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

  1. handjive January 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Warwick Hughes has the un adulterated truth:

    BoM predicted heat late 2011 – another BoM utter failure

  2. kuhnkat January 5, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Here and I though the Climate Modellers were predicting droughts for Australia forever if we didn’t cut back on CO2. Did anyone notice CO2 dropping???

  3. cohenite January 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Really dreadful; climate policy in this country is based on rubbish; Braganza says ocean temps are the warmest on record for the last 2 years:

    Jones hat-tips the old adage of its not what you say but what you don’t by saying:

    “the Bureau of Meteorology says Australia was the only continent to record cooling and the nation’s 10-year temperature average trend was still up.”

    No, it isn’t, even if you take the BOM’s adjusted temps; as for being the only continent to record cooling with the implication that world temperature must be increasing over the last 10 years:

    So, if Australia were the only continent to record cooling the warming in the other continents must have been far less than the cooling in Australia for Australia’s cooling to produce global cooling.

    What a pack of drivel.

  4. Debbie January 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Good one Cohenite!

    ‘So, if Australia were the only continent to record cooling the warming in the other continents must have been far less than the cooling in Australia for Australia’s cooling to produce global cooling.’

    That just about sums up the convoluted logic we’re being subjected to.

  5. John Sayers January 5, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    That’s embarrassing – what the!!

  6. Graham January 5, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Jen, I’m not sure why the bureau was being so bullish on heat. I spent a few idle moments the other day graphing rainfall against temperature to see what the likely effect of last year’s rain would be on temperature. It was uncanny. There is an inverse relationship between rainfall and temperature, as you can see at I heard Stewart Franks talking about rainfall and temperature about a year ago, which is what prompted me to do the plot. La Nina also tends towards stronger onshore winds as well on the Eastern Coast.

    Warwick Hughes compares BOM forecasts which were “bullish” for heat with what actually happened. We know the models don’t deal with with cloud formation, but perhaps they neglect the entire hydrological cycle more severely than that.

  7. Neville January 5, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Steven Goddard has a list about as long as your arm and graphs and charts to back it up.

    Pretty good report card, so what is all the mad panic about? One thing you can bet your house on, Aussies will change the climate and temp by sweet fanny adams with our barking mad co2 tax.

    But by hell we will export jobs and industry biiigggg time to our competitors overseas at a cost of countless billions $ to the poor Aussie taxpayer.

    Why can’t we have a responsible, decent and intelligent govt like the Harper govt in Canada?

  8. gavin January 5, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    Pity you guys can’t read properly a report prepared for the general public. It clearly shows an upwards temperatur trend

    It also says

    “The past ten years (2002-2011) has seen the warmest 10-year averaged SSTs in the Australian region since 1910”

    illustrated here

    So, what are you on about cohenite? with that crapy unauthorised stuff in your links. I see you got three cheers from Deb

  9. Luke January 5, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    It’s just a bloody big La Nina year. But let’s play games

    Oh look it’s warming ! Never trust a lawyer.

  10. John Sayers January 5, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    you guys are pathetic…. get real pluu…..leese

  11. cohenite January 5, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    gav, have some warm weetbix; luke, what a fudge! Jones said in the last 10 years; that’s back to 2002 NOT 2000.

  12. Neville January 5, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Well Luke let’s take the last 14 years 1998 to 2012 then. It shows a drop in temp from RSS and level for HAD, rather stuffs up your argument.

    But even if we take RSS from 1980 to 2012 the data point finishes about the same as it starts over that 32 year period. So you’re back to where you started .

  13. gavin January 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    Nev;you got a silly argument there. Who is to say 2007 > 2017 won’t be another mountain climb?

  14. Mick In The Hills January 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    And so the band plays on with the warming / cooling tango.

    What a frivolous distraction from real-life issues!

    People, we have lives to live, jobs to do, kids to raise, things to build.

    Let’s just consign this whole climate change topic to the garbage tip it deserves, and let the forces of nature go about their business as they are wont to do. We’ll find ways to adapt to it.

    We humans are as dispensible to planet Earth just as Bob Brown wants us to be (but for different reasons).

    Who cares if the temp goes up or down by a poofteenth of a beesdick over the next 100 yeras? Nobody who lives & works in the real world will notice.

