CSIRO warns: Australia to get hotter, wetter, with more extreme weather : Melbourne Indymedia

Average temperatures are set to rise, with the possibility that some inland towns may become inhabitable. Bush fires, droughts, storms and flooding will have increasing impact on social and economic infrastructure. The overwhelming consensus amoung scientists is that such climate change has been brought about through global warming caused to a large extent by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide produced by humans.

Predictions for Victoria

In July a new regional analysis of climate change in Victoria showed that climate is changing and will have wide-ranging effects across the State.

"Overall, Victoria has already warmed by about half a degree Celsius since 1950," said Dr Penny Whetton, Leader of the Climate Impacts Group at CSIRO Atmospheric Research in Melbourne.

"By 2070 Victoria is likely to be 0.7 to 5.0 degrees Celsius warmer, compared to 1990," she said. "Climate change in Victoria is likely to lead to more hot days, fewer frosts, more heavy rainfall and drier conditions leading to greater bushfire risk."

Dr Whetton said that although there is considerable uncertainty about climate change at the regional to local scale, the science does show up differences in projected temperature and rainfall change across Victoria.

Regional projections show average warming is stronger in the northern regions, and less in the coastal regions. For example, in Benalla the current frequency of 17 winter days below zero degrees Celsius is projected to decline by 2070 to between 11 days and no frost days at all. The number of hot days will increase, for example, in Echuca the current frequency of 16 summer days over 35 degrees Celsius is projected to increase to between 20 and 49 days by 2070.

The risk of increased drought is strongest in the west and north, and weakest in east Gippsland. Water resources are likely to decline everywhere but this is more marked in the northern regions.

Dr Whetton said that although the risk of warming at the high end of range can be lowered by global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, some regional climate change cannot be avoided and adaptation will be required. "Risks and opportunities vary substantially from region to region and adaptive responses will need to be planned," she said.

"For example, in the Wimmera the need to adapt broad-acre cropping, particularly wheat production, to a changing climate is probably the greatest concern."

"Concern about reduced natural snow cover and the impact that this may have alpine tourism would be greatest for the Northeast region, while increases in the risk of flooding of infrastructure are more significant for the urbanised Port Phillip region," she said.

Climate hots up in NSW for Premier Carr

In Sydney in November politicians and scientists with the International Taskforce on Climate Change, hosted by NSW Premier Bob Carr, gathered to discuss how to improve global action, in particular finding a way to bring Australia and the US back into the fold. Australia and the United States are the two major industrialised countries refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty.

CSIRO scientist Kevin Hennessy, speaking to Anne Barker of the ABC radio program The World Today, said "Over the last 50 years Australia has warmed by about 0.8 of a degree Celsius. Now, to most people that probably doesn't sound like much and in fact to cold places it probably sounds like very good news. But in fact a small change in average temperature is associated with quite large changes in extreme temperatures and we then in fact experience increases in the number of hot days and hot nights and decreases in the number of cold days and frosty nights."

The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday November 15, lead with an article: 'Living in an oven - dire alert for NSW.' A CSIRO and BOM report produced by Kevin Henessy and other scientists predicts many parts of NSW will experience many more days with temperatures over 35 degrees, increased bush fire risk, and increased extreme weather events. NSW can expect soaring temperatures and a 70 per cent increase in the number of droughts by 2030.

Average days above 35 degrees
Town               Now     2030     2070
Wilcannia           59      83        136
Cobar               41      65        128
Walgett             56      87        153
Gunnedah            19      40        103
Yamba                1       2          7
Bathurst             4      11         43
Sydney               3       6         18
Moruya               2       3          6
Canberra             5      13         42
Wagga               20      34         78
West Wyalong        26      42         93
Deniliquin          24      37         75
*Max of range in worst scenario - Source CSIRO, BOM

The New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, presented the CSIRO/BOM report to the International Taskforce on Climate Change meeting in Sydney. Bob Carr said "This is deadly serious and it's upon us. Global warming has got New South Wales in its grip as much as any other part of the world. We face these terrible increases in average climate. Parts of our State are already very hot, but if you look at where they're going to be by 2012 and then after 2030, is really going to be living in an oven."

