Dry days down under
Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in 50
-
Posted 9:07 PM on 2 Feb 2009
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Feed the world sustainably by 2050? Yes, we can!
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Craig Allen Posted 9:10 pm
02 Feb 2009
It regularly gets way hotter for way longer in other places.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:28 pm
02 Feb 2009
We are so toast if this keeps up. If you like almonds eat them this year because we're being set up for a pollination failure by the early warmth. That means expensive almonds in 2010.
Last summer we had 30 straight days of smoke from fires hanging over the north state like a shroud. There's still a lot of fuel in those hills and it's likely to be tinder dry by June.
Pray for rain.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:14 pm
03 Feb 2009
For example, here is an extract from his link to the "Melbourne Heatwave" (Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 30, January), my bold added:
"...Today's 45.1 degrees at 4.27pm was the second highest temperature ever recorded in Melbourne, behind only the 45.6 recorded on Black Friday, 13 January 1939.
Melbourne's most sustained heatwave occurred in January 1908 when temperatures reached 39.9 (15th January), 42.8 (16th), 44.2 (17th), 40.0 (18th), 41.1 (19th) and 42.7 (20th)..."
Note too that the "record temperatures" tabulated for some outlying areas relate to lengths of record varying between only 21 and 53 years, so they are hardly relevant to say 1939 or 1908, and other historic times of truly severe drought.
Joe and others claim that the current drought in South East Oz is the worst on record, with special comment on unprecedented disaster on the River Murray. Well, It's a complicated subject what with greatly increased population etc, but what about this following photo:
Camels crossing the Murray at Mildura in 1914
http://www.pictures.libraries.vic.gov.au/site/mildura/boa ...
That is hard to imagine today, given that there was a speed-boat crash death on the same river in Victoria a few weeks ago!
Or what about the sepia photo in this history lesson on devastating droughts in the past:
Buggies and sulkies in the dry river bed of the River Murray
http://historyteacher.org.au/nhc/2005_07/07_YoungHistoria ...
No SUV's then!
Australian history tells us that severe droughts and floods, are a regional shifting cycle since white settlement.
Around the turn of the 20th century, droughts resulted in massive stock, (sheep and cattle) losses, together with virtual loss of wheat harvests, not to mention human suffering.
So, why the spin, that something unprecedented is happening in SE Australia.... It's nonsense!
Oh BTW: Australian [wheat] production increasing
Harvest of the 2008-09 Australian wheat crop is well underway and production is estimated to be around 20 million tonnes. A lack of spring rainfall across Victoria, South Australia and southern New South Wales resulted in a lower than previously expected wheat crop in these regions. ... http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_Dec/htm/whe ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 pm
03 Feb 2009
Can this dust rise high enough to block solar insolation? Maybe catastrophic drought triggers this sort of cooling? I wonder if any ancient climate recirds from ice analysis indicates this might happen? The dust should be locked into the ice laters just like the 1816 volcanic dust would be.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:42 pm
03 Feb 2009
A "global Dust Bowl" is imminent.
Hmmm. Didn't the term "Dust Bowl" originate in the distant pre-AGW 1930s?
But wait a minute!
I've heard this "canary" line before.
Last time it was that the "rapid melting of Arctic sea ice" was the "canary in the coal mine for climate-driven sea level rise". (Or possibly some other horrible future disaster).
Call off the canaries, Joe. It's all BS.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:51 pm
03 Feb 2009
amazingdrx is explaining to us how anthropogenic global warming is going to cause "dust storms on a global scale [that] trigger volcanic like cooling as happened in 1816, when three volcanoes triggered drastic cooling and a year without a summer".
Hmmm...
Please explain your hypothesis here (anthropogenic warming causes disastrous cooling); amazingdrx, it sounds a bit convoluted.
In fact, it sounds downright confused.
Max
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:39 am
04 Feb 2009
Here's a question for progressive green australians: Will you take hold of the opportunity to go green with solar, wave, and wind power over a renewable smart grid and restore water supplies with conservation, waste water recycling, and renewably powered desalination?
Will you become manufacruting leaders in these technologies? Or will you wait and watch and deny and delay until it's too late? Nature has given you the lead on this whole conversion from the old GHG- intensive energy economy to the new renewable smart grid economy.
What will you do? If you go green tech, capital will be attracted to your efforts. If you remain with the status quo, capital will flee for safety.
The trade balance will tell the tale. If you start selling renewable energy devices all over the world, your economy will boom, if not, say goodbye to prosperity and long term financial security.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:37 am
04 Feb 2009
I described a recent tragic speed-boat death on the river, to illustrate that the river is currently very different to way back in 1914. Perhaps a recent photo may have been more convincing, So here we go; View east along Murray River towards wharf (Mildura)
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:05 am
04 Feb 2009
As a "rational environmentally conscious Australian", I'm not sure if the question was aimed at me, and whilst it is an interesting topic, it does not belong on this thread. You should ask the question elsewhere, whilst us rationalists "clarify" the gross alarmist SPIN coming from Joe Romm in his lead.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 12:41 pm
04 Feb 2009
While it is true that this one event does not prove climate change, various Bureau or Meteorology analyses show that the long term trends are very much in accord with global warming predictions. There have always been droughts, heatwaves and floods, but the droughts and heatwaves are getting more severe and more frequent.
