a Business Spectator publication

Extreme weather: IPCC summary report released

The Conversation

Very hot periods will almost certainly lengthen and intensify while extreme weather is likely to increase over the coming century, according to a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s forthcoming report, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, which is due to be released in full in February next year.

Three Australian scientists (Neville Nicholls, John Handmer and Kathleen McInnes) were lead authors among the report’s 220 authors, and Dr McInnes has provided comments below about how climate change is likely to affect Australia, courtesy of the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC). Following Dr McInnes' comments is expert analysis of the summary report provided by the Science Media Centre of the UK, and the Science Media Centre of Canada (which also held a “webinar” on the IPCC summary report available here)

Dr Kathleen McInnes, Climate Change Research Group (Sea Level Rise and Coasts), Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (a partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology)

Recognising that the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely through extreme events, this report is the first comprehensive assessment that focuses on extreme events as well as bringing together the experience of experts in climate change adaptation and disaster risk management to consider options for managing the risks associated with climate change.

While more regional detail will be available when the full report is released in February next year, some of the findings for Australia are that it is likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights. While it is likely that the storm systems that affect southern Australia have moved poleward, changes in observing capabilities means there is low confidence in changes in tropical cyclone activity.

It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures on the global scale and have led to increasing extreme coastal high water due to mean sea level contributions.

Because of the nature of extremes (i.e. their rarity), changes in many extremes and their causes are assessed with lower levels of confidence due to such factors as length of observational record and the influence of natural variability. However, low confidence in an observed change neither implies nor excludes the possibility that a change has occurred.

It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur through the 21st century and it is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas. It is also likely that that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. In Australia by the end of the 21st Century, a one in 20 year daily maximum temperature is projected to occur once every one to 10 years. It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future.

As well as addressing climate extremes, this report also integrates perspectives from research communities studying adaptation to climate change, and disaster risk management. The severity of the impacts of extreme and non-extreme weather and climate events depends strongly on the level of vulnerability and exposure of human, ecological and physical systems to these events.

Professor Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical Climate Hazards, University College London

One of the key ways in which anthropogenic climate change will affect human society is through the increasing impact of extreme events such as floods and droughts. This landmark report uses the latest observations and models to forecast what we will be up against in the decades to come. It also highlights the complex and sometimes unexpected ways in which climate change may drive dangerous extreme events, including a response from the solid Earth in the form of increased landslide activity and other geological hazards.

Dr Simon Brown, Climate Extremes Research Manager, Met Office Hadley Centre

This focus of the IPCC on extremes is very welcome as less emphasis has traditionally been given to these phenomena which are very likely to be the means by which ordinary people first experience climate change. Human susceptibility to weather mainly arises through extreme weather events so it is appropriate that we focus on these which, should they change for the worse, would have wide ranging and significant consequences. This review will be very helpful in progressing the science by bringing together a wide range of studies – not just on the physical weather aspects of climate extremes but also on how we might adapt and respond to their changes in the future.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science

This expert review of the latest available scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is already having an impact in many parts of the world on the frequency, severity and location of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts and flash floods. This is remarkable because extreme events are rare and it is difficult to detect statistically significant trends in such small sets of data. What is more, these trends have been identified over the last few decades when the rise in global average temperature has been just a few tenths of a centigrade degree. The report shows that if we do not stop the current steep rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, we will see much more warming and dramatic changes in extreme weather which are likely to overwhelm any attempts human populations might make to adapt to their impacts.

This report should leave governments in no doubt, as they prepare for the next United Nations climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, at the end of November, that climate change is, through its impact on extreme weather, already harming the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world. Governments must focus clearly on reaching a strong international agreement to strengthen their efforts to reduce emissions and to prepare their populations for those impacts of climate change that cannot now be avoided.

John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, CRC Chair in Natural Hazard Research, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University. Dr. Clague was one of the authors on this IPCC report.

First of all, I think the report does an excellent job in 1) defining terms that are central to the topic and 2) capturing large uncertainties that are inherent and unavoidable when seeking to identify possible trends in climate extremes. Uncertainty is captured by evaluating the evidence for trends (the type, amount, quality, and consistency of the data), as well as the level of agreement among the informed scientific community.

I picked up on several trends that will be important to Canada and that are considered “medium” to “very likely” [these findings are in italics]:

It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future. There is high confidence that locations currently experiencing adverse impacts such as coastal erosion and inundation will continue to do so in the future due to increasing sea levels, all other contributing factors being equal.