  15. Robert January 5, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    The trick is to keep implying that La Nina is a climatic deus-ex-machina, a chance intervention or masking factor, responsible for any cooling. One does not SAY it, of course, since the absurdity would be too apparent. There could hardly be widespread cooler and wetter conditions in Eastern Oz without certain causative and/or accompanying conditions across the Pacific. Needless to say, those big wets and cooler temps of the fifties and seventies were accompanied by major La Nina events, but if the punters don’t ask…why mention it?

    In this age of GetUp, it’s all in the wording, the spin, the smoothing, the rounding, the juggling, the gotcha. Did you know, for example, that Michael Clarke has just scored his lowest number of test runs in a single innings for the year 2012?

  16. gavin January 5, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    Rob; Deb and cohenite are right with you there!

  17. Neville January 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Gav I’ll let you live in your future fantasy land, but I’m more concerned with record of temp that we know about and has been measured.

    Those three measurements of temp show exactly what I claimed and only a dill like you wouldn’t understand.

    If you take out the lowering of temp from the 2 volcanoes in the earlier part of that 32 year record then the change would even be less in 2012.

  18. hunter January 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    The AGW believers and parasites claim they predicted, in hindsight of course, that whatever happens is according to their theories.
    It is always easier to predict things after they occur.

  19. Don B January 6, 2012 at 1:18 am #

    As you stated, 1973-74 was a wetter two year period. Like the current two years, that earlier wet period was driven by La Nina.

    El Nino means drought; La Nina, flooding rain.

  20. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    The BoM are dedicated fudgers. Their “warming” figures all start from 1910 but their “averages” are often based on a century that runs from the 1880s to the 1980s.

    They should be more consistent.

  21. Ian George January 6, 2012 at 7:10 am #

    “The Australian area-averaged mean temperature in 2011 was 0.14 °C below the 1961 to 1990 average of 21.81 °C.”
    “In 2011, maximum temperatures averaged 0.25 °C below normal across the country, while minima averaged 0.03 °C below normal.”

    I have been following the Australia mean temps closely this year since we had our coldest autumn ‘on record’. When I checked the mean minimums by compiling the monthly means from the BOM summaries, I come up with -0.13C, not -0.03C. This makes the mean temp -0.18C rather than the -0.14C quoted.
    Maybe someone can check these as I am no mathematician. I have just added the monthly averages and divided by 12 (the max mean temps come out ok using that method).
    Min Max
    Jan 1.07 0.54
    Feb 0.53 -1.36
    Mar 0.02 -2.19
    Apr -0.96 -0.67
    May -1.75 -1.33
    Jun -1.16 -0.27
    Jul 0.41 0.6
    Aug 0.14 1.75
    Sep -0.57 0.92
    Oct 0.59 0.09
    Nov 0.32 -0.08
    Dec -0.28 -0.86

  22. Debbie January 6, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    Not as silly as your argument Gavin.
    Who’s to say it will?
    Mick in the Hills points that out rather well.

  23. Ian Thomson January 6, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    Mick in the Hills You are so right.
    Trouble is , in 3 weeks or so , the kids’ll be back at school and no matter what we do, they will start straight into the ‘climate change module’, scaring the shit out of them with this silly report.

  24. Luke January 6, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    There’s a reason you lot are wiggle watching deniers – you’re just so desperate – the only game that counts is ….

    Hey aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age by now and North America covered in an ice sheet – you know – ice age alarmists like Archibald?

    And don’t you love big dopiness like “The trick is to keep implying that La Nina is a climatic deus-ex-machina, a chance intervention or masking factor, responsible for any cooling.” what a site – what clowns ! (pity Robby missed the alternative argument spun by Cohenite)

  25. Debbie January 6, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    The problem and the point is that the climate is not cooperating with ANY of the man made predictions.
    That includes yours 🙂
    There is obviously neither catostrophic warming or a bone crushing ice age.
    So why are we wasting so much tax payer money on this?
    Why is it still being touted as ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’?
    The only game in town?
    You’re kidding aren’t you?
    How long can you call it wiggles?

