There was a big conference in Melbourne this week titled Greenhouse 2005: Action on Climate Change . I didn’t see much coverage in the national media but The Age ran a feature every day on the perils of climate change to coincide with the event, click here, here and here (and there was more!).
A reader of this web-log was carefully following the dire predictions and sent in the following summary:
2005 may go down in the record books as the warmest year on the global record. What a perfect backdrop for the international Greenhouse 2005 conference held in Melbourne over the last week. 350 delegates from science, industry and government attended for a review of climate change science, likely impacts and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The conference saw the who’s who of climate change in Australia pouring over the facts and figures and making impassioned speeches on future needs.
The conference was opened by the Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey, who as a “concerned layman” called for action on climate change. General Jeffrey lists melting peat bogs in Russia, storm surges in Florida, and loss of the Antarctic ice sheet as concerns.
The Age reported the GG as “passionate” about the climate change issue. He listed a raft of alternative energy options to be explored – with interestingly nuclear power being one of those options. Setting the tone for the conference the GG said “As a concerned layman, I would suggest the Australian public, to become fully energised on global warming, needs to have a general idea on the answers to the following questions:
* what is the broad global picture in respect to global warming now, and say in 50 years time under projected rates of energy use?;
* what is generally agreed about the warming situation in Australia now and in 50 years time, including its likely impact on our agriculture, weather patterns and general living?;
* What might be the solutions; the way ahead, globally, nationally, and individually?”The Bureau of Meteorology was strong on message that a climate trend was definitely on in Australia: “Australia has experienced its warmest start to a year on record (since 1950), with the January-to-October temperature averaging 1.03 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1961-1990). As the year nears an end, a record-breaking year is looking likely – another indicator of climate change. Annual mean temperatures have generally increased throughout Australia since 1910, particularly since the 1950s,” says Mike Coughlan, head of the National Climate Centre within the Bureau of Meteorology. As the average temperature has risen, we have also seen an increase in the incidence of hot days and hot nights, and a reduction in the number of cold days and nights. This warming is mirrored in the oceans around Australia.
Warming is not the only sign of change we are observing in Australia’s climate. Other changes include a marked decline in rainfall in the south-west and parts of south-east Australia, and recent reductions in rainfall through the eastern states. At the same time, rainfall in the arid interior and north-west has increased dramatically, in some places nearly doubling during the past 50 years.”
CSIRO have produced the most precise record of greenhouse gas fluctuations in the Southern Hemisphere over the past 2000 years. They add that the greatest increase in greenhouse gas growth has occurred since the 1980s, with carbon dioxide showing accelerating growth. Other CSIRO researchers such as Penny Whetton warned of changes to extreme weather – more heatwaves, floods, droughts and more intense tropical cyclones. CSIRO are also investigating how climate change interacts with natural short, medium and longer term cycles.
The Australian National University’s Dr Will Steffen warned of surprises in the climate system where abrupt climate change may occur in just a few years. Such surprises appear to already exist in the paleo-climate records.
The Age newspaper ran a series of daily feature articles during the week following the conference. Some excerpts are:
The scenario for the Murray River already beset by droughts and ecological concern for its aquatic health suffers a double whammy blow of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation. CSIRO’s computer projections have winter rain systems sliding towards Antarctica – a shift that have already started in the last eight years. Droughts become more intense and longer, summer storms are more intense, and heatwaves more common. Environmental flows already provided by river managers may be further eroded as reduced water availability hits home. The Age cites dead and dying riparian vegetation, algal blooms and loss of vertebrate biodiversity. Naturally concerns of irrigators and the environment are on a collision course. CSIRO economist Mike Young says farmers will have to become more adaptive and more climate savvy to swing with increased seasonal variation. As it gets hotter some crops will require more water, crops requiring winter chilling like almonds, apples and cherries may have yield reductions from warmer winter temperatures.At the opposite end of the nation in the iconic Kakadu Park creeping salinsation into the freshwater wetlands has occurred over the last 50 years. While the current cause is not likely to be attributable to climate change further rises in sea level and changes in rainfall pattern will increase and accelerate the trend. The park’s paperbark vegetation is thickening up considerably – a combination of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, changed fire and rainfall regimes are all possibilities. If the system transforms into a salt environment the wetland flora and fauna will go – replaced by mangroves. Some 60 species of water birds are also at stake. The debate about building a barrage to hold back the sea incursion and the salt is on in earnest.
Across on the Queensland coast the Bellenden Kerr range is an ecological island – a refuge of a species assemblage from a cooler and moister Australia of 20 million years ago. A two degree rise would see the wet tropics ecosystem start to disappear with animals needing move upslope to beat the heat. With a 3.5 degree rise 65 species unique to the area would vanish into extinction. If you live at or reach the top of the mountain there is nowhere to go. These is debate about past warm periods but these may have been wetter than today so providing some relief. Can animals genetically adapt to their new environments? Unfortunately it appears that breeding cycles are too long. Some species don’t even breed every year and only have a few offspring. The other combinative effect is a change in the cloud forest with the cloud base rising each year. This may not affect water supply to the forest but also affect the water supplies in the Cairns regions.The great Australian icon – the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem has long been feared to be a target of global warming. Certainly even now El Nino events can bleach the corals in the Barrier Reef as well as round the world. When water temperatures become too high coral expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae and die – taking on a white ghostly appearance. Certainly water temperature increases in the lower reef around Heron Island are causing impacts already as the frequency of increased water temperatures increases. In a double whammy the water chemistry of the reef may become more acidic from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. This threatens the coral’s ability to secrete exoskeletons and grow. Can coral’s learn to adapt to these new conditions? Certainly experience on other reef systems suggests that coral can expel heat sensitive algae and replace them with heat tolerant strains. But how many species can do this is unknown. Unfortunately a certain amount of warming of the oceans may already be locked in and there will be a steady increase in temperature of the oceans over the next few decades. Certainly there is a lot at stake from an ecological and economic viewpoint.
