Hello Jen,
It has been obvious for some time now that the world has been encouraged to regard temperature changes as being overly significant by the use of anomaly graphs that use the entire vertical scale to portray the extent of the temperature change.
This has denied the public the opportunity to view the changes in relation to their relevance to normal temperatures. So I thought readers might be interested in seeing the familiar data in a new perspective.
Regards,
Ian Mott
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
My god, I just realised that if you look at the average temperature for the past 5 million years in Kelvin there’s been next to no change at all.
Ice ages! What ice ages?
This has to go down as one of the silliest posts on this site ever. How is the ‘normal’ average temperature relevant to a baseline of zero degrees centigrade? What has the freezing point of water got to do with normal temperatures in our fine country.
Nexus,
You make a good point. And so does Motty.
Everything is relative to something.
Motty has not plotted temperatures for “our fine country”. He could have plotted the global average annuals as a series … you can image what that would have looked like from the above graph.
Is that a downward trend I see?
It’s a pointless and scientifically incorrect way of plotting a graph. Imagine explaining that to a journal:
“I’m not interested if people are actually able to accurately determine what each column represents. The punters are clearly unable to determine what those number thingies are on the y-axis unless there is a zero in there somewhere.”
If people started hiding or not displaying the y-axis values, then he’d have a point. Kind of like the 1991 IPCC report graph that keeps getting reproduced that purports to show a medieval warm period.
😛
Nino 3 Delta T
:-X
Fair enough Nexus. Can you send me the same numbers plotted as a series? And if you like, also back to the last ice age?
Nexus, do I take it that you believe that there was’nt a Medieval Warm Period?
Bet the crocks up north wish they were in one now, or in the ‘make believe AGW period’ which is supposed to exist. Instead of being in distress on the coldest June day ever recorded. (ABCTV News, tonight.)
There certainly isn’t a MWP right now in Adelaide, that’s for sure. Goddamn freezing.
Jen, gotta go play footy (stoopid late games). If I don’t get frost bite I’ll look into it latter. I’m sure I’ll be shocked by the result.
I’ll see your freezing and raise you.
Melbourne has had a week of it.(Except for the CBD which of course has the UHI effect)
If this is the start of the next ice age, remember I tipped it first!
So it is “silly” is it, Nexus? Kindly explain what is “unscientific” about portraying the data in this way. It is the standard method of representing values. And one would have thought that the point at which water, the most abundant attribute of our planetary surface, turns to ice might be a highly relevant reference point, especially when the Hansens of this world are frightening the kids with talk of imminent collapse of civilisation as we know it.
The next step is to overlay the global mean annual maxima and minima so we can judge the changes in relation to their range of variation.
And it is interesting that you mention the paleo-record because all my requests for the actual temp records used have fallen on deaf ears. Could it be that this data might tell a different story if presented in other ways?
Gee Ian – boy when you graph it like that it sure looks insignificant doesn’t it. So teensy weensy. And to think every day the temperature range is so much greater than that small annual change – dare we say teensy weensy increase. And what about the seasons hey – boy it’s sure small in comparison to them too. So it looks like that about wraps it up for AGW doesn’t it. Looks like it’s teensy weensy. Cripes I wish we had of thought of that sooner. Would have saved a lot of debate.
No doubt Ian, Bob (sorry Prof) Carter would be proud of you. Excellent work. And golly gee I reckon nobody has had the guts to tell Hansen this is how it is either.
Nexus I think he’s got us this time. He’s done us like dinners. There’s no getting out of it this time. I’m converting over. How can you argue with logic like this.
Oh you go on Luke with teensy weensy itsy bitsy stuff!
My max min is stuck on -4. A mean temp hey
Thats well under motty’s base line and I bet this chill stays around for days. However our max could be 10 or more.
The winter ice won’t last either
UQ has discovered greater climate changes in SEQ;
“People talk about Australia being in the worst drought in 100 years,” Dr McGowan said.
“But what the evidence is showing us is that in the last 5000 years South-East Queensland has been much drier than at present.
“We see periods of increased aridity that were marked by more frequent west to south-westerly winds and cooler temperatures.”
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=12354
rog – ““People talk about Australia being in the worst drought in 100 years,” Dr McGowan said.”
No people do not talk about this at all, at least if they understand the term. I had a spat with Bolty about this very thing.
The term “once in a hundred years” is an estimate of the probability of an event. ie: you consider that this event is quite rare and should in normal conditions happen only once in a hundred years therefore you can design structures, plan things accordingly.