As for camels walking across the Murray, it is naturally a system prone to highly variable flow. There is always water in the lower reaches these days because of the system of wiers that have been built and because of releases from dams in the Snowy mountains for irrigation purposes. Regardless of this, the total flow in the system has been at a record low for an unprecedented series of years. (Although I note that the authorities are now beginning to let some reaches go dry in order to keep others topped up.) And as you know I'm sure, the Coorong system and other lower lakes and have gone dry or are in the last phases of drying and have gone acid as a result. It has been so long since the last decent flood that vast areas of the ancient River Red Gum forests along the rivers are dead or dieing. Also if you go for a trip along the Murray, you will see that the non-riverine Mallee Woodlands are now beginning to die too.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:48 pm
04 Feb 2009
I guess we can see which choice you would make bwally. Delay, deny, and expire in the heat. But after all you seem to be in the minority of opinion on this.
National suicide disguised as energy policy will probably garner fewer and fewer votes the hotter things get down under.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:51 pm
04 Feb 2009
I believe I read somewhere that around a century ago, (before much human influence), the river went dry for a period of six months and another period of 364(?)days. This recently known natural history, is now not allowed to be repeated by people who think they know better.
Meanwhile I had a post ready to go, following, which touches one of the concerns you raised about the Cooyong
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:59 pm
04 Feb 2009
I did a Google on this exact phrase, as found in Joe's lead article, and found ~25 exact copies, all from "green weblogs" including the ever popular Tamino`s. They mostly seem to repeat the same original screed, which quotes sources for various things, e.g. David Karoly, but I could not find the source of that particular statement.
BTW, the ending of the terminally very slow-flowing Murray has always been a bit vague in definition within the vast lakes and lagoons behind the sand-dunes. Captain Flinders in 18XX failed to chart the so-called river-mouth itself, just sailed right by and didn`t see it. It was only discovered by land exploration somewhat later, and has kept moving around within sand-bars ever since.
Funny how this alarmist spin of unprecedented disaster spreads around to all the usual suspects, repeated over-and-over faithfully and with great enthusiasm!
Map of Murray mouth, Lakes and Cooyong lagoons
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:04 pm
04 Feb 2009
HOWEVER, IT IS OFF-TOPIC ON THIS THREAD!
That's all, it's not complicated really.
It is broadly discussed on other threads.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:05 pm
04 Feb 2009
In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all. And yet in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week.
Which is it? You cant hold both points of view. You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you. Its like some kind of psychological addiction.
If you were really on to something, you would publish. But you don't. You know you would be a laughing stock. So instead you spend your bored evenings on here, just being a wise ass.
Where is the value in that behavior? What value do you bring to the world?
There are so many areas of climatology and oceanography that can benefit from sincere skepticism and further study. But thats not who you are. You are not a participant. You are a dead weight and an obstructor to the situation we are dealing with here.
Get a hobby. Get a meaningful relationship. Volunteer. Add something to the world.
Both Australia and the U.S. are going to sign in Copenhagen. Howard and Bush are history. Its out of your hands now. Its 2009, not 2006.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:48 pm
04 Feb 2009
Besides the fact that the two of you [= me and Max] constantly make the mistake of citing specific historical events instead of long term global trends,...
Well actually, if you remove the word `historical`, that is the very complaint that you should level against the lead author himself; Joseph Romm. He has cited some recent events in Australia, for instance the 3-day heatwave in Melbourne, in such a way as to imply that they are unprecedented. My comments have been to show that history relates that these recent events that he cites are not unprecedented, or that in some cases, his citations appear to be untrue or very misleading. (See Note A below)
Furthermore, he claims that Australia faces collapse as a consequence of heat and drought, and that this will develop into a dust-bowl situation around the world. It could also be argued using Joe's same short-term logic, that large scale regional above average rainfalls and periodic floods in Northern Australia , (currently massive in Queensland ), might be a long term world problem too!
...there is another flaw in much of your arguments:
In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all. And yet in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week.
The only thing I've tried to do on this thread is to point-out that much of what Joe wrote is pure hype and sensational nonsense.
It's off topic, but as far as this or other threads are concerned, I don't recollect denying that global warming exists, or claiming as a truth what might be causing it.
Note A: An example of a citation of a current situation by Joe that is pure spin/wrong: "Harvests have fallen sharply." See my 9:14 PM on 03 Feb 2009 above from an impeccable source: Harvest is increasing 2008/9
Note B: I don't think that the remainder of your comments contribute in any way to this debate, and you do not appear to have grasped what my previous comments were about.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 12:17 am
05 Feb 2009
As I'm enjoying feeling vaguely superior, my cricket team having reduced the 'mighty' Aussies to a pile of whimpering little boys (at home, no less) I'm going to observe that you guys are talking at cross-purposes, and it's getting a bit dull for the rest of us.
To his credit Black Wallaby is a little more precise than the rest of you, but, for example, I'd dearly like to know what the significance of rivers running dry is. It seems that we're talking about systems that are heavily modified with weirs, dams, diversions and shifting, undefined mouths. Therefore a section of a river running dry could be utterly meaningless in terms of telling us about the effects of climate change, if any, are.
What might be more useful is looking at precipitation in certain areas, checking to see temporal patterns have changed in the last century and if there are any reasonably recent (as in, within the last few centuries) precedents for any patterns we might see.
Please can we clarify what we're really talking about before we muddy the drying rivers of understanding any more!
Whiskerfish in Cape Town
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:03 am
05 Feb 2009
Your motivations are insincere. You are more skillful at times, but your background psychological motivation intends harm and obstruction, not clarity and truth, as you would have readers believe.
Your motivation is fear of George Orwell regulations. I can be empathetic with that fear. Why not be honest about it and put it out front instead of your false pretense at
"scientific accuracy".
What you don't realize is that your agenda is transparent to 99% of the readers here. Your costume is ripped open in back and we can see...
