Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

[a_unique_person]

They have predicted the trend in Australia pretty well. Drying out of the southern states. Australia is experiencing it's worst period of drought ever, as the weather patterns move south, leaving the rain from the Southern Ocean over the ocean.

The impact of anthropogenic perturbation on the climate system can be projected by calculating all the key processes operating in the climate system through a mathematical formulation which, due to its complexity, can only be implemented in a computer program, referred to as a climate model. If all our current understanding of the climate system were explicitly included, the model would be too complex to run on any existing computer; hence, for practical purposes, simplifications are made so that the system has reduced complexity and computing requirements. Since different levels of simplifications are possible, a hierarchy of models tends to develop (see Chapter 1 and Harvey et al., 1997).
The need to balance scientific understanding against computational efficiency and model realism often guides the choice of the particular class of models used. In addition, it is usually necessary to balance the relative level of detail in the representation, and the level of parametrization, within each component of the climate system.

Don't forget, this is from about ten years ago, the time of the Pentium 1. Computers are now much more powerful, the limitations put upon modelling are now relaxed, as the scientists can make them more complex and detailed.

However, all you are arguing about is the actual effect on climate, a simple model, as has been known for over a hundred years, tells you that more CO2 causes the temperature to rise. The exact effects on the climate around the world won't be known exactly, but you know it will get warmer, not colder. It doesn't take too many brains to know that the poles will go first, as predicted, and as is happening. The only problem is that the calculations were out, the poles are melting faster than anticipated.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

A timely perspective article in Science this week addresses the issues of upper atmosphere change. 'Upper' atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km). Laštovička et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to 'fall'. This was highlighted a few years back by Jarvis et al (1998) and in New Scientist in 1999 (and I apologise for stealing their headline!). The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion. The higher up one goes, the more important the CO2 related cooling is. It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming) - yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.

So, the models are validated, once again, we can see why the oft referred to temperature readings from satellites would be as they are, the warming is not due to solar activity.

 

[Geckko]

They have predicted the trend in Australia pretty well. Drying out of the southern states. Australia is experiencing it's worst period of drought ever, as the weather patterns move south, leaving the rain from the Southern Ocean over the ocean.




Don't forget, this is from about ten years ago, the time of the Pentium 1. Computers are now much more powerful, the limitations put upon modelling are now relaxed, as the scientists can make them more complex and detailed.

However, all you are arguing about is the actual effect on climate, a simple model, as has been known for over a hundred years, tells you that more CO2 causes the temperature to rise. The exact effects on the climate around the world won't be known exactly, but you know it will get warmer, not colder. It doesn't take too many brains to know that the poles will go first, as predicted, and as is happening. The only problem is that the calculations were out, the poles are melting faster than anticipated.

You a taking anecdote. I am referring to peer reviewed eveluation.

Re. computing power, my understanding is that these things are run on mainframe super computers, not desktops, and I am not aware of any more recent peer reviewed research that has moved things on significiantly from the last IPCC report. The next one (due imminenty) should be worth reading.

ANd I suppose you are right. That is the point. We know it will keep getting warmer. But what we need to know is by how much? And what will be the extent of other changes such as sea levels? or storms etc? That is what we need to know in order to plan effectively. THere seems to be a lot more work needed on these primary questions.

 

[a_unique_person]

The supercomputers of back then were still very underpowered to what we have now in terms of supercomputers. The relative technology is the factor. Back then, they could not incorporate all they knew then into models, because the horsepower just wasn't there to run it.

If you want to know exactly what the result will be because of warming, then no model will give you that, if you want an indication of what will happen, then the models can give you that. We know it will get warmer, the poles will melt, the glaciers are going. Exactly what parts of Australia will get less rainfall and by how much, we don't know. The models did predict a drop in rainfall, and that is exactly what has happened.

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/reports/caa03/chapter5/CLIVAR.shtml

 

[Ziggurat]

We know it will get warmer, the poles will melt,

Significant melting will likely occur around the north pole in response to warming. But since that's floating ice, it's irrelevant to ocean levels. Melting at the south pole is not so simple. Warming could actually lead to an increase in antarctic ice: much of antartica is so far below zero that there's hardly any moisture in the air even at 100% humidity, and so warming would allow more snowfall.

 

[a_unique_person]

In the short term, but the temperature is still rising.

CARBON emissions are escaping into the earth's atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, an international group of scientists has warned.
In 2005, about 7.9 billion tonnes of carbon were released globally, according to figures published yesterday by the CSIRO. Scientist Mike Raupach, who also co-chairs the international Global Carbon Project, was surprised by his research results. "It shows recent efforts globally to reduce emissions have had little impact on emissions growth," he said.
The rate of emissions had grown by about 2.5 per cent each year since 2000, compared with less than 1 per cent growth each year in the 1990s.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...s-shock-experts/2006/11/27/1164476136557.html

 

[varwoche]

Melting at the south pole is not so simple. Warming could actually lead to an increase in antarctic ice: much of antartica is so far below zero that there's hardly any moisture in the air even at 100% humidity, and so warming would allow more snowfall.