It does not mean that this event is the worst in 1 hundred years. It also does not mean that a one in a hundred year event can only occur once in a hundred year period. It is an estimate of probability, no more, no less.
One of the possible consequences of AGW induced climate change is that events that were previously of the probability of once in a hundred years become more common ie:once in fifty years or even as warming really starts once in twenty years. Our agriculteral and building systems etc are designed with certain events being a certain probability. When that changes it affects these systems, usually adversely however sometimes it brings benefits. What is not known is whether the benefits will outweigh the adverse affects.
Nexus6 has also done a classic extrapolation to extreme in a vain hope of making a valid point but fails dismally. The reason why reasonable men and women would not use the Kelvin scale is because the terrestrial biosphere has nothing to do with the lower 250 degrees of that scale.
The celsius scale, on the other hand, goes positive at the point when ice melts. Hardly an irrelevant issue in discussing climate change.
If we were to improve the veracity of the graph even further we would adjust the vertical scale to cover the full range of daily maxima (+50C) and minima (-50C) so we can then plot mean maxima and minima values with the single global mean series.
But I have matters of a rustic and bucolic nature to attend to and it will just have to wait. Ta tah.
John Brignell of numberwatch gives a nice perspective on what he calls “Chartmanship”, a parody of the term “Gamesmanship”.
“Chartmanship is the art of using graphs to mislead without actually cheating.”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/chartmanship.htm
The example at the bottom of this page is similar to Ian’s graph, both are correct, but both give a very different impression of what is actually happening.
Via numberwatch, there is also this interesting pdf on forecasting and global warming forecasts.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
I liked this little poem.
“A trend is a trend,
But the question is, will it bend?
Will it alter is course
Through some unforeseen force
And come to a premature end?”
If you have a look at this link (http://www.wind-sun.com/PDF_Files/battvoltandsoc.pdf) and turn to page 3 you will see that the discharge of a lead acid battery (C/10) gives a state of charge of 100% at 12.5V and fully discharged at 11.0V.
Now while this appears off-topic it is an example that with my interest in solar panels etc I can relate to the above post and show why it is disingenuous of Ian to post such a graph.
In the case of a lead acid battery the real information is in the range 11.0V to 14.0V. Anything under 11.0V can safely be ignored as all lead acid batteries will be over 11V whether they are charged or discharged at normal rates of discharge. So in this case to give an accurate idea of the state of charge (SOC) we use an expanded range voltmeter. To make it even easier it is usually in the form of a strip of colored LEDS. This expanded range voltmeter starts at 11.0V and has a full range from 11.0V to 15.0V instead of a full range of 0V to 15V.
Ian’s voltmeter that he has posted here would consist of say 15 LEDs in which 1 LED per volt will light up. So if the battery was 13V then 13 LEDS would be lit up. So the critical range of the SOC would only be 1 or 2 LEDS and be very difficult to determine accurately the SOC of the battery.
My meter would also have 15 LEDs however as I am using an expanded range my 15 LEDs would cover the range 10V to 15V so 3 LEDS would light up with an increase of 1V. I could easily color code the leads with the first 5 or so green, the next 5 amber and the rest red. Because I have much more sensitivity and I understand the chemistry of lead acid batteries and appreciate the fact that a difference of 1.5V can mean the difference between a flat battery and a full one I would rarely be caught with flat batteries as I could charge them well before they are flat.
Ian on the other hand, applying the logic in posting this graph, would have a normal voltmeter measuring the full range. Ignorant or unbelieving of what battery chemists say about lead acid batteries he would conclude that out of a range of 15 volts how could 1.5V make any difference at all so his full range voltmeter should tell him the SOC and allow him to assess whether the battery is full or empty.
The upshot is that Ian would be sitting in the dark and I would have lights – a significant difference from a small change.
In EXACTLY the same way the temperature anomoly graphs are like an expanded range voltmeter. We know the temperature is about 14° so this graph conveys little information. So what is done is to EXPAND the range of interest so the small changes that can have profound effects become clearer.
It is not a conspiracy to deceive it is just that the temperature of 14° conveys no information about what we are interested in, in regards to assessing the risk of climate change. We know from previous episodes that the difference in global average temperatures between dry cold periods (glaciation) and warm wet conditions is only a few degrees.
This time the consequences of misreading the graphs is not uncomfortably sitting in the dark or not being able to start your car but possibly widespread disruption of normal life for millions of people. That is why the graph that Ian posted is misleading and it is why climatologists expand the area of interest with anomoly graphs.
