Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC seems to have spilled the beans here:
There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But even so why not continue to cut emmissions even though thre is no clear evidence of danger to the world:
Even so, it would be good for governments to go further with proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to deal with dire predictions made in a 2007 panel report, he told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday.
It would be good? so what, it doesn't really matter, but it'd be good if it happened?
THE Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled his support for developed countries, including Australia, agreeing to making deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions in the next 12 years.
In a significant move last night the Australian delegation to the UN climate talks stated it "fully supports" the proposal that developed countries need to cut their greenhouse gas emission by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020.
But just yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a 5% reduction is his plan on cutting the deadly gas by 2020. So what does 5% actually mean? Bob Brown and the Greens for example, want a 100% reduction.
Well Australa's CO2 emmisions are currently at 326,000 thousand metric tonnes. Which is about 1.2% of the worlds.
If we assume that CO2 has caused 100% of the 0.7 degre increase that we have seen over the past 100 years (extremly unlikely - even the IPCC don't perscribe to this, but still - for interests sake), then australia cutting greenshouse gasses by 5% will result in a decrease of
0.00042 degrees per 100 years, or
0.0000042 degree decrease per year.
Well done Kevid Rudd!!
Monday, November 10, 2008
A new report from the Strategic Policy Institute says climate change could lead to an increase in crime.
...the report's author, Anthony Bergin, is predicting global warming will lead to an increase in violent crime and so called 'climate crime'.
More police resources may be needed to cope with an influx of migrants from low lying areas as the sea level rises.
Friday, November 07, 2008
And after one of the most quickest and amazing turns of ice coverage on record, Global ice records are currently at the same level as 1979:
Thank goodness for that, for a while I was getting scared, very very scared.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The latest advert for the Toyota Prius claims that by driving one for 10 years or 100,000km, you can save 7.5 tonnes of CO2 as compared to a regular petrol-engined car.
Let's put that into perspective. If you drove a Prius for, say, 70,000 years, you would save the same amount of CO2 that a large coal-fired power station generates in a day.
Moral of the story: don't fool yourself into thinking that driving a butt-ugly hybrid car is anything but a feel-good gesture.
Friday, October 31, 2008
500 Places to see before they disappear.
A lot of the places are, according to the book, going to disappear due to global warming. The whole of Tasmania is on the endagered list apparently. And there are several places on the list that you must je set across the universe to see because they will shortly (maybe in several thousand years) fall below sea level due to rising sea levels.
Fommers have done their part and sent copies of the book all around the world by plane for you to buy, so its up to you to jet set around the world vising everywhere before the CO2 levels that you guzzle out destroy the actal things that you want to see.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Water, 16 feet of it, smothers the southern tip of Manhattan, covering the landfill of Battery Park City. Tropic coral reefs are stripped of life, their rocks pocked with contusions. Polar bears rummage in junk heaps seeking food amid construction debris. Glaciers split into ice chips, floods ravage coastlines, droughts parch the Earth and forest fires rage untamable.
If the End of Days were going to be portrayed in a museum exhibition, it might look like the array of natural disasters, both real and imagined, that can be found at “Climate Change,” which opens Saturday at the American Museum of Natural History.
There is something almost biblical about these worst-case scenarios, apocalyptically suggested even in the subtitle: “The Threat to Life and a New Energy Future.” And if the plagues promised with global warming don’t include an onslaught of frogs, there is more than enough to worry about: the exhibition predicts proliferation of malaria and desperate foraging of wildlife.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was switching into cool and/or warm modes almost exactly when cooling/warming trends began in the 20th century.
This observation has been known to Joe D'Aleo and others for years. Roy Spencer is now completing a paper for Geophysical Research Letters in which he quantifies these relationships:
You can see that the PDO-only model describes the temperature pretty well at the qualitative level, including the slight cooling between the 1940s and late 1970s. However, the fit gets improved if you add a term proportional to the CO2 concentration. However, such an addition only adds 0.2 °C to the temperature or so - close to the expected effect of CO2 throughout the 20th century. It shouldn't be shocking that the resulting CO2-induced warming for the 21st century is well below 1 °C, too.
Incidentally, the highly asymmetric (red) IPCC range indicates that what dominates their calculations of the sensitivity is not a full-fledged model of reality but a set of priors. If they had a full model, the 90% confidence level range would be pretty much symmetrically distributed around the most likely central value.
In fact, it's known that the upper bound of the confidence interval depends almost exclusively on priors - how much you are willing to admit a crazily high sensitivity in the first place. Because the amount of non-trivial data (inferences) they apply to refine the estimate is low, the prior prejudices are not affected too much. A typical example of a prejudice-dominated science.
Spencer and Braswell ended up with a 0.6 °C warming for the 21st century only but I guess that Lindzen would still beat them by a little bit.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
They start the first paragraph saying how terrible my website is for claiming that Australia has seen an increase of rainfall since records began:
It even suggested that over the long term, Australia is getting increased rainfall, and refers to a post on a website titled gustofhotair as supporting evidence. The website claims to present the author’s “statistical analysis of Australian Weather,” but I don’t see evidence of very much statistical analysis on the site. The author claims to be expert in statistics, but I don’t see any evidence of that at all.
