It is official, last year was the hottest on record in Australia. The following graph from the Bureau of Meterology shows 2005 was exceptionally warm and more than a degree warmer than the 1961-1990 average which is the standard reference period for calculating temperature anomalies.
Many of Australia’s warmest years, including 1988, 1998 and 2002, had temperatures boosted by significant El Nino events. However, 2005 was not an El Nino year, making the high temperatures even more remarkable.
According to the Bureau:
1. Australian temperatures have increased by approximately 0.9C since 1910, consistent with global warming trends.
2. Both daytime and night-time temperatures were high in 2005. The annual mean maximum temperature was 1.21C above average (equal highest), while the mean minimum temperature was 0.97C above average (2nd highest).
3.Temperature anomalies varied throughout the year but autumn 2005 was particularly warm. April had the largest Australian mean monthly temperature anomaly ever recorded, with a monthly anomaly of +2.58C breaking the previous record of +2.32C set in June 1996.
The Bureau noted in its assessment that:
Australian mean temperatures are calculated from a country-wide network of about 100 high-quality, mostly rural, observing stations. The Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre and National Climate Centre have undertaken extensive quality checking to ensure that the temperature records from these sites have not been compromised by changes in site location, exposure or instrumentation over time.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hmmmm just read a paper by Hans von Storch http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/
Paper http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000343a_climate_of_staged_.html
Which expert do you believe?
How the article appeared in Der Spiegel
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html
Rog, are you suggesting that the article you linked to contradicts the figures presented by the Bureau?
rog – there is healthy debate on AGW in the scientific community. I have posted links to Jim Hansens work before as one. Hans Von Storch actually believes this:
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”
So as far as 2005 being the hottest and that surface temperatures are rising you can believe Von Storch.
The question of what will happen from this warming is much more uncertain however people betting on there being no effects are having the rug slowly pulled from under their feet by facts such as these.
More interesting quotes from your article Ender;
“Today, as in the past, the claim that anthropogenic climate change is associated with a serious impact on human society is still a hypothesis, often based on simplistic methodology.”
“Many scientists realize that our knowledge of the climate system will always suffer from significant uncertainty because of its open, complex and heterogeneous character and the long timescales involved. Thus, studies of climate change are bound to be characterized by high uncertainty and high stakes, with public, antagonistic debates not only between scientists but also activists and other non-specialists. However, age-old concerns about extremes of climate are part of the cultural background, for scientists as well as the public. This subjectively genuine concern, nourished by the mass media, underlies the activist scientists, who wield the same apocalyptic scenario of drought, delugial floods and devastating storms as their historical counterparts.”
Am I reading the same article as you?
rog – no I agree with you. It is not certain what the effects of AGW will be as nobody can predict this with any certainty. However there are some pretty good informed guesses and most are not good for humanity.
However in the context of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and human land use changes etc causing warming of the atmosphere there is general agreement that this is happening and is consistant with the physical measured facts.
Rog – what desperate wallowing – von Storch is irrelevant to this “hot off the press” Bureau analysis. The Bureau has made a very good analysis with very good data. I suggest it’s definitive. Are you suggesting they made it up – cherry picked the stations, biased the data – come on – these are very serious guys who argue with their peers every day on validity of scientific this and that. There is no good reason to take their analysis at anything other than face value.
So if you add this to the global measurements, satellite measurements, glacial melt, Artic melt, change in top storm speeds, ocean temperatures, sea level rise and changes in species flowering and behaviour – we certainly have a lot going on globally and locally. You can pick a few exceptions but the main direction is only one way.
And if the reason is not solar output, not orbital, not volcanic – what else is there as a mechanism?
So don’t worry about rhetorical speeches – let’s look at what real data we have and what it says !
What to do about it, whether to anything about it, and consequences of various actions can only etc are political questions.
More work is obviously required in terms of attribution and likely scenarios and this will come.
This isn’t a left/right/green thing – it’s just science.
Time to accept reality and move on .. ..
Read the article on being a real sceptic as opposed to a ragger.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=210#more-210
And a quote from the comments section of the above:
[Response: I’m a first-time participant as a lead author in the IPCC process. I’ve been to three author meetings so far, and I’ve found that there is a culture of very open and critical discussion of the science, with no top-down interference whatsoever. We write what we agree on after thorough discussion. I asked around the room amongst the authors of our chapter who has been a lead author before, and it turns out that it’s the first time for all of us. None of us feels any need to stick to some “party line” or defend what the IPCC (i.e. a different group of people) wrote in the last report. The idea promoted by some sceptics that the IPCC is some kind of closed-shop organisation is completely wrong. The IPCC is simply a process where a large bunch of scientists, chosen for their demonstrated expertise based on their publication record, get together to assess the published scientific literature as best as they can. (And that without pay in their free time, i.e. sacrificing a lot of nights and weekends.) -Stefan]
What is the situation globally? Was 2005 the warmest on record globally?
Oh, OK, von Storch is irrelevant.
Mind if I get an expert opinion?
Lets face it Phil, your link to Betrand Russell does require a mass of expert opinion.
For me to accept your view I must first be assured of your credentials.
What are your qualifications?
Storch is irrelevant to this discussion of the Bureau results not globally irrelevant..
Jen – I don’t think it was the warmest globally. But I understand there is some “tea-club” debate about it. Doesn’t really matter all that much – more bragging rights and teasing contrarians more than anything. It certainly was very close to the highest and given not an El Nino year it would be the warmest “Pacific anomaly adjusted” an issue the Bureau remarks on.
