‘Miracles, Media and the Murray’ on ABC TV

Backstage at the ABC Television studios on Monday night, after the Q&A program where I appeared as a panellist, the compere, Tony Jones, complained to Tim Flannery that he didn’t adequately refute my answers to the climate change questions.    Of course, Tony could always invite me onto his Lateline program where he could ‘grill’ me himself.  

For those who missed the Q&A program on television you can watch it here:

It’s entitled ‘Miracles, Media and the Murray’.   

I was disappointed the Murray issue was left until so late to be discussed.   I’ve received some comment that I went too hard on this issue, and other comment that I didn’t say enough.  

Interestingly I was invited onto Q&A specifically to discuss this issue and felt a need to at least provide the small amount of information that I did; in particular that the environment of the Lower Lakes could be dramatically improved by opening the huge steel and concrete barriers during periods of drought so that there was natural ebb and flow between the Lakes and the Southern Ocean.

For those of you wondering what was written on my tee shirt under the grey jacket, it was ‘Save the Murray: Remove the Barrages’.

, ,

87 Responses to ‘Miracles, Media and the Murray’ on ABC TV

  1. jennifer October 20, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    The following comment received by email:

    “I watched you on Q&A last night and I think you could have pushed the alarmists a lot harder.

    Just a few examples.

    For example, when Tony Jones asked you whether you were advocating doing nothing about the Murray Darling Basin “problem”, I think you could have brought up the Federation Drought at the end of the 19th century.

    In that case nothing was done to “save” the Murray Darling Basin “problem” after it ran dry, and it bounced back as strong as ever after the rainfall returned, just as it will bounce back now when the rains return.

    You could have also pointed out, that historically, things have been much worse in the area.

    For example…

    Droughts earlier this century regularly stopped the Murray River flowing, with current flows only sustained by modern management and a network of water storages.
    Between 1885 and 1960, the Darling River stopped flowing at Menindee 48 times.
    In 1902-03, during the Federation drought, it stopped flowing for 364 days.

    You could have also brought up the three previous warming periods, 1850-1880, and 1910-1940, and asked Tim Flannery how are they different to the warming from 1980 to 1998.

    When Tim Flannery told you that there is no other plausible explanation for the current warming, you failed to mention solar driven variations in global cloud cover which the IPCC and fellow alarmist studiously choose to ignore.

    I think you let the alarmists off too lightly.”

  2. Anne Carter October 21, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    This is rather harsh. Jennifer could have elucidated ALL the above if she had been given a chance and the time!!. As it was she pushed the parameters and Tony”s patience getting in as much as she did. Congratulations to Jennifer for leaving Flannery flummoxed and trying to find a reply.

  3. John Sayers October 21, 2010 at 4:10 am #

    Tim Flannery has been speaking out publicly for a long time. He has all the answers covered, like your mentioning his past predictions being wrong, out came the rehearsed reply. His patronising remark about you not understanding the science was downright rude as was his remark about sceptics talking over you.

    You were setup IMO. Flannery was there to sell his new book, you were there to make him look good. If Tony Jones didn’t think your questions were answered why didn’t he say it at the time? Isn’t that what a moderator does.

  4. el gordo October 21, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    For years BOM has been pushing the argument that dramatic rainfall deficits in many of the
    key catchments for the Murray-Darling system are historically unprecedented, which of course is a lot of tosh.

    The big droughts of 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 were little different to the 1978 to 1998 periods. This point should be driven home at every opportunity, its largely to do with a warm PDO and hence – natural variability.

    If John Sayers is correct, that Flannery is flogging a new book, then we have an excellent opportunity for a rematch on Q and A.

    A formidable team comprising Jo, Jen, Bob Carter and possibly Andrew Bolt. We still need to find someone at the ABC with the brain power to make it happen, which could be a major stumbling block going forward.


  5. Luke October 21, 2010 at 7:48 am #

    Utter rot El Gordo – what don’t you understand about worst on record in the Murray Catchment – a 13 year spell worst on record sequence. Of course you can choose to be stupid and put up an MDB time series and miss the science point. What don’t you understand about changes in the STRi, ENSO, IOD and SAM. You lot have been told again and again and again but you don’t listen. La la la – we’re not listening – coz we don’t read, don’t want to know and just recycle.

    Flannery – really who cares – he’s not a climate change scientist per se – he’s a science advocate. Put Dessler on and sceptics will scatter.

    But all these debate formats are such nonsense like Q&A was – well rehearsed quips from both sides. No depth. Waste of time. You’d need hours to work through the issues properly.

  6. Bob Buick October 21, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    I have for some years noted Tony Jone’s bias towards socialism and ALP policies and watch Q and A to support the likes of Jennifer.

    Flannery like Gore, Stern and Labor’s economist, have no climate science qualifications and therefore will support the IPCC, a populist view.

    I have no science qualification but enjoy an open mind and always gaze over the horizon when forming an opinion.

  7. Jim Stewart October 21, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    As Jennifer pointed out, Tony could always invite her onto his Lateline program where he could ‘grill’ her himself. My point is that the media, particularly the ABC, pretends that it is doing the public a service by broadcasting and publishing debates when in fact it suppresses the verifiable, undisputed truth there is no statistically significant evidence of AGW. Thanks to the Internet, examples of such media suppression are evident. One example is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

    I suspect that the original reason for this was simply that reporters, commentators, editors and even media moguls, believed the early, now discredited, evidence, particularly Al Gore’s fraudulent “hockey stick” graph. Since that news makes even media moguls look, at best, like fools, they prefer to maintain the pretense that there is statistically significant evidence of AGW.

    I have evidence of more sinister motives, particularly by ABC board members, but this inability to admit being “sucked in” is a very real problem. In particular, MPs like Steve Fielding Greg Hunt, and Tony Abbott are intimidated against demanding that the media, particularly ABC, correct their errors and present, AS NEWS, verifiable, undisputed, statistically significant evidence for AGW. Andrew Bolt is the Australian media person best placed to lead this demand for correction of [initially] honest errors.

  8. toby robertson October 21, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    “In that case nothing was done to “save” the Murray Darling Basin “problem” after it ran dry, and it bounced back as strong as ever after the rainfall returned, just as it will bounce back now when the rains return.”
    -a very poignant fact. You can argue circumstances are different now because we are using far more water, but the fact the Murray river did not run dry will hopefully make up for this extra use.
    ‘But all these debate formats are such nonsense like Q&A was – well rehearsed quips from both sides. No depth. Waste of time. You’d need hours to work through the issues properly.’

