TERN's EIF Application Process. Full details and required documents are on TERN’s web pages at http://www.tern.org.au/index.html?page=136924.

Key points are:

1. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) was established by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Scientific Research (DIISR) with a grant of $20m funding from the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy in 2009.

2. In July 2009, DIISR indicated that a further $35m was available for allocation to TERN under its Education Investment Fund (EIF) Super Science Initiative, to enhance its role and build capacity to ensure the longevity of projects established under the NCRIS funding.

3. TERN has undertaken to prepare and deliver to DIISR by 30 September 2010 a Project Plan, based on the best available long term ecosystem science projects, to enable extension and enhancement of TERN.

4. Proposals are invited from the terrestrial ecosystem research community and must be submitted to address one of the ten priority areas for long term ecosystem research in Australia defined in TERN’s Strategic Plan, available at http://www.tern.org.au/index.html?page=136924.

5. One proposal will be compiled and submitted for each of TERN’s strategic priority areas through a nominated project proposal coordinator. Additional proposals will not be accepted. It is intended that project proposal coordinators work with groups to compile a suitable proposal.

6. To contribute to a project proposal in your own, or your group's area of expertise, please contact the relevant project proposal coordinator at the email address shown at http://www.tern.org.au/index.html?page=136924.

7. The deadline for project proposal submissions to TERN is 20 August 2010.

On Wednesday 7 July, the latest in a series of independent reviews examining the science and behaviour of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA), the Muir Russell inquiry published its final report (www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf). The inquiry concluded “Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” This was not a surprise to those of us who know Dr Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU. I have known Phil for close to 30 years, and know him to be a man and scientist of the utmost integrity. The Muir Russell inquiry was, in fact, the third independent review into the CRU and its scientists – the other two also cleared the CRU scientists of any wrongdoing. One of these was conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf); the other by Lord Oxburgh and an international panel established by UEA in consultation with the Royal Society (www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP). The Oxburgh panel concluded “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Dr Michael Mann (for many years at the University of Virginia and lately at Pennsylvania State University) has also been subjected to three inquiries in recent years, in response to attacks on his science and character. The first, conducted by the National Research Council in 2006, confirmed the conclusions reached by Dr Mann and his colleagues regarding the relative warmth of the late 20th century in comparison with the temperatures of recent centuries. The second inquiry, conducted early this year, concluded “After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.” (www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf). Nor did he “engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” A third inquiry (live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf) released its report in early July 2010, and again cleared Dr Mann of any wrongdoing.

So, six independent inquiries have now exonerated the behaviour and scientific practices of a small group of distinguished climate scientists, who have been the subject of brutal and unjustified attacks (and campaigns of abusive emails). There can be little doubt that the most recent attacks have been motivated by the continuing strong global warming and record 2009/10 temperatures that I have described in previous monthly letters. The attacks have been “successful” in that they have distracted excellent and honest scientists from their research into climate change, and from communicating the results of their research to the public. Instead Jones and Mann and their colleagues have spent a great deal of time trying to deal with a mountain of Freedom of Information demands (often for data available elsewhere on the internet), preparing submissions to the various inquiries, and appearing before these inquiries.

One might think that the unanimity of the six inquiries in exonerating the scientists and confirming their science might be the end of the matter, and that our valued colleagues might be left to resume their excellent scientific careers. However, while global warming continues, I am sure there will continue to be well-organised attempts to distract the scientists, the media, the pubic, and politicians, from the reality of this warming (and from the human role in causing it).

Certainly some powerful people have no intention of letting Mike Mann focus on his research. The Attorney General of Virginia has insisted that the University of Virginia provide him all of Mann’s correspondence “created, presented or made in connection with” five research projects (worth about $500,000 in total). And the Attorney General really does mean “all”! He demands “the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newsletter, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter”. The Attorney General also demands “all” documents “that constitute or that are in any way related to correspondence, messages or e-mails” between Mann and 39 specified scientists (or that “reference” any of the 39). All correspondence between Mann and any research assistants, secretaries or administrative staff with whom Mann worked, or that “reference” these staff, are also demanded. These demands are clearly a desperate search for anything that might conceivably be used to discredit Mann and his work.

