As 2006 draws to a close it is interesting to ponder the big issues and events from the past year.
Along with the drought, bushfires, extinction of the baiji, 2006 will perhaps be remembered as the year of climate change hysteria.
I think the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in which failed US Presidential hopeful Al Gore described carbon dioxide as the enemy, and then constructing a story as simplistic, horrific, technically flawed* and politically naïve as that CIA dossier on those weapons of mass destruction, was a significant contributor to the hysteria.
Indeed, while support for the notion that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of all climate catastrophe was building, that movie more than anything else, seemed to galvanize support for the theory.
In the movie, Al Gore presented hurricane Katrina as an example of how global warming from the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes. Disturbing images of New Orleans after Katrina were shown with comment that this is “something new for America” and “how in God’s name could this happen here in the US” and the scientists warned us.
In the movie Al Gore was also big on the idea that all reputable scientists agree. That there is an overwhelming consensus on this and other climate change issues.
Yet most cyclone specialists, including Chris Landsea, have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence for or against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record. The cyclone record includes typhoons and hurricanes.
But Al Gore ignored this inconvenient truth, and the popular press have maintained the deception.
Furthermore, there is no general trend of increasing cyclone number or intensity.
As the year comes to an end it is depressing that the popular press, so enamored with the idea of a man-made global warming climate catastrophe, continue to ignore the experts and the data.
Recently the following ‘Consensus Statements’ on tropical cyclones and climate change was developed, discussed and endorsed at the World Meteorological Organization’s International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones**, but I didn’t read or hear about it on ‘my ABC’.
The experts concluded that the recent increase in impacts from tropical cyclones (including hurricanes) has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
Consensus Statements
1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.
8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate, there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.
9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.
10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.
————————-
* Technical flaws in the movie are documented in ‘A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth’ by Marlo Lewis at
http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05478.cfm.
Also I’ve written bits and pieces on ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ with links at my website here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/faq.php?id=15&category=18 .
** The Workshop was held in San Jose, Costa Rica, in November 2006. It was invitation-only bringing together 125 researchers and practitioners from 34 countries in the field of tropical cyclone forecasting.
*** Sections underlined where added at 8.30am on 19th following comment from Luke.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But holey doley Jen – this would be accepting a “consensus” opinion from an IPCC like grouping or WMO mob ! Isn’t consensus close to death on this blog. Like the IPCC I say the whole 125 are corrupt and communists in receipt of money from the dreaded insurance industry who don’t want to see panic in their market.
Have you not heard of Dr Hissink’s electric universe theories of cyclonicity. I’m very very disappointed – I thought this blog was about giving voice to the underdog but we’re now running with conensus opinions. My God – we’ve been infiltrated by the mainstream.
For the sake of humanity the 125 scientists must be stopped. I expect that the Democrats convene a committee of inquiry and haul them before it. I want to see all their data and papers. Furthermore at such inquiries I think we should get charismatic persons such as novel writers- or even better – politicians like Al Gore – yea – to appear as expert witnesses. What the hell is Climate Audit doing about this – I want to see them go through their so called “mainstream” consensus argument with a fine tooth comb.
Jennifer thinks that the scientists who objectively looked for evidence of such signals in cyclone activity shouldn’t even look & were influenced by gore’s movie?
Dr Hissink’s electric universe theories of cyclonicity – think of the twisted mess the electric cord would get into
Good point Luke. I was writing the blog from Al’s perspective … but I’ve now added a couple of sentences (underlined in the above post) to emphasis that the consensus from the experts is supported by the available data. Thanks.
And I wish Pinxi would stop misrepresenting me.
Pinxi, when will you realize that every time you begin a comment “Jennifer thinks… ” you are wrong! Let’s face it, You just don’t understand me. 🙂
Let’s have it hey,somebody else should do a post on understanding Jennifer
OK guys – we have to think how Jen thinks – this could be a tough one as she doesn’t give much away – but if we crack it we can then find out how the IPA thinks – then we can find out how WMC thinks – then we can work out what to do about promoting AGW and squash the above inconvenient findings.
But pending all that .. .. ..
So what would you expect to see in terms of an AGW impact at this early stage. We obviously have a fog of climate variability – frankly I’m shocked that there is even a twinge on a possible signal peeking out of that fog. Wait till the CO2 and SSTs cranks up a bit further.
I bet the researchers haven’t said – “phew well now that’s all over we can get back to whittling”. The future impacts of increasing hurricane top speeds and storm surge still are sitting out there more or less as the IPCC (euuuuw a conensus group) wrote it. What’s changed? They’re just talking about the contemporary scene. It ain’t all over by a long shot.
Increased settlement in cyclone prone areas is an obvious and worrying trend.
Jen’s statement:
Yet most cyclone specialists have repeatedly stated that there is NO evidence for or against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record.
Consensus statement:
Though there IS evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
Is there, or isn’t there, evidence for and against? I’ll go with the consensus on that one (as usual).
In Galileo’s time the consensus (rigorously enforced by that top scientific body, the church) was that the sun orbited around the earth.