    I couldnt agree more Luke, it was a waste of time and more to the point will allow the ABC to say they are providing balance.

  9. CJ Morgan October 21, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Tim Flannery didn’t adequately refute Jennifer’s nonsensical denialism about climate change because she persistently and rudely interrupted him every time he tried to do so.

  10. spangled drongo October 21, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Been bush but just did a replay. Bloody TJ made a mockery of those subjects by having too much on the plate for the amount of time avaliable.
    This was one of QandA’s most balanced panels and it could not get its teeth into any subject properly.
    Typical ABC! Bias or Bullshit [or both].

  11. Eliza Courtney October 21, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Ms Marohasy,

    I am a regular viewer of the Q&A programme and an avid supporter of its presence on our television, where shows like this are usually replaced with American junk that is all the same. I am a BSc (Genetics) student at UNSW currently completing my Honours year.

    I have never felt so compelled to write to a panel member regarding their total lack of respect for others on the panel. I was looking forward to watching an engaging debate regarding climate change – but what I saw was akin to a high school debate where one person just never lets anyone else put forward their point of view. I understand you are very passionate about your beliefs and you definitely have a right to express those beliefs. But you also have a responsibility as a panel member to respect the time that is given to other panel members to put forward their views, their research and their arguments – regardless of whether they agree or disagree with you. Your behaviour was inappropriate and unfair to those panel members who had opposing views to yours, as I don’t remember a time you interrupted someone who you agreed with. I honestly don’t think I heard Tim Flannery say one full sentence before you had distracted the audience to your opposing thoughts. Then when Flannery pointed out that you kept interrupting him you made the suggestion that he should interrupt you. As an educated person I would have thought you would have some idea of how successful debating is carried out. It is also one thing to be so rude to your opposition, but to continue to speak when Tony Jones has purposefully asked you to finish to allow other panel members to have a last comment is just unacceptable. You do not make your cause any more appealing when you act in such an appalling manner that I wouldn’t even expect from a high school student.

    In conclusion, I think you owe the panel members (in particularly Tony Jones and Tim Flannery), as well as dedicated Q&A audience members an apology for your lack of respect. At least a reply to this email would be appreciated.

    Eliza Courtney.

  12. jennifer October 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Hi Eliza

    I completely reject your claims – you are perhaps simply upset because you do not believe I was adequately respectful of your hero, Tim Flannery.

    I was interrupted by Tony and Tim.

    Could you/someone do a the maths/calculate how much time I was given to speak versus amount of time other panellists were given to speak. My guess is I used up less than 15% of the total amount of time available.

    Also, I was specifically asked onto the program to talk about water and the Murray Darling and not given an opportunity to put my perspective. For example, how much time was I given before Tony interrupted. Once we have some numbers we can compare how much time I was given relative to how much time Mike Kelly was given to provide an answer on Afghanistan.

    While I was not asked on to the program specifically to talk about climate change… I was labelled a climate sceptic in the promo for the program. So surely I needed to also be given an opportunity to make comment here. Again, how much time was I given for my reply, before Tony/Tim interrupted me?

  13. Rosie Young October 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    I agree, Jennifer, and I’d be very interested to see how much time you were given compared with other panellists. I didn’t expect that you would get any fair treatment from Tony Jones who is committed to the AGW scam. Flim Flammery, of course, had an audience full of cheerleaders and was extremely patronising to you. Well done in the circumstances.

  14. John Sayers October 21, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    Eliza – Tim Flannery’s reply to Jennifer’s first statement was that she did not understand the science!! It was a rude, patronising remark. Jennifer has a science PHD and has been running this blog on climate change (amongst other things) for many years. She probably knows more out the science than Flannery who only spouts the AGW doctrine, most of it years old.

  15. Luke October 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    Nobody wins in these narrow formats. The twitter comments were all wanting Flannery and Jen to go head to head and give sainthood the flick. But wouldn’t achieve much – not enough time. What we need is a climate change series that is structured as an ongoing debate. But would each side be guaranteed a “fair go” with no shenanigans.

    This debate is about the only thing that I have seen to come close to being useful

  16. Margaret October 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    I was very pleased to see that you had been invited on the Q and A programme, Jennifer. I am an agricultural scientist and find it infuriating to see and hear how a theory, Global Warming, has been proposed and then not allowed to be subjected to the usual scrutiny of any other scientific theory. The very fact that politicians are involved and people are referred to as sceptics, deniers and other derogatory names indicates that the theory has been hijacked by certain interest groups not interested in true scientific discovery. All science theory must be tested, questioned, evaluated, and assessed openly and honestly. The very fact that this is not permitted is very suspicious. I am also concerned that our children are not being taught to both sides of the argument and how to analyse any theory objectively. When I hear the PM or any politician talk about being a ‘believer’, then I know that no amount of factual empirical experimentation would be of interest to them. Einstein, Newton, Galileo were all great scientists and had nothing to fear from science seeking to verify their theories. Just who do these people, Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al. thing they are that they should be above scrutiny? The media, the politicians and many other so called environmental interest groups are either ignorant about how the scientific method works or they are in a conspiracy to lie and deceive the rest of the world in order to achieve a specific outcome…a ‘carbon’ tax. If the politicians were honest they would admit that they want to impose a new tax on energy use. It has nothing to do with “Climate Change”, Global Warming, sea level rising, droughts, hurricanes, floods or CO2.

    Tim Flannery was out of his depth. Tony Jones invited him on as a foil to you under the guise of presenting both sides. The trouble is that Tony uses his role to manipulate the out come by allowing time for speakers who support the ABC view and cut people short when the opposing view is spoken. This implies that Tony Jones and friends know very well that unless they help the ‘believers’ they will fail in their argument. Without the help of a large sector of the media, the Global Warming’ theory will be discredited. That indicates that it is a very weak theory indeed.

  17. Charlie A October 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Over at Skeptical Science they seem to have taken issue with your statements on humidity.

    See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-cherry-pickers-Falling-humidity.html

  18. Warren McLaughlin October 21, 2010 at 3:45 pm #

    This Q&A lost the plot. There was never going to be time to deal with the Climate Change / Murray Darling Basin topics. I agree with the comment suspecting that the ABC wanted to be seen as having provided a balanced view. It was poor television. The participant’s frustration was palpable.