Its quite obvious that the author failed to even have a look at my website, but was still very hasty to make comments about it.
None the less, only two paragraphs later "Open Mind" stated that:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology provides climate data for Australia throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, from which we can see some of the changes in rainfall over the last 100 years. Overall, Australia has increased rainfall over the last century
So he ridicules my website, but then two paragraphs later, confirms that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has provided the same conclusion. Interesting.
The remainder of his article talks about rainfall in the murray darling basin as well as pan evaporation and temperature. For those who want to be informed, here is the data for temperature in the MDB, rainfall here and pan evaporation here.
The report goes onto show that since pan evaporation records started in the area (1975) whenever temperature is high for a certain year, so is pan evaporation, and draws the conclusion that higher temperatures equals higher evaporation.
He says earlier in the report that "the drought currently plaguing the Murray-Darling basin is the worst in Australia’s history"
This is where I stepped in and decided to reply to his comments:
Lol, look harder, and please try not to contradict yourself within a couple of paragraphs, it doesn’t look good for your argument.
Ohh and the Murray Darling Basin you say is “is the worst [drought] in Australia’s history”
Take a look here at the data here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=mdb&season=0112
and tell me if you think its the worst in history. There is no statistical evidence that the murray darling basin is significantly decreasing in rainfall.
Oh also, your graphs are fantastic, and I like the way you have used a smoother to show that the current rainfall in the Murray Darling Basin is bad, almost as bad as 1900.
However, lets look at the actual data and find out when the worst the Murray Darling actually was.
And the answer is between 1944 to 1946 the rainfall of the Murray Darling was in fact less than currently.
In fact if we take the last 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 years average annual rainfall and compare that to 1946 and the 4 to 10 years before that, we see that in every single instance rainfall was a lot less than it is now as shown below:
Av.Prev.Years to 2007 to 1946 Difference
4 423.5 361.1 62.4
5 429.0 391.9 37.1
6 405.6 402.1 3.6
7 407.0 386.6 20.4
8 428.9 406.5 22.4
9 447.0 399.6 47.4
10 460.9 397.5 63.4
So rainfall back around that time was around 30-40mm less rainfall than currently. I’m not saying that rainfall isn’t low now, but it’s not the worst in history and there is also no statistically significant decreasing trend like suggested.
"Open Mind@ replied
[Response: Drought depends on more than just rainfall. Not clear enough for you?]
My reply was obvious, however it was edited. IT is a shame that I didn't keep a copy of exactly what I wrote, but I learnt for the next time that this website picks and chooses what you reply with:
after my long 2 comments which show that the Murray Darling Basin is not in its worst drought in Australia’s history based on rainfall information, comments about how you criticise my website for saying that rainfall is increasing and then two paragraphs later confirm that the ABM say the same thing I get a simple reply like that?
What about the other comments? Also you should delete the “smoother” that you added to the Murray Darling rainfall graph. A smoother is meant to highlight the trends of a graph which might otherwise be harder to see. Your smoother is so ridicules that the nature of it alone will exaggerate the start and the ends of your data. Clearly a better smoother is the one on the ABM website as shown here
which shows no significant trends since 1900. My conclusions of this is that either you are incapable of accurate statistical analysis by using such a smoother, or that you used it on purpose to alarm and exaggerate your point. Lets hope its the former.
And in reply to your comment about drought is more than just rainfall. I completely agree, however I was merely informing you of the fact that the Murray Darling Basin has had less rainfall in the past.
Your correlation of pan evaporation and maximum temperature is interesting, but somewhat simple. Pan evaporation is also highly correlated with rainfall. Greater rainfall years = less pan evaporation years. Sounds strange? That’s because maximum annual temperatures are also highly correlated with rainfall. Years of high temperature also have years of lower rainfall. It makes sense. If we have greater cloud cover one year, most likely we’ll have greater rainfall, lower maximum temperatures and hence less pan evaporation. If we have less cloud cover in a certain year, most likely we will have less rainfall, higher temperatures and greater pan evaporation.
All these variables, and more, are intercorrelation, and have to be looked at in whole. Pan evaporation quite clearly according to the graph
has not increased or decreased in the last 32 years. And even though you say, that 32 years is not enough to find a trend, perhaps this is only because the data do not suit your argument.
I continued to him discussion various aspects of climate, and links to my website showing the statistical analysis that he said did not exist, but these were hastily deleted by the author, presumably, so that he would not be wearing egg on his face.
[Response: This is why it's just about impossible to get through to you. Has pan evaporation really neither increased nor decreased in the last 32 years? Has it done both? What analysis did you apply? Are you even aware that "trend" doesn't mean the same thing as "linear trend"?
You repeatedly say "look at this graph" then pronounce that there's "no change" without even mentioning any analysis performed or any possibilities considered. You take a real correlation (between evaporation and temperature) with a clear physical causative link and hand-wave it away, expecting us to buy that "related to other variables" bullshit. You take a clear and statistically sound decrease in recent long-term rainfall and attribute it to the choice of smoothing, mainly because you can't wrap your mind around the concept that trends don't have to be linear.
