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.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
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.)
Monday, July 5, 2010
Inflow into dams and rainfall for the first half of the year
So we now have data for roughly six months - rainfall data for six months, but dam inflow data for slightly less than that (I am extrapolating out to six months from the data that I have).
We have had 336.4 mm of rainfall so far this year, above the average by around 30 mm.
I have measured 29,500 megalitres of inflow. Extrapolating over the period that I have no data for, that suggests that we have had 32,000 megalitres of inflow this year so far.
While we have had an excellent year of rain, we are still headed for a very low year of dam inflow. If we get 700 mm of rainfall this year, we will get around 66,000 megalitres of inflow. But I do not think that that will happen. My prediction is still for less rainfall than 700 mm and inflow of around 60,000 megalitres.
The fact that this has been a high rainfall year but that inflow is low should be sending warning signals to all in the ACT about the risks that climate change poses to our water supply. While ACTEWAGL are taking steps to ensure our water security, they are not moving fast enough. Without public pressure, it is doubtful that the government will act.
We have had 336.4 mm of rainfall so far this year, above the average by around 30 mm.
I have measured 29,500 megalitres of inflow. Extrapolating over the period that I have no data for, that suggests that we have had 32,000 megalitres of inflow this year so far.
While we have had an excellent year of rain, we are still headed for a very low year of dam inflow. If we get 700 mm of rainfall this year, we will get around 66,000 megalitres of inflow. But I do not think that that will happen. My prediction is still for less rainfall than 700 mm and inflow of around 60,000 megalitres.
The fact that this has been a high rainfall year but that inflow is low should be sending warning signals to all in the ACT about the risks that climate change poses to our water supply. While ACTEWAGL are taking steps to ensure our water security, they are not moving fast enough. Without public pressure, it is doubtful that the government will act.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Rainfall, runoff and prediction
Rainfall for the year thus far has been 313 mm, and we are expecting some more tomorrow, albeit it a small amount. Thus, we are on track towards 700 mm, but will probably not quite get there.
Runoff, according to my calculations, has been close to 27,750 megalitres. If we did get 700 mm of rainfall this year and if the ratio of runoff to rainfall held, then we would get close to 61,600 megalitres of runoff for the year. I think that we will likely fail to get this amount, and thus maintain my prediction of 60,000 megalitres of runoff.
To put this in perspective, this is about a third of the average runoff that Canberra usually recieves - although when I say 'usually' I mean 'for the period from 1940 to the mid-1990s'. The reason I say that is that our runoff has sharply declined in the last 15 years, as has our rainfall. It will be nice - if temporary, I believe - to get an above average rainfall year.
I would also like to raise one other point in this post. Some people are suggesting that water restrictions can be lifted in Canberra, as we have had lots of rain. However, they fail to take into account two things: the fact that the water restrictions have reduced water consumption in Canberra to around 45,000 megalitres annually and the fact that runoff is not recovering to levels previously comensurate with rainfall. If we are only getting 60,000 megalitres of water in a good rainfall year, it would be madness to remove water restrictions such that our water consumption rose to match that level. If it did, then bad years would be even worse - especially as it takes a year or two to 'train' the population to do what is required when water restrictions have to be reintroduced ...
Runoff, according to my calculations, has been close to 27,750 megalitres. If we did get 700 mm of rainfall this year and if the ratio of runoff to rainfall held, then we would get close to 61,600 megalitres of runoff for the year. I think that we will likely fail to get this amount, and thus maintain my prediction of 60,000 megalitres of runoff.
To put this in perspective, this is about a third of the average runoff that Canberra usually recieves - although when I say 'usually' I mean 'for the period from 1940 to the mid-1990s'. The reason I say that is that our runoff has sharply declined in the last 15 years, as has our rainfall. It will be nice - if temporary, I believe - to get an above average rainfall year.