    In respect of Climate Change, Q&A is NOT the right forum to debate the issues. There are too many areas of dispute and disagreement. There is also too much at stake to treat the subject so trivially as was the case on this Q&A. I agree with the comment that what is needed is a structured series of debates. The areas of disagreement are clear. Let’s hear from credible proponents representing both sides. We don’t need winners or losers but knowledge that can be used effectively in decision making by parliaments. Defer decisions on ETS / Carbon tax etc until there’s a good reason to do so.

    Interestingly, note that the last winter in the northern hemisphere was a doozy (cold) and that we’ve had unprecedented rainfall in Queensland. IMO 2 significant climate events.

  19. cohenite October 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Charlie, if Dessler’s critique of Paltridge was correct and upper troposphere water vapour was increasing there would be a tropical hot spot; there isn’t; so either Dessler is wrong about humidity levels or if he is right then humidity is not a +ve feedback to temperature.

  20. el gordo October 21, 2010 at 4:42 pm #


    NSW is now drought free, with more rain to come. Flood follows drought, as it has always done.

    Didn’t know you were a member of Lambert’s fan club, which sort of explains your deviant behavior.

  21. el gordo October 21, 2010 at 5:56 pm #

    We have a warm IOD and a cool La Nina. Predicting where the floods might happen, is what BOM should be concentrating on – remember Plan B.


  22. John Sayers October 21, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    well Luke, what does that debate show?

    Lindzen shows calmly that the variation, wiggle watching as you call it, is not beyond natural variation. Nothing to write home about and that computer models exaggerate a non existent problem.

  23. Luke October 21, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    “NSW is now drought free, with more rain to come.” So ?

    So it rained again (after a bloody long time) – but as the frequency of drought increase – and areas essentially change their climate we’ll see who survives and who does not.

    Reason that many have survived to date is the 100s of BILLIONS over decades pumped into drought relief to support your supposed “drought resistant” culture. Store the profits while you can coz as granddaddy used to say “water conservation starts when the tank stops overflowing”.

    John – you must be almost an illiterate drongo. Dessler’s point was that he wasn’t using models. Your inability to assess the evidence is amazing as you suck on denialist drivel as if it’s source.

    Did you note – that Dessler and Lindzen agreed it was warming, human induced, and 2X Co2 alone was about one degree. most of the anti-science freaks here wouldn’t even get that far. Schiller doesn’t even believe in GHGs.
    Cohenite’s skanky legal ruses were given a good shake by both sides. That’s why he’s a lawyer – it’s not about truth or risk management – it’s to get his “client” off.

    The issue of dispute is HOW MUCH further warming – and so the debate about feedbacks and clouds ensued.

    You guys are miles away from this degree of enlightenment – worried about bogus bullshit like Tom Quirk’s stupid piece of fiction about BoM’s “adjustment” of MDB rainfall record. Climategate letters. Such incorrect and irrelevant minutia. Or misquoting Trenberth. Al Gore of course is fat – we haven’t heard that for a while. All great science anti-logic from nongers.

    Your erroneous computer model retort shows how far you are from opening your ears.

    What does the debate show – “what a serious climate debate looks like”. At least you’ve got some climate scientists to start with. And a far amount of time.

  24. John Sayers October 21, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    Sure Dessler made the point he wasn’t using models to produce his magic formula, he was citing empirical data, but Lindzen pointed out that all the dire predictions of what is beyond the natural variation comes from climate models. Dessler’s figures taken as they were did not predict CAGW, just standard AGW and there was no reference by Dessler as to how much of that was caused by man.

    The world is warming – check
    The oceans are expanding hence more CO2 and sea level rise. – check.
    The Arctic ice is reducing – NOTE – no mention of Antarctic ice expanding from Dessler. – check.

    where is the man footprint in all this??

    as Lindzen suggested, there is none. It’s all just normal variability and Dessler is making assumptions of man’s involvement that have no basis in science.

  25. el gordo October 21, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    ‘…but as the frequency of drought increase – and areas essentially change their climate we’ll see who survives and who does not.’

    This is total nonsense. Increasing drought frequency? CAGW is nothing to worry about, it’s just an illusion, natural variability will overpower your benign trace gas.

  26. Ron Pike October 21, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    You are the most bumptious, self opinionated know-all on any blog site which I visit.
    Your capacity for unsupported sweepng statement is laughable.
    “drought frequency is increasing.”
    What utter drivel!
    Just go to the BOM site and look at the 100 year rainfall records.
    It is getting wetter over most of Australia.
    If you go to the trouble of looking at all of the records (now removed from the BOM) it is even more apparent.
    Most practical people here could give you a very supportable hypothesis why this may be so.
    I note with some recurring humour your distaste for drought relief, which you know I share.
    But you would do well to consider that the money paid out to farmers in tough times is but a fraction of the taxpayer funds wasted EVERY year on subsidising Capital city transport (which I guess you use) currently running at over $10,000,000,000 each and every year.
    So who is subsidising who?
    Luke, you scathingly mention “enlighenment,” as if maybe anyone with an opinion differing to yours lacks this degree of understanding.

    Only when we recognise that every belief that we hold dear has to be able to withstand the heat of the forge of criticism and contrary opinion and then be fashoned on the anvil of self doubt and personal questioning, can we hope to gain wisdom.
    Even then the resulting wisdom has to be maleable enough to be moulded by new ideas and previously unknown facts.
    Luke, you fail the tests of self doubt and personal questioning.


  27. CJ Morgan October 21, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    Don’t be unfair, Luke.

    Like Tim Flannery on Q&A, you’re deploying actual scientific argument, as opposed to the cherrypicked faux-science that characterises this blog and its sycophants.

    As so aptly demonstrated by Jennifer on Q&A, the discursive strategy is to shout down, interject, distract and divert. There’s no chance of reasoned debate here, but good on you for trying.

  28. Luke October 21, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    Spare us the amateur psycho-babble Pikey.

    I didn’t say I begrudged you drought relief – simply if 100s of billions were spent on drought aid – how come. You’ve been telling me you guys know all about climate management. Why would you need it?

    And why would you need it – protracted drying sequences in southern Australia like Fig 4

    And it’s been getting wetter for 40 years has it – bullshit !


    How about 60 years


    And we know why – more El Ninos – less La Ninas

    El Ninos morphing to Modoki mode

    SAM and STRi AGW induced changing drying out southern Australia faster than we can adapt?

    Enjoy the rain while it lasts ! Of course it has rained again. But it’s how many dries versus how many wets that’s the issue.