The other great tourism business in Australia is the skiing industry. The industry is steadily investing in snow making equipment. Maybe it really needs to. Global warming creates a range of basic problems for Australia’s 11,500 square kilometre alpine region, a tiny 0.15 per cent of the continent. The most obvious effect of rising temperatures is snow that melts more quickly, is spread thinner, and a snow line that moves higher up the mountain. A complication is rainfall. Under climate change, the winter rain systems are expected to lessen so the chance of snow – even if it is cold enough – drops off. There may be some solace as storms increase, bearing the chance of a big snow dump.
Modelling for 2020 and 2050 shows that the resort with the most remaining snow will be Perisher, in NSW, followed in order by Falls Creek, Mount Hotham, Thredbo and Mount Buller. The smaller resorts of Mount Buffalo, Mount Baw Baw and Lake Mountain become marginal for skiing at 2020, even in the most optimistic scenarios. A report for the Australian Greenhouse Office says further global warming will reduce biodiversity and seriously decrease populations of endemic species. The loss, the report says, will be very significant at a regional, national and international scientific level.
Henrik Wahren, one of Australia’s leading alpine ecologists, says the alpine environment could disappear by 2050: “We won’t have an alpine area. It will be gone.” Once a plant species is lost, he says, there’s a cascading effect that flows to insects, birds and animals.
The region clearly has to adapt – selling itself as an alternative to crowded beach resorts may be one such option. Tree change instead of sea change.End of summary.
I would have thought there might be some winners as well as losers out of climate change – that it is not universally all bad. Indeed I have previously commented that warm weather favors coral reefs but not polar bears, click here. But it seems the conference and The Age had a single message: “We’ll all be rooned”.
…………………….
Many thanks to the reader who sent in the long summary – who wishes to remain anonymous.
I would be keen to post a piece that outlined the potential upside of global warming. Any offers?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Upside of global warming? Good grief – the earth is essentially getting back to its state of the medieval warming period.
It’s the unpredictable ice ages that are the problem, not the profusion of life that generates heat.
If oil production peaks in 2015 then the problem will surely fix itself. Get a life, smell some flowers, hug your own ones.
Anxiety is natures way of distracting the mediocre so they won’t get in the way of those who can and do.
Loius – even if you accept that the MWP was as warm as today which is not certain there were not billions of cars and millions of power stations then pumping more and more CO2 into the air. The warming that is happening now will continue to accelerate.
Ian – Peak Oil does not mean that in 2015 there will be no oil just that in 2015 or whenever we will have used half the available oil. Also oil based transport is about 20% of global CO2 emissions the balance coming from power generation and industry. Also there is a lag in emissions of several years so that the CO2 we emit now will stay around for 50 to 80 years and the effects will not be fully felt straight away.
Jennifer – you theoretically can write a piece on the upside of faulty brakes on trains as I am sure that there are some however, on the whole global warming will have more losers that winners. The amount of losers is conditional on how much warming happens. If thermal runaway happens then we will all lose.
What is interesting in all of this is the polarisation of the debate, and the pyschology of those involved.
What’s makes one group sure “it’s on” and we need to do something.
And what makes another group say “what a load of twaddle”. “Get a hair cut and get a job.”
Would it be fair to say that having an informed opinion would be beyond the grasp of most of the voters.
And we all have an illogical approach to climate – the “hydro-illogical cycle”. When droughts gets bad we call them natural disasters and call for drought research, long range foecasts, cloud seeding and diverting rivers inland (Bradfield scheme, Clarence etc). When it rains – it’s all soon forgotten and we worry about flood mitigation. Hard for most to see anything than what’s in front of their nose.
No long term view.
P.S. Bradfield still alive and well
http://johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme_c.html
The Age has become the down under version of The Guardian.
Don White is predicting a possible la Nina for 2006.
Hey Phil, is that an informed opinion on voters?
Well better than uninformed bilge from Andrew Bolt. At least some sentences that aren’t rant rant rant.
No Rog – that was a biased sample comment of people I meet in coffee shops, seedy doorways, meetings, including cabbies. However – as you know I need to get out more from under the bed. Definitely a pers .comm. No reference provided.
And why does D White predict a La Nina .. .
Ender,
during the Mesozoic era CO2 levels were 1000 ppmv, often to 2000 ppmv, and occasionally exceeded 2000 ppmv. This is close to an order of magnitude higher than the worst scenario painted by the IPCC.
The Mesozoic era was characterised as a lush, warm tropical environment, with adundant life and plants.
There was no runaway greenhouse, but a proliferation of life. CO2 means abundant plant life and animals which feed off the plant kingdom.
Fact.
As I have had stated elsewhere it is the iceages which are the climate aberrationss, not the warming periods. The earth is warming right now because it is recovering from the little ice age.
The climate predictions of doom and gloom are based on imaginative constructs with no basis in physical reality.
Louis – so mnay questions for you..
what’s your basis for the 1000-2000ppmv.