The International Climate Change taskforce co-chairman, and former British minister, Stephen Byers said "Unless action is taken by governments across the whole of the globe, then we're going to face droughts, we're going to face really extreme weather conditions. We know in the UK we've had floods this year that we've never seen before. Last year in Europe we had a heatwave which led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives. In America we've seen hurricanes hitting the coast of Florida and Louisiana. Wherever you look in the world, we're seeing the consequences of global warming."

In response to a question on ABC radio program PM on the content of the CSIRO report, Byers said: "Well no change is not an option. You can see very clearly the damaging effects to Australia of climate change. And the challenge for the John Howard Government is, is he prepared to take on the political challenge of saying yes, I recognise that something needs to be done. I don't believe that Kyoto is in the interests of Australia, which is what John Howard has said, but I recognise there will be a different way forward for Australia, and that we in Australia will do our bit to tackle global warming."

Bob Carr defended the possible construction of a new coal-fired power station in NSW on ABC Television program Lateline. Greens MP Ian Cohen accused Bob Carr of being hypocritical: "The Premier is deceiving the people of NSW about his Government's green credentials .... He will only become part of the problem on climate change, not the cure, unless he takes action to reduce the state's dependence on coal mining and coal-fired power." said Ian Cohen.

Environment groups gathered outside NSW Government House where Bob Carr addressed the International Climate Change Taskforce. They protested against the state's reliance on coal as a power source and the expansion of the coal industry in NSW.

"Mr. Carr will lose credibility if this meeting is a mere talk-fest," said Greenpeace Campaigns Manager Danny Kennedy. "With the Kyoto Protocol coming into force and climate change impacts becoming more obvious, the only responsible policy for any government is to commit to moving away from dirty coal, and towards clean, renewable energy. The sad reality is that New South Wales is a major greenhouse polluter with no long-term policies in place to effectively wean the state from its addiction to coal. NSW gets almost 90% of its electricity from dirty, polluting coal and positive sources like solar and wind are tragically underdeveloped. The Carr Government is allowing construction of five new coal mines and expansion of eight existing mines, and eleven new mines and one new coal-fired power plant are being proposed."

Kennedy accused the Howard Government of the key climate crime of the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, but was adamant that State Labor Governments could be more proactive with climate friendly policies “The key cliat the state level. "If Premier Bob Carr put forward policy to dramatically reduce the biggest state’s addiction to coal, it would make him a leader on environmental issues and put considerable political pressure on John Howard to follow suit and sign Kyoto", said Kennedy.

Environmentalists campaigning against more coal fired power stations were supported by Clive Hamilton, the executive director of the Australia Institute. "I think there's a tremendous scope in Australia for the growth of new renewable energy industries, which ought to obviate the need for construction of any new coal-fired power stations," he said.

Increase in extreme rainfall

"The most extreme rainfall events we currently experience become more frequent in 2040, with the 1-in-40 year event of today corresponding with a 1-in-15 year event in future," said Dr Debbie Abbs, a climate scientist at CSIRO Atmospheric Research in Melbourne.

"The areas of greatest increase in intensity occur over mountainous terrain, inland from Coffs Harbour, Coolangatta and north of Brisbane."

Each year extreme rainfall events cause significant damage, as a result of flooding, in the highly urbanised regions along Australia's eastern coastline where population is increasing. Dr Abbs says that a 26% increase in flooding leads to a 60% increase in damage costs. "With projected increases in the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events, the community's exposure to extreme rainfall events is growing rapidly," says Dr Abbs.

"Global climate models simulate rainfall over areas as wide as 200 kilometres. Extreme rainfall over small areas is much more than that found over large areas where results are averaged out," said Dr Debbie Abbs.

Dr Abbs was presenting her research at the Australia New Zealand Climate and Water Forum in Lorne, Victoria, in early November.

Australia is getting wetter, while droughts continue

Averaged over the entire Australian continent, rainfall has increased over the past 50 years, according to new research by Dr Ian Smith, a climate scientist at CSIRO Atmospheric Research. While many areas over Australia recently have experienced drought, the trend in other areas has been towards wetter conditions. "Unfortunately, the wetter conditions have occurred in the more sparsely populated regions," said Smith.

Rainfall data compiled by the Bureau of Meteorology analysed by Dr Smith shows that rainfall has increased over the summer half of the year in large parts of western, northern and central Australia over the period 1952 to 2002. The subsequent two summers since the analysis was completed have also been relatively wet in those parts of the continent.