    If you think one La Nina means back to normal – well you obviously don’t have a grip on normal do you?

  29. Luke October 21, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    ” It’s all just normal variability and Dessler is making assumptions of man’s involvement that have no basis in science.”

    Tosh – as Dessler said “natural variability” is simply a ruse argument. There are reasons for all big changes. There is no solar driver that explains the change. There is a greenhouse driver – Lindzen agrees !

  30. halfacow October 22, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Well said Eliza! I agree with and share your observations. Good luck with your studies.

    Jennifer, not once did Tim interrupt you. At one point you interrupted him and he let you say your piece. Your lack of courtesy did your cause no good and you came across as somewhat rude. I would also suggest that your inability to accept constructive criticism (such as Eliza’s) and reply with more condescending rudeness is another flaw in your personality traits.
    I would also hazard a guess that Tim Flannery rates (if at all) very low on Eliza’s ‘heroes’…, grow up.

    Also, do not complain about a lack of talk time (while i was personally disappointed at the amount of time dedicated to the overall CC debate), when you were given the opportunity to speak, you regurgitated your rehearsed comments and then fumbled around delivering/reinforcing your point, you appeared to rush your conclusions, almost as if you forgot where you were up to and/or the point you were initially trying to make.

    Tim chewed you up and spat you out, you were fighting above your weight and out of your depth. Better luck next time.

  31. hunter October 22, 2010 at 4:37 am #

    And El Nino Molki will morph into Godzilla and squash Tokyo.
    Luke you are flinging your feces at a rate that even by you may be unsustainable.

  32. el gordo October 22, 2010 at 7:12 am #

    Just over a year ago Neville Nicholls was pushing the line that ‘the subtropical ridge has become more intense. It is getting bigger and stronger and that is pushing the rain storms further south.’


    BOM spokesman Bertrand Timbal said it is ‘reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming .’

    Wrong, wrong and wrong. I want both these characters to get off the gravy train and tell the people they were wrong and why.

    As for you, Luke, and your comment ‘there is no solar driver that explains the change.’ Double tosh, I’ll be back.

  33. cohenite October 22, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    I repeat, on the Q&A it was flannels who did the bullying to a scripted program led by jones; I thought Jennifer’s points at the end about the MDB were excellent and the only way she could get them out there was to be insistent; this idea that sceptics should be cap in hand to the science is settled crowd is typical of the arrogance which propels AGW.

    Now Dessler and the extra water vapour [WV] where Paltridge found none; this paper suggests some fundamental issues with Dessler’s analysis:


    Extra water means extra condensation; the THS is not there because it is being condensated away; really Dessler is shot to pieces; empirical my eye.

  34. Luke October 22, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    As I said Hunter – you do great credit to the sceptic cause. Highly intelligent rebuttals. And you have reminded me to post http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Taschetto%20SEAus_Modoki2.pdf

  35. cohenite October 22, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    Modoki and circulation alteration a la Vecchi is the fallback position, is it not luke; because, as I said, even if Dessler is right about increases in WV at levels where the THS should be but isn’t, the fact that the THS is not there means that theoretically the energy carried by the extra WV, must be expressed through extra precipitation or circulation variation/intensification, both of which are not happening outside of natural variation.

  36. Luke October 22, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Yes yes and does explain SAM, STRi, IOD etc too ….. hmmmm.

    Both Dessler and Lindzen did comment on the technique of legal argument and its misuse in this issue. Coho will be trotting out Miskolczi next. Modoki is here as the Pacific has warmed and reorganised.

    But anyway – issues fundamentally are how much warming not is it happening or is greenhouse to blame. Lindzen said so !

    And secondarily this will reorganise many atmospheric and circulations. Who wins and who loses out of that?

    Thirdly pace of change if adaptation is the preferred route.

  37. Ron Pike October 22, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    Luke, do you ever read and comprehend what others post here?
    I said in my post and have said on numerous other occaisions that I am opposed to drought aid.
    I am also opposed to all other taxpayer hand-outs.
    Why, why Luke do you use 40 and 60 year records to support your diminishing rainfall tripe?
    This is deliberate distortion, when a look at longer data records shows a different picture.
    You are being deceptive, disingenuous and uinconvincing.
    Strongly recommend you read my previous post again, comprehend it all and contemplate.

  38. spangled drongo October 22, 2010 at 11:54 am #


    This is the story of the MDB and of country Australia generally. Don’t show your ignorance.

    “Galleries of pink galahs
    Crystal nights with diamond stars
    Apricots preserved in jars
    That’s my home

    “Land of oceans in the sun
    Purple hazes, river gum
    Breaks your heart when rain won’t come
    It breaks your heart”

    And Pikey mentioned 100 years, not 50 or 60. The way you pick cherries I could be forgiven for thinking you’d spent time on farms.

    So try starting from a dry instead of a wet:


  39. cohenite October 22, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    SD, maybe luke is relying on this:


  40. Luke October 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    No it’s not a distortion as this is when the greenhouse forcing has kicked up as well as being a PDO bump. I left out the 100 year to see if you were awake – and in that 100 year trend you can see the seeds of the longer trend – – southern Oz & Qld – are you lot actually awake?

    It’s NOT a WHOLE of MDB mechanism – listen to exactly what I’m saying – it’s across southern Australia and probably Qld.

    You ended up with 13 years anomalies across parts of southern Australia _ CRIKEY !!! a step change in SW WA …. so wakey wakey – dust off the Alzheimer’s meds

    You will also notice some areas still have water resource issues – look at Toowoomba water supply dams – this drought is taking some shedding – you’ve been down near empty.

    And anti-science nongers like you lot never look for mechanisms – never look at detail. When you have SERIOUSLY read the papers on SAM and STRi you might be worth talking to.

    My point is that AGW is an additional factor with medium confidence likelihood. That’s a bloody big risk in a planning sense (and doesn’t say anything about an ETS or AL Gore – OK?)

    And how timely http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/22/3045739.htm?section=justin

    South-east climate changing: CSIRO
    Updated 29 minutes ago

    Scientists at the CSIRO in Canberra are warning recent rainfall in the nation’s south-east is not indicative of likely rainfall in the future.

    The CSIRO has put together a report for the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative looking at the effects of climate variability and change on water resources in the south-east.

    The report found that while natural fluctuations in rainfall are the biggest drivers in weather patterns, climate change will result in drier than average conditions in the future.

    Program director Dr David Post says changes to large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns are impacting on rainfall and run-off in the south-east, particularly in the southern Murray-Darling Basin.

