Posts Tagged ‘greenhouse gases’

The Renewable Energy Transition

July 11, 2019

The Australian Greens’ number one aim in their Climate Change and Energy Policy is:

“Net zero or net negative Australian greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2040.”

And the Lowy Institute believes that Australia can set an example for the rest of the world.  In their article ‘An Australian model for the renewable-energy transition’ published on 11 March 2019, they assert that across the world “A very rapid transition to renewables is in process” and that “Most countries can follow the Australian path and transition rapidly to renewables with consequent large avoidance of future greenhouse emissions.”

Time for a reality check.

In this assessment I use energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions data from the 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

First of all, greenhouse gas emissions.  In the BP Review,

…carbon emissions … reflect only those through consumption of oil, gas and coal for combustion related activities, and are based on ‘Default CO2 Emissions Factors for Combustion’ listed by the IPCC in its Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006).  This does not allow for any carbon that is sequestered, for other sources of carbon emissions, or for emissions of other greenhouse gases. Our data is therefore not comparable to official national emissions data.

Excluded sources would include for example cement production and land clearing.  However, given that we are focussing on the transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, that is not a problem.

Figure 1 shows the growth in carbon dioxide emissions (from fossil fuels) since 1965.

Fig. 1: Global CO2 emissions in millions of Tonnes

CO2 emissions global

The big hitters are China, the USA, and India, who together account for more than half of the world total.

Fig. 2: CO2 emissions by the Big Three and the rest

CO2 emissions top3 rest

Note that America’s emissions peaked in 2007 and have since declined.  China’s emissions rose rapidly from 2002 to 2013.  From a low base, India’s emissions growth rate is practically exponential.

Figure 3 shows how Australia “compares”.

Fig. 3: CO2 emissions by the Big Three and Australia

CO2 emissions top3 Oz

Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels peaked in 2008.

The BP Review’s CO2 emissions data are based on fossil fuel combustion, so I now look at energy consumption since 1965.  Energy units are million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE), from the BP Review, “Converted on the basis of thermal equivalence assuming 38% conversion efficiency in a modern thermal power station.”

Fig. 4: Global energy consumption by fuel type in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent

World energy cons 65 to 18

(Note:

Apart from 2009 (the GFC) gas has risen steadily, especially the last five years.

Since the oil shocks of the seventies and early eighties and apart from the GFC, oil has mostly enjoyed a steady rise.

Coal consumption increased rapidly from 2002 to 2013 (mostly due to Chinese expansion) followed by a small decrease to 2016.

Hydro power has seen a steady increase.

Nuclear power peaked in 2006 and declined slightly before increasing over the last six years.

Wind and Solar are in the bottom right hand corner.  Both are increasing rapidly but are dwarfed by other forms of energy.)

How close are we to the renewable energy transition?  Figures 5 to 9 show 1965 – 2018 energy consumption for conventional sources (fossil fuels plus hydro and nuclear) and the total.  The gap between conventional and total energy use is filled by renewables OF ALL TYPES- solar, wind, geothermal, bio-waste (e.g. sugar cane bagasse), and bio-mass used for electricity production, (but excluding firewood, charcoal, and dung).  I have highlighted the gaps with a little green arrow.

Fig. 5: Total and conventional energy consumption in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent

World energy cons 65 to 18 fossil hydro nuclear

In 2018, renewables of all types accounted for just 4.05% of the world’s energy, fossil fuels 83.7%.  So much for rapid transition to renewables.

The next three plots show energy consumption of the big emitters.

Fig. 6: Total and conventional energy consumption- China

CO2 emissions China

4.38% of Chinese energy came from renewables in 2018.  Nuclear and hydro power have increased enormously over the past 15 years and make up 10.35% of usage but fossil fuels (mostly coal) make up 85.3% of energy consumption.

Fig. 7: Total and conventional energy consumption- USA

CO2 emissions USA

Renewables accounted for 4.51% of US energy.  Fossil fuel and total energy consumption peaked in 2007 but has recently started increasing mostly due to gas and oil use.   (Coal has slipped from more than a quarter of the fossil fuel total in 2007 to less than a sixth in 2018.)  Fossil fuels make up 84.3% of energy use.

