Transcript recently observed changes


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
ASSUMPTIONS
e.g.
earth is old/young
earth is warming/cooling
CO2 emissions→Global warming/not
MAINLY ANTHROPOGENIC
Evidences are prediction model
outputs and/theories
Figure 1
NATURAL VARIABILITY AND
OTHER
Evidences are from what are
observed and prediction models
based on actual observances
Schematic representation of the two main schools of thought on Climate Change.
There are many topics to
Seachoose from, such as: level

Vegetation
cover
rises
Diseases
Ecosystems,
etc.
No
REFERENCE NO. &
TOPIC
1a 1,2
Sea-level rise
IPCC & Others
Alexander & other
Skeptics
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
1b
REFERENCE
NO. & TOPIC
IPCC & Others
Alexander & other
Skeptics
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 sealevel rise during
19th century………..
No
1c
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
Estimates for the
20th century
show that global
average sea
level ROSE at a
rate of about 1.7
mm yr–1
Alexander &
other Skeptics
………but
“estimates” for
the 20th century
are not
“observations”.
No
1d
REFEREN
CE NO. &
TOPIC
IPCC & Others
The projections of sea-level
rise for the
remainder 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 period
and recent observations of
instabilities in ice sheet
dynamics, especially in
Greenland.
Alexander & other
Skeptics
“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 sealevel 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.
2012 update on sea-level rise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scienceenvironment-19702450
N
o
2
REFERENCE NO. &
TOPIC
1
Sea-level rise
IPCC & Others
During 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.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
“Estimates” are
not
“observations”.
No
REFERENCE NO. & TOPIC
3a
3
Extreme events
IPCC & Others
Changes in tropical
storm and hurricane
frequency and
intensity are masked
by large natural
variability. The El NiñoSouthern Oscillation
greatly affects the
location and activity of
tropical storms around
the world.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
Natural
variability is
acknowledged
and has always
been there.
No
3b
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
Globally, estimates of
the potential
destructiveness of
hurricanes show a
substantial upward
trend since the mid1970s, with a trend
towards longer storm
duration and greater
storm intensity, and
the activity is strongly
correlated with
tropical sea surface
temperature.
Alexander & other
Skeptics
There is indeed an
observed increase in
the number and
intensity of extreme
conditions and events.
Friday, 3 September, 2010
Hurricanes 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."
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.

No
3c
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
Alexander &
other Skeptics
These
(Observations
relationships
prove it – see
have been
previous Figure)
reinforced by
findings of a
large increase in
numbers and
proportion of
strong
hurricanes
globally since
1970.
No
4
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
3
Less frost &
higher intensity
of precipitation
IPCC & Others
Alexander &
other Skeptics
Decreases in
number of frost
days in midlatitude 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
5a
REFERENCE
NO. &
TOPIC
4
Ta
IPCC & Others
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.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
An outlook is not
a guarantee
that it is 100%
correct.
No
5b
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
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.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
Once again,
there could be
a whole range
of factors
contributing, not
only “climate
change”.
Climate
modeller’s
predictions
might be correct
or not.
No
6a
REFERENCE
NO. & TOPIC
IPCC & Others
5
Table 1 [vegmapAfrica ref. no.
Deforestation 5] shows an overall comparison,
holding for the entire Central
African region (except
Burundi 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.
Alexander &
other
Skeptics
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)
No
6b
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
However, as the
updated map was not
checked on the field, it
remains unknown to
what
extent the observed
deviations (11% of pixels
with ke kt) are due to
misclassifications or to
real changes.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
No
6c
REFERENCE
NO. & TOPIC
IPCC & Others
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 or
by the analysis of high
resolution imagery
Alexander &
other Skeptics
No
6d
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
The most severe
deforestation
apparently took
place in the
western
equatorial belt,
especially in
Gabon and
CongoBrazzaville.
Alexander &
other Skeptics
No
7a
REFERENCE
NO. & TOPIC
6&7
Artic Sea
Ice
CHECK REF
FOR FULL
STORY
IPCC & Others
Alexander & other
Skeptics
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. ….
Sea ice extent for the past 5 years (in million km2) for the northern
hemisphere, as a function of date.
No
7b
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC &
Others
Alexander & other
Skeptics
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?]
No
9
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
8
Global surface
Ta
Increase in Global
Surface Ta are a
result of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
(anthropogenic).
There was an
increase in Global
Surface Ta since
1980.
Alexander & other
Skeptics
Increase in Global
Surface Ta are a result of
double sunspot activity
(non-anthropogenic).
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).
Main reference: Alexander, W.R.J., 2008.
The likelihood of a Global drought 20092016.
 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.


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.

In such an analysis it is common
to split the data record and
so 1913 is a convenient place
to do this because it is start of
Double 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.

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.

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.

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).

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






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).
No
10c
REFERENCE NO. &
TOPIC
IPCC &
Others
Alexander & other Skeptics
Given the above
information, it
would be a very brave
scientist who
continues to claim that
there is NO
linkage between variations
in global
temperatures and
corresponding variations
in sunspot activity.
No
10d
REFERENCE NO.
& TOPIC
IPCC & Others
Alexander &
other Skeptics
Even more
importantly, the
IPCC scientists
were
negligent,
bordering on
irresponsible,
not to carry out
these simple
analyses
that go to the
very core of
climate
change
science.
No
11a
REFERENCE
NO. &
TOPIC
9
Theory
process
IPCC & Others
Alexander & other Skeptics
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.
No
11b
REFERENCE
NO. & TOPIC
IPCC & Others
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.
Alexander & other Skeptics
This movement results in
changes in the earth-to-thesun-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.




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 wetand 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.
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.