No previous historical records for the Murray-Darling Basin indicate the combination of reduced rainfall and increased temperature observed today.]
My next reply was in depth and was as follows:
Hi and thanks for the reply.
Firstly I was wondering why my comment was edited? Not all of it was shown by yourself. And also you failed to comment on my comments about how you criticized gustofhotair for claiming that Australia’s rainfall has increased and then quoted the ABM a few paragraphs later who said that Australia’s rainfall had increased. I am still waiting for that one.
As for the statistical analysis, I could do it on the data but it is quite clear with the naked eye that there is no significant trend, linear or otherwise has occurred in the last 32 years of pan evaporation. But hey, I did it anyway. As shown by the links just below, there is quite clearly a seasonal but no significant increasing or decreasing trend. To say otherwise is to be blind.
This is where Mr. Fix it came in. Check out the posts below. All of this was included in the same comment and was deleted by the author. He explains why in his reply late, but such deletion of comments is highly unsatisfactory.
As far as the ‘"related to other variables" bullshit’ goes, perhaps you should look into it. Just to mention a few Murray Darling Basin weather stations. Are you aware that Mildura, for example, has increased its sunshine duration hours from approximately 8 sunshine hours per day 18 years ago to over 9 sunshine hours now as shown here.
The data for sunshine duration in Mildura is limited, but the increasing trend is obvious. However also at the heat of the day at 3pm, cloud cover has decreased in Mildura by as much as 8% from 4.25 eighths down to 3.9 eights since 1947. Incredible.
“You take a real correlation (between evaporation and temperature) with a clear physical causative link and hand-wave it away” So similarly, I have previously (you obviously failed to look at my website despite saying “I don’t see evidence of very much statistical analysis on the site. The author claims to be expert in statistics, but I don’t see any evidence of that at all.”) analysed this in similar pattern to yourself and concluded that sunshine duration accounts for 91% of all warming of Australia since 1951.
Find the full details here: http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/12/sunshine-duration-accounts-for-93-of.html.
If you think that cloud variation is simply a rubbish variable, then it would help if you stop making ill informed comments about Australian weather statistics and trends. Normally I wouldn’t write with just aggressive tone, I apologise, however it seemed that you openly criticized my website without jurisdiction and even without any effort to analyse lead alone read any of the statistics on the webpage.
I look forward to your reply.
SO there we have it. More links to proven statistical analysis. The kind of stuff he has said all along doesn't even exist on my website.
So what does the author of "Open Mind" do now? He deletes all those comments, because
1. he has no argument against my analysis.
2. He has said all along that I have no idea about statistics and that my website has no statistics in it, when quite clearly the above proves that I do.
He is stuck in a conundrum. Keeping my comments means that I have provided all the statistics that he cant argue against and he will end up with egg on his face. Deleting them will go against any bloggers claim to freedom of speech. After all that's half the reason why blogs are around.
So what does he do? He deletes my comments, hopes that I didn't keep them, hopes even more that I wont report this on my website, and makes a reply that should make you feel sick:
[Response: This is why it's impossible to get through to you. You haven't done any analysis at all.
You just plotted graphs, and frankly, you've done a lousy job of that. Then you draw a conclusion based on "it is quite clear with the naked eye ..." What's "quite clear" is that when it comes to data analysis, you don't know what you're doing.
Here is a graph of monthly pan evaporation anomaly (departure from the seasonal pattern) for the MDB from 1975 to the present, plotted on a scale big enough that people can actually SEE something.
Here is a 4th-degree polynomial fit to that data, showing that pan evaporation was higher in 1980 and 2005 than it was in the early 1990s. The difference is statistically significant, as is the 4th-degree polynomial fit is as well. Goodbye to your ridiculous "no significant increasing or decreasing trend" -- there's both.
And since you seem to like moving averages so much, here are 11-year moving averages showing the same pattern, with error bars illustrating the statistical significance of the changes. Here is the same thing, with 5-yr moving averages.
This seems to be your modus operandi -- produce a few graphs, draw a sweeping conclusion based on the "naked eye" and then make pronouncements about your in-depth statistical analysis when in reality there isn't any.
As for deleting the rest of your comment, and not answering all of your objections, I prefer to spend my time on those who have something intelligent to say and some real analysis to back it up.]
Draw some graphs, make some comments? Isn't that exactly what he just did. This is worst of any kind of blogger. I provided statistical analysis, plenty of graphs with statistical significance included, in depth statistical analysis, and then to back up his argument, he deletes the comments that I made and then claims that I do not provide any form of statistical analysis.
It seems, that if the bill doesn't fit, just pretend that it never happened. Shame on you "Open Mind"
My reply, which I am sure will not get posted is as follows:
I would put it to you that the reason that you edited my post is because by including it made you look stupid. It included links to accurate and thoroughly research statistical analysis, which showed that almost all of Australia’s recent warming has been caused by an increase of sunshine hours and a decrease of cloud cover. MY theory is that if you had not edited such a comment, you wouldn’t be able to make comments such as “when it comes to data analysis, you don’t know what you’re doing.” And “make pronouncements about your in-depth statistical analysis when in reality there isn’t any.”