Realclimates take on 2005 is fairly sober:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=231
Says:
Due to a historical quirk (of unknown origin), the World Meterological Organisation releases its summary for each year based on the Dec to Nov ‘meteorlogical year’ means (rather than the more usual calendar year). Anyway, the WMO summary is now available, as is the NASA GISS analysis and the CRU summary. The point upon which all the analyses agree is that 2005 was exceptionally warm and that it continues the long term mean warming trend. All show record warmth in the Northern Hemisphere since 1860, while GISS gives 2005 as the warmest year globally as well (CRU/WMO have it second after 1998). As the summaries indicate, the differences in ranking are on the order of a few hundredths of a degree (smaller than the accuracy of the analysis) and so a definitive ranking is not possible. Differences in how the separate analyses deal with missing data are responsible for most of the apparent variations. Note too that the convention for the base periods for the anomalies differ between the analyses (1961-1990 for CRU/WMO, 1951-1980 for GISS), but this does not affect the rankings.
One the comments in the RC 2005 thread is very interesting and “a warning”.
Given what we have been hearing about global warming evidence over recent years, these results seem surprising. We regularly hear that climate change is now ‘happening more quickly than predicted’, that the dramatic impacts (more hurricanes, shrinking Arctic ice cap, more flooding events, etc)are all ocurring quicker and more often than expected – and yet the temperature is simply following the same steady trend as it has for 30 years. There is not even a hint of accelerating change (unless of course you choose to take the worst case result out of three – Nasa – which perhaps indicates a very slight hint).
[Response: The comment represents a fairly deep misunderstanding of what changes are actually predicted in response to anthropogenic forcing. Under most scenarios of late 20th century and future anthropogenic radiative forcing, a steady, rather than accelerating, rise in global and hemispheric mean temperature is predicted over timescales of decades. The observations seem to support that quite strongly over the past several decades. The models and observations both also indicate that the amplitude of interannual variability about these longer-term trends is quite large, making it foolhardy, at best, to try to estimate the slope of anthropogenic warming from a few years of data (as you seem to advocate). Lets try to keep the discussion here at a more serious level. -mike.]
Another unanswered question Phil, what are your credentials?
Otherwise its just another “tea-club” debate.
Ian Pilmer ends his article by saying;
“Only a strong economy can produce the well fed who have the luxury of espousing with religious fervour their uncosted, impractical, impoverishing policies. By such policies, Greenpeace continues to exacerbate grinding poverty in the Third World. The planet’s best friend is human resourcefulness with a supportive, strong economy and reduced release of toxins. The greenhouse gases – nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane – have been recycled for billions of years without the intervention of human politics.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17729019%255E7583,00.html
Are his qualifications insufficient?
Nope – pretty dumb comment. Delete religious fervour and Greenpeace. We haven’t cycled with 6 billion people and a modern economy before. And in some of that recycling things may not have been that pleasant. Amazingly silly argument. Leave the greens out – this is just a political red herring – if the whole issue is so dumb what’s the alternative Asia Pacific Pact about ?
And in the end the atmosphere doesn’t give stuff about our economy and what we’d like or not. It will just do what its physics determine.
And it really is utter bumkum to sugggest that Greenpeace has any significant impact on the 3rd world. Substantially how?
Reports from Europe suggest that GHG targets will not be met. Is this a case of “do as I say not as I do?”
http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677643
Forbes are not impressed by the lack of commitment by Kyoto proponents – “eyes wide shut”. Cutting emissions entails cutting growth and no country is willing to cut growth.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0109/032A.html
Well Plimer would be happy then – no harm done. No loss of growth. So what’s he on about if nothing has happened. All this bleating of ruination but no losses at all.
Well here we are with a bright new year under way and all the rubbishy logic in the world being propogated by people with nothing better to do. Of course Plimer is happy, because so far that idiotic solution to a poorly defined problem, namely the Kyoto protocol, has not had the chance to ruin some economies..yet. Seems eminently sensible to me.
In the meantime the intellectaul geniusses in the Labor Party are calling for special privileges for the Pacific Islanders to counter the supposed rise in sea levels, that has not happened, when the real problem has been created by sinking land mass and their own poor management, not AGW. Some things never change and climate variabilty is but one of them.
So the world’s scientific literature that brings all the other benefits of civilisation of technology is now “rubbishy logic”.
The Kyoto Protocol isn’t the problem – it’s climate change. And why worry if it hasn’t been broadly implemented – can’t of cost anything then. Despite all the right wing diatribe and disinformation – the international effort continues – and regardless of Greenpeace or anyone beating on drums at Montreal.
And nobody has said sea level rises would affecting them YET. But very fast cyclones Nancy and Zoe sure have.
As usual the idiotic right wing anti-intellectual campaign with more spin for sauce continues for 2006. Seems we also have too many cranky old geologists on day leave.
rog – actually Phil was pretty restrained in his summation of Ian Pilner article – I found it to be one of the biggest loads of BS that I have ever read. Even the right wingers on Tim Blairs blog would choke at that load.
As usual,diving off on any old tangents just to fill the air waves.
I didnt say that Kyoto was the problem at all.It would be obvious to anyone with Grade 1 Logic under their belt that the “idiotic solution” is the Kyoto Protocol, and the poorly defined problem is AGW.