"The trends are sufficiently large and widespread to be classified as unusual in a historical context," says Dr Smith. "Furthermore, the wetter conditions may be signs of a changing climate, as foreshadowed by climate experts almost 20 years ago."

The study will be published in the Australian Meteorological Magazine. The trends towards wetter conditions contrast with the long-recognised trend towards drier regional conditions - such as the sudden decrease in rainfall in south-west Western Australia in the mid-1970s, a drying trend over south-east Australia since 1996, and a longer-term drying trend over southern Australia since the 1970s.

In a related research published in Geophysical Research Letters, Dr Richard Wardle of the University of Melbourne and Dr Smith looked at the relationship between increasing summer rainfall and Australia's rising temperature. "Using a climate model we found that forcing the land to absorb more energy causes a complex response whereby the monsoon region becomes wetter and cooler in summer but in the drier regions it becomes wetter and warmer," he says.

"This result is important because it indicates that a regional response to climate change can be very different to the large-scale response. This may be important when interpreting paleoclimate records and is likely to be important when estimating the effects of future climate change," Dr Smith says.

Meanwhile, "Australia has one of the worst records in greenhouse policy in the developed world." according to Frank Muller, a Professor at University of NSW. "The way the science has been heading, we may in our own lifetimes be seeing changes that will make us regret failing to take action earlier." he said.

I might believe them if (a) their claims were not refuted by observations, (b) if their mathematical models were accurate (which they are not) and (c) if their assertions had substance (which they don't).

Firstly, I'll draw your attention to The Bureau of Meteorology webpage where you can examine these things for yourself.

Secondly, ....

- The innacuracy of the models is shown by the predicted increase of maybe 0.7 degrees or maybe 5 degrees. For goodness sake, the range here is 7 times the minimum value. What kind of accuracy is that? Clearly some of these models are wrong but equally clearly no-one knows which. (Incidentally these models are "tweaked" to match previous weather conditions and they simply cannot be assumed to be accurate for future conditions.)

- Across Australia, minimum temperatures are rising faster than maximum temperatures (which the models don't predict). Australia-wide since about 1900 minimums have risen about 0.9 degrees but maximums less than 0.3 . This means that average temperatures are increasing but that the number of "hot" days will not. Consequently there is no reason to believe that "some inland towns may become inhabitable" nor that the number of hot days in Echuca will increase from 16. Not in Victoria, not in NSW.

- Climate heats up for Bob Carr? I'll say it does. He's been claiming recently that rainfall has decreased around Sydney's water catchment areas but the graph of the changes rainfall from CSIRO clearly shows an increase. Can Bob please explain?

- The UK's Stephen Byers is either deliberately lying or is totally incompetent. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 was caused by a stationary cell of high pressure. Given that the same event has not happened again we can reasonably doubt that GW had anything to do with it. (Perhaps Byers can also explain why this year's European summer was cool and why winter has arrived earlier than usual in many European cities!)

- Byer's also claims that the Miami hurricanes are signs of warming. Reputable scientists state that the movement of hurricanes back to the coastal areas is a return to the normal conditions of about 20 years ago.

- The IPCC reports state quite clearly that there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events. Sure we pay more attention to them now, and the number of people living in areas prone to such events has increased, and the cost of making the same repair has increased, but there is simply no evidence of any kind of "un-natural" increase caused by global warming (or by anything else).

- Be careful about claims about rainfall changes since the 1970's. Across 1974-76 we had two years of exceptionally high rainfall followed by one that we would normally consider as "high". The average rainfall was distorted as a result and any claims should be viewed with scepticism. Also be aware that El Nino induced droughts are a known (and well-understood) cause of low rainfall in eastern Australia.

Two final points

- The mathematical models used for these predictions are simply inaccurate (and the developers have admitted this) and it is difficult to place any credence whatsoever on the predictions.

- The fundamental point that is missing from these assertions about carbon dioxide causing warming is the proof. Sure there's a correlation but that does not mean that carbon dioxide is driving temperature unless a mechanism can be explained. (I can correlate Christmas occuring just afetr the longest day but that doesn't mean that day length has anything to do with the day of Christmas.) As far as I am aware, no-one has produced either a verifiable explanation of how carbon dioxide would cause a temperature increase or a verifiable figure as to how much warming it causes. My information says that a doubling of carbon dioxide will cause less than 1 degree of warming and so I call on CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, Greenpeace and any others to disprove that figure.