You’ve obviously hit a nerve here Jennifer – they’ve all come out swinging!
Not being a fan generally of mob attacks , I’ll just note that Luke has previously distanced himself from Al and his Inconvenient Truth.
Your point appears to be that the media commonly misrepresent the connection between hurricane/cyclonic activity ( and specifically Katrina )and AGW?
If that’s so , then we should note the importance of expert opinion – whether in support or contesting commonly held views – in helping us determine the truth.
I for one don’t need scary stories or an absence of differing opinion to help me focus on important issues.
BTW – wouldn’t advise comparisons between majority expert opinion on WMD and how that turned out and majority expert opinion on AGW.
It isn’t generally well received!!
Once again, Luke, Pinxie and Gavin have attempted to deflect attention from the main issues with their pathetic vaudeville routine on consensus. So lets spell it out;
Gore claimed cyclonic activity had increased due to anthropogenic global warming. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CLAIM EITHER WAY. If you dispute the findings of the World Meteorological Organization’s International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones then this would be a good place to present it.
It’s a mystery how all those WMD papers passed peer-review. The journal editorial boards should be held to account.
Ian: I want to know what drives Jennifer to beat about the bush looking for science on this and that while we clearly have major problems dealing with drought and other impacts associated with climate change like whole sale burning of forest and high country national parks.
In fact we are probably facing the eventual closure of traditional agriculture and production forestry across wide sections of S E Australia right now.
If this blog is just Jennifer doing a job on green politics, slow or no growth idealism etc. on behalf of a bunch of enterprising corporate types while they shift their asset base in the face of it all then I can say Jennifer is doing ok and we know it’s not her real self that’s up for scrutiny here. On the other hand………I hope not.
Ian – you’re too precious – you’be been banging about evil consensus science like the IPCC now for some time. You bloody big hypocrite ! Your mate Sid has just denounced the WMO a few threads back. Now you guys want to use them. Some consistency please.
Gore is not the IPCC nor the literature – Gore is part of the global warming theatre – I give him 7/10 marks for content. Contrarians – ooo – 1/10. Basically Gore is a diversion for a floundering contrarian movement now faced with a possibly too rabid public going climate change bananas, and a mounting science tsunami which has cleaned up the shonky wonks.
Gavin,
The current feral bushfires (and others going back to 1939) are due to inappropriate fire exclusion, resulting in heavy fuel. See Stretton (1939). If you want a laugh, read Esplin et al. (2003). Don’t obfuscate with AGW. That’s crooked thinking.
I said “expert opinion” Nexus 6 – didn’t mention peer review.
At the end of the day , the recognised experts held a clear concensus view that Iraq had existing WMD – and they were wrong.
Experts can be wrong – that’s why we need dissenters.
I think other things being equal, tropical storms are just too variable to make any sensible correlation with GW, so the WMO consensus makes sense. Better to look at polar ice extent trends. The strange thing is that arctic sea ice is steadily declining, while the extent of antarctic sea ice isn’t changing – if anything it has been increasing in recent years (see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ ) . Sorry if people are already aware of this – I’m fairly new contributor to this blog.
Davey: Big day for me hey; Doogan versus the ACT on fires in 2003. See the coroners report –
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/BushfireInquiry/The%20Canberra%20Firestorm%20Report/The%20Canberra%20Firestorm%20Report.htm
Note please I am a very independent thinker on AGW, bushfires, fuel loads, ignition, arson, impacts etc. thanks.
Jen, Where have all the risk managers gone? They are probably getting on with it, and have already decided most weather related risks have probably changed. This cyclone trend debate should lift its game, go up a level, and consider the poor confused decision makers copping possible impacts. At the weekend I drove into that big southern Queensland thunderstorm and was not surprised to hear a report later of record winds. I take no convincing of the possibility that there is a trend for thunderstorm severity. I know it is hotter. My storm insurance company does not muck around on house insurance – premiums are up. An obsession with finding the truth is a fine thing in a scientist but usually useless for a risk manger. Certainty without evidence is for religions and politicians buttering WMD lies. Science has to be mostly content with the opposite – evidence without certainty. So is anyone prepared to tell those potentially impacted by cyclones and hurricanes that they can happily assume business as usual as there are no significant trends. Can ambiguity be fun.?
OK Bazz – try your risk model on these latest papers. I’m going with the serious contrarians as this blog has taught me well. Good science over consensus group thinking. And Sid has told us we can’t trust the WMO and they should be disbanded (along with CSIRO!)so have to use our wits and the best science. Note rapid development in understanding in this interesting field.
I’d be siding with the WMO chnaging their consensus in the next few years. Good luck with the insurers !
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894, 2006
Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005
Kevin E. Trenberth
Dennis J. Shea
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
The 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season (1 June to 30 November) was the most active on record by several measures, surpassing the very active season of 2004 and causing an unprecedented level of damage. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical North Atlantic (TNA) region critical for hurricanes (10° to 20°N) were at record high levels in the extended summer (June to October) of 2005 at 0.9°C above the 1901–70 normal and were a major reason for the record hurricane season. Changes in TNA SSTs are associated with a pattern of natural variation known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). However, previous AMO indices are conflated with linear trends and a revised AMO index accounts for between 0 and 0.1°C of the 2005 SST anomaly. About 0.45°C of the SST anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to global warming and, based on regression, about 0.2°C stemmed from after-effects of the 2004–05 El Niño.