Sea level is currently rising at a rate of about 3 mm/yr and the rate is likely to increase through the remainder of the century. Low-lying coastal areas on all three of Canada’s coasts will experience increased erosion and inundation during extreme storms as the century progresses. Erosion and inundation occur during extreme storms, which as noted below, may increase along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts in the future. Greater erosion of some coasts in the Arctic will be exacerbated by reduced Arctic ice cover.

While on this topic, the recent devastating flooding in Bangkok is a harbinger of things to come for that city. Bangkok lies only about 2 m above sea level. The slow rise in sea level reduces the gradient of the Chao Phraya River, which flows through the city to the Gulf of Thailand. During extreme river floods, as occurred this year, the lower ‘freeboard’ to the tops of the protective dykes at high tides increases the likelihood of flooding.

Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.

This is an interesting conclusion – Some hurricanes track up the U.S. Atlantic coast to Nova Scotia (Hurricane Juan) and Newfoundland. An increase in the strength of tropical cyclones may have implications for cities like Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. John’s.

There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical cyclones averaged over each hemisphere. While there is low confidence in the detailed geographical projections of extra-tropical cyclone activity, there is medium confidence in a projected poleward shift of extra-tropical storm tracks.

Any poleward shift in the tracks of extra-tropical cyclones in the North Pacific might result in an increase in severe storms on the populated south coast of British Columbia. Strong winds resulting from severe storms are perhaps the most damaging natural phenomena in this region.

It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale. It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas. Based on the A1B and A2 emissions scenarios, a 1-in-20 year hottest day is likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.

Without appropriate planning and remediation, more frequent hot spells, coupled with poor air quality, will increase heat stroke and early death in Toronto, other cities in southern Ontario, and perhaps Montreal.

There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration. This applies to regions including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa.

A seasonal or multi-annual intensification of drought conditions in the “Palliser Triangle”, in southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan, will reduce grain production and thus adversely impact the Canadian economy. This drought-prone semiarid region is the “bread basket” of Canada. Proxy research on past climates has shown that drought conditions unlike any that have occurred in the past century, including the 1930s “Dust Bowl” era, have happened in the past 1000 years.

There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat and/or permafrost degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such as slope instabilities, movements of mass, and glacial lake outburst floods. There is also high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some regions.

Glaciers in British Columbia, Alberta, and the Yukon will continue to retreat. In combination with increased thaw of alpine permafrost, the reduction in glacier cover will result in an increase in landslides and large ‘outburst floods’ from ice-dammed lakes in high mountains. The loss of glacier ice will also impact stream flow, with possible consequences for hydroelectric power production and water use.

Professor Hans Schreier, Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia

As a result of the critiques of previous IPCC reports this SREX report is very cautious. The reason for this is two fold; 1. The historic data and records of extreme event is generally poor 2. Land use changes have a significant impact on disasters and most often magnify the impacts

It should be remembered that most of the IPCC efforts and projections are using climate data as a basis and land use information is usually not incorporated into the modelling. I would argue that land use changes alone have likely a greater influence on water processes than climate but they both are changing at the same time. It is therefore impossible to state which is more important. However, what is critical is that the combined effect of extreme event and land use change will have an accelerated impact leading to greater disasters and risks particularly at local levels.

The lack of good historic data is the main reason why many of the experts are cautious in how much confidence they have in the current trends. However, most of the modelled projections to 2100 clearly show an increase in many aspects of extreme events. This means we need to focus on using adaptation and prevention methods to reduce risks. The report mentions that post disaster recovery provides an opportunity to reduce the effect of extreme event. A more appropriate statement would be to use the precautionary principle and start taking steps to reduce the risk of extreme events and prevent or reduce future impacts.

The experts are virtually certain that the frequency and magnitude of daily warm temperature extremes are increasing. The implications of this for food production and energy demands are significant.

They are also confident that the frequency of heavy precipitation and the amount of total precipitation in some regions will produce a much higher risk of flooding when land use changes are taking into consideration. This is of particular concern in urban areas where storm water systems are inadequate. The flooding problem is even more critical in coastal areas because of anticipated sea level rise.

Of particular concern are the Mountain Regions in Canada because are projections show high confidence that changes in heat wave, glacial retreat, permafrost degradation and extreme rainfall events will lead to accelerated sloe instability, landslides and flooding. This will have huge impacts on transportation and tourism and mining activities in mountain area.