Rubbishy logic still reigns
No – not at all – it’s the continual linkage of the two Kyoto and climate change by raggers such as yourself that’s the issue. Kyoto hasn’t worked – and the apocalyptic destruction of the world’s economy for even thinking the word hasn’t happened either. So this is just all right wing fog and b/s.
So I surmise that you guys would suggest that our hosting of the Asia Pacific Pact on alternative energy next week is a waste of time too – why bother if you’re all utterly utterly syre there’s no problem. So ring us John and tell him to send them home.
Strange that there’s so much silence on the issue. Jeez there could be a buck in it which would be great – but if I support it I might be seen as entertaining doubts on global warming. Hmmmm. OK I’ll just be very quiet and still and hope nobody notices.
She’ll be right mate ! Have a beer and watch the cricket.
Lets get back to the data set, shall we?
There has been extensive investigation of the impact of urbanisation on temperature records world wide but there are grounds for more detailed examination of the situation in Australia.
My understanding is that most climatic recording stations in Australia are now located at airports while in the past they were at the back of the post office. And in many small towns this was, and sometimes still is, either an open paddock or a park or river bank. This was the case right up to the 60’s and since the early 70’s a very large proportion of the regional airports have converted from grassed fields to tarmac. And this large area of highly reflective material has a very marked impact on recorded temperatures, especially diurnal maxima.
Even the major capital airports have undergone a significant expansion in paved area during this time. And in Brisbane, for example, recorded temperatures at the airport are often 2 degrees warmer than in the suburb of Wynnum which is located in equal proximity to the bay but on the south side of the river mouth.
If anyone knows of any research done in this area, especially comparative work in relation to vegetation types and landuse change, then this would be a good place to post the links.
The broader evidence of substantial regrowth of native vegetation and woody weeds over much of the landscape since the 1960’s would suggest that there has actually been an increase in shaded (cooler) areas outside of the urban footprint.
But given the vested political and career interests at play on this issue we aught not hold our breath for any meaningful research funding on this.
Ian – do you know who does this work. Vested interests my foot.
Queensland DPI pasture agronomists have noted temperature rises in various research station data for last two decades now.
And isn’t it strange that much of the warming is well away from urban areas anyway. Who cares about Brissy or Sydney airport – delete them.
You’ve got a broad sample on a standard measuring basis well away from major UHIs – you have spatial coherence in the pattern – not spotty stochasticity.
And then there’s the satellite warming, glacial melt, ocean warming, Artic melt, sea level rise, and species behaviour changes worldwide.
Yea I’m sure it’s all a big coordinated global conspiracy by the UN, every analysis is fudged, all is corrupt, and it’s all not really happening. In fact it’s actually cooling. Greenpeace and the left have infiltrated all science in this area. Thanks heavens the geologists will save us from this tyranny.
What desperate stuff you guys are into … really – come on. As you would say – wake up and lift your game. And get a hair cut too.
Even Macquarie island is warming – gee I bet it was the concrete slab for the observation hut.
And speaking of trees I think it’s there’s an interesting hypothesis that all that land clearing has actually reduced Queensland rainfall further. Farmers shooting themselves in the foot. But modelled studies – so not worth tabulating here.
Ian – “But given the vested political and career interests at play”
You really play this one to the max. Casting the scientists etc involved as a self serving conspiracy is really lame.
Peer reviewed studies of the UHI clearly show that the temperature record is not comtaminated with urban heat island signal.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a_fs.html
Ian,
any suggestion that the temperatures trends are related to urbanisation or tarmac at airports is easily dismissed by the observations that the rate of warming of the oceans around Australia is identical to that of the land – see http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=sst®ion=aus&season=0112 . You are certainly welcome to examine the basic station data yourself at ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/change/HQannualT/ if you remain unconvinced. Site photos and metadata are freely avaliable for all stations at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml . Also note that the urban heat island is predominently a night-time phenomenon, yet record high day time temperatures played the larger part in setting the 2005 mean temperature record.
These conclusions are supported by global analyses which show similar warming trends over land and ocean (see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-6.htm ), and the very close correspondence between the mid/upper air warming trend and the surface warming trend (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170).
There is no reasonable scientific basis for questioning the realism of the surface warming observed over the past approximately 100 years. One might reasonably debate the relative contributions of humans verus nature, but even here the scientific evidence is fast converging on a dominant human component.
Regards,
David
IPCC’s hypothesis of a people-driven climate has it that: AYE Mediaeval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age cold periods didn’t happen; BEE Unchanging climate is only now warming because of people burning fossil fuels; CEE Unless we decarbonise the world economy, continued warming is inevitable; DEE Humanity can regain the benign stability of pre-industrial Arcadia by ‘doing the right thing’ about carbon-based fuels. IPCC’s FIRST scientific failure is its atmospheric fixation. Look at the Met Bureau graph. The step-change in climatic regime in the late 1970s coincides with a reversal in the trend of rate of change of length of day. This remarkable step was an inertial, not atmopheric, event. IPPC’s SECOND failure is much more fundamental. It assumes an autonomous Earth, and hence autonomous climate. But solar-planetary electromagnetic and inertial influences are the main driver of our ever-changing climate – at most, or perhaps even all, human-relevant time scales. IPCC’s THIRD failure is not scientific. But, the thinking behind its economic-growth and energy-use projections is just as self-servingly selective, and as mistaken, as that behind its science.
