- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


January 2012
« Dec   Feb »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Annual Climate Statement: Australian Bureau of Meteorology

“2011 was another wet year for Australia, with data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology showing that the Australian mean rainfall total for 2011 was 699 mm (234 mm above the long-term average of 465 mm), placing the year at the third-wettest since comparable records began in 1900. Back-to-back La Niña events led to a two-year rainfall total of 1402 mm which is the second-highest total on record behind 1407 mm in 1973-74.

“The 2010-11 La Niña, one of the strongest on record, continued to dominate climate patterns during the first part of 2011 before decaying in autumn. A second La Niña developed in spring 2011 and, although weaker than the first event, was associated with rainfall significantly above average across much of the country. It is likely that a record warm eastern Indian Ocean also contributed to above average rainfall in 2011.

“From January to March, rainfall was generally very much above average in most areas, and April was rather wet over the north of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Falls greater than 300 mm across much of the tropical north led to the wettest March on record for Australia as a whole, with average rainfall of 149 mm topping the previous 1989 record by 23 mm. The period from May to September (when La Niña had receded) saw rainfall below average for most of the country. October was very wet in the western half of the country, with Western Australia experiencing its third-wettest October on record. November rainfall was above average for most of the country, while December was wet for the southwest and parts of Queensland. For the year as a whole, the majority of Australia received above average rainfall; the only regions with below-average rain were patches of southwest Western Australia, western Tasmania and pockets of New South Wales and southeast Queensland.

“The Australian area-averaged mean temperature in 2011 was 0.14 °C below the 1961 to 1990 average of 21.81 °C. This was the first time since 2001 (also a wet, La Niña year) that Australia’s mean annual temperature was below the 1961-90 average. Even though, when taken over the whole country, the mean temperature was below average, the southern half of Australia was warmer than usual.

“In 2011, maximum temperatures averaged 0.25 °C below normal across the country, while minima averaged 0.03 °C below normal. Contrasting this, the global mean temperature in 2011 was the highest for any year which began with a La Niña. Australia was one of the few places on the globe to experience cooler than average temperatures in 2011.
Despite the slightly cooler conditions in Australia in 2011, the country’s 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52 °C above the long-term average…

Read more at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website:


118 Responses to “Annual Climate Statement: Australian Bureau of Meteorology”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. Comment from: Robert

    Debs, every week I eat some of the rice from out your way. I have a lot of bamboo shoots, and I’m fond of mixing them with your brown, white, Arborio, jasmine, sushi or Deniliquin wild. Love the wild! What guts it must have taken to develop that from scratch.

    I see where Japan subsidises rice at $2643.00 per tonne. They really should make like the EU and USA, which keep the subsidies down to triple figures.

    Of course, there is one developed country which subsidises rice at $0.00 per tonne, only picking up drought aid etc. Incredibly, the Pensive Classes of that country think it would be a good idea to ditch their rice industry because of its enviro-naughtiness. The same deep thinkers want to tax domestic coal consumption because of its enviro-naughtiness. Rice is best imported, somehow purified of its enviro-naughtiness during long ocean transport. Meanwhile, wealth is to be generated by exporting 75% of that country’s massive coal production. Presumably, once offshore, it loses all its enviro-naughtiness and becomes something called a vital export industry.

    I think that country should stop subsidising its deep thinkers and make sure it’s got a large and very productive food belt. When its deep thinkers find a way to make money or coal as edible and as tasty as Deniliquin Wild Rice…they can give up driving taxis and have their subsidies back.

  2. Comment from: Debbie

    Thanks Robert :-)
    your total previous rant still does not change the fact that your blatantly dismissive comments about tax expenditure and tax drains are completely and demonstrably incorrect.
    I get it that you are emotionally opposed to Agriculture and you have been convinced(also incorrectly) that all of us out here are environmental hazards, but, it still doesn’t change the economic reality.
    Also Luke, go back and check those figures. Yes, we grow rice here but just little old hokey us also produce wheat, canola, oats, barley, fat lambs, wool and hay. The area also produces wine grapes, citrus, cotton, nuts, fat cattle,corn, sunflower, soya beans, faba beans, potatoes, pumpkins, melons, tomatoes and that list goes on and on and on.
    Despite your emotional and incorrect rants, over the last 100 years we have also greatly enhanced the environment and created MORE opportunities for our native ephemeral wetland species, both plant and animal, to thrive.
    We are fully aware that it has not been perfect but in general it is a good and proud history.
    Whether you are prepared to admit it or not, it is also a part of the reason why Australia is a lucky country and that you have a well protected life.
    We are proud or what wehave achieved and personally I am completely sick and tired of the negative, pseudo inequalityintellectual

  3. Comment from: Debbie

    technical hitch,
    I am tired of the negative, pseudo intellectual, divisive often manipulatively incorrect and often downright rude arguments that you advance.
    As far as the climate goes? We do not claim we know it all. That’s the point. We are claiming that none of us know it all.
    Us great uneducated unwashed out here deal with the vagaries of climate year in and year out. We actually like the work that BoM etc does and we certainly use it BUT and this is very important, we are fully aware that it is an inexact science and quite often wrong and we do not stake all our decisions and our lives on it.
    We therefore do not believe it is either wise or economically sound to stake Australia’s political agenda on projective climate modelling.