    “It’s really good that we’re getting good rains at the moment and that’s due to a combination of a La Nina event and warm waters off the North-West of Australia. But in the longer term we should plan for more droughts and drier conditions than what we’re seeing at the moment,” he said.

    Dr Post says the changes indicate a shift in the overall climate of south-eastern Australia.

    He says climate change was a contributor to the recent 13-year drought.

    “We can see a climate change signature in the recent drought. A lot of it is down to natural variability,” he said.

    “Droughts come and droughts go but there’s certainly an aspect of climate change that’s impacted on the recent drought as well and we think that will continue on to the future.”

    Yesterday the New South Wales Government officially declared an end to the drought in the state after more than nine years of drier than average conditions.

    In the ACT, Canberra’s water authority ACTEW is lifting water restrictions with combined dam levels in the Territory approaching 90 per cent of capacity.

  41. Luke October 22, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Pikey – I don’t care about your personal position on drought aid – and I didn’t actually say I was agin it either. Don’t get too precious on handouts – everyone gets them somehow. Support for kids, public transport, drought aid etc.

    BUT suffice to say if your farmers are so climate savvy – so well adapted – why oh why oh why have we spent billions and billions over decades. WHY – coz you are far far far from adapted.

    So take a summer cropping region grain grower – somewhere Dubbo to Emerald maybe – makes profit 3 years in 10, comes out even 4 years in 10, loses 3 years in 10 in drought. All you have to do is change those odds with some good old AGW forcing and whole areas become uneconomic.

  42. Ron Pike October 22, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    We’ll all be ruined said Hanrahan Luke.
    Get out and get a life Mate, because you’re driving us all to drink.
    Hell there’s no bloody water left to drink.
    But it’s OK we have a lake of red wine thanks to irrigation.
    Try this for adaption:
    The volume of Australia’s agricultural production has been in constant uptrend since the 1950s.
    Bof A Stats.
    Fair dinkum Luke, you would argue a horse was a cow.
    See ya.

  43. John Sayers October 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    Luke – the predictions from BoM , Tim Flannery and all the warmists, including yourself, wasn’t = there will be periods of exceptionally high rainfall that will flood the rivers and fill Lake Eyre twice, mixed with drought. It was There Will Be Drought. Continual drought – the whole of SE Australia will experience a decline in rainfall, more drought and less water into the MDB.

    WRONG! – admit it.

  44. John Sayers October 22, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    oh – you are going to accuse me of verballing you – that’s your out option du jour.

  45. el gordo October 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Luke, about that solar driver. Here is a paper by Shindell et al (including Mann and Schmidt) which clearly states solar forcing has a monumental effect in the NH.

    ‘These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change.’

    Importantly, they note that regional temperature changes are quite large. As irradiance decreases the NAO and AO remain in a low index state, so I’m thinking Archibald has it right.


  46. spangled drongo October 22, 2010 at 7:00 pm #


    Like Luke, the CSIRO never give up. Tell me it wasn’t a computer modelled scientific report….

    “You will also notice some areas still have water resource issues – look at Toowoomba water supply dams – this drought is taking some shedding – you’ve been down near empty.”

    You’re a bit slow on the uptake, Luke old chap. Those Toowoomba dams have tiny catchments and they need those cyclonic depressions that we used to get several a year of prior to 1976 and haven’t had since.
    More of a “Joh” problem than CO2.

  47. John Sayers October 22, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    The global warming is exclusive to the northern hemisphere.


  48. Luke October 22, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Well shows the resident goons don’t listen and don’t read. Find anywhere where myself, BoM or CSIRO said it would never rain again – you shonky drought aid slurping liars.

    Look at Pikey go deciding to confound increases in area under plough, plant breeding and agronomy with everything else. Do your own numbers on what dryland croppers get from rainfall over a 100 year sequence. And AGAIN Pikey WHAT DID your mates do with all those billions of dollars in drought aid if they were rolling in the production dollars. BULLSHIT !

    Archibald – hahahahahahahahha – don’t me laugh. Check this little expose http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html You could of course try his chilli powder cancer cures?

    Not a single intelligent comment from any of you. You’re scientifically illiterate – no stats, no science, nothing but homilies.

    And tell us Spanglers – how WOULD YOU – yes that’s you Spanglers- analyse if a potential AGW signal was exacerbating natural variation. WHAT WOULD YOU DO ! This is your big moment threshold test Spanglers. Answer is …..?

  49. spangled drongo October 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    “We can see a climate change signature in the recent drought. A lot of it is down to natural variability,” Says Dr Post.

    Yeah, and the rest is down to? Guess what?

    “Various techniques have been used to estimate future climate in SE Aust under global warming conditions based on the output of GCMs.”

    GROAN! wimper!

    With the almost undetectable amount of warming in the southern hemisphere, most of which is natural variation, without a highly assumtive GCM at our elbow, we would be hard pressed to know that we even had a problem.

    These people are a joke!

  50. Another Ian October 22, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    This might blind-side Luke for a while


    “Read the following with caution but this is potentially the most important story the Air Vent has carried. A paper for open review by Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Sheil D., Nobre A.D., Li B.-L. in open discussion here, has revealed what appears to be a gaping hole in climate models. In previous discussions here it has been stated that the pressure loss by condensation simply didn’t exist in models, but I’ve never checked it myself — until this morning. Nick Stokes pointed us to the relevant page of CCSM3. The model is a parametrized version of the physics which leaves out the key factor of pressure drop caused when water vapor condenses.”


    “An important point often made by critics of climate models is that they often represent our best guess at specific phenomena. One of the biggest uncertainties in climate models is in proper modeling of atmospheric moisture. Considering that H2O is widely accepted to be the strongest of all greenhouse gasses, water is fairly important component of climate models. As is often the case at tAV, I’m not the guy who figured this out but am the one who will attempt to translate the deficiency in models as I currently understand it.”

    And with recent kerfuffles (KYACWP) , Luke note the ” “

  51. spangled drongo October 22, 2010 at 9:08 pm #


    In the first place I wouldn’t assume that a climate shift that suddenly changed weather patterns 34 years ago, was due to progressively increasing, man made CO2.

    And then I’m not so deluded as to claim that some part of that tiny variation [the UN-natural bit] is not only an AGW signal but a CAGW signal that requires extreme human sacrifice.

    I have always said that 6 billion people on this planet are causing some warming from their activities and land use change and that Plan B is the answer.