I dont know Ender, I thought Pilmers expert opinion credible and if you applied Bertrand Russell’s classification you would be wise to suspend judgement. Phil Done, as a non-expert, should also practice what he preaches;
(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;
(2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and
(3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
With regards to weather stations, the BOM have eliminated all manual stations, they are now automatic and are subject to system failure.
You have to wonder what degree of error the BOM AWS weather measurements contain;
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
QUALITY
Percentage of scheduled observations from the regular surface, upper air and space-based networks received on time and within prescribed limits = 80-98%
Duration of significant outages of major items of field equipment = 7days (Av.)
User satisfaction with the functional capacity and availability of mission critical communication system components = 90%
User satisfaction with the functional capacity and availability of mission critical computing system components = 78%
Data quality
Data quality procedures within the observations program were increasingly automated, in line with the increasing proportion of data collected in digital format. The condition of instrumentation, however, and the competence of observers continued to be critical to ensuring data quality overall. Substantial resources are dedicated to inspection visits by specialised Regional staff to stations and facilities, and to regular training and refresher programs, in order to maintain the necessary observing standards. The performance and calibration standards of instruments, maintained by the Bureau’s Physics Laboratory, also play a critical role in ensuring the quality of the data is maintained.
As a baseline, the Bureau seeks to benchmark its observation performance against the criteria set by the WMO concerning the appropriate standards and methods of obtaining meteorological observations. Unfortunately, the large uninhabited area within the Australian observing region, including the surrounding oceans, prevents the Bureau from achieving the network density specified by the WMO. However, the standards for quality and frequency of data can be achieved. In recent years, the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) has been defined at a density and frequency sufficient to enable climate variability and climate change to be detected and monitored. The observing requirements of the Australian component of GCOS are also taken into account when establishing performance targets for the Bureau’s Observational Data Output.
This year saw a general increase in the percentage of scheduled observations performed on time and within prescribed accuracy limits within the surface, upper air and space-based networks. Performance targets of 85-95% of scheduled observations were met or exceeded for the upper air wind measuring network (88%), for the surface synoptic network (88%) and for the spaced-based network (98%). Though marked improvement in the quality of the upper air temperature and humidity (radiosonde) observations was evident again this year, they remained below target at 80% of scheduled observations due, inter alia, to difficulties experienced in staffing remote observing stations. An example of the trends in the scheduled observations performed for 12UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time) at Bureau-staffed surface and upper air stations, relative to the performance level in 1987, is given in Figure 16. The figure is indicative of the historical trend for thisparticular subset of stations and times.
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/reports/html/dataandproducts.shtml
Pilmer’s no climate expert – just some geologist and because he might have been a sceptic with creationists – well whoopy-do – his piece is purely rhetorical and even sophistic. This is a political opinion not that of a scientist. So we’re now choosing a non-operational climate scientist over the Bureau’s National Climate Centre. I’m not saying that he does not have credentials as a scientist but it’s desperate stuff to wheel him out as an expert.
The issue with RC secptic post is quite simple – there is a point of stupidity and stubbornness in an argument. And we’re thresholding on it here. In their conclusion they say “Much of what passes for ‘debate’ on climate change in the popular media, is often framed as the ‘scientific consensus’ vs. the ‘sceptics’. A close examination of these arguments (for instance, as outlined in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial) doesn’t reveal much that could be described as true scepticism since they often use the fallacious reasoning that we discuss above” Add the Plimer article to that.
Rog – email the national climate centre and ask them if their analysis is fair dinkum. And gee Rog all that stuff you’re Googling is written by the Bureau themselves – I wonder if they know about it. Are you prepared to write the email – I’m sure they’ll treat it seriously. Coz frankly you’re talking through your hat. HAve you ever personally analysed any met data ?
You guys are now at the “la la lalah la – I can’t hear you phase”.
It’s fascinating that absolutely everything to do with AGW is wrong. Every paper. Every shred. So your positions are hysterically political – no balance, concession nor science arguments. It’s just ragging straight from right wing religious texts. It’s on your right wingers check-list so suspend rational thought and sensible analysis.
Frankly I think thre is adundant and diverse evidence of a global warming. Make an argument about an alternative mechanism for that warming for heavens sake – at least it would be in the realms of sensibility.
rog – “that when the experts are agreed” note the expertSSSSSSSSSSS not singular expert. Pilger is not a climate scientist and is therefore unlikely to be authority on the subject – much like Louis.
“An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. ”
Maybe but you two clowns are qualify as non-experts.
Thats by your own criteria not mine.
“la la la lah lah” Rog can’t hear us .. .. his banjo record is on too loud .. we can’t get through.
cut the drivel and email the Bureau with your concerns. Tell us what they say.
Let’s review your position:
You doubt the National Climate Centre’s recent analysis of temperature trends since 1910 is correct and that there is a warming.
You also doubt the ocean temperature and satellite data which corroborates these trends.
.. cripes !! ..
You need to read the text more properly.
The statement by the BOM is that they ” have undertaken extensive quality checking to ensure that the temperature records from these sites have not been compromised by changes in site location, exposure or instrumentation over time.”
They then talk about marked improvements in data measurement and receival this year.
Improved from last year?
I dont doubt what they say.
We’re actually talking about these stations folks.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
And you can even get little piccies of the stations by clicking on the stations. How neat is that.
As I wander this great brown (sometimes green) land I like to kneel down at each hallowed spot and say a little prayer to the climate Gods.
It’s interesting to think that the Bureau staff who could be earning more money doing accounting, medicine, investing in THE MARKET, or running nurseries would bother with such difficulties. They must be enthusiastic about their measurements or maybe they’re part of a global conspiracy to make up numbers about AGW.
