Climate & Climate Change

According to Hilary Osborne writing for The Guardian:

“Emissions from air travel have doubled since 1990, to make up 6 percent of the UK’s carbon footprint. Forecasts suggest that the increase in flights will mean that by 2050, emissions from aviation could be between four and 10 times higher than they were in 1990, making it almost impossible for the government to achieve its target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent.”

But according to the same article, aviation is not included in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). So I guess it doesn’t count?*

It’s perhaps a bit like Germany excluding its new coal fired power stations?

Indeed a few months ago Germany admitted it had probably over estimated its emissions and acknowledging that it needed to tighten its greenhouse gas emissions limit in the second round of the EU’s carbon market, while at the same time suggesting that new coal plants will opt out of the ETS.

So Germany got the credits for the old coal-fired power stations it closed down, but it won’t count the new one’s it builds? At least it wants a 14 years moratorium before it starts counting them?*

How does this work? Do Germany and the aviation industry have really good negotiators?

—————–
* Changes made to this post following comments from Steve, see below.

Under a double page headline ‘Dire warning on rising sea levels’, South Australia’s Sunday Mail had what Paul Williams described as an “extraordinary article on climate change”. Here’s his critique:

“On the right hand page are six maps of the Australian continent, showing the coastline as it is today, and as it would look if the sea level rose 100 metres, 200 metres etc up to 500 metres. In small print, at the bottom of the caption next to the first map, is the disclaimer “Readers should note this was done as part of a scientific experiment, not as a prediction”. Nevertheless, the graphic has a powerful visual impact.

On the left hand page headlined in the print version, “Hard decisions needed”, the accompanying article begins “An apocalyptic prophecy of an Australia under water shows Adelaide would be one of the first places to disappear in a catastrophic sea level rise.” So straight away readers are given the impression that the graphic is an actual prediction, despite the disclaimer on the next page.

The “hard decisions” of the headline are explained by Dr Graeme Pearman, who is described as a Climate Institute Australia adviser and former CSIRO head of atmospheric research.

He says we will have to decide between protecting the coast with breakwaters or letting the coastline recede naturally. Dr Pearman states that sea levels have already risen 20 cm “with global warming”, and are expected to rise half a metre more over the next century. But there’s more, “if Greenland goes, it will rise by 7m”, and “if Antarctica went as well it would rise by 80m”.

Dr Pearman concedes it is unlikely that Antarctica will “go” during the next few thousand years, but the article leaves the impression that Greenland is quite likely to “go”.

This article is blatant sensationalism, with a few facts thrown, which do not support the sensational claims, and no balance. Why would the Sunday Mail publish such an article? Does the last paragraph give a clue?

“He (Dr Pearman) called for urgent action to join global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Australia and the US are the two main nations which have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce such emissions.”

This looks like part of a process to sway public opinion towards Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

If the article had said that Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto targets anyway, whereas many of the countries that have ratified Kyoto are NOT meeting their targets, I think most people would quite sensibly shrug their shoulders and say, “so why should we sign?” Add to that the fact that Kyoto can have no measurable effect on climate, yet will cost Australia jobs and hurt our economy, and there seems no reason at all to ratify Kyoto.

Of course there is a political aspect to all this. Labor has a policy that it will ratify Kyoto.

Is that why the Sunday Mail and the Advertiser are running a scare campaign, to help boost the prospects of Federal Labor?“

Maybe, or perhaps the newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch who is now concerned about global warming, is just really concerned about global warming? But is it good journalism?

Why have we been in an out of drought for the last 15 years? Why has the distribution of rainfall over Australia changed? Perhaps we have a combination of natural variability combined with stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric greenhouse gases, and atmospheric aerosol pollution. This is the subject of a note from Luke:

“Drought seems to be with us again in Australia. It seems we’ve been lingering in and out of drought for the last 15 years. The overall continental rainfall may not have changed but the distribution of rainfall certainly has.

Let’s forget about 2030 and 2070 for a while. Let’s focus on our history and the present day.

How well do we know our climate record? Is what we are experiencing normal or are there anthropogenic influences already affecting Australian climate?

Firstly, do we have longer droughts or more frequent droughts in our historical coral core records which extends over the previous 400 years than in the 120 years or so years of rainfall records?

How well do we understand our base background variability?

Eight, multicentury, porites coral cores were used to develop a 373-year chronology by cross-dating techniques adapted from dendrochronology.

Burdekin River runoff was found to be significantly inversely related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability for much of the period from the 1650s through to 1800, suggesting that ENSO-related teleconnections were as dominant then as in recent decades.

Indeed, the extremely dry mid-1760s to mid-1780s stand out as a period of anomalously positive correlation between river runoff and the NINO3 reconstruction. Weak ENSO teleconnections are apparent from the 1800s to 1870s, when conditions were possibly similar to those reported for the 1920s–1950s.

