According to dire news reported in the media last week Australians are losing interest in Global Warming. While in 2007 this issue was ranked as the equal most important foreign policy goal for the Federal Government the most recent polls indicate that out of ten possible goals it is in seventh place. Now fewer people see Global Warming as a threat to Australia’s national interests and it is perceived as the fourth most critical threat facing us out of twelve possibilities.

The fact that the current government was delaying action and the fact that the opposition party still hasn’t resolved its position on emission trading and the global financial crises have all been blamed for the loss of interest in Climate Change. The good news is that 76% of those surveyed in the annual Lowy Institute Poll still rated Climate Change as a problem and want some action. See full article here: (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming-drops-down-list-20091012-gu1w.html)

For those who still think that we should do something about Climate Change, this weekend is an important day. This Saturday on the 24^th of October it is the ‘International Day of Climate Action’. This is an international movement and people from many countries around the world will join in some form of protest to send a message to government leaders around the world. The message is clear: people want action on Climate Change. It is expected that thousands of images of people gathering in many cities and remote areas will be projected to the UN Headquarters and to Times Square.

The aim of this action -organised by www.350.org worldwide- is to focus the attention on the science and the citizens to remind world leaders that they need to take physical reality into account when they are making decisions about our collective future at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. People are not interested in backroom business deals and political interest groups but in one united goal; that is to reduce greenhouse emission and to ensure that the CO2 remains below 350 ppm in the atmosphere. Saturday’s campaign is expected to be the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history with over 3000 events in 160 countries. 350.org will assemble all the photos for a gigantic, global visual petition and present to the UN before the conference.

If you want to get involved visit this website for nearest location: www.350.org/map#/map/-25.274398/133.775136/4

According to the UK’s Hadley Centre, the hottest year on record occurred during 1998 and since this time the global temperature has actually decreased.

“All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007”
(Phil Chapman, “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh”, The Australian, Apr 23rd 2008)

Climate change sceptics have jumped on this fact as supporting their case that global warming is not caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

“Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.”
(Roger Harrabin, “Global temperatures ‘to decrease’ ”, BBC News online, 4 Apr 2008)

The World Meteorological Organisation refers to the cooling as being due to the ‘La Nina’ effect, a cooling effect from the natural Pacific currents.  The opposite warming effect can also occur and this is called El Nina.

Another viewpoint is that the Earth’s climate is closely correlated with variations in the sunspot cycle.   The number of sunspots that are evident follow an 11-year cycle with the recent year’s showing minimum levels.  Without expected sunspot numbers on the increase the suggestion is the climate will enter a cold period that could last decades.

“The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027”
(Phil Chapman, “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh”, The Australian, Apr 23rd 2008)

The Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 is approaching soon.  Does this notion of global cooling add to the uncertainty of human-induced climate change?  I don’t think so.  The science for human-induced climate change is well documented and administered through a highly transparent and robust framework managed by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC include solar variance in their calculations and have concluded its effect is minimal compared to the build up of emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Even if we have global warming all wrong, it’s not going to do us any harm cleaning our act up.   Clean air, water and natural resources are crucial for a sustainable future on Earth so why all this fuss about us being wrong about climate change.  Improving our efficiency of natural resources through reducing our energy and water use and minimising waste generation are common sense if you ask me.  Sure, we may need to spend money to achieve a cleaner world, but we had no problem spending money to get where we are now.

If it’s a choice between being hot or cold, I’m sticking with hot!

I have compiled the following information as a response to a friend of mine who has been following the reaction to Ian Plimer’s arguments against human induced Climate Change in his recently published book ‘Heaven and Earth’. I thought it would be a good idea to share the main points with others regarding the release of this controversial book. I can’t really analyse the scientific evidence because I’m not a climate scientist nor am I qualified in any similar fields. For this I rely on others who have the knowledge and experience. But I believe it is important to look at both views on the subject to keep the conversation going.

1. Fortunately we live in a free society where people can offer alternative views to what is accepted by others (even if it is the majority). This obviously applies to scientific stance as well. People have the right to hear both sides of an argument and make up their own minds. It is a radical move though on Plimer’s behalf to publish a book (Heaven and Earth) on such a ‘hot topic’ (excuse the punt) as Climate Change, thus giving ammunition to the deniers who don’t believe that humans have anything to do with global warming. No doubt there are lots of people out there who find comfort in believing that we humans are not responsible for destroying our environment and so they welcome the evidence proposed by Ian Plimer in his book on Climate Change.