Sounds nice and cosy – but how do we know what the temperatures were? I mean you don’t even think 20th century thermometers are worth two bob.
and
what was the configuration of the land masses with respect to each other and the equator. And what were the Milankovitch forcings?
and when you say “the Earth is warming because it ir recovering from the little ice age” – what is causing “the recovery”.
And there may also be plenty of CO2 up a dead bear’s bottom (that the gun crowd have shot to help it’s survival) but not much luxuriant plant life.
Nature Magazine Phil.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=423
Hey what ? you’re basing your answer on “The study’s authors constructed a 300-million-year record of CO2 concentrations using “stomatal abundance from fossil leaves of four genera of plants that are closely related to the present-day Gingko tree.” GINGKO TREES ! Is any of this really published anywhere reputable? You wouldn’t be joshing me would you..?
Next you’ll be telling me you can use bristle cones to measure Medieval climate.
And what about the rest of the questions?
Loius – “The end of the Eocene(From 63 million to 58 million years ago; appearance of birds and earliest mammals) Paleocene (55.5/54.8 Ma) was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the (Approximately the last 63 million years) Cenozoic, a sudden global change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation and led to the (The reduction of the intensity of radiation as a consequence of absorption and radiation) extinction of numerous deep-sea (Click link for more info and facts about benthic) benthic (Foraminifers) foraminifera and on land, a major turnover in (Any warm-blooded vertebrate having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive except for the small subclass of monotremes and nourished with milk) mammals.
Marking the start of the (From 58 million to 40 million years ago; presence of modern mammals) Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, currently being identified as the ‘Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’ or the ‘Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum’ (PETM or IETM). Sea surface temperatures rose almost 8°C over a period of a few thousand years. In 1990, marine scientists James Kennett and Lowell Stott, both then at the (Click link for more info and facts about University of California, Santa Barbara) University of California, Santa Barbara, reported analysis of (A member of the United States Marine Corps) marine (Matter deposited by some natural process) sediments showing that, not only had the surface of the Antarctic ocean heated up about 10 degrees at the beginning of the Eocene, but that the entire depth of the ocean had warmed, and its chemistry changed disastrously.”
The belching of methane that perhaps caused this event could easily be replicated by starting with CO2 warming which then contributes to a postive feedback that melts the Siberian Tundra that then releases the massive amounts of methane stored there. That is without the lunatics wanting to drill into the methane calthrites in a attempt to extend the fossil fuel party.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/11_9_96/bob1.htm
Your assertion of CO2 levels comes from one study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11357126&dopt=Abstract
that relies on leaf stomatal abundance. Given your vigourous debunking of Dr Manns reconstuctions of past temperatures it is a bit rich to then claim with authority from leaf stomatal abundance that Mezoic CO2 levels were definately 1000 or 2000 ppm. I guess you will not be asking Mr McKintyre to audit this study.
It is true from the Vostok Ice cores (1) that temperature changes could be related to 405Kyr and 1.2Myr orbital cycles(2). However we are putting human warming ON TOP of interglacial warming which puts us in danger of thermal runaway.
(1)Greenhouse gas growth rates
James Hansen * and Makiko Sato
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004
(2)PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, VOL. 19, PA4019, doi:10.1029/2004PA001042, 2004
Oligocene climate dynamics
Bridget S. Wade
Grant Institute of Earth Sciences, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, UK
Heiko Pälike
Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
You’ve hooked em, now reel em in Louis!
Hey Phil,
is this rants at 20 paces – may the best man win?
Bolt gets paid for his rants, he must return a profit on the investment of his employers, you give yours away for free.
Where is the value in that?
Oh it’s of great psychological therapeutic value Rog. No charge is necessary. I mean you do want me off the streets don’t you.
Besides unlike certain journos I can sleep straight in bed (well under it as you know).
Steve – Yeah I know – I still fall for it when I feel in the mood. The trouble is that Louis’s stuff never ends.
I’ll reply to the questions with one post as life is short and reacting to rants can become tiresome.
Phil Done asks: “What’s your basis for the 1000-2000ppmv”
a Nature Journal article to which Phil replied with
“Hey what ? you’re basing your answer on “The study’s authors constructed a 300-million-year record of CO2 concentrations using “stomatal abundance from fossil leaves of four genera of plants that are closely related to the present-day Gingko tree.” GINGKO TREES ! Is any of this really published anywhere reputable? You wouldn’t be joshing me would you..?”
Obviously Phil thinks Nature Journal is not reputable.
“Sounds nice and cosy – but how do we know what the temperatures were? I mean you don’t even think 20th century thermometers are worth two bob.”
Ad hominem and then you rant:
“What was the configuration of the land masses with respect to each other and the equator”.
Irrelevant – the distribution of the landmasses on the surface of the earth has no bearing on the amount of CO2 in the Mesozoic atmosphere. Another logical fallacy I suppose.
“and when you say “the Earth is warming because it ir recovering from the little ice age” – what is causing “the recovery”.”
Probably the same process when a person who accidentally fell though the ice in a frozen pond and who was quickly rescued by onlookers starts to warm up when the normal biological processes are allowed to operate.
Next you’ll be telling me you can use bristle cones to measure Medieval climate.
Not really Phil, we have an enormous amount of first hand recorded history to inform us that it was rather warm during that period. Why the Vikings living on Greenland could actually bury their dead in the soil – still impossible to this day. Who needs to use Bristlecones when the blinding obvious is available?
“And what about the rest of the questions?”
Impatient little twit aren’t you. Don’t you have a real day-time job or are you being paid to type your rants, as Rog politely averred, by the BOM or heaven forbid the CSIRO?