Its not my calling you out that is "off topic", its your very presence here in this discussion.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:30 am
05 Feb 2009
A strong correlation between temperatures in South-East Australia (and North America), is wind direction, speed, and duration. In the recent SE heatwave, we had a sustained low wind speed northerly. Tomorrow, (Saturday) it is forecast to blast up again to 43C with a strong northerly, and there are comparisons being made to the conditions prior to the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires, when 75 people were killed and over 2,000 homes destroyed. It should be a fun day for firebugs, (yes "humans"), and catastrophic alarmists like Joseph Romm and ChristophersJ. Fortunately, the forecast for the following day is a comparatively chilly 20C, as the wind reverses to southerly
Ash Wedneday quote, (My emphasis added):
The Ash Wednesday fires consisted of some of the most devastating bushfires
Australia has ever experienced, sweeping through parts of Victoria and South
Australia.
Weather conditions leading up to the Ash Wednesday fires:
Between April 1982 and January 1983, Victoria experienced severe drought conditions and little rainfall...
On longer time-scales, civilizations have of course been ended by local climate change. About 500 years ago, the great Angkor city civilization was abandoned, apparently as a consequence of a change in monsoonal patterns.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:20 am
05 Feb 2009
What is at the base of your crusade?
Why do you only use the tactic of toying with the most minute details, and yet prove a false witness when it comes to your larger desires?
And when it comes to trying to derail CO2 regulation, what role does an obstructionist have when the entire topic of global warming has been flanked by that of ocean acidification, which has none of the complexities of climate science and is 100% provable?
The answer is: the role of the obstructionist is over.
Why not turn your skills into authentic skepticism, with a positive motivation, and help your society and Earth. We need everybody.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 10:47 am
05 Feb 2009
I don't know where that factoid about the Murray only reaching the sea 40% of the time comes from. It's clearly not true now as the river no longer reaches the sea, ever. I guess that If you can find The Murray used to flow into Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the Coorong then to the sea. These were originally saline to brackish, tending to fresh during periods of high flow down the river. With the installation of barrages in the 1930s the lakes became fresh. Now there is no flow, so Lake Alexandrina is dry. Albert will probably dry this summer. And the Coorong is increasingly hypersaline. There are plans to re-flood the system with seawater to stop it going acid. But the acidity is affecting wetland for hundreds of kilometres along the lower Murray, and these can't be flooded with seawater. For at least the last decade they have had to continually dredge the mouth to keep the Coorong open to the sea.
The problems are caused by a combination of over allocation of water for agriculture, and the historically low inflows to the system in recent years.
For more details on the current state of the Murray-Darling system, there is a PowerPoint summary here
Going by your user name I would have thought you were Australian, but if so it seems odd that you would be questioning the dire nature of the climatic trends in recent years. Are you from the north perhaps. Last nights news reported that 60% of Queensland is flood stricken. Perhaps that explains your skepticism. The top half of the continent gets floods, the bottom half gets drought. That's the new climate reality.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 10:54 am
05 Feb 2009
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:27 pm
05 Feb 2009
From my reading, there is nothing unusual in the current cycle of drought in the SE, and there is a need to be careful about assuming what may have happened historically in the huge lakes and sand-bound lagoons that are the very complex termination of the Murray River. I recall that the fall of the very slow moving Murray in it's final ~150 Km. is only ~2.5cm/Km, and that the major lake has a normal average depth of less than 1 metre, so it makes sense to me, what with evaporation and lagoon-sand-seepage etc, that it is a struggle for the river-mouth itself to remain intact, especially in modern times, when the hydro-engineers prevent what used to be regular flood-flushing.
It also makes sense to me that since there are historic records of the river totally drying-out during extreme drought periods, in the days of low human population, that the lakes and lagoons, must have been similarly stressed in the past. A difference then of course was that there were no eager-beaver scientists running around measuring stuff, or cartographers (or satellites) to make import of what likely may have happened.
Here is an extract from an article, (Jan. 2009) which I recommend you study:
TESTING to be conducted this month at Lake Albert, the smaller of South Australia's stricken lower lakes, is expected to show the lake used to be "an ephemeral wetland", supporting calls for the pumps currently topping it up from Lake Alexandrina to be switched off...
And here is an extract from another of wider interest:
What immediately stands out is the Murray-Darling's very low mean annual discharge in comparison with the other river systems. Whilst the Murray-Darling is a major river system in terms of its length and catchment area, it is a small one in terms of discharge or runoff (Figure 1). In fact, of the world's major river systems, its surface runoff is among the smallest.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:32 pm
06 Feb 2009
Here is one gem from that rag, so let's look at the first item, (some others already addressed):
Most of the south of the country is gripped by unprecedented 12-year drought. The Australian Alps have had their driest three years ever, and the water from the vast Murray-Darling river system now fails to reach the sea 40 per cent of the time. Harvests have fallen sharply.
For a start, the severity of drought anywhere in Oz is difficult to define, both temporally and spatially. The five main parameters relating to drought assessment in the SE that occur to me are:
Rainfall on farming land, it's timing and distribution, (Re cropping and animal stock)
Flow rates of the Murray-Darling river system
Annual rainfall in the mountain catchments. (Which have an influence on 2)
Storage levels in reservoirs, which are largely a consequence of 2) and 3), complicated by controlled demand for irrigation and environmental flows, and increasing human population.
Other weather conditions, and bushfires in the catchments.
Having lived in Melbourne or nearby for almost 40 years, the claim "gripped by unprecedented 12-year drought" simply does not ring true. I'm acutely aware that there has been a rapid fall of water storage levels down to about 1/3 full, for Melbourne in the last 3 years, and markedly in this last year. So let's look at the rainfall pictorial record from the BOM, which they have nicely presented for the past six years. Blue means wet, and red means dry, but notice how over the six year period, the colours keep moving around, and there is no continuous drought anywhere. See also notes that I've added to the graphics.# Specifically, the south east was not in drought for at least 2003 and 2004, so pray where was the 12 years of unprecedented drought?.