Local knowledge needs to be incorporated into the risk assessments and high risk areas need to be identified and measures to reduce these risk should be initiated.

A great Canadian example of a mountain community that has taken the initiative to incorporate climate change and preventative measures in the District of Elkford in B.C. They have incorporated climate change and adaptations into their Official Community Plan. This is the first Canadian community that has taken this initiative and their effort is now highlighted by the UN Framework on Climate Change guidebook.

Professor Patrick M. Condon, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia

How does the design of cities need to change given that we can expect more frequent and increasingly severe storm events?

Canada must help prevent what is already a disaster from becoming a catastrophe. Vermont and Pakistan are only the latest locations, where rainfall amounts shattered records by huge margins, with resulting damages in the hundreds of billions of dollars. All this present chaos from a mere one degree rise in average global temperatures.

Even if we stopped spewing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow, global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees Celsius. In this unprecedented circumstance our cities must do two things. First and foremost we must slowly rebuild them so they don’t demand so much carbon to operate. Our cities now demand at least five times more carbon per capita than they did prior to world war two, largely due to our reliance on the car, and the low density sprawl which the car spawned.

Doing our part to slow or stop global warming is not simply a practical imperative; its a moral one. Canadians are responsible for far more than their fair share of climate change. But its major victims live in places like Africa and Bangladesh, where people did very little to deserve this. Our traditions as Canadians demand that we do our share to help. Changing our carbon greedy cities is the place to start.

In rebuilding our cities for an altered world, we must work with our rapidly changing natural systems, not against them. One very simple example: “Green streets”, streets with ample shade trees and natural verges to infiltrate storm water, can both mitigate the threat of floods while naturally cooling our homes. The shade and protection thy provide can also make walking and cycling a more reasonable option than the car.

This “green infrastructure” approach is crucial, not just to help save the planet, but to provide affordable ways to climate-proof our cities. Already we are crushed under the financial burdens of maintaining an infrastructure for storm and flood management that is beyond our capacity to maintain or replace. Now we find that the performance of this expensive system was calculated based on the behaviors of a world that no longer exists. Only through a radical recalibration in conformance with the new uncertainties of an altered planet can we hope to affordably adapt.

Adjunct Research Professor John Stone, Department of Geography, Carleton University. Dr Stone was a member of the Bureau of the IPCC for the 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports

First, I’ve only seen the draft. And that’s important because over the last 5 days or so this report has been discussed with governments in Kampala. The purpose of these talks is to come up with a text that governments can understand, is useful and is in a language that matches the science. So the actual wording in the final document is likely to be different from what I’ve read.

From the draft, I’m not particularly surprised with the findings. It’s pretty much what I expected to see – and it’s a reflection of what’s been known for quite a while. Some of the things (like heat-waves) we have been pretty sure of have not change and some of the things (like hurricanes) still have questions-marks. In the draft report there are some changes to the levels of confidence we can put on the findings. Many of the findings are not much different from those in the IPCC’s 4th report or the one written for US Congress about 4 years ago. The report has addressed how we might respond – including such matters as disaster management. This should be quite useful to governments at all levels.

One thing it [the report] tells us is that heat waves are very likely to increase. This is important for Canada because that puts the health of a lot of people, particularly the elderly, at risk. In Russia there were 40-50,000 additional deaths last year attributable to the heat waves that occurred there. That’s very significant. We expect these heat waves to become more frequent and more intense.

Another variable that this report speaks to is floods. We expect there to be more heavy rain events, which could give rise to more flooding.

When people talk to me these days about climate change it’s often in connection to extreme events and particularly floods. The recent flooding in Thailand was caused by such extreme events, in this case, by tropical cyclones. Extreme rain events are also important for Canada, because they might involve not just rain, they might mean snow or freezing rain.

This is all quite understandable from basic physics: as globe warms it can carry more moisture, which can fall out as increased precipitation.

There is still a lot of controversy with respect to what we know about tropical cyclones – hurricanes in the North Atlantic. There are still some questions about whether there will be increases in hurricanes or not in the future. From what we know, it’s likely that we will see more category 4 or 5 hurricanes – the most intense. The overall number might drop but we may see increases in the number of the stronger ones.

The fact is, we still don’t fully understand them well. One of the factors that sustains hurricanes is the sea surface temperature, which we know is rising. But there are factors that influence hurricane development, such as winds in the upper atmosphere. Hurricanes are rather complicated systems that we still don’t understand entirely. So our confidence in predicting changes is still limited.

