About the author
Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.
He has published two books and over 140 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems.
For more on his climate science qualifications and research interests, read this post.
Effective communication of the science of climate change is fundamental to providing policy makers with the type of evidence required to institute meaningful mitigation policy and to understand available adaptation options. It is this imperative that has Barry to take an active leadership role in the communication of the science of global change to government, industry and the community (directly, via public lectures and workshops and advisory committees, and indirectly via the media – including television, radio, the print media and popular science articles).
It is his belief that presenting hard-won technical scientific evidence to a broad audience in an intelligible way is the surest path to provoking meaningful societal change towards long-term sustainability.
Curriculum Vitae: http://bravenewclimate.com/about/curriculum-vitae
For further details, see his University website: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook
Comments Policy – I welcome comments, posts, suggestions and informed debate, from a wide range of perspectives. However, personal attacks, insulting/vulgar posts, or repetitious/false tirades will not be tolerated and can result in moderation or banning.
Trolls will be warned, and then disemvowelled.
Disclaimer – The views expressed on this website are my own or my contributors’ and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Adelaide or the Government of South Australia.
Dale Butler said
Methane emissions from coal deposits.see http://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature1621/
I have not seen any quantitive analysis but I suspect that there is a huge methane resource available in coal beds and abandoned mines. As this leaks into the atmosphere eventually would not a global methane drainage and combustion to generate electricity program be beneficial?
Combined cycle gas generation plants can have thermal efficiencies that approach 70%.
Surely it would be best to oxidise CH4 to Co2?
Regards,
Dale Butler
Barry Brook said
Absolutely – that is why flaring of oil wells is preferable to venting the methane directly into the atmosphere.
Capturing methane from point sources, such as landfills and coal mines (not open cut – impossible) – is clearly a high priority in the very short term. As is fixing leaky pipelines. In “The Revenge of Gaia”, Lovelock provides some startling figures on just how much of an impact this leaked methane has.
Global warming and biodiversity extinction « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] warming and biodiversity extinction 14 08 2008 My colleague Barry Brook recently posted a discussion on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity extinction rates and [...]
Danny Blloom said
Dr Brook,
FOund your blog via RealClimate site. Reading now.
Wonder if you have heard or read about or seen images of my polar cities project, aka Lovelock Retreats? Some will be located in Tasmina, New Zealand and Patagonia. DO you think Australian newspapers would be interested in this futuristic news?
See here:
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
email me to chat pro and con on polar cities your POV at
danbloom GMAIL
Dale Butler said
I note that the North pole is encircled by forest (the Taiga or Boreal)
It occurs to me that as the CO2 levels go up and this forest creeps further towards the arctic circle it will transpire water vapour into the atmosphere where previously the air has been exceedingly dry due to the low temperatures, in any event water vapour will simply diffuse into the space as the temperature goes up. Now, as the deniers are continually telling us, water vapour is a major GG. My question is does this effect exist and is it a major positive feedback?
regards,
Dale Butler
Barry Brook said
Good question Dale. Short answer is that polar forests warm the planet as they reduce albedo (there may be a water vapour effect but it is not the main issue). Tropical forests cool the planet due to their carbon stores and cloud generating potential.
Some papers:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/5371/1916
and a news article:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0409-forests.html
Danny, thanks for the link – absolutely fascinating, albeit somewhat dystopian stuff!
inel said
Dear Barry,
I have news for you about the London conference that appears in a comment on your blog, but don’t know how to contact you directly. Please check my latest blog post and send me an email if you want to learn more.
Sincerely,
inel
Synergies among extinction drivers « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] review my colleagues, Barry Brook and Navjot Sodhi, and I have just published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution demonstrates how [...]
Barry Brook said
Thanks Inel, that has now been spamified.
Mark Duffett said
G’day Barry,
I’d be really interested in your opinion of this piece of climate porn the Nine Network currently has in the pipeline.
The ridiculously telescoped timeline is one obvious howler, but that aside, how realistic a scenario does this look to you?