Ender states the consequences of misreading graphs are “but possibly widespread disruption of normal life for millions of people”
The rhetoric has toned down a bit(must be the cold weather)
It’s a start.
Bahhh….the idea of showing a graph is to be able to visually represent the relationship of the variables to each other. Each other, Ian. Geddit!
You are not trying to represent the relationship to other variables that aren’t included in the graph – otherwise you would actually include them!!!!
Perhaps look at a stock market graph, or a political polling graph. Amazingly enough, they don’t start from zero.
They must be trying to hide something.
Perhaps you could also explain what global average temperature actually has to do with the freezing point of water? Please fill me in on when the global average temperature last approached the freezing point of water.
Just think what a one degree sea surface temperature anomaly does to the planet. What’s it called .. .. um err El Nino thingy-me-bob.
And it seems El Nino changes global temperature and rainfall patterns. Wow !
Funny how powerful teensy weensy widdle anomalies are hey ?
Anyway Mottsa sounds like Foghorn Leghorn
Ian, perhaps you could inform us, with reference to relevant variables such as
historical variations in mean temperatures
the effect of those mean temperature changes on the biosphere
effect on sea levels (with reference to paleoclimate evidence)
species vulnerability to temperature change
how mean temperature changes are distributed geographically (including subsequent localised and global effects).
that should do for a start, much more helpful than graphs I would have thought
that is, inform us on the significance of the mean temp chages you present
And there are people who claim there is no such thing as a global average temperature! 🙂
The same graph on the Kelving scale, (which refers to absolute zero), is even more interesting. It shows just how small the band of temperatures is that we can live in, and how what would at first appear to be an insignificant change can be devestating to life. Life adapts to it’s environment. Change that environment too quickly, and you put it under a lot of stress.
Hi SJT,
What is “the band of temperatures” that we can live in?
Crikey, Ender is back. Hows that windmill going?
rog – “Crikey, Ender is back. Hows that windmill going?”
Pretty badly actually – I haven’t got the panels going yet. Hope to soon
How about a three year moving average of the year to year temperature deltas. That may be a little more indicative.
Alan Hunter: Come back to Melbourne all is forgiven. The clothes horse is less than 4 feet away from whereI’m typing.
Jen: We can live in a band of 0 – 40 degrees.
But if it goes to -0.3 to 40.3 then we are in terrible potentially catostrophic trouble.
Looks like you’ve hit a nerve here Ian.
For the dummies like moi;
Fully understand that the way Ian has represented the data isn’t as dramatic as is usually the case but is the graph factually incorrect ie does it demonstrate yearly average global temperature from ’76 to ’06?
And the standard “teeny weensy ” disparagement is supposed to prevent further argument because???
If CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas ( at least according to some ) , it’s been present in the atmosphere for millenia in greater and lesser amounts than is currently the case and the anthropogenic proportion though increasing ,is realtively modest , then why is the questionning of whether this is significant invalid?
NB – the graph hardly invalidates the AGW theory but may put things into a different perspective.
Is it fear that if info was presented this way it may make it more difficult to keep the great unwashed properly alarmed?
Jennifer
as I qualified biologist, I would have thought you would be better able to inform me on that topic. Also why what is a relatively rapid rise in temperatures will be disruptive for a lot of species. Life adapts to it’s niche, and it is most successful when it exploits that niche. You take away that niche, and there are big problems if there isn’t time to adapt.
Jim – as usual despite presenting himself as the people’s poet Mottsa has failed miserably in his duty of care to you. In my teensy weensy aside you would notice that realtively small regional anomalies in average temperature can cause droughts and floods. Google how El Nino works as a single example. So really it’s come in spinner Mottsa – indicates how much he doesn’t understand.
In another example of silliness we could graph the annual atmospheric pressure in millibars from zero to say 1100. What do you think the curve will look like – and guess what a teensy weensy movement in millbars gives us all this variation in our weather – wow!
The minor greenhouse gas comment is correct – but so what – the issue is what does an increase in that gas mean to the radiation balance of the planet. Empirical evidence e.g. Philipona’s work indicates that it is behaving totally as per theoretical expectations. So it may be small but if it changes the balance of longwave radiation being recycled downwards well that’s that isn’t it.
Highest CO2 in the atmosphere for 700,000 years and still increasing. History of humanity is how long? History of humanity with 6 billions persons and 30 days food security is how long.
Ability of humanity to cope with current climate extremes is how good?