Fig. 8: Total and conventional energy consumption- India

CO2 emissions India

Only 3.4% of India’s energy comes from renewables.  India’s energy consumption is growing very rapidly, and 91.6% of consumption is from fossil fuels.

What of Australia, supposedly setting an example for the rest of the world to follow?

Fig. 9: Total and conventional energy consumption- Australia

CO2 emissions Australia

After years of building solar and wind farms, and at enormous expense, renewable energy of all types accounts for just 5% of Australia’s energy use- and the Greens aim to have zero net emissions in 21 years from now.

In the past 10 years, renewable consumption has increased by 5.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent- but fossil fuels have increased by 6.4 million tonnes.  While coal use has dropped by 12 million tonnes, this has been more than replaced by 18.4 million tonnes of oil and gas.  That’s not much of a rapid transition.

Figure 10 shows in order renewables consumption in all countries.  Remember, this includes all types including geothermal energy and bio-mass.

Fig. 10: Comparative penetration of renewables

Renewable cons %

Australia at 5 % renewable consumption is 19th and ahead of the big emitters, the USA, China, and India.

Perhaps the Extinction Rebellion activists who are unhappy with lack of action against climate change in Germany, the UK, and Australia, could glue themselves to the roadways in China, India, or Russia.

There is no rapid renewable energy transition.   Oil, coal, and gas are cheap and readily available and are powering growth in developing economies.  At some time in the future there will not be enough accessible fossil fuel to sustain the world’s economies alone; uranium too will one day be in short supply.  However, necessity and technological innovation, not legislation, will drive the adoption of alternative fuels.

Rumours of the imminent death of fossil fuels appear to be greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain).

Advertisements

More Footprint Comparisons

June 18, 2019

In my previous post I showed different ways of comparing carbon dioxide emissions.

Here are some more, unashamedly with an Australian focus, in different formats.

As in my last post I use data from the Global Carbon Atlas for fossil fuel emissions for 2017 (the most recent data available), and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data from the World Bank, also for 2017. GDP for each nation is calculated in current US dollars.

Percentages

Figure 1 shows cumulative percentages of 2017 fossil fuel emissions for all 202 countries with available data.

Fig. 1:  Cumulative CO2 emissions 2017 expressed as percentages

Globalco2 cum %

China, the USA, and India are the big hitters.  China produces 28.5% on its own.  Australia, in 16th place, produces 1.2% of global emissions, a bit behind Canada at 1.66%, and just ahead of the UK at 1.12%.  France and Italy are just over 1% each.  The remaining 183 countries each produce less than 1% – many much less.

Earth Hours

Earth Hour, where some people show how virtuous they are by switching off their lights for an hour in order to reduce emissions, might provide another way of comparing emissions.  I next compare emissions by units of “Earth Hours”.  One Australian Earth Hour is the amount of CO2 emissions reduced when:

Across Australia, all lights powered by fossil fuels; all stoves, fridges, air conditioners, and other appliances; all battery chargers; all street lights, traffic lights, and emergency lighting; all hospitals, schools, shopping centres, and telecommunications including computers; all mining operations; all transport- cars, trucks, trains, and aircraft; all farming operations; all water pumping; all manufacturing industry small and large, including steel and aluminium; all building and construction:  are shut down for one hour.

That is one Australian Earth Hour.

One Chinese Earth Hour is equal to 23.82 Australian Earth Hour units- Australia could run for 23 hours and 48 minutes on the equivalent amount of emissions. The value for America in Australian Earth Hours is 12 hours and 45 minutes; India, 6 hours; Russia, 4 hours; Japan, 2 hours 54 minutes. The value for the UK is 55 minutes and 53 seconds worth of Australian emissions output.

At the other end of the scale, El Salvador’s hourly emissions would last Australia for one minute.  Tuvalu’s total emissions are the equivalent of one tenth of one second of Australia’s emissions.