Will they also explain why it is that when water vapour is properly considered as a greenhouse gas and we find that carbon dioxide causes less than 1% of warming (at most), it is carbon dioxide that they are panicking about and not the emission of water vapour. Sure any exposed water produces water vapour but industry pours it out already heated.

cheers

John

Sophisticated job John, somebody has gone to some effort to cobble together this dogs breakfast.

Will paraphrase yr points as, 'because models (and there are many) are not perfect (don't predict the future entirely & exactly at all locations based on the past) they must be rubbish.' Makes you the Luddite doesn't it? What about Munich Re, worlds largest reinsurer, annually issues report on INCREASES in costs of damage due to climate change? The record of 7 of hottest years on record being in 90's? The melting north pole and Larsen iceshelf? Cattle ticks in S.QLD/N.NSW, first time ever?

Having weaned myself off the predigested spoonfed lies from the "growth is good" salesmen and hucksters, i prefer to listen to the scientists. Climate change is well under way, only question is how fast, how bad.

Hi liamj,

My post said more than just that the models were faulty.

Did you actually look at the Bureau of Met data to which I referred? You would find that the claims made could NOT be supported by the evidence.

When true science (verified cause and effect) is replaced by assertions that cannot be proven, by statements that cannot be verified or replicated, it turns into a religion.

As for your other points, I defy Munich Re to prove that their additional costs are due to global warming.

Look at the most obvious, the hurricanes in Florida. There's no evidence they were caused by global warming. Look at the costs associated with repairs - more people live in Florida than 20 years ago, the infrastructure and public buildings are more extensive, and very clearly inflation has increased costs.

I've read reports that on an adjusted cost basis, the Florida hurricanes of the 1920's caused damage of a greater cost. Funny that the world was cooler at that time ;-)

You mention "The record of 7 of hottest years on record being in 90's? The melting north pole and Larsen iceshelf? Cattle ticks in S.QLD/N.NSW, first time ever?" but there is no evidence that humans have had any influence on climate.

Hottest years on record? Maybe but it's probably also the most intensive sequence of El Nino events. In Australia this has meant droughts and warm weather. Since heat flows from warm to cold, there's reason to believe that this might also be the cause of polar warming.

It's simple liamj, PROVE to me, with evidence and beyond doubt, that human's have had a significant influence on climate and I might pay attention.

Until that time I see no reason to believe that climate changes are anything but natural occurences.

cheers

John

It is very safe to say "prove xyz" when talking about complex global processes we don't fully understand. Nothing can be proven in the way accountants and engineers 'prove' their warped world views are 'economically rational (by stringing together convenient assumptions). But when >1500 of best scientists in their fields (the IPCC) eventually get around (10?yrs after first convening) to admiting climate change is real and its not going to be fun.
I don't doubt that if look at data hard enough can find regions/periods that defy the averages - these exceptions may provide useful insights, but we calculate averages precisely because anomalies that go against weight of data are always less important than overwhelming trends.

The same pointy heads demanding 'proof' of climate change cant actually prove work4thedole breeds moral fibre, that their leaders even tell the truth or that wars bring peace, but thats never even slowed them down.

The hallmarks of Science are proof and replicability, so of course I should be able to ask for proof that carbon dioxide causes signifcant global warming.

That is what people who call themselves scientists are saying is it? And if global warmning is not based on Science then what is it based on?

You say "But when >1500 of best scientists in their fields (the IPCC) ..." but I think you're deluded. Scientists were selected by country in order to ensure that the committee was "International". They might have been the best in thei rcountry but that does not mean that they rated well among international scientists.

Just as importantly several of those scientists objected to the IPCC reports and claimed that the wording of the report was changed after they signed it (usually to remove any words which expressed reservations or qualifications of what had been stated).

One scientist that I am in regular contact with was a lead author of part of that report but he has completed rejected the conclusions that the IPCC published and has rejects the notions prsented by the IPCC.

He also says that of several hundred scenarios presented to them the IPCC selected just 5 that were somewhat sensational and based their predictions on these. Why do more than 5 appear in their "projections" of future climate? I have no idea - and neither does he.