This tactic has been used in the past. From the mid-1990s Dr Ben Santer, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was harassed in the same way, with demands for all his correspondence and papers relating to his scientific work on climate change detection. This was simply because Santer, amongst others, had demonstrated that anthropogenic factors were contributing to the warming of our planet.

Over more than 15 years I have watched the good grace and resolve with which Santer, Mann and Jones have responded to these baseless and brutal (and ultimately futile) attempts to intimidate them and to try to find something, anything, which might conceivably be used to discredit them or their work. Their refusal to be intimidated, and their ability to continue their excellent research in the face of this intimidation is testament to their strength of character. They truly are heroes of our times, and provide an inspiration for young scientists in all fields. I am sure future generations will see them as such.

FASTS NEWS

1. Government news

As you are no doubt aware, Julia Gillard is the new Australian Prime Minister. Prime Minister Gillard has been quick to confirm she believes that climate change is real and human induced. An announcement regarding her Government’s proposed course of action is likely in the coming days. This photo of her in a laboratory was taken in early June. Let’s hope we see the Prime Minister visit many more research laboratories.

Prime Minister Gillard announced a minor Ministerial reshuffle today. The Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio remains with Senator The Hon Kim Carr, while The Hon Simon Crean MP has been appointed Minister for Education, Employment & Workplace Relations, Social Inclusion.

2. 2010 FASTS/APESMA Professional Scientist Remuneration Survey

Thank you to those who have already responded to the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) 2010 FASTS/APESMA Professional Scientist Remuneration Survey.



To ensure an even distribution of participants, I encourage people from the Biological, Geological and Medical and Cognitive Science groups to respond.

APESMA has extended the closing date to Friday 16 July.



The link to the questionnaire is: http://www.apesma.asn.au/vsurveys/sci

The survey will take 5-10 minutes to complete. No identification is necessary and all information will remain strictly confidential and is used by APESMA in aggregate form only.

A summary of the survey results will be available on the APESMA website.

If you require further information or clarification, please contact Dominic Angerame, Director Surveys, APESMA on tel: 03 9695 8835; or via email: dangerame@apesma.asn.au

3. Research Workforce Strategy consultation paper

The Research Workforce Strategy consultation paper was released today. The consultation paper identifies a number of challenges and opportunities for Australia’s research workforce over the decade to 2020 and proposes a set of priority areas for focus to meet those challenges and opportunities.



I have attached a copy of the paper and of the accompanying media release. Further information can also be found at also be found here:

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Research/Pages/ResearchWorkforceIssues.aspx 

And here:

http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/RESEARCHWORKFORCESTRATEGYHAVEYOURSAY.aspx

FASTS is a member of the Research Workforce Strategy Reference Group and has been involved in the development of this paper.

Please note that the deadline for submissions is Friday 6 August 2010.  I encourage those interested in Australian research and workforce issues to make a submission.



Public information sessions on the paper and submission process will be held in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide between 12-20 July. Details are available on the website.

4. House of Representatives Inquiry into Australia's International Research Engagement

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation inquired into and reported on Australia's international research Engagement. In particular, the inquiry examined the impediments to collaborating internationally and ways to address those impediments. The Report makes 18 recommendations and can be read at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isi/intresearch/report/fullreport.pdf

5. When is Science Valid?

The Optical Society of America has published an Opinion Piece authored by Ken Baldwin, immediate past-president of FASTS. The article is based on Ken’s FASTS publication of When is Science Valid and has been very well received internationally.

The article is attached. Should you wish to extract the text and reproduce it, you can do so provided that the following acknowledgement is made:

"This article was originally published in Optics and Photonics News, Optical Society of America, volume 21 (4), April 2010 pp. 12 - 13."

6. Industry Appointments

FASTS welcomed the appointment of CSIRO Chairman, Mr Simon McKeon. FASTS’ Media Release can be read here:

http://www.fasts.org/images/220610%20welcome%20appointment%20of%20csiro%20chairman.pdf

7. Dates for your diaries

25th anniversary celebration



This year FASTS turns 25 and we will be celebrating 25 years of science advocacy in Australia.