And now to Ender who lifted his quote from Wikipedia – a source which I won’t use as colleagues have discovered that there is politically correct editing with some Wikipedia entries.
This link Ender supplied is also regarded as a little interesting as no citations are given for the “opinions”. It too has to be disregarded.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/11_9_96/bob1.htm
“Your assertion of CO2 levels comes from one study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11357126&dopt=Abstract_that relies on leaf stomatal abundance.”
Well yes, so what? All that is required is one brutal fact to slay a beautiful theory as Huxley stated during the 19th Century on Darwinism’s rejection of theological creationism.
“Given your vigourous debunking of Dr Manns reconstuctions of past temperatures it is a bit rich to then claim with authority from leaf stomatal abundance that Mezoic CO2 levels were definately 1000 or 2000 ppm. I guess you will not be asking Mr McKintyre to audit this study.”
No Mr McIntyre won’t be asked to audit this paper as no dodgy statistical techniques were used to produce the conclusions – just the simple relationship of Stomatal abundance with CO2, which being a geoscientist I suspect is also a linear relationship since we don’t bother with non-linear relationships.
And Dr Mann’s paper was about reconstruction of past temperatures, but I was pointing to CO2 concentrations – comparing apples and oranges I am afraid Ender.
“It is true from the Vostok Ice cores (1) that temperature changes could be related to 405Kyr and 1.2Myr orbital cycles(2). However we are putting human warming ON TOP of interglacial warming which puts us in danger of thermal runaway.
(1)Greenhouse gas growth rates_James Hansen * and Makiko Sato_National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025_Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004
(2)PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, VOL. 19, PA4019, doi:10.1029/2004PA001042, 2004_Oligocene climate dynamics_Bridget S. Wade_Grant Institute of Earth Sciences, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, UK_Heiko Pälike_Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden”
And of course I have got to the library to check up on these articles, and that is not going to happen in the next few days, I can tell you. I have to take the quad bike and trailer to Broomehill then a World Diamond Conference next Monday and Tuesday, then report writing for end of field season purposes, and Done and Ender have all this time to post detailed comments here?
Ye Gods.
However as Ender has raised the issue of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as a “hint” that our burning coal and oil will produce a similar outcome is briefly analysed below.
One interesting paper by Scott Wing that the burning of continental peat and coal might have been a source of some of the Carbon is abstracted here: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94450.htm
Or intrusive volcanism could have initiated the expulsion of methane from its hydrated phase
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94917.htm
Or an cosmic impact could have triggered the who shebang since it seems that the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was globally geologically an instant event.
Hence the inferred, from various proxies, rise in global temperature, not only of the atmosphere but also of the solid earth, is best explained by a cosmic impact with a comet or a meteorite.
The rise in temperature had little to do with increased CO2 as increased CO2 is not really capable of heating up the asthenosphere and upper mantle to produce intrusive volcanism as suggested by a paper linked above.
Rather the rise in CO2 has to be considered a result of, and not the cause of the thermal anomaly of the PETM.
QED
Louis – sorry wrong again. The link is for a article on people stupid enough to drill into the methane calthrate hydrates which are unstable at best. One underwater avalanche and we could have another burp of methane.
I is not a simple relationship at all. There is statistical interpretation of the proxy data. This is why it is not apples and oranges. The temperature data is inferred from tree ring growth just as the CO2 level is inferred from realitive stomatal abundance. They are both proxy data as we did not have either thermometers or CO2 meters in these times. I think Mr McIntyre could have a field day with this proxy data as how do we know these fossil trees had the same stomatal relationship with present day trees, is the Ginko tree widespread and perhaps there is a CO2 island effect. Also I would like to see the computer code that the researcher used to analyse the data, the exact version of the complier he used and I am considering getting my member of parliament to send this researcher a letter if he does not supply the data.
I know this is a bit of a trial in your busy schedule so I can gladly send you the articles as I have them on my thumb drive as pdf files.
We do not know whether a CO2 rise preceeded or caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Bit to late AFTER the event to find out that CO2 preceeded it.
Louis – OK we’re sorry for picking a hole the size of Lake Argyle in your argument. But we did make you send a long post didn’t we. Look we’re just cross coz you won’t let us graffiti your web site.
SOI Phil, and statistical trends (you know with all your obvious high intellect + knowledge you could set yourself up as a consultant, charge well for you advice, it must be of value to someone que?)
bzzz .. ..bzzz. .. someone left the window open again
And Rog with your one liners and right wing bigotry you could set yourself up as a well paid shock jock on radio.
Radio Red Neck.
Hard right on the dial. Transmitting on extremely short wavelength.
P.S. Louis actually has an hypothesis and a number of interesting historical perspectives. Keeps Ender and I up to date with out paleo studies.
Jennifer, it’s a bit hard to come up with specific positives for the global warming scenarios as the climatologists can’t tell us what the actual climate of, say, Adelaide, will be in 50 years time. This doesn’t stop the AGW proponents from saying any change will be for the worse, of course.
In general, higher CO2 will of course lead to increased plant growth, so maybe more food to support a bigger population, or the same amount grown on a smaller area, allowing more areas to be used for recreation (especially hunting! – sorry Phil).
Warmer temperatures are generally favoured by humans, witness the migration to Queensland, so in future maybe people will be able to stay where they are and have the Gold Coast come to them, so to speak.
Warm periods of history may have been times of relative peace and prosperity, and less war (unless all those blood thirsty hunters start getting militarily adventurous – sorry Phil).
