CSIRO climate change modeling has generally concluded that as it gets warmer, it is going to get drier.
I will give two examples:
1. CSIRO News Flash on Monday 15 August 2005 titled ‘Natural change, greenhouse effect influence WA rainfall’ with the text “Continued rainfall decreases in the south west of Western Australia are most likely a combination of natural variability and the enhanced greenhouse effect”. Read more at:
http://www.csiro.au/page.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=145WArainfall
2. CSIRO modeling for Queensland predicts that annual rainfall may decline by as much as 13 per cent by 2030 compared to conditions in the 1990s. By 2070 the decline may be as much as 40 per cent compared to conditions in the 1990s. For more detail see my earlier blog post at: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000735.html .
But I thought that in past times as the earth got warmer it got wetter?
3. For example, a recent article in ABC Online began:
You would not expect to find a rainforest in what is now one of the hottest and driest places on the east coast of Queensland.
Ancient fossil deposits found in caves near Rockhampton in central Queensland have revealed the area was once a tropical rainforest, wiped out by climate change.
4. According to the IPCC there has been a 0.6C warming over the last 150 odd years and I have interpreted the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) summaries to show that it has generally got wetter over the last 100 years in Australia.
But I have been told:
Jen, The comment on Australia getting wetter – well you shouldn’t really quote national numbers. The centre to north-west may be getting wetter. But everywhere people or major agriculture is located doesn’t show this. We have a drier SW WA and east coast drying trend. See ALL the various period maps at: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi . We also have had few La Ninas since 1976, more El Ninos and back-to-back “unusual” El Ninos. Few coast crossing cyclones.
So we can quote national figures for everything except rainfall? Because overall it has got wetter, see http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112 ?
5. I checked the National Greenhouse Office and they say :
Climate modelling has predicted that on average Australia will get wetter as temperatures rise, especially in summer. Tropical cyclones and floods may become more common, and will happen in places that haven’t had them before. However, places such as Tasmania and parts of Western Australia will actually get less rainfall than before, and might even have droughts.
But then they conclude: As temperatures rise and some place get less rain, droughts could happen more often.
6. I remember that the IPCC has written that with climate change, in some areas it will get wetter, in others drier, and I also remember reading that,
7. Australian climatologists have predicted that it will generally get wetter as it gets warmer.
8. I have just read Rod Fensham’s new paper in the Journal of Ecology (2005, vol 93,pgs 596-606) titled ‘Rainfall, land use and woody vegetation cover change in semi-arid Australian savanna’. The summary includes “… this pattern (changes in vegetation cover in western Queensland) is consistent with the first half of the 20th century having more intense droughts and being drier overall than the relatively wet second half”.
So could it get wetter as it gets warmer?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I hope so…..we may get some water down our river system!!
Or maybe the irrigators have already pounced onto your latest blog as evidence to increase allocations!!
Jen
The latter part of your point 4 has a fair bit of your answer. The Bureau of Met maps illustrate the current issue well.
“The centre to north-west may be getting wetter. But everywhere people or major agriculture is located doesn’t show this. We have a drier SW WA and east coast drying trend. …………. El Ninos. Few coast crossing cyclones.” ….
But having said that I don’t think we know well enough and more research is needed. (anti-AGWs insert knife here and twist). It’s pretty darn important given that we know the drying trend is where many of us live and grow our crops.
I think the southern annular mode aspect with Antarctica is a new development here and there may also be feedbacks from land use change in some areas.
Point 3: Well yes Australia may have looked very different in the geological past – depends on global ciculation patterns at the time ? and maybe the Rockhampton changes were also to do with introduction of fire ?
Point 5 – mmmmm …. they need some citations to back that up – CSIRO research says more intense cyclones (not numbers) and greater possibility of extreme rainfall (not necessarily more events)… doesn’t have to add up to more rainfall overall. Also seasonality of rainfall (which month) and distribution (over how many days) are most important co-factors.
Point 6 – yep exactly.
Point 8 – some would still argue strongly about the climate vs fire hypothesis for vegetation change despite Dr Fensham’s publication.
The hydrological water balance gives us water left for crops, pastures, and streams.
And of course water balance is daily rainfall minus daily evaporation (which is radiation, temp, wind speed, humidity) – so precipitation is only a part of the story. And we have global dimming currently reducing radiation levels …
We also don’t have the last story on El Nino frequency and global warming. Only a hypothesis about the Pacific transiting to a “El Nino-like mean state.”
So could it get wetter as it gets warmer ? Yes it seems if you live on the Canning Stock Route. But those paleo-critters won’t find that Rockhampton rainforest back real soon.
I think the main concern isn’t about averages across Australia and across seasons, it’s greater variability, with more floods and more droughts. Wetter isn’t better.
From what I’ve read of CSIRO climate modelling for Australia, they are somewhat sketchy on rainfall – maybe it will increase, maybe decrease, maybe different in different areas of Australia.
However, they seem unequivocal that the moisture balance (rainfall minus evap) will be almost uniformly worse across the continent.
You can read this kind of stuff in the CSIRO reports done for the Australian Govt, which are available through the Australian Greenhouse Office website http://www.greenhouse.gov.au
Woo back! Just hold on here a minute. Aren’t you talking about the impact of something you don’t believe in – climate change? Or has Ms Marohasy also deserted the dwindling band of climate change deniers (those wacky modern day flat earthers)?
Why weren’t we told? Who knew? And does this mean that Andrew Bolt and Michael Duffy are fighting it out to be the last rat to desert this sinking ideological hulk? I don’t suppose any of our greenie bashing brigade will ever have the good grace to admit environmentalists got it right (again) on this one – 20 plus years ago?
TryOn,
Michael Duffy et al, Bob Carter included, Bjorn Lomborg and myself have never denied climate change.
We are fascinated by it, recognise it is part and parcel of living on plant earth.
We just don’t necessarily buy ‘the climate change is driven primarily by more co2 argument’ and that climate change is all bad.