Evidence in support of the climate change-Atlantic hurricane hypothesis (2006)
Elsner, James B
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 16, CiteID L16705
The power of Atlantic tropical cyclones is rising rather dramatically and the increase is correlated with an increase in the late summer/early fall sea surface temperature over the North Atlantic. A debate concerns the nature of these increases with some studies attributing them to a natural climate fluctuation, known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and others suggesting climate change related to anthropogenic increases in radiative forcing from greenhouse-gases. Here tests for causality using the global mean near-surface air temperature (GT) and Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) records during the Atlantic hurricane season are applied. Results show that GT is useful in predicting Atlantic SST, but not the other way around. Thus GT “causes” SST providing additional evidence in support of the climate change hypothesis. Results have serious implications for life and property throughout the Caribbean, Mexico, and portions of the United States.
Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions
B. D. Santer a,b, T. M. L. Wigley c, P. J. Gleckler a, C. Bonfils d, M. F. Wehner e, K. AchutaRao a, T. P. Barnett f, J. S. Boyle a, W. Brüggemann g, M. Fiorino a, N. Gillett h, J. E. Hansen i, P. D. Jones h, S. A. Klein a, G. A. Meehl c, S. C. B. Raper j, R. W. Reynolds k, K. E. Taylor a, and W. M. Washington c
aProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550; cNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307; dUniversity of California, Merced, CA 95344; eLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720; fScripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037; gInstitut für Unternehmensforschung, Universität Hamburg, 22765 Hamburg, Germany; hClimatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom; iNational Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025; jCentre for Air Transport and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom; and kNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC 28801
Previous research has identified links between changes in sea surface temperature (SST) and hurricane intensity. We use climate models to study the possible causes of SST changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. The observed SST increases in these regions range from 0.32°C to 0.67°C over the 20th century. The 22 climate models examined here suggest that century-timescale SST changes of this magnitude cannot be explained solely by unforced variability of the climate system. We employ model simulations of natural internal variability to make probabilistic estimates of the contribution of external forcing to observed SST changes. For the period 1906-2005, we find an 84% chance that external forcing explains at least 67% of observed SST increases in the two tropical cyclogenesis regions. Model “20th-century” simulations, with external forcing by combined anthropogenic and natural factors, are generally capable of replicating observed SST increases. In experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually rather than jointly, human-caused changes in greenhouse gases are the main driver of the 20th-century SST increases in both tropical cyclogenesis regions. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602861103v1
Jennifer said “every time you begin a comment “Jennifer thinks… ” you are wrong!”
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
LOL
Gavin,
Thanks for the tip on the Doogan findings. A daunting read (never mind the download), but I will have a go over Christmas. Have a good one yourself.
Pinxi,
It’s not Dr Hissink, and lampooning electric plasma theory shows you really have no clue at all. After all as Jen has shown above, you really don’t know what Jen actually thinks, let alone understanding a modest modicum of science.
I didn’t! I wasn’t! It wasn’t… it was LUKE!! Now humourless Hissink & maudlin Motty have accused me of things which should be more correctly attributed to Luke. Too scared to tackle the big fella hey, so bully his chicky instead? And wrong person again, I never accused Jennifer of thinking. If she started to do that she’d have to entertain the possibility of the theories that she likes to dismiss outright.
Hissynk take that with the cattle prod zzzZZZtt! ZZTT!!
Sssshhh… hang on, waht was that noise? It’s the time of miracle births!? Was that the sound of the galazy birthing a newborn planet? Oh no, false alarm. The possum just peeed on the mozzie zapper.
Pinxi,
“Hissynk take that with the cattle prod zzzZZZtt! ZZTT!!”
I see you´ve started training mammal´s too huh? ;O)
What about the ABC’s latest plug for ‘Global Warming’ on the 7.30 Report last night, with a clock showing the years rapidly ticking over against an ever reddeng background. No doubt about the Anthropogenic Signal there!
True to form, on came the CSIRO’s Dr. Penny Whetton, Head of their Climate Impact Group…reciting the usual AGW Creed. ‘Farmers will have to adapt, it’s going to get much hotter and dryer'(How does she know?) ‘ Global Warming will also cause more extreme weather events like Hurricanes’ etc etc. It just doesn’t matter how many times experts like Dr. Chris Landsea say there is no connection, the idelogues will just keep pumping away at it and a compliant media will not challenge them.