This is a terrible case against freedom of speech. I provide you with complete statistical analysis of the weather data, arguments about pan evaporation, cloud cover, sunshine hours, rainfall and temperature in Australia and the murray darling basin, and then you decide for yourself to edit it out and claim that I did on such thing.
Is it worth me even replying to your highly edited, no debate, no group discussion, unintelligent, lack of freedom of speech website when this is how you treat a logical reply? I think not. Instead, I will include the full comments that I and yourself made on my website, and let people decide for themselves the whole debate; which is of course impossible to be had on your website.
It seems that there is a growing trend with pro global warming crew, not to wager in debate. AL Gore does this, and my only conclusion why this is so is either
- because they are afraid that they know less than their opposition
- they want to silence their critics (so did various evil dictators of the past)
- they realise that if there is any form of doubt on the science, then their jobs, and government funded money will be up the clacker.
"Open Mind" at least allows some form of debate in his comments. That's what a blog is for. But if he continually deletes part of your comments and then claims that you never made the comments that you did, this is pure propoganda.
"Open Mind" is anything but
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
However the BOM website shows that there is no decreasing trend: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=mdb&season=0112
Ok, so the past few years have had lower rainfall than the norm, but is it the worst on record?
The answer is no, the years leading up to 1946 had less rainfall than currently. In fact you can simply average the last 4 or 5 or 6 years up to 10 and in every case, the rainfall leading up to 1946 was less than current.
The results are below:
YearsAv 2007 1946 Diff
4 423.5 361.1 62.4
5 429.0 391.9 37.1
6 405.6 402.1 3.6
7 407.0 386.6 20.4
8 428.9 406.5 22.4
9 447.0 399.6 47.4
10 460.9 397.5 63.4
As shown below 60 years ago we had around 30-40mm less rainfall per year along the murray darling basin than we do now. Its not the worst drought on record, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it. However quite clearly, the graph indicates no statistically signifcant decrease in rainfall over the region: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=mdb&season=0112
And as for the worlds data, rainfall seems to have very little changes at all when compared to global temperature: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_r®ion=global&season=0112
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The RSPCA claims climate change is producing a boom in the number of feral felines prowling streets in Melbourne’s leafy east.
The society, based in Burwood East, said warmer seasons encouraged breeding and urged moggy lovers to lock up their cats and stop feeding scraps to strays.
RSPCA animal welfare spokesman Andrew Foran said Melbourne’s stray cat population had eclipsed 500,000 and was on the rise.
“Warmer weather is improving breeding conditions, extending breeding seasons and reducing the natural attrition rate, resulting in thousands more kittens being born into lives of disease, neglect and starvation,” he said.
Friday, September 12, 2008
In a ground breaking court case, Greenpeace activists have successfully defended themselves against allegations of criminal damage amounting to £30,000, during a protest at the Kingsnorth power station owned by E.ON, in October last year.
Yesterday afternoon, jurors at Maidstone Crown Court decided that the accused, Huw Williams, 41, Ben Stewart, 34, Will Rose, 29, Kevin Drake, 44, and New Zealand native Emily Hall aged 34, were all found not guilty.
In his summing up the Judge, David Caddick, had urged jurors to consider if the defendants’ actions had any valid legal excuse.
The jury seemed to take the hint and found by a 10 to 2 majority that they did have a legal excuse for their actions.
The costly nine day trial has set off alarm bells at E.ON and many other similar companies, who believe that this ruling now gives cart blanche to any group who wants to invade and occupy any facility that they see as a danger to the environment.
The activists had climbed a tall chimney at the plant with the intention of painting the words ‘GORDON BIN IT’ down its length.
Then in a bizarre twist they were served with an High Court injunction via police helicopter, restraining them from finishing their artwork that had only managed to reach the word GORDON.
Yesterday, through the company’s press officer, E.ON said that they had no objection to legal protests and in fact were equally as concerned about the environment as Greenpeace are.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"Average spring minimum temperatures are also favoured to be warmer than normal across most of the country, with the exception of Queensland's southern half and the northeast half of NSW (see map). The chances of increased overnight warmth (averaged over the coming three months) are between 60 and 80% over most of Australia. Or to put it another way, for every ten years with ocean patterns like the current, about six to eight would be expected to warmer than average in terms of overnight temperatures averaged over spring."
Deep statistical analysis of temperatures to come soon....promise!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Jim Salinger said.
"Most areas in Australia where malting barley is cropped are likely to experience producing declines," he said.
So maybe it might be better to see if malting barley has decreased in volume in the last years. But yes it has! From 148,000,000 tonnes in 1974 to 138,000,000 tonnes in 2005.
Surely due to global warming!
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Did anyone else see a pattern? The early discoveries are all about scientific discoveries. In the last decade, almost all the advancements are political and not scientific. If we did a timeline of Physics or Chemistry or Mathematics, do you think we would get political advancements in the highlights? No. They are pure sciences. Just goes to show that climate science is now more political than scientific.
French physicist Joseph Fourier is first to describe a "greenhouse effect" in a paper delivered to Paris's Académie Royale des Sciences.
