions trading scheme rules out compensation when the final terms are announced by the Government in December. This would trigger accelerated debt repayments under the existing financing and hedging arrangements negotiated by the power companies, with some generators understood to be highly geared and at significant risk of loan defaults. Most financiers thought breaches of the financing arrangements were likely if no compensation was provided, with insolvencies rated as a possibility.

The NGF has warned the financial stress would impact on investment in new technology. "Shifting between technologies is not costless and simultaneous -- significant funds and lead times are required to decommission existing generation and replace it with new generation," the submission said.

One of those surveyed was Sajal Kishore, associate director of Fitch Ratings, who said while the questions were biased in favour of a negative response, the sector faced worsening financial stress and uncertainty. "The real thing is whether the generator is able to pass on those costs or not," he said.

A coalition of energy providers has supported the introduction of a trading scheme but said the scale of the transition required structural assistance for the power sector. The electricity supply association, electricity retailers, NGF and the gas pipelines association said a modest target for 2020 was required to "allow the wider economy greater opportunity to adjust to one of the most fundamental structural adjustments ever applied by fiat".

Generators are already unable to negotiate hedge contracts beyond the end of the year because of uncertainty about the carbon price. "To enable generators to write future hedge/bilateral contracts, the emissions cap and trajectory needs to be announced as soon as possible, and permits made available," their joint submission said. "Currently, there are very few hedge contracts being offered beyond June 2010 because the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is unknown."

Source





'Vege maths' to be abolished

The national maths curriculum is still a blank page but the man in charge of framing the document knows what won't feature: easy maths courses for weaker students. While so-called "vege maths" courses teaching day-to-day skills have been offered to less able students, Peter Sullivan said they basically told students to give up. Instead, he envisages a national maths curriculum that gives all students the understanding they need for life after school.

Professor Sullivan, appointed by the National Curriculum Board to draft a direction for maths, said the course should offer the depth for talented maths students to pursue their interest, but still provide comprehensive skills to weaker students. "People need maths to be able to understand the world and their lives but also to be able to participate effectively in the workplace and their job," he said. "That's what curriculum can do, it can make education more interesting and relevant to the world today."

Professor Sullivan, from Monash University, said extended courses were necessary for students in the final years of school, when they were making choices about their careers. But for the compulsory years of schooling, the curriculum should preserve opportunities for all students as long as possible and not discard them as unable to do maths. "If there were low-achieving students falling behind, then schools and systems have to find ways to support them so they can improve, not give up on them and say 'here, do this easy course'," he said.

Professor Sullivan said many young students developed an attitude that they just could not do maths and one of the aims for the curriculum was to teach them that persistence pays off. "Giving up is not the way to do it. The amount of maths they learn depends on how hard they try, not how bright they are. These are the sorts of things the curriculum should try to do."

Professor Sullivan said technology had a crucial part to play. "It has the potential to change the way students study maths. It will allow students to place less emphasis on the memorisation of skills and formulas and use technology to solve real problems with real data."

He said fundamental knowledge such as the times tables would always be required. Rather, he was referring to the blind manipulation of memorised formulas. "A lot of people learn things in maths they don't understand, but once they're able to use technology to explore the concept, the maths makes sense," Professor Sullivan said.

Source





Australian public hospitals kill as many as the roads do

The number of deaths caused in Australian hospitals by emergency department overcrowding is equal to the road toll, a new report has revealed. The report by the University of New South Wales, in preparation for a Friday summit on emergency department access block in Melbourne, also revealed that patients face up to 30 per cent more chance of dying if they attend an over crowded emergency department. Children and the elderly are among those most likely to be affected. Queensland hospitals are among the most overcrowded in the country.

The report, prepared for the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine, suggested that increasing hospital bed numbers is the only method to reduce access block. Access block is when patients are left to wait longer than eight hours for a bed in an emergency department. "A large amount of human suffering (in emergency departments) is preventable," the report said. "There is a 20-30 per cent excess mortality rate every that is attributable to access block and ED overcrowding in Australia. "This equates to approximately 1500 deaths per year, which is similar to the road toll."

The report criticised a lack of extra hospital beds in recent years despite enormous growth in emergency department patient presentations. Bed occupancy rate should not be higher than 85 per cent. "There are not enough available beds to meet demand," the report said. "This results in access block and ED overcrowding. "This is associated with significant mortality and human suffering."

The report claimed that telephone hotlines and after-hours GP clinics did little to improve access block. It also criticised methods of treating patients in non-treatment areas such as hospital corridors and waiting rooms. "Access block and overcrowding have also been associated with increased return rates of hospital re-admissions, return visits to the ED, and inappropriate follow-up care," the report said.

Source






Parent anger over lunchbox police

Rules on junk food in schools will be sent to all principals this week amid parent anger over teachers inspecting children's lunchboxes and confiscating items viewed as unhealthy. Education Department chief executive Chris Robinson told The Advertiser last night guidelines would be reissued to all state schools and preschools. This follows reports yesterday of several schools ordering teachers to search children's lunchboxes for "inappropriate" food. In some cases, confiscated items were not replaced, leaving children to go hungry.

Mr Robinson said the department's ban on junk food under the Right Bite strategy launched last year by Health Minister John Hill and Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith, applied only to food and drinks sold in school canteens and vending machines. Birthday cakes and food or drinks from home are not covered by the ban. But according to a February 27 memo sent to principals and preschool directors by department deputy chief executive Jan Andrews, each school has discretion to ignore those instructions. "It is up to each school and preschool community and their governing council to decide how to use the guidelines to encourage healthier eating beyond the requirement that bans junk food in school canteens and vending machines," the memo said.

Opposition education spokesman David Pisoni said schools were confused by the "mixed message". "Parents are rightly angry - it should be about education and not confiscation, and kids should not go hungry because food is taken from lunchboxes," he said.

Mr Robinson, speaking yesterday on radio FIVEaa, said: "Teachers don't have any role in going through children's lunchboxes, that's entirely a matter for parents and the healthy eating guidelines don't cover (them)."

But Seaview Downs mother Cassandra Liebeknecht told The Advertiser that staff at her son's preschool had, over time, confiscated a small packet of potato chips and fruit bars. "Where do you draw the line? Is white bread with jam on it healthy," she asked.

Child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg said: "This is an abuse of power. "No school teacher has the right to go into a child's lunchbox and arbitrarily deem some food acceptable and some not. It is a blatant interference in the rights of parents and has to stop now."

Source