Interviews with farmers along the Namoi were featured with a low river in the background. As a matter of interest my great great grandfather and his brother owned the ‘Mooki Run’and had to give it up during the great drought of the 1840’s. Unfortunatly, they didn’t record rainfall or temperature records. However this extract from his journal is quite graphic. “Saturday 18 December, 1841…Utter devestation abounds..all along the dry course of the Mooki and Namoi here, the carcasses of upwards of three thousand bullocks are strewded…also thousands of dead wallaroos, fish, waterfowl and other native life” Maybe it was ‘Global Warming’ then. My family did record rainfall on station properties from the 1870’s, which must have been kept well, as they are very similar to nearby official recording stations. So as not to pick one off years, I have chosen two ten yr. periods covering the great Federation Drought period, and that awful period of the 30’s and 40’s, and compared the 10 yr. average annual rainfall with that of the last 10 years, when AGW is supposed to be creating havoc.
Here are the results. 1896 to 1905, 620.2 mils:
1935 to 1944, 543.0 mils: 1996 to 2005, 718.18 mils. If you delete 1996, which was a little above average, and add in 2006 to date, (assuming that no further rain falls before the end of the year), the result is 674.72 mils. As I have commented in a previous posting, we’ve seen it all before, and worse! Again, if no further rain before years end, this will be our 5th worst drought on record. (not the worst in 1,000 years!)
Of course Landsea will say there’s no connection. He’s now disaffected. Is he the sole expert or just the one wanting to have a public dust up on the issue. The hurricane research community is split and their is no current agreement. But there’s 3 good papers above Sid that say there is a connection – what’s wrong with them Sid?
BUT Penny Whetton did not mention hurricanes. Read the transcript Sid.
“How does she know” Sid asks. She’s voicing an opinion based on the results of their extensive climate modelling. You would like her to say “well we’ve been modelling for some time now and given our results might upset somebody we’ll say – we don’t know”.
On drought she actually said “It’s probable that climate change is having some impact on this current drought and making it a little bit more severe than it might have been otherwise have been.”
As Nicholls said in 2002 there are some good meteorological reasons to say such.
The Changing Nature of Australian Droughts
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
Issue Volume 63, Number 3 / April, 2004
Pages 323-336
The Changing Nature of Australian Droughts
Neville Nicholls1
(1) Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, P.O. Box 1289K, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia
Abstract Rainfall over nearly all of Australia during the cooler half of the year (May–October) was well below average in 2002. Mean maximum temperatures were very high during this period, as was evaporation. This would suggest that drought conditions (precipitation minus evaporation) were worse than in previous recent periods with similarly low rainfall (1982, 1994). Mean minimum temperatures were also much higher during the 2002 drought than in the 1982 and 1994 droughts. The relatively warm temperatures in 2002 were partly the result of a continued warming evident in Australia since the middle of the 20th century. The possibility that the enhanced greenhouse effect is increasing the severity of Australian droughts, by raising temperatures and hence increasing evaporation, even if the rainfall does not decrease, needs to be considered.
“the last 10 years, when AGW is supposed to be creating havoc.” – says who Sid ??
If you want to talk stats – have a look at the Murray headwaters – don’t just cherrypick Breeza !
Furthermore taking averages like you have done is crap as an analysis.
Sid you are totally disingenous in your analysis and your spin on what is being said.
Luke rattles on that there can be no consensus that there is no evidence and Pinxii digs a deeper hole by proving that there is no evidence of a consesus.
Noticed Clive Hamilton of the ACF funded Australia Institute working up some dogs vomit on how global warming caused the EPA fires in Vic.
All to switch focus from “Greenfalling” or should we say “clearfiring”.
And Luke, it is real easy to get a “record high sea surface temperature” when they have only been recording them recently. But at least your post had a basis in information. Are you back from leave?
Leave ? What’s that?
Sense Rog not make on cat sit mat.
Consensus often isn’t correct – a good recent example from 2 Australian Nobel Prize winners:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm
Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said: “The work by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren produced one of the most radical and important changes in the last 50 years in the perception of a medical condition.
“Their results led to the recognition that gastric disorders are infectious diseases, and overturned the previous view that they were physiological illnesses.”
If it keeps Luke happy, I accept that the world is flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
The consensus on cyclones and the continued recovery from the LIA, is that there is no consensus. I’d certainly like to see paleoclimate records of hurricanes the past 10,000 years. The Holocene has been marked by large natural variability in tems of temperature, sea ice, Antartica, and the Arctic etc – which is why it’s hard to discern any anthropogenic signal.
Recent evidence of the LIA in Australia:
derived from a paper I posted on RC:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-boring-holes.html#links
We have 2 competing climate change theories – Nir Shaviv has a good summary here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Shaviv climate sensitivity paper here:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
IPCC bias on climate sensitivity:
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCCbias
“2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years.
According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be
colder than 2005
colder than 2004
colder than 2003
colder than 2002
… and, most obviously, …
colder than 1998,
despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade…”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/2006-probably-coldest-year-in-last.html
I didn’t cherrypick Breeza; Penny Whetton and/or her ABC apostles did that. I only responded.
The CSIRO and BoM are both saying that the climate, right now, is getting dryer and hotter, and will continue to do so. The rainfall averages I posted show that the former is not so. As for the latter, the gentle warming since the 70’s, is I suggest, within climatic norms. And as for their dire predictions for the future, I repeat how do they know.
Anyone familiar with the history of science knows that scientists are the original anarchists.