Most importantly, do you think this sort of thing is helpful?
Barry Brook said
I think the timelines are unrealistically compressed, making it impossible to judge whether authorities will, in reality, have the foresight to avoid this sort of problem. Perhaps forwarned is forearmed, or perhaps it encourages the boy who cried wolf – that’s a complex question.
But it does underscore a grave issue – the realisation that, worldwide, failed states will become an economic and humanitarian reality as a result of water shortages – probably within the next few decades. Pakistan is right up there as a candidate thanks to its high dependence on summer Himalayan glacial melt via rivers that first flow through India…
Mark Duffett said
I presume from the rapidity of your response that you were already familiar with it. The producers didn’t engage you as a consultant, did they?
Barry Brook said
No – but you’re right, I did know about it – I was interviewed by someone doing a media review on it.
I’m left near speechless with rage at Garnaut’s 10% by 2020 (maybe) ‘target’ « civilisationshift said
[...] Prof. Barry Brook @ bravenewclimate.com: So the key to unlock this ‘diabolical problem’ is to focus on the energy technologies, as urgently as humanly possible. Design a capital works programme, lead by a forward-looking government, to start laying out solar thermal, wave, wind, geothermal and microalgal biodiesel liquid fuels on a massive scale. Define a REAL 2020 goal, such as to have 80% of Australia’s power met by renewables by 2020, instead of some abstract target that is reliant on an unenforceable multilateral global agreement which will never eventuate. [...]
Tropical Conservation Biology « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] like to introduce a (relatively) new textbook that my colleagues, Navjot Sodhi and Barry Brook, and I wrote and published last year with Blackwell (now Wiley-Blackwell) Scientific Publishing – [...]
David Latimer said
Hi, I’d like to speak with you about your blog. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! -Dave
Agmates Rural News » Blog Archive » Is PM Kevin Rudd another James Hansen Desciple? said
[...] to provide further elaboration of the science reported in my attached paper (Hansen et al., 2008): Professor Barry Brook, Professor of climate change, University of Adelaide Dr Andrew Glikson, Australian National [...]
Conservation Scholars: Norman Myers « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] takes a page (quite literally) out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
perps said
CARN THE HAWKS!
I see your team had a big Grand Final win Barry – a good omen maybe;-) Let’s hope you can convince people of the desperate state of our planet otherwise it will be game over for us all. Keep up your good work in communicating the science of AGW to us lay people.
Conservation Scholars: Gretchen Daily « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Conservation Scholars: William Laurance « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Richard Arnold said
Hi i saw your presentation at the UniSA on Friday night, and it it definitely made an impression. Do you have a link for the animation of global average temperatures over the last 200 years ? I want to circulate it.
Regards
Richard Arnold
Barry Brook said
Richard, you can download that animation here.
Conservation Scholars: Mark Cochrane « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
shakti burke said
Dear Barry
Leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen has publicly advised Kevin Rudd on the urgency of phasing out coal.
http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf
Dr Hansen has also graphically stated:
“If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” (Climate, Coal and Crematoria)
On these grounds, is it reasonable to assert that the activities of the coal industry now pose as much as a danger, if not more, than the danger involved in having nuclear reactors?
We Australians have been historically anti-nuclear. What reason is there, given the increasing urgency of responding to climate change, of remaining pro-coal?
(I am asking these questions amidst a discussion with my Federal MP about the continuation of the coal industy…)
cheers, Shakti
Barry Brook said
Shakti @25: Yes, I am named on Jim Hansen’s letter (look at the list at the end of the letter).
Nuclear reactors pose the risk of meltdown and a significant immediate regional impact from radiation leakage (e.g. Chernobyl, which could have been much worse than it was if a bunch of brave souls hadn’t sacrificed their lives to shut down the reactor). But climate change threatens a global crisis that is chronic and exacerbating as every extra tonne of coal is burned. So I would definitely classify coal as the much greater danger.
Nuclear via 4th generation reactors (no meltdown, efficient use of feedstock), or fusion (if it ever arrives) offer wonderful opportunities. But 2nd Gen for Aust is too little, too late, so why bother.