Efficiency

Here’s another idea.  Australia is the world’s 13th largest economy, and achieves this with emissions per dollar of GDP that put us in 105th place.  For all nations the average CO2 emissions per US dollar of GDP is 485 grams per dollar.  What if all countries were as efficient as Australia?  That is, they all had the same amount of emissions as Australia: 312 grams of CO2 per dollar of GDP.

Figure 2 shows what global emissions would look like if all nations were as efficient as Australia.

Fig. 2:  Global fossil fuel emissions currently and at Australia’s rate per dollar GDP

Global Oz efficiency

Or, to put it another way, Figure 3 shows the effect on the global economy for the same level of emissions.

Fig. 3:  Global GDP currently and at Australia’s emissions rate per dollar GDP

Global GDP Oz efficiency

That’s a potential increase of 37.7%.

Conclusion

Australia is punching above its weight in regard to efficiency of fossil fuel emissions per dollar of GDP.  Our carbon footprint is tiny compared with the big three- China, the USA, and India.  While there is always room for us to improve, if every country behaved as well as we do, the world would be a better place.

Carbon Footprints in Perspective

June 16, 2019

According to a Lowy poll before our recent “climate change election”, apparently 89% of Australians were in favour of action on climate change.  They got it wrong of course, but there is still much gnashing of teeth over the size of our carbon footprint, especially in regard to our emissions per capita.   According to the University of Melbourne’s Climate Energy College, “Australia’s per-capita emissions remain the highest among its key trading partners”.

So how does Australia rate in the world of carbon emissions?

In this post I use data from the Global Carbon Atlas for fossil fuel emissions for 2017 (the most recent data available), and population, land area, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data from the World Bank, also for 2017. GDP for each nation is calculated in current US dollars.

Figure 1 shows 2017 fossil fuel emissions for all 202 countries with available data, in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Fig. 1:  Fossil fuel emissions 2017

CO2top5

In 2017 China was way in front with close to 10 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted, distantly followed by the USA, with India, Russia, and Japan well behind.  Australia was in 16th place, following Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey.  At the other end of the scale the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu emitted only 13,000 tonnes of CO2.

In absolute terms our 413 million Tonnes of CO2 emissions are mediocre.  In the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, Australia’s carbon footprint increased by 78.4 million tonnes.  China’s increased by 6,573 million tonnes.  We’re not in the race, and it is blindingly obvious that however much we reduce our emissions we will have almost zero impact on the global total.

That is the reason that global warming enthusiasts in academia and the media promote the idea of per capita emissions- because we look worse that way.

Fig. 2:  2017 emissions per capita

CO2percap

It is certainly true that we emit larger amounts of CO2 per person compared with our major trading partners.  Fossil fuel is dirt cheap in oil rich nations, but in poor African countries each person emits less than a quarter of a Tonne of CO2 from fossil fuels per year.  There, firewood is the fuel of necessity, with severe consequences for health and the environment.  It is interesting that New Caledonia emits more per head than Australia.

Why does Australia hold this position?  The amount of wealth created by fossil fuel use is a measure of productivity and efficiency.  Figure 3 shows how countries rate in efficiency- how much CO2 is emitted for each US dollar in GDP.

Fig. 3:  2017 emissions per US $ GDP

CO2per$

Less is better.  Poorer countries that burn a lot of fossil fuel, and larger nations that do the same- including Russia, India, China, South Korea, and Indonesia- have less efficient economies than western nations including Canada, Australia, and the USA.  Small countries, especially those with nuclear and renewable energy, rich island nations, and poor African nations using very little fossil fuel make up the best.  Australia has a productive economy with historically cheap fossil fuels- but the most important reason for our relatively high emissions per capita is our size.

Figure 4, a comparison of carbon intensity, is an alternative way of comparing emissions, and because it takes into account the natural advantages of other advanced economies, demonstrates our carbon efficiency much better than population or GDP comparisons.

