A week ago, our national broadcaster, the ABC, interviewed both Stewart Franks, Newcastle University, and David Karoly, Melbourne University, on the alleged impact of global warming on the floods.
Professor Karoly blamed carbon dioxide and his opinion was broadcast. Stewart Franks, who has for some time been warning of the likelihood of significant flooding in southern Queensland and NSW, explained the floods in terms of natural climate cycles and his opinion was not broadcast.
Professor Franks subsequently wrote to the ABC to protest its repeated use of an alarmist who provided misleading information:
Dear Mr Uhlmann
I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods.
Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.
There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature.
Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?
This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly.
In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quote…
‘…the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed…’
The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect.
During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sun’s energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures. This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius.
This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not.
Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for ‘expert’ comment.
Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise? These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates. Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?
Sincere best wishes,
A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
Dean of Students
But still the ABC persists.
Today the Midday Report featured Professor Matthew England from the UNSW Climate Centre speculating on the role of carbon dioxide in the current disaster. Professor Stewart Franks has responded with the following open letter to the Managing Director of the ABC:
Dear Mr Scott
It is with regret that I email you once more regarding speculation on the causes of the recent and ongoing devastating floods being aired on the ABC.
The Midday Report featured Prof. Matthew England of the UNSW Climate Change Centre speculating on the role of carbon dioxide in the current natural disaster.
Perhaps more irksome for me on a personal level, he was asked to comment on the possibility that such strong La Nina events may persist over the coming decades.
Alas his response was that we expect La Nina events every 3-5 years.
Prof. England appears to negate the role of a known, and widely published climate mechanism – the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),sometimes referred to as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO,in Australia.
He also appears to be unaware of the historic multidecadal variability of flood and drought risk in Australia – again widely published in the international literature.
This research has demonstrated that variability of ENSO events (El Nino/La Nina) both in terms of the magnitude of their impact as well as the frequency of their occurrence are associated with changes in the PDO/IPO.
Moreover, the history of flood events in Eastern Australia (particularly southern Queensland and Northern NSW) is inextricably linked to both La Nina occurrence and PDO/IPO phases.
I myself have published widely on this link utilizing state-of-the-art Bayesian approaches. My understanding is that Engineers Australia is currently incorporating such insights into their revised ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff’ manual – the de facto guide for practicing engineers in assessing flood risk in Australia.
The notion that flood and drought alternately dominate Eastern Australian climate is not new – the notion of multidecadal variability in flood and drought risk was first raised by two researchers – Profs. Robin Warner and Wayne Erskine, in the mid-1980’s.
Ironically enough, both were researchers at UNSW at the time, albeit researchers in geo-morphology (the interaction of climate, water and geological landscape), and not affiliated to any centre for climate change.
Whilst Prof. England is no doubt a prodigious ‘climate scientist’, could I again bemoan the fact that he is addressing issues in only speculative terms, which mostly tend to focus on CO2, whilst dismissing an entire body of work that he has not himself has neither studied nor published on.
Is it not possible to identify more objective researchers whose expert opinions may deviate from the CO2 consensus – whether it be drought or flood in question?
Sincere best wishes,
A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
Dean of Students
*****************************
I’ve given some background to Professor Frank’s work here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/time-to-reject-agw-%e2%80%93-and-bob-brown/
And on Tuesday morning, I received a phone call from Gerard at ABC (radio) Gippsland asking if I would put the alternative perspective on the recent flooding which he was keen to link with global warming; in particular what he referred to as the “wild weather” around the globe.
I explained, on air, that there was no correlation between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and flooding anywhere in Australia and that the best explained for the recent devastating flooding was inadequate infrastructure and warning systems in the face of a combination of La Nina conditions during a negative IPO, a monsoon trough and already saturated catchments.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
For ABC there read BBC here.
The approach and outcomes are exactly the same. Instead of impartial reporting of the facts and promoting debate between two opposing views, they appoint themselves judges of the truth and decide what we, the public, should be allowed to see and hear.
