Oh No! More Prescribed Climate Alarmism for Queensland

LATE last week, the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence released its second report**, which was tabled in parliament by Minister for Climate Change, Kate Jones.

The Centre receives substantial funding through the state-funded Office of Climate Change, headed by Premier Anna Bligh’s husband, Greg Withers. It is an open secret that re-election of a Queensland Labor government at the last two elections has only been achieved by pandering to phantasmagorical Green demands, which have included the creation of a climate change Office and Centre.

It is therefore no surprise that the Centre’s 2010 report adopts the same alarmist tone that is invariably favoured by Green global warming zealots, including those with PhDs. The message to Queenslanders is that unless they sell their SUVs, run their cars on ethanol, and accept a tripling in the cost of electricity and other sundry penalties, then:
• Queensland will get hotter, with rising sea-levels
• The iconic Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed
• Queensland will suffer more extreme weather events, such as cyclones and floods

This motley assembly of tired, alarmist assertions is made up either of facts that are entirely unsurprising and unthreatening (such as that gentle sea-level rise is likely to continue, as it has for the last 150 years), or of facts and suppositions that are entirely wrong (such as that the reef is certain to be destroyed, or that it is known that future temperature will resume warming, and that if it does there will necessarily be an increase in the number or intensity of cyclones).

Most of the alarming predictions made in the 2010 report from the Climate Change Centre are the outcome of unvalidated computer general circulation models. The usefulness of these models can be judged by the type of disclaimer that CSIRO attaches to its computer model reports, such as a previous report that was completed for the Queensland government in 2002, viz:

This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.

Minister Kate Jones has no business foisting on Queenslanders the science fiction imaginings of a protected clique of highly qualified, lavishly funded, scientific show ponies, who understand that their role is to report to the government only the news that it wants to hear.

This article was written by Charlotte Ramotswe.

*********

** Climate Change in Queensland: What the science is telling us, Office of Climate Change, Queensland Government 2010

20 Responses to Oh No! More Prescribed Climate Alarmism for Queensland

  1. Another Ian October 31, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Originally posted on

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/10/new-csiro-climate-forecast-for-se-australia-unbelievable/#comments

    and applies here also

    “See Lucia at

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/fact-6a-model-simulations-dont-match-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

    “Below, I show the 12 month average temperatures from simulations and GISSTemp in non-anomaly degrees C” (her Figure 1).

    [Note that this graph shows the results for two versions of CSIRO's model (CSIRO_MK3_0 and Mk3_5)]

    Further comment e.g.

    “The Met Office’s Fact 6 is “Climate models predict the main features of future climate”.

    This is a particularly odd sort of “fact”. It’s not clear to me how they can even begin to prove any claim that models can predict the main features of future climate. If we go by past IPCC projections, models have a less-than-wonderful track record predicting the future — as in things that happen after climate models are run.

    The narrative in the UK Met Offices “Fact” page seems to explain the models can “predict” the some select features of past climate, particularly when those features were already known before the models “predicted” them.

    That said, there are a number of historical observations of climate that models “predict” poorly.

    One of these is the average global surface temperature in non-anomaly degrees C for the entire 20th century. ”

    Maybe doubts about this latest production are also in order?”

  2. el gordo October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Sea level rise to fear is the abrupt kind, which they ignore at their peril. Large waves are about to lash the west coast of Canada and the US.

    http://www.oceanweather.com/data/

    ‘No responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.’

    Luke, its up on the fridge. Next to my prediction for a Hunter Valley flood next year.

  3. spangled drongo October 31, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Imagine if this happened today. Possibly hundreds would die. It was in 1954 when many less people lived in the area.

    “As the eye of the cyclone crossed the coast at Coolangatta there was a brief calm, and air pressure dropped to 973 hPa. But as the cyclone moved on, the buffeting winds surrounding the eye quickly returned. In what was termed “the worst storm in living memory”, the Gold Coast area (along with parts of Brisbane and the Sunshine coast) suffered widespread structural damage. Beaches were scoured by tremendous seas, and torrential rain and storm surges combined to cause devastating flooding. On the foreshore at Beachmere, the storm surge deposited boats in tree-tops. In the Gold Coast hinterland, where mountainous terrain lifts strong, rain-laden southeast winds that sweep around the southern flank of coastal cyclones, the heavy rains were amplified further. Springbrook, on the headwaters of the Nerang River, received about 900 mm of rain within 24 hours.

    “The storm had lost little, if any, of its intensity, when it reached northern NSW. Near Cudgen, houses were blown apart, and trees more than one metre in diameter were twisted out of the ground. Moving inland, the cyclone passed west of Lismore, then south again towards Sydney. Torrential rain swiftly converted creeks and tributaries into torrents, and rivers rose rapidly. What was said to be a wall of water moving down the Richmond River hit Lismore early in the evening; the waters rose so quickly that many people were trapped. Some were rescued from rooftops and other refuges; some were not so lucky. Gales whipped up large waves on the swollen Richmond River, which in one place was over 11 km wide. In all, 26 people died.”

    Multi-million dollar homes of today used to slide into the sea with monotonous regularity in those days [I know, I used to try to save 'em] and we got up to six cyclones a year but when they return it will be all down to AGW.
    My still-water king tide benchmarks of 47 years ago show that current sea levels are at least 20 cms [8inches] below those old sea levels.

