Trees - a Short History of the Population of Earth

Satellite maps of the distribution of CO2 across the Earth’s surface show that the highest concentrations are over the tropical forests, and not over large urban and industrial areas, as might be expected. Should we be worried? No, because it’s trees that have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere to its present low level. Nothing else has the capacity to do this; not grass, not algae, not plankton, nothing else. Certainly not animals; fauna contain little carbon compared with flora, and most flora very little compared with trees.

Grassland plants contain a few grams per square metre of carbon; dense forests can contain up to a tonne or more per square metre. Trees matter; little else does, in the grand scheme of things. A visitor from a distant galaxy would conclude (from Earth orbit) that the population here was tall and brown with little green bits attached, rather boring, and not worth the trouble of attempting to engage in conversation.

Thank God for trees; the little green men will leave us alone.

A Short History of the World's Climate from 1800 to the Present

From 1800 to 1899, nothing much happened; the world got a little warmer, and the seas rose a little. Suddenly, in 1900, nothing much happened; nothing much had happened before, and nothing much was happening again. A distinct trend was developing. From 1901 to the present, June 29th. 2012, the trend continued, the Earth got a little warmer, and the seas rose a bit, and so nothing much happened.

Clearly, citizens of the Earth must take action to stop this worrying trend; if we do nothing, nothing much will continue to happen, and who knows what the result might be.

Between a Rock and a Wet Place - The USGS Creates a Hockey-stick

The journal Nature Climate Change published a paper (pdf here, supplemental information & figures here) by US Geological Survey authors a few days ago. Titled "Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America", it seeks to show that a "hot-spot" of higher (than global, and elsewhere in the US) sea-level rise exists on the north-eastern seaboard of the US. In their introduction, they say

Here, we present evidence of recently accelerated SLR in a unique 1,000-km-long hotspot on the highly populated North American Atlantic coast north of Cape Hatteras and show that it is consistent with a modelled fingerprint of dynamic SLR. Between 1950–1979 and 1980–2009, SLR rate increases in this northeast hotspot were ~ 3–4 times higher than the global average.

Wow - 3–4 times higher than the global average? That merits critical examination. The authors used what they termed "windows" of 60, 50, and 40 years ending in 2009, calculating trends for two halves of each window. While between 40 and 60 years would seem adequately long for trend calculations, bear in mind they split each window into two. This means that for the 40-year window they used two periods of 20 years, and they used annual data, so they produced trends using just 20 data-points for each period. in the supplement linked above, they used New York (headline-grabbing? - perish the thought) to illustrate their technique.

Notice that their quadratic trend (dashed) curve plots a convincing trail through the scattered (annual  average) data points. Note also, that neither trend line is a tangent to the convincing quadratic trend. Notice that the trend lines don't abut one another. Notice that the green 1980-2009 trend line represents a period with three low data points (1980-1982) at the start. These observations convince me that the linear trend differences are statistical artefacts, don't represent a true picture, and don't support the assertion of a large trend increase. Lets look at a few real graphs, with some real, long-term trends.

The trend for the 1950-2009 "window" used in this study is almost identical to the long-term 1856-2011 trend. Since the authors chose to use low-resolution annual averages, a peek at the 1950-2009 annual averages wouldn't go amiss.

It's immediately obvious that the 1980 "break point" is in a dip in the plot, as is the 1990 "break point". Both are flanked by higher data points. The claimed large increase in trend is an artefact of the start points for the second-half of each "window". There is a slight acceleration, but it's a fraction of that claimed. All the gauges used in the study show this feature, as do gauges well outside the claimed "hot spot".

There's a statistically robust method of analysing changes in trend for time series, called "asymptotic analysis". I've used it previously to demonstrate how variation in long-term trends evolve, can be analysed, and conclusions drawn. I've plotted the trend for new York from 1893 (after the big gap) to end points from 1950 (the start of the 60-year "window") to 2009 (the end of the "window"), using annual averages.