I would also like to raise one other point in this post. Some people are suggesting that water restrictions can be lifted in Canberra, as we have had lots of rain. However, they fail to take into account two things: the fact that the water restrictions have reduced water consumption in Canberra to around 45,000 megalitres annually and the fact that runoff is not recovering to levels previously comensurate with rainfall. If we are only getting 60,000 megalitres of water in a good rainfall year, it would be madness to remove water restrictions such that our water consumption rose to match that level. If it did, then bad years would be even worse - especially as it takes a year or two to 'train' the population to do what is required when water restrictions have to be reintroduced ...
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The wager
Willis Eschenbach has made a bet with me regarding ice extent. The proposition is that daily ice extent will fall below one million square kilometres by the end of the 2014 melt season. Willis has the negative; I have the affirmative. The bet is for $US100.
We will use the http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm as our adjudicator, with the final values on 1 November 2014. Obviously, I can win the bet well before then - if sea ice drops below that value on 14 September this year, for example. If Willis wins, he will have to wait for his money until November 2014.
These are the relevant posts from WUWT:
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:53 am
David Gould says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:15 am
Nigel Harris,
I agree. It is exactly the pattern that we would expect to see. 2007 changed things. It was, indeed, a tipping point (and I know how much that term is loved here. :)). I am one of those alarmists who think that the Arctic will effectively be ice free at the end of the melt period very soon. My specific guess is 2014.
Care to put some money on that prediction? I’m a betting man … a hundred bucks says it won’t go below a million square km of ice by 2014?
And why is it “the pattern that we would expect to see”? Do you know of anyone who predicted it before 2007, anyone who foresaw that we would see a) increasing ice area, combined with b) greatly increased winter ice, and c) greatly reduced summer ice? This is historical revisionism.
Me, I think this new pattern reflects a change in satellites, or a change in procedures, or something like that. But hey, I’ve been wrong before …
1. David Gould says:
June 1, 2010 at 3:09 am
Willis Eschenbach,
No, I know of no specific prediction of this. However, ice cover is a two-dimensional model. Thus, if we have strong melting in the melt period, we would still expect the ice to recover on the surface during winter, and to roughly the same extent as usual – in other words, we would see a strong up and down signal, with more variance between the top and the bottom.
You are correct that there would be no expectation for a higher rebound in winter. That is more likely to be noise over the last couple of years.
As to a bet, $100 sounds fine. I am assuming that you are talking in US dollars.
And which dataset do you want to use? They are all somewhat different in the values that they give, as they all have slightly different procedures. These guys http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm are fine with me. We should wait for corrections, though. I am not sure how long they take, but perhaps the data as presented on that site on 1 November 2014, my time (Australian time)?
We will use the http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm as our adjudicator, with the final values on 1 November 2014. Obviously, I can win the bet well before then - if sea ice drops below that value on 14 September this year, for example. If Willis wins, he will have to wait for his money until November 2014.
These are the relevant posts from WUWT:
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:53 am
David Gould says:
June 1, 2010 at 2:15 am
Nigel Harris,
I agree. It is exactly the pattern that we would expect to see. 2007 changed things. It was, indeed, a tipping point (and I know how much that term is loved here. :)). I am one of those alarmists who think that the Arctic will effectively be ice free at the end of the melt period very soon. My specific guess is 2014.
Care to put some money on that prediction? I’m a betting man … a hundred bucks says it won’t go below a million square km of ice by 2014?
And why is it “the pattern that we would expect to see”? Do you know of anyone who predicted it before 2007, anyone who foresaw that we would see a) increasing ice area, combined with b) greatly increased winter ice, and c) greatly reduced summer ice? This is historical revisionism.
Me, I think this new pattern reflects a change in satellites, or a change in procedures, or something like that. But hey, I’ve been wrong before …
1. David Gould says:
June 1, 2010 at 3:09 am
Willis Eschenbach,
No, I know of no specific prediction of this. However, ice cover is a two-dimensional model. Thus, if we have strong melting in the melt period, we would still expect the ice to recover on the surface during winter, and to roughly the same extent as usual – in other words, we would see a strong up and down signal, with more variance between the top and the bottom.