I strongly recommend everyone watches this short YouTube video which underlines my point…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cbWjJFgnqU
Mainstream media is biased and cannot be relied upon.
and i’ve just been advised that:
“Further to Prof Franks letter, I would like to point out that
there is considerable corroboration of Prof Franks in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature.
“A recent paper by a team of CSIRO scientists is but one example.
“Additionally, this CSIRO paper finds that the SEQ drought (like the
floods) has nothing to do with the IPCC hypothesis of man-made CO2
induced warming, but has everything to do with the joint dynamics of
two oscillating atmospheric/oceanic circulation systems identified by
Prof Franks: ENSO and PDO.
“All of this points to the need for the ABC to correct the erroneous
nonsense from Prof England who does not study widely outside his self-
imposed narrow confines of the IPCC mindset. It also points to the
need for quality investigative journalism from the ABC into the
science of ENSO/PDO, etc
“The ABC should invite Prof Franks to have a half hour programme in
which he would present the science about the climate of SEQ being
largely the result of ENSO/PDO dynamics.
“Here are the links:
http://www.csiro.au/news/SEQ-Drought.html
http://www.urbanwateralliance.org.au/publications/UWSRA-tr18.pdf
“Here’s a summary:
CSIRO study concludes recent SEQ drought likely caused by climate
variability rather than climate change
•
•
The recent South-East Queensland (SEQ) drought was likely caused by
shifts associated with climate variability over decades rather than
climate change, according to the findings of a team of CSIRO
researchers led by Dr Wenju Cai. The research team aimed to determine
whether the SEQ’s recent rainfall reductions were partly due to
climate change and, if so, whether dry conditions will occur there
more often in the future. CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation) is Australia’s national science
agency. The science team assessed the role of climate change by using
the same 24 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Their results show that the recent drought in SEQ is not
consistent with climate change projected by the models. Funded by the
SEQ Urban Water Security Research Alliance, the study’s findings were
published recently in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of
Climate. We found that, unlike in South-West Western Australia,
climate change plays little part in the SEQ rainfall reduction, but
cannot be ruled out. At this stage, renewal of a rain-generating
process with La Niña bringing higher rainfall to SEQ might be expected
to last for 10 to 20 years. Ongoing research is examining whether
increased temperatures linked to climate change in the future will
alter the frequency, intensity, and duration of drought. We are also
investigating if the rising temperature due to climate change has
played a part in the unprecedented low water storage level of the
recent drought and how climate change will impact on climate
variability.—Wenju Cai The study centred on the contribution to
rainfall by naturally occurring events such as El Niño and La Niña, as
well as a longer-lasting feature called the Interdecadal Pacific
Oscillation (IPO), and how these events may be influenced by future
climate change. SEQ is one of the wetter regions in Australia due to
its proximity to the world’s most intensive rainfall-band, located in
the Western Pacific. The rain-band, which is powered by the warmest
ocean surface temperature on the globe, moves eastward during El Niño
tending to decrease SEQ rainfall. During La Niña, the rain-band moves
westward leading to increased rainfall in SEQ. Many of the wettest
years for the region occurred in La Niña years such as 1956, 1971, and
1974. Much of the regional annual rainfall is recorded in summer. In
recent decades, SEQ summer rainfall has been significantly reduced. Up
until the drought breaking 2010 La Niña event, the SEQ water storage
level dropped to below 20%, the lowest level on record since data
collection began in 1890. The El Niño-La Niña relationship oscillates
over several decades, in tandem with the IPO, which has a somewhat
similar pattern to the El Niño-La Niña cycle but on a longer time
scale. Since 1980, the IPO has been in a phase similar to El Niño—
limiting the rainfall that La Niña brings to SEQ as a major rain-
generating mechanism. This is largely responsible for the recent
drought.—Wenju Cai As of 2010, the IPO appears to be moving to a phase
similar to La Niña. Resources Cai, Wenju, Peter van Rensch, Tim Cowan,
Arnold Sullivan (2010) Asymmetry in ENSO Teleconnection with Regional
Rainfall, Its Multidecadal Variability, and Impact. Journal of
Climate, 23, 4944–4955. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3501
It would appear the ABC’s response is to ignore that science in order to concentrate on unwarranted speculation and undue alarmism.