Irish physicist John Tyndall carries out research on radiant heat and the absorption of radiation by gases and vapors including CO2 and H2O. He shows that carbon dioxide can absorb in the infrared spectrum, and it can cause a change in temperature. Tyndall famously declares: "The solar heat possesses. . . the power of crossing an atmosphere. But when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit. The result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet."
Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposes the idea of a man-made greenhouse effect. He hypothesizes that the increase in the burning of coal since the beginning of industrialization could lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and heat up the earth. Arrhenius was trying to find out why the earth experienced ice ages. He thought the prospect of future generations living "under a milder sky" would be a desirable state of affairs.
British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar compiles temperature statistics in a variety of regions and finds that over the previous century the mean temperature had risen markedly. He also discovers that CO2 levels had risen 10 percent during the same period. He concludes that CO2 was the most likely reason for the rise in temperature.
John Hopkins University researcher Gilbert Plass proves that increased levels of carbon dioxide could raise atmospheric temperature. By 1959 Plass is boldly predicting that the earth's temperature would rise more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
In the same year chemist Hans Suess detects the fossil carbon produced by burning fuels, although he and Roger Revelle - director of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography - declare that the oceans must be absorbing the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they decide to conduct further research.
Revelle and Suess employ geochemist Charles Keeling to continuously monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere. After only two years of measurements in Antarctica an increase is visible. The graph becomes widely known as the Keeling Curve and becomes an icon of global warming debate and continues to chart the year on year rise in CO2 concentrations to this day.
The first "Earth Day" takes place on April 22nd across America. Twenty million people participate in the event organized by Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson. It follows and precedes a series of U.S. Department for Energy reports highlighting concern about global warming
The first World Climate Conference is held in Geneva attended by a range of scientists and leads to the establishment of the World Climate Program.
Scientists at the World Climate Program conference at Villach in Austria confidently predict that increased CO2 concentrations will lead to a significant rise in the mean surface temperatures of the earth. A hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.
Officially the hottest year on record to date. Three years later the 1980s is confirmed as the hottest decade since records began.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC will provide reports based on scientific evidence which reflect existing viewpoints within the scientific community.
Parts of the Mississippi river are reduced to a trickle and Yellowstone National Park becomes a tinderbox. In June, Dr James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies delivers his famous testimony to the U.S. Senate. Based on computer models and temperature measurements he is 99 percent sure that the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is already changing the climate.
The IPCC delivers its first assessment on the state of climate change, predicting an increase of 0.3 °C each decade in the 21st century -- greater than any rise seen over the previous 10,000 years.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development -- better known as the Earth Summit -- takes place in Rio de Janeiro attended by 172 countries. It is the first unified effort to get to grips with global warming and leads to negotiations which result in the Kyoto Protocol.
The hottest year on record. Four years later the 1990s are confirmed as the hottest decade in 1000 years.
The IPCC report for that year states that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
The Kyoto Protocol: Industrialized countries agree to cut their emissions of six key greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 percent. Under the terms of the agreement each country -- except developing countries -- commits to a reduction by 2008 -- 2012 compared to 1990 levels. Notably, the U.S. Congress vote 95 to 0 against any treaty which doesn't commit developing countries to "meaningful" cuts in emissions.
Newly elected U.S. President George W. Bush renounces the Kyoto Protocol stating that it will damage the U.S. economy. The third IPCC report declares that the evidence of global warming over the previous 50 years being fueled by human activities is stronger than ever.
Europe experiences one the hottest summers on record causing widespread drought claiming the lives of over 30,000 people.
Following ratification by Russia -- the 19th country to do so -- in November 2004, the Kyoto Protocol becomes a legally binding treaty. America and Australia continue their refusal to sign up claiming reducing emissions would damage their economies.
175 countries in total have ratified the Kyoto Treaty. Under new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia ratifies the treaty. The IPCC report for a fourth time states that "warming of the climate is unequivocal" and that the levels of temperature and sea rise in the 21st century will depend on the extent or limit of emissions in the coming years.
Former vice-president Al Gore and the IPCC jointly win the Nobel Peace Prize for services to environmentalism.
160 square miles of the Wilkins Shelf breaks away from the Antarctic coast. Scientists are concerned that climate change may be happening faster than previously thought.
Following the Bali talks/roadmap, negotiators from 180 countries launch formal negotiations towards a new treaty to mitigate climate change at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks
Sunday, March 30, 2008
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
And just like lazarus, this arctic canary has risen from the dead, in what is seen had the biggest ever recorded increase in ice in the arctic.
2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:
Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin—another record
(or) The Facts:
2008 shattered records for Arctic growth in the following ways:
- Never before has the arctic increased in ice as such quickness and magnitude, so that earth's total ice is at 1 million square kilometers greater than normal.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Still small of course, but reasonably probable
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A CHUNK of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan has suddenly collapsed, putting an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk.
British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan said the collapse was the result of global warming.
While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Mr Vaughan said.
Mr Vaughan had predicted the Wilkins shelf would collapse about 15 years from now.
Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, but say it's a sign of worsening global warming.
Such occurrences are “more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system,” said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in the US.
However, as reported here
The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.
Indeed that is true, because of current the world ice levels has no reached 1 million square kilometers above normal.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
SOUTH Australians are being warned to brace for harsher and more regular heatwaves amid fears climate change may be occurring faster than forecast.
