I’ve received a few bits and pieces on global warming from readers of this blog:
Cathy sent me a link to an article explaining that the European Commission is set to roll out the first phase of a major pan-European marketing campaign to raise awareness of climate change:
http://www.revolutionmagazine.com/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=ViewNewsArticle&newsID=595977
Luke recommends http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm for everyone still wondering about the connection between ozone and global warming following the note from Helen Mahr, in particular:
“Ozone’s impact on climate consists primarily of changes in temperature. The more ozone in a given parcel of air, the more heat it retains. Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun’s ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere (troposphere). Consequently, decreased ozone in the stratosphere results in lower temperatures. Observations show that over recent decades, the mid to upper stratosphere (from 30 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface) has cooled by 1° to 6° C (2° to 11° F). This stratospheric cooling has taken place at the same time that greenhouse gas amounts in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) have risen.”
Warwick Hughes wrote: I have been very impressed with the breaking work of E-G Beck drawing attention to many published refs to high CO2 levels since 1820 and notably in WWII years. I have a Blog post on that at:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=64#more-64
There is a 10 page summary pdf file there. It will be fascinating to see if further support can be found for Beck’s conclusions. Beck’s detailing of the depth and quality of work which found these early high CO2 numbers supports the conclusions of Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski in his ice core research where he draws attention to the suppression of inconvenient high readings to fit the IPCC line.
George McCallum has sent me a beautiful picture of sunset over mountains and glacier in Isfjorden, Spitzbergen, with the note that Spitsbergen or Svalbard as it is also known, recorded one of the warmest summers on record this year. Isfjorden is just 900km from the North pole.
For beautiful pictures visit www.whalephoto.com
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Anyone watching ABC TV News tonight would have seen the latest on CO2 records from Cape Grim.
The EU campaign is nothing more than brainwashing.
Svalbard is being given a lot of attention as evidence of ‘global warming’ despite the unusual glacier dynamics there, and the relationship to climate change being poorly understood. Many if the glaciers are of the ‘surge type.’
As for one of the ‘warmest summers on record:’
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006494.shtml
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D07110, doi:10.1029/2005JD006494, 2006
Svalbard summer melting, continentality, and sea ice extent from the Lomonosovfonna ice core
Aslak Grinsted
Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland Department of Geophysics, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
John C. Moore
Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland
Veijo Pohjola
Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Tõnu Martma
Institute of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Elisabeth Isaksson
Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
We develop a continentality proxy (1600–1930) based on amplitudes of the annual signal in oxygen isotopes in an ice core. We show via modeling that by using 5 and 15 year average amplitudes the effects of diffusion and varying layer thickness can be minimized, such that amplitudes then reflect real seasonal changes in δ18O under the influence of melt. A model of chemical fractionation in ice based on differing elution rates for pairs of ions is developed as a proxy for summer melt (1130–1990). The best pairs are sodium with magnesium and potassium with chloride. The continentality and melt proxies are validated against twentieth-century instrumental records and longer historical climate proxies. In addition to summer temperature, the melt proxy also appears to reflect sea ice extent, likely as a result of sodium chloride fractionation in the oceanic sea ice margin source area that is dependent on winter temperatures. We show that the climate history they depict is consistent with what we see from isotopic paleothermometry. Continentality was greatest during the Little Ice Age but decreased around 1870, 20–30 years before the rise in temperatures indicated by the δ18O profile. The degree of summer melt was significantly larger during the period 1130–1300 than in the 1990s.
Received 13 July 2005; accepted 18 January 2006; published 14 April 2006.
Keywords: melting ; continentality ; sea ice extent .
Index Terms: 0724 Cryosphere: Ice cores (4932); 0740 Cryosphere: Snowmelt; 0750 Cryosphere: Sea ice (4540); 1863 Hydrology: Snow and ice (0736, 0738, 0776, 1827); 9315 Geographic Location: Arctic region (0718, 4207).
