hcubed's WunderBlog

Updated IPCC image - long-range projections.

By: hcubed, 11:38 PM GMT on February 26, 2011

A couple of entries ago, we discussed an iconic IPCC image:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
By hcubed at 2011-02-26">

The reason there's a rapid rise shown is because of the time frame they use.

So if the time frame is stretched, we can see just how "rapid" it is:

Now, from here, we see a few things:

1. Doesn't look as scary.

2. If they're using 2008 as a starting point for their projection, then they have to use 2008 to current for the CO2 rise.

That little green line? That's the amount of CO2 rise there's been since 2008 (compared to where they say we'll be in 2110).

Kinda hard to see it?

We'll expand it out some more.

This is 30 years, starting in 2008.

Still can't see much of a rise, so we'll spread it out some more, to cover a 5-year period (again, starting in 2008).

So there's the final image. From here, we can see that the projected "high emissions scenario" hasn't been met - yet. And we're still running slightly below the "low emissions scenario", too.

We'll keep an eye on this...

But now, we can monitor the progress of their projection. And see if EITHER of the two scenarios are met.

That is, if we're alive in 2110...


New blog not allowing photos?

By: hcubed, 9:58 PM GMT on February 26, 2011

I've been working with the new format, trying to get it to accept pictures.

Pictures such as this:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/ind icators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

There should be the IPCC "rocket rise C02 by 2100" image.

Updated: 10:46 PM GMT on February 26, 2011


Disinformation vs misinformation.

By: hcubed, 9:14 PM GMT on February 02, 2011

One of the ways the self-fulfilling prophecy of AGW continues is because of information - on both sides.

One side is trying to say it's not happening, or it's not as bad as they say, while the other side is saying it's the worst it's ever been and getting worse.

BOTH sides are guilty of not telling the full truth.

As one example, we'll examine an iconic chart, used by the IPCC, created by the NCDC to show just how bad it's going to get:

See that meteoric rise? That chart is saying that's where we're gonna be if we don't stop our unrestrained use of fossil fuels.

Really scary, eh?

Well, we'll have to make one clarification.

Quoting Neapolitan:

"...The reason the chart shows a "straight up" section at 2008 is that it's massively compressed on the horizontal scale; the beginning of that "straight up" portion is around 1800, while the end is at 2100..."

Kinda hard to see exactly WHERE that "rise" begins, based on their chart.

So, to the source.

"...Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution..."

So that supposedly pegs the "start" of the meteoric rise.

The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s, while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830. So we'll call it 1800.

Still, kinda hard to see from that chart.

Something else about that chart, though.

The caption: "...Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core..."

Nothing in the caption as to when that "graft" was made, or how they came up with it.

The caption says, more info here:


So, we're off to there.

After some clicking around the site, we're taken to here:

Global Climate Change

Where we see the same image, including the same caption.

So let's continue the caption:

"...Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. Temperature-related data make it clear that these variations have played a central role in determining the global climate. As a result of human activities, the present carbon concentration of about 385 ppm is about 30 percent above its highest level over at least the last 800,000 years. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years..."

Wow. Two or three times higher than the highest level in the past 800,000 years (which they pegged at 300ppm).

Problem is, they specified where this "data" was taken from, including author and study (Luthi et al, IIASA).

Their reference: Luthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker, 2008: High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, 453(7193), 379-382.

So now, we can examine the source data.

From their abstract: "...We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172 - 300 p.p.m.v.

Supports the 300 max they claim.

But wait, there's more.

According to this chart, and its caption, they actually recorded a CO2 value of 339 (plus or minus) 56 p.p.m.v. (s.d.), an artefact detected at a depth of 3,178.12 m (age: 783,040 yr bp).

So there was a level higher than the 300ppm the abstract states.

Misinformation? Or just didn't read the full paper?

Later, we'll "uncompress" that straight line, to see exactly what they're telling us.

Updated: 9:51 PM GMT on February 26, 2011


Exactly what was the definition of "unprecedented" again?

By: hcubed, 1:48 AM GMT on February 02, 2011

Information about a previous Cat 5 hitting Australia:

"...Tropical cyclone Mahina hit on 4 March 1899. It was a Category 5 cyclone, the most powerful of the tropical cyclone severity categories. In addition, Mahina was perhaps one of the most intense cyclones ever observed in the Southern Hemisphere and almost certainly the most intense cyclone ever observed off the East Coast of Australia in living memory. Mahina was named by Government Meteorologist for Queensland Clement Wragge, a pioneer of naming such storms.

Within an hour, the Thursday Island based pearling fleet anchored in the bay or nearby, was either driven onto the shore or onto the Great Barrier Reef or sunk at their anchorages. Four schooners and the manned Channel Rock lightship were lost. A further two schooners were wrecked but later refloated. Of the luggers, 54 were lost and a further 12 were wrecked but refloated. Over 30 survivors of the wrecked vessels were later rescued from the shore however over 307 were killed, mostly immigrant non-European crew members.

A storm surge, variously reported as either 13 metres or 48 feet (14.6 meters) high, swept inland for about 5 kilometers, destroying anything that was left of the Bathurst Bay pearling fleet along with the settlement.

Eyewitness Constable J. M. Kenny reported that a 48 ft (14.6 m) storm surge swept over their camp at Barrow Point atop a 40 ft (12 m) high ridge and reached 3 miles (5 km) inland, the largest storm surge ever recorded. However Nott and Hayne reviewed the evidence for this. They modelled the surge based on the 914 hPa central pressure and found the surge should only have been 2 to 3m height. They also surveyed the area looking for wave cut scarps and deposits characteristic of storm events but found none higher than 5 m. Of the 48 ft surge they suggest the ground level cited may not be correct, or that terrestrial flooding was also involved..."


More particulars - "...Contemporary reports vary considerably in the reported lowest barometric pressures. The pressure recorded on the schooner Olive are reasonably consistent in showing the lowest pressure recorded on her: 29.60 to 29.10 or between 29.00 and 29.10 inches. A further variant was "during the lull in the hurricane the barometer on the Olive recorded 29.70 to 29.10" (no units are given)..."

Wonder if Global Warming caused that one, too...


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Ad Blocker Enabled

hcubed's WunderBlog

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).

Local Weather

70 °F