For more detail have a look at the other posts under climate change at this weblog including http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000768.html .
And what do you think about it getting wetter and warmer? Are you concerned that CSIRO is giving out the impression that it is going to get much drier, while the IPCC and climatologists are suggesting it is going to get wetter?
And what about the idea we can’t generalize for the whole of Australia? Do you think the BOM should not be allowed to provide a map and trend line for the whole of Australia? Perhaps they should only show at the BOM sites regions where it might be going to get drier?
NEVER, ever, not even once, have you or Duffy, or Carter et al denied climate change? Tosh! Think it is fascinating, do we? Well how nice for you that you have found something to interest you. Unfortunately the many people already killed by extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change – with many more to come – don’t have that luxury.
Not primarily caused by CO2 you say. (Well, no, methane and other gases are also involved.) Mere coincidence that the presence of these gases has increased exponentially in the atmosphere at the same time that global warming and climate change is occuring, as predicted by the “greenhouse” scientific model? What other such coincidences do you experience – it rains, you get wet, but that doesn’t mean that H2O falls from the sky? And on the basis of what personal knowlege, research or credentials do you so arrogantly dismiss the vast majority of the world’s scientists, and science academies, on this point?
By the way, I think quibbling about wetter/drier is like wondering what colour curtains to buy for a house that is burning down – so beside the point as to be beyond intellectually fatuous!
TryOn
There is something disturbing and bullying in your rhetoric – typical of so many angry environmentalists.
We should all be moral crusaders should we – blind to the populous cause – no time to think about potential impacts or evaluate alternatives. We should all just go with the flow and be sad.
Put off by passionate debate … or by being shown up Jennifer?
But then, to quote Yeats, why should old men not be mad? Driven mad by the inane ramblings of climate change deniers who have served as the fossil fuels industry’s “useful idiots” by slowing, for at least 20 years, what would have been the prudent response to the bleedin’ obvious. (Especially when they do not have the personal courage to acknowledge their error.) Mad because this generation will be the first to leave the planet in worse shape for their children. Mad at the death and suffering that many of the world’s people are and/or will experience from more extremes of weather.
Mad for being asked to ignore such things to indulge in some nonsense about whether it might be wetter or drier in some place or other.
If such things do not stir the pulse, perhaps you don’t have one. (Or don’t deserve one?)
Now, Jennifer, you posed as question and I was good enough to answer it. Perhaps you might answer the questions I posed: “Mere coincidence that the presence of these gases has increased exponentially in the atmosphere at the same time that global warming and climate change is occuring, as predicted by the “greenhouse” scientific model? What other such coincidences do you experience – it rains, you get wet, but that doesn’t mean that H2O falls from the sky? And on the basis of what personal knowlege, research or credentials do you so arrogantly dismiss the vast majority of the world’s scientists, and science academies, on this point?”
TryOn,
1. You begin by accusing me, and people I respect, of denying climate change. I explain we don’t.
2. With out acknowledging you got it wrong, you go on to accuse us of not caring. We do.
3. You are now upset because I haven’t explained why I don’t believe the world authorities on climate change. I am not sure that you understand my position on climate change – I provided you a link in an earlier comment.
But the bottomline, perhaps, is that I have never had much respect for authority or authorities. I respect rational argument and evidence.
Wow – bit of action on this thread. We’ve got a bit of a stoush going on….
Anyway back to the mind-numbing details ….
Jen – yes BoM can produce a “Australian rainfall” trend graph by spatially averaging out the national data – but WHO CARES. It really does matter about the spatial pattern which shows drying around eastern Australia, SW WA, Tas, Melbourne, and SA.
There is a working hypothesis (and some papers) that this is maybe a southern hemisphere circulation changes caused by stratospheric ozone depletion over Antarctica in combination with increased tropospheric greenhouse gases – which work mechanistically by intensifying the circumpolar vortex. May also explains the lack of east coast crossing cyclones up there in Queensland. So if this effect is getting is getting worse – as it appears – it is of some considerable medium to long-term concern for urban and rural water supplies and agriculture.
We need much more work on this …
And this is for 100ppm CO2 or 36% more CO2 – not 2X CO2 yet – but it’s coming !
And the seasonality, daily distribution of rainfall is very important – as is the evaporative demand.
Our current projections and trends are cause for concern, caution and more quality research needed quickly. We should be encouraging our climate researchers not denigrating them. They are trying to do a professional and serious job. Do we at least agree on this ?
Phillip,
Thanks for the information.
Regarding your question:
Tell me which climate researchers are doing a good job?
I have read a few CSIRO reports done in collaboration with state governments (for Vic white paper, report last year for Carr government, report for QDPI). They seem confused, make lots of assumptions, and then have so many qualifiers they are almost meaningless.
I wrote something on the report released by Bob Carr last year here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2867 .
I would like clarification on some of the basics, like if it gets warmer, won’t it generally get wetter?
“But the bottomline, perhaps, is that I have never had much respect for authority or authorities. I respect rational argument and evidence.”
Jeez Jennifer, you are starting to sound like Louis!
You sound like you are saying that authorities are incapable of rational argument and evidence. That would be a silly statement.
I assume you mean that you regard rational argument and evidence as more deserving of respect than being simply being an authority (because authorities may or may not be rational). I think that 100% of people would agree with you on this.
So, given this assumption, lets talk about how you determine what is ‘rational argument and evidence’. Obviously being an authority does not necessarily imply rational and desrving of respoect for you. So what does?
In the thread you linked to at John Quiggin’s blog, you began forwarding emails from William Kinnimonth. Why?
Is it because you regard him as an authority? If so, aren’t you contradicting yourself?
Or, is it because you have determined that his statements are ‘rational argument and evidence’? If so, how did you determine this?
My questions are a bit rhetorical because I think we can all see that, at some point, you need to rely on an authority to determine what is rational and what is evidence, whether that authority is yourself or William Kinnimonth or the IPCC or whoever.