Thats good Paul. Silly me was beginning to worry but it is good that you know that it is all going to be all right and my washing is safe!
Canberra Times “Headline Horror outlook for fire season”.
So I spent the day clearing half dead tree tops from power lines for nothing Paul Biggs? Tomorrow I will take a load of dry twigs to a recycle dump for nothing too hey? The whole of SE Australia is tinder dry so don’t dare tell me nothings wrong Paul, Grandma or any one else on here for that matter.
Academics playing around figures we don’t need either. 85% of Australians reckon it’s more important than Iraq now and we have hardly started.
CT “The Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre says there is a 75 per cent chance that maximum temperatures will be higher than normal in the ACT between now and December.
At the same time, there is only a 45 per cent chance the ACT will receive more than its usual rainfall over the three months.
The likelihood of an El Nino event developing before the end of the year, bringing with it drier conditions, had also “risen strongly in the past month”.
September rainfall and temperature data has indicated the ACT is rapidly drying out”.
Grandpa and Grandma,
Given your both old — I thought you might have been able to remember back to previous droughts?
Paul Biggs:”The degree of summer melt was significantly larger during the period 1130-1300 than in the 1990s.
Who is really interested in the ice melt in the 90,s?
What’s intersting and important is that we have an ongoing trend with increasing temperatures and that we know the temperatures will rise with about 3-5 degrees the coming next 100 years and that the Arctic is most affected.
I have been accused for “elitism” here on this blog, but I trust the Ivy League guys , such as Professor Holdren of Harvard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5303574.stm
Jen, can you get access to the Barrier Reef cores information.
From memory, they showed, as recently as the 1600s, periods as dry as our present spell.
The real worry was that some of these dry spells were indicated to have lasted for over 25 years.
I remember thinking, at the time, that Queensland, as we know it, could not survive such a dry.
I had access to them through a Sydney Museum marine researcher, although I can not remember if it was their work.
Jen says:
“Grandpa and Grandma, Given your both old — I thought you might have been able to remember back to previous droughts?”
The Wimmera in Victoria has been in drought for 10 years. The lakes of my childhood, like Green Lake, Dock Lake, Pine Lake, Natimuk Lake, Edenhope Lake and many others have been bone dry for years.
My grandparents in the Wimmera certainly can’t remember such a prolonged drought, or a time when there were so many dry lakes.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Wimmera hasn’t had this little water in its lakes since the time of European settlement.
Anne Novek – please provide peer reviewed verification that ‘temperatures will rise 3- 5 degrees in the next 100 years,’ and by what mechanism?
Everyone should be interested in natural variabilty as a yardstick for the current warm period.
As for this opinion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5303574.stm
count the number of times if, could, maybe, possibility, appear.
What would Holdren have been saying about Greenland in the MWP???
Greenland was also warmer in the 1930’s than it is now.
Glacier dydnamics are rather more complex than than a simple temperature/melting relationship.
Paul Biggs,
I suggest you check out the Scott Polar Research Institute’s( Cambridge University) work on the form and flow of glaciers and their response to climate change up in the Arctic and Svalbard…
There is also another big Norwegian Research Institute in Svalbard( don’t recall the name right now) that is working on those specific issues regarding glaciers and climate change.
http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/people/dowdeswell/
More on glaciers:
“Professor Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard pointed out that glaciers there typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to 100 years; an entirely natural phenomenon.”
RECENT GLACIER ADVANCES IN NORWAY AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON
Chinn, T., S. Winkler, M.J. Salinger, and N. Haakensen, 2005. Recent Glacier
Advances in Norway and New Zealand: A Comparison of their Glaciological and
Meteorological Causes. Geografiska Annaler, Series A, Vol. 87, No 1, pp.