    “Find anywhere where myself, BoM or CSIRO said it would never rain again”

    Don’t be so pathetic, even you [and they] aren’t that stupid but you all spout general doom, drought and disaster.

  52. Luke October 23, 2010 at 4:42 am #

    OK spanglers – drop the “disaster” meme – it’s simply sceptic b/s to position the debate and polarise options.

    “Don’t be so pathetic, even you [and they] aren’t that stupid but you all spout general doom, drought and disaster.” WELL TELL your mates here – as that is the verballing that goes on.

    The reason that it is important is to work out some major policy issues on water resources management, agricultural policy, structural investment etc. Why has there been an ongoing policy to get out of drought aid besides the philosophical attitude to a “handout” – simply coz Treasury were becoming alarmed at 1 in 20 droughts not stopping. i.e. climate change – and that the level of aid was simply unsustainable. And subsidising agriculture not to transition to whatever Plan B is….

    So people with responsibilities need to make decisions. The issue becomes is the climate of the next 30 years simply a subset of the last 120 years. Is there a reasonable probability that there is anything more than that.

    And as our video with Dessler said – if sceptics want to bang on about the Little Ice Age – you should be VERY concerned about any significant changes in global temperature. And Lindzen does agree extra radiation is being sunk – how much extra from feedbacks is somewhat debatable.

    So if there is a moderate chance of an AGW influence you really do need to know for decision analytic. You see you guys are really like independent pollies – you can pontificate on – but you never have to make any real decisions on these issues. So it’s all simply rotten tomatoes from the sidelines. Good fun but that’s about it ….

    So Spangly butt – ”
    So you’re now at this point “In the first place I wouldn’t assume that a climate shift that suddenly changed weather patterns 34 years ago, was due to progressively increasing, man made CO2.””

    Yep VERY GOOD – now you’re Gillard’s Chief Scientist – inform her – coz that’s not a good enough answer. Your scientific (not sideline heckler) response is ……………. ??

    So no whimping out now Spanglers.

  53. Luke October 23, 2010 at 4:51 am #

    Another Ian – to your point – very interesting but also remember Gavin’s comments here after comment numbers 3, 15, 23, 34 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/

  54. Luke October 23, 2010 at 5:28 am #

    Incredibly good summary – pages 6 & 9 are the crunch points – this is new science understanding


  55. Luke October 23, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    John are you really that STUPID ? Jeez this is trivia ! John do you know what you’re even reading?

    Oh look the MDB is a big place http://www.mda.asn.au/images/Map_of_Australia_and_Basin_copy.jpg – it goes way the f up to Qld !! I wonder if a spatial rainfall analysis gives a different picture. Well WTF it does ! Gee John if you were really clever you might even tell us why !

    And maybe the whole of Australia is an even bigger place. Well WTF it is.

    And some places in Australia like NW WA are getting wetter (more anthropogenic funnies) and anywhere where people live or big agriculture trending drier. http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006JD007712.shtml

  56. John Sayers October 23, 2010 at 9:26 am #

    I assumed you’d check the southeastern region – here it is


    as good as flat IMO.

    Here’s a good rave on droughts – start at page 40.


  57. John Sayers October 23, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    here’s southern Australia


    It appears that most of Australia remains the same the only variation being an increase in Northern Australia and a decline in South Western Australia.

    Those guys are BoM and CSIRO will produce anything to support their faith, just like you Luke.

  58. el gordo October 23, 2010 at 10:35 am #

    We are all doomed, I tell you.


  59. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 10:36 am #

    “Those guys are BoM and CSIRO will produce anything to support their faith, just like you Luke.”

    ‘Fraid so, John.

    “Incredibly good summary – pages 6 & 9 are the crunch points – this is new science understanding”

    Luke, give us a break! That’s the paper I was quoting from above that cohers provided. And BTW, it doesn’t include any of the current good rainfall so it’s a woftam.

    LOSU = low, so what now?

    Reprogram the GCM with a rehashed low LOSU plus extra assumptions to justify our existence.

    It’s good to have smart people looking at potential future problems but these dills [and you] aren’t even smart enough to admit that this is only an exercise in possibilities.
    If they had the balls to say that, they would rise in everyone’s cred.
    But they’re all worried that would wreck the gravy train.

  60. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    “Mr Dai used results from 22 computer models used by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to make projections about temperature, precipitation and humidity and other climate factors based on current projections of greenhouse gas emissions.”

    el gordo,

    22 GCM’s! Kapow! 22 different versions of it. Hope he was wearing waders because he would’ve been up to his arse in it [and it wouldn’t be clover].

  61. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    “Transient climate model simulations forced only by increased greenhouse gases have generally not reproduced the observed rainfall increase over northwestern and central Australia. Our results suggest that a possible reason for this failure was the omission of forcing by Asian aerosols. Further research is essential to more accurately quantify the role of Asian aerosols in forcing Australian climate change.”


    This is more crap from your link.
    The increased rainfall in NW Aust began after 1976 when the cyclones from the Coral Sea moved into the Arafura Sea and that was before the serious Asian Brown Cloud, AND it happened overnight, not progressively.

    They don’t even mention that possibility.

  62. Luke October 23, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    You silly dick – at what point does your brain go ding ding and realise that the first essential part of the argument is built on observations and statistics. What is LOSU is your unbelievably stupid understanding. LOSU is the sound of your pea brain rolling around your cranium.

    Now as I said spanglers it’s easy to be a dopey tomato thrower. Now CSIRO have made an extensive study with data, stats and models. COMBINED.

    I think our Prime Minister would have sacked you for advice by now. As usual denialists are confused with local circus clowns.

    So Spanglers – essentially you don’t have any discriminating science ability. At least Cohenite might make a science comment. Not even an attempt to discuss the report.

    Now who do you think the PM is going to listen to for advice here – you do not see anything near this sort of practical work from our Aussie Sceptics do you? No advice. No science. No information. Just mindless tomato throwing. And science by chilli powder cancer cure advocates. Ho ho ho.

    ” And BTW, it doesn’t include any of the current good rainfall so it’s a woftam.” OH I’M SORRY – PAPERS ARE NOT INSTANT> … what one datum point in story of 125 years changes all. Piss off spangly. Next time they’ll do 3 years of work in 24 hours for you.

    They have foresenically detected the reason for a 13 YEAR DROUGHT

  63. Luke October 23, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    SEQUENCE OFF OUR PREVIOUS RECORDS and that’s your only comments? Sheesh.