Not exactly the response required from a national broadcaster to a national disaster.
Reinforcing public ignorance will simply lead to less preparedness in dealing with extremes of climate variability.
Simply put, more Australians will die as a result of the institutional obsession with man-made climate change.
This is interesting (from p 15 of the report)
However, this does not exclude a co-impact from
climate change, because the majority of climate models do not simulate the observed ENSO-rainfall
teleconnection over the SEQ region. Thus, it is essential for climate models to realistically simulate
this rainfall teleconnection before they are used in attribution studies in ENSO-affected regions.
Maybe it’s time to remind Aunty of it’s own Code of Practice.
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf
I would start posting sections of the Code which they appear to have broken but there are far too many.
Climate Sceptics sent me this e mail during the week
The floods in Brisbane have had people claiming they are a result of global warming. See: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/
I looked up the flood deaths records and found these numbers:
“The death toll from Australian floods demonstrates the severity and constancy of severe floods. It includes 61 deaths at Clermont in 1961, 36 deaths in Melbourne in 1934, 22 deaths in Northern Tasmania in 1929, 14 deaths in the Hunter Valley in 1955, 14 deaths in Brisbane in 1974, 11 deaths in Brisbane 1893, 6 deaths in the Charleville and Nyngan floods in 1990, and 3 deaths at Katherine in 1998. Interestingly Brisbane’s biggest flood was in 1841.”
So should extra CO2 from the last 50 years be blamed for our floods? Clearly not because dangerous floods have always happened.
The ABC newsroom needs to be purged of zealots and all those so called journalists who think their audience came down in the last shower.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
The establishment know their message is a lie; for instance Peter Helman an AGW activist who has caused mischief in Byron Bay with claims of AGW accelerated sea rise wrote this official paper about climate change, sea level and the IPO in 2007; it completely contradicts the official AGW line and supports Franks:
http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc
This paper was first introduced by luke here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/sea-levels-can%E2%80%99t-rise-by-more-than-2-metres-by-2100/
Thank you luke!
When have enviro extremist claims, when researched, ever been shown to not be over-hyped or false?
for those who might have missed it; nice encapsulation of recent events, historical aspects and BOM records
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/bogus-claims-on-australia-and-brazilian-floods-from-abc-and-dr-richard-somerville/#more-31662
and an interesting historical comment on that page from Ian George
As far as Australia is concerned, our worst cyclone was in 1899, our longest heatwave was in 1923/4 and out hottest day was 1960. Our worst bushfire was in Vic in 1851 and our worst floods were in the early 1890s.
If you check the ONI history you can see the drought and flood histories are closely aligned to the table.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Only SE West Aust has been dry during this wet period. This also happened in 1974 when less than 30mm of rain fell in 5 months from Nov 1973 until March 1974 compared to 45mm for Nov, Dec and Jan this time. Same weather conditions, same result.
Check
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/flood7.htm
for the climate report from 1974.
Meredith Griffiths of the ABC’s AM program this morning gave Bob Carter almost the last word here:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3117917.htm
This might be a tipping point? Three cheers for Bob Carter!
and how much are we talking about – was it .07; I wish Prof Carter had mentioned that! But you can’t do everything in a short radio interview
You chaps should consider yourself very fortunate that Bob got to make those remarks without challenge! Goes to show the media is too busy to be across the detail,incredible as it may seem after all this time. We get one aye and one nay and on to another subject,false balance established.