If there was a true "breakpoint" in the trend around 1980 marking a significant increase, I'd expect to see a distinct break in slope of this plot. Instead, the rate continues to drop, stabilising in 1990. That's where the breakpoint is, though it's not of any great significance compared with what's claimed. There's a slight rise to 1998 associated with the 1997/8 El Niño, after that the trend is almost constant to 2009. Peak trend was reached in 1973, dropping through 1980 and for a few years later. The pre/post 1980 "break" in trend is an artefact of the dip in sea level around that point. The paper contains a rather strange statement:

South of Cape Hatteras, SLRDs are not statistically different from zero (mean SLRDs=0.11±0.92 mm yr−1), whereas north of Boston, SLRDs are either negative or not different from zero (mean=−0.94±0.88 mm yr−1). The 40-yr window (1970–2009) exhibits the largest mean NEH SLRD (3.80±1.06 mm yr−1), and positive differences continue north of Massachusetts and into Canada

If SLRDs (sea-level rate differences) north of Boston (Massachusetts) are either negative or not different from zero, how is it that positive differences continue north of Massachusetts and into Canada? The two sentences are mutually exclusive. This will bear further investigation, which I intend to continue.

There's no analysis of vertical land movement (measured using GPS) in this paper, somewhat surprising for the US Geological Survey? If such movement contributes significantly to local sea-level rise, and recent short-term data indicates that it does, then extrapolating a 30-year trend forward to 2100 is unsafe and unjustified, as there's no way of predicting such movement over that period.

There's no sign of a break in trend around 1980 which would confirm the claims in this USGS paper, and the post-1990 increase is moderate. No "hockey-stick", no "blade", just a handle, and a lot of (to my mind) superfluous maths.

Extending the record - Newcastle, NSW sea level

Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia has had a record number of tide gauges - five in total, but the latest (Newcastle V) had a shaky start. Installed in 1957, the NTC record shows just 5 months of data for 1957/8, with many gaps, and a very large data-free gap until 1966. Luckily Newcastle III was still in operation (until end 1988), so there's a long overlap.

Also lucky is that there's little significant difference between the two, with an average difference of just 0.6 mm over the last three years 1986-88, small enough to be ignored, and allowing a simple "join" at the end of 1988.

The trend line is pulled down by the large dips on the left; a better picture of the later trend is shown from 1949 onwards:

... where the 3-year (37 month centred) moving average straddles the trend line convincingly, and significantly shows an almost identical trend to the reliable part (1966-onwards) of the plot for gauge V, which is shown in my reference page for Australia:

The plot for Sydney in my previous post shows a slight dip over the decade from about 1938, but not as large as the double-dip for Newcastle, over two decades. That it wasn't due to simple disturbances of the gauge is shown by a plot of gauges I and III:

For now, that anomaly must remain a mystery. Perhaps it was due to disturbances caused by mining activity. However, from these long-term reconstructions, it should be clear that there's been no acceleration in sea level change during the latter half of the 20th century, nor in this century, despite what's claimed by the CSIRO and others.

Extending the record - a sea level reconstruction for Sydney

On my reference page Sea Levels in Australia (top right sidebar) I state that Fremantle has the longest record of any Australian tide gauge, from 1897. The following is shown for Sydney:

However, it's little known that for a long period, there were two active gauges on Fort Denison, the older of the two recording from 1886, so predating the second by some 28 years. Unfortunately the two gauges used a different benchmark datum (reference level)  for measurements, preventing a simple backward extension of the record. By plotting the records together, I've been able to establish a good estimate of the difference (-127mm).

Adding that offset to the earlier data to line up with the data from the second gauge, resulted in the following reconstruction.

As the 5-year (61 month centred) moving average shows, sea level was dropping between the turn of the century and the middle 1940s, then there was an upward jump to 1950. The overall rate of rise is somewhat less than that shown for the single-gauge record, which was "pulled down" by the slight dip to the late 1940s. I've produced a reconstruction for Newcastle, NSW which extends the record back from 1966 to 1925, using the same technique, and will post it very soon.