The case for a greenfields renaissance Feature - Geological Society ...

I complained to Sir Robert about over-hyping
“consensus”. The reply (14 June 2001) was a revelation:
As I hope my editorial made clear, I think
new and different and questioning ideas are
always to be welcomed, particularly in the earlier
stages of a science when many possible avenues
lead forward in different directions. Obviously,
the landscape changes over time, as people learn
more and more; this certainly is the case in many
aspects of climate change. As they do so, provocative
ideas that initially fully merited exploration
become less supported by the growing body of
knowledge and evidence.
Consensus rules!
David H Green FRS, Director of ANU’s Research
School of Earth Sciences in Canberra, sent me on
3 April 2001 a copy of the RSES submission to an
inquiry into the Kyoto Protocol by Parliament’s
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (dated
1 September 2000). It was by Professor Green,
Dr M Bird, Prof JMA Chappell, Dr M Gagan,
Prof R Grūn and Prof K Lambeck; and it began
convincingly indeed: The statements to the JSCT
inquiry which follow are ‘authoritative’ in the
sense that they are made by well-established scientists
active in leading edge research on the natural
variability of climate…
But it ended rather less so: From the ‘authority’ of
our published and unpublished research at RSES
… we are of the firm view that 20th Century global
warming and sea-level rise are observed and,
on scientific grounds, attributable to changes in
the Earth’s atmospheric composition caused by
human activities.
A separate submission, from Prof Green as
Chairman of the Greenhouse Science Advisory
Committee to the Australian Government, went a
giant step further: In preparation of advice to
Government, GSAC is concerned to maintain the
ethical principles for the scientific method and
scientific community, recognising that ‘greenhouse’
issues have attracted sensationalist media
attention, marginal science and pseudo science
and special interest groups…
Powerful support for the RSES position came in
IPCC’s fourth assessment report. The WG I
Summary for Policymakers of February 2007 presented,
in figure SPM-2, a table of “Radiative
Forcing Components”. Since 1750, the only “natural”
forcing was a minuscule 0.12 W/m 2 from
increased “solar irradiance”. In contrast, there
was 1.66 W/m 2 of forcing by “anthropogenic”
CO 2 . Hence, human-caused CO 2 emissions
provide x 14 as much warming as that from the
greatly-heightened solar activity since 1750.
Climatically, the Sun is now irrelevant; and the
consensus reigns supreme.
One example ‘Adapting to a hotter future’
(Winestate Vol 31 No 7, p 9), begins: Winemakers
in Victoria’s north–east are preparing for a long,
hot future with predictions of average annual temperatures
rising by 9°C by 2030. …The projections,
based on a medium emissions scenario
assessment by the CSIRO and Australian Bureau
of Meteorology, were recently tabled at a
Rutherglen Winemakers seminar on climate
change.
Varieties “suited to a warmer, drier future” include
primitivo – aka zinfandel – and fiano (Italy),
albarino (Spain), carignan (France) and asyrtico
(Greece).
But, consensus cannot evade the test of time.
Anthropogenic CO 2 emissions continue apace —
while the solar-warming trend may be reversing.
The Sun’s irregular orbit about the barycentre of
the solar system is driven by the ever-changing
collective angular momentum of the giant outer
planets. The variable torque thus applied to the
Sun modulates its widely-varying ejection of
magnetised plasma into the heliosphere — a major
influence on inner planets (which orbit the Sun),
such as Earth. Crucially, if the Sun keeps playing
by the rules, another Little Ice Age cold period
should be discernible within a decade.
Alternatively, people-driven warming should track
IPCC’s (and CSIRO’s) projections. Therefore, we
will soon know whether humanity, or the Sun, is
the dominant driver of Earthly climate.
The warmest year in the Modern Era was 1998,
and the slight subsequent cooling is accelerating.
Interestingly, the WG I volume of IPCC’s fifth
assessment report is due in 2013. Would continued
cooling until 2013 falsify IPCC’s people-driven
warming hypotheses Might the integrity of
IPCC – and indeed, of the international scientific
community – be then in question Time reveals
truth, remember.
Were I a winegrower, I wouldn’t grub-out my
cool-climate varieties just yet.
BOB FOSTER
Geoscience promotion
Jim Ross in “A rallying cry for geoscience in
Australia: part 1” (TAG 149, p31) summarised some
of the previous assessments of the decline of geoscience.
He pulled out four “practical responses” for
listing.
The first included “to address insufficient public
awareness of geoscience by consistent branding
within our secondary schools, tertiary institutions,
and at public interfaces”. The second and third
responses were aimed at schools and tertiary
GEOQuiz BY TOR MENTOR Answers on page 44
A few more teasers to exercise the brain in 2009
1. Karoo, Deccan and Belt are all names associated with well-known stratigraphic units.
In which countries do they occur
2. For what is the Burgess Shale famous, what is its age and where does it occur
3. Who introduced the terms Eocene, Miocene, Pliocene as subdivisions of the Tertiary
4. A monadnock is an isolated hill, also known as an inselberg. But where did the name
monadnock come from
5. An erg is a unit of energy in the CGS system of units and equals 10–7 joules. What is an
erg geologically speaking
6. What do the following abbreviations stand for: AHD, LGM, MORB, LILE
7. ‘Good men resist war’ is a mnemonic for the alpine glacial stages. What are the stages,
who named them and where do the names come from
8. Ladinian, Lochkovian, Ludfordian and Lutetian are International Stage names in which
Periods
9. What do pelecypods, bivalves and lamellibranchs have in common
10. Winds are often given names in different parts of the world. Where would you encounter
these winds: Brickfielder, Chinook, Harmattan, Mistral and Sirocco
TAG March 2009 | 43