It's quite a thrill to see how our Rattus tall-taleus manufactures a victory of Olympic proportion by jumping three inches above ground... All one has to do is set the target at three inches, be the only competitor in one's class and one's a winner. But further more, to achieve this SELF-CHOSEN TARGET promoted as a KYOTO THINGY by massive deceit, the dude plans to use a paraphernalia of apparatus akin to a fully-fledged gymnasium ranking of steroids, such as the Clean Coal and Jerk, the Nuclear Power Press and the Uneven Bars of free trade. Yep, I can only admire the glorious skills in sequestration to pull that giant furphy off the ground, without our PM breaking into hysterical laughter. "We're meeting OUR OWN Kyoto targets"... said without a cracked lip...

The PM is more like the ACME goods-using Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner... Nothing works except falls from high cliffs. And like the Coyote, our Illustrius Rattus, comes back for more...

This morning, listening to our Radio National (ABC) the current temperature quoted for Sydney was "3 degrees above average" at 7.00 am... Nothing to worry about really as daily temperatures fluctuate with various patterns of weather and only long long trends studies can tell us what is happening. One has to also allow for a city the size of Sydney creating its own temperature increase by the sheer amount of energy used/released, especially on a still day. Before the ban on leaded petrol and stricter controls of car emissions, one could often see a dark cloud of pollution above Sydney. Apart from being a health hazard, this pollution cloud had the effect of shading the city from sunlight thus reducing the heat coming in from space but also retaining temperature from below by layer inversion where hot air layers do not rise above cold air due to this complex phenomenom. I still remember hot days in Melbourne in the early 70s, in March. A hot 41 degrees. And that fateful 45 degrees in Sydney on January 1st 2006, when many garden plans simply "boiled" and turned black within minutes. These events do not make a trend but other observation do, especially natural cycles (see collecting maple syrup in Vermont), ice and glaciers. Are we going to see a rotten ski season in Australia? Shorter and needing the use of artificial snow more often?

In the Northern Hemisphere, winter "average" temperatures have increased steadily and quite significantly since 1880. The "trend" is that since that time, the "average" winter temperature in 2006 was 1.4 degrees above the average for the period 1880-2006. The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) suggests that temperature will increase by 0.2 degrees every decade... But this is based on a conservative linear calculation, not a compounded exponential calculation which could be used looking at the charts. I would suggest a trend wedged between the two.

We thus have to look at the information with the understanding that since 1880, there has been an increase in "average" temperature on the "average" winter temperature say from 1700 to 1880. For example, the "average" winter temperatures from 1880 to 1920 are about 0.5 degree below the 1880-2006 "average" should we include the fast increase in temperature in the period from 1980 to 2006 in which the ten warmest year on record are. These 1880-1920 winter temperature "average" would already be a few notches above temperatures in 1800.

In fact we should estimate with reasonable precision that the "average" temperature of winter in the Northern Hemisphere is now at least 2.2 degrees above "what it should be" should there not have been a "greenhouse effect" started in earnest from the Industrial revolution of the mid 1800s. The real present trend is that within 40 years, winter temperature "averages" in the Northern Hemisphere will be 3.5 degrees above "what it should be", even if we did not release any more CO2 from now on. As we're bound to release plenty more CO2 — since were digging more and more coal and pumping more and more oil, the trend is that temperature increase will continue at a faster rate as the sea warms up with a noticeable delay, adding momentum to this process. That the combined land and ocean surface temperature from December to February was 0.72 degrees C above average is a grave tell tale. Just for the "average" temperature of the sea surface to rise even by 0,1 degree demands enormous amount of energy transfers.

Alarmed? we should be.

If the trends continues and there is no indication they wont, by 2080 the Northern Hemisphere winter temperature "average" could be as high as 6 degrees and by 2110 as high as 9 degrees above "what it should naturally be — should we remove the extra CO2 added by human activity"... By then the sea level — still in its "average contracting mode" till the sea temperature average reaches 4 degree C (fresh water minimum volume)— would have risen about 15 metres by expansion alone and rising.

The retreat of the Chacaltaya Glacier in Bolivia is another indicator of things going arse up. Since 1940 this glacier has melted by about 75 per cent of its surface and possibly about 90 per cent of its volume. This is a massive melt. Yet it is hard to assess the energy and the increase of temperature responsible for it without knowing the original temperature of its ice at incremental thickness (a close study now could still give extrapolated results). Also a drier weather pattern may be responsible for less accumulation winter snows, while only melting "averagely" during summer. But even drier winter could be placed on the shoulder of "global Warming". I suspect though that increase in "average" temperature such as those seen in some other part of the globe are responsible for the big melt.