  64. Luke October 23, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Bullshit spanglers – where’s your aerosol loading data to back up your nonsense? AND did they say it was a sole factor or an interaction. Unable to read dickhead.

  65. cohenite October 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    The new Makarieva et al paper on atmospheric pressure and condensation dynamics really shafts the recent great white hopes of AGW, the new Dessler paper purporting to critique Paltridge’s findings about WV levels and the new Lacis and Schmidt paper purporting to show that it is the non-conseable ghgs like CO2 which are really responsible for the greenhouse effect because WV condenses out and is effectively neutral.

    The Lacis paper contradicts IPCC views on the role of WV in creating the enhanced greenhouse through feedback; but more than this both Lacis and Dessler ignore basic physics; greater pressure increases temperature; the condensation process reduces pressure; even if Dessler is right about there being more WV in the tropics that water quickly condenses and mitigates temperature increase through reduction of pressure; the lacis paper is simply arse up and relies on the dud official temperature history to vaidate its thesis that CO2 is causing warming in total contradiction to both previous IPCC theory and actual physiscs as shown by the Russsian paper.

    Once again water is shown to be the active and dominant greenouse factor; the contradictory efforts of these recent pro-AGW papers just reveal what a sham, distraction and black hole for resources AGW is.

  66. John Sayers October 23, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    What’s this 13 year drought??

    In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Australia produced over 20 mil tonnes of wheat annually – you don’t do that in a drought Luke.

    and who determines when it’s drought? oh BoM and CSIRO – who would have thunk!

  67. John Sayersj October 23, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    sorry – my source


  68. el gordo October 23, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Fuel poverty looms in China and it has nothing to do with global warming.


  69. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Cool hand? Er, No, Pea Brain, Luke,

    “the first essential part of the argument is built on observations”.

    What, specifically, were those?

    ” And BTW, it doesn’t include any of the current good rainfall so it’s a woftam.” OH I’M SORRY – PAPERS ARE NOT INSTANT>

    That didn’t stop you from describing this paper as:

    “this is new science understanding”

    when it doesn’t contain a new observation that considerably reduces its meaning [like drought breaking rainfall].

    Really up-to-date and comprehensive—not.

    And BTW, I only point things out to you that are nose-on-your-face obvious to the average layman [which is me]. Unlike you with your incessant drought-talk, I have never claimed to be an expert but anyone paying half-attention can see the “funnels and runnels and galleried tunnels that traverse your arguments”.

  70. Ron Pike October 23, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Thank you John Sayers,
    You are absolutely correct.
    For those who do comprehend what is said in these posts.
    Luke isn’t one.
    Low river flows and as a result low dam levels in the MDB are the result of a series of average and below average rainfall years.
    I have often pointed out here that during these times dryland croppers can experience average to good years, while run-off into our rivers remain low.

  71. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    “What’s this 13 year drought??”

    Exactly, John.

    But if these guys say so, who is Luke to argue?

  72. Luke October 23, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    For heavens sake Spanglers are you unable to “read”. You’re a moron. RTF paper again dough boy. “What, specifically, were those?” hmmmm – ofh that would be about every climate mechanism there is – resulting in one or wto being prime candidates – resulting in one being THE prime seasonal candidate. Did you read the paper?? Or were you having a nana nap.

    Spangler’s “new science understanding” definition – all science, no matter how complex or long, must be conducted in 24 hours and written up overnight !!

    National drought relief expenditure 1992-1999 $698,600,000

    Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion. $430 million in additional drought assistance – 17 September 2007

    13 May 2008
    Farmers will continue to receive assistance from the effects of drought after the Rudd Government announced it is maintaining Exceptional Circumstances (EC) support in 2008-09.
    Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke said $760.9 million had been committed for EC assistance in the 2008-09 financial year.
    “The Rudd Government is standing by our farmers, many of whom are still doing it tough, trying to manage their businesses and support their families in drought,” Mr Burke said.
    “Despite some rain earlier this year in parts of Queensland and NSW, some parts of Australia are in their seventh consecutive year of drought.
    “There are currently 84 Exceptional Circumstances-declared areas across the country and an additional 14 areas that are interim-declared – more than 69% of Australia’s agricultural land.”

    19 August 2008
    The Rudd Government today announced it will extend assistance for 32 drought-declared areas in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia.

    Hey Pikey – “Low river flows and as a result low dam levels in the MDB are the result of a series of average and below average rainfall years” gee mate – who would know that !

  73. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 1:37 pm #


    In my experience in the bush, in big river systems like [but not limited to] the MDB, you can have floods with no rain and also good rain but dry channels.
    This is all part of the lottery but Lukes and GCMs can play larry dooley with the data.

  74. Luke October 23, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Pikey I know it’s weally weally hard – but what do you think this map might tell us eh? It’s really really hard Pikey but you might be just clever enough to get it. FIGURE 1.


    And who would have thought if it didn’t rain and catchments dried out – and that they take some wetting up to get runoff – and that it still didn’t rain – and there were people called “water users” – that dam water levels would drop. Mate that is rocket science – Nobel prize stuff. It’s incredible. I am stunned that you worked that out. I never knew how it worked before.

    But of course as you assure mean we’ve had plenty of rain – well that’s can’t have happened. SO the big green spaghetti monster (BGSM) actually pulled the magic plug at the bottom of each dam. Why didn’t we see it? So obvious.

    And all those people getting drought aid must have been in cahoots with the BGSM – you were right – it’s a conspiracy on international scale. Right then – I’m digging my semi-autos up from the backyard – Howard never got them.

    And we now have some new stats methods from John Sayers – to work out population density we take the population of Australia and divide it by the area. Gee I feel less crowded already. People around me have just vanished. I have to now coo-eee to say hello.

  75. spangled drongo October 23, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    “Spangler’s “new science understanding” definition – all science, no matter how complex or long, must be conducted in 24 hours and written up overnight !!”

    And that applies for a drought survey over a century? Can even a GCM do miracles like that? No wonder they’re a bit out.

    And anyway, you claimed it to be new science understanding.

    That just exemplifies the LOSU.

    Particularly when you make the claim after the drought-breaking rain has just occurred.

  76. John Sayers October 23, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion. $430 million in additional drought assistance – 17 September 2007

    Luke – have you any idea of the budget for Newstart allowance, Disability allowance, Youth Allowance, Sickness Allowance, Carer Payment, Parenting Payment, Rent Assistance, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Telephone Allowance, Pensioner Education Supplement etc etc.