South Australian Bureau of Meteorology regional director Andrew Watson said he was confident the current record heatwave – which yesterday stretched into its 13th day – was a result of global warming, and it was evidence the rate of climate change could be gaining pace.
However, maybe climate change is only effecting Australia because world wide temperatures have plummeted.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.
A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
All Australian capitals, bar Perth, recorded lower than average temperatures, especially maximum temperatures.
If fact, just doing a bit of playing around on the ABOM website, we come across some interesting information.
Maximum temperatures in Feb have not significantly increased (t = 1.3, p = 0.2). However minimum temperatures in Feb have significantly increased and the graph shows this quite clearly ( = 4.1, p < 0.001).
Maximum temperatures in Jan have not significantly increase either (t = 1.8, p = 0.075), however minimum temperatures in Jan have increased hugely (t = 3.8, p < 0.001).
For December, maximum temperatures have not significantly increased, and make sure you check out the graph because its obvious there is no trend (t = 0.8, p = 0.4). However minimum temperatures in Dec have shown a constant increase in December and the increase is significant (t = 3.8, p < 0.001).
So all throughout summer in Australia, we are not heating up during the day. You can even check out the min and max increases in summer from the ABOM website.
Strange thing this global warming. Has no effect on summer time day temperatures.
This largely due to another sudden increase in ice levels in the northern hemisphere over the last couple of days.
So are world wide ice levels decreasing due to global warming? Answer is NO.
Friday, February 29, 2008
MOTORISTS will pay at least 10c extra per litre for petrol, with oil giants poised to pass on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas.
Australia's biggest petrol refiner, Caltex, yesterday called for a direct 10c carbon tax on drivers.
"Every time motorists filled up at a service station, there would be awareness of the carbon tax, encouraging motorists to think about driving less, taking public transport or buying a smaller car when possible," Caltex spokesman Frank Topham said.
But other oil giants admitted drivers would still be hit at the bowser when emissions trading started in 2010.
BP Australia said emissions trading was preferable to a direct carbon tax, but consumers would see a price rise either way.
Fun times ahead!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
CLIMATE change could be worse for Australia than any other developed country if dire predictions are realised, the architect of the country's policy on the issue says.
Coinciding with the release of his interim review into the global crisis, Professor Ross Garnaut said Australia should be ready to slash its carbon emissions by much more than the 60 per cent stated figure by 2050.
Wow more than 60%. Thats huge. But lets look at this a different way. Australia's emission rate per capita has been pretty consistent since 1990 at a little over 16 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emission per head. (incidently, when looking at a ratio with GDP, we fare in the middle).
However Australia's population, currently at 20mill, is expected to reach around 30mill by 2050. All those extra bodies and we are still recommended to cut emissions by at least 60%. An increase in 10mill by 2050, means that a 60% decrease in greenhouse gas is equivalent to a 73% decrease in 2050. And remember exactly what Ross Garnaut said, "Australia should be ready to slash its carbon emissions by much more than the 60 per cent stated figure by 2050". That's "much more"
But how much is Australia's deadly greenhouse gas emissions killing the world? Well Australia emits around 326 million metric tonnes a year. That's compared to a world wide rate of 27 billion metric tonnes. Hence Australia emits around 1.2% of the worlds greenhouse gas.
Now lets assume that we reduce our emissions by 60%, and lets assume that 100% of all warming has been caused by greenhouse gas (note that this assumption is clearly ludicrous but hey for the sake of the example...). With the world increasing at a rate of 0.6 degrees per 100 years, this means that if Australia were to cut our emissions by 60% by 2050, we would cool the globe by around 0.000043 degrees per year.
Thats right we would cool to world by around 0.000043 degrees per year.
Like pissing in the ocean. Of course some might argue that we all have to start somewhere and someone has to set the example etc. etc. but seriously, even with the most ludicrous assumptions involved to calculate this figure, the amount of dollars spent can hardly justify the possible results.
This is merely just another token that is costing us millions.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Dong Wenjie the National Climate Centre says that
"This is mainly related to abnormal atmospheric circulation and the La Nina event"
What a relief. it's not due to climate change! But then he says:
"With climate warming, extreme weather events are clearly increasing in frequency and intensity."
Gasp! So it is related to climate change?
Australian climate scientist Penny Whetton says
"Those conditions are things that occur naturally and so every few years, few decades, everything just comes together right to produce an extreme event,"
Ahh Phew! Not due to climate change. What a relief!
"My guess is this is a natural event without any particular reason to link it to climate change. The climate change models are not predicting increases in snow events like this," Whetton told Reuters on Thursday.
Thank God for the Climate Models! Beats checking the data hey?
"Cold extremes are generally not predicted to become more intense and frequent because we have a warming climate," she said.
More good news. More good news.
But as China warms, its cold northern regions might experience more intense snow storms as moisture levels in the atmosphere rise, creating similar conditions to those that have caused the snow storms now in southern China.
Say what? The very next paragraph says that it is related to global warming. Noooo!
"Snow will hang around for less but you will probably get more heavy snow events in winter," said David Jones, head of climate analysis at Australia's National Climate Centre.