Fig. 4: 2017 emissions per land area

CO2persqkm

Australia, in 144th position, is followed only by countries with much smaller economies, and none of them apart from Iceland and Greenland are European.  All of our major trading partners, and many others, have much higher carbon intensity than Australia.  All Pacific Island nations, except for Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands, have higher carbon intensity as well.

Why?  Our economy is diffused across a wide brown land.  Even our cities are relatively thinly populated by world standards.  Production centres and markets are vast distances apart.  Russia, China, Canada, the USA, and Brazil are all larger in area than Australia.  Even so, our emissions are much less: Australia- 53.7 Tonnes per square kilometre; Brazil- 61.5; Canada- 63; Russia- 103.4; USA- 576; China- 1,048 Tonnes per square kilometre.

Don’t preach to us- Australia is a carbon sink by comparison with most other countries.

*****

As an appendix, here are three plots showing Australia’s relative position in the world.

Fig. 5:  2017 population

Poptop5

Fig. 6:  2017 GDP

GDPtop5

Fig. 7:  Land area

Areatop5

Australia is sixth in land area, 13th in GDP, and 53rd in population.  We are a large, under-populated, productive nation.  Naturally we have fossil fuel emissions to match.

Another Inconvenient Pause

January 15, 2019

The Pause in global temperatures may be past, but here is another, longer Pause, and one that is much more difficult to explain: at ideal Australian sites, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have led to a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation- the very opposite of expectations.

Basically, the theory behind the enhanced greenhouse effect is that the increase in concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases leads to an increase in downwelling infra-red (IR) radiation, which causes surface warming.

Is there evidence for increasing downwelling IR in recent years, as atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rapidly rising?

The authors of Skeptical Science think so:

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).

Time for a reality check.

The links in the above quote do not work for me, so I use data available for Australia.

Greenhouse gas concentrations are measured at Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania.  According to the CSIRO,

The Cape Grim station is positioned just south of the isolated north-west tip (Woolnorth Point) of Tasmania. It is in an important site, as the air sampled arrives at Cape Grim after long trajectories over the Southern Ocean, under conditions described as ‘baseline’. This baseline air is representative of a large area of the Southern Hemisphere, unaffected by regional pollution sources (there are no nearby cities or industry that would contaminate the air quality).

Fig. 1:  Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station (looking almost directly south)

c grim photo

Fig. 2:  CO2 concentration, Cape Grim.

co2 c grim

Fig. 3:  Methane concentration, Cape Grim.

ch4 graph

Fig. 4:  Nitrous oxide concentration, Cape Grim.

n2o graph

There is no doubt that concentrations of greenhouse gases have been increasing.  We should therefore expect to see some increase in downwelling longwave radiation.

Downwelling IR data are available from the Bureau of Meteorology which maintains a database of monthly 1 minute solar data from a network of stations around Australia, including Cape Grim.

What better location than Cape Grim to study the effects of greenhouse gas concentrations from month to month on readings of downwelling IR.  The instruments are within metres of each other under “baseline” conditions at a pristine site.

The data include 1 minute terrestrial irradiance (i.e. downwelling IR striking a horizontal surface) from which I calculated mean daily IR for each month.  To remove the seasonal signal, I calculate anomalies from monthly means.

Fig. 5:  Downwelling longwave radiation anomalies, Cape Grim.

ir over time capegrim

Oops! IR has been decreasing for the full length of the record, 20 years (May 1998 to June 2018).   And monthly IR anomalies plotted against monthly CO2 anomalies show a similar story:

Fig. 6:  Downwelling longwave radiation anomalies, Cape Grim.

ir vs co2 cgrim

In the most suitable location in Australia, from May 1998 to June 2018 there has been no increase in downwelling infra-red radiation, despite an increase of 41.556 ppm atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, 104.15 ppb of methane, and 14.472 ppb of nitrous oxide.

So what factors do influence downwelling IR and thus surface warming or cooling?  Together with solar radiation, that other greenhouse gas, H2O.  Gaseous H2O (humidity) and clouds formed of liquid and ice H2O are by far the major players in returning heat to the surface.