George Darroch said
Barry, could you consider putting NOAA ESRL in your resources section? I find it extremely useful, both for myself, and in illustrating to others the Mauna Loa record, and how dramatic the rise in concentrations has been in recent years.
Conservation Scholars: Daniel Simberloff « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Conservation Scholars: Bruce Campbell « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Barry Brook said
21-11-2008: I’ve been away from internet for the past 5 days (at a workshop in the Daintree Rainforest) – hence the lack of updates to the blog and non-response to comments. Now I’m back, and I have lots of new stuff for the coming few weeks.
Conservation Scholars: Daniel Pauly « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Dan Boone said
Barry @26: I’m surprised at your dismissal of the value of building new nuclear reactors UNLESS they are Gen IV technology.
I’m from Maryland in the USA, and we have the opportunity soon to approve construction of an additional 1,600 MW Gen III reactor at the existing Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. This one additional reactor would be capable of reducing baseload coal use that is equivalent to what could be hauled in a 650-mile-long “coal train” – each and every year it operates.
Groups like the Sierra Club are opposed to the permitting of this new reactor and argue that renewables instead could provide the same capability of this one reactor in generating power during summertime (our grid region’s period of highest demand). However, the most cost-effective renewable energy is now provided by wind turbines, but it would necessitate the construction of 10,000 MW of industrial wind turbines to yield the same summertime output (MWh) of this one 1,600 nuke reactor (due to 15% summertime capacity factor of wind turbines installed in region). Furthermore, construction of 5,000 2-MW wind turbines would primarily occur on predominantly forested ridgetops along the biodiversity-rich Appalachian Mountain chain – and likely would result in the clearcutting of 7,000+ hectares of forest along 750+ miles of ridgetop (see recent photographic evidence via: http://www.windaction.org/documents/18575 ).
The forest fragmentation impact of this amount of wind energy development would result in the loss of perhaps 35,000 hectares of ecologically-significant “forest interior habitat” (given that most forested ridgetops represent core areas of existing forest interior habitat) – see: http://www.kutztown.edu/acad/geography/wildlife&windconf/Speaker_Presentations/Boone_GIS.pdf .
Clearly, it seems to me that a Gen III nuke reactor is far-better than clearing and roading hundreds of miles of forested ridge in order to site thousands of industrial wind turbines.
I’m also a bit puzzled as how you can rationalize that “meltdowns” are a significant risk of nuclear power given that the only other meltdown of a power plant reactor besides Chernobyl occurred at 3-Mile Island power plant in Pennsylvania in the USA, and it released no significant amounts of radiation. In addition, no human health concerns were ever documented to be the result of radiation leak at 3-Mile Island, and no traces of radiation were found in surrounding waterways – see: http://www.mdconservationcouncil.org/HealthEffects.html . The reactor design of the 3-Mile Island power plant is similar to what is used at nearly all nuke power plants elsewhere in the world.
However, I’m really perplexed by your inference that Chernobyl is representative of the risk posed by nuclear power plants now in existence. Surely you realize that this Russian design is not remotely comparable to the reactor designs in use throughout the world? Thus, it is not credible to cite Chernobyl as what realistically could occur due to meltdown scenario. You seem to strongly cling to long-held biases against nuclear power…
Given that Gen IV reactors can make total use of spent Gen III and Gen II fuel rods, I don’t see the harm or problem in supporting these currently available reactor technologies.
FYI, for many years now about half of all the fuel rods in the 100+ nuclear power plants are derived from reprocessed Soviet nuclear warheads (aka Megatons to MegaWatts Program). Thus, decommissioned Soviet warheads are responsible for supplying 10% of total US electricity demand (i.e., 50% of the 20% of US electricity generated by nuclear power plants).
Hank Roberts said
One ‘b’ in Rabett (blogroll, sidebar).