Trust noone !
What a load of twaddle! From a non-expert!
For the record, the person whose name you have defamed is the Professor of Geology at The University of Melbourne. He was formerly Professor at the Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich and at the University of Newcastle. He won the Leopold von Buch Medal for Science and has thrice won the Eureka Prize, the latest of which was for his book A Short History of Planet Earth. Professor Plimer has published over 120 scientific papers and books and 6 books for the lay person on topics raging from religious fundamentalism to mining history. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, a Fellow of the Geological Society of London, member of numerous professional organisations and serves on many national and international scientific commissions. He is currently edits the Academic Press Encyclopaedia of Geology, is filming a BBC natural science program and continues his weekly ABC regional radio broadcasts. He is a director of a UK and Australian listed public companies.
May I ask a dumb question in the debate, has sea water level moved significantly.
I know the doom and gloom hollywood stupid stuff but has the waterline moved.
Because it seems to me flood and not hot or cold would have to move, hot 1 or 2 degrees or cold 1 or two degrees most people can adjust but water at your ankles thats a bit different especially the salty stuff.
This is the hottest year so what about sea level ?
Yep and doesn’t mean he’s a climate change expert necessarily ! I said “I’m not saying that he does not have credentials as a scientist ”
And a distinguished geologist. Does he do brain surgery and quantum mechanics too ?
This is really tedious – we can retort by listing the substantial careers of meterologists in the IPCC – how silly is that !?
Defamed – Rog you are the master of venom ! (ROTFL)- half your comments are decidely nasty and abusive about anyone with green tinges. It’s not about ideas with you – it’s about people. People you despise who have done nothing to you.
Jack – complex area
If you are amenable to Wiki as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
“Tide gauges and satellite altimetry suggest an increase in sea level of 1.5-3 mm/yr over the past 100 years. The IPCC predicts that by 2100, global warming will lead to a sea level rise of 110 to 880 mm. Rejecting some IPCC assumptions, Mörner (2004) has argued that sea level rise will not exceed 200 mm, within a range of either +100±100 mm or +50±150 mm depending on assumptions.”
On the temperature issue it’s not so much the average temperature change but moreover the changes in extremes.
rog – read further on the fallacy I mentioned
“Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person’s reliability in the area.
Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person’s formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.
Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person’s expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.
It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics. ”
Jack – the sea level has risen a bit due to thermal expansion however it is only of the order of millimeters.
The only real worry is if the Greenland ice sheet melts as it is on land and could raise sea levels by 7 meters. There is no evidence that this is happening at the moment. There is some lessening of the glacers in this region however.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earthpr1.htm
Ender I refer to Phil Dones recommended definition of a skeptic as outlined by Bertrand Russell.
Phil Done avoids complying with #2 by saying that those who disagree with his experts are not expert.
My contention is that as he is clearly a non expert he should refrain from passing judgement.
The entire point of the RC post is that at some point scepticism becomes not listening, unproductive and simply silly. Stubborn, obstinate and arguing for argument’s sake.
On what reasonable basis do we think that the Bureau have not done their best with their 2005 analysis. It’s their network they have established for monitoring terrestrial climate long term. And as David above (way above) pointed out the terrestrial measurements are line with ocean measurements. Unless anyone is prepared to take the data and do an alternative analysis I am inclined to accept their findings at face value. Australia has warmed since 1910 with increased warming in the recent 10 or so years.
Argue about attribution if you like, or whether Kyoto will send us all to hell, or that the IPCC are all crooks – but we’re simply talking here about the Australia temperature trend data as undertaken by the National Climate Centre.
Rog – do we reasonably accept their findings or not ?
There is no disputing the BOM statement; “Australia has officially recorded its warmest year on record”.
You also have to accept their advice that they are working on improving their recording methods and the quality and accuracy of those records; “This year saw a general increase in the percentage of scheduled observations performed on time and within prescribed accuracy limits”
It would be entirely reasonable to form the view that past records are not as accurate as present. It is not reasonable to say that the data is definitive and absolute, the BOM say that the data is indicative.
Aaaaahhhh – breathe out – exhale slowly.
And all returned to normal, and there was tranquility in the valley. The various animals went about their daily lives again.
I would have liked to respond to Phil & Ender but I couldn’t see the forest for all the straw men. But the suggestion that a combination of funding imperatives and political direction is incapable of producing the odd Nelsonian blind spot really takes the cake. Which planet have you guys been on?
Ian – perhaps simply this – if you know any of the people involved in producing these reports in the Bureau and CSIRO – and ask yourself whether you think they’re anything other than professional – I think you would have to say that they’re very professional. I’m not vouching for management, dept heads and Ministers’ offices – but don’t read too much into the exclusion list – just who you know. The actual operational scientists are very studious and non-political. Usually worried about getting something wrong in front of their peers or getting that next paper out. You won’t see them doing a Plimer, nor a Lowe or Flannery in the national press. They’re the ones choking in ties at conferences and who hate PR photos. These are serious back-room boys. The boffins in UK WW II speak.
But where it gets interesting is how all this ends up in the policy organisations of the nation.
Indeed most in the climate community are feeling the budget cuts and glare of disapproval for working on such things.
There’s a move to “spin” greenhouse by looking at the “positive” CO2 fertilisation outcomes from crops. A laudable aim perhaps but we have more pressing issues like the hydrological cycle impacts to work on. And the Feds have their icons which must be worked on regardless of other inputs.
