recently observed changes

RECENTLY OBSERVED CHANGES

L. DE WET

INTRODUCTION If we ask ourselves: ARE there any recently observed changes, what

would our answer be? › And then, WHAT changes are we talking about? › Is it changes in

the climate? vegetation? sea-level rise? temperature and rainfall?

What exactly do we need to find out? If we had to take a guess (not very scientific) we would say there are

changes that we can see (or feel that) have taken place, for example, a perceived (?) increase in floods, fires, vegetation cover, distances from the sea, etc.

Is there an increase or is it just an increase in the communication technology?

Are there changes in the average temperatures and precipitation? Are the changes due to natural variability or are they due to climate

change? Where do extreme events fit in? We could surf the internet and find a mass of information confronting us

from all sides, but what can we believe and what must we watch out for?

CLIMATE CHANGE

Evidences are prediction model outputs and/theories

NATURAL VARIABILITY AND OTHER

MAINLY ANTHROPOGENIC

Evidences are from what are observed and prediction models

based on actual observances

ASSUMPTIONS

e.g. earth is old/young

earth is warming/cooling

CO2 emissions→ Global warming/not

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the two main schools of thought on Climate Change.

There are many topics to choose from, such as:

INTRODUCTION

Vegetation cover

Diseases

Ecosystems, etc.

Sea-level rises

COMPARISON TABLE OF OBSERVED CHANGES

No

REFERENCE NO. & TOPIC

IPCC & Others Alexander & other Skeptics

1a 1,2Sea-level rise

Global sea level ROSE by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and STABILIZED between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century, in Greenland.

“Observations” only started in the 1800s, so one can only theorize about sea-level rise and then also about the height of rise before that.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of global mean sea level in the past and as projected for the 21st century for the SRES A1B scenario.

FAQ 5.1, Figure 1. Time series of global mean sea level (deviation from the 1980-1999 mean) in the past and as projected for the future. For the period before 1870, global measurements of sea level are not available. The grey shading shows the uncertainty in the estimated long-term rate of sea level change (Section 6.4.3). The red line is a reconstruction of global mean sea level from tide gauges (Section 5.5.2.1), and the red shading denotes the range of variations from a smooth curve. The green line shows global mean sea level observed from satellite altimetry. The blue shading represents the range of model projections for the SRES A1B scenario for the 21st century, relative to the 1980 to 1999 mean, and has been calculated independently from the observations. Beyond 2100, the projections are increasingly dependent on the emissions scenario (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of sea level rise projections for other scenarios considered in this report). Over many centuries or millennia, sea level could rise by several metres (Section 10.7.4).

No REFERENCE NO. & TOPIC


1b The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level RISE during the 19th century.

If the records are reliable then there was indeed a sea-level rise during 19th century………..




1c Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level ROSE at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1

………but “estimates” for the 20th century are not “observations”.


No REFERENCE

NO. & TOPIC


1d The projections of sea-level rise for theremainder of this century are somewhat puzzling - they indicate a smaller range of projected change (0.18 m -0.59 m) than the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (0.11 m - 0.88 m) despite the observed acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in the 1993–2003 periodand recent observations of instabilities in ice sheet dynamics, especially in Greenland.

“Projections” are models and might not necessarily be true, and are indeed puzzling because they do not show what is expected.“Observations” of acceleration in sea-level rise rate and instabilities in ice-sheet dynamics MUST be true, but they do not necessarily mean that the “projections or predictions” should be based on the present rates of change.


Sea level rise – update

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19702450

2012 update on sea-level rise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVKiddYF7A



No

REFERENCE NO. & TOPIC

IPCC & Others Alexander & other

Skeptics2 1

Sea-level riseDuring recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise, although there is some uncertainty in the estimates.

“Estimates” are not “observations”.




3a 3Extreme events

Changes in tropical storm and hurricane frequency and intensity are masked by large natural variability. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation greatly affects the location and activity of tropical storms around the world.

Natural variability is acknowledged and has always been there.




3b Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature.

There is indeed an observed increase in the number and intensity of extreme conditions and events.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=51&&n=349

Friday, 3 September, 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled! The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms

demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.

The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether 1) we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, 2) the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish.