In terms of what ranges life on Earth can cope with – all depends on the species doesn’t it. You can go from no effect at all and cosmopolitan in distribution to very specific niches and temperature dependent sex ratios. Ecologists would know that ecology is somewhat complex. All depends on the speed of change though doesn’t it. And whether species can move across natural and man-made barriers. Some will. Some won’t.
So the graph is correct but doesn’t present the information in a fashion which is consistent with the magnitude of expected future uncertainties?
Is that right?
Choosing a statistical presentation format to reinforce a particular message isn’t too scientific I would have thought.
Is that similar to cherry picking?
Presumably the truly objective wouldn’t give a damn about the format of an accurate data set which remember ,does nothing to disprove AGW .
Choosing a graph’s axes appropriately to represent important characteristics is most certainly very good science. Inappropriate axes can be misleading or hide very important information. It all depends whether a few degrees difference in global average temperatures can make a significant difference to the issue being discussed. From climate variability studies indeed we know they do. Do you think thousands of sea surface temperature anomaly graphs have been produced as some massive scientific con job. At least think about it for a whole 60 seconds.
Remember Mottsa’s role in life is to sink politically unfriendly or ideologically annoying arguments. Not to communicate or educate. It’s pathetic to shoot good science simply because one doesn’t like the policy response.
He’s simply using the “appeal to ridicule” technique and confounding weather with climate.
‘entire vertical graph’, ‘in relation to their relevance to normal temperatures’?
The relevance to science is … ?
This simplified kindergarten graph and crayon defenses come from same mott who has rubbished climate trends because historical temp measures should have been every 4 or 6 hours every day
Oh yeah and such an improved scientific result would be delivered without expending any public funds on any commo scientists.
btw Jen, as if Motty needs handling with kid gloves, even over his kiddy graphs. “Everything is relative to something” is the biggest pile of vacuous Po-Mo crap ever mouthed. Even Einstein disagreed
Luke plays with the teensy weensy concept in response to queries re our range but there are many ways to consider response to rapid change to our environment. The obvious one is we depend on survival of all life.
It was an Australian marine scientist way back (I can’t recall his name) who first got my attention with his jump onto the Gaia bandwagon via the ABC after discovering ocean creatures deep down seemed to be holding those salty seas at a constant.
Jim: Individuals too it seems must respond to their particular closed sphere. An associate working topside of the mine on parole informed me about the rapid decision making that occurs when a convict enters one of our oldest institutions for the first time. Inside your future depends so much on who is on top and who is underneath the dog pile.
This very intelligent red headed refugee from the Celtic isles got released but steadfastly reckoned those who put him in would never see him go back regardless of their fate. Playing winners and losers in confined space can be a deadly game. Our spats over land and resources can prematurely eliminate all fertility. Topside engineering during major conflict produces only waste land.
One could say all our human creativity is in complete contrast to Gaia when it comes to minding the earthly fluids.
Perhaps Pinxi can answer on this big question; how intelligent are we at when working at the grass roots?
I was reminded today that many of my forebears in this country lived through two depressions. A collector of rustic hand tools will appreciate my find which was a primitive wooden marking gauge that retained all the original paring marks down the roughly rounded slide rods.
We live in an aberration of good times where all fine tools are now made by slave labor in far away China.
hey Ian’s graph is just like my vintage cabinet makers gauge!
Oooops Johnnie Walker its Saturday Night
Took your advice Luke and thought about it – even for more than a a minute , it was tough but I applied myself!
Ian posted a graph demonstrating average temperatures since 1976. It wasn’t presented with the standard variable usually adopted these days particularly for global warming purposes but so what?
His graph was then variously described as
* pointless and scientifically incorrect
* convey(ing) no information about what we are interested
plus the standard sarcasm.
I haven’t seen any evidence that the representation was incorrect merely that it shows a different ( and for some obviously unwelcome ) perspective.
It says nothing about the cause of global warming.
I’m lost as to the reasons for the sensitivity ?
Unless it’s that you believe the information has to be presented to achieve a particular purpose.
And BTW , whilst I’m sure that a “few degrees difference in global average temperatures can make a significant difference to the issue being discussed ” I don’t see the relevance.
There haven’t been a few degrees of warming attributable to anthropogenic CO2.
OK Jim – well tell us what you think Mottsa is trying to tell us and what we might conclude from that. Apart from his love of Excel.
Ian is the only person who can speak with any authority on the message he was trying to convey.
My view is that the post was a useful reminder of the need to be vigilant about the manner information on this ( I’m sure you’d agree ) critically important issue is presented.
I’m more than happy for the experts to recommend properly scientifically informed decisions about our response to AGW.