We see this in a plot of downwelling IR against cloudiness (from nearby Marrawa).

Fig. 7:  Downwelling IR anomalies vs Cloudiness, Cape Grim.

ir vs cloud capegrim

Daytime cloudiness (an average of observations at 9.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m.) increases downwelling IR.  We have no data for night time cloudiness unfortunately.

To illustrate the irrelevance of carbon dioxide, here is a plot of anomalies of solar radiation (global irradiance), downwelling infra-red radiation, daytime cloudiness, and carbon dioxide concentration at Cape Grim over the past 20 years.

Fig. 8:  Anomalies of IR, Global Irradiance, CO2, and Daytime Cloud at Cape Grim 1998-2018

98 to 18 full range capegrim ir global co2 cloud anoms

And zooming in on 2008 to 2010:

Fig. 9:  Anomalies of IR, Global Irradiance, CO2, and Daytime Cloud at Cape Grim 2008-2010

98 to 18 2008 2010 capegrim ir global co2 cloud anoms

There is a feedback mechanism: cloudiness inhibits daytime temperature and increases IR and nighttime temperature; decreased cloudiness means decreased IR; but less cloud and higher daytime temperature will increase IR as well if sustained; and higher IR also increases daytime temperature.  Further, sustained decrease in global radiation due to increased cloud cools the surface, thus decreasing IR.

Carbon dioxide concentration changes have no detectable effect.

A desert location, where humidity is typically very low and rain and cloudiness very infrequent, would also be ideal for checking on downwelling IR from carbon dioxide.  Alice Springs in the central desert is such a location with available irradiance data.

At Alice Springs as well, since March 1995 downwelling IR has been decreasing.

Fig. 10:  Downwelling longwave radiation anomalies, Alice Springs.

ir over time alice

The relationship between cloud and IR is even more evident.

Fig. 11:  Anomalies of IR, Global Irradiance, CO2, and Daytime Cloud at Alice Springs 2008-2010

2008 2010 alice ir global co2 cloud anoms

Fig. 12:  Downwelling IR anomalies vs Cloudiness, Alice Springs.

alice ir v cloud

Cloudiness has an even greater influence on IR in desert than maritime locations.

TAKE AWAY FACT:-  For over 20 years, at what are arguably the most suitable sites in Australia, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have had no detectable effect on downwelling longwave radiation.  Natural factors including cloudiness changes have vastly overwhelmed any such effect and have instead led to a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation.

That is indeed a most inconvenient pause.

*

*

*

*

To replicate these findings:

Go to http://reg.bom.gov.au/climate/reg/oneminsolar/index.shtml

You will need to register with a username and password.  Then click on an irradiance observation station.  Select year and month.  Download the zip file, and open in your preferred application.  (I use Excel).  IR data are in Column W- the values are wattminutes of IR striking a horizontal surface of area one square metre.

My method:  Order the data in ascending order to remove null values.  Count the minutes of valid data and calculate the percentage valid of all possible minutes in that month.  (I discard months with less than 80% valid data.)   Divide the total minutes by 1,440 to convert to days.  Sum the valid data and divide by 60,000 to find kilowatthours; divide by the number of days to find the mean daily value; then multiply by 3.6 to convert to Megajoules.  Plot monthly values against time or carbon dioxide concentration.

The Chicken or the Egg?

May 3, 2018

Climate scientists assert that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause global temperature to increase.  Real world evidence to support this is sadly lacking.

I use CO2 data from NOAA at Mauna Loa and HadSST3  Sea Surface data to compare both over the same period, as oceans cover most of global surface.

There have been 60 years of continued and accelerating CO2 increase.

Figure 1: 60 years of carbon dioxide concentration

CO2 abs trend

Ocean temperatures have also increased:

Figure 2:  HadSST3 Sea Surface Temperature from 1958

Hadsst3

While you may note the distinct lack of warming before the mid 1970s, and that although a quadratic trend line fits the data, the increase is not smooth but a series of steps with some large spikes at about the time of ENSO events, climate scientists insist that it is the overall trend that is important.