  26. Ian Thomson January 6, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    Hi Luke,
    I haven’t read a lot about Ice Ages until around 2030. ( Not since Algore’s offsider, Steve Schneider’s 1970’s doomsday stuff )
    I have read that Russian scientists warned their own Govt not to take notice of the alarmists in the US and to expect 1950’s weather. ( We’ve got that .)
    -The reason ,incidentally , was that Russian interests were about to follow the ice retreat to extract Arctic minerals .
    I have also read endless predictions that the drought would never end. That all the Pacific Islanders would, by now, be climate refugees. That half of the beach suburbs in Oz would be inundated by now.
    That all the Polar Bears would be extinct by now. That the Arctic ice should all be now gone ,or at least nearly gone. Etc,etc.

  27. Robert January 6, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    I have a friend who loves Labor, devotedly watches SBS, ABC etc. He once asked me how I could love the Libs. I had to explain to him that I did not love them one bit, that I was not a reverse leftist, but a conservative. Loving a political party is out of the question for me. I don’t think he ever got it.

    It’s odd how some CAGW advocates believe skeptics must be reverse-alarmists. Like my Labor-loving friend, they just don’t get it. I have no idea if anyone has been potty enough to predict that we would right now be in a “bone crushing ice age” – except some bed-wetters back in the seventies, who are now probably into warmism, peak-whatever or the Mayan calendar.

    Here are two questions I like to pose. Who believes that climate is NOT fantastically complex? Who believes that the science of this fantastically complex subject is NOT in its infancy?

  28. Debbie January 6, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    You’re right I think….they don’t get it.
    Conservatives believe in LESS government interference.
    Conservatives believe that governments should only be working in areas and spending tax payer money on societal benificiary areas such as health, education, defense, community infrastructure etc….
    They also believe in ‘safety nets’ rather than complete social takeovers.
    They believe in ‘equal opportunity’ not that everyone must be forced to be equal.
    They DO NOT inherently worship any particular political party or particular politician.
    In fact, they are not a great fan of politics at all.
    And your 2 questions?
    Well asked.
    Of course the climate is fantastically complex and of course we don’t have anywhere near enough information about it yet.
    So….from a conservative viewpoint….why is the Govt and attendant bureaucracies claiming they MUST manage it and MUST control it?

  29. Neville January 6, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    I still say Goddard’s list says it all plus all the graphs and charts to back it up.

    We’re very fortunate to be living in this era of the world’s climate and I suppose that’s why everyone ( all seven billion of us ) are better off, healthier and living longer.

    But give leftwing idiots long enough and they’ll be sure to wreck it all.

  30. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Because there is basically no drought left in the country, Luke is in a fit of depression so the only game left for him to play is the 0.2c of warming since 1979. How sad.

    This is the only game that counts, Luke:

    And for “glacier gav” there is this one that has advanced a bit in recent years.

  31. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Hey Luke!

    This is what you can do with your “trends”

    “Newcastle did not beat Manchester United today, because the long term trend is for Manchester United to beat Newcastle.”

    H/T Steven Goddard

  32. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    And here’s a paper that agrees with your 0.6c per century warming.

    The only trouble is, is that it is continuous for the last 470 years which is a bit prior to the man-made stuff:

  33. gavin January 6, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    SD: please read -Thamban, M.Naik, S.S.Laluraj, C.M.Ravindra, R


    In-situ observational record of Antarctic surface temperatures is rather sparse. Proxy based ice core studies are thus critical for reconstructing the past climate change on centennial and decadal time scales. The present study review the available instrumental and proxy records from the Dronning Maud Land region of East Antarctica as well as report recent evidences of Antarctic climate change and its global linkages. The monthly mean air temperature records of the Novolazarevskaya (Novo) station, which is the longest (since 1961) and continuous meteorological record in this region, revealed a significant warming trend at a rate of 0.25 degrees C / decade. To understand the spatial and temporal consistency of this warming, well-dated ice cores from the coastal Dronning Maud Land region were assessed. All proxy records consistently suggest an enhanced warming up to +0.12 degrees C / decade. This is further supported by a recent assessment of stable oxygen and hydrogen isotope proxy records from two high resolution ice cores (IND-25/B5 and IND-22/B4) from this region. Among these records, the IND-25/B5 provided ultra-high-resolution data for the past 100 years (1905-2005) and the IND-22/B4 core represented the past ~470 years (1530-2002) of Antarctic change. These ice records provided insights on the influence of solar forcing on Antarctic climate system as well as its linkages with the tropical and mid-latitude climatic modes like the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The calculated surface air temperatures using these records showed a warming by 0.06-0.1 degrees C / decade, with greatly enhanced warming during the past several decades (~0.4 degrees C / decade). It is confirmed that the coastal areas of Dronning Maud Land are indeed warming and the trend is apparently enhancing in the recent decades.”