What I resent is being treated like a child who needs to be told stories of the bogeymen so he’ll eat his brussel sprouts.
As I see it , in this debate , you can be an objective rationalist or a politically motivated advocate – there are too many pretending to the former whilst acting like the latter.
Well I think the post was a pretentious try-on by a non-expert politically motivated advocate.
Remember Luke’s role in life is to sink politically unfriendly or ideologically annoying arguements…!!!
Jim: The folly of this whole thread is that the physical dimensions of climate change will not be measured by global temperature graphs alone.
As a former employee in advanced instrument and control systems I can say that in the end we will know far more about global temperatures from advancing sea levels and receding ice margins since the vagaries of daily measurements will be completely lost in the total event.
Understanding turbulence is one science and estimating quantities is another.
Any pit owner knows the rate of extraction is governed by the size of the (w)hole not the fluctuating height of ore on the conveyor belt. The size of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is at a best guess also a function of that hole in the ground.
Sid: I reckon Motty could be better employed by drawing up our fate from surveying such holes in the major coal and oil seams then calculating the damage to CO2 equilibrium, but let’s put assumptions about man made gas and AGW aside while he does it.
Remember’s Sid’s role is to repel AGW evil for the God squad.
Sid
I find Luke’s goal in life is to always try to point you guys back to what the science apjpears to be telling us. For evey link he provides that is about a science investigation into this, there is a deafening silence, and from what I can tell, he spends hours chasing them up just for your benefit.
gavin’s role is to remind everything there’s a real world out there
Motty’s role is usually to scream abuse and sling mud, while arrogantly demanding that people answer his sttacks but only on his terms. Your turn Motty, everyone has been gentle with you but we’re still missing the ‘new perspective’ of that scrunched up little graph that we’re peering at through the plastic window of your DL envelope.
Jim was right to say “Ian is the only person who can speak with any authority on the message he was trying to convey.”
Ian what do you really reckon is the significance of your graph, ie what do you prove by the way you scaled your bars and what conclusion (‘new perspective’) do you want the world to take away? A straightforward answer please, not the meaningless vague allusions you use above. Don’t be shy now.
Dear Ender….You are a corker! And suffering from ontological confusion too! Let me quote you…”We know the temperature is about 14° so this graph conveys little information. So what is done is to EXPAND the range of interest so the small changes that CAN HAVE profound effects become clearer.” Dear Ender, the small changes dont CAUSE profound effects, they ARE the profound effects!
Sorry SJT, don’t agree. See Luke’s attack on 15-y-o Kristen Byrne on the Weekend Reading thread of Jen’s.
Well she totally deserves it Sid and you’re a guttersnipe as well. How you can lay straight in bed amazes me.
And you were pointed back to the background on the award which you gleefully and libellously have spread as some “fee for service”. Shame Reynolds ! Pray for forgiveness.
SJT,
This is what you wrote:
“It shows just how small the band of temperatures is that we can live in, and how what would at first appear to be an insignificant change can be devestating to life”.
I asked you to clarify and you suggest I should because I was a qualified biologist.
I have a BSC and a PhD and I reckon you are wrong.
The way in which the usual suspects have jumped to the defence of “the one true view of temperature change” shows the importance of this propaganda device to the climate mafiosi.
There are a number of new and highly informative ways in which graphs can broaden our understanding of climate variability.
We know, for example, that the events that appear to have produced global warming over the past few decades have been primarily characterised by higher daily minimum temperatures rather than higher maximums. And this means that most of the warming does not involve threatening upper extremes, but, rather, more benevelent minimums like fewer frosts.
There is a whole range of graphs that we have not been provided with and the level of bile and personal attack that has been forthcoming in response to this one merely confirms the need to ensure that the rest of them get wide circulation.
We already know that spivanthropus climatensis has a penchant for being selective with the facts. It is also obvious that they have been even more selective with the graphs and images.
What you have said is not totally consistent with the 4AR. Duty of care not undertaken by Tryonus coprolaliensis var graphisii.
phil – “Dear Ender….You are a corker! And suffering from ontological confusion too! Let me quote you…”We know the temperature is about 14° so this graph conveys little information. So what is done is to EXPAND the range of interest so the small changes that CAN HAVE profound effects become clearer.” Dear Ender, the small changes dont CAUSE profound effects, they ARE the profound effects!”
I am not sure I am here. AGW itself will not the problem. The real problems are the possible effects of AGW, that of sea level rise, increased extreme weather, greater unpredictability of weather, profound changes in rainfall patterns, loss of permafrost etc.