The problem is that if global warming is seen as advantageous, there is no possibilty of taxpayer funds, so there is definite selection pressure towards the doomsday scenarios.
CSIRO can give you some scenarios for SA.
More CO2 will only help the plants if the rain comes with it. errr.. sorry the overall evapotranspiration balance is adequate.
And given there may be winners and losers – I guess you won’t mind sharing the food and the land with a few million Bangladeshis.
And thanks for the migration to SE Qld – big rows over regional water supply. Same in California.
And it will be wonderful if the Gold Coast canal estates get taken out with storm surge in a cyclone – they’ll all want govt handouts (as bad as dole bludging greenies eh Rog?)
We can’t predict what the climate will be in 2050 – depends on the actual emission scenario – which depends on whether we do anything about CO2 or invent some new technology that gives us energy source without or with less CO2.
Only scenarios on the best science and some possible emission scenarios – what to do (or nothing) is up to us.
And if warm = less war – try Africa, Central America, SE Asia, and the Middle East for starters.. Canada, Alaska, Sweden, Norway, Iceland = no wars (whoops Russia doesn’t fit does it- dang).
Yes it doesn’t have to be a doomsday situation – but for Australia the current trends are trying already – droughts, water problems in most cities – agriculture marginal in terms of trade.
If you read the scenarios there may be opportunties too – it’s up to intelligent and thinking Australians to make their minds up and inform their politicians on the costs and benefits.
If you read the CSIRO reports they simply attempt to calculate what you would reasonably like to know on temperatures, rainfall and extreme event frequency. Isn’t that what you’d initially ask any science program on future climate to do??
And do you really think at any election – that voters realistically pressure govts of any colour to fund more climate research. It survives on what it can get on the margins. Give it some funding and you might get better information too. But who cares – interest rates are low and everyone’s got 2-4 houses. Drink up and party on relaxed and comfortable !
So that’s it then Phil? No winners from global warming at all?
Yep US and Candian farmers. God favours the yanks. Maybe the Ruskies too.
Paul – most studies of plants in enhanced CO2 find that the extra growth is limited by available nutrients. Given Australia’s generally poor soils it is unlikely that there will be a benefit for most plants. This is one example of some research:
“Studies of effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on plant growth often show that plant responses to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations depend on interactions with other environmental conditions such as nutrient availability, temperature and management. In grasslands, for example, these include clipping frequency and growth temperature.”
from http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/impact/plantgrowth.cfm
What you say about Queensland is partly true however you forget that while Queensland temperatures are coming to these people, tropical and higher temperatures could be coming to the people in Southern Queensland. Already the electricity supply is quite constrained in summer so how will the extra load of airconditioners required for survival in perhaps sustained 45deg or 50deg temperature be generated? Remember that a quoted 2 deg increase is an global average temperature only. Regional variations could be 5 or 10 degrees making summer days that used to range from say 35 to 40 degrees change to 40 to 45 degrees. Additionally the range of the malaria mosquito is constrained by temperature. Larger areas of higher temperatures and humidity could extend the range of this mosquito into areas that are now free of it.
There will be winners from global warming however it is my belief that the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages. This is my opionion only and I could be wrong. We are however, betting the farm on you and others being right. I only hope you are.
I didnt know greenies were also dole bludgers Phil, hows that job application form going?
Well Rog – having problems – I’m not sure whether to put lion tamer or psychotherapist
Ender, I wasn’t confining my comments entirely to Australia. In any case, much of Australia has very fertile soil.
Mosquito species capable of transmitting malaria exist in every continent except Antarctica. Malaria was common in Britain, until it began to decline around the 1840’s. Malaria is commonest in poor, non-industrialised countries.
Who knows what the temperature will be in Queensland. In any case I was talking about the benefits of global warming, not the downside, as per Jennifer’s request.
Sorry much of Australia – has very fertile soil.
Are you sure? It has some of the oldest nutrient poor soils in the world over most of the landscape (Kununurra, Emerald, Darling Downs, Moree, Narrabri regions being far the exception more than the rule). And then there is water holding capacity, permeability and friability issues – some soils are shallow and nasty dispersive hard-setting horrors. Then we have creeping problems with soil acidity and salinisation.
Qld’s fate depends on temperature extremes, water availability and tropical cyclone prevalence and intensity.
Strange stuff. Louis said “during the Mesozoic era CO2 levels were 1000 ppmv, often to 2000 ppmv, and occasionally exceeded 2000 ppmv. This is close to an order of magnitude higher than the worst scenario painted by the IPCC”. Since its something said by LH, it probably false, and indeed its falsified by the IPCC TAR: the A1F1 scenario gets to 950 (by eye) by 2100, and of course hasn’t levelled off there: see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
Meanwhile, about the best general graph of palaeo CO” is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide (about 4/5 of the way down).
Phil-Well of course there are areas in Australia with fertile soil. You mention some of them yourself.
I didn’t make any prediction about the future climate of Queensland, I was talking about a possible warmer climate in areas which are currently colder, which may suit people.
CO2 levels are higher now than in the recent past. Higher CO2 levels will stimulate plant growth. Maybe plant growth will not be increased everywhere due to confounding factors, but in a warmer and wetter world (if that’s what we’re going to have), it seems likely that plant growth will increase overall. I think that is a good thing.
Jennifer’s original post was a reflection on the way everything about AGW is reported as a negative. The comments that followed are a nice illustration of this.
Maybe rising atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing. One thing is for certain, humans are not going to voluntarily stop activities which emit CO2.
The warmer wetter mantra is FAR too simplistic.