Celebrations will take place on the evening of Thursday 25 November in Canberra. Please mark the date in your diaries as this will be an event you won’t want to miss. Stay tuned for details.

Annual General Meeting



The AGM will be held in Canberra on Friday 26 November, following the 25th anniversary celebrations.

8. Indexation arrangements for higher education

Legislation to provide for new indexation arrangements for higher education has been introduced in the Australian parliament. It will deliver an additional $2.6 billion to universities over five years. This, together with the increased funding for the indirect costs of research, spells a significant recurrent funding improvement.



The new formula for higher education funding indexation will be made up as follows:

• Professional, Scientific and Technical Services labour price index (75%)

• Consumer Price Index (25%)

This measure see the implementation of an important recommendation in the Bradley Review. For a critique of the legislation, please see the Parliamentary Library Bill Digest for this Bill: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2009-10/10bd162.pdf

9. Recently released reports of interest:

Senator the Hon Kim Carr has released the first Australian Innovation System Report 2010

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AustralianInnovationSystemReport.aspx

In Powering Ideas, the Australian Government committed to produce annual reports on the impact of Australian innovation and the performance of the Australian innovation system as a whole. The Australian Innovation System Report 2010 is the first of these reports.



This report outlines features and trends of the Australian innovation system as a whole; compares Australia’s innovation performance to other OECD countries; and tracks progress against the Government’s innovation priorities and targets. It highlights baseline performance under the four policy headings identified in Powering Ideas: skills and research capacity; business innovation; links and collaboration; and public sector innovation. The metrics and baselines included in the report will be used to measure and monitor the progress of the national innovation system against the Government’s priorities and targets in coming years.

In March I showed how strongly the global average temperature had been increasing recently. Here I update the graph I included in my letter for March, to include data up to the end of May 2010. Contrary to the impression you might have gained from the media, the global climate is NOT cooling. In fact, the last twelve months, June 2009 – May 2010, has been the hottest June-May period on record, in both the 31-year satellite record of lower atmosphere global temperature and the 131-year surface global temperature record. In both data series the last 12 months have been more than 0.4C hotter than the average temperature of the last two decades of the 20th century.

The figure below plots the time series of twelve-month (June-May) global mean temperature anomalies. The data in the figure are the Spencer-Christy lower atmospheric temperatures from satellites (labelled “UAH” in the figure) and the surface temperatures from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (labelled “GISS”). Both datasets are freely available (UAH from http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt; GISS from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt). Both datasets have been plotted as anomalies relative to 1979/80-1998/99, ie the first twenty years of the satellite observations.

Simply eyeballing the graphs of the surface and satellite temperature record should convince anyone that global warming never “stopped”. Fitting linear trends to the data since the start of the satellite observations produces virtually identical trends in the two data sets. Even the variations from year-to-year in the two temperature series are close matches.

The close match between the surface and satellite variations and trends confirms that the warming trend at the surface is NOT due to the urban heat island effect. Nor is it due to changes in the numbers of stations used in the surface analysis, or any problems with the locations of the surface instruments. None of these potential problems affects the satellite data, and the satellite data are completely independent of the surface data.

Nor is the warming due to the Sun getting stronger. Satellite measurements show that total solar irradiance has decreased since the start of the 21st century, and this would probably have caused some weak cooling rather than any warming (http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm).

Neville Nicholls is an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, President of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (www.amos.org.au), and an Executive Editor of Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change (wires.wiley.com).

 

Last month I mentioned the issues atmospheric scientists in academia are having with the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative. This initiative aims to rank all disciplines at Australian universities relative to world-best practice in research, and against other Australian universities. One tool that will be used to assess the quality of research will be a citation analysis focussed on high-quality journals. I mentioned that the highly respected Monthly Weather Review has been omitted from the ERA list of ranked journals. This was apparently because the Australian Research Council, which is carrying out the ERA for the Federal Government, was advised by a peak discipline group representing geologists (and not atmospheric scientists) that MWR was not peer-reviewed.  On behalf of AMOS, I pointed out that the advice to the ARC was incorrect, and asked that MWR be included in the ERA ranked list since its omission would seriously bias the ERA results and prejudice those universities where atmospheric scientists publish in this journal. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts to get the ERA journal list corrected.