The IPCC report, in draft form at least, provides a weaker statement on hurricanes than in the previous report. By weaker, I mean weaker in terms of confidence levels.

From simple statistics and basic physics, we can say that there will be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme events. What we’ve seen today doesn’t surprise us. It doesn’t mean we can attribute every extreme event to anthropogenic climate change, but it does support the idea that we’ve “loaded the dice,” so to speak. That these extreme events are more likely to happen now than they have been in the past.

With respect to floods, what we do expect to see is an increase in heavy rain events. Flooding is also caused by our changes in stream flow patterns such as when we close off flood plains, straighten rivers, build dams, and similar engineered modifications of river flows. These can exacerbate the flooding that we expect to see. The engineering changes that we’ve introduced into our landscapes confound making firm forecasts. But one of the conclusions we can draw is that because we have modified the climate there could be increases in local flooding.

Most of these extreme events are of a local scale. That’s a problem for science because these extreme events can happen at a scale that is too small for our observing network. Also, modeling such phenomena is difficult because of the challenges of representing small scale processes in the models.

But things have got better. In the past, the reason that we couldn’t say very much about hurricanes was that if they didn’t hit land, they didn’t occur. Now with satellites we have much greater coverage. The situation is also much better now that we have an extensive Doppler radar network. This technology allows us to track all sorts of storms, for example tornadoes. So our ability to track extreme weather has certainly increased. But in terms of providing solid statistics, we need a much longer series of data that isn’t always there.

We can say that the East coast of Canada could be more affected by hurricanes. But it all depends on their tracks, and whether they come on land or stay out at sea.

It’s important to understand that extreme events are not just a meterological phenomenon. They also tend to expose the vulnerabilities in our human socioeconomic structures. For example the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina was not simply an extreme meteorological event. It was also a social and economic catastrophe.

Extreme events are often short lived, but the effects of these extreme events can last a very long time. So it can be very difficult to recover from one extreme event before the next one hits. In developed nations most of the damage is to infrastructure and property and we can put a dollar value on these losses. In developing world it’s often measured in terms of lives lost. You can’t put a dollar value on that.

So extreme events can place a magnifying glass on people and their communities and their infrastructure.

As I have mentioned, from simple statistical and physical arguments we can expect that extreme events will increase and become more damaging. This is because of what we have done to alter our climate. We have in effect loaded the dice. However, the damage caused also has to do with the vulnerability of whatever is impacted. So we have to talk very carefully and we have to be careful in our attribution of cause and effect.

I was an author on the report on extreme events and climate change for the U.S. Congress. In putting together that report there were heated debates about the language that should be used. In the IPCC 4th report – when we came to discussing the summary for policy-makers there was protracted discussion about what we could say. So it will be interesting with this report to see what exact language is used.

Ultimately it’s important to understand that scientific knowledge is not absolute – and our understanding changes over time. That’s part of the scientific process.

One more thought regarding heat waves. There have been some interesting studies on the heat waves but there doesn’t seem yet to be a strong consensus. There are some research papers that are coming out which have said “yes, this is not surprising – the likelihood of these heat waves is actually greater because of climate change.”

I’m going to quote from a study by Stephan Rahmsdorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate in Germany. He wrote that he “estimates that the local warming trend has increased by five fold the number of records expected in the past decade, which implies an approximately 80% probability that the July 2010 heat wave in Moscow was attributable to anthropogenic climate change. That is quite different from a statement issued by NOAA earlier in the year, which said that the heat waves were mainly due to natural variability.

The caution here is that we are often dealing with different datasets, and different statistical methods. In my view the IPCC gives us the best assessment we’re going to get for the moment.

Matthew Thompson is an editor at The Conversation. This article was originally published on The Conversation – theconversation.edu.au. Reproduced with permission.

Comments on this article

facts & models

OK Trevor one last try,

I feel that you confuse facts and models.

The facts are facts.  Scientists use increasingly accurate devices for measuring changes in everything from temperature, ocean pH, sea level changes, bird migration, flowers blooming.  There is a huge portfolio of facts being generated and ALL of these point to the same conclusion ie that there is a climate emergency and the world won't be a happy place soon if we don't stop burning  fossil fuels.  

Facts are the raw inputs for the models.

