Current inflow/rainfall totals

By my calculations, we have had around 112,500 megalitres of inflow so far this year, from around 630 mm of rainfall. Projected inflow is close to 150,000, which would be up around 85 per cent of the long-term average - a very good year, however, compared to more recent times.

Inflow and rainfall update

We are now approaching 95,000 megalitres of inflow for the year, having received 550.6 millimetres of rainfall. What has occurred in recent months has been large falls of rain combined with a high ratio of inflow per millimetre of rainfall. This could indicate that the subsurface soils in and around the ACT are now saturated and are acting more like they did 20 years ago with regards to moisture flows and retention.

However, it should be pointed out that even if we get 750 mm of rainfall we are unlikely to get more than 75 per cent of the average inflow for the region. This shows in how parlous a state our water system still is in - even after the brilliant year of rainfall that 2010 has been.

One year of data, and it has not been the data that I expected for this year. But we will get a better picture as we get more data. I will be very interested in seeing what sort of rainfall we get in the early part of next year, particularly March/April, and the corresponding inflows. If the subsurface is saturated, even a few months of very hot weather should not alter it all that much. We should see better inflows than at the same period last year. If we do not, that will also tell us something about what is going on beneath our feet.

More rain; heaps more rain!

As I said in my previous post, we are getting lots of rain at the moment. We had a huge amount of rain over the weekend, and we have now had 527.8 mm this year so far. If this continues, we should get close to 800 mm this year, and we might go over that.

Regarding inflow, we have had much more than I expected, and that is understating things. According to my calculations, we have now had close to 70,000 megalitres of inflow this year already, which indicates that we should top the 100,000 mark and then some. It should be noted, as ever, that the average inflow into Canberra dams is 180,000 megalitres, which would still mean that we are seeing a deficit. But that could simply be because of the terrible drying of the system that took place over the last 20 years, and we might be building towards a recovery.

So at present my predictions look very shaky indeed.

Rainfall and inflow update

We are getting *a lot* of rain, which is most certainly not what I expected for this year. We have had
490.4 mm of rain this year so far, which points to a final year tally of close to 750 mm. While la Nina may explain the rain for July and so far this August, it does not explain the very large amount of rain that we received early in the year.

Inflow so far is slightly under 48,000 megalitres. This indicates that we could well get over 70,000 megalitres for the year, which would be fantastic. However, it should again be noted that the Canberra average prior to the year 2000 was 180,000 megalitres ...

What does this amount of rainfall and inflow imply for my theory on the effect that climate change is having and will have on Canberra? Firstly, one year does not alter a trend. However, as I have laid out previously, a theory must be falsifiable for it to be of any value.

http://evilreductionist.blogspot.com/2010/02/testing-hypotheses.html

As my criteria lay out, if this year has rainfall of 850 mm then my theory will not likely be true. Further, if the next few years push the five-year average to 670 mm or greater then my theory will not likely be true. This will be something that I will keep an eye on.

Update on inflow/rainfall

We have now had seven months of the year. We have had well above average rainfall, over 400 mm, when the average is around 350 mm. This has given us inflows in the last seven months that are approaching the total inflows that we had last year. Currently, we sit on 42,800 megalitres; last year, we had 43,200 megalitres.

However, we are still well below the average inflow for this time of year, which is 110,000 megalitres.

One other point of interest: we are now climbing above the megalitre per millimetre rate from last year. This is an indication, perhaps, that the ground is getting wetter and some of the damage is healing. But it should be noted that we are still well below the average.

Over the next few months, La Nina is expected to have a strong influence. This means that it is more likely than not for there to be above average rainfall in the Canberra region. So my prediction for lower rainfall than 700 mm for this year may well be challenged. We will see. :)

Climate change and the election: who to vote for?

This is a post that I was not going to write. But I think at this point I have no choice. I am recommending a vote for the Greens in both the House and the Senate. And in terms of preferences, my strong feeling is that neither major party should be preferenced. While not preferencing them in the House is impossible, it is possible to leave the two major parties unpreferenced in the Senate if there are 20 candidates. This is because the rule is that you have to preference 90 per cent of the candidates. So, if there are 20, you can leave two spaces blank.

This is, however, only really possible in the ACT and the Northern Territory, as there will only be two candidates from each major party. Given that there will be 6 candidates from each major party in the states, it might be a little difficult to dump all of them - there would have to be 100 candidates. But you can at least preference them in the reverse order to that which they tell you to on their how-to-vote cards.

Note that your preferences are not determined by other parties unless you let them. If you vote above the line in the Senate, then sure, the party that gets your vote will decide where your preference ends up. If you are not lazy, however, and can spare the time to write a few numbers in boxes, you get to decide where your preference goes. It astonishes me how many people do not understand this point - the fault of the media, I guess, and of parties who want others to believe that they decide preferences.

So: vote Green. And do not preference the major parties, except in reverse order.

How to show that Arctic warming is affected by atmospheric CO2?

It is often asked by those who are sceptical of the warming influence of CO2 for evidence that the recent rapid melting of the Arctic is being caused by human created greenhouse gases. The above graph is something that everyone interested in this issue should pay attention to. What is shows is that there is a statistically significant correlation between the natural logarithm of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the temperature of the Arctic as measured by UAH. And the temperature of the Arctic certainly has an impact on Arctic ice. The data is taken from these two sites:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (satellite temperature data)

http://co2now.org/index.php/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=1 (atmospheric concentrations of CO2)

While this graph is not proof of a link, it is indeed evidence - all that science can provide. It should be noted that what the slope of the graph shows is that the climate sensitivity of the Artic region is seven degrees. In other words, for every doubling of CO2, the temperature of the Arctic as measured by satellite is projected to increase by seven degrees celsius. The speed of Arctic warming is thus between two and three times that of the earth as a whole - the range that was projected by the IPCC ...)

(The calculation of this is done as follows: take the slope, which is approximately 10, and multiply it by .7 - the natural logarithm of two, a doubling. This gives you the projected increase in temperature per doubling.)