  34. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    So gav, what’s different from what I said?

    Except cooling for the last few years?

    And the fact that it is only a “little picture” compared to this:

  35. Luke January 6, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    “I have no idea if anyone has been potty enough to predict that we would right now be in a “bone crushing ice age” ”

    long memory – try about a dozen doyens of doom on here ! It’s a popular meme over the years

  36. Luke January 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Spanglers – don’t try that pathetic graph shonky stuff eh? As if it’s a worldwide signal and as if you pretend the end of the graph got all smudged and fell off like a dead dingos donger. Pullease !

  37. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Well Luke, as they say, if all you’ve got is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

    IOW, when you’re brainwashed on the GHG theory you have to deny history.

    Y’know? Those inconvenient warm periods that had nothing to do with ACO2 that occurred a lot during the holocene?

    And I thought you liked the “big picture” as opposed to the “datum point”.

    Here’s the other DD Donger at the South Pole:

  38. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    BTW, while you’re looking at those Vostok data, mentally project that CO2 up to 380 ppm and see how well your hammer works. [If it correlates your theory has some chance but if it doesn’t correlate, NO CHANCE]

  39. cohenite January 6, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    This may be of interest in respect of the BOM 2011 comedy piece:

  40. Robert January 6, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Could the person or persons who predicted a bone crushing ice age by January 2012 please identify self/selves? I know that a number here have posited the likelihood of a Maunder or Dalton equivalent in the coming decades. While I lean to the cyclical explanation of climate, especially in this relatively mild and even Holocene, I find that putting a date even on little ice ages goes against my skeptical grain. However, I’m not discussing that.

    What I’m asking about, very specifically, is something Luke has mentioned several times in the last weeks. He claims that commenters on this site predicted a severe ice age for RIGHT NOW. Who are you?

    Luke’s exact words: “Hey aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age by now and North America covered in an ice sheet…”

    He mentions David Archibald, but I can find no prediction by him of a bone crushing ice age which would be in force RIGHT NOW. Archibald himself refers to commentators who over-reach in predicting a full-blown Maunder in the coming decades.

    But who gave out a dud prediction of a bone crushing ice age by January 2012? Who are you?

  41. spangled drongo January 6, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Points well made, cohers.

    Good to see that “trend” finally bit ’em where it hurts.

    David Jones! Are you paying attention?

  42. sp January 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Well Luke, where did this come from:

    “Hey aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age by now and North America covered in an ice sheet…”?

  43. Luke January 6, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Graeme Bird assured us – bone crushing he used to say ! and David Archibald is a big alarmist on a new ice age taking out the grain belt – I’ve been groaned through his presentations. And there was this other bloke on here who did posts on the interglacial being up (even though the orbital combinations of the 3 Milankovitch mechanisms are not aligned enough).

    Common anti-warmist meme is ice age alarmism. But sceptics are a broad class of nutters. And nobody pulls them up on their bulldust – anything goes – as long as one is up the warmists for the rent even if its stupid. Which makes a mockery of all the calls for high standards in science and CAGW lapses into post-modernism raving.

  44. Luke January 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Dirty bloody sceptic plot –

    are there no limits you guys will go to to release even more CO2 into the environment !

  45. Luke January 6, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    err that was the North American grain belt

  46. Luke January 6, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    Re the climate sceptics blog post (such a lonely site frequented by lost geologists and 100,000 to one odds, old codger, senate hopefuls from regional Aussie) – Anthony Cox makes a dick of himself. Who is this gimp? It was Aussie SSTs being high in 2011 which is obvious and fancy picking 2002 to start a graph. What a cherry pick.

    I dare you to ring David Jones up and engage him !

  47. Robert January 6, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    So, did Graeme Bird, David Archibald and “this other bloke” predict a bone crushing ice age by January 2012? Or by late 2011, when Luke first pointed to these alleged failed predictions? And, not content with a Little Ice Age, did “this other bloke” predict an end to the whole interglacial by January 2012? Even if we don’t get to know his name, it would be nice to nail any alarmist over a definitely failed prediction. After all, back in the seventies, nearly all the climate-tossers were coolists.