Seems like you think that in the area of climate the models are all rigged.  How about weather forecasting ... which gets better and more long term all the time ... are these models flights of fancy too?  What about the models used to design bridges, buildings, aeroplanes etc etc .... flights of fancy?

Everything gets modelled and the models are constnatly refined..that's what scientists do.  They don't start with an outcome, then work diligently to stick to that outcome.  Where models don't work, scientists address what is missing.

I have the feeling that you are smart enough to understand these two issues.  So it puzzles me as to why you won't open your eyes.  Perhaps your peer group has its eyes closed, or is too attached to a carbon polluting world to want to know the real facts? ....worth thinking about because the problem is large and we need good intellects to address it and not themselves be part of the problem.

Final..........Reply to Keith Williams.

Thanks for your evaluation & whilst I respect your opinion I guess we will just have to  agree-to-disagree over which group constitute "the nutters" you refer to.

I still maintain that "the science" , if indeed it is science, is simply an opportunistic , cobbled-together set of "computer-generated-models"  constructed to produce a required outcome ( & used  justify a  particular political & ideological position adopted by the UN & several influential "greens" bodies around the world as a wealth re-distribution mechanism ) with little regard to the reality of weather cycles.  That it seems to be aimed at stopping development in all "Third World" countries , reserving them to be  the 'quarries' & markets for the developed world ' is regrettable !

As I have previously lamented  :  I have yet to see a comprehensive , cogent , cohesive ,scientific proof for  'AGM'..... or that CO2 is anything but essential , beneficial constituent of our atmosphere.

The only beneficiaries of 'the carbon tax' appear to be the droves of bureaucrats , for whom the number of new jobs created appears to be limitless , & the 'carbon traders' & the governments.

Thanks once again for engaging with me & helping clarify my views & thinking on this subject.

Regards & best wishes ,  Trevor.,

ps.  This is my last posting at this site as well as I feel I have spent enough time & effort trying to elicit "the facts" without much success.

selective reading

Hi Trevor,

OK, last post from me.  Re ignoring the critique of Murry's talk.  If you are interested in understanding this stuff then you need to get beyond what less than 1% of scientists say.

The 99% are smart, hardworking and being scientists, they don't have a barrow that they are pushing ... just looking for the truth and holes in logic and data that look sus.

You can find arguments in support of anything on the web these days.  To prove my point I googled "heart is not a pump" and sure enough I got a bunch of papers from so called academics (they did have professional addresses) who insisted that the heart doesn't pump blood!! ... I'm serious.

I hate to say it, but this is the level of "science" you are following in the climate area... you are trusting the nutters and ignoring the carefully gathered, critically reviewed hard work of the experts.

If you think that the temperatuire increases are minor, just look at the extreme temperatues being recorded (above 50C places).  The US has had extreme climate events costing more than $40 billion in 2011 (Texas droughts, tornadoes, flooding in Mississipi/Missouri).  You might like to think these are all normal events, but the insurance companies are paying attention.

I expected that I wouldn't be around when things start to get really tricky, but it is clear that things are accelerating and so this isn't just a problem for our kids and grandkids.

Keith....part...the third ! Strewth ! Give-over !

Hi Keith ,     it is a nuisance being constrained by 250 words !

Murry Salby did say that he was surprised to find that the CO2 level did not correspond with the temperature & that indeed , while the C02 level had increased by about 2 ppm for a few years there had been no corresponding elevation of temperature & perhaps even some cooling had occurred !

He concluded that the temperature had risen BEFORE the CO2 level had risen....not the other-way-round .........& that it was an effect & NOT a cause.

When you calibrate the temperature in ( degrees ) K instead of (Celsius)  C  you get a better view of where the temperature is in relation to the warming effect.

It is about 273 K and has risen 0.8 K over the last 150 years. Hardly alarming !

Ah , but THE RATE OF WARMING.........No ! It is warming up from a previous low level & it fluctuates up & down for reasons as yet only hypothesised !

Anyway , my efforts to elucidate this issue continue.......................but thank goodness for folk who can inject a little light & a little light-humour now and again !

Regards,

Keith.........part ...the second

Hi Keith ,

Ran out of space !

Where goeth the CO2 I hear you ask !

Simple !  It goeth back whence it came !