Those who understand that, *truly* understand that, also understand that anyone who proclaims a scientific consensus is actually announcing a new religion.
There ain’t no such thing as a scientific consensus, and if there ever is one, run.
To Ian:
As a matter of fact direct sea surface temperatures have been measured since the 1860’s. This data is reliable, but obviously sparse in relation to the ocean area. Longwave radiation satellite data, which been recorded since 1980, tends to measure the top mm of the sea and requires “fudging”. You can view a paper on how they use the direct measurement data to come up with a global figure here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ersst.pdf . Both direct and remote data show a rising trend in sea surface temperature. What I find perplexing though, as I posted earlier, is why arctic sea ice extent has dropped steadily over the last 25 years, while Antarctic sea ice extent hasn’t changed. It appears that ocean in the northern hemisphere is heating up rapidly, perhaps because of the greater land mass there. It may take decades before the Antarctic sea extent declines because of the huge thermal inertia of the southern hemisphere oceans.
“rog” quoted that the WMO predict that 2006 may be the coolest for a decade.. Well it would want to be, considering we have endured year on year of heat over the same period. In Australia 2006 is shaping up to be one of the hottest, in terms of maximum temperatures, and would be by a long shot if it wasn’t for the cool/wet conditions over the NW of the continent.
Yes Rog, the AGW advocates find it very hard to use the big ‘C’ word– Coldest! They even find it hard to use the lesser one, Cold.
Now Luke has cherrypicked the Murray headwaters, for rainfall; well, c’mon Luke, produce some comparative averages for past dry periods there, compared with present, for us to have a look at.
The following bits may interest. “Saturday was hottest day ever in Sydney, with temp. max. at 113.6 (45.3)…..The intense heat..Death toll stands at 79 at present…A scorching NW wind blowing in from the parched interior, brought with it dense masses of dust and bushfire smoke..reducing visibility to dangerous limits. Many parts of interior recorded past 30 days over 100 deg.” SMH, 16 Jan. 1939. ‘Global Warming”?
“Also from Herald, 5 July,1852. “Gundagai flood claims 64 lives”. And again, 28 June, 1836. “Snow fell in Sydney…1 inch deep through the street, with an icy, razor keen wind.” Could have been something to do with the LIA, which the ‘Hockey Stick’ has ironed out of existance. All happened before!
No Sid – you’ve opened the batting with a spurious cherry picked statistical analysis for somewhere probably around Breeza way – you haven’t exactly said. You do me your multi-year percentile analysis and I’ll look at it. Comparitive averages are NOT the way to do it.
The Murray issue is VERY pertinent given our recent focus of blog discussions. The MDB Authority recently published their inflow analysis and this drought will get to worst on record if it keeps going. (archives this blog) BoM have headwater rainfall maps with worst on record figures.
In any case who cares – it’s your total misrepresentation of what was said on the program that’s the issue and you know it !
Scientists are not saying that there have never been any severe droughts before. Indeed much of the modelling aims at attempting to forecast them. However they are saying that there is some evidence that AGW is increasing the evaporative demand and worsening this severe lingering drought. They are also saying from their modelling out to 2070 that the climate runs show droughts may become more common and more intense in a greenhouse world. So don’t confuse what commentators, greenies, Joe/Jill public or the press are saying and then blame the scientists. If you find the models implausible – fine dismiss it all as nonsense. Yes the nation has gone climate change overboard all of a sudden but it will dissipate when it rains. However the serious long term science issues will still remain.
As we get better information on the LIA like why it occurred it appears to be a regional phenomenon – not both hemispheres and with a thermohaline mechanism. Also have a look at the error bounds around the Hockey Stick.
Sid,
Rather than looking at extreme events, why don’t you look at averages? Much more meaningful. What you will see is that recent years have been unusually warm (look here http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112 ) . Maybe (hopefully) this is a temporary excursion from a long term mean? Perhaps it is normal variation on a century scale? I don’t know, but billion humans crawling around, pumping tonnes of crap into the atmosphere cannot have zero effect on global climate. If other things are equal (solar radiation, long wave radiation from the earth, etc), why do have this significant temperature rise? Assuming mean temperature is a good indicator of the earth’s thermal equlilibrium, we’re talking about a massive build-up of stored heat. Can you answer than one Sid?
Sid – a one year percentile is to rank each year highest to lowest – then you can see which band any individual year is in – Lowest 5% etc. Lowest 1% Lowest on record.
For groups or runs of years you need to calculate the total for each group of 3, 5 or 10 years in a row – whatever your grouping is – do that as a rolling calculation from earliest to latest over the entire record. Then see where the year group total sequences fit in a percentile band. Hand picking sequences with averages isn’t necessarily a full check. May or may not make a difference to your interpretation.
P.S. Don’t even think about adding the percentiles for individual years together.