Bob’s claims that a 5% increase in atmospheric CO2 hasn’t produced a rise in global temperature over twelve years,and therefore global warming hasn’t happened for this period. This is a classic piece of disinformation by omission,and disingenuity. The trend over the last thirty years,and the last 150, is up, with numerous ups and downs. The relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase has never been seen to be of one sign at short time scales,yet Bob doesn’t feel communicative enough to point this out.He’s done the 1998 cherry-pick once again,and another reporter has taken a bite. Does ten years of data get to tell you what is ‘dangerous’ in the long term? Bob,ever helpful,does not feel obliged to shed any light.
Bob gets to say that Michel Jarraud has no evidence for his statement about the likelyhood of extreme events increasing,despite studies that track this very fact. Foolish of Jarraud not to cite specifics…or were they edited out?
Bob gets to say he wasn’t surprised that last year was among the warmest on record,but never says why he wasn’t surprised. Incurious interviewing indeed,because if he was challenged to qualify that statement,it would have been interesting to hear how he could justify it. Weak solar
output? Strong La Nina folowing ordinary El Nino? Because SSTs are anomalously high,because of…what? Or was it hot because of the huge number of record daily and all-time national records set…IOW,it was hot because it was hot?
Goes to show Bob knows well how to make his impact in the media,even as he fails utterly in the literature.
Poly – you should be glad AB has his comments turned off or you would have been deluged if you’d posted on his blog.
As it happens you are right that CO2 has produced warming. It has produced about 0.25 C of warming since preindustrial times. This is consistent with 2XCO2 at 0.6 C as measured, empricially, by several separate studies. Technically this value is for all GG’s, and calculates to 0.29 C with the latest CO2 ppmv value (relative to a 280 ppmv baseline), so for CO2 I’ve knocked a bit off for the methane and N2O. If you check this 2XCO2 value against the temperature record you will find this value fits, and the IPCC values do not by country miles.
Furthermore as you well know La Nina tends to be much more common in the downward phase of the PDO/IPO, and also stronger. 1974 was wet for a reason, which I fondly remember because of the floods we didn’t have to go to school! We are in the same phase of the PDO now. This is no surprise to me because the PDO again fits the data very well as a 65 year cycle with sinusoidal amplitude of about 0.14 C. It also fits the temperature record well, as GCM’s seem unable to.
Thirdly we have solar activity in a deep snooze. Last time this happened at this intensity it caused global cooling of around 1.5 C. Which is a lot. Again it is no surprise that this la Nina should be so sharp and so deep, and that the northern hemisphere be covered with so much snow the last two winters, which the GCM’s did not predict. They did not predict these events because they have the wrong thermodynamic parameters entered into them.
If you got out your spreadsheet like I did and fit these parameters to the temperature record you’ll find it fits very very well. You need to look at the data objectively and scientifically to do that. I hope that Prof Karoly can overcome his political basis sufficiently to do this objective analysis, since if he does not he will continue to find himself chasing climate not predicting it.
Poly, you have it arse about, the ABC news editors and producers have structured the story. From my experience in the trade Bob would have said more, but they left it out for the sake of brevity.
Most importantly, being an ABC shareholder, it is gratifying to see Aunty slowly coming to hers senses.
The ideal news editor at the ABC would allow open (heated) debate, it sells. At the same time giving each side the opportunity to question the science with confronting stories.
Steven Goddard points to the fact that Antarctica is not having its usual summer break.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sfctmpmer_01a-fnl-30-27.gif
Why is it so and does it mean a build-up of icebergs in the southern ocean?
It’s about time Aunty did her civil duty and informed the public, in a balanced way, that the science is not settled.
Jen,
I just emailed you a bit of evidence on SLR including a photo of today’s king tide [highest tide for a year] against my 48 yo benchmark.
Even with la Nina and increased trade winds, SLs are 300 mm lower than 48 years ago.
You’re welcome to post the email if you wish.
Not sure if it has occurred to those who claim AGW will cause more frequent floods of the type we have just witnessed but there is little doubt that these episodes of drought breaking high rainfall , right down the east coast are just what the doctor ordered.
Apart from the tragedy of the lives lost in the 2011 floods, these rains are overwhelmingly beneficial in restoring the health of waterways and providing sub soil moisture that will be a great positive for agricultural activities for a few years to come.