You are correct that there would be no expectation for a higher rebound in winter. That is more likely to be noise over the last couple of years.
As to a bet, $100 sounds fine. I am assuming that you are talking in US dollars.
And which dataset do you want to use? They are all somewhat different in the values that they give, as they all have slightly different procedures. These guys http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm are fine with me. We should wait for corrections, though. I am not sure how long they take, but perhaps the data as presented on that site on 1 November 2014, my time (Australian time)?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sea ice volume
Arctic sea ice has an average volume of 28,600 cubic kilometres at the end of April, the freeze. It has an average volume of 14,400 at the end of September, the thaw. (note: this is the average over the satellite period, and it is likely that the averages were at least slightly higher immediately prior to this period).
Since the satellite record began, Arctic sea ice volume has declined at a rate of 340 cubic kilometres per year.
From 2002 to the start of 2010, sea ice volume declined at a rate of 800 cubic kilometres per year. At that rate, by the end of this year sea ice volume should be 7,900 cubic kilometres below the long-term average. Over the longer term, that would mean an end to summer Arctic sea ice by 2020 (more than 14,400 cubic kilometres of volume loss).
However, at present, sea ice volume is 9,500 cubic kilometres below the long-term average. If we assume that it stays there until the end of the year, we will have had three year's worth of decline in a single year.
I believe that my prediction for 2014 as the year we first get an ice-free summer is a pretty good one. It should be noted that the scientist who works most closely with the direct data (which is partly gathered from submarines from the US Navy using sonar to scan the ice from beneath) predicted an ice-free summer for 2013 way back in 2003. His name is Dr Wieslaw Maslowski.
A link to the page with my bet with Willis Eschenbach:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
Since the satellite record began, Arctic sea ice volume has declined at a rate of 340 cubic kilometres per year.
From 2002 to the start of 2010, sea ice volume declined at a rate of 800 cubic kilometres per year. At that rate, by the end of this year sea ice volume should be 7,900 cubic kilometres below the long-term average. Over the longer term, that would mean an end to summer Arctic sea ice by 2020 (more than 14,400 cubic kilometres of volume loss).
However, at present, sea ice volume is 9,500 cubic kilometres below the long-term average. If we assume that it stays there until the end of the year, we will have had three year's worth of decline in a single year.
I believe that my prediction for 2014 as the year we first get an ice-free summer is a pretty good one. It should be noted that the scientist who works most closely with the direct data (which is partly gathered from submarines from the US Navy using sonar to scan the ice from beneath) predicted an ice-free summer for 2013 way back in 2003. His name is Dr Wieslaw Maslowski.
A link to the page with my bet with Willis Eschenbach:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
Friday, May 28, 2010
Rain/Inflow thus far this year
We have had close to 270 mm of rainfall this year. With what is expected over the weekend, we may top 300 mm, which is very good for this time of the year.
Inflows to dams, however, are not proceeding as well. My previous prediction that we would hit close to 23,000 megalitres from the good rainfall in April did not eventuate. We have received 22,400 megalitres as of today. We should, based again on predictions for some catch-up and for the predicted rainfall, exceed 25,000 megalitres some time in the next two weeks.
I am downgrading my prediction for total inflow for the year to 60,000 megalitres. This has been a very bad year for megalitres of inflow per millimetre of rainfall - the worst, from what I can gather, on record. But we will still receive much more inflow than last year, simply because we are having an above average rainfall year.
Inflows to dams, however, are not proceeding as well. My previous prediction that we would hit close to 23,000 megalitres from the good rainfall in April did not eventuate. We have received 22,400 megalitres as of today. We should, based again on predictions for some catch-up and for the predicted rainfall, exceed 25,000 megalitres some time in the next two weeks.
I am downgrading my prediction for total inflow for the year to 60,000 megalitres. This has been a very bad year for megalitres of inflow per millimetre of rainfall - the worst, from what I can gather, on record. But we will still receive much more inflow than last year, simply because we are having an above average rainfall year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)