Robert, The extremes quoted were examples. These were to show that the ‘long period of stable, “normal” climate, followed by the dramatic upsurge in temperature,’ as promoted by the ideology behind the Hockey Stick, is just not true. Now, I agree that AGW advocates like Penny Whetton, do as Luke says, qualify their statements with ‘possibles’, ‘maybe’s’ and ‘could be’s’, ect. But this is just to build themselves a little fort to retreat to, if challenged. When the coast is clear, out they come, with the usual ‘global warming is real and it’s happening now’ and the rest of the mantra, as at the recent spate of “Climate Change Roundtables’ held round NSW.
I am not a scientist, only a farmer, but to me the BoM’s AAMT Anomoly chart is an example of cleaver idelogues fudging figures on raw temp. records. eg, what would happen if the base period, (1961-90) was moved around.? This chart has been crafted to make the recent warming trend look alarming. I understand that the President of the ACF, Ian Lowe holds consutancy positions within the BoM & the CSIRO, if so, no doubt he’s input is showing up.
The whole point is that we just don’t know, and research must continue on a searching, inpartial basis rather then from an ideological base.
‘Tonnes of crap’. We should look at civilisations plus’s as well as the minus’s . Wild fires like the present ones put heaps of ‘crap’ into the atmosphere. Before civilisation developed enough to combat these, such fires whould burn across whole continents in dry times putting CO2, probably greater then today’s industry output into our atmo.
‘Massive stored heat’. How massive really ?
Our massive oceans seem to have the ability to clense us from all our sins.
Sid, a few points:
1. There are numerous studies showing that it is most likely warmer now than at any time in the past 1000 years – not just Mann’s famous ‘hockey-stick’ study.
Most of these studies show a medieval warm period cooler, but not that much cooler, than today. But what the very existence of a MWP demonstrates is that climate is susceptible to relatively small forcings such as changes in volcanic activity, solar output and orbital distance from the sun. Look a lot further back in history and these forcings resulted in massive climate change, principally due to positive feedbacks such as released CO2 and albedo changes.
Now think what happens when we release GHGs at a fairly rapid rate. Instead of being part of a positive feedback loop, GHGs are the forcing agents themselves. It is already obvious that they are the only forcing agents that can account for a MAJORITY of the current warming.
I really would like someone to explain to me how a MWP and LIA negate AGW. Quite simply, they don’t. They strengthen the case by showing how susceptible climate is to forcing and positive feedbacks. Small forcings = large impact. Large rapid forcings, which we will produce if we don’t do something about it = very large rapid impacts.
2. Our massive oceans don’t have the ability to cleanse our sins. They do have the ability to act as a buffer that delays warming, but doesn’t prevent it (According to Jim Hansen, the buffer is about 20 years).
3. Huge fires put out CO2 (which warms) and aerosols (which cool). Our current CO2 output is not really analogous as we (in the developed countries) have cleaned up our act in regards to aerosols but not CO2. The balance is not that same.
Isnt all this fuss based upon climate models that cant replicate the way clouds are formed and affect the climate, cant model the effect of aerosols, cant tell us with any degree of accuracy what the climate will be like in 5-10 years time never mind 50 years, can’t replicate major regional events like the Freemantle doctor, cant accomodate topographic changes, have a lateral spatial resolution of between 120kms and 400kms, were orginally built to get a better understanding of the processes only, and are now being used to predict with certainty that mega billions should be spent, and which is likely to have no effect whatsoever.
All sounds all pretty sensible to me
Sid – are you serious?
There is no fudging with data – the analysis using a baseline is standard international practice of using the last 30 years (or a recent 30 year period) as an arbitrary baseline. It doesn’t fudge anything – it simply makes trends clear. Make it unclear if you like and add the baseline back on. Doesn’t matter.
As for Ian Lowe influencing the Bureau’s baseline climate anomaly analysis – well what a stack of utter bullshit. They’ve been doing the stuff for years long before it became fashionable. I suggest you write their Minister and inform him. Obviously needs a Royal Commission. Or apologise for a total ill-founded and gratuitous slag-off without an ounce of foundation.
There is quite clear evidence that climate change is happening now – surely you’re not going to dispute the copious international evidence of that?
It’s entirely reasonable to say “possible” or “maybe” in respect to the future. 3 reasons – nobody knows humanity’s response to CO2 – everything from lots of effort to zero (if you don’t see that you’re not even on the page); chaos means you can never get it 100% exact; we’re probably underestimating the biospheric feedback so could be much worse than we think.
Oceans – massive stored heat – ooo – let’s say terawatts !
I think you’re just raving ! “Cleanse us of our sins” – oh it’s all just dawned on me. You should have said so first up Sid.
Oh….looky here. What could this be? It sounds interesting. Something about hurricanes and AGW.
“We find that long-period variations tropical cyclone and hurricane frequency over the past century in the North Atlantic Ocean has occurred as three, relatively stable regimes separated by sharp transitions. Each regime has seen 50% more cyclones and hurricanes than the previous one and is associated with a distinct range of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Overall, there has been a substantial 100-year trend leading to related increases of over 0.7oC in SST and over 100% in tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers. It is concluded that the overall trend in SSTs and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming. Superimposed on the evolving tropical cyclone and hurricane climatology is a completely independent oscillation manifested in the proportions of major and minor hurricanes in comparison to the total number of tropical cyclones. This characteristic has no distinguishable net trend and appears to be associated with concomitant variations in the proportion of tropical and subtropical hurricane developments perhaps arising from internal oscillations of the climate system. The period of enhanced major hurricane activity during 1945-1964 is consistent with this oscillation. While there is no trend in the proportion of major hurricanes, the increasing cyclone numbers has lead to a distinct trend in the number of major hurricanes and one that is clearly associated with greenhouse warming.”