Given that reality and to make sure this bounty continues should we not be upping our use fossil fuels whilst ensuring that we maximise the mass of CO2 emitted per unit of power produced.
That we are also promised more frequent droughts must mean, given the propagators of this good news do not use an AGW dependent arithmetic, that droughts and floods will be closer together i.e. shorter droughts followed by great rains and thus we may not have to build too many more dams. A win win outcome by any measure.
The 2010 South East Queeensland Water Strategy was based on the proposition that drought will become more common under AGW.
‘The Millennium Drought is now behind us. Our water supply is now secure, due to SEQ dams currently at or near full capacity and due to the range of measures that were adopted as part of the drought response.’
http://www.qwc.qld.gov.au/planning/pdf/seqws-full.pdf
Blinded by flawed models they weren’t happy to release a drop unnecessarily. Rains had been predicted, but surely…
Forget the past and you will be condemned to repeat it.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/csiro-queensland%e2%80%99s-drought-wasn%e2%80%99t-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming%e2%80%9d-nor-these-floods-either/
I know this a journalist but on the other hand there needs to be more investigative journos
and I haven’t heard from Tim Flannery for a while
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/csiro-queensland%e2%80%99s-drought-wasn%e2%80%99t-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming%e2%80%9d-nor-these-floods-either/
I like this bit
I guess that when it comes to listening to a Karoly, it depends on whether you listen to him back when he was predicting droughts, or now when he says he predicted these floods:
Professor Karoly stressed individual events could not be attributed to climate change. However, he said the wild extremes being experienced on the continent were in keeping with scientists’ forecasts of more flooding associated with increased heavy rain events and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation.
AND here’s the warmest year claim
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/wmo-2010-warmest-but-no-statistically-significant-difference-between-global-temperatures-in-2010-2005-and-1998/#more-32101
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.
interview with Prof Carter included
What are we arguing about 0.53 C above the 1961-90 mean
and check this comment by R. de Haan
The Global Warming Doctrine, the illusion of pending climate disaster, saw the light in Germany for the first time in 1986, during a dramatic press conference organized by the German Physics Society. Now 25 years later, 25 UN Climate Conferences with nothing to show for and billions of dollars of wasted tax funding, we are still waiting for the announced climate disaster to strike. The Climate armageddon of unprecedented rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, super storms, expanding deserts, collapsing eco systems and mass migration of climate refugees only exists in the UN climate propaganda pushed by our MSM and the faulty climate models from a few activist scientists, see ClimateGate and WUWT. In the real world our ice caps are doing fine, ocean levels are slightly sinking, temperatures are normal since 1880, we still have our winters, accumulated cyclonic energy is low, deserts have not expanded and we haven’t seen any climate refugees from collapsing eco systems other than those driven from their lands to make place for palm oil farms.
I think it’s important every time someone like Prof Carter talks about warming he should give an amount
And I think every time Swan talks about the deficit he should tell us how much we’re borrowing each day at the moment and what the interest on that – in June last year we were paying $100 million per day interest
which is the figure which scares you the most
well, I’m getting out; I’ve posted that on Deltoid; we’ll see what happens
I got a nibble
You know val, I wish that just once in a while someone really well-informed would come along.
so I’ve asked ‘in what respect should I be better informed’
still waiting for an answer
but ‘nose to the grindstone’ – I’ve got to leave that hotbed of entertainment tonight
Interesting to see a measure of enthusiasm from various skeptical types surrounding the suggestion that global warming effects can be explained in terms of PDOs, and pleas for better informed contribution.
Even more interesting to find that the guy who did so much to bring PDO patterns to light while studying marine life patterns etc, one Steven Hare, is also the co-author of a paper for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (tut-tut) dealing with issues a good deal wider than those involved in PDOs (and you’d think he’d know a bit about PDOs and their measured effects), and specifying problems involved for coastal and marine ecosystems.