If we consider the Murray-Darling system, it has certainly been worse in the past, with for example, a period of zero flow in the Darling for 364 days recorded in 1908.
Concerning rainfall on farming land, the harvest increased in 2008/9, (see posts above), and the massive sheep and cattle losses of the late 1880's and early 1900's have not been repeated.
# In case you have difficulty reading or zooming the composite graphics, I'm about to post an alternative layout.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:57 am
07 Feb 2009
OK. Now.
What is your motivation? When you get out of bed in the morning, turn on the computer...what makes you come to Grist, with a fire in your belly?
Is it:
1.) a pure as snow quest for more accurate truth in the minutiae climate science
2.) to sow confusion and obstruct greenhouse gas regulations by governments
If the answer is number 1, then can you point us to a time where you were supportive of any climate science finding that DID link AGW to greenhouse gasses.
And if you cant do that, are you ready to claim that you are, smarter, more informed, more published, more accredited, than the climate scientists at NOAA, NASA, the AGU, ect?
Where is the frostbite on YOUR hands from drilling YOUR ice cores and and the study YOU published refuting the thousands of others?
What role are you playing? Does it count? Does it have value?
What value do you bring to your country and people?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:42 am
07 Feb 2009
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3260558569_50a60cf3cd ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:50 am
07 Feb 2009
"In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all. And yet in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week.
Which is it? You cant hold both points of view. You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you. Its like some kind of psychological addiction."
Can't speak for Black Wallaby, but here is my response (just to straighten out your obvious confusion).
Your first statement "In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all" is incorrect and unfounded.
Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today.
To your next point, "in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week".
The long-term Hadley record shows 0.65C warming from 1850 through 2008.
Several stusies by solar scientists tell us that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in 11,000 years!) has been responsible for around 0.35C of this total long-term warming.
This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic warming (or UHI distortion, effect of PDO, ENSO, NAO oscillations, etc.).
Let's assume it was ALL due to AGW.
Using this warming plus the atmospheric CO2 levels as published by IPCC for 1850 and Mauna Loa for 2008, we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7C.
Extrapolating this to the projected 2100 CO2 level, gives us an additional anthropogenic warming of 0.4C from today to year 2100.
Got it?
Then you wrote, "You can't hold both points of view".
As you have just seen, I do not "hold both points of view".
Finally you added, "You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you. Its like some kind of psychological addiction."
Aw c'mon. Don't throw a tantrum and make childish statements. Makes you look silly. Stick to the facts instead.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:16 am
07 Feb 2009
Keeping it brief:
I guess my main motivation is that after a lifetime of work in which an error in my science could have got people killed, when I see scientists making gross misrepresentations for political or funding reasons whatever, I get mad. In Joe's case of course, he is paid media-commercially to do it which maybe allows a slacker scientific morality, but many scientists are funded by the tax-payer, and I resent that even more. The first awful example of this that caught my attention was the "Manna" widespread use of the MBH99 hockey-stick in the IPCC 2001 report and elsewhere, to give the impression that modern warming was unprecedented. The same practice of claiming that something recent is unprecedented when variously there is no scientific basis for asserting such, can be seen in Joe's nonsense above, and I wish to expose it.
I also get mad when a scientist of rather low scientific achievement such as Joe, seeks to ridicule another with far greater achievements. A sickening example on another thread was his attack on the genius of Freeman Dyson, (physicist/mathematician), because he had the temerity to outline unresolved problems in computer modelling, per the IPPC reliance on them.
This sort of bad information from many other sources, is taken-in by those who do not seek to check it out, and you can find examples of that if you study the above exchanges. I WANT TO STOP BAD SCIENCE.
You also asked of me:
"...can you point us to a time where you were supportive of any climate science finding that DID link AGW to greenhouse gasses..."
I am in full agreement that greenhouse gases such as CO2 result in an AGW response. However, "the system" is extremely complicated, and there are peer reviewed studies arguing that net feedbacks, clouds being one major component, are either very small or negative. (= GOOD NEWS) The IPCC relies heavily on computer modelling to predict AGW, but since some of the inputs have an accepted low level of understanding, they really have no scientific value.
Andrew Dessler is a climate scientist that is active on Gristmill, and the following very important issue, (abbreviated), still remains unanswered after 40 posts:
Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo, published in the same respected journal as used by Andrew... ...the aforesaid paper appears to strongly contradict the main claim in Andrew's lead article, and it is customary in science to mention the work of others in kindred matters! Please try and understand this issue on negative feedbacks , taking you in at post #36.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:46 am
09 Feb 2009
At least I will harp on my Liberal friends when they make an unadvised conclusion for an individual event: like this past year's floods in the Mid-West of the U.S. So my criticism goes both ways on that common mistake. Where is your criticism of a conservative claiming that the effects from La Nina mean the Earth is on a long-term cooling trend?
Manacker
I dont feel "obviously confused"
Your first answer is almost sarcastic. You DO give the overall impression that AGW is not a crisis issue. To say, "Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today." is, by its very nature, a slippery statement meant to diffuse talks of action.
My criticism stands.
Your second answer has a wrong mathematical error somewhere in it. I dont know what you have left out of your equation. I'm not a climate scientist. But I am a rational person and if you are asking me to believe YOUR scribbles vs. the likelihood estimates of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the AGU, even in their imperfections, then I am afraid you will be disappointed with my reaction. It is unlikely you know more than these others. Possible, but unlikely.