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/holland/files/NaturalVariabilityOrClimateTrend.pdf
I agree Sid that we do not know for certain what is causing recent warming. Regarding the BOM’s mean temperature time series, it wouldn’t matter where you put the 30 year base period, it will still show warming over the past 20 years. Make the base period longer, say 60 years, the warming will be less discernable. To put stored heat in the ocean in some sort of perspective: assume the 0.3°C rise in SST over the past 100 years has occurred in the top metre of sea – then we have 4.18 x 0.3°C x (100)^3 x (1000)^2 Joules of energy per square km of ocean, or 39.7KWatts over one year – enough energy to power 10 houses for a year (a good candidate for radio man John Law’s useless information?).
I think the CO2 from wildfires is trivial in relation to our CO2 output. We can make a very conservative calculation. Suppose the wild fires completely burnt (extremely unlikely) 1 million trees over 3 weeks before they were extinguished. Combustion of one whole mature tree trunk, say 30m high, 1m dbh amounts to roughly 9 tonnes of C (most wood is 50% C). Then the fires would convert 9 tonnes times 1 million trees, or 9 million tonnes of carbon in to gas. Now look at our own energy use:- just one 100W light bulb running for 4 hours per night needs 1.44MJoules per household. Times that by 6 million houses (there are actually more), then we need to generate 8640 Giga Joules of energy. Now coal contains around 20.7MJ/kg of energy, but power stations are less than 20% efficient, so we need 8640 GJ / 20.7 / 0.2 kg or about 2 million kg of coal to be burnt to supply our light needs for a 100 W globe for one night. As coal is 42% carbon, this will convert 876,000 kg of carbon into CO2 in just one day. Times that by 3 weeks (21 days) and we are talking of 18 million tonnes of coal C converted into CO2. So the carbon contribution of a few wildfires over a few weeks is just a drop in the ocean compared to our own over a year. Furthermore, Aussie trees are well adapted to fire, some species even needing it to propagate, and soon grow back, restoring the lost C.
I agree Sid that we do not know for certain what is causing recent warming. Regarding the BOM’s mean temperature time series, it wouldn’t matter where you put the 30 year base period, it will still show warming over the past 20 years. Make the base period longer, say 60 years, the warming will be less discernable. To put stored heat in the ocean in some sort of perspective: assume the 0.3°C rise in SST over the past 100 years has occurred in the top metre of sea – then we have 4.18 x 0.3°C x (100)^3 x (1000)^2 Joules of energy per square km of ocean, or 39.7KWatts over one year – enough energy to power 10 houses for a year (a good candidate for radio man John Law’s useless information?).
I think the CO2 from wildfires is trivial in relation to our CO2 output. We can make a very conservative calculation. Suppose the wild fires completely burnt (extremely unlikely) 1 million trees over 3 weeks before they were extinguished. Combustion of one whole mature tree trunk, say 30m high, 1m dbh amounts to roughly 9 tonnes of C (most wood is 50% C). Then the fires would convert 9 tonnes times 1 million trees, or 9 million tonnes of carbon in to gas. Now look at our own energy use:- just one 100W light bulb running for 4 hours per night needs 1.44MJoules per household. Times that by 6 million houses (there are actually more), then we need to generate 8640 Giga Joules of energy. Now coal contains around 20.7MJ/kg of energy, but power stations are less than 20% efficient, so we need 8640 GJ / 20.7 / 0.2 kg or about 2 million kg of coal to be burnt to supply our light needs for a 100 W globe for one night. As coal is 42% carbon, this will convert 876,000 kg of carbon into CO2 in just one day. Times that by 3 weeks (21 days) and we are talking of 18 million tonnes of coal C converted into CO2. So the carbon contribution of a few wildfires over a few weeks is just a drop in the ocean compared to our own over a year. Furthermore, Aussie trees are well adapted to fire, some species even needing it to propagate, and soon grow back, restoring the lost C.
Whatever….
…serious rain forecasted….
Meanwhile, those Aussies who live in NorCal are experiencing record cold weather and lots of rain.
And all the Aussies in Tahoe are loving it.
Let me also add these same climate models have a very poor ability to simulate ENSO.
So all in all, they have bugger all going for them, but on them rests this whole cabal of nonsense.
Lets see now……….
M=A*FL*Z*0.001(Gg) where
M=mass of fuel burnt annually (Gg)
A=area burnt annually (ha)
FL=fuel loading (dry weight) (Mg/ha)
Z=burning efficiency
source: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/2004/national-report.html
Given 800,000ha burnt in Vic fires so far this season, a fuel loading of 35.8 for Vic wildfires, and a burning efficiency factor of 0.72 for wildfires then that would give us 20620.8 (Gg) or 20.62 Mt CO2 emmitted in the last 4 weeks.