  4. spangled drongo October 31, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    “Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

    Yep, snake oil!

    As someone said, “if you can’t measure it, I don’t believe it”!

    CSIRO, BoM, ABC and the MSM are using the assumed certainty of GCMs to sell us this BS all the time.
    When are the professors gonna get smart and realise if they said [a la John Christy] “we dont know but we think….” the snake oil situation would disappear very quickly, their cred would improve, their funds wouldn’t dry up, both sides of science would be on speaking terms and we wouldn’t be bankrupting the world.

    Surely it’s just not that hard!

  5. el gordo October 31, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    Ove puts his foot in it.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/10/29/3052499.htm

  6. John Sayers October 31, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    Great post SD – there was another one in 1972 that crossed the coast at New Brighton but we’ve had none since then.

  7. el gordo October 31, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    ‘Queensland will suffer more extreme weather events, such as cyclones and floods,’ during La Nina years.

    From the Enso Wrap-up: ‘The SOI remains very high at +21, down slightly from the September value of +25, which was the highest monthly value recorded since November 1973 and the highest September value recorded since 1917.’

  8. CJ Morgan October 31, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Charlotte’s right, of course.

    If global warming’s happening, it won’t affect Queensland. Besides which, if human environmental profligacy has anything to do with it, there’s no point in Australians doing anything about it anyway.

    Nothing to worry about – none of us will be alive if and when it starts to really bite anyway.

    Great article.

  9. spangled drongo October 31, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    el gordo,

    I wonder if Prof Ove HG has seen this graph?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

  10. Ian Mott October 31, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Wasn’t that just about the worst interview ever seen. I kept expecting Jessica Van Vonderen to dive head first into his groin at any moment. And note how he used the IPCCs 90% certainty of human influence to imply 90% certainty of catastrophe?

  11. gavin November 1, 2010 at 6:30 am #

    SD; “both sides of science would be on speaking terms” is a very funny comment given the observers on this blog

  12. cohenite November 1, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    How’s your cup of milo going gavin; is it warming in the microwaves in the backyard?

    Guldberg’s interview is insidious; when you combine the nature of his comments with the proposal for Norfolk Island by another academic:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_put_norfolk_island_on_rations/

    it is clear that these ‘people’ are about social control and eco-facism, nothing less, and nothing, especially the truth, will get in their way.

  13. Neville November 1, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    Whatever changes the climate it seems that co2 isn’t much of a driver.

    Oh and Gav it’s peer reveiwed ( like the other studies I linked ) and accepted and passed only this October.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/#more-27209

  14. Ken Stewart November 1, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    Just about the silliest report ever put out by any government entity. What is the point of the table on page 41 showing insurance losses- headed by the Newcastle earthquake!!!! And a few pages later Figure 23: Estimated numbers of residential buildings at risk from sea level rise of 1.1 metre by 2100 (Source: DCC 2009a). But Queensland is predicting 0.8m rise, not 1.1m. (After 90 years of 1.2mm per year, this will increase 7 times). Tables, figures, quotes have been gathered and cut and paste as fillers with little thought for their logical inconsistency.
    Ken

  15. gavin November 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    Nev mate; you can’t get much cold comfort from the latest Artic Report Card (NOAA). Watt’s picking up on wev’e been here before type paleo info is just plain silly given the size of that doc.

    Also; cohenite forgets that yours truly has done energy transfer dc to light for ages without a math supporter in house.

  16. el gordo November 1, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Climate Change Centre of Excellence. Very surreal.

    http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/whatsbeingdone/queensland/centreofexcellence/

  17. Neville November 2, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    Gav the NATURAL variation in the Arctic ( including the planet) climate isn’t a bit unusual or unprecedented.

    What we see today has occured many times over the last 11,000 years of the Holocene and of course over a much longer period of time.

    What is it you don’t understand about natural variations e.g solar activity and ocean oscillations, these variations will go on forever and cannot be stopped by humans no matter how many trillions we waste out to 2100.

    Just a bit more info to help you to think.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/01/arctic-temperatures-and-ice-%e2%80%93-why-it-is-natural-variability/#more-27274

  18. Luke November 3, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    Yes Neville and mass extinctions from climate changes litter the geological record too. Have some AGW on top of your natural variation and stop being so simplistically stupid. And you don’t seem to object wasting trillions on warfare in Iraq. I suppose you’re into selective waste being a rightist apologist.

  19. Another Ian November 3, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-farmers-revolution-against-climate-bureaucrats/

    “What started as a ripple is now growing into a powerful protest wave sweeping across our great nation.”

    Off thread – one take on the US elections is

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/15195

  20. Another Ian November 5, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/11/sci-am-poll-81-think-the-ipcc-is-corrupt-with-group-think-political-agenda/

    “Sci Am Poll: 81% Think the IPCC is Corrupt, with Group-Think & Political Agenda
    ‘Scientific’ American may regret taking their recent opinion poll on the state of Climate Science given the eye-opening results cast by their “scientifically literate” readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is “a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda” and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since “we are powerless to stop it,” and the same percentage think science should stay out of the political process. When asked “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” 76.7% said “nothing.”

Website by 46digital