    I think you’ll find $1.2 bil in the drought assistance is a drop in the ocean of Australian Welfare.

    ABARE estimated that there were 30,900 wheat growers in Australia in 2006, with 99% of farms family owned and

    Over 5 years that’s $7766.00 each and that’s just the wheat farmers!!

    Have you ever lived on the Dole Luke? I have – you go backwards fast.

  77. el gordo October 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Des Moore and Tom Quirk wade into the debate, with their ‘Muddle on the Murray’.


  78. Luke October 23, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    Spanglers – “Particularly when you make the claim after the drought-breaking rain has just occurred.” are you an actual doofus? Have you not listened to anything. So the next drought I can equally apply the same logic can I. Stop being so duplicitous. WTF would you say it’s LOSU – obs –. data —> stats –> trend –> hypothesis —> model confirms mechanism. NOT the other way around. What was the correlation strength Spanglers? A test to see if you can “read”.

    Of course you have ducked telling us how you would do any research yourself – why coz you’re clueless. You only know how to bleat.

    John – have I ever been on the dole – “no”, but who cares. Why do farmers completely in touch with their climate as yourself and Pikey attest need “drought aid” to survive. And don’t try to spread it over everyone. Do you think I came down in the last shower matey. If you guys were totally in tune – native mode – au naturale – climate savants of the bush – wouldn’t be a cent on drought aid – let alone billions over decades. This is specifically targeted drought dollars on areas that are “declared” by a major committee – and Treasury begrudges every cent spent !

    And now paniced by climate change they have canned the scheme. (finally).

    Actually I think you can make a case for drought support – national interest food security, US agriculture protection – playing field unlevel, Australia having very high climate variation, social equality – so don’t say I’m agin aid on principle. However – any aid needs to have mutual obligation – i.e. it’s not bottomless, farmers have climate risk plans, farmers attain more climate skills (and that doesn’t necessarily mean AGW either).

    Of course if you were perceptive – you would have worked out that it’s harder to get out of drought than to get into it. Revocation probably means getting back to near median. Needs a major wet/break/reset. And that is the issue. This year looks to be A RESET EVENT after a very very long time. Thank heavens.

  79. John Sayers October 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    If you guys were totally in tune – native mode – au naturale – climate savants of the bush

    since when have farmers claimed to be in that group Luke? I thought that was restricted to the Nimbin Hippies.

    you are bypassing my questions.

  80. Another Ian October 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    Re Comment from: Luke October 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 am

    “Another Ian – to your point – very interesting but also remember Gavin’s comments here after comment numbers 3, 15, 23, 34 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/



    And don’t miss the piece lower down that starts with

    “Some comments at RealClimate on models

    Recently spotted at RealClimate:”

    Maybe Luke should remember more of Mandy Rice-Davies?

  81. Andrew Thomas October 27, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Hi Jennifer,

    The thing about climate change and its relationship with CO2 is the complex black box sitting between the two in this relationship, i.e. the Earths weather system. Essentially, the Earth’s weather system is a complex energy transfer system on a global scale involving the interaction between atmospheric and the ocean currents. While this might seem like a simple concept, in reality it is highly complex and difficult to model / predict due to the influence of positive and negative feedback mechanisms (e.g. increased cloud cover (negative), increased atmospheric water vapour (positive). However, while this might create a great deal uncertainty in the science and, hence, a great deal of debate within the scientific community, most appropriately qualified scientist are not debating if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, but to what extent.

    The Murray Darling issue, however, is much simpler. It’s not so much drought, or climate change or similar that is the root cause of the poor state of this river system. Rather, it is simply poor farming practices and chronic over clearing. Too many people see this issue as economic and social issues versus environmental. The fact is the Murray Darling river system is all of these, i.e. no river system = no community. Why? Because the Murray Darling river is the economy in that part of the country (not some abstract “environmental” issue), and a major contributor to the Australian economy as a whole. There is simply no logic in trying to pretend this river is healthy. Agricultural practices must change or, in a few more generations, there will be no river. Who will the farmers children blame then?

    This is not just a problem for the farmers of the Murray Darling, but a problem for all Australians. Perhaps some tax payer funded financial and technical support to assist farmers improve irrigation practices and change crops is in order?

  82. Jim October 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    I thought you performed well, certainly as well as you could on Q&A, given the way it works. The accusation by Flannery that you unreasonably interrupt is disingeneous. If you watch all his histrionics when you speak as well as his actual verbal interruptions I think he got far less than he gave. Also Jones is right, his responses to your assertions are superficial, lacking substance and arguably arrogant. Just on the SEACI report. I love the bit about “A climate modelling study”. No footnote, no direction to greater detail within, and no balanced critique about any other studies and their relevance.

  83. Luke October 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    Jim – I assume you went through the SEACI report’s bibliography and read those references on-line. Of course you didn’t.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lungfish-research-grant-denied-as-population-flounders-20101028-175lt.html Lungfish die in dams?

  84. Another Ian October 30, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    Adding for the record, as previous threads show Jen knows what a Murray cod is –


    What’s the green spin this time?
    111 Comments | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
    Andrew Bolt
    Friday, October 29, 2010 at 10:28am

    “Last year it was an environmental scandal, and our fault, that Murray cod were dying in their thousands. The answer was to take yet more water off farmers:

    HIGHER temperatures and a lack of constant water flow in the Murray River are killing scores of “priceless” Murray cod… ”

    Liberal MHR for Farrer Sussan Ley said the problem illustrated the intensity of the drought and “there’s no greater environmental vandalism than a mass fish kill”….

    A spokeswoman for Senator Wong said the Government was well aware of the critical situation in the Murray-Darling Basin. “We have committed $3.1 billion to purchase water to put back into the basin’s stressed rivers and wetlands,” she said.”

    This year, colder and wetter, Murray cod are again dying, yet the news has raised barely a ripple in the big-city newspapers. The problem this time: too much run-off from leaf-littered forests from which foresters have been evicted:”

  85. el gordo November 2, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    The Murray-Darling plan will be delayed, probably on the off-chance there will be a flood. Senator Joyce had a few words to say on the matter.

    ‘Quite evidently the guide and the circus following it around at the moment which I must admit I’m part of at times is inconsequential because by its own admittance it has not addressed a question it was supposed to answer, the social and economic impacts.’

  86. shal November 3, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    why weere you so rude Jennifer? your behaviour resembled a 5 year old.

Website by 46digital