My criticism stands. You DO argue both of these incongruous points.
1.) A long term warming trend is not happening
2.) It IS happening but humans are not responsible
If that is not your intention, then maybe you might look at your wording. I'm not going to debate you on the minutiae, I'm telling you about the big picture impression you are making.
Black Wallaby.
Like Manacker your over-all impression is that of an obstructor to action. OF COURSE the science needs to be as accurate as possible.
OF COURSE the understanding of the climate crisis is becoming more and more sophisticated as time marches on. OF COURSE some are tempted to draw false conclusions based on individual events, and they should be called out on it. Those are noble points.
But the aggregate - the big picture - of you efforts is one of contrarianism and a intention to sow confusion and disrupt action. If we could plot your comments on a graph, all of the dots would be in one corner.
Both of you:
AGW is a complex beast - I agree 100%. There WILL be a better, superior, more sophisticated understanding of it in the future. But NOW, there is ENOUGH of a likelihood for rational people to take rational action, and bring humanity's industrial, agricultural, and transport CO2 emissions to ZERO.
And besides ALL of this above. Ocean acidification is NOT complex. It is 100% provable and attributed to humans. There are no nuances to be had on this matter. Even without AGW, that is reason enough to change out the entire engine that runs under the human race.
The community of countries WILL sign in December in Copenhagen, and there is ZERO effect either of your efforts will have upon that.
In the meantime, please, keep the bloggers honest. But at least PRETEND to do it to the right-winger's silliness too.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 8:30 am
09 Feb 2009
MY goal. MY underlying intention and bias. MY motivation.
is to ensure the same relatively stable climate conditions that allowed for the agricultural revolution in 10,000 BC up to the 20th Century. Hopefully until the next ice age begins -- is my wishful thinking.
I dont want to control ANYBODY, but if populations dont get on board there will have to be some kind of incentive. I prefer heavy carbon pricing from government combined with free market competition for meeting the new goals and lower prices, over draconian measures.
But the Japanese used military force with the Samurai to guard the cutting of forest and if thats what it takes in the end, then thats what it takes. I think we should be able to avoid that drama.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:43 am
09 Feb 2009
But the Japanese used military force with the Samurai to guard the cutting of forest and if thats what it takes in the end, then thats what it takes.
Well that IS very Japanese isn't it? Of course the Japanese IMPORT vast amounts of timber from around the world. There is a big stink here in Oz, because we export hundreds of millions of tonnes of old growth forest as wood-chips to Japan each year.
Here is something in my State, (Victoria), but it's much bigger in Tasmania
http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:44 pm
09 Feb 2009
Hi Christophersj,
You wrote, "MY motivation... is to ensure the same relatively stable climate conditions that allowed for the agricultural revolution in 10,000 BC up to the 20th Century. Hopefully until the next ice age begins -- is my wishful thinking."
Good plan. But there is a bit of a problem. Climate has changed considerably over the past 12,000 years, without the impact of any human CO2 emissions. There were no "relatively stable climate conditions" over this period, as everyone (except Michael Mann) knows. In fact, there were several swings that overshadow the current warming "blip" in the record.
There is also no "just right" temperature for our planet.
So we will have to live with whatever climate swings nature deals us.
Let's hope these do not include an imminent return to Little Ice Age conditions. The last one was catastrophic for around 1 billion humans in the late 18th century but a repeat today could really be disastrous for a world of almost 7 billion people.
So my "wishful thinking" is that natural factors do not cause a major cooling cycle for our planet.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:18 pm
09 Feb 2009
I just answered your "relatively stable climate conditions" post above.
Now let's quickly go through your last rant.
You wrote, "To say, "Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today." is, by its very nature, a slippery statement meant to diffuse talks of action.
Not at all, Christophersj. It is simply a statement of fact. That's all.
Then you added, "Your second answer has a wrong mathematical error somewhere in it. I dont know what you have left out of your equation. I'm not a climate scientist."
Nor am I, but I can understand the studies that are out there that tell me the sun caused around half of the observed warming to date, leaving the other half for all other factors (including CO2). IPCC tells us that their "level of scientific understanding" of "solar forcing" is "low", so I have to accept the many studies out there by solar experts who have a higher "level of scientific understanding" on solar impacts than IPCC.
This means that the warming we can expect from a 2xCO2 scenario (as expected by year 2100) is around 0.7C. We have seen 0.3C to date, leaving 0.4C from now to year 2100.
It's actually quite simple.
Your next statement that "ocean acidification is NOT complex. It is 100% provable and attributed to humans" is a bit doubtful. The ocean is basic (not acidic). It contains gigantic masses of CO2 absorbing phytoplankton. The carbon balance of the ocean is extremely complex, and its "carbon sink" is vast. Humans are not going to do much "damage" here with the limited overall supply of fossil fuels on our planet, regardless of alarmist predictions by some so-called "climate scientists". Go through the numbers yourself, and you'll see that this is not a problem.
Whether "the community of countries WILL sign in December in Copenhagen" or not is immaterial. No matter what the politicians of the "community of countries" decide to do, it will not have any impact on our planet's climate. Zilch.
Your last outburst of "keeping the bloggers honest" and "right-winger's silliness" was so off the wall that it does not merit a response.
As I advised you earlier: "Don't throw a tantrum and make childish statements. Makes you look silly. Stick to the facts instead."
Regards,
Max
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:04 am
10 Feb 2009
You really don't comprehend what I mean by calling out BOTH left AND right wing bloggers who use specific events and draw a long-term conclusion? Really? I think Im beginning to understand the bias here.
