Australia Warming Faster Than Global Average - Spring 2006 Warmest On Record - Financial Times

[hatrack]

The seriousness of Australia’s environmental problems was underlined Wednesday with the release of data showing that the country appears to be experiencing the effects of global warming more deeply than other parts of the world. In its annual climate report, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology said 2006 had seen the warmest spring on record, with average temperatures up 1.42 degrees centigrade. The mean temperature for the year was 0.47 degrees above the 1961 to 1990 average. Average global temperatures in 2006 were 0.42 degrees above their 1961-1990 average.

2006 was consistent with longer term data, showing mean temperatures in Australia had increased faster than the global average since 1910, the bureau added. “Most scientists agree this is part of an enhanced greenhouse gas effect,” said Neil Plummer, the bureau’s senior climatologist. “Of Australia’s 20 hottest years , 15 have occurred since 1980.”

The bureau also warned that rainfall patterns were becoming more extreme. While overall rainfall in 2006 was in line with historical averages, this was because unusually wet weather in the north and west cancelled out drought in the southeast, parts of which suffered their driest year on record. This trend has also been experienced in previous years.

Many of Australia’s most important resources projects are located in its north and west, from the world’s biggest iron ore producing region in the Pilbara through to all the country’s liquefied natural gas projects and several alumina, bauxite and gold mining operations. The trend to more marked droughts, meanwhile, is afflicting the country’s most important agriculture regions. Australia is usually one of the world’s top three grain exporters and the sharp reduction in its expected wheat crop this year has already pushed up global prices.

EDIT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d15bc650-9b0c-11db-aa70-0000779e2340.html

[fuzzyball]

1. Warmest since 1910? What caused the warming in 1910?

Auto's were still a wet dream of Ford's at that time.

[meow mix]

2. a fluke year, lots of high pressure? why does it matter?

the way you frame that question implies that since there was once a hot year a long time ago, there is no carbon-induced global warming.

this is a similar argument that the user named Msongs also tries to float,
in this forum of all places.
LOL!
like people here would fall for that.. rather than just laughing, and wondering exactly how that poster ever got his head so full of decaying fecal matter. what really happened there? must be an incredible story...

[fuzzyball]

3. Alright then...plz explain a MUCH LONGER TREND....

melting of the 1000 foot deep glaciers in the mid-west
resulting in the great lakes. That took an enormous amount
of BTU's. Can not happen in 1 fluke year. Scientists estimate
it took 1000 years to end the last ice age due to a warming
trend. And there is plenty of geological evidence of ice-age
having repeated many times before the last one 10,000 years ago.

[NickB79]

5. We've sped up the process greatly

No one states that climate change even greater than what we're experiencing now has never happened. Every scientist who studies the climate freely acknolodges that the planet has been much warmer in previous periods of history. What is argued is that through our action of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we have accelerated the process from thousands of years to a century or two.

Your line of argument is a classic red herring, and has been debunked numerous times before.

[fuzzyball]

7. No red herring, just historical facts without getting emotional...............

I agree that burning all those fossil fuels is most certainly
adding to CO2 in atmosphere. But it is estimated that the percentage
increase is in the neighborhood of 2 to 4%.

Which is why I favor nuclear energy.

We kill more people in an average month in petroleum & gas related
industries than have been killed in nuclear power plants since the
beginning.

I worked at Argonne National Labs where the first nuclear reaction
in the world took place under leadership of Dr. Fermi. The biggest
mistake the nuclear proponents make is saying "Nuclear power is safe"
Instead what should be said is "Nuclear power is risky, just a lot
less riskier than fossil fuel based power".

Also, we are causing a lot more wildfires because of restrictions
on logging. Instead of culling forests, the old trees die and add
fuel to wild fires. Trees are completely renewable so cutting them
down is never a permanent loss.

Another point, the green plants grow more with more CO2 in the atmosphere,
since CO2 is food for them. The most efficient users of CO2 are grasses
since they grow much faster than trees.

Anyways, the good news is that there is only enough oil left in the ground
to last 200 years and about 500 years of coal. After that it will be all
nuclear, solar & wind energy. I have no doubt that the earth will survive
just fine in the interim period. Vast acres in Siberia & Canad will suddenly
become farmable if global warming does accelerate. If humans could survive
complete lack of medicines, heating, food farming, even adequate shelter for
million years since our ancestors first came down from the trees, I am sure
we will survive a few degrees of warming in stride.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Err, What?

I agree that burning all those fossil fuels is most certainly adding to CO2 in atmosphere. But it is estimated that the percentage increase is in the neighborhood of 2 to 4%.