Beware this Hissinkism of portraying yourself as a rebel who (unlike all the other boring people) rejects authority and is after the truth. It sounds very romantic, but this aint the movies, and it’s a load of bollocks. You shouldn’t need to rely on this kind of romantic notion of who you are to make your point – we want rational argument and evidence please.
Romantically portraying yourself as an authority-defying rebel is for teenagers and dagnabbit, its for the Left! You can’t have it! The Left are the ones who are raging against the machine! OK!!?
!
“They seem confused, make lots of assumptions, and then have so many qualifiers they are almost meaningless.”
Jennifer, I don’t regard you as an authority on the CSIRO’s work on climate (no offense), and even if I did, I prefer evidence and rational argument please, not unsupported assessments.
I also read your article, and found that you greatly simplified what it means to do scenario modelling (though the ‘computer games’ gag was kind of funny nice one!), and misrepresnted the IPCC statement about being unable to predict future climate states.
Here’s the analogy: if i move the sun a few million km closer to the earth, i don’t know what exactly is going to happen to climate because climate is a non-linear chaotic system, but i still know that its generally going to get hotter on the sun side of the planet.
However, you probably don’t regard me as an authority on your article and will ignore me. 🙂
OK, I’ll quit with the teasing now.
Steve, Following is a response to both your comments:
While many call me ‘right wing’ and suggests that I am a hater of ‘the left’ – the reality couldn’t be further from the truth. I come from a family of true-believers, Labor to the core. And I love them and their concerns with social justice issues.
The reality, however, is that much of what is labelled ‘the right’ is more tolerant and repectful of different opinions particularly in the environment area where I specialize and, in my experience, the right is more interested in evidence and argument than pulling rank when it somes to discussion on environmental issues.
I often just want to discussion issues. I get bored of having to have an opinion.
Pulling rank seems to have become a characteristic of the left? It seems to have become particularly bad at univerities.
Then again, I am not sure that the left: right divide works anymore – except as a basis from which people can throw bricks at each other.
How many true-blue timber workers, traditional Labor voters, voted for Howard at the last election and why?
As regards William Kinnimonth and the climate change arguments. I often find understanding climate issues very heavy going. But I am variously asked to have an opinion and write something at short notice. The few times I have emailed or phoned Bill Kinnimonth with a query he has spent time explaining things to me. I don’t get the impression he is trying to prove a point or cite another piece of literature. He seems to genuinely know his stuff.
I know Quiggin and his crew can’t bear me quoting Kinnimonth – so there is an additional incentive here!
Appreciate your comments on the piece I wrote about the CSIRO report on climate change for NSW. What exactly do you understand the IPCC to say about predicting rainfall? I spent hours and hours reading to try and understand before drafting that piece.
Dear TryOn,
You have a good, if slightly shopsoiled, line in rhetoric: “dwindling band of climate change deniers”, “the last rat to desert this sinking ideological hulk”, “inane ramblings”, “useful idiots”, etc. But the problem with such passion is that it obscures reality. If you actually want to understand the physical world, you need a cooler head in approaching the facts. Otherwise you end up with a distorted view.
For example, greenhouse gases are not “increasing exponentially”. The rate of increase in greenhouse gases has been steady or falling for 20 years. See http://www.dar.csiro.au/capegrim/ghgasgraphs.html and http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/ReleaseImages/20020919/chart1.jpg. And while various models can mimic observed temperature change, the climate sensitivity of such models to greenhouse gases is usually at or below the bottom of the IPCC guesstimate range. Some models get close using solar alone; others that include greenhouse gases have climate sensitivities for doubled CO2 of 1.5-2.5 C. I know of no model with a CO2 sensitivity of over 3 C that has been shown to be consistent with observations. I thus see no observational support for the top half of the IPCC’s predicted temperature rise of 1.4-5.8 C over the next century – even without discounting for their exaggerated emissions scenarios (see figure 15 here: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ).
If this seems implausible, remember that total greenhouse gases have increased by the equivalent of a 70 per cent increase in CO2. Because the impact is logarithmic, not linear, this equates to a warming effect of over 75 per cent of what we would expect for a doubling. Yet warming is still under 1 C. Of course other factors are advanced to explain the lack of warming – ocean delay, aerosols – but none are proven, and in any case part of the warming must be put down to increased solar activity and an absence of large volcanic eruptions since 1991.
CSIRO rainfall projections for Australia have been a standing joke for years. Their modellers have gone back and forth between wetter and drier, and advanced various ad hoc theories. A couple of years ago they added a disclaimer to all their projections which basically told you they didn’t believe them themselves. But as Jennifer shows, they still get remarkably tame press coverage for each new “study”. John Daly used to have good fun with them. See http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01b.htm#csiro and http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-03b.htm#sucking .
For some sense about the whole issue, see an old talk by Brian Tucker, who used to be in charge of the CSIRO unit involved: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm.
Jen you say – “I would like clarification on some of the basics, like if it gets warmer, won’t it generally get wetter?”
Nope. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. No.
That was for a range of locations around the nation. You’ve asked a non-question.
Are you trying to say something like the atmosphere can hold more water vapour if it’s warmer (which is not quite how it works) but you get the drift? If you are making an attack on the GW position – be specific and we’ll tackle it.
Forgetting climate change for the moment – you’ll notice that in El Nino years parts of the globe get wetter and some drier.
If you want my “biased” OPINION based … well if the Pacific turns into an El Nino mean state I reckon eastern Australia will be drier and the US wheat belt wetter and warmer… so we lose for John Howards sins and the USA wins -like the irony? Because God loves WASP GOP NRA Protestant Yanks better than us. Oh – and while this happens Australia may be wetter (overall over a number of years). But I’d be more interested what’s happening at Moree, Horsham and Biloela myself.
If you want to pick the CSIRO reports apart – be specific. Their “tedious” assumptions are honesty and duty of care.
I have observed the CSIRO scientists to be very serious and scientifically credible individuals – I think they are cautious in what they do.