    We know the current interglacial will end, as all things must. Most, if not all, skeptics would expect future cooling periods within this current interglacial. Maybe that could affect Canadian wheat and human well-being. (Hey, that’s why we love GM, Big Coal and nukes…the stuff really works when you need it to.) But people who put hard dates on possible cooling events deserve our skepticism as much as warmists. Were these specific claims made, with dates?

    We get the usual flavourful text about nutters, memes and po-mo raving etc. But I still can’t get disclosure, from Luke or anyone else, whether the people named predicted severe cooling by January 2012, though Luke was very definite that “about a dozen doyens of doom on here” had predicted severe cooling for RIGHT NOW. (See his quoting of me and response at 6:33 pm.)

    Pity, because it’s always nice to nail an alarmist. They are very, very expensive people.

  48. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 7:36 am #

    “and fancy picking 2002 to start a graph. What a cherry pick.

    I dare you to ring David Jones up and engage him !”

    That alone speaks volumes about you and the BoM.

    They’re talking decades and 2002/11 happens to be the latest. Congrats Anthony!

    You desperate CAGWers will say anything.

  49. Luke January 7, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    I recall Birdy saying we were actually in it NOW !

    And jeez Robert – how about being even handed – where does it say in any published paper that “it will never rain again”. Strange that you’ve never complained about that sceptic bullshit. I have a long memory Robert.

    “After all, back in the seventies, nearly all the climate-tossers were coolists.” what horseshit – more sceptic garbage

    “That alone speaks volumes about you and the BoM.” not really – you lot are always mentioning him – not me ! Don’t go behind the guy’s back in your secret societies and blogs that only kooks visit ( – what % of the vote did the septics party get again?) Dr Jones probably needs a laugh from another sceptic nut job anyway.

  50. Luke January 7, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    I love this stuff

    Go on and defend it guys -so we can get the defense in print

  51. Luke January 7, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    Thanks for reminding me Robert

    Comment from: Graeme Bird May 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    “Now is anybody NOT clear on the reality that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. This FACT appears to be in dispute with our lying alarmist traitors.”

    Woo hoo !!

    ” the reality that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age” oh yea !! brrrr

  52. Ian Thomson January 7, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    OK, so the prediction of a 2011 ice age came from someone commenting on a blog post.
    The multitude of predictions of a 2011 dust bowl came from highly paid scientists ,aided and abetted by experienced highly paid and supposedly objective, journalists.

    And an Indian railway engineer and a tree kangaroo expert.

    The ‘back room boys’ with the devastatingly accurate secret knowledge.

    Just seems to me that that the blog commentator is at least as accurate .

    Also seems to me that the unscientific unwashed, who said “this is all normal and will always cycle”,
    may be the most accurate.
    I wonder if I can get Govt funding to lie in bed this July and try to remember what 1952 was like.
    I would make the odd visit to the ‘backroom’ for deeper insight .

  53. Debbie January 7, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    I’m sorry Luke,
    But you are SOOOOO projecting.
    You are accusing people of doing exactly what the ‘warmists’ and associated political agenda have been doing for AGES at the tax payers expense.
    The reality is that we are neither in a catastrophic AGW phase or a pulverising ice age.
    I know that the computer models and the graphs and the figures have been used to try and prove both of those things at different times….however…..and this is the whole point of the sceptic argument… seems that we don’t know as much as we think we do about the climate and it also seems that human produced C02 is not the one with its foot on the accelerator or its hands on the steering wheel.
    Real time data (not wiggles) is indicating that the AGW signal is not a strong as the projective models hypothesised.
    It doesn’t mean it isn’t a passenger somewhere. It also doesn’t mean the exact opposite as you’re trying to accuse people of saying.
    Graeme Bird was just using the figs to illustrate a point….you appear to have missed the point?