> Given that Gen IV reactors can make total use of
> spent Gen III and Gen II fuel rods
Need: proof of concept; numbers, how many could consume how many currently stored (contents changing with decay, casing corroding slowly) and future fuel rods? over what time period, with what cost/risk?
Building more old type reactors based on promises is how we got where we are now, going in the direction we’re headed now.
“She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
but I don’t know why she swallowed that fly …”
Our new Environment Institute: tackling environmental crises « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] involved in the institute will be the university’s climate change expert Barry Brook and conservationist David [...]
Eli Rabett said
Whose fussy?
Conservation Scholars: Stephen Schneider « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
The Global Food System and Climate Change | Veg Climate Alliance said
[...] article is hosted on Brave New Climate, the blog of Australian Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of [...]
Conservation Scholars: Stuart Pimm « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Conservation Scholars: Peter Raven « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] series on ConservationBytes.com takes a page out of our book Tropical Conservation Biology (Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw) – therein we produced a series of ‘Spotlights’ describing the [...]
Gaz said
Eli Rabett (#35 15 December 2008 at 14.30)
“Whose fussy?”
Don’t you mean “Who’s fussy?”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
George Crisp said
Read your “Unleashed article / ABC” today with interest.
Do you think raising expectation of a nuclear ( partial ) solution is good idea? Whilst the promise of new technology ( in the form of the Intergral Fast Reactor ) is appealing, it is ,as I understand it, only experimental at this stage. There may be unforeseen problems ( as there have with nearly every other new nuclear technology so far, use of liquid sodium, fuel processing etc ) and it will take at least one, probably two decades, before we can be confident of a commercial future for it.
Climate change is a much more urgent problem, my concern is, that by investing in this ( as with clean coal ) we are diverting resources from renewable energy and wasting precious time.
MattB said
At some stage though George governments ARE going to have to make decisions about technologies and investments – they may at least make that research and investment in technologies that can tick all the boxes.
Immediate, ramp up renewables, ramp up efficiency, ramp up R&D (all massaged in the
15-20 years – broadscale introduction of base load power technology – whichever of clean coal, nuclear, renewables storage has come up trumps.
Marine conservation in South Australia « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] colleague, Barry Brook, invented this excellent term to describe those people who blindly support anything [...]
Cartoon Guide to Biodiversity Loss « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] Guide to Biodiversity Loss 30 01 2009 I’m taking Barry Brook’s great idea on the Cartoon Guide to Global Warming Denial and applying it to biodiversity [...]
Tropical Turmoil II « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] Turmoil II 8 03 2009 In August last year I covered a paper my colleagues (Navjot Sodhi and Barry Brook) and I had in press in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment entitled Tropical turmoil – a [...]
Tropical turmoil - a biodiversity tragedy in progress | Forest Policy Research said
[...] August last year I covered a paper my colleagues (Navjot Sodhi and Barry Brook) and I had in press in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment entitled Tropical turmoil – a [...]
leanne said
Hi Barry,
I’m the publication coordinator for the Just English magazine – a magazine which caters to teenagers and young adults with emphasis on improving English.
I was wondering if I could feature your two articles in our magazine: Six Degrees of Separation and Global Warming Strains at Species Interactions.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Leanne
Barry Brook said
No problem Leanne, feel free to go ahead and use them. It’s all public domain once posted on the blog, provided an acknowledgement via link-back is provided.
Classics: Ecological Triage « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] thanks to Lochran Traill and Barry Brook for co-developing these ideas with me) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Wasting [...]
Conservation Scholars: Barry Brook « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] good friend and colleague, Barry Brook, is our twelfth Conservation [...]
Shirley Pipitone said
Barry
Have you considered publishing your review of Plimer’s H&E in the other capital city daily newspapers?
It is really important to reach the general population to counter his populist non-science, because it will appeal to the “faithful”, so-called climate sceptics.
Could I do it on your behalf?
Regards
Shirley
Barry Brook said
Thanks Shirley, but I doubt they’d publish anything sufficiently detailed to be convincing/useful. There are at least two counter Op Eds in the works that I know of, but it is unclear if either of them will get published.