141-157, March 2005
Abstract
Norway and New Zealand both experienced recent glacial advances, commencing
in the early 1980s and ceasing around 2000, which were more extensive than
any other since the end of the Little Ice Age. Common to both countries, the
positive glacier balances are associated with an increase in the strength of
westerly atmospheric circulation which brought increased precipitation. In
Norway, the changes are also associated with lower ablation season
temperatures. In New Zealand, where the positive balances were distributed
uniformly throughout the Southern Alps, the period of increased mass balance
was coincident with a change in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and an
associated increase in El Niño/Southern Oscillation events. In Norway, the
positive balances occurred across a strong west-east gradient with no
balance increases to the continental glaciers of Scandinavia. The Norwegian
advances are linked to strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation events
which caused an overall increase of precipitation in the winter accumulation
season and a general shift of maximum precipitation from autumn towards
winter. These cases both show the influence of atmospheric circulation on
maritime glaciers.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510, 2006
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
Petr Chylek
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
M. K. Dubey
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
G. Lesins
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Abstract
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
Received 10 April 2006; accepted 9 May 2006; published 13 June 2006.
Mass balance of Svalbard Glaciers and ice Caps from Repeat Airborne Lidar
Authors: Bamber, J. L.; Krabill, W.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #U71A-02
Publication Date: 12/2002
Abstract
Precise airborne laser surveys were conducted during the spring of 1996 and 2002 using NASA’s Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM) on a number of glaciers and ice caps in the Svalbard archipelago covering the islands of Spitsbergen and Nordaustlandet. Here, we present preliminary results of the elevation changes observed over the six year interval between measurements. The interpretation of the elevation changes is complicated by the fact that many glaciers in Svalbard are surge-type and do not have, therefore, steady-state profiles even under invariant climate conditions. Traditional, in-situ estimates of glacier mass balance are, however, of variable accuracy due to the presence of superimposed ice, which is pervasive throughout the region. The ATM data provide, therefore, a unique independent estimate of the state of balance of ice masses in Svalbard. In general, the elevation changes show trends similar to those obtained elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. Lower elevation, southerly glaciers show the highest thinning rates of ~50 cm/yr while some of the higher, more northerly glaciers show relatively little change or slight thickening. For the largest icecap in Svalbard (Austfonna) the upper accumulation area shows a remarkable thickening, which, when converted to an ice equivalent value, represents a 36% increase in accumulation rate. These results are interpreted in relation to meteorological observations for the archipelago and extrapolated to provide an estimate of the contribution of the whole area to global sea level rise.
NORWAY AND SWEDEN
Status of Ground Based Glacier Monitoring in Scandinavia and Svalbard
by
Jon Ove Hagen, Department of Physical Geography, University of Oslo
Abstract
Mass-balance investigations have been conducted for longer and shorter periods in a transect from south Norway to Svalbard, from 61oN to 80oN. Systematic measurements of glaciers have a long tradition in Norway. Since the beginning of this century, frontal positions have been measured annually, with small time gaps, on about fifteen glaciers, and for shorter periods on several other glaciers. Mass-balance measurements were started in 1948 on Storbreen in Jotunheimen, southern Norway, by the Norwegian Polar Institute. The Hydrology Department of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration (NVE) initiated long-term mass balance studies on selected glaciers in southern Norway in 1962 and 1963. Glaciers regarded as representative for certain areas were selected.
Currently long time series are conducted on four glaciers in southern Norway (61oN – 62oN- maritime and continental), one in Svartisen area ( 66-67o – maritime) and one (Storglaciären) in northern Sweden in the Kebnekaise area (68o N – continental). Storglaciären has been measured since 1946, and has the longest continuous series in the world, two years longer that Storbreen in southern Norway. Further north in Norway there are no ongoing measurements, although there are large glacier areas. However, for a five year period (1989-1993) one glacier at 70oN was measured.