What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=51&&n=349

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:

But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

What can we conclude from these studies? About hurricane frequency – not much; the jury is out, as they say. About climate change, we can say that these differing approaches are the very stuff of good science, and the science clearly isn’t settled! It is also obvious that researchers are not shying away from refuting associations with climate change, so we can assume they don’t think their funding or salaries are jeopardised by research they believe fails to support the case for AGW. The scientific method is alive and well.



3c These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of strong hurricanes globally since 1970.

(Observations prove it – see previous Figure)




4 3Less frost & higher intensity of precipitation

Decreases in number of frost days in mid-latitude regions have been recorded as well as intensity of precipitation events (extreme events).

The results are for the mid-latitudes only. Number of frost days have not been decreased in Bloemfontein for example, so it cannot be said that it is a global occurrence.


No REFERENCE NO. &

TOPIC


5a 4Ta

The weather outlook for coffee growers over the next millennium is poor: it will be hotter everywhere, with prolonged dry spells in many places, interspersed with very heavy rain.

An outlook is not a guarantee that it is 100% correct.




5b Climate change already seems to be affecting coffee production. It is difficult to attribute direct causality, but the changes observed are entirely consistent with climate modellers' predictions.

Once again, there could be a whole range of factors contributing, not only “climate change”.Climate modeller’s predictions might be correct or not.




6a 5Deforestation

Table 1 [vegmapAfrica ref. no. 5] shows an overall comparison, holding for the entire Central African region (exceptBurundi and Rwanda, not included in the TREES-map). Both maps agree fairly well (89%),which implies that no dramatic changes have taken place in the course of the last six years.


Table 1: Comparison of the TREES map (true kt, 1992) and the updated land cover map (estimated ke, 1998). All values in % of the total nr. of pixels (4,136,571). 88.9% of the pixels are correctly classified or unchanged (ke=kt), 11.1% are misclassified or changed (ke≠ kt)



6b However, as the updated map was not checked on the field, it remains unknown to whatextent the observed deviations (11% of pixels with ke kt) are due to misclassifications or toreal changes.




6c Although part of the observed deviations are certainly artefacts, a lot of deforestation"hot spots" were revealed which deserve further inspection, either by field controls orby the analysis of high resolution imagery




6d The most severe deforestation apparently tookplace in the western equatorial belt, especially in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville.




7a 6 & 7Artic Sea Ice

CHECK REF FOR FULL STORY

The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record. (Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center). [Model prediction data was used to arrive at this conclusion].

“Why are my conclusions different from the news reported records? I think it’s likely due to the fact that the scientists used the monthly data which is processed using a weighted filter of the daily data that incorporates a longer time frame than a single month. ….


The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record.—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/quickfacts/images/seaice_07min.png

Arctic sea ice extent for March, 2009, was 15.16 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/disclaimer1.html

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure1.png

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png

Sea ice extent for the past 5 years (in million km2) for the northern hemisphere, as a function of date.


IPCC & Others

Alexander & other Skeptics

7b This means their use of the monthly data to establish a monthly trend was in error and the real record down trends were actually set in 1984, 1999, 2003, while the record uptrends were in 1996, 2007, 2008.” [Why are the results different?]




9 8Global surface Ta

Increase in Global Surface Ta are a result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (anthropogenic).

Increase in Global Surface Ta are a result of double sunspot activity (non-anthropogenic).

There was an increase in Global Surface Ta since 1980.

There was a sustained increase in Global Surface Ta since 1980, but only up to 1998. Since then there has been a definite decrease, (and increases have not reached the high as in 1998).


SUNSPOT ACTIVITY Main reference: Alexander, W.R.J., 2008.

The likelihood of a Global drought 2009-2016.

Earth’s climate is driven by the sun. Changes in the climate should therefore

be mainly attributed to changes in solar activity.

The IPCC uses Global surface temperature data from 1850 to substantiate climate change.

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY Alexander obtained this data set +

sunspot data and plotted the temperature as in Figure 1.

Figure 1 is correct but used by IPCC to justify anthropogenic global warming associated with increase in GGEs.

According to Figure 1 however, there is no sustained increase in Ta since 1998.

IPCC did not take the next step and attempt to eliminate the solar influence (natural variability) before it lay the blame on human activity.

A simple Excel analysis was done to relate the solar activity and Ta.

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY In such an analysis it is commonto split the data record andso 1913 is a convenient placeto do this because it is start ofDouble Sunspot Cycle.Results showed:1913-2006: Increasing sunspot numbers

and Ta.1850-1912:Decreasing sunspot numbers

and Ta.