Damn it! It's related. I thought the previous paragraph said it wasn't. Someone need to make up their mind.
Jones also said China's snow storms could not be directly linked to climate change,
Ohh thank God! It's not related. Wow, this is stressful. Who knows how it will end.
But never fear, someone has actually done some data analysis:
The average number of severe snowstorms over the first 32 years of the study period was 3.2 per year, while the average over the 20-year period of 1981 through 2000 was notably less at 2.7 per year
Phew! Reading the one report I was convinced and not convinced at least 5 times each that china's snow storms were related to global warming.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
As Andrew Bolt explains:
China is suffering from climate change, but not of the kind you'd expect:
One of the worst snowstorms to hit China since the government began keeping records in 1950 has wreaked havoc throughout the country. At least two dozen people have died in accidents and 827,000 people have been displaced. Heavy snowfall has caused gridlock at train stations and airports, just two weeks before the Chinese New Year begins and hundreds of millions of Chinese return home for the holidays.
The weather is already taking its toll on the Chinese economy. So far the snowstorms have cost $3 billion in damages, according to the Civil Affairs Ministry. The heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain have created transportation bottlenecks for travelers as well as for shipments of coal, vital to fueling China’s power plants.
But colder or hotter, the same culprit is always to blame:
Chinese meteorologists blame global climate change for the unseasonably high snowfall.
This of course follows an unusually cold and snowy winter in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and New Zealand. Global warming sure is a trickster.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The CSIRO have said that
"Projected reductions in precipitation and increases in evaporation are likely to intensify water security problems in southern and eastern Australia"
"In no regions or season do models suggest a 'likely' increase in rainfall"
"For 2030, best estimates of rainfall change indicate little change in the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere"
and "The rainfall decrease in south western Australia since the mid-1970s is likely to be at least partly due to human-induced greenhouse gases"
Notice the language, "likely", "Best estimates" (not average estimates??) and "partially due". In other words, no-one is really sure, and it is clear that no-one has done the appropriate statistical analysis to prove or disprove the argument.
So how did we go in 2007 with rainfall? With decreases predicted Australia wide, lets take a look at the stats.
Australia 8.8% more rainfall than normal
New South Wales 3.8% more rainfall than normal
Northern Territory 23.3% more rainfall than normal
Queensland 6.9% more rainfall than normal
South Australia 2.3% less rainfall than normal
Tasmania 8.9% less rainfall than normal
Victoria 3.1% less rainfall than normal
Western Australia 8.6% more rainfall than normal.
So some up, a few down. But the general nature of it is pretty obvious, Australia wide we have seen an increase in rainfall in 2007 than the norm.
This complements our findings that show that every state in Australia has had an increase in rainfall in since 1950 compared to the 50 years before that. Almost a 10% increase in fact, with south Australia, our driest state, recording a 14% increase.
Australia's rainfall deficiency's graphs show, well, not a lot. The last 3 months show no deficiency at all, anywhere in Australia.
Even the last 12 months show only a small patch in central western Western Australia with low rainfall.
But that doesn't the BOM from reporting Australia wide deficiencies.
Notice the title,
"Short-term deficiencies ease, long-term deficiencies remain"
Which, would at first glance make people believe that the short term problems have gone away, but the long term problems are hear to stay.
However, this is just more spin. In reality it means that 2 years ago we had lower than normal rainfall, but the last year was just fine. In fact last year, we had great rainfall. If we get something similar in 2008, there will be no drought statement from the BOM, and someone will be out of a job.
Joe D'Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better.
It's a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.
If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend of CO2, and thus the R2 correlation between the two trends would be high. Since NCDC has recently released the new USHCN2 data set for surface temperatures, which promises improved detection and removal of false trends introduced by change points in the data, such as station moves, it seemed like an opportune time to test the correlation.
At the same time, R2 correlation tests were run on other possible drivers of climate; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
First lets look at the surface temperature record. Here we see the familiar plot of temperature over the last century as it has been plotted by NASA GISS:
The temperature trend is unmistakeably upwards, and the change over the last century is about +0.8°C.
Now lets look at the familiar carbon dioxide graph, known as the Keeling Curve, which plots atmospheric CO2 concentration measure at the Mauna Loa Observatory:
A comparison of the 11year running mean of the USHCN version 2 annual mean temperatures with the running mean of CO2 from CDIAC. An r-squared of 0.44 was found.
We know both the Pacific and Atlantic undergo multidecadal cycles the order of 50 to 70 years. In the Pacific this cycle is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas (in both cases a frequency difference of close to a factor of 2). Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America.
This PDO and TSI to surface temperature connection has also been pointed out in previous post I made here, for former California State Climatologist, Jim Goodridge. PDO affects the USA more than the Atlantic cycle (AMO) because we have prevailing westerly wind flow.
Here is how Joe did the data correlation:
Since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their cold modes cooling, I though the sum of the two may provide a useful index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and US). I standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI.
This was the jackpot correlation with the highest value of r-squared (0.83!!!).
An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2.
But he didn’t stop there. He also looked at the last decade where it has been commonly opined that the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years to see how well the correlation was in the last decade:
Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, we looked at the correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.
Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an r-squared of 0.02.