Kirk Sorensen said
Hello Dr. Brook,
Great blog! I’ve really enjoyed reading it and have added it to the blogroll at “Energy from Thorium”. Keep up the good work!
Juan said
Hi Bary,
I have a question regarding IFRs.
I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the SFR that is under development in the GIF program is more or less the same concept that Tom Blees develops in his book “Prescription for the Planet”. However, their is one key difference: if you look at the GIF website, they say there are still “Improvements in passive safety required” while Tom Blees clearly says that the passive safetly mechanisms of the IFR where more than proven in the EBR II reactor (page 326 of the book). Could you please clarify this point?
Thanks!
Juan (Madrid)
Barry Brook said
The SFR proposed by the Gen IV initiative is a generic design, which could include the IFR or variants being developed in other countries. The IFR included on-site pyroprocessing and metal fuels, whereas other SFR designs included oxide fuel and central reprocessing. Metal fuels are one feature of IFRs that brings large passive safety benefits.
Diane said
I wanted to let you know about a recent article we posted about nuclear power; you can check it out at: http://ecohearth.com/eco-pedia/energy-and-fuels/391-meltdown-or-mother-lode-the-new-truth-about-nuclear-power.html
Nuclear power was talked about quite a bit in the 2008 presidential campaign, then got moved to the back burner once it was no longer viable as a wedge issue. I must admit that I still don’t quite know where I stand in the debate … Of course I know the discussion has gotten a lot more complex than ‘No Nukes!’; I also know that 24,000 people die a year in the US in coal-related deaths (compared to 56 deaths resulting from Chernobyl). But as a environmentalist, I still can’t get out of my head the argument for energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
I’m not trying to be simplistic, as I said, I know that the issue is extremely complex and that our energy needs are probably bigger than what we can get from wind and solar power but … ach, maybe it’s growing up in the shadow of Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, I can’t get myself 100% behind a technology that no matter how safely it’s executed, does have the power to do massive damage.
Barry Brook said
Thanks for the link Diane, that’s a really useful and well-balanced article by Kotler.
Have you read Craven’s book? It has a lot of detail about safety that I think will address your lingering concerns.
Climate change’s ugly cousin – biodiversity loss « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] in point: my good friend and colleague, Professor Barry Brook, started his blog BraveNewClimate.com a little over a month (August 2008) after I managed to get [...]
Pete Ridley said
Professor Brook, as a lay people who is agnostic about the significance of human-made climate change I have been impressed by Dr. John Nicol’s paper “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” see http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc). This analysis strengthens my agnosticism, but in an effort to remain open-minded I searched for any scientific paper that showed in as much detail how Dr. Nicol’s analysis might be flawed. I have been unable to find such a paper. Dr. Nicol tells me that he has invited peer review but has received nothing but supporting comments. It seems to me that it is important for those scientists like yourself who support the argument of human-made cclimate change through our use of fossil fuels carry out a thorough review of Dr. Nicol’s analysis and show precisely where he has erred (if he has done so).
Are you able or willing to help on this?
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic
Vortex of travel to RAMAStan « ConservationBytes.com said
[...] up a year-long Hrdy Fellowship there. We’ll be joined by my close friend and colleague, Barry Brook, and Resit Akçakaya of RAMAS fame. We’ll be working on a few ideas regarding extinction [...]
Doug Craig said
Dear Prof. Brook,
I am a farmer in Western Victoria. Various groups in local town, frustratingly, have organized such speakers as, Kininmoth, Plimer recently, and fortunately Ian Watterson on modelling. David Archibald, from the Lavoisier Society is next!! I cannot find a review of his latest book, do you know of one? Failing that, what are the questions I should be asking about Solar 24? Failing that, are you on the speaking circuit? Doug Craig
htomfields said
Hi Barry,
Didn’t see a news tip link but thought you might be interested in this feature about graphite research at Idaho National Laboratory that will aid Gen IV reactors.
http://www.inl.gov/graphite
Thanks,
Tom