Except that's not what's happening.

Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters link

 

[Ziggurat]

Except that's not what's happening.

Net losses come from coastal areas, but there are actually some gains in the interior. The relative contributions (coastal loss versus inland gain) may change over time. With only 3 years of data, there's not much to indicate whether or not we can extrapolate those recent changes much into the future.

 

[a_unique_person]

The temperature is rising, and it will keep rising, as I said. That makes it pretty simple to work out.

 

[Ziggurat]

The temperature is rising, and it will keep rising, as I said. That makes it pretty simple to work out.

If the temperature rises from, say, 40 below to 20 below, will there be more or less ice? No, it really isn't so simple to work out.

 

[BobK]

They have predicted the trend in Australia pretty well. Drying out of the southern states. Australia is experiencing it's worst period of drought ever, as the weather patterns move south, leaving the rain from the Southern Ocean over the ocean.

Why do you still insist on saying Australia is experiencing it's worst drought ever? I thought I demonstrated the falsity of that position in the "Global Warming Scam" thread in GS&P only three weeks ago.

The likely cause of any water shortage is increased population. Precipitation looks to be within the normal range for Australia.

Once again. Here are the links to those posts and graphs.

All of Australia

South Australia

 

[a_unique_person]

Why do you still insist on saying Australia is experiencing it's worst drought ever? I thought I demonstrated the falsity of that position in the "Global Warming Scam" thread in GS&P only three weeks ago.

The likely cause of any water shortage is increased population. Precipitation looks to be within the normal range for Australia.

Once again. Here are the links to those posts and graphs.

All of Australia

South Australia

Water use has been dropping.

 

[BobK]

Water use has been dropping.

That's an ambiguous statement. If you mean per capita, you might be right. I doubt you're right about total usage though. Isn't that what matters?

Here's the latest info I could find. A 65% increase in usage over about an 11 year period. If you know of more recent info that shows total usage being down, please post it.

Table 1: Change in mean annual water use (GL) in Australia by water use category
Water category	1985 ReviewA	1996/97 ReviewB	Percentage change
Irrigation	        10 200	        17 935         	76
Urban / industrial	 3 060           4 754          55
Rural	                 1 340 	         1 369         	2
TOTAL	                14 600	        24 058         	65
A AWRC 1987.
B NLWRA 2001.

The figures are in giga-litres.
From this source.

Sure looks like you expect too much from what appears to be a normal range of precipitation. I think you might be in for some population culling at some point in the future. Or start praying that drastic climate change will improve normal rainfall.

 

[a_unique_person]

Water demand has gone up, there's a monster drought on. Prior to that, per capita it was dropping. The irrigators demand has shot up, but there's no water available. Looking at actual consumption leaves out a lot.

The prediction was that north would get wetter, the south drier. Presenting a map of total rainfall for the whole country is just ignorance.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765929.htm

The CSIRO says the drought can mostly be attributed to Australia's normal weather patterns but says global warming has intensified it.
The head of climate change impacts and risk for the CSIRO, Penny Whetton, says for thousands of years droughts have happened every few years in different parts of the country.
She says due to human influence on the climate system, or global warming, there will be higher temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns.
She says conditions will become drier in the southern half of Australia and wet years will become less frequent in the next 50 years or so.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20720236-5006787,00.html

THE drought is rewriting record books and forcing climate experts, water watchers, farmers and urban planners to go back to the drawing board as they grapple with a previously unseen dry and unprecedented demand for water from our rivers.

The Prime Minister and state leaders at the water summit in Canberra yesterday were told that Australia faced a climate event not seen in a millennium.
The briefing, by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, prompted debate about whether this drought was worse than the Federation drought of 1895-1903 or the big dry of the 1950s.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission general manager David Dreverman said the prospect of a second extremely dry year in a row changed the magnitude of droughts in Australia.
Mr Dreverman told John Howard, premiers Mike Rann (South Australia), Steve Bracks (Victoria) and Morris Iemma (NSW) and Queensland Deputy Premier Anna Bligh that the calculations were changing because of the run of extremely dry years. He said the order of magnitude was about one in a thousand years.
The forecast came as the Howard Government extended its exceptional circumstances assistance to small-business owners in drought-stricken communities.
Although claims that Australia is in the grip of a one-in-a-thousand-year drought cannot be substantiated by data, experts agree the dry is the worst on record.
Bryson Bates, director of the CSIRO's climate program, said the dry was at least as severe as the Federation drought.
"In some areas of southeast Australia, it's certainly worse than what the Federation drought was," he said. "It is extreme."
Mr Bates said it was impossible to establish whether it was a one-in-a-thousand-year drought.
"You probably are extrapolating beyond the length of our data sets," he said. "To me, it doesn't matter whether it's 1000 years or not; it's a very extreme drought."
The Murray River system is in its sixth consecutive year of drought and the outlook for rain and forecasts for the 2006-07 season have been described as "grim", with historical records showing the likelihood of continuing dry conditions.