So do you think where we grow crops in Australia is getting wetter and likely to be wetter in the future – well more correctly the overall evaporative balance. Pacific Ocean in El Nino like mean state and changed southern hemisphere circulation. Higher levels of evaporation. Perhaps more of the last 15 years or worse??
And if humans overall vote to keep emitting CO2 unchecked – well the majority better not complain down the track.
Bet the yanks win and we lose.
Phil – Humans are “voting” by their actions. Poor people in China will want a better standard of living, Australians want cheap flights and cheap petrol, etc. Some people even like to have a computer and the electricity to power it!
“Bet the yanks win and we lose.” ?????
Are you thinking CIA plot?
Back onto winners and losers, what about Tasmania, could it be a winner? Lots of high ground, fertile soil, surrounded by water, currently cold. Could easily carry 20million people when the rest of Australia becomes uninhabitable. Something to think about! I believe land is currently quite reasonable, especially on the higher ground.
Paul – so what you are saying is that we party on now and then when Australia is stuffed we can all move to Tasmania?
Are you a teenager or something as this seems like a very immature attitude.
Humans are “voting” by their actions you say – but the atmosphere doesn’t care – it will just do it’s physics thing – doesn’t recognise the economy you see.
Yanks win (no not CIA) – well we were discussing plants. In El Nino see what we get and they get (generalisation as all events are different) :
http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2002/09/Friday%20Briefs/020927/Slide3.JPG
So US has younger soils (more fertile), increased CO2 benefit and no rainfall impact. Maybe the CIA actually have already made the calculation. Should suit their wheat, cotton and corn very nicely.
Ender – If your comprehension is up to it, try reading my posts and you will see I was not suggesting any course of action. My age is “or something”, to use your terminology.
Phil – “Humans are “voting” by their actions you say – but the atmosphere doesn’t care – it will just do it’s physics thing – doesn’t recognise the economy you see.”
Exactly. In fact, you’re “voting” right now, because you must be using electricity, your computer is made of plastics, you’re probably not living a subsistence lifestyle, probably have travelled in motor vehicles, have hot showers, etc. Granted we can do less of these things, but it is at the expense of our standard of living. Even if we volunteer to reduce OUR standard, is it fair to expect Chinese or Indians to stay at a subsistence level?
As regards your graphic, we were actually talking about winners and losers if global warming occurs, so I don’t really understand why you have put up a chart relating to El Nino. Will AGM cause more El Nino events?
The increased rainfall in the US does not encompass the growing areas for wheat or corn, by the way.
Oh, and it looks like Uruguay is a winner, just not at soccer!
Yes Paul I apologise for my own profligate consumption and running the laptop but I never said I was a greenie. I’m advocating we consider what we can do about atmospheric CO2 and still maintain a standard of living. I’m also advocating we do more climate research and have a more sensible discussion of the findings.
And regarding India and China – well they’re already off and running – so some complex decisions – do help them go nuclear (no CO2) or will we get the enriched by-products back in a war-head someday. Certainly the Asia Pacific pact makes sense if we are truly about CO2 reducing technologies not just gasifying coal for oil.
A concern backed up by some modelling is that AGW may turn the Pacific into a “permanent El Nino like mean state”. i.e. permanent El Nino. And if you’re indulgent note we have had many El Ninos since 1976 but only a very few La Nina. Has it already started or just a random walk or multi-decadal ocean thingy. Certainly more Los Ninos would stuff us up no end.
P.S. But Brazil a loser somemore.
P.P.S. So those looking for simple monotonic progression in the climate change story should take note of the El Nino colour map. The world already doles out climate in unequal wetter/drier spells. Which is why of course you end up with those nasty model things.
The point I am trying to make is that CO2 IS going to increase, or at least industrial emission of CO2, whether we like it or not. That may have a range of effects, some may be bad, some may be good.
All I was trying to do was discuss some of the potentially good effects, but it’s been an uphill battle to get anyone to admit that there are any good effects, or if there are good effects, the discussion has been about how they are cancelled out by bad effects.
To quote you Phil – “What is interesting in all of this is the polarisation of the debate, and the pyschology of those involved.”
Amen.
Happy to contemplate any good effects – but it becomes difficult if water limited. I have tried to think about it constructively over the years.
OK let’s see.
Less frost may mean new crops in some areas. Longer growth season – say cotton crops in northern Victoria.
Of course fruit needing chilling effects – vernalisation – apples, pears, stone fruit, olives will go other way – less fruit set.
CO2 maybe be beneficial to plants if other agronomic factors (water) hold up. Of course it may favour trees and shrubs in rangelands not grass.
Warm weather may encourage tourists I guess.
Perhaps technology opportunities and more efficient pollution free transport to invent, sell and export.
You have to balance these things out versus worse extreme events – heat waves, storms, cyclones, droughts and overall water availability. Some western areas uninhabitable – retreat. More active and wide ranging pests and disease. And effects on natural systems such as listed by the Age newspaper articles.
And overall globally who wins and loses – refugess and aid, morality and mutual obligation.
Phil
1. On what is the prediction of more El Nino events based? This phenomena can be seen in the coral bleaching record back to at least the 1400s.
2.Also I can’t work out why evaporation will be higher – given it will be cloudier? My understanding is that the models say increased evaporation but actual measurements show decreased.
Jen – more El Ninos is a “moderate confidence” prediction – need to dust off some papers – will get back.
Evaporation – what governs evaporation – temperature, radiation and wind. Temperature will be up. Radiation may indeed be up if we get rid of global dimming factors – particulate pollution. Clouds may be a factor conceded.