Either you have spent as much time critiquing asanine conservative comments as naive liberal ones, or you have not.
Manacker said:
"There is also no "just right" temperature for our planet."
Yeah, except when you need to feed and water 8 billion people.
And on ocean acidification, your just out-ranked on every point. Coal can take us to enough emissions to matter. Many phytoplankton require calcium building blocks and will crumble under acidification. Its already started. Please stop while you are digging yourself a hole.
Sir, I'm neither ranting nor being silly. I'm calling you out on bias and lack of credibility vs. other sources. That's called responsibility where I come from.
I may lack grace, but it comes as a reaction to your offense.
You and Wallaby can stick to your 'death of a thousand cuts' tactics, where you use minute details to obscure the larger issues, but I ask you with all sincerity: use your analytical skills in a balanced fashion and add to the help we all need.
We definitely need accurate and sophisticated science. And sincere criticism. But the two of you have only sewn a costume that looks like that.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:57 am
10 Feb 2009
You wrote: "There is also no "just right" temperature for our planet." Yeah, except when you need to feed and water 8 billion people."
Is this supposed to be a riddle?
What is the "just right" temperature for our planet (in your opinion)?
First, let's define "temperature" as the "globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly" (as reported by Hadley) plus Hadleys' 1961-1990 "baseline" of 15.0C. OK?
Is the "just right" temperature the one we had the past year (2008) = 15.312C?
Is it the slightly higher temperature we had in 1998, the record hot year of the 20th century = 15.515C?
Is it the slightly cooler temperature we had in 1976 = 14.771C?
How about the temperature in 1944 (a teeny bit warmer than 1976) = 15.087C?
Or maybe the slightly cooler temperature we had in 1910 = 14.441C?
Is it the temperature we had in 1850, as we were just coming out of the Little Ice Age = 14.598C?
Or do you prefer the even cooler LIA temperature of 1700 = around 14.0C?
Or maybe the temperature of the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000AD, a bit warmer than the one of 1998 = around 16.0C?
Take your pick. Let me know which of the above is "just right" (if you have another pick not listed above, please let me know your choice). Thanks!
Regards,
Max
PS BTW the colder temperature of the LIA resulted in crop failures, food shortages and famines with a world population of around 1 billion, so if feeding 8 billion is your concern, I'd go for the warmer side rather than cooler.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:29 am
10 Feb 2009
You wrote: "And on ocean acidification, your just out-ranked on every point. Coal can take us to enough emissions to matter. Many phytoplankton require calcium building blocks and will crumble under acidification. Its already started. Please stop while you are digging yourself a hole."
Let's do a quick check.
The current carbon budget of the earth is not well known although there are estimates. What is the relation between the temperature at the air/water ocean interface and the rate at which carbon dioxide dissolves? What is the relation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the air/water ocean interface and the rate at which CO2 dissolves? What is the relation between the water temperature, the CO2 content of the water, and the rate of uptake of CO2 in cellular aquatic plant life? How much of the carbon uptake becomes waste (decay) and how much goes into skeletons (calcium carbonate)?
Let's run through a quickie estimate.
The ocean has a carbon sink estimated at 40,000 billion tons of carbon (GtC)
The atmosphere currently has a carbon sink of 820 GtC (at 385 ppmv CO2 concentration)
All the known and optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet (coal, oil, gas) represent a carbon sink of 2,029 GtC. That's all there is.
Adding in another 15% for deforestation, cement production, etc. gets us to a total of 2,334 GtC
If we consume all of this we will release 2,334 GtC (or 8,556 GtCO2 equivalent) into the atmosphere some far distant day in the future.
Let's assume that the higher atmospheric CO2 levels will not result in a higher level of photosynthesis over land (as studies have shown).
Currently between 50 and 60% stays in the atmosphere and the rest is absorbed by the ocean on a net basis. Let's assume it will be 60% in the future, as well.
This means that we will increase the atmospheric carbon by from today's 385 ppmv to an absolute maximum value of 1,042 ppmv when all the world's fossil fuels are gone.
From 1850 to 2008 we had 0.65C warming, of which 0.35C is attributable to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (see earlier post).
This leaves 0.3C warming from all other causes; let's assume this was all due to increased atmospheric CO2.
Using the logarithmic relationship we arrive at additional warming expected from consuming all the fossil fuels on our planet of an additional 1.0C:
ln (385/285) = 0.3008
ln (1042/385) = 0.9958
dT = 0.3 * (0.9958 / 0.3008) = 1.0C
The ocean will absorb the remaining 40% or 3,423 GtCO2 = 923 GtC
The ocean sink will increase from 40,000 GtC to 40,923 GtC or by around 2%
Now to "ocean acidification". This is a misnomer. Wikipedia tells us that the surface ocean pH has decreased from 8.179 to 8.104 (i.e. the ocean has become slightly less alkaline) from pre-industrial times to today. Wiki cites a study showing that this could decrease to around pH 7.949 when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 560 ppmv and pH 7.824 based on IPCC IS92s scenario (atmospheric CO2 = 1,100 ppmv).
As far as the impact of slightly higher CO2 levels on oceanic calcifying organisms is concerned, Wiki cites conflicting studies: some state that this could result in reduced calcification, others show both photosynthesis and calcification increasing. Recent studies examining North Atlantic sediment cores found that calcification of coccoliths increased by 40% since 1740.
As far as other consequences of a slightly less alkaline ocean are concerned, Wiki states, "However, as with calcification, as yet there is not a full understanding of these processes in marine organisms or ecosystems."
Wiki concludes with the statement:
"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean."
I've read several studies on this topic as well, but Wiki gives a pretty good summary.