 

[BobK]

Water demand has gone up, there's a monster drought on. Prior to that, per capita it was dropping. The irrigators demand has shot up, but there's no water available. Looking at actual consumption leaves out a lot.

Looking at actual consumption is the rational way to determine whether the amount of precipitation is abnormal. If there's only one well on an island and it delivers 1000 gal. per day for 100 people. You shouldn't be claiming a "monster drought" because the population increased to 200 and now each only gets five gal. per day instead of ten. That's a result of inadequate planning.

The prediction was that north would get wetter, the south drier. Presenting a map of total rainfall for the whole country is just ignorance.

I consider that ignorance remark an attempted personal dig at me and you simply don't know the difference between a map and a graph.

I've been trying to discuss this in a rational way. What's with the snide remark? Not only is it a gratuitous insult with no basis in fact, but it also demonstrates the vacuousness of your reading and comprehension skills. My post #131 not only links to a graph of all Australia, but following the chain of links from my South Australia link, you know I also referenced a S. Australia graph. Of course, if your eyes glaze over when reading something that might shake your faith in the validity of your assertions, I can see how you might have missed it.

If you can still see, do you agree? The S. Australia graph I linked to in the other thread shows precipitation has been equal to, or even slightly better over the past few years, than the precipitation of the whole country. Kind of puts the kibosh on the idea of the south being drier than the rest of the country.

I post graphs from your own Bureau of Meteorology and a water usage chart from another gov. dept. for discussion, and you respond with a snide remark, someone's scare-mongering, politically self-serving opinion about a one in a thousand year drought, and another item speculating about the future. I can see why you have 17,000+ post in less than four and one-half years. You act like my computer router. Take anything that comes your way and pass it on. Don't you have any thoughts of your own? Why don't you try posting some actual data and rationally discuss it? Instead of passing on other people's opinions that you've taken for your own.

 

[a_unique_person]

Looking at actual consumption is the rational way to determine whether the amount of precipitation is abnormal. If there's only one well on an island and it delivers 1000 gal. per day for 100 people. You shouldn't be claiming a "monster drought" because the population increased to 200 and now each only gets five gal. per day instead of ten. That's a result of inadequate planning.

Rubbish. The planning for water is one of the hottest topics here, and farmers have been planning for droughts for years now. The problem is rainfall. The capacity of the system, based on historical rainfall, was adequate. With the current rainfall, it's inadequate. With lower rainfall, you get a dramatic effect of less runoff because the ground is dry. Until that soaks up the water, none of it gets to the dams.

I consider that ignorance remark an attempted personal dig at me and you simply don't know the difference between a map and a graph.

I've been trying to discuss this in a rational way. What's with the snide remark? Not only is it a gratuitous insult with no basis in fact, but it also demonstrates the vacuousness of your reading and comprehension skills. My post #131 not only links to a graph of all Australia, but following the chain of links from my South Australia link, you know I also referenced a S. Australia graph. Of course, if your eyes glaze over when reading something that might shake your faith in the validity of your assertions, I can see how you might have missed it.

If you can still see, do you agree? The S. Australia graph I linked to in the other thread shows precipitation has been equal to, or even slightly better over the past few years, than the precipitation of the whole country. Kind of puts the kibosh on the idea of the south being drier than the rest of the country.

I post graphs from your own Bureau of Meteorology and a water usage chart from another gov. dept. for discussion, and you respond with a snide remark, someone's scare-mongering, politically self-serving opinion about a one in a thousand year drought, and another item speculating about the future. I can see why you have 17,000+ post in less than four and one-half years. You act like my computer router. Take anything that comes your way and pass it on. Don't you have any thoughts of your own? Why don't you try posting some actual data and rationally discuss it? Instead of passing on other people's opinions that you've taken for your own.

Australia is bigger than Western Europe. To say that if England is in a drought because Italy is getting plenty of rain is nonsense.

Marohasy is just a right wing shill. You can safely ignore anything she has to say.

 

[a_unique_person]

According to a Victorian government report on water operations: "The joint release saw 513 gigalitres of water delivered to the forest and the inundation of over half of the forest floodplain, resulting in greatly improved condition for wetland vegetation and breeding activity for key wetland fauna. Wetland vegetation, including moira grass and the threatened wavy marshwort, responded with significantly improved condition and the flooding waters provided for new growth and canopy regeneration in stressed river red gums. The release also triggered large reproductive events in important native fish species such as golden perch and the threatened silver perch as well as in many water bird species, including the great egret, darters, spoonbills, grebes, ibis and cormorants, and the critically endangered intermediate egret."

All this during one of the worst droughts on record!

She certainly thinks I am right. She also doesn't seem to appreciate that one of the treasures of the Australian eco-system will soon be dead. It has survived thousands of years, but will not exist soon because the water it normally gets has not been made available due to demands of industry.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001719.html

 

[a_unique_person]

I assume by south you mean the Murray-Darling Basin where over half Australia's population lives and 40% of your food is produced.

Over half of the population does not live in the Murray-Darling basin. Most of the country lives on the coast, the Murry-Darling basin is inland. That is why I claim ignorance. You don't know much about Australia. You try to tell me black is white.