• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Climate & Climate Change

Sea Levels Can’t Rise by MORE than 2 Metres by 2100

September 8, 2008 By jennifer

 

In 2006, in his famous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claimed sea levels would rise by 20 feet (six metre). 

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more conservative, suggesting a rise of no more than 0.60m by 2099 in its 2007 report.

 

But in March last year a fellow called Robyn Williams, who has a monopoly on the broadcasting of science programs on Australia’s ABC, scared us with claims sea levels could rise by over 100 metres in the next century because of increases in the rate of ice melt in Greenland and western Antarctica. 

 

A study of sea level rise from ice melt in Greenland and western Antarctica has just been published in Science and concludes that a rise of 0.8 metres is possible by 2100, but MORE** than 2 metres “physically untenable”. 

 

Research scientists W.T. Pfeffer, J.T. Harper and S.O’Neel calculated how much ice and water would need to be lost from Greenland and Antarctica for a two metre rise, then how fast contributing glaciers would need to move in order to dump that much ice, and concluded that a two meter rise in sea level by 2100 would require significantly faster ice velocities than had ever been reported before.

 

Of course at the moment it is unclear how much warming is actually occurring at the Antarctic, with some suggesting a general trend of cooling there in accordance with the recent global trend.  But if the melting starts again at the Antarctic, and continues in the Arctic, it is perhaps reassuring to know, that even under a worst case scenario sea levels should not rise by more than 0.8 metres in the next 100 years. 

 

 

————-

** I’ve added the word ‘more’ included to the title of this piece as Pfeffer et al claim it is physically untenable to suggest a rise of more than 2 metres – not up to 2 metres as I suggested in the original post.  Thanks to Luke and others for pointing this error out.

 

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise, W. T. Pfeffer,  J. T. Harper, S. O’Neel, Science, 5 September 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 – 1343. DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Bill Kininmonth Requests Explanation of the Greenhouse Effect

September 8, 2008 By jennifer

Bill Kininmonth knows a lot about climate science, he is a meteorologist and he was the head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998.   He is also a well known global warming skeptic and is particularly critical of the idea that the principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood.   While this may seem like a ridiculous proposition, indeed the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming, in a recent letter to the Federation of Australian Scientists and Technologists (FASTS) he explains how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are neither consistent in their explanation for the greenhouse effect nor provide a mechanism that accords with the global average earth energy budget.   

 

Mr Kininmonth’s letter to FASTS follows their issuing of a media release on climate change including comment that:

 

“The scientific evidence is compelling that global policy objectives must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.”

 

The media release was accompanied by a statement that included comment:

 

“The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood. Without greenhouse gases, clouds or aerosols, the surface of the Earth would have a mean temperature of about 18oC below zero. While the natural atmospheric composition varies over time, the observed warming in the late 20th century can be attributed with a very high degree of confidence to additional human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The statement was developed and published without input from rank and file member of FASTS and indeed not everyone agrees that the scientific evidence is compelling.   Mr Kininmonth explains why in the following open letter:

Bradley Smith

Executive Director

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

 

Dear Bradley,

 

 

In the “Statement on Climate Change” issued by FASTS on 4 September is included the sentence, ‘The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood.’

 

I would be grateful if you would provide a summary of the physical principles of the greenhouse effect. In making this request I do not doubt the existence of the greenhouse effect, only that the scientific principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood.

 

The IPCC, in its most recent (2007) report has the statement (Frequently Asked Question 1.1):

“The reason that the Earth’s surface is this warm (14oC) is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.”

 

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, a blanket acts as an inhibitor of conduction and not radiation; oxygen and nitrogen are equally as good insulators as water vapour and carbon dioxide and adding greenhouse gases does not materially affect the conducting properties of the atmosphere. Secondly, net upward longwave radiation increases with altitude (according to the IPCC global average data, from 66 Wm-2 at the surface to

235 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere); the increase is due to the greenhouse gases and can hardly be described as inhibiting (ie, blanketing) radiation loss to space!

 

In an attempt to clarify the situation, the IPCC has an additional explanation (Frequently Asked Question 1.3):

“Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

 

As the IPCC’s global average data clearly show, there is more longwave radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface than is emitted by the atmosphere back to the surface. The net effect of longwave radiation is to cool the Earth’s surface, not to warm it.

 

The above two explanations from the IPCC are quite different and neither accord with the data presented on the global average Earth energy budget. As you will appreciate, the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human activities. If we cannot get the underpinning science as a clear and logical construct then the edifice is no more than a house of cards! Also, if it is not possible to explain how the Earth’s greenhouse effect is sustained then how can we be confident that the computer models used to project global warming are adequately representing the greenhouse effect?