Now, the urgent calculations for scientists is not to debate whether global warming is or isn't — nor if it's created by "human activity" , a proposition which is a no-brainer — but to define with a certain degree of precision at which "next level" temperature can balance themselves with cosmic dispersion and increase creation on the surface of the planet, allowing for CO2 to increase by a certain inevitable amount (twice?) since no government in the world is prepared to put the brakes on energy expenditure.

I still stand by my 1994 calculations that by 1996, we would reach the turning point at which no extraneous CO2 should be added in the atmosphere to stabilise global warming at 3 degrees above "average" by 2100. I still stand by my other estimate that by 2032, or there about, we will hit a massive weather trauma... I hope I am wrong but I don't think so.

Alarmed, we should be...
Alarmed, we should be...
Alarmed, we should be...
Alarmed, we should be...

From a hot and bothered ABC

Aust urged to strengthen Antarctica sovereignty

A report by the Federal Government's defence think tank has called for more active diplomacy to protect Australia's claim to sovereignty over 42 per cent of Antarctica.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the validity of the territorial claim could be challenged as international interest in Antarctica grows.

An author of the report, Dr Anthony Bergin, says Australia will face more challenges in Antarctica.

"There is going to be a lot more pressure on Antarctica - climate change, illegal fishing, more tourists, bio-prospectors," he said.

"If peak oil hits stratospheric levels, there could be an Antarctic cold rush, prospects for an iceberg harvesting industry - there is going to be more interest."

-------------------------

Gus: not two ways about it, Antarctica should be preserved from any drilling and any mining of any kind. Should greed kick in, should energy supply dwindle elsewhere, under global warming condition, fiddling with that continent has to be a big no-no. We are like frogs in a pot of water on a stove, frogs not feeling the heat rise slowly warming up, but through our stupidity — like mining in Antarctica — we'd basically turn the heat some more and interfere with our only remaing natural fridge in the process. We'dl become frenzied frogs that'd add to the problem faster until we'd croak.

-------------------- 

From another source, the SMH

The scientists found that since the CSIRO began taking measurements off eastern Tasmania 60 years ago, the average winter temperature had jumped 1.5 degrees and summer temperatures 2 degrees.

-------------- 

Gus: In the end it does not matter who "owns" Antarctica. As long as no-one bugger it up by mining. So if Australia is better placed to keep the place clean, let's have Antarctica's protection properly enforced.

 

From the ABC

US-Aust to work on climate change initiative

The US has agreed to work with Australia on a global deforestation initiative to address climate change.

The agreement comes as politicians and environmentalists react to the latest report on global warming, which predicts increased droughts and floods in Australia.

With almost a fifth of the world's emissions coming from forest clearing, the Government says the initiative aims to prevent forest logging in developing countries.

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has discussed the plan with officials in Washington.

He says they did not make a financial commitment, but they are supporting the initiative.

"I would be amazed if you would get a particular dollar or an amount within a few hours of visiting but what we have got is a commitment of resources to work on joint projects," he said.

Labor's Environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, has welcomed the initiative.

He says while it may have positive effects, it is not a substitute for many of the climate change policies the Government has avoided adopting.

"Mr Turnbull and Mr Howard refuse to set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, they belittle the idea that we should have targets and yet there's a clear consensus that a target is necessary," he said.

"They won't set a date when Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are going to be reduced and yet under current scenarios we will see significant increases in greenhouse gas pollution."

 

From the ABC

Global warming could be good for Tasmania, demographer says
A researcher at the University of Tasmania says the state could well benefit from global warming, as people choose to move to cooler climates.

A new international report into climate change predicts worsening drought conditions and water shortages over the next 20 years.

It has also found that a fifth of the Tasmanian coastline is at risk of being affected by a rise in sea level in the next 50 to 100 years.

But demographer Natalie Jackson says Tasmania's cooler climate could attract more people to the state.

"If a lot of older people were to come down here because they want to escape the heat, older people generate jobs and so lots of young people might come here as well so you can certainly see some demographic effects," she said.

Meanwhile a parliamentary committee is continuing to look at ways to help land managers and local government cope with expected future sea level rise.

--------------------

Gus: silly me... I thought that storms between Antarctica and Tasmania may get nastier than ever due to global warming, edging Tasmania with rougher weather than ever before with period of dry hot weather bringing bushfires and blowflies...And much colder temperatures at times that would send anyone shivering in front of the fireplace. Older people may not die from overheating in summer but from freezing their nuts in winter — and having to fend major bush fires similar to the mainland, as well as having to live through freezing cold storms in summer, as Antarctica warms up from minus 50 in the center to minus 41... Obviously the demographer is no climate scientist... and nor am I... Silly me... But the periods of averages would not change much. Potatoes will still grow well for another 85 years...