If Steven Hare is allowed to be so right about PDOs that they these phenomena can somehow be “adopted” as the “real” major cause of climate variations, why is he not also right in suggesting that what we are seeing is something which actually goes beyond PDOs and can only be explained by reference to — wait for it — CO2 emissions ?
val
Be careful, Deltoidian zealots have a nasty disposition and will attack you. Unless you are thick skinned, that viper’s den is a place to visit and not comment.
Stuart Franks’ complaint to the ABC appears to have done some good.
The 21 January AM program featured a story “2010 one of the hottest on record” (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3117917.htm) in which WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud stated:
The sceptical position, it’s untenable. You cannot escape the fact the concentration of greenhouse gases have reached record levels and this is not hypothesis these are facts, they can be measured with great accuracy.
The laws of physics are also very solid, greenhouse gases cannot contribute to cool the atmosphere, more greenhouse gases can only do one thing: warm. …
MICHEL JARRAUD: With the global warming, some of these events will become more frequent, or more intense. So let me take for example, the Russian heat wave. You cannot say uniquely it’s due to global warming, but what you can say is that what is right now totally exceptional will happen more frequently in the future
I almost fell off my chair, when AM reporter MEREDITH GRIFFITHS followed with: “Geologist Bob Carter from James Cook University says Mr Jerraud has no evidence for that.
BOB CARTER: Lots of scientists have been looking for that evidence but to date there is nothing in the scientific literature which says we have more climatic emergency events at the moment than in the past or that these are more frequent or more dangerous. There is no scientific evidence for that.
MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says it’s not surprising that last year was one of the warmest, but says that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are the blame. …
PeterM,
This same thing happened when eugenics corrupted academia and progressives about 100 years ago.
A scientist might find something of use regarding evolution or medicine, but it was framed by eugenics.
The problem is that Steven Hare, by claiming that the current rains are only explainable by CO2, ignores the evidence that shows these rains Australia is suffering from are not unusual historically.
So he found a mechanism- the PDO – but due to his prejudice has to ignore history and add the dogma of CO2.
This is a sad but common human trait for those caught up in social manias like AGW.
I suppose we could go on chin wagging here for the next 10 years and we still couldn’t convince the bedwetters that the past 30 years of weather wasn’t unprecedented or unusual.
Most of that time we have been in positive Warm IPO with the usual higher number of El ninos compared to la ninas.
Naturally we would expect lower rainfall and higher temps over that period, just like the previous period of 1920 to 1940.
The IOD negative higher rainfall cool phase does not seem to be unusual from 1992 to 2008 either and the BOM actually shows another negative IOD in 1996 as well.
In fact a count of the UNSW IOD summary shows six positive ( dry) years from 1885 to 1900, just 15 years and only three positives from 1995 to 2008.
The count from 1880 to a mid point of 1940 shows 11 +IODs and six negative IODs.
The count from 1940 to 2008 shows 9 + IODs and 8- IODs.
Also the extreme + IOD years show nearly 5 + IOds in just 11 years from 1885 to 1896, much more than anytime in the second half of the record.
The IOD effects Se Aust and for this reason we’ve had much higher rainfall in the MDB over the 1949 to 2010 part of the record than the period 1895 to 1948, helped of course by the negative IPO from 1946 to 1976.
UNSW IOD summary here.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-drought/
When I got up this morning it was overcast and windy, cool enough for a jumper yet the ABC was telling me that the temp of the hour was exactly average.
Jumper weather in mid January exactly average???
They not only deny the evidence, they are complicit with the BoM in making stuff up.
Monckton works out how much difference Australia would make in reducing world temp.
About 0.001C as it turns out, we may as well flush those billions down the dunny.
We’re being led by useless, hopeless donkeys.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/well_spend_billions_to_stop_0001_degrees_of_warming_by_2050/
Monckton – ROFL !- http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/monckton-skewers-truth/#more-3289
Hope you’re all enjoying the record Greenland melt “New Melt Record for Greenland Ice Sheet; ‘Exceptional’ Season Stretched Up to 50 Days Longer Than Average”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144011.htm
Hey weren’t you guys telling me we’re in a bone crushing ice age? ROFL ^^ 2
Steven Goddard says there has been a drop in sea level during this ‘new melt record’. Don’t know, it’s worth a search, but Antarctica is far more interesting.