In the 20th century issues like the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) have perhaps confounded our analysis. The 1950s and 1970s were much wetter. There were more La Ninas and a consistently negative IPO index.

Any trend analysis using the 1950s is likely to show a drying trend. So are our trend graphs from the Bureau reflecting the extreme deficit of our current rainfall or the very wet 1950s and 1970s. Multidecadal influences like the IPO will confound trends to come in the future (assuming the IPO does actually exist and is not an artifact!).

But questions still remain. In particular, why have we had an increase in frequency of El Nino events since 1976 – including back to back events?

Trenberth hypothesised the Pacific might be entering a more El Nino like “mean state” in a greenhouse world. But other studies have indicated that it is too hard to tell what will happen.

The increase in El Nino frequency still exists. However the most modern review articles on how El Nino responds to a greenhouse world are inconclusive – some simulations increase the frequency but most show little change.

A worrying recent paper published in Science discusses a permanent Pacific El Nino event in the Pliocene when temperatures were significantly warmer than they are today. Might a permanent El Nino be still lurking in a globally warmed world yet to be revealed by better modelling: the Pliocene Paradox (Mechanisms for a Permanent El Niño)?

Drought of course is caused by more than total rainfall alone. Evaporation rate is an influence and streamflow is subject to the pattern of rainfall (heavy or light), evaporation, and antecedent catchment conditions.

Has the pattern of rainfall changed?

Light interspersed rainfall in a dry catchment produces no runoff.

Roderick and Farquhar (2004a) reported that pan evaporation rates decreased between 1970 and 2002 at many Australian observing stations, although subsequent correction of the data for instrumental changes showed that, Australia-wide, the trends in pan evaporation were not statistically-significant (Roderick and Farquhar 2004b, Jovanovic et al, 2006).

Evaporation itself is a product of radiation, humidity, wind and temperature – not just temperature. Alice Springs having a higher evaporation overall than a warmer Darwin.

Detailed modelling of historical pan evaporation by Rayner (2006) showed that the declining pan evaporation at many sites, is related to declining windiness. Wind and/or global dimming aerosols? However in the 2002 drought Nicholls (2004) found a much greater evaporative demand. High temperatures are again being mentioned in the context of this current drought. Might our future droughts be more severe in evaporative demand?

Coastal Queensland has seen few coast crossing tropical cyclones in recent decades. They are so needed to replenish dams and major aquifers.

Has there been a fundamental shift in oceanic or atmospheric processes?

Which brings us to the present day. I think there may be multiple players afoot. Might we have a combination of natural variability, tropospheric greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and atmospheric aerosol pollution that is already giving us climate change?

Is this implicated in our SW Western Australia and eastern Australian drying trends? And perhaps our tropical cyclone formation too?

I suspect there are already climate changes happening. Most land holders and water managers really want to know what’s happening in the next 5-10 years.

An area neglected perhaps in the discussion of future climate change. Might we already be in it! Is there more to come?

There are major economic, resource management, environmental and social issues at stake. And it may be already upon us.

I don’t know the answer to all these questions. But, the issues are confronting most Australians.

This is why we need a renewed effort using state-of-the-art modelling of rainfall scenarios for Australia.

Adaptation perhaps have been forced upon us now?

Some important papers on the topic well worth a read:

Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;296/5569/895

Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273

Can ozone depletion and global warming interact to produce rapid climate change?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412

Investigations on SW western Australia rainfall decline
http://www.cmis.csiro.au/healthycountry/updates/sep05/story3.htm

The response of the Southern Annular Mode, the East Australian Current, and the southern mid-latitude ocean circulation to global warming
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL024701.shtml

Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006…/2005GL024911.shtml

Aerosols and how they can affect tropical circulation and rainfall; Observed Australian rainfall and cloudiness trends (especially the intriguing “north west Australia” pattern of long term rainfall increase)
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/lr_aerosols.pdf

Reviews of evaporation.
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/crc/ecarbon/publications/panevap_proceedings_050426.pdf
http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511171050_1.ppt“

———————————-

Thanks Luke.

I have started a new category Climate (Part 2) for this post and will place all new climate related blog posts here. The original Climate and Climate Change category is starting to take too long to down load.

To what extent can technology protect communities from climate extremes through early warning and disaster response strategies and by having appropriate building plans, codes and drainage infrastructure? Here’s a comment from Paul Williams who’s been thinking about the situation in South Australia:

“Scientists such as Tim Flannery, the CSIRO, our Premier Mr Rann and the editorial staff of the Advertiser all tell us that climate change is coming, and it’s all due to human emission of greenhouse gases.