Only by a raving lunatic. Before the industrial revolution the atmospheric CO₂ was 270ppm, now it's over 380ppm - an increase of 40%, and it's still going up by at least 2 ppm/year. You'll note that these are measurements, not estimates.

And while plants do like higher levels of CO₂, they are not overly fond of being in an oven and not being watered. At the current rate, we're going to yank the temperature of the Amazon up by 7C and shift the rainfall patterns: All the CO₂ in the world isn't going to stop it turning into a Forest McNugget if that happens. Flip down the E/E threads: You'll find the world's growing regions are migrating: Since plants can't actually get up and walk, they tend to suffer, and often die, when this happens.

Oh, and when the trees go, they don't reappear by magic. If a forest is cut down to save the world from all those forest fires, you sort of need to replant it: This stunning revelation explains why the US looses about a million acres of forest a year. Of course, a replanted forest is more like a big field full of trees than a forest, but that's a distinction I don't expect you to comprehend just yet.

[fuzzyball]

14. I recently visited India after a long lapse of time and I was astounded

to observe how much fatter and taller the Indians have
become in a short of span of 20 years. Food is abundent,
people have more money to spend etc. And there are FOUR
times as many Indians as there are Americans.

China is moving even faster towards these trends.
People are living longer, healthier and richer everywhere.
I hope global warming is not causing these trends!! But if
it is, I for one is not worried about global warming.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Global Warming makes you taller!?

I'm seen some weird apologies for fossil fuels, but I think you've just won a prize. :crazy:

[fuzzyball]

21. I think you missed my point...which was that food production is way up

in India...so global warming does not seem to have caused a problem
there. In the 1950's there was a lot of food shortages in India. May
be the monsoons are bringing more rain now.

[GliderGuider]

25. Food production is up because of irrigation and the use of cheap fossil fuels.

GW has nothing to do with it, as its effects are just starting to be felt. The global grain supply has been rising due to energy-intensive agricultural practices until fairly recently. Global per capita grain production began to decline just a few years ago.

GW is a problem not because it is already doing damage (though it's beginning to) but because it is making itself felt starting now and but will continue getting worse for the next 50 to 100 years.

You need to think about this stuff a bit harder.

[NickB79]

11. Plants have a saturation point in regard to CO2

Beyond a certain level, most plants lose the ability to take up more CO2, and in some cases actually grow more slowly in ultra-high CO2 environments. Remember, plants use CO2 in the day as part of their photosynthetic process, but also expel CO2 at night as they metabolize some of the sugars they produced from photosynthesis to produce energy when the sun is down. Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere makes it more difficult for them to expel the excess CO2 they produce at night.

For example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

"Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals"

Or: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106861

"Higher Carbon Dioxide, Lack of Nitrogen Limit Plant Growth"

And as has already been pointed out, extra CO2 does nothing if there is improper rainfall and seasonal temperatures. Large areas of Australia are suffering through the worst drought ever recorded as rainfall patterns shift and crops wither, and the US narrowly averted such a fate last year in the Midwest. Most areas here are still well below normal soil moisture, and so far the snowpack that recharges the soil when it melts in spring is pitiful.

[fuzzyball]

15. If global warming is so dire, why are Chinese & Indian populations

increasing, people there are living longer? And between
China and India, it is almost half of the world population.

[GliderGuider]

17. To be an effective GW denier, you really need a better line of arguments.

This one was just childish.

BTW, it's wrong, too. The Chinese population is about to start shrinking - their fertility rate has declined to 1.73 due to the one child policy.

[fuzzyball]

22. My friend the demography graduate tells me you are wrong!

At 1.73 fertility rate per couple, during average lifespan
of 72, there would be 3 new generations born. Which means
by the time the original couple dies, 3 x 1.73 = 5.19 people are
born. So we end up with 5.19/2 = 2.59 times the original population.

[GliderGuider]

24. I hope your friend the demography graduate isn't hoping for a job in his or her field

From Wikipedia:

The total fertility rate (TFR, also called fertility rate or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if she were to experience the current age-specific fertility rates through her lifetime. It is obtained by summing the age-specific rates for a given time-point.

Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women would have only enough children to replace themselves and their partner. By definition, replacement is only considered to have occurred when the offspring reach 15 years of age. If all offspring survived to the age of 15 the replacement rate would be exactly 2, but in practice it is affected by childhood mortality. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries and has not been evaluated for poorer countries. At this rate, population growth through reproduction will be approximately zero, but will also be affected by male-female ratios and mortality rates.

A TFR of 2.1 is the replacement fertility rate. Below that, the population falls. Above that, it rises. The only way the population growth you suggest could occur is if all members of the population were at their initial reproductive age (i.e. 15 years old) simultaneously when the counting started.

Your "friend" is a moron.