In Svalbard, annual mass balance investigations were started in 1966 on Brøggerbreen (6.1 km2) close to the research station Ny-Ålesund ( 79oN 12o E) on the northwest coast of Spitsbergen by the Norwegian Polar Institute. Observations on some other glaciers have been carried out by Russian and Polish scientists in shorter periods in other parts of the island. Currently there are three running mass balance series, Brøggerbreen (6.1 km2), Kongsvegen (105 km2) and Hansbreen (60 km2). The two latter are calving glaciers. Most of the glaciers in Svalbard are of surge type. It is therefore difficult to use the front position of a single glacier as a climate indicator, because the front will shrink and retreat in periods between surges. The front position therefore gives little information on whether the ice mass is growing or shrinking. Mass-balance measurements are therefore necessary to tell the true story about the volume change. Superimposed ice formation is important. Equilibrium-line altitude determination from aircraft or satellite is therefore difficult. On all investigated glaciers both accumulation and ablation have been measured by direct glaciological-stratigraphic method: snow-sounding profiles, density measurements, and stake readings. Most of the glaciers are fairly small ( 36,000 km². Glaciological study began in 1800s with numerous investigations in the 20th century. A great many glaciers are known to surge–sudden rapid movement of ice with dramatic advance of landed ice margins and calving of icebergs for tidewater glaciers. Dynamics of surging and the relationship of surging to climatic factors are poorly understood. Maritime climate with large temperature fluctuations. Useful imagery from the summer months (July-Sept.) for any scenes in which clouds do not obscure the glaciers. Proposed by Chris D. Clark.
So would we not say that there is nothing inconsistent with Paul’s excellent posts and our understanding – temperature goes up and things melt – whether it be for solar or greenhouse reason.
Jennifer; in this thread Paul is continuing to look up his own whatever.
When I was a kid we could read lots about glaciers. The fact that individual glaciers surge is not the question, that’s their character. Picking through anomalies all round gets us nowhere. They are all melting now, so what? We don’t need this ratbag science that hopes to take some of us back to the beginning.
As Paul says we have only just started properly measuring glaciers.
We had a visit two years ago from a Swiss lady who has been watching glaciers over her life time. Hilda is now ninety. She warned us they were melting rapidly so early this year we sent a daughter to Europe armed with a brand new Nikon coolpix 7600 to get some photos before it was too late. Sure enough there was a lot of ice dangling off the mountain sides this northern winter.
Paul: Who else bothered to physically look at the outfall from their nearest ice cap?
Back to the drought: Those stiffened street trees I topped yesterday, hakeas and black wattles were planted mid 70’s. They all have scorched canopies and have lost several meters through dieback. It makes them a potential suburban fireball under powerlines.
Jennifer would say so what again, where is the science? Hakeas as used for street trees in this area are particularly sensitive to change but that’s just my experience from decades of landscaping here and there.
It’s been my independent view for some time now, after many years of fire watching, everyone in SE Australia must be extremely vigilant this year and even more so as we go on.
Most contributors on this blog have no practical solutions for our climate problems today let alone tomorrow.
It would appear from the following that in Antarctica the peninsular shows a warming of surface air temperature whilst the mainland shows a cooling.
http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm
Real Climate argue against extrapolations and models (?) but note that warming in Antactica ceased after 1980.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/#more-319
Also it would appear that stellite temperature observations 1980/2005 for the southern hemisphere show no warming and 1998 seems to have been the hottest year.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831
Make of it what you will.
Rog; Reading turbulence anywhere is a craft rarely written up in books.
I can assure rog we don’t read the pressure or temperature of superheated steam in a boiler by reading anything in the turbulence of the firebox. Astute engineers will notice trends from internal combustion conditions though.
Individual assessment of conditions moving towards an explosion normally requires considerable training. This used to be a master apprentice relationship. Governments managing our training programs today are usually looking for short cuts. Fast tracking information becomes merely a jargon and science as I know it is simply catching up.
Beware rog: Who do you put your faith in from the outset on this one? A good farmer has to make his own assessment every day; gumboots or hobnail leathers based on what’s under his feet.