  54. Robert January 7, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    Well done and linked, Luke. It’s extraordinary that this Graeme Bird thinks that small children less than three decades ago knew we were in an ice age even then. Clearly he’s not so much predicting as playing with definitions of what constitutes an ice age – as well as just making stuff up. But judging from his appalling language, his dogmatism, and, above all, his impious confidence in the current state of knowledge, he’s a classical climate alarmist. Whether he’s as dangerous as the loops back in the seventies who wanted to spray soot all over the poles remains to be seen. Even if he’s not into crazy remedies, his beliefs could easily panic the weak-minded in the event of a little future cooling. I’d like to ask him about his notions, but he strikes me as a touch unapproachable.

    Now, I’m aware of the many people who feel some cyclical cooling may occur in the near future. I’d be one of them, though with little certainty. But who were the others of the dozen here who predicted a big freeze by January 2012? Let’s name and shame all alarmists when their predictions fail. Skeptics unite!

  55. Luke January 7, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Debs – you don’t know much about our Graeme do you?


  56. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    The Flummerys, the BoMmers, the Catastros, the Hanrahans and the Lukes of this world never stop screaming that “it will never rain again”.

    Or when it does rain, “it will never stop”!

    A bunch of hypocritic-glass-half-empty-professional-doomsayers.

    It’s what you do for a living!

    When are you gonna stop milking the weather?

    Not until something better turns up. It pays too well.

    The fact is: Cohers right, BoM WRONG!

  57. cohenite January 7, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    How low can you get luke, verballing poor old Birdie; he meant we are in an ice age interglacial which, based on past experience, is just about running out of steam. Perfectly reasonable.

  58. Debbie January 7, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    You are simply not getting it are you?
    Not only do I not know much about him….I also don’t care! As far as I know he is just advancing a theory ….he has absolutely zip chance of interfering in my life except in a strictly cerebral manner. As far as I know…no one has offered him as a trustworthy alternative to the current political mindset?
    I place no more trust in what he has to say than what the catastrophic AGW crowd are saying.
    Just because I don’t agree with you does not somehow automatically mean I agree with someone like him…or would tolerate a political agenda tethered to his research.
    What I did notice however is he used the figs to prove his pet point….sound familiar?
    You seem to be missing that bit?

  59. Luke January 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    Just what I wanted to see – cohenite defending Birdie – thanks that’s all we need to know. Unreal man. He didn’t mean your explanation at all and reiterated his “position” on a number of occasions. You’d try to squirm out of anything.

    But hey – why don’t you endorse Archibald – go on !

    Or McLean et al? Let’s hear your support.

    Or Plimer’s Heaven and Earth.

    Come on – support ya mates !

    “Any old iron”, “any old iron”, “any any any old iron” …..

  60. Luke January 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    But hey Spanglers – Neville is saying we’re in an 800 year drying trend …. on the lead post on lower Lakes. Ah yes – sceptics – able to hold 20 illogical contradictory things in their mind at any time. Any old shit for the cause – doesn’t matter.

  61. Robert January 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Luke, no published paper ever stated it will never rain again. Obviously, it’s impossible for rain to stop all together and forever, so such a statement would be meaningless. You can’t lose with that one, can you? It’s a perfect “gimme”, a silly rhetorical exaggeration, whether as an original comment or an interpretation of someone else’s opinion. I don’t intend to police all that sloppy stuff. It’s akin to you saying that a dozen commenters on this blog predicted a bone crushing ice age by late 2011. We know what you mean, and that you’re not happy with us, but your statement is rhetorical and clearly inaccurate. Thanks for that “gimme” – though I wasn’t just being a sloppiness cop. For a while I was curious to know if I’d fallen into a nest of coolists.

    And what’s the point of saying “aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age?” when someone criticises the faulty temp and rain prognostications which have proven so costly to this country. Someone called Bird once said something daft on a blog? That can hardly serve as grounds not to question the CRU, the IPCC, the BOM etc. You need a better retort than that. You may as well just say “pig’s botty!” – which you often do when short of an idea. By all means, defend the CRU etc, but please don’t just say someone I’ve never heard of thought we’d be in an ice age by now. After repetition, it reeks of a GetUp stunt.

    By the way, whenever I’ve referred to our abundant local weather facts which run counter to CAGW dogma I’ve been careful to state that nothing should be inferred from these facts – except that climate may be largely unknowable in our era, and even the best experts may be largely unknowing.

    Let’s get back to two questions, which should have been asked way back in the seventies, when cooling really was the rage but there wasn’t a dollar or a trip to Cancun to be had for it, and the anti-Western angle was hard to establish. Who thinks climate is NOT fantastically complex? Who believes the science of climate is NOT in its infancy?