  4. Comment from: Luke

    ooooo – ooooo – but what about my wild rice !! oooo – oooo

    all that angst, massive subsidies, closed markets and enviro degradation so aficionado Robby can enjoy his boutique “wild rice” when he shouldn’t be such a pansy and chomping through a bloody big steak. We need help destocking the oversupply in the rangelands. “Wild friggin rice” indeed – sounds very sus and organic to me.

    “Enhanced the environment” – pigs botty. It’s a drain Debs. A carp infested ditch. Filled with nutters on jet skis and power boats.

    Some consumer perspective

  5. Comment from: Debbie

    And after reading that rant,
    I need do nothing more than say. . . I rest my case :-)
    People like me are not your mortal enemy Luke. Neither are we the mortal enemy of the environment.
    I feel sorry for you that you think we are.
    You seriously, truly really seriously need to yank your head out of your computer and come and visit and see if you can find the place you just described.
    Your comment and your description was a classic case of hyperbole.
    At no time have we ever claimed that everything has been done perfectly.
    We learn by our mistakes and we also must be humble enough to admit we make some.
    I notice you are still reticent to admit yours?
    Let me remind you :-)
    Agriculture is a net economic benefit to Ausralia’s GDP. It does not matter how big or small or whether it is rising or declining, the bottom line is that it has never been a tax drain.
    While some industries and areas have been bailed out at times the complete economic figure is that Australian Agriculture remains on the positive side of the economic ledger.
    Rant and make rude dismissive comments all you like.
    They do not change the facts.

  6. Comment from: Luke

    especially for Robert from Wattsy !!

    A physicist says:

    January 8, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Poking around a bit, I found an on-line manuscript by one David Archibald:

    Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States
    David Archibald
    International Conference on Climate Change
    March, 2008
    Can we expect relationships between the Sun’s activity and climate, that we can
    see in data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years?

    With absolute certainty.

    … 2008 is the tenth anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature in 1998. The world
    has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then. My prediction is that this rate of
    cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum
    sometime in 2009.

    David, it’s now been almost four years since your March 2008 predictions … is there (as yet) any evidence in the global temperature record that those predictions were correct?

    Heck, even here on WUWT, Bob Tisdale has substantially replicated the Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) finding that when cyclic trends are subtracted, the underlying trend is strikingly warming.

    As everyone knows, North America is now experiencing one of its warmest, most snow-free winters in history … wholly contrary to your 2008 prediction. How many more months-and-years of warming will be required to convince you that sunspot-driven climate models perhaps are … well … just plain wrong?

  7. Comment from: Robert

    Here’s a link, by the way, to Deniliquin’s wild rice operation. Magnificent, gutsy stuff.

    Another area we could stop subsidising is ham-fisted ABC comedy. Do we need any more aging teenie-boppers with their campy, mommy’s-boy sarcasm?

  8. Comment from: Robert

    Luke, thank you for reminding me to check the Watts site. (Okay if I don’t say “Lukey” and “Wattsy”?). Some interesting to-and-fro there, though I’m a little suspicious, as you know, of boffins and their predictions.

    By the way, how goes the search for the “dozen doyens of doom” who predicted an ice age by late 2011? I’d LOVE to nail that lot, if you can track them down.

  9. Comment from: Neville

    Interesting post from Jo Nova’s site about the latest big scare waiting in the wings to scare the alarmists.

    It seems ocean acidification is happening naturally all the time and on a hourly/daily basis in some areas.

    Let the studies go on by all means but leave out the nonsense until we understand a lot more of the science.

  10. Comment from: Debbie

    OH NO Luke!
    Even more incorrect predictions.
    Seems to me that out of the many 1000s that climate scientists have made they may have occasionally got about 4% absolutely correct.
    I hate to break this very sad news to you.
    Just because you can prove what you see as ‘the other side’ is not right does not prove that you are.
    Seriously Luke, as far as probabilty and projections go I could be just as successful flipping a coin!
    As always, my point and as far as I can see the main point of the ‘sceptic’ argument is that even though we know more about climate and weather patterns now than we did 20 years ago, the science is far too inexact to be used to create government policy.
    Catastrophic human induced climate change theory is still largely a theory.
    It IS NOT ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’ and as time moves on it is increasingly likely that manmade C02 is not the driver that the theory hypothesised.
    Emerging real time data still indicates we are in a general warming phase but that Human C02 signal is getting progressively weaker. Please note I sensibly used the word ‘indicates’ and not ‘proves’. That is because it is madness to pretend we can absolutely prove anything about our climate with methods that are still largely inexact.
    But still we have a political agenda completely tethered to that progressively weakening signal.