So it depends how it works out in the overall balances does it not. Clouds and aerosols are active areas of current research to improve.
Of course with EL Nino evenst one tends to have cloud free conditions.
Interesting droughts in Australia have becoming hotter with the Bureau commenting the 2002-03 drought had a severity added by greenhouse warming.
http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/hennessy_2003b.pdf
So the increase in the evaporative flux made 2002 drought more severe than the severity of the Federation drought (of course it’s a severity x duration x area affected shoot-out for those wanting to compare such things).
In terms of confidence of “projections” – warming is high, higher intensity rainfall events and more intense cyclones is pretty confident. Rainfall/evaporation balance still needs to be nailed down much better- but as I understand it for Qld most models point to high evaporative demand.
If you were an amatuer punter (Caveat: I’m a mug punter) – I think the greater frequency of Los Ninos and changes in southern hemisphere circulation patterns (sub tropical ridge) are of some concern when you look at the last decade of water shortages and last 15 years of drought.
Jen – well you asked for it 🙂 – far from settled (but I think we need to know ..!!)
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/
The Australian region spans the tropics to mid-latitudes and has varied climates and ecosystems, including deserts, rangelands, rainforests, coral reefs and alpine areas. The climate is strongly influenced by the surrounding oceans. The ENSO phenomenon leads to alternations between floods and prolonged droughts, especially in eastern Australia. The region is therefore sensitive to the uncertain but possible change toward a more El Niño-like mean state suggested by the TAR.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5735/758
Permanent El Niño-Like Conditions During the Pliocene Warm Period
Michael W. Wara, Ana Christina Ravelo,* Margaret L. Delaney
During the warm early Pliocene (~”4.5 to 3.0 million years ago), the most recent interval with a climate warmer than today, the eastern Pacific thermocline was deep and the average west-to-east sea surface temperature difference across the equatorial Pacific was only 1.5 ± 0.9°C, much like it is during a modern El Niño event. Thus, the modern strong sea surface temperature gradient across the equatorial Pacific is not a stable and permanent feature. Sustained El Niño-like conditions, including relatively weak zonal atmospheric (Walker) circulation, could be a consequence of, and play an important role in determining, global warmth.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/361.htm
ENSO is associated with some of the most pronounced year-to-year variability in climate features in many parts of the world (Chapters 2 and 7). Since global climate models simulate some aspects of ENSO-like phenomena (Chapter 8), there have been a number of studies that have attempted to use climate models to assess the changes that might occur in ENSO in connection with future climate warming and in particular, those aspects of ENSO that may affect future climate extremes.
Firstly, will the long-term mean Pacific SSTs shift toward a more El Niño-like or La Niña-like regime? Since 1995, the analyses of several global climate models indicate that as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gases, the Pacific climate will tend to resemble a more El Niño-like state (Knutson and Manabe, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1995; Meehl and Washington, 1996; Timmermann et al., 1999; Boer et al., 2000b). However, the reasons for such a response are varied, and could depend on the model representation of cloud feedback (Senior, 1999; Meehl et al., 2000b); the quality of the unperturbed El Niño state in the models (Chapter 8) or the stronger evaporative damping of the warming in the warm pool region, relative to the eastern Pacific due to the non-linear Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between temperature and saturation mixing ratios (e.g., Knutson and Manabe, 1995). Additionally, a different coupled model (Noda et al., 1999b) shows a La Niña-like response and yet another model shows an initial La Niña-like pattern which becomes an El Niño-like pattern due to subducted warmed extra-tropical water that penetrates through the sub-tropics into the tropics (Cai and Whetton, 2000). A possible reason for the La Niña-like response has been suggested in a simple coupled model study where the dominant role of ocean dynamics in the heat balance over the tropical Pacific is seen for a specified uniform positive forcing across the Pacific basin (Cane et al., 1997).
Figure 9.26: Standard deviations of Niño-3 SST anomalies (Unit: °C) as a function of time during transient greenhouse warming simulations (black line) from 1860 to 2100 and for the same period of the control run (green line). Minimum and maximum standard deviations derived from the control run are denoted by the dashed green lines. A low-pass filter in the form of a sliding window of 10 years width was used to compute the standard deviations. (a) ECHAM4/OPYC model. Also shown is the time evolution of the standard deviation of the observed from 1860 to 1990 (red line). Both the simulated and observed SST anomalies exhibit trends towards stronger interannual variability, with pronounced inter-decadal variability superimposed, (reproduced from Timmermann et al., 1999), (b) HadCM3 (Collins, 2000b).
Secondly, will El Niño variability (the amplitude and/or the frequency of temperature swings in the equatorial Pacific) increase or decrease? Attempts to address this question using climate models have again shown conflicting results, varying from slight decreases or little change in amplitude (Tett 1995; Knutson et al., 1997; Noda et al., 1999b; Collins, 2000b; Washington et al., 2001; Figure 9.26b) to a small increase in amplitude (Timmermann et al., 1999; Collins, 2000a; Figure 9.26a), which has been attributed to an increase in the intensity of the thermocline in the tropical Pacific. Knutson et al. (1997) and Hu et al. (2001) find that the largest changes in the amplitude of ENSO occur on decadal time-scales with increased multi-decadal modulation of the ENSO amplitude. Several authors have also found changes in other statistics of variability related to ENSO. Timmermann et al. (1999) find that the interannual variability of their model becomes more skewed towards strong cold (La Niña type) events relative to the warmer mean climate. Collins (2000a) finds an increased frequency of ENSO events and a shift in the seasonal cycle, so that the maximum occurs between August and October rather than around January as in the unperturbed model and the observations. Some recent coupled models have achieved a stable climate without the use of flux adjustments and an important question to ask is what is the effect of flux adjustment on changes in variability. Collins (2000b) finds different responses in ENSO in two models, one of which has been run without the use of flux-adjustments. However, he concludes that differences in response are most likely to be due to differences in the response of the meridional temperature gradient in the two models arising from different cloud feedbacks (Williams et al., 2001) rather than due to the presence or absence of flux adjustment.