 

As FASTS claims that the physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well understood I presume FASTS has a different explanation than what IPCC has presented. I would be grateful for a summary of the FASTS principles of the greenhouse effect.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

William Kininmonth

Kew, Victoria

 

As long as institutions and organisations like FASTS demand that governments impose new taxes and regulations on the basis that the science is settled, they must be prepared to publicly engage in discussion on the same.  Indeed I look forward to posting the response from FASTS to Mr Kininmonth’s open letter.

Filed Under: Letters Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Second Attempt to Deny the Medieval Warm Period: New Paper by Michael Mann

September 3, 2008 By jennifer

In yesterday’s The Australian science writer Leigh Dayton claims that the northern hemisphere is hotter now than at any time in the past 1500 years. The article qualified her comment with this is “according” to the most comprehensive reconstruction of the earth’s temperature over the last two millenniums.

Dayton is referring to new research soon to be published by Michael Mann – the climate scientist credited with the now infamous 1998 “hockey stick” graph that shows a sharp uptick beginning around 1900 and that featured prominently in the 2001 IPCCs Third Assessment Report.

The graph was contested from the beginning because it did not show the medieval warm period and then
Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were unable to replicate Manns’ results and Mann initially refused to provide them with all the input data. The saga is detailed in various publications** and a chapter in Aynsley Kellow’s book ‘Science and public policy: The virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science’

I wonder how his new research by Mann has dealt with the medieval warm period ? Indeed I wonder how, after all the controversy surrounding Mann’s earlier work, Dayton can so uncritically report something so at odd with what is know about the history of Europe over the last 2,000 years.

Update: The paper is available on line
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS, September 9, 2008, vol. 105, no 36.
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

hat tip to Nexus 6 for the update/link.

——————
** The following text including citations is from Ross McKitrick’s website:

Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005, copyright 2005 American Geophysical Union (doi: 2004GL012750). Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted. This is a preprint of the GRL paper that shows Mann’s program mines for hockey sticks and overstates the statistical significance of the final result. There have been 4 technical comments submitted to GRL in response. We submitted replies to all 4, and they were sent out for refereeing. Two of the comments have been rejected by GRL. The two that were published were accompanied by our replies. These exchanges are discussed below.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1)69-100. AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT by kind permission of the publisher. This paper shows how Mann’s results can be reconciled to our results based on handling of the PC algorithm and a Gaspe cedar ring series. We also discuss the bristlecone pines in detail and show why they should not have been included in the original data set.

“Corrigendum” by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Nature 430, July 1, 2004 p. 105. This arose from our Materials Complaint to Nature in the winter of 2004. The story is detailed on the page about our dealings with Nature (see below–link to Archive).

“Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimate studies: A case study”. Accepted abstract for presentation at American Geophysical Union Meetings in San Francisco, December 2004. Steve travelled to the AGU in December 2004 and presented our research–this was the abstract.

“Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772.
This is the paper that started the whole ball rolling!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

The Earth’s Climate is Tracking into Uncharted Territory: A Note from Andrew Glikson

September 2, 2008 By jennifer

Studies of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles based on sediments and ice cores back to 640 000 years (640 kyr) document abrupt initiation of global warming and cooling events over short time scales of decades to a few years, implying extreme instability of the Earth’s atmosphere, with implications for 21st century climate change projections.

Current rise rates of atmospheric radiative forcing toward ~450 ppm CO2 are tracking toward an ice-free Earth.

Time tables of carbon emission reduction targets which take little account of the rates of ice sheet melt/water feedbacks and carbon cycle feedbacks, including release of methane hydrates from sea bottom sediments and from bogs, are unlikely to be able to prevent runaway global warming on a scale similar to the last glacial terminations.

Extreme climate change events in the recent history of Earth include:

A. Intra-glacial warming cycles, termed Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O cycles), between 80 kyr and 20 kyr, including 21 ~1470 years-long cycles, each initiated over decades-scale time frames (Figure 1). The D-O cycles are attributed to interactions between weak solar radiation maxima and ocean current systems [1, 2].

WARNING FIGURE 1 blog.jpg
Figure 1. An example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger abrupt climate event. 1 of 21 cycles during the alst ice age, 80 000 – 20 000 years-ago. Greenland ice core. From Rahmstorf, 2004.

B. Evidence for the last glacial termination based on deuterium and oxygen isotopes from the Greenland NGRIP ice core indicates sharp 3-years-long warming by 2 to 4oC at 14.7 kyr, sharp 1 year-long cooling at 12.9 kyr, and sharp 3 years-long warming at 11.7 kyr (Figure 2) [3].