That is almost eqivalent to the total annual net removals of CO2 by Australia’s forests over the 14 year period from 1990 to 2004. According to the 2004 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2004 were 564.7 Mt CO2 eqivalent. Add in the Tasmanian Fires, the NSW fires and especially the NT savannah fires and you will see that, even though they are considered natural events in Greenhouse Gas accounting protocols, these fires will emit a significant volume of CO2 this year. What is certain is that this volume will not be sequestered by the regenerating forest over a similar period but over many, many years. So even if this CO2 is regarded by the experts as being of “natural” origin it will still contribute to atmospheric forcing for a considerable period of time.
In regards to the upper Murray and supposed record low inflows. Well chaps its only going to get worse. Given the current low rainfall (we are in a drought) and the regrowth from the 2003 forest fires it is unlikely that inflows in fire affected areas will return to their pre fire levels within the next 50 years. The Melbourne Board of Works has very good data fire affected catchments dating back to 1939 and much earlier. Their research has clearly demonstrated the impact that wildfires have on inflows in water catchments.
The 2006 fires will just add to the reduction in inflows in all affected catchments.
Adaptation to climate change will take many forms not just reducing CO2 emissioins. Heaven forbid repid response to fires might even become the norm!
Anyway – back onto hurricanes & cyclones.. ..
Nexus has given us a link to some ground breaking work above.
It’s worth having a read of the arguments going on in the climate community about this field as you really owe it to yourself to see the depth and significance of the science issues under dispute.
It’s also worth reflecting on some of Landsea’s comments for those here who think he’s the ultimate denialist.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001028misrepresenting_lite.html
And don’t forget to read the Prometheus reader comments !
http://rabett.blogspot.com/
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/holland/files/NaturalVariabilityOrClimateTrend.pdf
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseaetal-science06.pdf
Despite all the kerfuffle I think the work by Holland is ground breaking stuff and builds on work by Santer, Elsner and Trenberth above. It’s a further advance.
This issue if FAR from over.
So maybe Al Gore may still have conveniently got it right for the wrong reasons? But that will teach you all for confusing politics with science. Evidence based politics ? nah .. ..
” Warmest winter in 500 year in Europe”
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39563/story.htm
But I know the cold spells in February that kill birds that have not migrated due to the warm winter..
Al Gore didn’t get anything right.
Hurricane/cyclone records are short, climate change is long
Landsea, Holland, Curry, Elsner etc have signed here:
July 25th 2006
As the Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the possible influence of climate change on hurricane activity is receiving renewed attention. While the debate on this issue is of considerable scientific and societal interest and concern, it should in no event detract from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions. These demographic trends are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters, especially in this era of heightened activity. Scores of scientists and engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climate change was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was (and is) inevitable even in a stable climate.
Rapidly escalating hurricane damage in recent decades owes much to government policies that serve to subsidize risk. State regulation of insurance is captive to political pressures that hold down premiums in risky coastal areas at the expense of higher premiums in less risky places. Federal flood insurance programs likewise undercharge property owners in vulnerable areas. Federal disaster policies, while providing obvious humanitarian benefits, also serve to promote risky behavior in the long run.
We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much of the current controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. But the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention. We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.
Kerry Emanuel
Richard Anthes
Judith Curry
James Elsner
Greg Holland
Phil Klotzbach
Tom Knutson
Chris Landsea
Max Mayfield
Peter Webster
Yes Paul – all very interesting,wise and relevant to current management issues but we’re debating climate change and hurricanes. The debate is escalating and not conceded despite what consensus has signed what. This is a science based debate vis a vis the usual contrarian nonsense.
If there is no established link, then who are the contrarians?
You’re playing with words Paul and making this debate political instead of scientific.
Some scientists say there IS evidence of a link with greenhouse. Some don’t. There is not a consensus. There are clearly divisions in this area of science. And this field is far from static.
The issue now seems to be whether the data are good enough. Holland et al are not backing down on the latest paper despite criticism by Landsea – as all these guys are serious scientists – I think we’ll have to wait.
Joe/Jill public need to know there is no firm consensus as yet. But instead of worrying whether there is or is not – the growth of populations in cyclone prone areas is a major concern for those who believe in AGW & hurricanes and also those who don’t.
Ann, The ‘Global Warming’ fraternity were very quiet last northern winter, when large areas of Europe and Asia experienced extremely cold conditions, including many snowfall records, low temp records, and alarming number of people dying.
Bet the birds fled south then!
Unless I didn’t hear it, were these alarmists then voicing concerns about global cooling? Or were they still blaming it on AGW?
Hi Sid,
Well, from my own experience , we in Scandinavia had a mild winter until the end of January until the hell( cold hell!!!) broke out. Coldest spring in decades…..and WWF blamed the cold on AGW.
It’s very confusing to live in Scandinavia…
But re sea surface temperature in the North Sea , they have measured the warmest surface temperature since 1974 when they begun the work.
woah! thats really long!!