According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an R2 correlation of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years.
As another test, this analysis was also done on Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John Christy) satellite temperature data:
To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, we did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We found a similar non existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over troposphere.
So with R2 correlations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either.
Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:
And his conclusion:
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.
Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.
While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The first snow to have fallen on Baghdad in 100 years has been blamed on global warming.
The director of the meteorology department, Dawood Shakir, told AFP that climate change was possibly to blame for the unusual event.
"It's very rare," he said. "Baghdad has never seen snow falling in living memory.
"These snowfalls are linked to the climate change that is happening everywhere. We are finding some places in the world which are warm and are supposed to be cold."
Saturday, January 05, 2008
One month ago, we noticed that November 2007 was the coldest month since January 2000. Well, the RSS MSU satellite data prepared by remss.com show that December was even cooler. The December anomaly was -0.046 °C, compared to -0.014 °C in November. That means that December 2007 was also cooler than the average December from 1979. Moreover, we can finally complete the ranking of the years!
Let me start with forecasts in the mainstream media.
In January 2007, we were informed that 2007 was either likely or certain to surpass 1998 and become the world's warmest year on record by most media, including:
Reutersas well as virtually all other media you know. They justified this statement by referring to scientists who have combined greenhouse gases with the observed El Nino. Many sources, such as the New York Sun, even gave you the probability that 2007 would be the hottest year as 60 percent. They immediately added that this should "add momentum for the next phase of the Kyoto protocol", a comment that clarifies what is the actual goal of many of the people who study these questions professionally.
AP & Foxnews
The New York Times
The New York Sun
The Washington Post
China People Daily
In the middle of the year when it started to be clear that the prediction was bogus, Phil Jones (Reuters) changed his mind only infinitesimally. It would be the second hottest year, he said. These big-shot agenda-driven scientists never have the courage to say that they were simply wrong.
However, the greenhouse gases are not too important and El Nino was replaced by La Nina. As a consequence, RSS MSU data for the lower troposphere (graph, more graphs) show that 2007 was the coldest year in this century so far. In alarmist jargon, it was the ninth hottest year on record: the most recent year was cooler than all other years in this century as well as 1998 (by a whopping 0.41 °C) and even 1995. According to different datasets (HadCRUT3, UAH MSU, NOAA), the year is going to be approximately the 8th (HadCRUT3) or 7th (NOAA) or 6th warmest year. UAH might report 2007 as the 4th warmest year and GISS will be a real exception because 2007 will be almost certainly its 2nd warmest year (as James Hansen said a few weeks ago, after 2005 but slightly above 1998) - but it is still very far from the hype about the hottest year. Your humble correspondent is not the only one who believes that the satellite measurements such as RSS, UAH are more accurate than GISS, HadCRUT3. It just happens that HadCRUT3 is closer to RSS than UAH to RSS, as far as the recent rankings go.
The RSS MSU linear trend extracted from the 1998-2007 interval is -0.48 °C per century of cooling! Numerically, it's almost the same trend that we assign to the 20th century but with the opposite sign. The RSS MSU data imply that 2007 was 0.12 °C cooler than the already cool year 2006. Other teams will generate qualitatively compatible results but substantially different numbers, raising doubts about the reliability of the temperature measurement even in the modern era.
Figure 1: Global cooling. Nine hottest years on record as shown by the RSS MSU calculations, from the hottest year 1998 to the coolest year 2007.
The choice of 1998 as the beginning of this graph is, of course, a P.R. trick to make the trend look as cooling as possible. If someone chooses e.g. a year in 1970s - the coldest year in the last 70 years - as his beginning, it is a P.R. trick, too, even though the goal has the opposite one. Certain qualitative conclusions simply depend on these choices and one must be careful about this fact. Similar issues are also discussed in the fast comments. Moreover, I only included the last 10 years for efficiency because typing three times as many numbers to the Excel file would be rather tiresome. Incidentally, if I wanted to demonstrate recent global cooling, I could have been even tougher and show you 36 months since January 2005, including the linear regression:
Figure 2: Global cooling 2005-2007. The trend is over 15 °C of cooling per century. ;-) Also, the trend is accelerating: for the 12 months of 2007, a similar linear regression gives about 35 °C of cooling per century. :-)
Friday, January 04, 2008
And just to test this I looked at the relatioship between sunshine duration and total average monthly cloud cover at 3pm. Results were highly significant for at eh Giles weather station (t = -6.33, p < 0.001), as well as at Darwin (t = -4.77, p < 0.001) and at Tennant Creek (t = -3.03, p < 0.01).
So expectedly, the variable sunshine duration is a good measure of cloud cover throughout the whole day. But even better than that, we have a very extensive data set of total cloud cover (in eights) Australia wide.
So instead of having to look at the variable Sunshine duration, we can look at total cloud cover at eight different times of the day, too see what effect, if any, it has on recent warming trends.
And the results, will startle you....
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Admittedly, from 2004 to late 2007 we saw a big decrease in ice levels, however no doubt thanks to some record cold temperatures and record snow levels of late, the global sea ice levels have increased to very high levels.
So should we be worried about global ice melting. Once again I'll show the graph, because it clearly says "no".