So when you talk about political influences – I have a different view – our leaders aren’t taking this stuff seriously despite growing evidence and want to bury it five miles deep. It’s probably bad for business and getting re-elected. All the public disinformation under the ruse of scepticism, fuelled by the media’s love of controversy and adversarial reporting, is helping them make the wrong decisions, and keeping the public well fogged. Essentially the contrarians are winning – you have slowed the debate right down and mired it thoroughly with some clever political action.
What those decisions might be a local context of an energy dependent economy that exports lots of coal and a global economy on the same track is obviously very very difficult.
This is a grand challenge problem.
But golly gee – if we can’t even agree that the 2005 temperature trend analysis confirms Australia is warming and we want to nitpick every bit of that – people don’t know what goes on with historical records – BoM staff have to go into the archives with white gloves to patiently transcribe the pre 1957 records which are all on ageing paper. Mind numbing tedious work. We don’t even have the funding to transcribe the entire historical paper records in total. They sit at risk to degradation in the bloody archives for heavens sake.
Not all stations have been formal Bureau stations. The diligence and patience of hundreds of volunteer observors, many on rural properties, how have dutifully recorded (with few gaps) temperature and rainfall and other measurements at 9am every morning (and some also at 3pm) is utterly marvellous legacy of public research. For no economic reward at all. People who lose sleep if they missed a single reading or thought they had misread an instrument.
If I was PM I would want to know what our risks are. I would look out the window at drought, bushfires, river system with inadequate water, and capital cities worried about supply. Given the place is affected so much by climate variation already – I would want our scientists to be up with the absolute latest on this – I would want the absolute best advice on science and international scenarios. Perhaps he’s getting it already – but doesn’t feel that way. Looks like the messenger is being shot and laughed at to me.
rog – I am not an expert either and make no illusions that I am. I refer to what I believe are experts. Ian Pilner though extremely well qualified is not necessarily an expert on climatology. The point that the fallacy reference makes is that even though a person may have 7 degrees in quantum physics if he/she is talking about biology then he/she is not a demonstrated expert in that field and therefore an appeal to this authority would be a fallacy.
I had a quick look at the CSIRO site, they appear to be fairly sanguine about the whole affair, the defer to the IPCC frequently;
Temperature
CSIRO projects an annual average warming of 0.4 to 2°C over most of Australia by 2030 (relative to 1990), with slightly less warming in coastal areas and Tasmania, and slightly more warming in north- western Australia.
Rainfall
Australian regional rainfall could increase or decrease in future.
Sea level rise
Associated with global warming will be a rise in sea level. The IPCC estimates a rise in sea level of between 0.09 and 0.88 m by 2100 relative to 1990, or 0.8 to 8.0 mm per year.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/CoastalBroch2002.pdf
But that is the problem Ender, science has no need for “appeal to authority”, or fallacies, or projections, it is either right or wrong.
And if I were the PM I would be wanting to see a full and balanced Cost/Benefit cum Risk/Reward study done to ensure that the positives as well as the negatives, of the impact of AGW was properly put together, with the cost of any remediation etc etc. and the likelihood/probability of whatever happening.
This is similar to the House of Lords Report done last year, which has lead to the Stern Review in the UK.
There is still a lot to be settled regarding probabilities,impacts and timings.But the doom and gloom merchants dont even want this to happen because it weakens their case to even contemplate the fact that there may be some positives.
In my view the Clean Development proposal being put together by Australia/USA et al is a very sensible approach and has a lot more going for it than the idiotic Kyoto prescriptive scheme. which few are able to meet..ironically and particularly the Europeans.
One would hope that it is being done by people who have the skill and education levels, that enabled them to get peoples names right. It is Plimer. Not Pilner, Pilger, nor Pilmer.
By the way Phil, if you are truly worried about the future of society and want something else to do, there are some disturbing but informative reads in the market. Try “Mathew Flinders Cat” by Bryce Courtenay, or for something really different but very topical, and quite worrysome try Robert Spencer’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam”.
It should put life, and bloody AGW in a better perspective.
The tone is interesting isn’t .. ..
“gloom and doom merchants”; “idiotic” and “bloody AGW”
Here we have religious level denialism. Typical of the unwillingness of European attitudes to their own current climatic environments and ongoing trends.
And we are in an environmental thread talking about climate trends – I don’t tend to burst into Bingo meetings “shouting repent !”. If you don’t like the topic don’t respond or keep reading and slumber on – but you are interested – you hate it !
We have enough in this country already with climate issues for concern – ongoing drought, millions in drought aid, stretched river systems and capital cities all with water issues. The issue of climate variability blurring and morphing into climate change and is already upon us. Today’s paper says our average food bill has risen signficantly due to ongoing drought and heatwaves.
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17750276%255E952,00.html
And if you’re worried about our collective ability to spell Plimer or our typos fix your own.
It’s “Matthew Flinders’ Cat”
In any case I apologise for my own typos in spelling the name of the learned gentleman – I can say his name correctly.
BTW – I’m reading Richard Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale”. Puts all of history into some perspective.
Denialism is unscientific, science should seek and foster alternative viewpoints; as Hansen recently noted;
“….Philosophy. Richard Feynmann liked to remind us how science works. We must continually question our conclusions, presenting all sides of an argument equally, and changing our conclusions when the evidence warrants it.