The small change in global average temperature leads to large changes in climate at least as far as we know at present.
According to the link in the original article, “The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming.
The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.”
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece
So where were all the other “emminent scientists” that were willing to put their name to a claim that massive parts of Greenland could melt in a few centuries and sea levels rise by a couple of metres this century?
Hansen, two mates and the hired help? Give us a break. Next the Janitor will get a run off the bench.
From what I’ve been seeing lately, a lot of the “data” in favor of global warming has been coming from sensing stations which don’t exist, or have lately become part of a car-park in the middle of a condominium project, etc.
So even the base numbers are not credible.
Jennifer
I was referring to the band of temperatures that we live in as mammals, etc. You can find simple organisms that can live in various extremem temperatures, but they are rare and highly specialised. When you are talking about mammals, insects and other complex life, on the scale of Kelvin from absolute zero, say, to the average temperature of the earth now, to double that temperature, for example, our collective niche is pretty small.
The historical temperature variation of the earth on that scale is also very small, but those small temperature changes result in massive changes in the eco-systems that exist on the planet. Rapid changes in temperature even on those relatively small scales are enough to cause mass extinctions.
Further to my above post on contribution to warming from higher nightly minimums. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/mxmntr/mxmntr.html
Night time minimums have increased by 0.84C while daytime maximums have only increased by 0.28C. Ergo, most of the rise is non-threatening and will actually be beneficial.
And in light of his above post, it is incumbent on SJT to provide us with a list of species that are likely to be faced with extinction from a reduced frequency or severity of frosts.
Note also the statement, “The decrease of the diurnal temperature range is approximately equal to the increase of mean temperature. The asymmetry is detectable in all seasons and in most of the regions studied. The decrease in the daily temperature range is partially related to increases in CLOUD COVER (my emphasis).”
See also John Daly’s work on “Whats wrong with the Surface Record” which has still not been addressed.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
In Schiller style “From what I’ve been seeing lately” the bulges in Motty’s graph are a good representation of rampant consumerism and the US probably leads the pack hey.
On Luke’s teensy weensy issue this representation tells us nothing about the big ocean climate drivers, CO2 as a blanket or gases in general as a conduit for electrical upheaval such as we got this week in the variety of super storms cranking up havoc around the planet in odd places.
This obsession with max/min records, historic averages etc smacks of a growing disability in dealing with dynamic change. Static mathematics won’t do folks.
Any one who thinks we have the ability to adapt should try living on Mars where the majority of fluids have disappeared.
4AR says “Diurnal temperature
range (DTR) decreased by 0.07°C per decade averaged over
1950 to 2004, but had little change from 1979 to 2004, as both
maximum and minimum temperatures rose at similar rates.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/baby-its-cold-outside-151-but-not-cold-enough-for-thisendangered-baby/2007/06/24/1182623741911.html
“The nationally endangered mountain pygmy possum could be left high and dry by climate change. It lives among the rock scree in the Victorian Alps, where the inhospitable environment affords some protection from invasion from predators of lower altitudes — but they could close in with warmer temperatures. There are an estimated 1500 mountain pygmy possums living in the Mount Hotham-Bogong High Plains area and 450 at Mount Kosciuszko in NSW, in addition to those on Mount Buller.
“The Mount Buller population is the most isolated, smallest and genetically distinct population, and our aim of biodiversity conservation is to try to maximise the genetic diversity within a species,” Department of Sustainability and Environment threatened species manager Peter Menkhorst said.
Females rule the roost on the mountain, occupying the best habitat, while the males live further down the slopes. When the snow melts each spring, they move up the mountain to breed. But the removal of rocks and logs for ski development has created a barrier between the habitat of male and female possums, while alpine fires have increased the competition for food with other native species such as bush rats.”
“And in light of his above post, it is incumbent on SJT to provide us with a list of species that are likely to be faced with extinction from a reduced frequency or severity of frosts.”
Ian are you honestly suggesting that no species will be faced with extinction due to a reduced frequency or severity of frosts? SJT has given a VERY well-known example of one that likely will, but I’d like you to provide evidence that none will (if that is indeed what you are suggesting).
SJT has provided some speculation as to the extinction of the Pygmy Possum but, as usual, merely fiddles with the subject.
One degree of global warming will move a mountainous temperature threshold about 100 metres up the hill. Two degrees will be 200m up the hill. So before we can take any of what SJT has suggested as serious input we will need to know the exact height threshold of the Pygmy Possum and the total area above that contour.