Gavin Bugg
Can somebody please explain to me why it is that a mark made in the rocks nearly 200 years ago at Port Arthur in Tassie indicates that the mean tide level is the same today as it was when it was first placed their by scientists, and yet we are consistently being told that the sea level has risen?
A further question please. Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting more rapidly than has been seen in the past.
my apologies for not posting links to these ‘facts’, I found them a while ago whilst trying to reach a conclusion on the ‘climate change’. It may be these facts are just ‘misinformation spread by oil companies’but in my research as a non scientist I must admit that I have come across enormous amounts of information that supposedly supports AGW that are misleading or just downright lies….if there really is such strong evidence why muddy the waters?
“Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting more rapidly than has been seen in the past”
Are you sure:
“The spacecraft also observed a gradual evaporation of carbon dioxide ice in one of Mars’ polar caps, pointing to a slowly changing Mars climate.
“They way these polar pits are retreating is absolutely astounding,” Mustard said.
But like the rockfalls, researchers were unable to account for the gradual climate change.
“Why is Mars warmer today that it was in the past, we really have no way of knowing why,” Malin said.”
So the observation is a gradual and slow change in climate for Mars (unlike earths abrupt and rapid change). Find me the study that shows the ice caps melting more rapidly than the past then we’ll have something to talk about.
For Rog (and pls don’t see it as just tit for tat for a change)- just some info to boggle your brain.
Have a Google on Macquarie Island temperatures.
Also see: Antarctica Warmed in Past 150 Years, Scientists Say Ice core samples show average temperatures rising 0.2 degree Celsius
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=26515
Have a read on the polar vortex here:
http://www.theozonehole.com/climate.htm
Then googling on southern annular mode
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;296/5569/895
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412
So you see the vortex tends to wall off inner Antartica and has changed – so what you’re seeing temperature wise is consistent with all this.
If you then want to indulge some further:
http://www.cmis.csiro.au/healthycountry/updates/sep05/story3.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL024701.shtml
See if you can join the dots !!
Mars and melt .. ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
On sea level – well depends where you are. Don’t know about Daly’s water mark. We have this up to date general analysis:
A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (2006), Church, John A; White, Neil J, Geophysical Research Letters [Geophys. Res. Lett.]. Vol. 33, no. 1
Find:
“Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide- gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr super(-1) and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr super(-2). This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.”
And at Port Arthur:
The Sea Level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the Present
J. Hunter, et al
Abstract
Observations of sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, southeastern Australia, based on a two-year record made in 1841–1842, a three-year record made in 1999–2002, and intermediate observations made in 1875–1905, 1888 and 1972, indicate an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002. When combined with estimates of land uplift, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period. These results are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of global average rise for the 20th century. They provide an important contribution to our knowledge of past sea level rise in a region (the Southern Hemisphere) where there is a dearth of other such data.
Anthing else Toby?
Paul Biggs: “”Professor Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard pointed out that glaciers there typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to 100 years; an entirely natural phenomenon.”
Paul, you are citing old sources.
We have already been through this on another thread on glacier dynamics. Refering to studies by European satellites and NASA:
Science February 2006
Re John Daly and that Port Arthur watermark.
It all makes for some good tourism
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/special/dalyobit.html
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/reply.html
http://www.ausemade.com.au/tas/destination/i/isle-of-dead.htm
And Paul Biggs , why do you think the Norwegian Government maybe is the Gov’t in the whole world that is most concerned about climate change?
Since jen’s software blocked some other links re john daly and the water mark
http://www.ausemade.com.au/tas/destination/i/isle-of-dead.htm
There does not appear to be a “consensus” on sea level rise or does there? (define consensus)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/432.htm
The Trumpet url rebutting Daly on Isle of the Dead watermark is a dead link.