I have been told that my discussion (Hansen, 2004) is too critical of IPCC. This, I believe, is a misreading of the spirit of my discussion. I aim to be no more or less critical of IPCC than of my own papers.
However, I disagree with the implication of Allen et al. (2001) that conclusions about climate change should wait until IPCC goes through a ponderous process, and that verdicts reached by IPCC are near gospel. IPCC conclusions, even after their extensive review and publication, must be subjected to the same scientific process as all others……”
Yep – fair enough. As long the criticism stacks up. That’s how science works. But sometimes it isn’t review – it’s just sophistry and stubborn silliness.
You can usually tell by the tone. Anything that’s too emotional isn’t review. Getting too far off topic isn’t review. In this thread we have seen people divert off the 2005 BoM report to the “IPCC is a bunch of crap” argument”. IRRELEVANT !!
The report has nothing to do with the IPCC.
Widening the argument can be considered either a tactic to “win” or perhaps just the flow of interesting discourse.
The IPCC themsleves are critical of the state of the knowledge – we don’t know enough about interaction with El Nino for example; biosphere feedbacks need to done better etc. But the IPCC are politicised as being gospel – says who – mainly the contrarians.
Have a look at a cross-section of the RC posts – most actually acknowledge outher points of view, uncertainty, what needs to be done better etc.
In contrast the contrarian sites IMHO categorically and emotionally state that WHATEVER MUST BE WRONG. All sorts of red herrings and other slander are added in for good measure. If you do not believe this you will go to hell. Or you will stuff the economy – you’re a commie etc. All this doesn’t follow and is illogical.
Now what the green groups and politicians and the press also do with the information is another matter.
Fascinating too is how we argue like hell about the last century of met station recordings yet gleefully accept stories from 100,000s of years ago from something called isotopes (which you can’t see and have be measured by some fiendish device we don’t understand called a mass spec) from teensy weensy little bubbles in ice buried at the bottom of the world (or top). Contrarian sites have no critique on methodology here – why coz it really helps to wheel out that “the Earth’s climate has changed before” sideline argument.
* The report has nothing to do with the IPCC.*
Who said that it did? – find the reference and quote it.
Whilst I have your attention, you did just say *You can usually tell by the tone. Anything that’s too emotional isn’t review*
In light of your advice how would you review your own comments eg
“what desperate wallowing”
“I don’t think it was the warmest globally. But I understand there is some “tea-club” debate about it.”
“pretty dumb comment”
“it really is utter bumkum”
“the idiotic right wing anti-intellectual campaign with more spin for sauce continues for 2006”
“his is just all right wing fog and b/s”
“you are the master of venom”
“wake up and lift your game. And get a hair cut too”
“cut the drivel”
“half your comments are decidely nasty and abusive about anyone with green tinges”
Hardly worthy of a scientific argument, eh?
Hardly fit for review.
Provoked by you dearheart
Rog – as I said – this is typical cherrypicking by yourself guys – have a good look at who said what first – you yourself – hit me with a piece of 4 x 2, implications of pension day,.. ..
There’s fair list of put downs by many on this blog. You guys just hate getting a bit of right wing bumping back – you think you can spray venom at lefts and greens with impunity.
Put in in context of the leadup discussion with what was said!
Would you like me to do you a return list ??
BTW – not much here would get into a scientific paper or review. This is a “blog discussion” where we may quote opinion, personal knowledge, experience, selected urls, journal references and reports somtimes with a bit of jocular invective. It is not Letters to Nature.
There is a fair bit of side discussion on this thread about the IPCC – it is not relevant to the BoM report.
Meanwhile back at the thread we might have something useful to say .. ..
Noting the graph which Jen posted above, I have but one comment – It has all the appearances of two data sets being grafted together to produce a specious effect.
1980 is the hinge point, if any wish to genuflect.
Yes Louis I agree – that’s right. How did we all miss it. They actually have made it up. I’m shocked.
Shocked is the usual excuse I found by the partially excited.
rog – “science has no need for “appeal to authority”, or fallacies, or projections, it is either right or wrong.”
No science does not but you do. Quoting Pilner as a climate science authority is a fallacy.
Done and Ender might now summarise their argument here?
Please?
Trouble with your asnalysis Ender, just is who is qualified to study the records of ancient weather systems?
Why a geologist of course.
doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.07.012
Trouble with Enders fallacious “appeal to fallacy” argument is that it basically cuts out much of the IPCC and Oreske.
Consensus is not a scientifically definitive term and therefore the above are not using scientific terminology.
Busted link, try
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.07.012
Using available records John Christy challenges the hypothesis that warming is both global and caused by CO2.
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/science/article_2122969.shtml
Is warming! Isn’t ! Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t.
Is ! Isn’t ! Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t. Is. Isn’t.
Drat. You guys win. Not only have we lost this debate but you wouldn’t let me join your extreme right wingers club, so I could get out more and have more fun. I was looking forward to hanging around with you guys so much.
To make matters worse, they wouldn’t let me have a gun – something about being on ASIO watch list; and I’ve shaved my head for nothing. And now they won’t let me back in the collective planning meetings either and say I have to march up the back on demos.
You’re all horrid.
Phil, if you’re looking for sites that question some of the AGW orthodoxy without the insults, try the Lavoisier Group, climateaudit, or Warwick Hughes. Bob Fosters papers are well worth a read for a critique of some of the IPCC predictions, and of course Fred Singers site, as well as CO2 science.