I don’t think they resort to sophistry or spin.
Do you think they fudge their results ? or spin it ?
Sometimes I wish they knew more. Sometimes I wish they’d make stronger statements. One is frustrated that we don’t know everything. There are gaps.
You can be unhappy that some of their results are inconclusive – but that’s what the scientific side has to do … own up ….unlike the more rabid anti-AGWs – we don’t ABSOLUTELY KNOW. We can’t – it’s risk management with a compelling but imperfect body of evidence.
Now here we divert from science into management, philsophy and management …. which is why our fellow bloggers on this thread are passionate. They think a person of your considerable influence is playing a dangerous position on a most serious issue.
Adverse weather and climate conditions kills human beings and makes economic and environmental misery. Whether natural or anthropogenic.
Lordy me …
OK not exponentially but still increasing every year – 378ppm ain’t 280 ppm ?
The IPCC cited models do quite a very good job of explaining the last century’s temperature pattern.
John Daly’s stuff is drivel. It is a total rant. Daly’s position unravels every day the science goes on.
Jen – You have to make the phone call to CSIRO and put it to them. Make the call !
Most govt documents have disclaimers – govt are not going to be sitting ducks for legal eagles wanting a quick buck from dubious litigation.
Jennifer — Not a comment, but do you think you could separate the 4 urls in my post at the end of sentences from the full stops after them? Otherwise they don’t link. Will try to avoid this next time. Cheers, Dave Brewer
Steve, Following is a response to both your comments:
>The reality, however, is that much of what is labelled ‘the right’ is more tolerant and repectful of different opinions particularly in the environment area where I specialize and, in my experience, the right is more interested in evidence and argument than pulling rank when it somes to discussion on environmental issues.
We might need to agree to disagree on this. I don’t find the opposite to what you say (ie that the right are less respectful of opinions, particularly on environment issues) but I would definitely say it is too even to tell. Perhaps it is just the kind of environmentalists that you attract with your debate that makes you think this way.
>Pulling rank seems to have become a characteristic of the left? It seems to have become particularly bad at univerities.
I’m glad you put a question mark on that, because I couldn’t disagree more. You could certainly find plenty of examples to back this statement, but I bet for every example you find, I could find one to argue the other way. For example, for every academic who you find who argues on authority, I will find you a free-market believer who ridicules academics as being not in the real world (ie they have no authority, we have the authority). For every greenie you find who claims that business people don’t care about the environment and don’t know anything about it, i will find you a pro-business person who dismisses every environmentalist as a tree-hugging unwashed hippy with no authority.
>Then again, I am not sure that the left: right divide works anymore – except as a basis from which people can throw bricks at each other.
Yes I agree, so why did you give those descriptions of the left pulling rank etc?
>How many true-blue timber workers, traditional Labor voters, voted for Howard at the last election and why?
Excellent point. And how many tradtional liberal voting north shore mums didn’t vote for him? I agree with you.
> He seems to genuinely know his stuff.
So you see, you have decided that he is an authority. There are plenty who would disagree with you, eg Quiggin and his crew. 🙂
Re the IPCC and rainfall. I dunno. They probably say that there is increased cloud cover and more tropical weather, and that it is wetter, but that isn’t saying anything about australia – csiro has better stuff there.
CSIRO says that it may well get wetter in many parts of Oz. However, as I said before they also say that because of increased evaporation, the moisture balance will be almost uniformly worse. They also seem to say that the increased rain may take the form of tropical kinds of heavy dumps, rather than gentle and consistent farmer-friendly rain.
Kind of like the claims from Melbourne people that Sydney has more mm of annual rain therefore its weather must be worse. So untrue!
Jen – So if you have nothing to lose you should call Kevin Hennessy at CSIRO (Carr report’s author) and ask about the bits you don’t think are correct ? Given Bill is so easy to call – just add another number on the speed dial …
Bit of equal air time ….
GW or no GW, we have been having beautiful weather of late, a cold start and clear, warm days (someone said on the radio that it was the coldest morning for somewhere or another since 1938, or was it 38 years..)
Rog, We have had the most beautiful weather this winter in Brisbane – even warm mornings. Combine this observation with the new data for troposphere and I was starting to believe in warming! Now you tell me the mornings have been cold – where are you based?
Phillip, I will phone Hennessy.
Steve, Noted.
Climate change, denying climate change? We climate sceptics have NEVER denied climate change – that is why it is called climate.
Those of you who claim otherwise please come up with some citatiions supporting your assertions.
To make it easy, find somewhere that we categorically stated that climate change is not occurring.
David,
It would be good to get a working link to the Brian Tucker paper/speech.
Loius – You have stated that the greenhouse effect does not exist – do we have to go any further than this? Also not sure you are seperating weather from climate.
BTW – got that answer ready yet.
Ender,
I never stated that the greenhouse effect did not exist – it does and is due to the presence of water suspended in the atmosphere.
Weather is short term climatic effects, which, I might add, remain unpredictable. Unpredictable causes can never form the basis of a computer model; models by definition assume predictability.
Louis – we thought you’d done a runner after troposphere warming. On your scientific dead bed perhaps. Pining away …
Anyway 3 simple little questions for us the great unwashed out there in the blog-verse.
So anything else besides water vapour?
And what percent of the effect would you say water vapour is then? A bit of it? Some of it ? All of it ?
And so you’re also saying that weather forecasters have no skill then ? No better than flipping a coin or persistence ?
Phillip,
Troposphere warming?
Evidence seems to be lacking otherwise you would have drowned me in it.