The following plot appears to support the greenhouse warming theory.

Figure 3:  Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies as a function of CO2 concentration

SST vs CO2

It seems that nearly three quarters of the temperature change since 1958 can be explained by the increase in CO2 concentration.  This accords with the theory.

But what if we reverse the axes in Figure 3?

Figure 4:  CO2 concentration as a function of Sea Surface Temperature anomalies

CO2 vs SST

It is equally valid to propose that nearly three quarters of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration can be explained by increasing sea surface temperatures, although that is not the point of this exercise.

To determine if CO2 is the cause of increasing temperature, or vice versa, we need to compare SST anomalies and CO2 concentration as a function of time.  If SST and CO2 both change at the same time, we are no further advanced, but if CO2 changes before SST (due to thermal inertia of the oceans), then that would be evidence for CO2 increase being the driver of temperature increase.

Both CO2 concentration and SST anomalies have pronounced trends, so for comparison both datasets are detrended, and the large seasonal signal is removed from CO2 data to calculate monthly “anomalies”.

Remember, it is increasing CO2 which is supposed to cause increasing temperature, not a static amount, so change in CO2 and SST must be our focus.

My measure of change in SST and CO2 is 12 monthly difference: for example January 2000 minus January 1999.  The next plot shows 12 monthly difference in both SST and CO2 anomalies from 1959 to 2018.  (SST is scaled up for comparison).

Figure 5:  12 monthly change in detrended SST and CO2 anomalies

12m chg Hadsst3 co2

SST appears to spike before CO2.  In the next plot, SST data have been lagged by seven months:

Figure 6:  12 monthly change in detrended SST (lagged 7 months) and CO2 anomalies

lagged 7m 12m chg Hadsst3 co2

There appear to be differences in some decades- the lag time varies from four months to eight or nine months.

Here’s the plot of CO2 vs lagged SST:

Figure 7:  12 month change in CO2 as a function of 12 month change in SST, lagged 7 months

lagged 12m SST vs CO2

Correlation co-efficient of 0.57 is not bad considering we are comparing all ocean basins and the atmosphere.

As SST change generally precedes CO2 change by about seven months (sometimes less, sometimes more), there is NO evidence that CO2 increase causes temperature increase.

But we are still left with the increase in CO2 from 1958 while SST paused or decreased for 19 years.

Figure 8:  Sea Surface Temperature and CO2 concentration, 1958-1976

Hadsst and CO2 58 76

While it is difficult to attribute decadal CO2 increase to non-existent SST rise, there is no evidence for CO2 driving temperature increase in this period.

However, plotting 12 month change of CO2 and SST clearly reveals their relationship.

Figure 9: 12 month change in detrended CO2 and SST anomalies

12m chg Hadsst and CO2 58 76

Figure 10: 12 month change in detrended CO2 and SST anomalies, lagged 7 months

lagged 12m chg Hadsst and CO2 58 76

It is clear that 12 monthly change in temperature drives 12 monthly change in CO2 concentration.

The continual rise in CO2 from 1958 to 1976 while SST declined indicates there must be an underlying increase in CO2 unrelated to immediately preceding temperature, but there is definitely no evidence that it causes sea surface temperature increase at any time.

Summary:

  1. Increase in CO2 concentration is supposed to be the cause of the increase in temperature we see in the SST data (and satellite data).
  2. However, analysis shows that CO2 changes about four to seven months (and longer) after sea surface temperature changes.
  3. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 increase cannot be the cause of surface temperature increase. Real world data disproves the theory.

Fingerprints of Greenhouse Warming: Poles Apart

February 26, 2018

If global warming is driven by the influence of carbon dioxide and other man made greenhouse gases, it will have certain characteristics, as explained by Karl Braganza in his article for The Conversation (14 June 2011).