Finally be careful of that averaging. It can hide very important issues as it smooths the data into something manageable. Including the effect of very natural events such as El Nino droughts in that averaging can make it impossible to distinguish that which is natural (and normal) from that which is abnormal.

cheers

John

A few approximate figures.

8000 years ago sea levels were 200 metres lower and Tasmania was still part of the mainland.

200 metres in 8000 years. Had that rise been gradual and continuing it would be 1 metre every 40 years.

That would mean a rise of 5 metres since settlement.

Obvioslly this isn't the case, so the melt must have been quick and before any records were kept. Or those keeping the records obliterated.

Since we also know sea levels were another 100 metres higher prior to the last ice age, we should expect the rise to continue as the cycle continues.

Gwyther,

FWIW, I think you mean 18,000 years ago and not 8,000.

See the blue line in http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/.

I also don't think we're in any danger from the Antarctic melting. Take a look at http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/#_sstplots and explore the current and archived sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and the SST anomalies (the variation from the average during 1971-2000)

By the way, delve in the archive and display the map of anomalies in March 2002 when a chunk of ice broke off the Larsen-B ice-shelf.

Most of the sea near the Antarctic coast was either within 0.5 degrees of the average or more than 0.5 below average. Just one tiny patch, just near the Larsen-B ice-shelf (see south of South America), was more than 1.5 degrees above normal. This shows how localised the warming really was.

cheers

John

John..

The 8000 came from a book on Tasmanian and Aboriginal history. Could be the figure you quote is closer to the mark as dating prior to recorded history is often just an educted guess.

Evem so, using your figure would equal a rise of around 2 metres since settlement.

If humanity were logical or rational we would limit our population and factor something which is probably inevitable into the race's future.

Most of the sea level rising happened after the last ice age when TAS was cut off from mainland. There has definately NOT been a rise of 2 meters (or any real rise at all) since settlement... This is very clear from reccords and buildings on the coastline.

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion you did?
Feel free to refer to the 3 previous posts.

Gwyther,

I agree with you. That name-calling by Troll really was out of line.

I've found something that may be of interest - http://www.john-daly.com/.

It talks a lot about climate change but 80% of the way down are some links to articles about the sea level marker on Tasmania's Isle of the Dead. (Settle down mainlanders, that's not all of Tassie, just a little island in the south-east of it!) The links to articles about sea level are in the section titled "Special Reports on Major Climate Issues" and there's a short article just a little later.

Lots of other facts and info about climate change too.

cheers

John

"Gwyther's" posts are anti-migrant, anti-Jewish (not anti-zionist but just plain anti-semitic btw), homophobic, xenophobic and population-controll.

Sometimes, listening to the same old lies over and over again (especially when they try to disguise themselves as "progressive" or "alternative") pisses me off.

Head up your arse and still swiftly turning, are you still looking for that magic bullet john?.

There is no proof, there is no link that cigarettes give you cancer, no proof that asbestos harms anyone, so they told us and kept on tellig us....and there is no evidence that ties CO 2 with global warming, unless of corse you are smothered by the weight of available evidence and just admit to it, what harm would that do you? Eh?

Who’s pulling your chain?

No ones sold us a WMD John but someone’s using one.

Fact 1
Some time i the past, whether 8000 or 18000 years ago is immaterial, the sea level was 200 metres lower.

Fact 2
If that rise had been steady equal it would equal a rise of between 2 and 5 metres since settlement.

Fact3
As t.r.o.l.l. correctly pointed our, this hasn't happened.

Fact 4
This means the rise was relatively sudden, with no real change during recorded history. Perhaps the legend of Atlantis, along with the Noah type stories common to many races is a memort of this.

Fact 5
Prior to the last ice age the sea level was a 100 metres higher than now.

Fact 6
Since we don't know what triggered the last partial meltdown, we can only guess at when and how the cycle will continue.

Fact 7
That it will continue is certain. The question is when and how.

Fact 8
Since we don't know when and how, to pretend we can prevent it is self delusion

dear t.r.o.l.l.

The material in my previous posts has been repeated and clarified for your convenience so that you don't have to spend time and effort in scrolling back and trying to remember or think.

Awaiting your response with delight

Wow, the debate has certainly moved on since the above comments were posted, huh?