Climate & Climate Change

David posted the following comment this morning at this blog:

“We know that the globe is warming very rapidly (~0.2C/decade), and that this warming has occured in the absence of any natural forcing process and is occuring about 10 times faster than the sustained warming at the end of the last ice age.”

And it reminded me of this press release from the Max Planck Institute which is only a couple of years old now.

Titled ‘The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years’ it includes comment that:

“An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun’s activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal Nature from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

I was also reminded of this Max Planck media release when I read page 3 of The Australian on 27th March and a piece titled ‘Beachgoers back latest theory on brighter sun’. This story quotes a Martin Wild of the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland.

While British Prime Minister Tony Blair was in Australia earlier this week he apparently talked with our PM about Britain joining the recently formed Asia- Pacific Partnership on Clean Development, know as the AP6 because there are currently six participating countries.

According to the The Australian Tony Blair was interesting in forging a post-Kyoto accord to cut carbon emissions that had a “real dose of realism” and John Howard suggested a possible climate strategy involving the world’s 20 biggest carbon emitters, including China, India, Australia, the US and Britain.

Sounds like progress to me?

———————
Apologies this post was written on 29th, but not uploaded until 30th March at 9.30am.

I am responding to the criticism of my letter in ‘The Australian’ of 15 February 2006 which read:

“THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science. There are greenie scientists in CSIRO and there are honest ones. Human nature being what it is, there are private agendas pushed by CSIRO people that would make your jaw drop. An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects. I could give example after example as it was one of my employment functions to distill the best results from the bogus on many matters related to energy/greenhouse/nuclear etc. I found few truly objective submissions among those masquerading as science.”

1. Nowhere did I mention BoM.

2. Nowhere did I criticise BoM.

3. Nowhere did I say I had worked for BOM.

4. I was critical of some statements made by people in CSIRO, but not about the selection of weather sites for early greenhouse models. What alarms me more is the stupified silence of senior scientists when they see bogus data. That is my real criticism.

5. Since writing that letter I have recognised it was the University of East Anglia, not Bath, which used the climate data from Australia.

6. I have since asked Phil Jones from East Anglia for a copy of his selection of the original Australian data. He says “We no longer have the Australian station date we were using in the early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network.”

7. In the MID-1980s (which was my time choice) there were abundant stations which were not used by Jones at all. Here is a list for which data were then available, but not used by Jones – not a full list, just a sample: Geraldton, Narrabri, Hay, Albany, Rottnest Island Lighthouse, Walgett, Deniliquin, Bourke, Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse, Coonabarabran, Echuca, Cooma, Moruya Heads Pilot Station, Omeo, Dubbo, Alice Springs, Gabo Island Lighthouse, Bathurst, Strathalbyn, Mt. Gambier, Yamba, Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse, Newcastle Signal Station, Cape Otway Lighthouse.

8. These stations, when averaged from the 1880s to the mid 1980s, showed a temperature decline until about 1951. This decline was not used in Jones’s paper, which some would say ignited the greenhouse debate with its alarmist conclusions.

9. These and many other Australian stations, averaged from 1951 to 1985 or so, showed a slight increase in temperature. Jones’s modelling was essentially post-1950.

10. Point is proven.

11. I continue to find the poorest quality of science in greenie publications. The most common error is to manipulate the raw data to fit the desired theory. Some is quite stupid, like from the nuclear industry, “Radwaste has to be managed for 250,000 years”. How many nuclear scientist who know this to be nonsense, whether from the CSIRO or not, have stood up and said so?

12. The Think Tank for which I helped formulate direction was the Tasman Institute. The person who brought this climate data to my attention was Warwick Hughes, a geologist (I am a Geochemist) used to dealing with hard data.

13. The statistical manipulations being used for climate data, that I have read, would commonly fail the stringency tests required of geologists when interpolating values of economic ores in deposits from drill hole data. If high standards of maths are needed to avoid wrong estimates of orebody worth, then they are equally needed for political-scientific issues like climate modelling.

14. I have suggested to Phil Jones that he use a certain type of mathematical statistic to get better results.

15. So, how many of you bloggers will now admit to wrong interpretation of, and confusion about, my letter to the Australian? I can prove all that I said and have proved some of it above.

16. I am currently moving home, so my telephone, email etc address will change in the next few days and I do not yet know what they will be. So don’t bother to try to argue with me, contemplate your navels instead.

“On the 15th February The Australian newspaper published a letter from Geoffrey Sherrington of North Balwyn, Victoria, alleging that CSIRO fraudulently selected weather recording sites that showed more warming, including sites predominantly from capital cities under suspicion for heat island effects. This would give a result that suggested global warming, even if most weather recording sites showed little or no temperature change since the 1880s.

The Sherrington letter was emailed about cyberspace and used by some global warming skeptics as reason to dismiss the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) finding that last year was the hottest on record.

I phoned Geoffrey Sherrington last week. He said that he stands by everything he wrote in that letter. But when I pressed him for details, he said it was the University of Bath in the United Kingdom, not the CSIRO or BOM Bureau of Meteorology, that had been selective in its choice of weather recording sites and furthermore that the letter related to work he did 20 years ago.

I suggest The Australian newspaper and some global warming skeptics owe the CSIRO and the BOM a big apology. The claims in Mr Sherrington’s letter should be discounted accordingly.