An even more serious problem has emerged. Many atmospheric scientists and oceanographers publish in the highly respected and cited Geophysical Research Letters and the Journal of Geophysical Research. However, the ERA will not allow papers published in GRL and JGR to be counted as atmospheric sciences or oceanography research. Worse, such papers (even those on meteorology) will be counted as research output of geophysics schools (ie geologists), artificially inflating their productivity while artificially decreasing the productivity of atmospheric sciences and oceanography. So, papers that I have published in these journals will be counted as an output of Monash University, but will be attributed to the geologists at this university, rather than atmospheric scientists.  

Again, we have pointed out this error to the ARC, but they remain unwilling to correct the journal list. Unless the ARC corrects the list of journals and aligns the journals with the correct fields of research, then any ERA-based assessment of atmospheric sciences and oceanography in Australian universities will be worse than useless. It will be biased against some universities (compared with other universities where academics do not publish in MWR) and the overall productivity of the Australian atmospheric and oceanographic research sectors will be biased low (because they cannot count papers in GRL and JGR).

Neville Nicholls

May 2010

 

I want to start this month’s letter with my congratulations to Vaughan Barras, the Chair of the Melbourne Regional Centre and, with Luke Garde, the “guardian” of the AMOS Weather Tipping Competition. This year the Competition has gone “national” and is now hosted on the AMOS web site. A complete redesign of the Competition web page has been supervised by Vaughan and it is now very professional and easy-to-use. Even I have entered this year (and after three weeks I am running 45th of 70 participants). Although the Competition has already started you can still join in, and see if you can beat the official Bureau of Meteorology forecasters.

I also want to welcome Linden Ashcroft who is taking over from Stewart Allen as Editor of the AMOS Bulletin. Linden has completed a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication at ANU and has recently commenced postgraduate study at Melbourne University with Joelle Gergis. Stewart has done an excellent job as Editor for over two years, and will continue to provide advice to Linden as she takes up the reins. Linden, with Jeanette and Stewart, has exciting plans for the future of the Bulletin.

We have been negotiating with the New Zealand Meteorological Society regarding having our annual conference for 2011 in Wellington, in cooperation with MSNZ. The dates have now been set as 9-11 February 2011. The organising and programme committees are being established and details such as registration costs, social program, and accommodation options are being examined. I hope to see many AMOS members in Wellington in February, as well as catching up with our friends and colleagues across the “ditch”.

Members in academia will be aware of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative. This initiative aims to rank all disciplines at Australian universities relative to world-best practice in research, and against other Australian universities. One tool that will be used to assess the quality of research will be a citation analysis focussed on high-quality, highly-cited journals. It was disturbing to find out, therefore, that the Monthly Weather Review has been omitted from the ERA list of ranked journals. This was apparently because the Australian Research Council, which is carrying out the ERA for the Federal Government, was advised that MWR was not peer-reviewed. On behalf of AMOS, I pointed out that the advice to the ARC was incorrect, and asked that MWR be included in the ERA ranked list. Its omission would seriously bias the ERA results and prejudice funding for universities where academics publish in this journal.

Finally, I want to acknowledge all the hard work that has been put into straightening out our financial statements for the last two financial years. We had extra requirements placed on our financial reporting in 2008, and our systems were not adequate to provide the quality of financial reporting required of us by law. This was not surprising – our financial turnover had grown very quickly. To straighten out the financial statements required hard work by Robin Robertson, Ailie Gallant, Blair Trewin, Susan Karoly, and Jeanette Dargaville, as well as the purchase of financial software and the part-time employment of a bookkeeper. This has cost us, but it was pleasing to see the properly audited financial statements for 2008 and 2009 presented and approved at a Special General Meeting on 16 April. We hope that all this work will mean that the preparation of financial statements in future years will be much simpler and faster.

Neville Nicholls

April 2010

 

Southern Hemisphere Climate: features, findings, futures

Who: Everyone interested in climate and related fields

When: Abstracts due 1 June 2010 - no excuses and no extensions!