‘A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.’
We may be looking in the wrong direction for the start of the mini ice age.
There is nothing to be alarmed about, it’s natural variability.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/images.aspx?ID=14366#3508
Some interesting facts about MDB rainfall that you won’t see quoted in the MSM.
1. Average rainfall from 1922 to 1946 ( 25 years) = 409mm.
2.Average rainfall from 1895 to 1946 ( 52 years) = 430mm.
3. Average rainfall from 1895 to 1904 ( 10 years ) = 408mm.
4. Average rainfall from 1935 to 1944 ( 10 years ) = 402mm.
5. Average rainfall from 2000 to 2009 ( 10 years ) = 421mm— all the fuss is about this period.
6. Average rainfall from 1986 to 2010 ( 25 years ) = 481mm.
7. Average rainfall last 10 years 2001 to 2010 = 445mm.
Just to repeat we’ve had higher average rainfall ( 15mm more ) over the MDB in the last 10 years than the entire 52 year period 1895 to 1946. ( 52 years)
‘Sea Ice ‘
I love that phrase, and no one seems to get it.
They think that if all that Sea Ice melts, it will raise the sea levels.
If it’s already in the sea, displacing what it already is, then melting it totally will not raise the sea level at all.
If most of the land mass of Antarctica never even gets close to Zero degrees C, then that ice will never melt either.
98% of Antarctica is land mass and only 2% is in the water surrounding that land mass. On the land mass, that ice there, always well below Zero C, is up to 5Km thick.
I know it’s one of my own Posts, (bad form I suppose) and it is from 12 months ago, but I just wondered about it out loud and then at the Post.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/the-problem-with-melting-polar-ice/
But then, I guess I’m totally wrong, as usual.
(Oh!, and yes, I have read about the Greenland Ice Sheet)
Tony.
Here is that MDB data from bom, 1900 to 2010.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/mdb/latest.txt
The 1900 to 1949 average is 438mm. from this data.
Keep spinning it guys ….
Well of course Antarctic “sea ice” is expanding. It’s what you’d predict.
Looks like the Indians won’t be fooled by groupthink either.
You know the groupthink fantasy, that if change the co2 content of the atmosphere by 0.01% you’ll get uncontrolable CAGW.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_consensus_kimo_sabe/
Luke, “Keep spinning it guys ”
The only distaff in use around here is in your possession!
Jen’s story here is disturbing on so many levels. Aside from the media deliberating skewing the public’s understanding (already nicely discussed in other comments), we have academics speaking outside their particular area of expertise – if the ABC wanted to know about brain tumours would they seek expert advice from a podiatrist?
Got to question the ethics here, and the lid really does need to be blown on this! What would the general public’s response be if they knew how their understanding was being manipulated? My understanding of human nature is that people don’t like knowing they’ve been deceived. Tends to make them angry.
I came across the work of Franks after reading D’Aleo and Easterbrook. So it’s great to find this site where this is being discussed. Have tried a number of times to write comments in the Australian re the PDO/IDO and how that can help us understand recent weather phenomena, but if I mention this they won’t publish my comments……, but they will publish hysterical comments blaming Co2, mining, big business…. Having said that, at least the Australian is at last attempting more balanced coverage.