[NickB79]

19. Because we've used up massive amounts of fossil fuels

To produce more food per acre from the arable land available, and have destroyed much of the fallow land as well. In the process, we have released gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and diminished the land's ability to naturally sequester carbon. The actions that have lead all of us to live better and increase in population and lifespan are what are causing the acceleration of the planet's warming.

BTW, what does this have to do with my examples in the previous post refuting your notion that increased CO2 will lead to more rapid plant growth?

[fuzzyball]

23. Because if there is one thing I learned in 37 years of engineering

profession is....actual experience and results always are
supersede any theory no matter how elaborate.

When I observe the real world situation of heavily populated
countries such as China & India (2.4 Billion total) are having
no problems with agricultural production, no matter what the GW
theory says, they are not affected. In fact India is getting
more rainfall in the monsoon patterns.

Like I said before, the fossil fuels of oil, natural gas & coal
will be exhausted in 5 centuries. By that time science will have
perfected source of energy known as "fusion" which releases much
more energy than the current fission based nuclear power. This is
the process which fuels the Sun. Solar & wind power will be another
clean source.
I see bright future ahead for mankind.

[NickB79]

26. 5 centuries?

I suggest you read a bit more about Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas.....

[NickB79]

27. Yeah, those Indians really love the increased monsoon rains

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/mumbai.rain/

"MUMBAI, India -- Nearly 750 people have died from torrential, record-setting rains that soaked Mumbai and triggered mudslides in the region, police said Friday."

snip

"The city is used to heavy rain during the monsoon season, but Mumbai was deluged with 37 inches (940 millimeters) of rain in 24 hours -- the most any Indian city ever has received in a day."

Wow, look at that, another record climatic event.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. You've sort of answered your own point, there

Yes, there are longer climate cycles - the Milankovitch cycles, natural GHGs, tectonics and volcanism all play a part in this. But as you noticed, this is a very slow process - warming up from an ice age takes around 10,000 years and represents a temperature shift of about 10C: About 0.0001 per year, on average.

Recently, the temperature's been going up by ~0.05C per year - 500 times too fast to be explained by natural climate change.

[NickB79]

4. Perhaps you missed this quote

“Of Australia’s 20 hottest years , 15 have occurred since 1980.”

You are confusing weather and climate. One hot day, week, or even year is not climate, it is weather. Climate is measured in decades, if not centuries or millenia. One hot year in 1910 was a weather fluke. 15 of the 20 hottest years occurring in the past 27 years is a climate shift.

[fuzzyball]

8. Please read my post #7.....and

your parents/grand parents may remember the dust storms
of the 1930's caused by similar hotter than usual climate.

[NickB79]

12. Have you read much about the Dust Bowl?

Droughts are nothing new to the Midwest; my family has farmed in Minnesota for almost a century now and we've endured our share. However, when farmers first broke ground on the Great Plains, they planted in a most destructive manner, with no regard to soil cover. When a naturally occuring drought hit, the bare soil warmed and dried out far more rapidly than usual with no prairie grasses to protect and hold it. The rapidly warming soils then acted as heat sinks to retain much of the day's warmth, creating a feedback loop. Essentially this maintained a warm blanket of air over the Midwest, much like a massive lake-effect in winter keeping coastal properties warmer than inland ones. Temps couldn't drop sufficiently at night due to the constant re-radiance of the warm soil, and the next day just amplified the warmth of the previous one.

You would recall if you'd studied much about the 1930's that the warming of the Dust Bowl was a regional phenomena, found only in the continental US and not the entire planet. There was no similar warming in, say, Britain or Kenya in the 1930's.

[fuzzyball]

16. Your post is quite factual.

My error in mentioning dust bowl as an effect of climnate warming.

My main argument still boils down to the overwhelming evidence of
cooling & warming cycles on earth.

And I would be much more afraid of the next ice age, which surely is
coming. I just don't like to freeze my butt anymore. I have even
given up my favorite sport of downhill skiing as I got older. Just
can't stand the cold. When I am visiting Mexico, even the hot summers
there are better than cold winters in Chicago.

[NickB79]

18. If you agree my post is factual

Then do you agree that using a man-made warming phenomena in one portion of the planet in the 1930's does not refute the notion that another man-made/accelerated warming phenomena is occurring today?

[Nihil]

9. Maybe that was the start of their records?

I didn't see anything in the article about how far back their
historical records actually go.
:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

13. I've seen this sort of error frequently before

Please re-read the phrase in question: mean temperatures in Australia had increased faster than the global average since 1910

It does not say that temperatures were as warm in 1910. It says that 1910 was the beginning of the comparison interval, and that during that interval mean temperatures in Australia increased faster than the global mean.

I know you have an agenda, but you do your cause no favor my making such elementary errors.