This proves that there is a cyclic correlation between Ta and sunspot activity.

It has also been known for 100 years in S.A. that there is a synchronous correlation between solar activity, rainfall and river flow.

Alternating sunspot cycles are also related to acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through space.

Results using annual time scales differ from results using the synchronous sunspot cycles.

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

So which time scale to use? Answer: double sunspot cycle length

(21 years). Table 1: 1843 – 1866 (24 y)

1867 – 1888 (22 y), etc. The sunspot minima associated with

the double sunspot cycle are then 1843, 1866, etc.

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

Table 3 shows periods of years linked to wet- and dry periods (NOT annual linked to the climate).

This, according to Alexander, 2008 is very NB point and changes the results of analyses by scientists.

To construct Table 4 according to method by Alexander is therefore simple.

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

Table 4: left-hand column – years in which double sunspot activity starts

And top row: period year numbers. Grouping of wet- and dry sequences

and the correlation with double sunspot activity is very clear.

Compare with Figure 2: Dominance of wet years associated with first sunspot cycle (years 1-11) and

Drys years associated with the second sunspot cycle (years 12-22).

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

This type of cycle can be used to predict the next cycle.

NB – the periodicity (and not the sunspot cyclicity) is used as the prediction tool.

Figure 3 – river flow prediction model. Average runoff amounts were

calculated according to the method described and plotted from 1995.

Note the well-above average river flows for year 13 (2008) and

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY

the below-average river flow from period 14 onwards.

This prediction model has been tested and verified.

This means that a period of drought is going to ensue from 2009 onwards.

[Remember the high rainfall in 2009 could be classified as an extreme event and can be part of a drought scenario].

The sunspot minimum was recorded in Jan 2008. This means that a lack of sunspot activity is taking place and could lead to global cooling (associated with dry period).

SUNSPOT ACTIVITY


IPCC & Others

Alexander & other Skeptics

10c Given the above information, itwould be a very brave scientist whocontinues to claim that there is NOlinkage between variations in globaltemperatures and corresponding variationsin sunspot activity.




10d Even moreimportantly, the IPCC scientists werenegligent, bordering on irresponsible,not to carry out these simple analysesthat go to the very core of climatechange science.


No REFERENCE NO. &

TOPIC


11a 9Theory process

The summit on climate change was held in Midrand earlier this month (2009). Alexander discussed it in an earlier memo. Once again the climate change scientists ignored the wealth of observation data and relied on process theory and mathematical models.

Over the years Alexander has demonstrated a predictable periodicity in hydrological processes and its synchronous linkage with sunspot activity. Together with four co-authors they have gone even further and related these linkages to the earth’s wobble as it moves along its trajectory around the sun, through galactic space.




11b In particular they ignored the wealth of data and century-old reports that demonstrated the existence of the periodicity and its synchronous solar connection. They were unable to produce any scientifically believable, numerical evidence to support their theories. The periodicity in the data and the unequivocal solar linkage were not even addressed. This is not science.

This movement results in changes in the earth-to-the-sun-distance and corresponding variations in received solar energy. They were able to demonstrate that these variations in received solar energy were considerably larger than the variations due to greenhouse gas emissions.


CONCLUSIONS An attempt was made to present a few topics of

interest related to recent observations of climate change.

A comparison was made between the two schools of thought so that a distinction could be made between the facts and the theory.

It was shown that the use of models and/theory based on uncertain assumptions such as the old age of the earth, led to incorrect outputs and false conclusions.

The use of words such as “probable”, “estimates”, etc. are not fact, so one needs to be very careful.

On the other hand, facts based on actual observations, as well as predictions based on demonstrated cyclic patterns are more reliable and more likely to occur, for example the periods of wet- and dry cycles combined with sunspot cycles seems logical and can be used to make a more reliable prediction. Time however will tell whether it is correct, or not.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we need to remember to stick to the facts, because Science (Latin: Scientia) means knowledge, not an (unprovable) theory.

Whenever we are confronted with uncertainties about the future, we need to be very careful about making predictions based on assumptions that we are not even sure of.

A scientific fact can be proven by an experiment producing observable results and this experiment should be able to be repeated.

CONCLUSIONS

recently observed changes

Documents

sea level indicators

onset of sea level rise

climate change

height of rise

observed changesl

red shading

sres a1b scenario

topicipcc othersalexander