Philip – Please see response to points in your post below:
1. OK not exponentially but still increasing every year – 378ppm ain’t 280 ppm ?
The fact that greenhouse gas increases have not been exponential is important. Since the response is logarithmic, an exponential increase in gas concentrations is required to sustain a linear increase in forcing. Take your example, CO2 rising from 280 to 378 ppm. To get another increase in forcing of the same magnitude, CO2 needs to rise not to 476 ppm, but to 510 ppm. Without an exponential increase in greenhouse gases, additional forcings get smaller and smaller. That is what is happening now. Total annual additional forcings from GHGs have already fallen by 40 per cent in the last 20 years: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/ReleaseImages/20020919/chart2.jpg
2. The IPCC cited models do quite a very good job of explaining the last century’s temperature pattern.
The IPCC’s flagship effort in this respect from its last report is on page 11 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf It has a climate sensitivity of 2.5 C for doubled carbon dioxide. This is the highest value of any such exercise I know of, and relies on surface temperature data that show a greater warming than other measures (satellites, balloons). My point was that there was no such exercise showing that a model with a climate sensitivity greater than 3 C could mimic observed temperatures under any reasonable assumptions. This means that the top half of the IPCC’s temperature sensitivity range of 1.5-4.5 C – the half that produces the scare stories carried in the press – is without empirical support.
3. John Daly’s stuff is drivel. It is a total rant. Daly’s position unravels every day the science goes on.
I enjoyed Daly’s truculent style, but would agree he made mistakes. My point was that he did a good job of pointing out that successive CSIRO modeling exercises gave inconsistent forecasts of rainfall trends in Australia. The underlying reason for this is that we don’t know enough about climate to make regional projections of rainfall. Responsible and expert greenhouse advocates have agreed with this assessment. For example, John Zillman recently stated that “there is little or no skill yet in the projection of regional climate change beyond a finding, from most models, that the continents can be expected to warm faster than the oceans.” http://www.assa.edu.au/publications/op/op22005.pdf page 23. It follows that the CSIRO should not be talking up such projections.
4. Most govt documents have disclaimers – govt are not going to be sitting ducks for legal eagles wanting a quick buck from dubious litigation.
Fair point, but how much confidence would you have in predictions hedged like this: “The projections are based on results from computer models that involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information.” If CSIRO are so unsure of their rainfall projections, and disclaim responsibility for any action based on them, why do they publicise them?
Phillip Done,
as one who avidly listens to the Regional ABC for weather reports, yes, often the flipping of a coin seems more reliable.
But then I comment from experience, you from ideology.
Jennifer I live in the Hunter Valley NSW.
We are having typical late autumn weather, morning frost and a clear warm day.
Interesting how the HV has changed, they speculate that the climate was drier and more condusive to grapes in the 1800’s – now it is a battle with mildew and mould as the moist air comes down (from QLD) in late summer.
You can still see where they pulled out vineyards, the ridges remain. Lovedale was wiped out in the mid 1900s with year after year of fungus due to high humidity.
I guess back then they said it was God, or Huey, nowadays they blame George Bush.
The last few years have been really good with dry conditions through the harvest. HV is particularly known for its semillon, which tends to be earlier picking, the later varieties are more exposed to damage by storms.
Where I am if the weather forecasters stated every morning that it would be “fine and dry today”…….then they would be correct more then 95% of the time.
A far better strike rate then now.
Louis re your comment:
“Troposphere warming? Evidence seems to be lacking otherwise you would have drowned me in it.” you say…
Hey – you even posted on this thread – The Troposphere is Warming… and you didn’t read the preamble – perhaps you were just saying “Hi” to Jen…
????
BTW Ender and I are still waiting on your full greenhouse theory (or non-theory). It seems to be developing (and correct me if I’m not understanding) that the so-called “natural greenhouse effect” is only due to water vapour ??
David Brewer, regarding the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. There was a spate of stories last October pointing out that the rate of CO2 increase for the last couple of years has been picking up at at least one station. If you do a google on “co2 greenhouse 2004” you will find some. Here’s one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/18/tech/main636810.shtml
What do you think?
The House of Lords doc “The Economics of Climate Change” asks some important questions and, in doing so, has lowered the political temperature
“The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits.”
“We are concerned that the international negotiations on climate change reduction will be ineffective because of the preoccupation with setting emissions targets. The Kyoto Protocol makes little difference to rates of warming, and has a naïve compliance mechanism which can only deter countries from signing up to subsequent tighter emissions targets. We urge the Government to take a lead in exploring alternative “architectures” for future Protocols, based perhaps on agreements on technology and its diffusion.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/HouseofLordsreport.pdf
Loius – yes you did
“Er there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse means a closed energy circuit – the earth is an open circuit.
Analogy disproved.
Posted by: Louis Hissink at July 31, 2005 10:50 PM”
and
“Ender,
please understand what a Greenhouse is – an enclosed volume of space in which energy cannot escape by virtue of the glass surround. It is a closed system hence why the greenhouse effect works.
The earth, on the other hand, is a totally open system – there is no barrier whatever stopping energy from escaping to space.
Hence it is totally wrong to describe it as a natural greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, period, and then the analogy is a bad one.
It is simply open-system versus closed-system, the latter being a Greenhouse.
As Gaileo remarked some centuries back “The crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite” (Deming, JSE, Vol, 19, No 2, p.250)
Posted by: Louis Hissink at August 7, 2005 07:46 PM
So there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas yet water vapour is one. Right!!!!!!
Perhaps you should check the stuff that you write to make sure it is consistant.
If you read the business pages you might notice a few little economies like China and India have been building just a few more cars and coal fired power plants in the past deacde, and indicate a pretty strong desire for a lot more of that stuff. It may be linear, it may be exponential, but it’s definitely pointing towards growth.
I have a question for the skeptics, which has probably been answered many a time before, so my apologies. It’s generally agreed that there is an increase in CO2 and other greenhosue gases in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic sources, and it’s generally well agreed that they do trap heat. The data indicates that the earth generally does appear to be warming. So what else could be going on, if not anthropogenic climate change? If it’s jsut a naturally variable cliamte and we’re jsut warming up ‘because’, sicne we don’t know that much about the climate anyway, then what are those CO2 molecules doing up there? Nothing? Is it all just a big coincidence?
Define “generally agreed”
The House of Lords “generally agreed” that the
Kyoto Protocol makes little difference to rates of warming
Summer time and the fishing is easy,….