So you see that there is no conclusive evidence that the slight decrease in upper ocean alkalinity will have any harmful effects, as you postulated.
Hope this helps clear up this point.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:43 pm
10 Feb 2009
Its the range that allowed for the human population to skyrocket and still eat food and drink water.
Your entire answer was an exercise in sarcasm.
2.) The ocean scientists that made the Monaco Declaration, and ocean scientists Ive communicated with at NRDC, Scripps, and Carnegie Institution at Stanford University, all report in a way that negates your analysis.
I'm not qualified to say how or where your likely mistakes are. I'm making a rational bet, a reasonable gamble, a sane reflection.
Since your personal findings in all science concerning anthropogenic CO2 are completely turned around from the majority of the scientific community, it must be a goal for you to publish and straighten these thousands of mistaken scientists out, eh?
Which journals are your research and findings being submitted to? And why are you slumming here with us instead?
It sounds like both you and Black Wallaby, and your little pet, Jabailo, should engage the scientific community directly through science journal publishing and the lecture circuit at Universities, and circumvent this little burg of Grist. How is hanging out here a real academic challenge for you?
Send a post card and let us know how it goes.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:28 pm
10 Feb 2009
I could ask you the same silly question, "Which journals are your research and findings being submitted to?"
You were probably spot on when you wrote, "I'm not qualified to say how or where your likely mistakes are. I'm making a rational bet, a reasonable gamble, a sane reflection."
Grow up and don't make silly claims you cannot substantiate.
Just some advice.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:52 am
11 Feb 2009
I DONT HAVE TO do original research. I DONT HAVE to go to Antarctica and do ice core drillings that go back 650,000 years. I DONT HAVE TO invent satellites and launch them myself. I DONT HAVE TO set my own ocean buoys with instruments. I DONT HAVE TO make super-computer models and update them with every new finding as it comes out.
I don't have to. I'm not a scientist. I just have to understand the results from the vast majority of credible sources -- evolving or not.
Its YOU who has the burden here. Not me. Please spare me the false logic.
I have a job and responsibilities as a citizen that take up my day.
There is a division of labor:
I am also not a cancer researcher, but I go with the majority of them on my dietary needs.
I am also not a strauctural engineer, but I rely on the opinion of the majority of them before entering a high-rise.
I have also never seen the flu virus in real life, but I rely upon the vast majority of epidemiologist about my behavior and contacts with others when I am sick.
Were you the one who claimed the majority of science were crazy during the early 20th Century, during the North American Flu epidemic. Was it YOU who said, "there are no small invisible bugs that spread disease, these guys are nuts! They just want money for their research grants!" HA!
What I AM is a rational and thinking human being - sans sociopathic paranoia.
So, no, I dont have to publish ANYTHING. I'm not the contrarian.
But I AM an enthusiast and would love to see the majority of the climate science community swayed your way. After all, who WANTS there to be a climate crisis? Not me! Thats sadistic/masochistic wish fulfillment. I'd LOVE to NOT have this issue on our collective plate.
Spare me the minutiae. Not interested nor qualified to engage on that level. Go talk to Lonnie Thompson, or Hansen, or Ken Calderia, or Susan Solomon, or on and on and on...
See you in Copenhagen.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:40 am
11 Feb 2009
I personally prefer to address the scientific debate surrounding the AGW question rationally with a degree of rational skepticism.
Yes, Christophersj, there is a valid ongoing scientific debate on this subject, i.e. the science on our planet's climate is not "settled", as some would have us believe.
Despite your disclaimer, "What I AM is a rational and thinking human being - sans sociopathic paranoia" you appear to prefer the more emotional approach. Why else would you throw in the totally irrelevant "sans sociopathic paranoia" line? It really has nothing to do with our discussion.
It also appears that you do not want to get into discussing any real substantive issues.
Real science (as opposed to agenda driven pseudoscience) is based on rational skepticism, rather than "group think".
Religious or quasi-religious belief is based on blind acceptance of a dogma, because the Bible (the IPCC, James E. Hansen, the prophets, Al Gore, the oracles, Susan Solomon, the "fortune teller", etc.) said so.
When you make claims on substantive issues, I will challenge those claims if I can see that there is some evidence that they may be false. And I will do this in a rational manner, not resorting to name calling or emotional outbursts.
But if you just want to throw tantrums, count me out of the discussion.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:12 am
11 Feb 2009
Your emphasis is biased and I think you are hiding an agenda that is afraid of some kind of "George Orwell government" picture you have in your mind. which, in its own way, is a respectable topic.
Where is your criticism of right-wing unscientific foolishness? Where?
You're right, this conversation is on two different levels. I'm looking for enough info, for a likely outcome, to base POLICY upon, and nothing further or more detailed.
For me that means reading BBC, New York Times, press releases about peer reviewed published journal papers, and the NASA and NOAA websites.
Oh, and a little Grist and Climate Progress -- because I'm biased now, remember?
That's all I have time for. I don't need to go further to make a decision to help my country into a global agreement and change out the entire energy engine underneath us.
I'm actually surprised to be engaging in this conversation at all. Its soooo 2006.
I'm a 100% sure the science at the edges is developing, in progress, and needs hearty skepticism. Hurricanes, for example, are very complex. But the core issue is clear enough and we're moving forward with it.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:42 pm
11 Feb 2009
Very nice dissertation, Christophersj, although I completely missed the significance of your alleged "George Orwell government picture", which I apparently "have in my mind", or even less my lack of "criticism of right-wing unscientific foolishness", both of which you have apparently pulled out of the air (or possibly some other darker place) to divert from the real issues we have been discussing.