  62. el gordo January 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Birdie and I crossed swords at Deltoid, he mistook me for a warmist. At one stage in the heat of battle I suggested he seek professional advice, which didn’t go down too well.

    As we are in the final stages of the Holocene it stands to reason that AGW can’t save us from our inevitable fate. So Birdie is right in thinking a mini ice age is upon us.

  63. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    Sceptics don’t hold regimented theories. They’re for the Catastros. You boyos came up with this pearler and now you’re stuck with it. You’ve used it to screw the country but in the cold light of dawn it is looking fugly.

    Sceptics are entitled to have any theory they wish. They aren’t trying to push them down the throat of the taxpayer at cripling expense.

  64. cohenite January 7, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Good point SD.

  65. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Luke, David Jones deserves all he gets if he [like all the warmers] denies that a football team wins just because it has a reversal of previous long-term losing results.

  66. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    “96% of agricultural land will become more suitable for crops”

    Let that be a lesson to ya!

  67. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    And still more good news on agriculture, we may survive yet:

  68. Luke January 7, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Too slick Robert – it’s not only Birdy !

    We have Archy’s “papers” and Peter Harris hereon this hallowed blog.

    OK on the rainfall – where’s the papers showing drought without end?

    So I’m calling you now. Where’s the massive literature on global cooling in the 1970s. Talk about sloppy polly.

  69. Robert January 7, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    If “Archy” and Peter Harris said that we would be in a severe ice age by late 2011, point us to their predictions – though NOT to their other predictions or opinions, please. I assure you of my full support in heaping ridicule on all species of climate alarmism. It’s a nasty, costly business and needs shutting down in all its branches. If those two men predicted an ice age by RIGHT NOW, they deserve to be called out on it.

    Re rainfall, claims of drought without end: I refer you to the very first para on my previous comment. What applies to “never rain again” applies to “drought without end”. It’s clearly just sloppy hyperbole, but one gets the point, as with your “dozen doyens of doom”.

    As to the massive literature on global cooling in the 1970s, there was no massive literature, fortunately. (See the last para of my comment. The UN couldn’t find the right teats to yank, Gore had not found his GIM.) It was all over the news, cover of Time, boffins were quoted, crazies indulged, but it never turned into a global racket on the scale of CAGW. Few things do.

  70. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    “Where’s the massive literature on global cooling in the 1970s.”

    Hansen and Schneider were involved with claims for “global cooling” but as it couldn’t be made to run hand in hand with energy rationing and general deprivation, as soon as the weather changed they knew which horse was the real winner.

    I love Tim Lambert’s claim that borrowing Hansen’s warming program was like borrowing his pen:

  71. spangled drongo January 7, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    That should be “Hansen’s cooling program”.

  72. Neville January 8, 2012 at 7:41 am #

    Luke is the only dummy here who claimed that CAGW played a part in the 1940’s drought aided by only a few extra PPMV of co2. ( around 300ppmv, give me strength.) Talk about bee’s dick assumptions.

    Luke all I’m claiming about reduced rainfall over southern Aust is what De Deckker found with his 20 year study.

    Watch the video or read the transcript and towards the end he gives a summary of his long study and finds that southern Aust has been drying out for at least 5,000 years.

    There was a very wet period about 1000 years ago and we are currently at a low point on the graph. Heres what I’ve said at Jen’s latest post.

    Here is the Catalyst report on De Deckers 20 year study across southern Australia.

    You can pause the graph at about about 8 mins 50 secs to see the very low point we are currently in, but from a very wet period about 1000 years ago.

    I’ve seen another graph that shows the period 10K to 5K bp to be much wetter as well.

    Just proves the climate changes by extreme degrees naturally without the help of humans.

  73. Neville January 8, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    Here’s another of my posts from Jen’s latest.

    Here is the PDO index reconstructed over the last 1,000 years, note the incredible cool phase at the start of the graph that lasts for hundreds of years.

    Easily explains extreme super droughts on the US and Canadian west coasts and inland over that period.
    Just imagine the numerous and extended la ninas and super cyclones that would have developed off Australia’s east coast for hundreds of years and much more rainfall as a consequence.