While I am often labeled a global warming skeptic because I not convinced that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will bring Australia anything but grief, and I am unsure how much of the warming over the last 100 years is due to natural forces as opposed to human activity,, I have no reason to dispute the methodology that the BOM Bureau of Meteorology uses to calculate temperature change and I accept that last year was the hottest year since official recordings were made in Australia.”

This is a draft of the letter I intend sending to The Australian newspaper tomorrow, or Tuesday, based on discussion at a previous thread at this blog, click here. Apart from Louis Hissink who republished the letter, here, I can’t find any other reference to it in the public domain?

Let me know if you have any suggested additions or changes to this letter, by posting a comment below or sending an email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .

A category 5 cyclone, more severe than Cyclone Tracy or Hurricane Katrina, lashes Far North Queensland and there is not a single fatality.

It perhaps says something about Australia, modern economies and democracies and their potential capacity to adapt and to survive?

Congratulations Far North Queensland!

When we were less technologically advance, that is on 10th March 1918 and a severe cyclone hit Innisfail, over 80 people died.

Following is the note in the Bureau of Meterology records for that event:

“This cyclone is widely regarded as the worst cyclone to hit a populated area of Queensland. It crossed the coast and passed directly over Innisfail. Pen on Post Office barograph was prevented from registering below 948 hPa by flange on bottom of drum. 926 hPa read at the Mourilyan Sugar mill at 7 pm 10 Mar. The eye wall reached Innisfail at 9 pm. In Innisfail, then a town of 3,500 residents, only around 12 houses remained intact the rest being blown flat or unroofed. A report from the Harbours and Marine Engineer indicated that at Maria Creek the sea rose to a height of about 3m above high water (If this refers to HAT the water was 4.65m above the tide for that day). Around 4.40pm 10 Mar at Bingil Bay a tidal wave was seen surging in from the east into Bingil Bay taking the bridge over the creek 400 m inland. Mission Beach was covered by 3.6 m water for hundreds of metres inland, the debris reached a height of 7m in the trees. All buildings and structures were destroyed by the storm surge in the Bingil Bay Mission beach area. The surge was 2.6m at Flying Fish Point. Babinda also had many buildings destroyed and some reports suggest that not one building was left standing. There was widespread damage at Cairns and on the Atherton Tablelands. Recent reports suggest that 37 people died in Innisfail while 40 to 60 (mostly aborigines) lost their lives in nearby areas.”

—————-
My aunt and brother who live in Cairns and Smithfield, respectively, are fine. They both said there was a bit of wind last night, but otherwise OK.

Last week, after reading ‘Nine Lies About Global Warming’ in which Ray Evans draws a comparison between the issuing of taxi licenses and carbon trading, I posted a quote from Ray and some related information at this blog.

I was interested in exploring the comparison.

Blair Bartholomew made several interesting observations. Following are some edited extracts.

“The big issue of course is how many licenses to grant. From the point of safety regulations you could argue that an unlimited number of licenses would be acceptable. The issue of availability of service i.e. enables a certain number of cabs to be available at all times would demand some restriction in the number of licenses. Otherwise you would have plenty of cabs available at the more popular times of the day and the year and a dearth of cabs at others.

So in making the decision as to the number of licenses the regulators rely on data to support their decisions. If they get it wrong and have two few licenses then the original lucky taxi license holders make a windfall. If they issue too many licenses then taxi users will suffer from an unreliable service.

Similarly with respect to emission controls, in the absence of controls, the population, as a whole, would be worse off from the effects of AGW. Just as the cab regulators need good information to decide on the number of cab licenses, so do the emission regulators to decide on the level of emission controls.”

Then Blair made a second comment, asking more questions.

“Regulators have to decide whether the likely scenario, after the introduction of controls (and allowing for the costs of implementing the controls) is preferred to the likely scenario without the controls. In other words will there be an aggregate gain in society’s welfare. To do this they need information about the alternate states, the “with” and the “without”.

In the case of global carbon emission controls the information needs are infinitely greater and more complex (and the effects of “bad” research much greater).

While the questions and topics are different, regulators would enquire [information] along the following lines. For the carbon emission regulators:

1. Is the increase in world temperature over the last 60+ years largely the result of human-induced carbon emissions?

2. And without regulation will the situation worsen i.e. the world gets even hotter?

3. In the absence of controls will profitable technology provide the solution? By profitable I mean carbon emitters will voluntarily invest in the research as they will be better off from application of the research.

4. If it is agreed that indeed warming will increase, what will be its effects on human welfare?

5. How do we quantify these effects?

6. What will be the distribution of these effects? Will some regions/countries/people actually gain some benefits from warmer temperatures and by how much? What regions/countries/people will lose and by how much?

7. If we are satisfied with the projected outcomes in the absence of the controls, then we must model expected outcomes in the presence of different levels of controls …no mean feat.

8. How do we quantify the benefits from the implementation of these different levels controls?

9. What are the likely costs and their distribution from implementation of controls?

10. Finally how do we then determine the “right” level of emission control?

A lot of the rather heated discussion on this blog seems to relate to points 1,2 and 3.

However I have not seen much discussion or data relating to the subsequent points.

I am sure some economic thinktank would have done the massive modelling required to come up with the answers. That is why Phil I asked you earlier if you are familiar with studies estimating the economic returns, including distribution of benefits and costs, from the massive research in global warming and appliction of its findings viz levels of controls etcetera.”

I am unfamiliar with any “massive modelling’ effort by an economic think tank. The analysis I am most familiar with, and that I consider most comprehensive, was done by Bjorn Lomborg in Chapter 24 of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ published in 2001. But perhaps there has been something done more recently?