Droughts will increase and sea levels will rise. Apparently the science is settled and the evidence is incontrovertible.

The response to this coming disaster is to call for lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem is that South Australia emits only 0.15% of global greenhouse emissions, and greenhouse emissions by other countries (and other Australian States), still affects the atmosphere and climate of South Australia. In other words, South Australian greenhouse emissions have no effect on global or South Australian climate, and reduction of greenhouse emissions by South Australians will not reduce the degree of climate change we must undergo.

Assuming Mr Rann is sincere in his desire to protect South Australia from the effects of climate change, it seems the only actions which will be of any practical use, as opposed to merely symbolic, will be engineering solutions.

For instance, if sea level is definitely going to rise by up to seven metres by 2100, why not begin construction of dykes to protect coastal infrastructure? After all, Holland has been doing that for hundreds of years.

Similarly, why not run computer simulations to study the effects of flooding the Lake Eyre basin with sea water? Computer models are apparently sophisticated enough to predict Australia’s rainfall and sea level changes for the next 100 years, so they should be adequate to assess any benefit from an inland sea.

If the science really is settled, then Mr Rann needs to take effective action, not simply enact legislation that plays well with the inner city environmentalists.”

It’s not just in South Australia that politicians are calling for emission reductions rather than proposing some more practical adaptive solutions.

Just yesterday Queensland Sunshine Coast independent MP, Peter Wellington, proposed a notice of motion calling on the Queensland Parliament to acknowledge climate change is a threat and take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Come-on! There must be something more practical that Mr Wellington can propose for coastal Queensland assuming “the science is really settled” and we face catastrophic climate change and dramatic sea-level rise?

I understand that the global warming models produced by the IPCC don’t take into account the possible influence of cosmic rays on climate?

New research out of the Danish National Space Centre provides evidence to support the theory that cosmic rays can influence the Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation.

It has apparently been hypothesized for a while, but now a causal mechanism has been identified. Apparently ions and free electrons from cosmic rays from exploding stars act as catalysts accelerating the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulpuric acid and water molecules which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.

According to the Danish researchers, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields the earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays and perhaps impacting on cloud cover.

Did the sun’s magnetic field really double and how does it shield the earth from cosmic rays?

Anyway, low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth and the Danes hypothesis that with less cloud the earth has been warming?

Is there evidence that there has been less cloud cover?

So with the new findings on the Sun, the ozone hole, particulate pollution and now cosmic rays, will the IPCC models need to be overhauled?

Also what about the impact of the volcano erupting in New Guinea?

I have been sent bits of information about particulate pollution and how this can reduce rainfall downwind of industrial areas and cities. I made some comment on this issue when I was in Hong Kong and somewhat surprised by the extent of the air pollution.*

Aaron Gingis has been a key proponent of the thesis. He has variously suggested that the reason we have a drought in south east Queensland is because of particulate pollution and that the solution to the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is cloud seeding.

I have often pondered Gingis’ claims while studying this map:

It suggests record low rainfall in our most heavily populated catchments. It was part of a blog post from David Jones in which he commented that Perth, Canberra and Melbourne catchments have all experience their lowest (or nearly so) rainfall on record. David didn’t mention pollution as a cause, and I have been meaning to ask him why.

Anyway, while some doomsayers have been more inclined to blame low rainfall on global warming, the Tasmanian Greens have commissioned Mr Gingis to prepare a report which has concluded that there will be a massive drop in rainfall in Tasmania’s north-east if a proposed pulp mill goes ahead.

According to ABC Online:

Mr Gingis said the ultra fine particles emitted by the mill will change the density of clouds and reduce rainfall in the north-east by up to 80 per cent…

“They make clouds actually constipated, in other words the clouds simply changing their metrophysics and not precipitating or precipitating much less.”

Mr Gingis has lobbied governments, irrigators, bloggers and others on the issue of pollution and reduced rainfall suggesting we can’t do much about the pollution and that the solution is cloud seeding.

It is interesting that ABC Online has just now reported the phenomenon and in the context of a campaign against a pulp mill proposed by timber company Gunns Ltd and there is no mention of cloud seeding as the solution.

—————————–
* See https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001631.html :

I was recently sent the following very interesting papers on global dimming and its potential impact on rainfall in Australia: Rosenfeld, D. (2000) Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air pollution. Science, Vol 287, pp 1793-1796. Rosenfeld et. al. (2005) Potential impacts of air pollution aerosols on precipitation in Australia. Clean Air and Environmental Quality, Vol 40, No. 2, pp 43-49. Rosenfeld, D. (2006) Aerosols, Clouds and Climate. Science, Vol 312, pp. 1323 – 1324. ABC TV Four Corners did a feature on global dimming in March 2005, the transcript and reference documents can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1328747.htm