Finally, how will ENSO’s impact on weather in the Pacific Basin and other parts of the world change? Meehl et al. (1993) and Meehl and Washington (1996) indicate that future seasonal precipitation extremes associated with a given ENSO event are likely to be more intense due to the warmer, more El Niño-like, mean base state in a future climate. That is, for the tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, anomalously wet areas could become wetter and anomalously dry areas become drier during future ENSO events. Also, in association with changes in the extra-tropical base state in a future warmer climate, the teleconnections to mid-latitudes, particularly over North America, may shift somewhat with an associated shift of precipitation and drought conditions in future ENSO events (Meehl et al., 1993).
When assessing changes in ENSO, it must be recognised that an “El Niño-like” pattern can apparently occur at a variety of time-scales ranging from interannual to inter-decadal (Zhang et al., 1997), either without any change in forcing or as a response to external forcings such as increased CO2 (Meehl and Washington, 1996; Knutson and Manabe, 1998; Noda et al., 1999a,b; Boer et al., 2000b; Meehl et al., 2000b). Making conclusions about “changes” in future ENSO events will be complicated by these factors. Additionally, since substantial internally generated variability of ENSO statistics on multi-decadal to century time-scales occurs in long unforced climate model simulations (Knutson et al., 1997), the attribution of past and future changes in ENSO amplitude and frequency to external forcing may be quite difficult, perhaps requiring extensive use of ensemble climate experiments or long experiments with stabilised forcing (e.g., Knutson et al., 1997).
Although there are now better ENSO simulations in global coupled climate models (Chapter 8), further model improvements are needed to simulate a more realistic Pacific climatology and seasonal cycle as well as more realistic ENSO variability (e.g., Noda et al., 1999b). It is likely that such things as increased ocean resolution, atmospheric physics and possibly flux correction can have an important effect on the response of the ENSO in models. Improvements in these areas will be necessary to gain further confidence in climate model projections.
Jen – the reduced evaporation story of Roderick and Farquhar is due to particulate pollution making clouds more reflective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
is worth a read.
If we fix the pollution sources we have have greater radiation (well not greater solar output – just more radiation getting through to the surface) and more temperature increases which will send the evaporation upwards.
Paul – my comprehension is well up to it so why did you say what you said if you were not advocating and action? I have read your posts – perhaps you have not read mine. The point was when I read your post I immediately thought of my teenager and his behaviour.
Yes there will be winners and losers however nobody can accurately predict where the winners and losers will be. I would not be betting our lives on winning.
Ender – I was discussing, not advocating. There is a difference, you know.
The point is, if you misrepresent what someone has said, and then make a distasteful comment based on that misrepresentation, you should expect the recipient of that comment to question both your comprehension skills and your manners.
Paul – If your point was open to misrepresentation then perhaps you did not express it properly. In this case you cannot expect not to have the point disputed.
Ender – If you would be kind enough to point out where I have advocated that “we party on now and then when Australia is stuffed we can all move to Tasmania?” I would be happy to withdraw it, as I never remotely suggested or believe it. In fact I did not so advocate.
Any statement can be misrepresented, it is a function of the person doing the misrepresenting, not of the statement itself.
Perhaps you meant misinterpretation? An unclear statement may be open to misinterpretation, although I don’t believe my statements were so unclear.
Your continuing posts on this topic are supporting my implication that you lack basic English comprehension skills.
Paul – You said “Back onto winners and losers, what about Tasmania, could it be a winner? Lots of high ground, fertile soil, surrounded by water, currently cold. Could easily carry 20million people when the rest of Australia becomes uninhabitable. Something to think about! I believe land is currently quite reasonable, especially on the higher ground.”
If Australia becomes uninhabitable then the obvious conclusion here is that it has become unihabited due to our inability to reign in our greenhouse emissions. You then go on to suggest that if this happen we can move to Tasmania. I immediately thought from this that it does not matter what we do the the mainland because we can just move to a now warm Tassie.
Forgive me for this interpretation however it sprang immediately to mind as soon as I read it. To me this is an irresponsible attitude characteristic of my teenager.
In the interests of halting what could go on forever I apologise if that was not your meaning and retract it in this case.
Ender – I hope you can see that what you thought was not what I said. Certainly not what I was thinking, either.
Thank you for your apology, which I sincerely accept.
Pardon me if I havent read all of this rather long discussion, but I rather thought that GW would imply higher rainfall in Australia:-
-It was my impression that GW would mean higher rainfall globally, (though not necessarilly everywhere).
-During the Pliocene (something like 6 to 2 million years ago(MYA), temperatures were higher by something like 2-3C and I believe there is a general view that Australia’s climate was usually wetter. Global climate was wetter as well in the Pliocene. Since Pliocene temperatures are broadly similar to GW forecasts, and the continents were in allmost the same place, I would have thought Pliocene conditions were a better guide than complex predictive models where allmost all variables are subject to dispute.
Any thoughts on this?