Wilful,
pertinent comment, but the earth is physically an on open system, so energy transfer between earth and space is unhampered.
As for Greenhouse, there is no physical obstruction between the earth and space to stop energy.
Except for water, suspended in air, which we call clouds, which no one yet has been able to model in computer simulations.
Steve — I think the story you referenced on recent CO2 growth is fairly balanced as these things go. CO2 growth is a little up in the last couple of years. The full Mauna Loa record to end-2004 is posted here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf As to whether the slight acceleration in 2003/4 marks a new trend, we will have to wait and see. It may be a transitory response to temperature, as CO2 abundance accelerates in warmer years, and 2003 and 2004 were both warmer than average.
In a broader perspective, it is important to remember that the net rise in other greenhouse gases has now fallen almost to zero, and is likely to be slightly negative over the next 20 years or so (mainly due to falls in CFCs). This means that CO2 annual increments would have to nearly double to about 3 ppm per year, to regain the rate of increased forcing experienced from the late 60s to the mid 80s, as shown here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/ReleaseImages/20020919/chart2.jpg This seems unlikely, but again we will have to see.
It is perhaps unfortunate that virtually the entire policy response in this area is concentrated on CO2. Reducing CO2 is expensive, confers no benefits other than (mixed) climatic ones, and actually reduces agricultural and forest productivity. Reducing other greenhouse gases and aerosols is much cheaper and abates air pollution. Moreover, there is increasing agreement that the contribution to forcing of non-CO2 GHGs has been significantly underestimated. The IPCC estimated 0.4 watts per square metre for methane, but Leroux, Shindell and about 40 people under Hansen have all published this year estimating around 0.8 watts, i.e. more than half as much as CO2. See e.g. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/HansenSatoR.html Hansen also says black soot has been significantly underestimated. The upshot is that more than half the forcing has come from non-CO2 GHGs, which can be reduced cheaply, with side benefits. Yet expensive and burdensome schemes are now in place in most industrial countries to shave tiny percentages from annual CO2 emissions.
Wilful – In response your question, I would echo the comments of Lindzen on pp. 1-2 here: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf Agreement on the radiative properties of CO2 is not the same as agreement on the climatic consequences. Other things being equal, we would expect some warming from extra CO2. But how much? A few tenths of a degree, as we have seen so far for a 70% CO2 equivalent rise in GHG forcing, is trivial, and on the whole beneficial. By contrast, 5-6 degrees more would have enormous costs – but such projections are without empirical support. Nothing is impossible, especially in areas where knowledge is so incomplete, but we cannot afford to spend large sums to forestall every remote possibility. So we need cool assessment of probabilities and costs.
David Brewer has resent the link to the talk by Brian Tucker.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm .
Thanks for resending it.
Jennifer.
Louis – you’re just doing this to make us all mad aren’t you
Your words….
“pertinent comment, but the earth is physically an on open system, so energy transfer between earth and space is unhampered.
As for Greenhouse, there is no physical obstruction between the earth and space to stop energy…………..”
So I wonder why the temperature doesn’t drop to minus 18 on those clear nights.
Surely this rate of CO2 growth argument isn’t that important – if we quibble about exactly when certain levels are reached – we now have 378 ppm (give or take a few ppm) where we only recently in human history had 278ppm. The rate of growth may be of scientific interest but the CO2 continues to accumulate despite various sinks – the graph looks up up up to me. And we have China and India about to industrialise and modernise to cap it off.
In the end the models are “predicting” what a double CO2 world might look like meteorologically.
“expensive and burdensome schemes …” – who’s actually doing anything – emissions seem unabated to me … and why is our Asia Pacific Pact committing to such massive research investment for nothing ?
The CO2 plant productivity argument only works if the plants have adequate water. Tell the Australian farmers dealing with recurrent droughts since 1991 that the 350ppm plus CO2 levels has solved their problems. In the longer run we have issues with two different plant metabolisms – C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways – in northern Australia extra CO2 will preference C3 species (woody trees and shrubs) more than C4 grasses. So we may end up with less productive grasslands.
A few degrees do matter if they start to play with the extremes of the distribution. We have a major east coast and SA WA drying trend. Hope it’s just a random walk of a long scale Pacific oscillation. Tropical cyclones disappeared from the Coral Sea near our coast. Cyclones that have appeared (Nancy, Zoe, Ingrid and Vance in WA all breaking wind speed records). Emmanuels’s recent publication on hurricane/typhoon intensity in Nature. Rainfall intensities seem to be moving. Some record heatwaves. Nothing indvidually proves anything as records will tend to be broken occassionally anyway in simple probability but there seem to be an awful lot of ducks lining up in the one direction.
What is the probability that we end up with 2x and 3x atmospheric CO2 in the next 50-100 years and what are the possible consequences. We can quibble about exactly which year ….. Do we think our own situation in Australia has a greenhouse component ? All our capital cities seem to be having problems with water supply … the droughts linger with us…
Rainfall deficits extending back over three years and longer still remain across large parts of eastern Australia. Some areas missed out on significant June rainfall, most notably southern Victoria. An area extending from Melbourne to south-west Gippsland has recorded its driest March to June period on record, and this comes on top of record low 8-year rainfall totals in this same region.
Phillip and Louis
This is an interesting question:
And what percent of the effect would you say water vapour is then? A bit of it? Some of it ? All of it ?
Unfortunately it is almost impossible to answer. First, the radiation bands overlap, particularly for water vapour and CO2. So it depends which one you take first. Second, are you talking about water
“Except for water, suspended in air, which we call clouds, which no one yet has been able to model in computer simulations.”
“clouds A visible mass of liquid water droplets suspended in the atmosphere above Earth’s surface. Clouds form in areas where air rises and cools. The condensing water vapor forms small droplets of water (0.012 mm) that, when combined with billions of other droplets, form clouds. Clouds can form along warm and cold fronts, where air flows up the side of the mountain and cools as it rises higher into the atmosphere, and when warm air blows over a colder surface, such as a cool body of water.”