Luckily revived by the very handy “Bring it Back” service for old links-web.archive.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20031203174202/http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/reply.html
And an interesting critique of John Daly’s site I never knew existed.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050305073722/http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/home.html
Luke: sorry my other links were gobbled but its suffice to say John Daly had almost a cult following if one was to believe everything posted on the www. Daly was probably gobbled up himself in his personal endeavours to maintain the status quo. Google on John Daly the water mark etc
That will do very nicely for now thankyou very much Simon.I very much appreciate your time and effort. A rise of some 13- 16 cm over 160 years when we know sea levels change by much much more than that, does not however indicate any significant change surely? We are after all in a warm period after the last mini ice age…so presumably there has been and will be some melting of ice in the ice caps and glaciers that obviously ends up in the ocean.
I recall that satellite data does show increases and is used as proof of global warming …but the error factor in the readings is greater than the change.
I also seem to recall hearing that Tuvalu will be submerged soon….and yet http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-10-01.html and numerous other studies, show that this is not the case…..and is yet another beat up by the media/ environmentalists to bolster there position….why do they need to ‘fib’ to push their case if it is so strong?
Why are we constantly being told the debate is over when clearly there are many scientists (Jennifer for one, David Bellamy another)who are sceptical of the human impact.
It does seem obvious that humans are influencing the environment….but that said are we significant in the big picture…I dont know…those nasty coal seams burning in China and Canada emit more co2 etc than America.
Economists are not trusted with their models and it seems to me it is much easier to predict the state of economies/ finance than it is to predict climate….so why do we place so much store in climate models?(many climate experts don’t!)
There is a famous expirement “Rosenthal’s Rat’s” where he demonstrates that scientists tend to get the results they expect….is that what is happening now? There are so many scientists on both sides convinced they have the proof.
What really worries me is the bias in the media and environmental movement.
a couple of quotes for you “When all think alike, no one is thinking very much” (Walter Lippmann)
Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect”(Mark Twain)
I do think we need to find alternative energy sources that are clean….but since fossil fuels are finite, and energy companies surely wish to stay in business, I have no doubt they will find new technology to solve our potential problems.
Large tax concesion for money spent on research in these areas seems overdue…not distortions created by subsidies and government funding.
Toby – as recently discussed this blog – see climate archives – National Tidal Facility Reports at http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml are rather interesting.. .. These show a mean rate of rise of Tuvalu sea level of +6.6mm/year. These data are corrected for tectonic movements using GPS.
And king tide effects on Tuvalu
http://www.tuvalu.tv/tiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=1
Pls let’s not discuss Bellamy.
Thank you Luke. If sea levels have risen 6.6mm per year that amounts to only 3 years to reach more than the sea around Australia has risen….so what happened to the other years of ocean rise since ‘isle of the dead’ mark?
If you look at http://www.pacificislands.cc/issue/2002/02/01/is-tuvalu-really-sinking it pours a lot of cold water on tuvalu sea level rises.
“Well, rather than rely on Brown’s “sense” of sea level rise, let’s check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu’s local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural – as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility, remains flat. “One definitive statement we can make,” states Scherer, “is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.” Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.
All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown’s sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.”
So on the one hand you tell me sea levels have risen 6.6 mm per year….and yet it would appear the opposite may even have happened.
I do not know much about oceans, i know temp influences the expansion of water and can cause local sea level rises, so that if you are right and seas have risen 6.6mm per year it does not equate to a need to see a rise of the same proportions around Australia. But the max 16 cm rise shown at Port Arthur in teh last 160 years, that is within expectations of sea level rises around Australia (from some of Simon’s links) is a huge difference to 6.6mm a year that you mention! Why are we not seeing these forecasted catastrophic sea rises?