2. Nevertheless, all media attention is useful because it brings the topic back into the limelight and initiates and/or continues a public debate on Climate Change. Just consider all the articles published as a result of Plimer’s book and all the other media interviews with both sides of the argument (The Guardian and The Spectator have widely covered this as has the The Australian – see references below). The public wants to hear answers from all the well-known scientists involved in the ongoing debate (and even politicians feel the need to comment on these issues). The blog spots are also running hot with comments on the book and on the exchanges between Plimer, Monbiet, Karoly, Lambert, Enting, Lambeck, Ashley etc. All this attention has resulted in keeping the debate alive and in the end it helps us in reinforcing the importance of doing something about Climate Change.

3. Drawing attention to Climate Change and the challenging of the general consensus in Heaven and Earth has worked because the debate has been taken up by the experts in the appropriate scientific disciplines. They (such as David Karoly and Tim Flannery) have disputed many of Plimer’s points by simply pointing out how unreliable and unsubstantiated the ‘scientific’ facts in his book are. There are lots of inaccuracies and reproductions of scientific explanations by others that were never properly cited or in some cases the actual results that were contrary to his points have been left out of his book. Meanwhile other evidence has been changed to support his arguments – according to these authorities on the subject.

4. The discussion of Climate Change in the media and on internet blogs is very timely as the United Nations Climate Change Conference is only a couple of months away from the 7^th December 2009 in Copenhagen.

The following are links related to this topic:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3659606/the-modern-heresy-of-true-science.thtml

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=page&id=14&chapter=0

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Monbiot-Plimer_Debate

Since I read the draft of Climate Code Red by David Spratt and Philip Sutton just under two years go I’m now setting up an annual routine of looking up the Arctic summer ice thickness in mid September, when the ice extent is at a minimum.

Climate Code Red alerted me and many other Australians to the rapid loss of Arctic Ice, with the Arctic compared to the “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to global warming. I wrote an article which I posted on Squidoo about this towards the end of 2007, which summarised my understanding of Climate Code Red.  Now in September 2009 the need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions is no less urgent. And if anything – as indicated locally by the bushfires in Victoria in February and the record breaking weather of August – climate change is happening quicker than we thought.

Now for an update on the Arctic. Science Daily recently reported on research which has correlated satellite data with submarine records. This shows that in the winter of 1980 Arctic ice averaged 3.64 meters in thickness. By the end of  2007 the average was 1.89 meters.  Over 27 years the depth of Arctic ice halved.

Over the same time the extent of the summer sea ice has greatly reduced.  The summer of 2007 had the lowest extent of summer sea ice. In September 2009, as reported by the Examiner, the ice extent is somewhat more than in September 2007, but still well below the 1979 to 2000 average.

The canary in the coal mine is still alive, but its future isn’t looking good. We need to keep on cutting carbon emissions.

Lawrence Berkerley National lab reported November last year on some fantastic research into how “cool roofs” can help slow global warming. White surfaces reflect rather than absorb radiation, and can be effective in re-radiating heat back into space. I’ve only just come across this research today, and the potential greenhouse gas savings are enormous.

Most roofs are dark in colour, the research by Akbari, Menon and Rosenfield calculated the CO2 offset achieved by increasing the solar reflectance of urban surfaces. For a 100 m2 roof making a dark roof white (with a long term solar reflectance of 0.60 or more) will offset around 10 tonnes of CO2 per year.

A 10 tonne saving per 100 m2 is a large saving. In hot climates white roofs also reduce air conditioning loads. So called “cool coloured” surfaces apparently have only half the benefit.

In California its been law since 2005 that flat roofs be painted white. We should have the same laws in Australia, and should also be legislating that sloped roofs should be white, or at least “cool coloured” as has been the case in California since July.

Assuming it costs $1,700 to clean and paint a 100m2 tiled roof white, and thus save 10 tonnes of carbon, this one measure will provide more climate benefit implementing all of the following:

• Replacing you gas hot water system with a solar hot water heater (gas boosted)
• Installing a 2 kW solar PV system on your roof
• And implementing energy conservation measures that save 16 kWh per day

* Assuming an emissions factor of 1 kg CO2/kWh.

If you don’t have an air conditioner “geo engineering” by painting your roof white won’t save you any money. But in terms of tonnes of greenhouse gas saved per dollar invested painting your roof white – whether at home or at work – could be one of the least expensive ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And it may help you avoid the need to get an air conditioner.

If you have a low carbon footprint to start with, based on this research, painting your roof white could actually neutralise your other emissions. And someone with a white roof is doing more to slow global warming than someone with a 5 kW PV system on their dark roof.