WARNING FIGURE 2 blog.jpg
Figure 2. deuterium-drived determinations of temperatures from Greenland NGRIP ice core for the period 14 740 – 11 660 years-ago, displaying abrupt warming and cooling changes between the ‘oldest dryas’ cold period, Allerod and Bolling warm periods, youngest dryas cold period and the Holocene. Note transitions occur over periods of 1 – 3 years. From Steffensen et al., 2008.

C. Evidence for the last glacial termination from the Greenland GISP-2 ice core, based on Nitrogen and Argon isotopes, indicates abrupt warming by 10±4oC at 12.8 kyr over a period of ~100 years and abrupt warming by 4±1.5 oC at 11.27 kyr over period of 70 years [4]. Sea level rose by 40 metres following the termination up to about 8500 years-ago [5].

Mean global temperature changes are estimated as about half the polar temperatures.

The origin of the D-O cycles is interpreted in terms of interaction between weak insolation signals and the thermohaline current system [2]. Glacial terminations at intervals of about 100 kyr, 41 kyr and 23 kyr (Milankovich cycles) were triggered by axial tilt toward the poles, elevating mid-June insolation by up to <60 Watt/m2 at latitude 65N [6]. The glacial terminations involved mean global solar radiation anomalies of 4 to 5 Watt/m2, triggering ice melt feedback loops and greenhouse gas release loops [6]. The intertwined synergy of these processes resulted in: (1) Ice sheet and glacier melt, reduced short-wave reflection (albedo) by sea ice and ice sheets, exposure of water surfaces absorbing infrared, further melting of ice by warming water, migration of boreal forest northward causing decrease in albedo. (2) Carbon gases (CO2, CH4) released from warming oceans, drying biosphere and fires; methane released from sea-bottom methane hydrates (clathrates: water-CH4 molecules) in sea bottom sediments and from drying bogs. Rapid release of methane hydrates is invoked as a mechanism for a runaway greenhouse effect and consequent mass extinctions through the history of Earth, specifically the Permian-Triassic (251 Ma) mass extinction and the Paleocene-Eocene (55 Ma) extinction (~ +6oC global warming) [7] The combined radiative synergy of ice melt-feedback and greenhouse gases-feedback triggering rapid polar meltdown affected pole-ward migration of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ), subtropical arid zone and mid-latitude zones, affecting the ocean thermohaline circulation. The Greenland ice-melt flow result in abortion of the Gulf Stream which warms Europe and northeast America. Warming of the southern oceans weakens the Humboldt current west of South America and the trade winds, indirectly enhancing El-Nino events which result in droughts in the southwestern Pacific, India and Africa [8]. The rise in mean global temperature by several degrees Celsius over time scales of a few years to a century testifies to a high susceptibility of the atmosphere to minor to moderate energy forcings. According to Hansen et al. 2007 [6] the solar energy pulse from orbital variations which triggered the glacial terminations is up to 0.25 Watt/m2. Mean global atmospheric energy rise associated with the glacial terminations of +4 to +5 Watt/m2 (~ +5 to +7oC) are consistent with the upper range of the IPCC projections for the 21st century, +1.1 to +6.4oC. Comparisons between abrupt glacial-interglacial terminations and 21st century projections are complicated by the lower mean global temperatures at which the glacial terminations commenced and the large volumes of ice compared to the Holocene, including the Laurentian and Fennoscandian ice sheets. The fast rise of the greenhouse gas forcing component since the mid-1800s, at rates since 1960 reaching 387 ppm in 2007 at rates of >1.6 ppm/year, are two order of magnitude higher than CO2 rise rates of 0.012 ppm/year at the last termination. Where 1 ppm CO2 induces an atmospheric energy rise of ~0.02 Watt/m2, this equates to an increase of 1.7 Watt/m2 in atmospheric radiative energy since 1750, not counting carbon cycle and ice melt feedbacks.

The non-linear nature of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 rise, from 1.3%/year in 1990-1999 to 3.3%/year in 2000-2006 [9], combined with further ice melt and albedo decline and carbon cycle feedback effects, including release of CH4 hydrates, drying/burning biosphere, reduced CO2 sequestration by the oceans, threatens to move the Earth’s atmosphere into glacial termination-like conditions. Rapid ice melt rates in Greenland, the Arctic Sea and west Antarctica, the latter continuing through the southern winter, are documented from satellite and on the ground. The polar ice sheets, initiated about 34 million years ago, when CO2 levels declined below 450 ppm, are in danger.

The Earth’s climate is tracking into uncharted territory.

Andrew Glikson
Canberra, Australia

Andrew Glikson undertakes earth and paleo-climate research at the Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University.