It appears the infamous John Daly has been up to his old tricks again by demonstrating logicaly(to a layman like myself) that satellite data has an error factor greater than the perceived change it is finding +/-1.2m on any individual reading, requiring statistical averaging to make use of the data. He also points out that the AGW advocates are happy to accept statistaical averaging with sea levels but not with temp in the atmosphere. He rightly seems to be pointing out you cant have it both ways!
http://john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm
Sorry but I am not concvinced about Tuvalu and still feel it is a great example of another beat up by AGW to try to prove their case.
They tell us Hurricane activity in the USA have increased dramatically….according to
http://www.nhc.noda.gov/pastdec.shtml this is not the case at all.
I came across this blog after listening to Jennifer on counterpoint so I apologise for bringing up things you feel are ‘done and dusted’, so I will not mention Bellamy, other than to state he has a similar view to Jen and many others that CO2 rises are a consequences of temp increases not the opposite.
The link between CO2 and temp increases is debatable as Jen has pointed out…as has William Kininmouth (former head of National Climate Centre) who recently wrote in the Australian (12 sept)that ” 66% of the greenhouse effect of co2 is caused by the first 50ppm of co2…..and overall co2 is a relatively minor contributor to the greenhouse effect, which is dominated by the varying water vapour and clouds of atmosphere. See …
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
for how significant water vapour actually is and how conveniently it is ignored! (there are many more links easily found)
Also check it out for how minor a contribution humans actually make to this co2.
Sorry still not convinced!
Thank you Luke. If sea levels have risen 6.6mm per year that amounts to only 3 years to reach more than the sea around Australia has risen….so what happened to the other years of ocean rise since ‘isle of the dead’ mark?
If you look at http://www.pacificislands.cc/issue/2002/02/01/is-tuvalu-really-sinking it pours a lot of cold water on tuvalu sea level rises.
“Well, rather than rely on Brown’s “sense” of sea level rise, let’s check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu’s local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural – as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility, remains flat. “One definitive statement we can make,” states Scherer, “is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.” Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.
All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown’s sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.”
So on the one hand you tell me sea levels have risen 6.6 mm per year….and yet it would appear the opposite may even have happened.
I do not know much about oceans, i know temp influences the expansion of water and can cause local sea level rises, so that if you are right and seas have risen 6.6mm per year it does not equate to a need to see a rise of the same proportions around Australia. But the max 16 cm rise shown at Port Arthur in teh last 160 years, that is within expectations of sea level rises around Australia (from some of Simon’s links) is a huge difference to 6.6mm a year that you mention! Why are we not seeing these forecasted catastrophic sea rises?
It appears the infamous John Daly has been up to his old tricks again by demonstrating logicaly(to a layman like myself) that satellite data has an error factor greater than the perceived change it is finding +/-1.2m on any individual reading, requiring statistical averaging to make use of the data. He also points out that the AGW advocates are happy to accept statistaical averaging with sea levels but not with temp in the atmosphere. He rightly seems to be pointing out you cant have it both ways!
http://john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm
Sorry but I am not concvinced about Tuvalu and still feel it is a great example of another beat up by AGW to try to prove their case.
They tell us Hurricane activity in the USA have increased dramatically….according to
http://www.nhc.noda.gov/pastdec.shtml this is not the case at all.
I came across this blog after listening to Jennifer on counterpoint so I apologise for bringing up things you feel are ‘done and dusted’, so I will not mention Bellamy, other than to state he has a similar view to Jen and many others that CO2 rises are a consequences of temp increases not the opposite.
The link between CO2 and temp increases is debatable as Jen has pointed out…as has William Kininmouth (former head of National Climate Centre) who recently wrote in the Australian (12 sept)that ” 66% of the greenhouse effect of co2 is caused by the first 50ppm of co2…..and overall co2 is a relatively minor contributor to the greenhouse effect, which is dominated by the varying water vapour and clouds of atmosphere. See …
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
for how significant water vapour actually is and how conveniently it is ignored! (there are many more links easily found)
Also check it out for how minor a contribution humans actually make to this co2.
Sorry still not convinced!