If you prefer the insults, try commenting on Tim Blair’s site.
Sorry “they” won’t let you have a gun, but I’m sure “they” know best!
Antarctic leader Prof Chris Rapley argues that population growth is the “Cinderella” issue of the environmental movement.
Rapley wrote to Acton research fellow Jay Richards saying “Still, adding over seventy million new humans to the planet each year, the future looks pretty bleak to me. Surely, the Black Death was one of the best things that ever happened to Europe: elevating the worth of human labor, reducing environmental degradation, and, rather promptly, producing the Renaissance. From where I sit, Planet Earth could use another major human pandemic, and pronto!”
http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?/archives/675-The-Population-Bomb-Myth-Explodes.html
Any volunteers?
Right now where were we:
Rog – on Christy … couldn’t be better timed – RC has an excellent post on the topic of Arctic Amplification (brand new posting).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234#more-234
And on the solar one – well geologists might need some stats courses – take Louis for example – still working out 1961-1990.
on the Solar paper (glad to see you’re at least getting into some hard stuff).
We’ve discussed solar before:
try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=4
3rd August and 15 July.
In summary: Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
Also on that page the answer to the warming on Mars issue.
Had this dreadul dream last night where Rog was chasing me with a piece of 4×2 shouting “Repent – the end is NOT nigh – you must learn to cope!”.
P.S. Yes Paul – have read the listed contrarian sites and others. Sigh – many arguments don’t stack up. So still unrepentant !! They use rude words on Tim’s site.
P.P.S. I don’t know why Rog doesn’t check if RC have nailed it first !
“have read the listed contrarian sites and others. Sigh – many arguments don’t stack up.” But at least they’re polite. Personally I find realclimate a bit snide.
Of course if you don’t repent, we won’t let you into the igloo when the ice age comes! (And we’ve got the guns!)
rog – “Trouble with your asnalysis Ender, just is who is qualified to study the records of ancient weather systems?
Why a geologist of course.”
“One who studies the constitution, structure, and history of the earth’s crust, conducting research into the formation and dissolution of rock layers, analyzing fossil and mineral content of layers, and endeavoring to fix historical sequence of development by relating characteristics to known geological influences (historical geology).
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/Coal%20Primer/glossary.html”
No a geologist studies rocks and their formation. A paleo-climatologist studies the ancient climate from a variety of sources.
A paleoclimatoligist uses fossiles, rock layers, air trapped in polar ice caps, etc to gain an insight on the weather eons ago.
By definition it must include geology
And isn’t it interesting that all this paleo stuff gets so little criticism in general. Ice cores and isotope levels in teensy bubbles all accepted no problems ? Why aren’t we more paleo-sceptical? But we’ll argue like hell about the 20th century record from a well served Australian network. hmmm .. .
BTW – The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.
I’d be amazed if we could have a weather summary for 105,421 years ago on March 21. But anyway nit-picking.
If you want to critice the paleoclimatologist, geophycisist and geologists’ findings Phil first you need to prove your credentials.
But you see Rog, I’m not being critical. I’m saying why are you contrarians so selective in your criticism, accepting vast reams of paleo information in your stride, yet attacking the daylights out of any science that gets close to 20th and 21st century climate change. Just musing for you. I think I know the answer.
Just exploring the consistency of your intellectual position.
And what are your own credentials to make criticism Rog ? Do tell?
Anyway why are we still jousting – Rog you have accepted BoM’s analysis on face value. So now that we agree Australia is terrestrially warming – why ? is the next question.
rog – “A paleoclimatoligist uses fossiles, rock layers, air trapped in polar ice caps, etc to gain an insight on the weather eons ago.
By definition it must include geology”
Yes but the discipline is entirely different. What you saying is the same as implying that an atmospheric physicist is an authority on cosmology they both use mathematics. Yes a paleoclimatologist would use the mechanics of geology to obtain his/her data however this is not the focus of the research and if asked a question or quoted on the subject of geology would not be an authority.
*So now that we agree Australia is terrestrially warming* – wrong again, we agree there are official records that indicate….
….official records that we admit to containing a degree of error.
sigh .. .. so we agree on nothing then. That’s OK – but silly IMHO non-expert opinion. There’s fairly large sample of stations and there seems to be some spatial coherence in the pattern.
I would have honestly thought a more rational view would be that there is a wide range of evidence that the Earth is in general globally warming. Australia is too.
You could then provide alternative reasons why this is so. Or argue that the cost of adapting is cheaper than mitigating.
But no go on the warming eh – bloody nora !
“I’d be amazed if we could have a weather summary for 105,421 years ago on March 21. But anyway nit-picking”
Picking a few Nits, climate is defined as weather over a 30 year period.
Weeelll – that’s “a” definition that some use. Climate is the weather you ought be getting.
Quoting Ender above:
“Yes but the discipline is entirely different. What you saying is the same as implying that an atmospheric physicist is an authority on cosmology they both use mathematics. Yes a paleoclimatologist would use the mechanics of geology to obtain his/her data however this is not the focus of the research and if asked a question or quoted on the subject of geology would not be an authority”.
Huh ?
If 2005 was a degree warmer than the 1961-1990 average then we have already experienced the likely consequences of global warming, haven’t we? Isn’t the IPCC estimate that average temps will increase by one degree?
I was there all through the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and frankly, the difference meant absolute jack shit to me. I just wanted good surf, cold beer and get laid. And the reasons I am currently in deficit in all these elements has nothing to do with average temperatures.