  11. Comment from: Luke

    Twaddle Debs. The most intelligent contrarians all put 2 x CO2 at 1 degree C.

    Energy has to go somewhere.

    Feedbacks are the debating point.

    And you yourself have not even read the science on the detective chase for what is happening in your region. This is not about “predictions” Debs – this is about mechanistic understanding. You’re so sure it’s all rubbish yet you’re able to string a sentence together about the research work. I suppose you’ll be telling me that they’re doing that research coz they’re all lefties.

  12. Comment from: Debbie

    This is most certainly about failed projective modelling Luke.
    Take a little stroll back through the majority of the comments you have posted at this blog and others you frequent….and we discover you spend most of your time defending the veracity of projective modelling….do we not?
    If it was truly about mechanistic understanding you would not hear me complaining.
    I so deeply wish that it was about a genuine attempt to further our knowledge about the mechanics of the climate….I know it once was… before it bcame so political.
    Unlike you, I do not believe this has anything whatsoever to do with Labor/Green politics vs Liberal/National politics.
    I think one of the major problems is that all of it has become way too political….and it matters very little which ‘side’ we’re talking about.
    Unlike you, I also believe that humans are actually a part of the environment, not its mortal enemy.
    Unlike you, I think that most of the time we get things right rather than wrong.
    You like to focus solely on the fact that mistakes have been made and then use convoluted logic, hyperbole and ‘environmental politics’ to claim that we’re all doomed and it is only supremely knowledgeable and highly intellectual people like you who could ever hope to understand the complexities of life and the horrible mess that you see we have all made of this world.
    Like I said before, my primary response is that I feel sorry for you. It must be hard work to feel forever responsible for preaching doom and catastrophe…it must eventually negatively affect your general attitude.
    I guess that would be why you then go about projecting your attitude onto people like me and assuming you know what I think in terms of politics????
    Just so it’s out there Luke…I care absolutely zip about either left or right politics. I always vote on policy platforms. So…at the moment….what you see as ‘your side’ does not get my vote.
    Their policies re my world and my livelihood and their attempts to implement them are absolutley woeful. They have completely deserted the world of common sense in favour of unsustainable and impractical legislation that uses the environment as an excuse.
    That doesn’t then automatically mean I disagree with evrything they have done BTW….if you try to claim that….you would be projecting again.

  13. Comment from: Luke

    “This is most certainly about failed projective modelling” utter drivel

    “It must be hard work to feel forever responsible for preaching doom and catastrophe…it must eventually negatively affect your general attitude.” … more drivel and verballing

  14. Comment from: cohenite

    I can’t find Bob Tisdale confirming F&R at WUWT; what I can find is Frank Lansner tearing apart F&R’s attempt to isolate AGW temperature trend:

    It’s a long post so to save luke time, Frank concludes:

    “F&R appear seems to assume that temperature impacts on Earth only has impact while occurring, not after. If you heat up a glass of water, the heat wont go away instantly after removing the heat source, so to assume this for this Earth would need some documentation.

    Only “correcting” for the instant fraction of a temperature impact and not impacts after ended impact gives a rather complex dataset with significant random appearing errors and thus, the resulting F&R “adjusted data” for temperatures appears useless. At least until the long term effect of temperature changes has been established in a robust manner.

    Further, it seems that the PDO, Nin3,4 and Solar activities are related, and just by using the simplest mathematics (done to PDO) these can explain recent development in temperatures on Earth. The argument that “CO2 is needed to explain recent temperature trends” appears to be flat wrong.
    Thus “correcting” for PDO/Nina3,4 long term effect might remove heat trend of temperature data all together.
    Solar activity is shown to be an important driver PDO/Nino3,4 and thus climate.
    Finally, can we then use temperature data without the above adjustment types?
    Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed.
    Should one adjust just for Nino3,4 this lacks long time effects of Nina3,4 and more it does not remove flat trend from the recent decade of Hadcrut temperature data.”

  15. Comment from: Debbie

    BTW Luke?
    If you want to call it verballing, feel free if it does anything to make you feel better :-)
    I did specifically notice that amidst all your blustering and hyperbole you have not conceded that your offhanded and dismissive comment about Australian Agriculture being a terrible financial burden on intelligent society and a tax drain is probably ….errr…. utter drivel ?? :-)

  16. Comment from: el gordo

    Thanks for that cohenite, very useful knowledge.

  17. Comment from: el gordo

    BoM’s seasonal forecast is for warmer conditions in the south east of Australia.

    It’s not too early to say they got it wrong again. They mention La Nina and the IOD in their calculations, but not a word on SAM.

  18. Comment from: Debbie

    Just can’t resist, even though this thread is probably too old….it’s on topic.
    Of course it’s a wiggle wobble Luke
    But what do you know?
    In complete contrast to your post and exaggerated claims less than a week ago :-)

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All