It seems to me the contribution from Warwick Hughes saying we had high CO2 levels around wartime based on the work E G Beck has escaped debate.
It would be reasonable enough to assume a worse case then. Is it not highly probable we had a lot of extra combustion going on through those war years?
Has any one else come up with similar conclusions other than Beck that reinforces Warwick’s view?
Gavin -if it’s good stuff – it behoves him to get it published ! Strangely that when we measure CO2 at Cape Grim and other places we get this nice fine saw-toothed smooth lineasr increase over time yet these guys are saying you can have wild swings in decades – find it VERY hard to believe. So run it past the experts and get published or perish in blog anonymity.
Oh dear – seems Eli Rabett has taken a baseball bat to the E G Beck work. Not pretty.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/ (see amateur night ! )
Do you want to know why Al Gore is trying to point fingers on global warming causes?
http://gunsnbutter.typepad.com/gunsnbutter/2006/09/scientists_al_g.html#comments
“Ninety-eight percent of global warming can be attributed solely to the existence of Al Gore,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Dhananjay Wilson. Global temperatures really began to take off in 1948 — the year Al Gore was born.”
Al Gore is trying to deflect blame from himself.
Regarding rising sea levels, according to one expert, it might happen faster than we can react. In fact, he’s worried that thousands of people will drown, which means that the water levels rise faster than people can walk to higher ground.
“PwC said it had attempted to put a price on slowing the growth in carbon emissions because it was impossible to calculate the cost of climate change. ‘If sea levels rise and a lot of people in Bangladesh drown do you calculate the loss of their lifetime earnings, even though they will be lower than for the UK? It is a difficult moral question,’ Mr Hawksworth said.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1772355.ece
Study at:
http://www.pwc.com/servlet/pwcPrintPreview?LNLoc=/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/dfb54c8aad6742db852571f5006dd532
Toby:
Your quote:
The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility, remains flat. “One definitive statement we can make,” states Scherer, “is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.”
But what about the context:
Dr Scherer said the NTF results fitted broadly with those produced by other studies around the world. And he said he was confident that the latest global climate assessment from the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release next year, would reflect these findings.
Dr Scherer said although there was mounting evidence that the oceans were getting warmer down to a considerable depth, it did not necessarily mean that any rise in sea levels that resulted from expanding waters had to accelerate. The rise could be just linear in nature.
So, in 2000, Scherer said that he found that sea levels were rising and were in line with IPCC predictions. He just said the rise was linear and not accelerating.
Toby:
“…He also points out that the AGW advocates are happy to accept statistaical averaging with sea levels but not with temp in the atmosphere…”
I have no idea what you are going on about here. If AGW people discount statistical averaging then what’s with the graphs showing the increases global mean surface temperatures?
Jen, how can you say we have an ongoing trend of warming when the mean Earth temperature has not changed since 1998 (the warmest year of this present warming cycle). A study of the past century will show you that the late 1920’s and early 1930’s were significantly warmer than today- A period that was followed by a real cooling trend in the 40’s.
We are still not at the average gloal temperature of the last 3000 yrs. (not my opinion but actual data).
To say that 85% of Autstrailians are convinced that GW is more important than Iraq is virtually meanngless since the media brainwashing has been going on for 15 years. I would wager that 85% of the climatologists do not hold the same opinion.
As a Paleoclimatologist, I contend that the temperature of the Earth has always been forced by activities of the Sun, and I suspect it will continue to be the primary driver of temperature.
Do not forget that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, not aritmatic, and acording to atmospheric experts, a doubling of CO2 (to nearly 600ppm) would only raise the mean earth temp between .06, and .o8 degrees C (depending on cloud cover and other factors)
Thank you for this blog…it has a wide range of opinion which is always good for the understanding of science.
BTW the southern hemishere is presently having the coldest winter in 100 yrs with snow in Buenos Aries. (a nearly unheard of event.)