Carbonate deposits on ocean floors , mostly due to plankton skeletons ( Chalk ) but also all the other insoluble carbonates.            Contrary to some myths about "acidification" of the oceans they ARE & REMAIN alkaline. (The "acidification" word was deliberately chosen by the alarmists to accentuate a perceived problem with "reduced alkalinity".......it didn't convey the right degree of alarm or urgency  , apparently ! )

The ever-spreading tectonic plates ( mid-ocean ridges ) continually expose mineral deposits to dissolve in the oceans to replenish the calcium , magnesium,etc salts which make up such an important part of the nutrients in the sea & these ( where upwelling occurs) produce huge  planktonic blooms , so great that most of the Earth's oxygen is produced by the North Pacific Gyre alone.

The dead plant material ( algal) falls as 'snow' to the ocean floor taking lots of carbon with it. Much of this will be recycled by organisms but much is perpetually entombed !

If it were not for volcanoes , burning coalseams ,forest fires & the like ( Oh ! & mankind burning fossil fuels )  replenishing the atmospheric CO2  (which is a miserable 0.039% of the atmosphere ) then we & all the other carbon based life-forms would either never have evolved or would be in real strife !   Plants need sunlight , at least 0.02% C02  & liquid water ( i.e. warmth ) & surprisingly nutrients including oxygen for photosynthesis to occur........but then you  knew that !

Regards !

Murry Salby's talk as critiqued by Keith Williams.

Hi Keith ,

No , I didn't read the critique but I did listen to the talk & it seemed to be all-above-board & ship-shape & pretty convincing to me.

 

 How Murry Salby  obtained his position seems to be a side issue to me , but good-luck with that quest !

 

I am NOT  relying only on his input on the topic of 'global warming'. There are many other scientists expressing their concern about the way their input has been used or even distorted and some have taken the extreme step of resigning from various 'professional scientific bodies' as a protest. Their body of work of many years has earned my respect & their stand against the (currently) prevailing climate alarmism has given me a reason & impetus to enquire further for my own elucidation.

So far , I have NOT seen one convincing argument FOR the validity of AGW.   

Global warming is a given or else we would still be in an ice age. How the ice-age terminated or why it set-in in the first place has so few rational  or unbiased explanations that can reasonably account for them BOTH that the "mystics" & other "alternatives" have had a field day.

To say I have become cynical may be an overstatement , however , the basic , "fundamental proof" seems to be available only if you BUY something !

I find that the increase in global temperature is slight & well within what , if it was any other issue , would be considered normal parameters.

Murry Salby

Hi Trevor,

Did you check out the critique of the talk? There were many things that Murry just glazed over.  His talk came over like many denier presentations, where it becomes clear what he is trying to prove and the facts are carefully sifted to find ways to make the argument.

Simple things like "so where is all of the CO2 released by burning coal, oil, gas going?" need to be answered as this is a major and incredibly rapid release of CO2 that is highly unnatural.  The professional scientists (IPCC etc) all account for this as it is really important.  Murry instead was intent on having no relationship between CO2 and warming.

Anyway, as a former Professor at Macquarie I had a look at Salby's publications.  I don't understand how he got a chair at Macquarie as he has a publication record that would be regarded as poor in a junior faculty.  His most recent paper is 2008 (and cited as "In press"!!) he has 1 book (1996) and a few book chapters. His most recent book is 2009 ... In preparation!!!  So I don't "get" his academic credentials.  Maybe I should do some checking to see what the story is.

Why do you put such credence in such a lightweight track record, when there are some huge and thoughtful intellects who have spent their careers working on this stuff.... and depressingly for them, the predictions they were making 20 years ago are now coming to pass?

 

Reply to Keith Williams

 

 

 

Hi Keith !

Glad someone reads my contributions !

Murry Salby is the professor who has the Chair of Climate at Macquarie University !     He MUST have some expertise in the area & as such , surely some credibility !

I think you may need to WATCH the podcast or look him up yourself before you categorise him as a heretic !

I give his statements considerable weight in this debate............if that is what you can call this tit-for-tat forum.

Regards , Trevor.

Response to Paul re sin etc.

 

 

Hi Paul...................at last a little humour !

Look , in alternative religions such as AGW and global warming , you can have whatever you want !

You can even have zombies ( as well as those in Canberra ) !

You don't need to provide any facts for "your belief system" from what I can see........Just claim to have been shown the "sacred-path"(preferably in a vision while you were asleep but probably you should have been paying attention to what your science teacher was telling you ! ). Then use your imagination to include whatever turns you on ! It seems to work for a lot of those allegedly contributing to this forum .