[1] Broecker, 2000. Earth-Science Reviews 51, 137–154;
[2] Braun et al., 2005. Nature, 438)
[3] Steffensen et al., 2008. Science Express, 19 June, 2008 ;
[4] Kobashi et al., 2008. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett, 268, 397 ;
[5] Siddall et al., 2003. Nature 423, 853.
[6] Hansen et al., 2007. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London 365A, 1925. Hansen et al., 2008. Am. J. Sci (in press;
[7] Zachos et al., 2008. Nature 451 (7176): 279; Ryski, 2003. Geology; 31, 741;
[8] Trenberth et al., 2002). J. Geophys. Re. 107, 4065..
[9] International Carbon Project 2006. Recent Carbon Trends and the Global Carbon
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/ppt/774,1,

————————-
This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. I strive for tolerance and respect. I don’t always agree with what I publish, but I believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard. I take no responsibility for comments and hyperlinks that follow each blog post. Some content may be considered offensive by some people.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

August 2008: The first Sunspot-less Month since June 1913

September 1, 2008 By jennifer

In 1610 Galileo observed dark features on the face of the sun – sunspots. In the preface to a little book Galileo wrote on sunspots that was published in 1613, he was credited with having discovered sunspots but an Englishman, Thomas Harriott, and a Dutchman, Johann Fabricius, probably beat him to that discovery.

What we do know is that since the invention of the telescope, Europeans have been keenly observing sunspot activity and some have been correlating it with global temperatures.*

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes the mean monthly sunspot number back to January 1749.

There were no sunspots during a period of unusual cold in the northern hemisphere known as the Maunder Minimum which extended some 70 years from 1645 to 1715.

Because the number of sunspots has shown a general trend of decline since March 2006 there has been much chatter amongst global warming skeptics with some suggesting that we are perhaps in for an extended period of cooling

Now there is more excitement, because August 2008 appears to be the first month since June 1913 without a sunspot.

[But perhaps I should wait until there is a zero recorded at the official NOAA site before announcing this?]

David H. Hathaway, Solar Physics Team Leader at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, has suggested that this solar cycle 24 is just taking a while to get started.

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometry project, has predicted for some time that because of low solar activity we may be entering another period similar to the late 17th century and that this may start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.**

————————————————-
* Why few sunspots could correlate with low tempertures by Richard Mackey:

“The Earth’s geomagnetic field provides a buffer against solar radiation, the solar wind and radiation of all types generated elsewhere in the Universe. The field’s strength depends on solar output and the lunisolar tides. A stronger geomagnetic field will deflect more cosmic radiation than a weaker one.

“A highly active Sun can make the geomagnetic field stronger; a relative inactive Sun will make it weaker. Other things being equal, a strong geomagnetic field contributes to a warmer climate; a weaker field to a cooler climate. But the effect may not be uniform across the planet. Currently, the geomagnetic field seems to be weakening, contributing to global cooling.

“The heliosphere, and the termination shock sphere within it, deflects cosmic radiation. The Earth’s geomagnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation. The strength of the heliosphere depends on the Sun’s activity levels. High levels of solar activity reduce the volume of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, contributing to global warming. High levels of solar activity generate more turbulence in the heliosphere scattering galactic cosmic rays before they reach the inner planets. Conversely, a greater volume of cosmic rays enter our atmosphere during times of low solar activity because the Heliospheric magnetic fields are smoother with less scattering of galactic cosmic rays, resulting in global cooling.”

(from ‘Much more to the Earth’s Climate than human activity’, Submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review by Richard Mackey, February 2008)

** Lawrence Solomon profiled Dr Abdussamtov in a piece entitled Look to Mars for the truth on global warming, The Deniers — Part IX, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 02, 2007.

Published papers by Dr Abudssamotov predicting cooling include: ‘Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and the Peaks of several Succeeding Cycles on the basis of Long-Term Variations in the Solar Radius or Solar Constant’, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 2007, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 97-100, and ‘Long-Term variations of the Integral radiation Flux and Possible Temperature Changes in the Solar Core’, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 328-332, 2005.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Greenland’s Ice Follows Dramatic Fall in Carbon Dioxide Levels?

August 31, 2008 By jennifer

According to a recent paper** published in the journal Nature, only a dramatic fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are able to explain the transition from the mostly ice-free Greenland of three million years ago, to the ice-covered Greenland of today.

I am not convinced, but anyway, the paper begs the question, why did the purported elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations fall to levels similar to the pre-industrial era?

——————————————————————————–
** Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels, Nature 454, 1102-1105 (28 August 2008), by Daniel J. Lunt, Gavin L. Foster, Alan M. Haywood and & Emma J. Stone.

Read the University of Bristol media release here.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 96
  • Go to page 97
  • Go to page 98
  • Go to page 99
  • Go to page 100
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 226
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital