Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for August 8, 2008

Guest Weblog by Bob Tisdale: Part 2 – Natural Variability of SSTs has NOT been Accounted for by the US CCSP

By

Natural Variability of SSTs has NOT been Accounted for by the US CCSP.

In my first post at jennifermarohasy.com/blog, I noted a magnificent 0.9 deg C drop and rebound in North Pacific SSTs (sea surface temperatures). The anomaly occurs there between the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. Its impact is reflected in global SST anomaly data illustrated on the same graph:

2cyg07k(1).jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/2cyg07k.jpg

The largest of the late 19th century explosive volcanic eruptions, Krakatau in 1883, was approximately the same magnitude as Mount Pinatubo, and the Mount Pinatubo eruption did not duplicate the effect on SSTs. Assuming that TSI (total solar irradiance) variations are not responsible, and since there have been no discussions in any scientific papers that I could find of an anthropogenic cause for the drop in SST during that period, that leaves Thermohaline Circulation (THC) or Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) as the driver.

A similar but lesser drop in SST occurs in the North Atlantic. This data set is the basis for the much studied Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO):

212s789(2).jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/212s789.jpg

Referring to the first two illustrations, Global SST anomalies dropped 0.45 deg C from 1878 to 1910, then rebounded that amount plus 0.1 deg C from 1910 to 1941. I acknowledge that I cherry-picked the 1878 start date, but it’s used simply for illustration purposes. The AGW skeptical part of me looks at those graphs of Global SST anomalies and concludes that if a 0.45 decrease in SST is within the bounds of natural variability, a 0.45 deg C increase could also be natural, yet global SSTs haven’t come close to climbing 0.45 deg C above that 1878 starting temperature.

These THC/MOC oscillations are found in other SST data sets. The drop in SST during that period can also been seen in the data sets of THC upwelling points in both hemispheres of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans:

29c27v5(3).jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/29c27v5.jpg

The placid South Pacific appears at first glance to contain more subtle SST oscillations, and it’s easy to see the influence of the North Pacific. However, as illustrated, the eastern half of the South Pacific also contains substantial oscillations that are independent of the North:

25allw2(4).jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/25allw2.jpg

If we divide the east-central mid-latitude South Pacific by 10 degree longitudinal bands and plot those data sets, those oscillations become much more pronounced:

250s2t2(5).jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/250s2t2.jpg

THC/MOC MISSING FROM THE NEW CCSP REPORT

The effects of North Atlantic and North Pacific THC/MOC on global SST anomalies are illustrated in the preceding. In the recently released draft of “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program briefly discusses the impacts of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on SALMON PRODUCTION. Salmon production? I believe they missed the greater effects of those two natural variables, their influences on climate. I searched the CCSP document for “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation “, for “thermohaline”, for “meridional”, for “overturning”, but the search feature of Adobe Reader returned the same message: “No matches were found.” I have to conclude from these oversights that the CCSP are either misinformed, or they have been misdirected, or they are attempting to mislead the public.

SOURCES

The graphs are from my series on Smith and Reynolds SST data:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/smith-and-reynolds-sst-posts.html

Sea Surface Temperature Data is Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST (ERSST.v2) available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS):

http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc

Bob Tisdale

Escalating Unimproved Property Values in the Daintree

By

The land valuation of our property in the Daintree rainforest has recently jumped by 250%. This may well reflect market activity over the last few years, but then again, government intervention has largely influenced these changes, with broad scale expropriation of development rights, including the right to construct dwelling homes on freehold land. It is unsurprising that properties with established homes would become more valuable, because of their administratively increased exclusivity, but these are not unimproved values. It is equally evident that those properties that were compulsorily stripped of development rights lost market value and for obvious reasons.

Our freehold property, in particular, was compulsorily inscribed within World Heritage in December of 1988. Its classification for farming was maintained, but World Heritage responsibilities, as prescribed within domestic legislation, have progressively diminished farming activities; most dramatically through the prohibition of harvesting native forests. At a local government level, World Heritage has been used to separate planning areas, to effectively deny development capabilities for the greater importance of protecting ecological values within the inscribed estate. In truth, the income-earning capabilities of freehold World Heritage lands have been progressively diminished.

On the basis of these mounting constraints, we lodged an objection to the new valuation, detailing the legislated conservation land-use and the lack of rateable services – no reticulated water, no reticulated electricity and a road that is frequently impassable due to the inadequacies of the existing infrastructure.

Not only was the decision on objection disallowed, but also a new valuation was simultaneously dispatched, with a further increase in unimproved value of an additional 250%. Details within our objection apparently alerted valuers to changes in land-use that no longer qualified for concession for farming. So what was once eligible for rateable concession, because of an existing right to harvest forest product, became ineligible, for the higher importance of protecting forest product. Go figure!

This reminded me of another valuation milestone in the Daintree rainforest, back in the mid-1990’s. Around $16million of Commonwealth and Queensland Government funds had been allocated for the voluntary conversion of Daintree freehold rainforest to National Park. Properties in the Cooper valley were prioritised for acquisition, because of their intrinsic values of rarity, endemicity and primitiveness.

In an act of perceived skulduggery, property values within the priority acquisition area, unexpectedly tripled. In response to the outrage of incensed landholders, officials insisted that those affected should have rightfully rejoiced, with the discovery that they had long enjoyed a ‘rate holiday’, brought inevitably into line with contemporary market-driven valuations.

I must confess that I remain unconvinced.