How: Submit online at the Forum web site www.bom.gov.au/events/anzcf2010/submit

Why: So you don't miss out on some "Southern Exposure" for your science

Where: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 13-15 October 2010

What: The Australia - New Zealand Climate Forum 2010 has the guiding theme"Southern Hemisphere Climate: features, findings, futures".  Particular focus will be on the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean inthe climate of Australia and New Zealand.

Themes:

* The living planet - Southern Hemisphere Climate: ecology

* Impacts on humanity - Southern Hemisphere Climate: the human habitat

* Observing - Southern Hemisphere Climate: observations and data

* Linkages - Southern Hemisphere Climate: high/low latitude interaction * Changes - Southern Hemisphere Climate: changes in the past, present and future

More: at the Forum website www.bom.gov.au/events/anzcf2010

A Special General Meeting will take place on 16th April 2010 and followed by Talk - Can the Australian Wine Industry Adapt to Climate Change by Guest Speakers Professor Snow Barlow and Dr Leanne Webb



5:00pm for drinks and nibbles, 5:30pm meeting start

Friday 16 April 2010

Level 9 Conference Room

Bureau of Meteorology Head Office

700 Collins Street, Melbourne

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS) is holding a Special General Meeting (SGM) for the purposes of presenting financial statements to members and to vote on changes to the AMOS constitution concerning rules on the financial year of AMOS, business discussed and nominations for Council at AGMs, and defining meetings of the Executive Council.

Agenda items:

1. AMOS Financial Statements for 2008 and 2009

2. Proposed changes to AMOS rules (See document)

If you are not able to attend the AGM in person, you may vote by proxy by completing and submitting this form. Please note that only current, financial members as at 16 April 2010 may vote and that all proxy votes must be received in our office by 14 April 2010.

Immediately following the AGM we have special guests Professor Snow Barlow and Dr Leanne Webb will be speaking on Can the Australian Wine Industry Adapt to Climate Change.

It is important that you notify the AMOS Admin Officer, Jeanette Dargaville if you will be attending.

Thank you.

 

Global warming continues I have been looking at the global temperature record, as measured by satellite and surface data. I have plotted the time series of six-month (September-February) global mean temperature anomalies in the figure below. The data I have used are the Spencer-Christy lower tropospheric temperatures from satellites (labelled “UAH” in the figure) and the surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (labelled “GISS”). Both data sets are readily available (UAH from http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt; GISS from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt). Both data sets are of anomalies from the period 1979/80-1998/99, ie the first twenty years of the satellite observations. The GISS data originally used a different base period, so I have recalculated the GISS time-series with the same base period as the UAH data. Please look at the data, re-do the analysis, and see if you come to similar conclusions to those I describe below. 

The last six months (September 2009 – February 2010) have been the warmest September-February observed in the satellite record, by a large margin. In the GISS surface data the last six months are the equal warmest September-February on record (equal with 2007/08). Eyeballing the graphs of the surface and satellite temperature record should convince anyone that global warming continues unabated. Fitting a linear trend to the data since the start of the satellite observations produce virtually identical trends in the two data sets. Even the interannual variations in the two temperature series are close matches.

A corollary of this close match between the surface and satellite variations and trends is that the surface warming trend is NOT due to the urban heat island effect. Nor is it due to decreases in the numbers of stations used in the surface analysis. Neither of these problems would affect the satellite data. Furthermore, the trend is not just due to a year or two of extreme temperatures – the very warm years (often associated with an El Niño) are progressively getting hotter, as are the cool years (which are often associated with a La Niña). Another corollary is that the GISS data provide a very credible analysis of variations and changes in global mean temperature (since they match the satellite observations), supporting the conclusion that the 21st century has seen the warmest September-February periods for at least 130 years.

As I write this column (15 March) the Spencer-Christy satellite data for March 2010 are running well above the previous record for March (set in 2004). November 2009 was the hottest November in their data and January 2010 was the hottest January, with February 2010 coming in as the second hottest February. It doesn’t look like the run of record hot global temperatures will stop anytime soon.

Neville Nicholls March 2010