Then we can look at the total area above the +100m contour etc. At the moment all we have are generalities. The post also raises more questions than it answers, such as;
Which predators of the Pygmy Possum are restricted by temperature? Feral Cats? Hardly.
Owls? No. Snakes? Some, maybe.
And given the character, scale, intensity and frequency of broadscale clearfires in the high country due to the heightened fuel loads resulting from the cessation of high country grazing, it is drawing a very long bow indeed to try and pin the loss of the Mountain Pygmy Possum on global warming.
The gall of you people never ceases to take one’s breath away. The EPA, the greens and the planet pimps actively removed the people and functions that reduced the extent of conflagrations, the same people who also risked their lives to fight those fires, and you have the front to claim the species that inhabit those firestormed landscapes are at risk from global warming.
Which part of TWO MILLION HECTARE FIRESTORM do you morons not understand. Show us the territory of the Pygmy Possum and then show us the map of the burned out habitat.
Yes, they are threatened by rising temperatures, but mostly in the 600C to 900C range as the fireball passes over their rock patch and destroying all their food supplies in the middle of the breeding season.
And those fireballs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with a pack of incompetent boofheads placing ideology ahead of sound forest management.
6000 eiders died recently in the Baltic Sea due to parasites in mussels/clams. The increase of parasites in the mussels were due to increased temperature in the sea.
OK, this is the story that we use to hear… but surprise, surprise , one person that I know from the bird rescue actions, wrote in a Swedish paper that she suffered in the winter with the sea-birds that had to deal with cold winter temperatures in Sweden!!!! Are people totally insane, the birds she was talking about were ARCTIC sea birds….
Actually, this was the first time I heard an NGO person talk about TOO COLD temperatures for wildlife. STRANGE!
So Ian…..are you still suggesting that no species will be faced with extinction due to a reduced frequency or severity of frosts? If so can you please provide supporting evidence? I haven’t seen SJT refer to you as a “moron”, or any other derogatory term, and I have not done so either, so a polite answer would be nice.
Re the mountain pygmy possum, predators and competitors need to be considered, along with microhabitat changes, food distribution and suitable habitat for torpor, breeding and foraging, etc.
Some more Burramys info:
“For Buuramys, the greenhouse effect represents an unparalleled hastening of climatic trends. Its environment has been shrinking in area since the last galciation, and further warming could metaphorically push it off the top of the mountain. Because it is an alpine specialist, the Burramys is one of our wildlife species most at risk. Its ability to hibernate efficiently is critically dependent on environmental temperature, so a change in climate would most likely result in increased winter mortality. Because Burramys are physiologically adapted to cold climates there is little hope of rapid genetic adaptation to global warming…..Further loss of habitat, by warming and the invasion of lower-altitude vegetation, and perhaps a reduction in food items such as Bogong Moths, could lead to unviably small populations. The problem could be exacerbated by competition from other small mammals better able to survive a milder clmate…The result of the greenhouse effect on regional climates remains speculative. However, when the future distribution of the climate to which Burramys is restricted was predicted under various greenhouse scenarios, the climate was eliminated under all six scenarios examined. This occurred with only 1 degree Celcius rise in ambient temperature.”
So, habitat disturbance caused by development; fires, and ferals have reduced Burramys numbers. One or all may even be what adds the Burramys to the long list of mammalian exstinctions in this country. However, due to the fragility of the population, they may be at risk of extinction due to changes in temperature as well. So it may not be “drawing a long bow indeed to try and pin the loss of the Mountain Pygmy Possum on global warming”. In fact it may be drawing a long bow to suggest that they wont become extinct due to global warming.
Ian referring to the recent high country bushfires reckons “those fireballs have nothing to do with climate change”
I say we are at risk of cooking the records of human involvement another way when we blame alpine management practice entirely and by letting the fate of a few pigmy possums in their limited range determine the outcome of this debate we are really into denial on AGW principles. The narrowness of any one presentation remains a pure copout in the depth of our understanding.
How can our impact be so lightly ignored?
As I said Ian’s graph masks the extremes of both climate and its change. When did we begin counting major events or start summing the energy within?
As individuals in earlier times we could hardly walk across continents or sail across the oceans if our weather was as violent and as often. Sure; isolated colonies did fail in the past but what were their pressures?
Surveying contours round peaks at this stage is a bit like damming the valleys and draining the swamps in the not so recent past.
Consumers beware; a drowning man clutches straws.
From the data I have been able to observe, there is a species which is facing endangerment dramatically as a result of Global Warming.
That’s the Greenies. Now that the tide is going against them, pressed by a belated backlash from normally complacent rational people, they’ll be pressed to the point of extinction.
There may be some who change their names, but a good few will have to get haircuts, at least–totally messing their phenotype.
Note how Libby attempted to reinterpret my statements to convey an opposite extreme. At no stage did I express or imply that no species would become extinct from climate change. What I was disputing were suggestions that species extinction would take place on a massive scale.
My references to “morons” was based on entirely justified outrage that people could abuse the concept of global warming to hide some of the most negligent and incompetent environmental custodianship we have ever seen in this country.
To be calmly dishing up references to 8th, 9th and 10th order speculation on environmental impacts as primary drivers of a claimed inevitable species extinction is sloppy enough to merit condemnation. But to ignore a first order, proven ecological disaster at the same time is inexcusable. You will get no apologies from me.
My key point remains. Most species will actually benefit from milder winter minimums, warmer winter maximums and face no real threat from warmer summer minimums. The impact of the remaining warmer summer maximums can be countered by adjusting the stocking density of vegetation so the landscape as a whole remains within existing heat/moisture thresholds.
But explaining that to a gormless green ideologue may be the major obstacle.
“Note how Libby attempted to reinterpret my statements to convey an opposite extreme. At no stage did I express or imply that no species would become extinct from climate change.”
Ian, you will notice that I sought clarification from you (“Ian are you honestly suggesting that no species will be faced with extinction due to a reduced frequency or severity of frosts?”). I did this twice. I then provided some additional information on Burramys and climate change which comes from other’s research. I did not “ignore a first order, proven ecological disaster”, but presented some additional information to your fire comments. I did not dispute them.
“You will get no apologies from me.”
I haven’t asked for one.
“gormless green ideologue”
I’ll add those to the list as well.
I wonder why you can’t be civil Ian?
Libby I think you will find property owners are jack of the erosion of the value of their freehold to suit the purposes of other groups be they gormless greenie types or a political party hellbent on retaining power at whatever cost to others. The theft of property rights is the is thin edge of the totalitarian wedge. I for one struggle to be civil to those who choose this path . Turn the other cheek , I think not!
Sorry wjp but I don’t see how property rights theft fits in with my comment on Burramys.
A bit off topic – but this is relatively new and worth a browse…
Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report
Review Comments and Responses
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
cheers
Arnost
A bit off topic – but this is relatively new and worth a browse…
Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report
Review Comments and Responses
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
cheers
Arnost
A bit off topic – but this is relatively new and worth a browse…
Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report
Review Comments and Responses
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
cheers
Arnost
A bit off topic – but this is relatively new and worth a browse…
Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report
Review Comments and Responses
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
cheers
Arnost
Gavin that must be the SUVs on Mars hey.
motty can’t answer a basic question in plain language
means even he doesn’t know what he’s trying to say
Libby and Pinko the NSW Rural Fires Act makes it very difficult at times to act reasonably to limit fire damage.Maybe you should do a backburn or two in fire season to protect your property ,or maybe your neighbours , from a fire racing towards you and your property from ,say, a National Park and see what sort of punishment the authorities will dish up for your efforts.I for one won’t be voluntering under the current centralized and bloated regime.Have you ever had to fight a fire? Do you know the difference between low intensity burn and a fire storm close up?I’ve still got wallabies ,has the Snowy Mountains National Park? Speaking of which,the next fire to go through there should just about clean out the last few critters left!My advice is to kiss MY possums goodbye.
Ian, You make a very good point, to the people who who say this is not science, why? Most science is incomprehensible to ordinary people precisely because the information is formatted towards a specific point of view. Politics is taking advantage of this by putting the information in a form that people don’t understand – this graph people would understand and in addition come to realise what a gross exaggeration global warming is, not to mention our so called contribution to it which is negligible.
wjs, ‘odd’ that you should single out myself and Pinko Puss. It says more than the actual content of your two posts.
Andu precisely shows the point.
Graphed the way Ian has doen it causes Andu to assess that level of change on a global scale as minor. So science incomprehensible to ordinary people indeed !
Luke so your point is that if it is comprehensible to ordinary people is is not science?
OK then here is a ‘scientific’ view of how minor influence greenhouse gases influence temperature:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/mknut/2006GL028031.pdf
Note that the paper states that GHG contribute to between 0.2 – 0.38 degC. That’s all GHG – human contribution? 0.004degC? That’s negligible so maybe Ian’s point is not far off the mark after all.