What does all this silly double-talk have to do with a serious debate on the many unresolved scientific questions surrounding the ongoing debate on AGW?
I'd say nothing.
Christophersj, I'd recommend that you stay away from emotional polemic and stick to addressing the unresolved scientific questions surrounding the hypothesis of alarming or potentially disastrous AGW with an open mind.
Forget references to "Orwell" or "right-wing unscientific foolishness". These are emotional and polemic sidetracks that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
And while you are getting all your information on the topic at hand from Grist and Climate Progress, I'd suggest you also check out Climate Audit and What's Up With That to get a more balanced picture.
Just a tip to help you become a bit more objective in this discussion.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 6:22 pm
11 Feb 2009
I'm afraid that you are wasting your time with Max and Balck Wallaby. I'm guilty too, on that score, on various blogs.
B Wallaby does live in Melbourne and I'm sure his dying words, should he have the misfortune to be consumed in a bushfire, will be to say that it's nothing to do with climate change.
Max is the sort of person who, should there ever be a peoples' revolution, in either Switzerland or the USA, you'd be happy to see packed off to a re-education camp. That's probably not going to happen, more's the pity, but the good thing about the internet is that his words will be recorded for posterity. His descendents will, no doubt, be none too happy that their ancestor played such a reactionary role against efforts to save their environment.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:36 am
12 Feb 2009
Manacker, I am highly confident in the relevancy of my points. Thanks for the critique though.
You are correct. I am engaging in polemic. This is conscious. Details are the last thing I want to discuss with you at this point because you are insincere.
I think the main message I want to leave with you and Black Wallaby is this, and then I'll leave it:
Because your nitpicking, which is noble in the abstract, is actually an extremely biased behavior, and not distributed equally among offenders, (Where is your online criticism of right-wing blogs equating La Nina with long term cooling? I'm waiting...) you are both frauds and not who you claim to be in intention.
What you need to know is how obvious this is to the readers here.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:28 am
12 Feb 2009
Since Peter Martin has been kind enough to write his brief introduction of both Black Wallaby and myself, I'll return the favor, leaving out any opinionated comments.
Peter Marting apparently lives in or near Brisbane. He is a firm believer in the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is causing and will cause great damage to our planet's environment.
He bases his belief on a few points of data, such as the late 20th century increase in both global temperature and atmospheric CO2 and a recent trend of melting Arctic sea ice, but primarily on the firm belief in the notion that an "overwhelming majority" of scientists (a) support the suggestion of potentially disastrous AGW, and (b) that they cannot possibly be wrong in this assessment.
He occasionally slips into discussions of a more political nature. These reveal that he supports world socialism and big government intervention as solutions to many of the world's problems today. He has expressed his disdain for former UK PM Thatcher, for example.
He favors massive international governmental mitigation actions to stop the AGW development before it is too late.
He has been known occasionally to become emotional and lose his calm, but hardly ever does he slip into ad hominem attacks on those with whom he debates the issues. I can recall no incidents where he became openly hostile or impolite.
I have never witnessed him telling his debate partners "you are insincere", accusing them of "extremely biased behavior" or calling them "frauds".
His arguments are usually to the point, with only occasional side-tracks. As a result, he keeps his debate partners on their toes.
So, all in all, he is an excellent partner with whom to debate the many unresolved scientific and policy issues surrounding AGW.
You could learn from him, Christophersj, if you really want to make a meaningful contribution to the debate on sites such as this.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:53 am
12 Feb 2009
But it's not completely useless to keep them talking chris, they dig their respective pits deeper and deeper and draw their pet causes right in with them. So you and Peter aren't really guilty of wasting energy.
The public judges complex issues in a simple but flawed fashion, for instance: nuclear power is supported by people who tout wacky devices like nuclear powered buses and believe radioactive contamination is harmless, these are crazy ideas, therefore nuclear power itself is a crazy idea.
It's flawed reasoning, but effective in changing public opinion. The trolling bwallys and jabs of this internet world are actually beneficial to perceptual and political progress? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:39 am
12 Feb 2009
To the topic of "meaningful contribution to the debate", amazingdrx conceded that he "never made one, never will".
In going back through this and other sites to which the good "dr" has contributed, I can confirm that his statement is true.
Why have a climate blogsite if every contributor is just going to repeat the officially sanctioned mantra without rationally and skeptically questioning the data that lie behind it?
That's the whole purpose of these sites, to stimulate the ongoing scientific and political debate surrunding all the uncertainties relating to our planet's ever-changing climate. And, let's face it, there are many, as the exchanges demonstrate.
Sure, there are some "trolls" out there who can only come with ad hominem attacks, snide remarks, emotional outbursts or toxic BS, but these are not to be taken too seriously.
Stick with facts, amazingdrx, and you'll be better off.
Just a tip.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:42 pm
12 Feb 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:53 pm
12 Feb 2009
I notice that you have had an exchange with blogger ChristophersJ, whom is of your ilk, although he does debate a bit more than you, and I would like to refer that he at least has agreed with me that some claims made by Joe up above, are false. You have also probably noticed a newcomer to this weblog; Peter Martin. He is long and firmly entrenched in the paradigm of AGW on other weblogs, and makes a rather uncharacteristic, non contributory comment above. However, if you would like to see how an ardent AGW alarmist should debate us sceptics, that is by contributing to the debate, see what Peter has to say on Joe's What's climate got to do with it?
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 8:57 pm
08 Mar 2009
Whyfore hast thou dallied herewith?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see you have been active elsewhere, but a moment ago.
I deeply miss your scintillating comments.
Regards,
Bob_FJ, previously AKA Black Wallaby
Listen to good news
Permalink