Yes !  Of course you can have vampires ! Demons,dragons & dungeons.......why not ! See , you haven't missed out on any of the fun.

ps. I'm glad to read that you are having your glasses checked................it seems we may be of a similar vintage !

murry salby denier

Hi Trevor,

Murry Salby is propagating nonsense, sounds impressive, but nonsense nevertheless.  Classic denier obfuscation and pseudoscience.

For a good summary of where Murry Salby is playing with the facts see http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=922

Sin etc.

I missed all the fun!

Trevor, can you show me the bit about sin, guilt, punishment etc. Please tell me sex is in there somewhere too!

I thought I was reading a rather sober assessment of how extreme weather events may change as we warm the planet with en extra swaddling cloth of CO2. All very interesting, but you have spotted the exciting bits.

I am having my glasses checked.

PS Can we have vampires?

extreme weather

Hi Trevor,

Point taken about more people and better communications.

However, extreme weather doesn't take account of these.  For example record high temperatures have been experienced in 2011 in many different parts of the world ... this is independent of numbers of people or communications.

The recent IPCC report makes clear that what were once rare events are becoming much more frequent (eg 1 in 20 year event predicted to become 1 in 2 year event).

Please get over AGW conspiracies and stick with the facts.  It is very easy to show that extreme weather events are increasing and the Russian heatwave led to excess 50,000 deaths, so these events are starting to have significant mortalities (here in Australia 2009 bushfires in Victoria).

Point about rising CO2 is that we are releasing millions of years of carbon capture all at once.  This is not a natural event & it is having a dramatic effect on climate. Your assertion than rising CO2 levels always always follow temperature rise is just a lie propagated by the denialist crew.  

You can either have this debate as one of faith or you can stay with the science.... Science has worked for humans in all aspects of our technologically advanced society... why ditch science for waffle and conspriacy in an area where the very livability of the world is at stake? ... I don't get it.

likely

Hi Timothy,

I took 66%-100% for "likely" from the actual IPCC summary for policymakers, where it was described in a Table that way.  

The link you sent indicates the same thing ie greater than 66% includes 100%

"Low confidence" wasn't defined in that table, but "unlikely" had 0-33% probability.

benefits of MINOR global warming...............

 

Hi Keith Williams ,

 I think we have always had extreme weather events. The seeming increase in frequency is in part due to 3 factors as I see it:

1. More people in more places & hence more impact on people due to the increasing population.

2.Better communications.Events are reported almost instantaneously & by many different media sources so that we get deluged with 'bad news stories' almost continuously.

3.There is a political agenda .Society is being manipulated and 'AGW' is being used for this purpose ( even if 'AGW' doesn't exist it is difficult to disprove in the face of a barrage of idealogically driven governments & bureaucrats & academics propounding it ...often in the most alarmist way possible....& claiming" the divine right of science" as their justification for NOT having to explain it or prove it ! )

I would like you to download a podcast by Murry Salby at The Sydney Institute and then possibly re-evaluate the convictions you seem to currently hold.

 http://www.thesydneyinstute.com.au/speaker/murry-salby/

Rising CO2 levels geologically always FOLLOW temperature rise , not the other way around as the AGW proponents would have us believe. CO2 rise is an effect , NOT a cause.

I'd be interested to hear from you again.

Regards.

Likely

Keith

The IPCC definition of "Likely" is >66% and not 66-100%

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

 

Likewise, "Low Confidence" = 2 out of 10 chance ~ 20%

Reread the article now that you know what "Low confidence" means.

benefits of global warming

Hi Trevor,

If you think the extreme weather events that are already coming thick and fast as a result of increased carbon dioxide are benign, tell that to the people of Bangkok (floods), Texas (droughts) etc etc.  This year the cost in the US of these once rare, becoming increasingly common, events is now around $50 billion.

We live in a technologically advanced world, and rely on experts to navigate our way be it in medicine, engineering etc. Why is it that you think that you know better than a large group of dedicated climate scientists?

Stop peddling denialist nonsense.

 

Extreme weather : IPCC summary report released.

.................on the other hand , perhaps not !

Let's just get next week's weather report correct before we try predicting 20 to 50 to 100 or 1000 years into the future !

When we know what circumstances brought "us" out of the ice-age in the first place ( and it wasn't CO2 ) then perhaps "they" will gain some credibility for their "belief system".