Now water is not a greenhouse gas – water vapour is. Water droplets will not do it – wrong again Loius.
Still waiting for that explanation of the greenhouse effect – but of course we are not going to get it are we.
First it is there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas now you keep insisting that there is nothing trapping heat but clouds. So at the times when there are no clouds are you saying the temperature ranges -18 degrees to 60 degrees? Is that what happens when you go into the desert?
I do not know what to do here. What do you do when someone wilfully posts mis-information and will not answer legitimate questions? Perhaps we should stop biting. As Loius says:
“Summer time and the fishing is easy,….”
Perhaps everyone should stop biting and ignore any posts from Loius and he might answer the questions.
Hi David, thanks for the detailed reply. With regards to your second paragraph on co2 being unfortunately focussed on: I don’t think that this is true, can you provide anything to support that?
For example, in Australia, at least if you get away from the media and look at some of the actual government policies in place, the focus is always on CO2-equivalent, rather than CO2, though the latter is probably used as shorthand. So we see that the fugitive methane emissions flaring as a greenhouse measure from landfill and coal mines is encouraged (because 1 unit methane = 20 unit CO2-e), and we see the use of fugitive methane emissions from landfills and coal mines used as a highly greenhouse friendly fuel for electricity generation (reduced methane emissions and offset greenhouse-intensive coal power as well).
All the non-CO2 greenhouse gases are accounted for in UNFCCC and Kyoto greenhouse accounting, and CO2-equivalent figures used as the basis for measuring reductions.
David – You are absolutely right there are some assumptions there and the case is not completely clear. However with the new calibrations of the MSU data, even by Christie et al,:
” Spencer and Christy’s Version 5.2 data now yields a trend of 0.12 deg. C/decade for the period 1978-2004 which is now much closer to the comparable RSS trend, also well within the range of the model predictions and essentially resolving the conflict.”
So it would seem that the radiative forcing is closer to the models and would seem to confirm some of the assumptions.
It really does not matter how much the CO2 contributes in considering the enhanced greenhouse effect. One of the gases that contributes to warming has increased from 290ppm to 330ppm – this is not in dispute. This leads to the hypothesis that this would cause to increased warming.
Confirming this hypothesis are physical measurements that seem to show that there is warming happening. Also in computer models where parameters can be changed at will a warming trend is observed when CO2 is increased. This warming in the models is no much closer to observations confirming that the models are reasonably accurate.
It is not so much choosing your poison but accepting that there is a risk that AGW will cause some degree of climate change in the future. We need to mitigate this risk with action to reduce the greenhouse gases we can affect, CO2 and CH4.
Someone to talk to – good !! (Excuse us Jen while we have a side bar here)….
David
Be grateful for an opinion on:
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Uphysik_Litertur/scholl.ppt
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Ah! at last some facts and analysis of the issues raised. Well done David Brewer, and Pillip Done, your posts have been very informative, and supported by some vg references. The Zillman/Kellow paper on the policy issues was a very lucid and balanced assessment. Sort of puts the whole debate in the right perspective relative to the huge sums of money being spent.
I have changed the settings on this web-log so you should be able to post directy without waiting for me to approve comment. This should facilitate more timely discussion – hopefully it won’t cause grief.
Jen – did your phone call connect ?
Steve – I take your point that Australia may be paying more attention to methane and other non-CO2 gases than others. Also that total forcing is traditionally calculated in CO2 equivalent terms. What I am concerned about is that the regulatory schemes set up in other countries concentrate almost entirely on CO2. That is the case in Europe where “for simplicity” all capping so far has been of carbon dioxide alone. See Article 4 and Annex 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003. Black soot is also a large problem in developing countries, apart from its role in the greenhouse effect, yet is not even included in the Kyoto Protocol, let alone in any national greenhouse abatement scheme.
Phillip – Re your comment on: ‘”expensive and burdensome schemes …” – who’s actually doing anything – emissions seem unabated to me.’ I agree. The schemes are having no noticeable effect on emissions in Europe, the main place they have been tried. The price of carbon has risen rapidly to over $30 a tonne, and firms are buying up credits to meet their targets, but the market is not closed – as it was for sulphur in the US. This means leakage – credits are bought abroad from countries that have either no caps or surplus allowances. The EU tried to counter this by saying that at least half the reductions should be made domestically, but so far this does not seem to be having much effect. In any case both provisions are an incentive to disinvest in Europe and invest in other countries without caps. Only very high prices for carbon allowances will have much effect on emissions, and the current level is already provoking calls for their repeal in Germany. See http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/17/761675.html
I could only raise the second of your references, to realclimate. That is quite an interesting discussion. I am not sure of your particular point of interest. On the greenhouse contribution of various gases, I notice Schmidt reinforces the point about overlap but gives lower figures than Kiehl and Trenberth for water vapour alone. This may be because he is considering the effect as it was in 1979 as opposed to the “natural” level of 1750, or it may be that Kiehl and Trenberth included all phases of atmospheric water, not just vapour, or it may be because of some other factor. Schmidt’s post echoes the current IPCC position that, while water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, it responds to forcing by other GHGs, and that models broadly have water vapour “right”, though problems remain with clouds. For the IPCC’s views of the current state of modelling, see Box 3 on pp. 48-9 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg1TARtechsum.pdf . Their explanation does not convince me to put my faith in model output, but you may have different view.
Ender – “Still waiting for that explanation of the greenhouse effect” Nice pun on http://www.john-daly.com ! I know this is directed to Louis, but I would suggest that you will be waiting a very long time for a definitive answer from anyone. Even though everyone seems to think they understand the greenhouse effect, it is in fact a lot more complicated than its usual presentations. The IPCC’s explanation is given in brief form in Box 1 on pp. 24-25 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg1TARtechsum.pdf . Lindzen gave his critique many years ago in the second section “The Greenhouse Effect” here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html : this includes the contested claim that 98% of the effect would persist with water alone. Our own Bill Kininmonth has a rather similar critique here: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/kininmonthlaunch.html and has amplified this in a brochure and book. There are many other accounts. It’s not easy stuff.