Since this is the first time I’ve commented here, some general feedback. Love Jen’s informative articles and enjoy reading the comments, the great links and my reading list recently got longer. Thanks.
sorry guys I’ve been off the air since last night; I’ve had a death in the family (nothing to do with the floods but nothing unexpected either)
but great to read the most recent comments and Luke I’ll be in fighting spirit again soon
My sympathies and all the best val.
thanks so much cohenite;
now so far as I recall (but I’m probably wrong and if so then you guys will correct me) we’ve had about .07 C rise since 1968
there’s a paper by Dr Frank which has been on Warwick Hughes blog for a while and is now on WUWT
TO quote Anthony Watts There are some enlightening things to learn about the simple act of reading a liquid in glass (LIG) thermometer that I didn’t know as well as some long term issues (like the hardening of the glass) that have values about as large as the climate change signal for the last 100 years ~0.7°C
check out on http://wattsupwiththat.com/
or on Warwick Hughes blog (and you can get a copy of the paper there by asking Dr Frank)
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780
Luke – you do know that the Greenland ice melting paper was a computer modelling study funded by the WWF?
The AFP version mentions the modelling:
Link
If you saw an investment bank come out with a press release to say that a computer model found that AAA rated subprime mortgages were an excellent investment what would you think?
I prefer real data and some practical science. Nowadays it is all there on the internet, you can graph the CET or the temperature in Darwin to hearts content. Fairly fast you find that IPCC model cases just do not fit the data. The PDO/AMO plus solar cycle intensity/length plus just a sprinkling of CO2 does fit. Solar cycle intensity/length is the biggie. No GCM’s were hurt during the making of this hypothesis.
I agree wholeheartedly with Bruce.
Luke, just note the difference in language and approach, the intelligence and articulation. Your side has nothing and will lose the debate when we eventually get equal time in the msm.
Bruce of Newcastle – as is common with faux sceptics you have misrepresented the paper. Try what we call ‘reading it”.
Here is the Tedesco et al. paper.
http://www.cryocity.org/
That didn’t work too well, but here is part of the conclusion which supports the proposition that natural variability is at work.
‘Viewed in this context, the unusually warm conditions over the Greenland ice sheet in 2010 and reduced snowfall, can be related to persistence of a 500 hPa high ridge from late spring through summer. Averaged for May through August, 500 hPa heights were above normal over all of Greenland, with the largest anomalies of up to 80 m over the south-central ice sheet.
‘This anomalous ridge was associated with 700 hPa temperature anomalies over south-central Greenland of up to +3ºC. The ridge and associated 700 hPa temperature anomaly was best expressed in May and August, coinciding with near-surface air temperature records.’
Back on topic, the ABC is straddling the fence. There will be more natural disasters because of ‘climate change’.
Professor Peter Grace from the Queensland University of Technology said ‘we will have increased frequency of quite major events similar to what we had, particularly the flooding event in South-East Queensland.
‘It means a bipartisan approach to climate change.’
‘Without that we are not going to go much further in terms of preparing ourselves for climate change in the future.’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/23/3119109.htm?site=brisbane
Irrational and biased, we have our work cut out for us.
Prof Karoly figured in a number of climategate emails, if memory serves, and while there was nothing wrong or even merely smelly about that particular correspondence, one would pray that the Paragon of Parkville has not acquired bad manners by association. The East Anglia boys were shown fond of filing complaints with their critics’ superiors, of corridor assassination and peer-review muggings. It would be sad, very sad, if a fine and respected man of science were to be prosecuting the same sort of backdoor offensive against Stewart Franks.
Just to to be assured that he is indeed the very model of a straight and dispassionate seeker of truth that the ABC so often presents, are any posters aware if Karoly has gone bitching about Franks to third parties, perhaps demanding that he be spanked by a superior and, most likely, ordered to apologise?
If Karoly were to embrace an even more base cause, to forego debate and proceed straight to legal action, well, that would tell us all we need to know of the man’s faith in his case and, perhaps more important, his character.
Any gossip of whispers on this point would be much appreciated.
Bunyip
There is no conspiracy here, it’s just that the whole newsroom has swallowed the green pill. This goes back to the days when Flummery was camped at Gore Hill.
Aunty is very sensitive to criticism, so any court case involving Karoly and Franks will see the ABC deservedly embroiled.
It has become painfully obvious that the BBC has been in bed with the Guardian for many a year, whereas the ABC is naturally biased.