In the meantime they remain purveyors of "doom & gloom" with the ideological zeal of truly religious proportions with many of the same hallmarks ( sin , guilt , punishment , salvation etc....they've got the lot ! ).

Currently the average global temperature is around 293 K (20 degrees celcius) & it has increased by 0.8 K over the last 150 years to about 294 K.........that is pretty stable & surely well within natural variation & nothing to be alarmed about , unless you have an agenda or ideological motive to expound.

Personally , I would suggest that it is extremely foolish to meddle with something as benign as mild global warming as it has produced many benefits & allowed "us" to attain our present stage of development (civilisation).

Certainly , any action taken to cool the planet may well precipitate another ice-age & that would be really devastating. You don't produce much food beneath an ice sheet !

Surely a good percentage of

Surely a good percentage of the normal public understand and accept that sea level rise will happen because of increasing glacier melts and ice sheets as temps rise. But it would be interesting to know what percentage of the public understand 'thermal expansion' of the ocean from rising temperatures.

Without checking my facts, I recall ocean water in equatorial areas may expand (rise) at even higjer rates due to thermal expansion - meaning that sea levels can rise and be at different heights at any one point in time (please correct me if I'm wrong)

for Timothy Northcott

Current rate of sea level rise is ~3 mm/yr.  As polar terrestrial (Greenland and Antarctic) ice melt proceeds, this will accelerate.  

 

Extrapolation of trends discerned by Rignot et al (2011), "Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise", Geophysical Research Letters gives sea level rise ~1.6 m by 2100.

 

6 metre sea level rise would require substantial melting of the Greenland icecap.  While this threshold is unlikely to be passed this century, it is likely to be all but unstoppable some time next century unless large scale permafrost thawing is forestalled this century..

What "likely" means

Shaun, I wouldn't be too apologetic about your comment.  If you read the summary report, you will see that "likely" in IPCC speak means 66-100% probability ie it is pretty close to certain to happen. The IPCC has been so beaten up by the denialists that their comments are so couched in caution that often the real meaning of their findings is lost to the lay person.

Also where 

OK, Sorry.

Timothy, you are right. I should have said "likely to increase".

So can I take it from your comments that your thesis is something like this; "OK, "MMGW" is real and things are bad but we don't know that they will be "as bad" as some people say therefore lets ...... do what? Do nothing? Sit around and wait until we are "confident" we know how much worse its going to get?

Its not the back peddalling from 6M predictions that is the issue it is the forward peddalling from 27 cm that should worry you - after all, as you say, "scientific knowledge is not absolute".

This is not an academic exercise for millions/billions of people around the world - Should we be prepared to see them as collateral damage in a giant science experiment or should we take prudent action to do something about it now - if it is not already too late?

Who's misquoting now

Shaun

John Clague said:

"Sea level is currently rising at a rate of about 3 mm/yr and the rate is "likely" to increase through the remainder of the century"

"Likely", not as you misquote "will accellerate".

To quote the author:

Ultimately it’s important to understand that scientific knowledge is not absolute – and our understanding changes over time. That’s part of the scientific process. 

 

So guess what ?  The science isn't settled so prepare yourself for a lot of backpeddling in coming years from the claims of 6 metre sea rises and 6 degree temperature rises.  It looks from all acounts that there is a lack of "confidence" in the science.

 

Huh?

Timothy, Are you for real? You read that whole article that lays out a whole list of experts saying there are many adverse and potentially dangerous impacts from "MMGW" and you choose to distil from the article that sea level rise is not a big problem and then just ignore everything else.

Firstly; you misquote the relevant expert who says that the rate of 3mm/yr will accellerate during the century meaning that the rise will be greater than 27cm.

Secondly; you make the normal "head in sand" mistake of armchair experts in wealthy countries of thinking that even a 27cm increase in the "mean" is not serious. Increases in some areas will be much greater than this average and an increase of that level will have a large impact on some of the areas and populations that are least equipped to deal with them.

That's like reading a report into the many health effects of smoking and deciding that if (for example) the rate of increase in mouth cancer is only small then smoking is really not a problem.

Sea Levels

Dr Kathleen McInnes, an expert on Sea Level Rise with Climate Change Research Group, doesn't even mention sea level rises over the next century. John Clague, a Shrum Research Professor, on the other hand says we can expect a rise of 27cm (3mm/yr) over the next century.  Where is the 6 metres we were promissed ?  It sounds like a number of scientists are losing "confidence" in the effects of MMGW.