On the satellite data, the latest adjustments imply trend warming of ~0.3 C since 1979, still below various surface data sets. Taking the higher surface figures, we have about 0.7 C warming for the past century, whereas according to Rahmstorf (Response to point 6 at Phillip’s reference here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 ), the IPCC’s radiative forcing thesis would suggest warming of 0.9-2.7 C for a climate sensitivity of 1.5-4.5 C. Contrary to Rahmstorf, I believe this suggests the IPCC’s sensitivity range is too high.
Jen
I think we need to attempt to summarise at least where we seem to have gotten to in all the global warming discussions in all your blog threads. (He says nervously wondering what Jen’s highest reply level goes to ? I notice the threads stall once they go off your front page … it’s a pity as you are restarting the debate quite often – I reckon you need to have a standing item on your front page on “Global warming wars” that stays until Louis says “Yes I now accept I am wrong and have bought Ender a beer”. This may be some time coming 🙂
Although having many beers with Louis might be quite entertaining.
David – No pun intended and you are right it is targeted as Loius who has tried to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect and will not reply when challenged.
The references you gave are both AGW skeptics who are very likely to give a skeptical account of the greenhouse effect.
This is a quote from an article Von Storch who is normally quoted by AGW skeptics at http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/perspective.pdf
“we are not claiming that the present concept of global warming is flawed. We are convinced that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the air, and strongly believe that near-surface temperatures are rising in response”
Robert Zillman had this to say about Bill Kinninmonths work at his own book launch
“Bill appears to have difficulty with the concept of focussing on the impact of an enhanced greenhouse effect on the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere (and thus on surface warming) in terms of global integrals or averages—the so-called one dimensional model of the heat budget of the atmosphere and ocean. He seems to believe that this somehow overlooks the role of all the horizontal energy transfer processes (especially between the equator and the poles) that he correctly regards as an integral part of the working of the climate system.”
The main point is that we can trade quotes forever while Rome burns. We have enough data now to assess the risk of future climate change.
David – the “difficult” reference is an MS Powerpoint file. Interesting as it compares theory and pyranometer measurements in Switzerland over a number of years. Worth getting hold of.
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth‘s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
R.Philpona 1, B.Dürr 1, C.May1, A.Ohmura2 and M.Wild2
1 Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Doerf, Switzerland
2 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.31, L03202, 2004
Longwave flux increase +5.2(2.2) Wm-2 measured over 8 years.
• 1/3 of LDR increase is due to greenhouse gases
• After correction (clouds, temperature, humidity) cloud-free longwave flux increase +1.8 (0.8) Wm-2 due to greenhouse gases
• MODTRAN simulation predicts +1.58 Wm-2
Þ direct observation of LW radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
Also indicative of the difficulty of the subject:
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf13/index.stm
Louis might want to lodge a bet !! Bill didn’t …
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
On the ongoing issue of water vapour and climate sensitivity:
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/07/10c-not-likely.html
Re the following 2 quotes from separate messages by David Brewer:
Yet warming is still under 1 C. Of course other factors are advanced to explain the lack of warming – ocean delay, aerosols – but none are proven,
And later
Taking the higher surface figures, we have about 0.7 C warming for the past century, whereas according to Rahmstorf (Response to point 6 at Phillip’s reference here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 ), the IPCC’s radiative forcing thesis would suggest warming of 0.9-2.7 C for a climate sensitivity of 1.5-4.5 C. Contrary to Rahmstorf, I believe this suggests the IPCC’s sensitivity range is too high.
I think the seeds of an answer to the second point are in the first point, David: ocean delay, aerosols. Ocean delay might or might not be “proven”, but the ocean *is* a mighty big heat reservoir. There are uncertainties about aerosols, but I believe tropospheric sulphate aerosols did rise substantially over the 20th century (just visit Europe and see the white haze for yourself). Why do you feel justified in dismissing these? “Not proven” is not an adequate answer.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, it is illegal for Australia to use the lack of full scientific certainty as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Well the signs in Australia of drying trends, extended droughts and very fast cyclones in our regions are all food for thought.
But we’re something like 1.4% of the world’s emissions (correct me if I’m wrong – small anyway) – although among the highest emitters per capita. So even if we turned Australia “off” we’re still going to get whatever enhanced greenhouse effects are likely from the rest of the world’s emissions.
And the new Asia Alliance led by the USA says we’re going to tech our way out !
So wouldn’t it be ironic if climate shifts from global warming preferred North America with better rain and extended their wheat belt temperature optimum northwards while there were negative effects in Australia and Africa. Then again God probably likes WASP GOP NRA wheat farmers …. I see the Pope is worried about falling church numbers in Australia… This is the real reason I betcha !
Phillip
I noted your comments about 1. phone calls and 2. “summarizing” this thread/having a standing post on climate change.
RE: 1
I have been in Melbourne since Friday and will be here a couple more days. When I get back to Brisbane, and take breathe, I will re-read the CSIRO report for NSW Govt and make the phone call. I don’t see an urgency – almost better I plan it as the need arises as I will then be more focused.
RE: 2
I note John Quiggin and other hosters of blogs often summarize threads.
It is not really my style. I don’t necessarily need closure on an issue – I know this can be mighty annoying for some people.
I note Malcolm HIll commented that he had learnt from the exchange of comment – that’s progress. So have I.
However, if you want to try a summary, it would no doubt be very useful for Malcolm, me and others who have been following this thread.
Send the summary to my yahoo address and I will post it as a new guest ‘post’ from you as a contributor to this thread etctera. Others can then comment and perhaps in this way we can further refine ‘the summary’/’consensus’ and have another post on the issue in a week or so.
All the hot air on this thread must have significantly increased the global temperature.