As water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas, it will tend to mask the influence of man made greenhouse gases, and because solar radiation is such a powerful driver of temperature, this also must be taken into account.  Therefore, the characteristic greenhouse warming fingerprints are best seen where solar and water vapour influences can be minimised: that is, at night time, in winter, and near the poles.  So we would look for minimum temperatures rising faster than maxima; winter temperatures rising faster than summer, and polar temperatures rising faster than the tropics.  Indeed, polar temperature change in winter should be an ideal metric, as in Arctic and Antarctic regions the sun is almost completely absent in winter, and the intense cold means the atmosphere contains very little water vapour.  We can kill three birds with one stone, as winter months in polar regions are almost continuously night.

So let’s look at the evidence for greater winter and polar warming.

Figure 1: North Polar Summers:

NP summers

Figure 2:  North Polar Winters:

arctic all winters

Yep, North Polar winters are warming very strongly, at +2.58C/100 years, and much faster than summers (+1.83C/100 years)- strong evidence for anthropogenic global warming.  And warming is much faster than the Tropics (+1.023C/100 years):

Figure 3: Tropics

Tropics TLT

Unfortunately for the theory, the opposite happens in the South Polar region:

Figure 4: South Polar Summers

SP summers

Figure 5:  South Polar Winters:

antarctic all winters

While summers are warming (+0.58C/100 years), winters are cooling strongly at -1.66C/100 years.  Over land areas, with little influence from the ocean, very low moisture, and very little solar warming, winters are cooling even faster:

Figure 6:  Antarctic winters over land:

antarctic land winters

This is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in very dry, cold, and dark conditions- at night, in winter, at the poles.  Can this be because carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are NOT well mixed, and are in fact decreasing in concentration near the South Pole?

Figure 7: Carbon Dioxide concentration at Cape Grim (Tasmania):

C Grim CO2

Figure 8:  South Polar region TLT (all months) as a function of CO2 concentration:SP vs co2

No, while Cape Grim data show CO2 concentration to be increasing in the Southern Hemisphere, but without the marked seasonal fluctuations of the Northern Hemisphere, there is NO relationship between CO2 and temperature in the South Polar region.

Is it because the oceans around Antarctica are cooling?

Figure 9: South Polar Ocean TLT:

SP ocean

Nope- -0.01C/100 years (+/- 0.1C).  Neither cooling nor warming.

The cold, dry, dark skies over Antarctica are getting colder in winter.  Summers show a small warming trend.

Conclusion:  The fingerprints of man made greenhouse warming are completely absent from the South Pole, and differences between North and South Polar regions must, until shown otherwise, be due to natural factors.

Data sources:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

Mandated disclaimer:-

“Any use of the Content must acknowledge the source of the Information as CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station) and include a statement that CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology give no warranty regarding the accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose and accept no liability in respect of data.”

The Hottest Year, but NOT due to Greenhouse Warming

January 7, 2014

ACORN-SAT- the gift that keeps on giving!

Unfortunately for doomsayers, the fact that 2013 was the hottest year on record in Australia is no evidence for the effects of greenhouse warming.  In fact, it is the very opposite.

Why?  Any sort of warming will eventually produce the hottest year on record.  But warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is quite special.  Warming due to greenhouse gases is evidenced by

greater warming of night time temperatures than daytime temperatures”

amongst other things, according to Dr Karl Braganza (http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515)

I discussed this in April  last year.  Now, with the updated data for 2013, it’s time for a reality check to see whether there is now evidence of greenhouse warming in Australia (a region as large as Antarctica, Greenland, the USA, or Europe, and supposed to be especially vulnerable to the effects of global warming.)

Once again I am using data straight from the Bureau’s website.

Fig. 1: Monthly maxima and minima with 12 month smoothing, December 1978 – December 2013, from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=tmax&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=01&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0

max v min linear

For the past 35 years, there is much LESS warming of night time temperatures than daytime temperatures.  And the divergence is increasing:

Fig 2: fitted with a 2nd order polynomialmax v min poly

Sorry, but this is not evidence of greenhouse warming over the period of the satellite era, when greenhouse gases have been increasing rapidly.  It is merely evidence of warming.