    That last cool phase PDO shown on the right of the graph is our very wet period of floods etc during the 1950′s and 1970′s. Very extreme climate indeed over the last 1,000 years and once again without the help of humans.

    Can I just say that we could probably handle fewer droughts but we are still very fortunate living in our present era. Plus all the science and technology, R&D etc and modern medical research that has made our lives much happier and long lived as well.

  74. spangled drongo January 8, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Good graph Neville.

    Those cool phase IPOs also represent serious cyclonic weather in Luke’s NOTW, none of which have occurred for the last 36 years.

    He’s never had it so good. He’s just not smart enough to realise it. Can you imagine what he would be like if his arse was on fire?

    BTW, global sea ice back in positive territory again; Arctic – 0.535, Antarctic + 0.631 = net + 0.096 million sq. klm.

    Hate to spoil a lovely warm day in Canberra for gav. ☺

  75. Debbie January 8, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Good point SD,
    Just as well too considering the world’s population has just tipped over 7 billion.
    Also, check out these latest Oz figs.
    At a previous post Gav and Luke claimed that Agriculture was ‘bugger all’ and also a serious ‘tax drain’ in Australia.
    I’m sure their PS mates whose incomes depend on Agriculture would be horrified that others of their ilk write it off as ‘bugger all’ 🙂
    I would propose, although not massive like the present mining sector figures, $405Billion is far from ‘bugger all’ or a ‘tax drain’

  76. spangled drongo January 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Yes Deb, imagine if a war suddenly turned off the import tap. Even Luke would have to change his mind about the importance of farmers.

    BTW, some interesting theory on what is possibly causing a fair whack of AGW in recent decades.

    Clean air! Remember how filthy, cities and industrial areas used to be?

  77. Luke January 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Ah come on Debs – agriculture 3-4% of GDP …. zzzzzz

  78. Luke January 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    In fact …

    “Trends in Production and Exports

    In 2009/10, the value of farm production was $23 billion, representing around 2 per cent of nominal GDP. The relative size of Australia’s agricultural industry has declined over the past 50 years, with the sector’s share of nominal GDP falling from 15½ per cent in 1959/60 to an average of 2½ per cent over the past decade. Employment in the farm sector has also declined relative to the rest of the economy. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), 10 per cent of Australia’s workforce was employed in the farm sector in the early 1960s, or around 440,000 people; this compares with around 325,000 people employed in 2009/10 (or 3 per cent of total employment). Similarly, the share of agriculture-related machinery & equipment investment has declined from around 20 per cent in the early 1960s to an average of 5½ per cent over the past decade.[1] Nonetheless, the farm sector still accounts for a significant share of Australia’s goods exports; farm goods accounted for 13 per cent of the value of total goods exports in 2009/10, down from 44 per cent in the 1970s.”


  79. Luke January 8, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Just doing a “Neville” and disgorging some “stuff” I saw on the Intertubes

    and ouch

    Cohers mates I guess.

  80. cohenite January 8, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    Aw jeez, luke, joe bloody romm; although I see my old sparring partner, Bernard J, is infesting those parts now.

  81. Debbie January 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    It is therefore not a tax drain Luke.
    3 to 4% is still a positive return is it not?
    Even if it was only .05% it is still not a tax drain or a burden on you.
    That was my point and that was my objection to your comment.
    The comparitive anaysis you supplied can also be applied to other industries like Australia’s car manufacturing industry among a plethora of others.
    They too however supply employment and positive returns. Just because they have become more automated and more efficient, like Agriculture, does not mean they are doomed or becoming a burden.
    As I stated before, the quite considerable numbers of Public Service depts that tap into this income would not be impressed with your dismissive attitude and incorrect statement.
    Agriculture also contributes to climate research as I’m sure you are aware.

  82. John Sayers January 8, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    i must say I was taken aback by the $405 bil claim by Joe Ludwig. How could he be so wrong!!

    Wiki claims:

    Australia is a major agricultural producer and exporter. Agriculture and its closely related sectors earn $155 billion-a-year for a 12% share of GDP. Australian farmers and graziers own 135,996 farms, covering 61% of Australia’s landmass

  83. Debbie January 8, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Also worth noting Luke,
    Your link finishes analyisis at 2009. The figs I supplied are updated.
    Your link also points out the influence of drought and the rise in domestic demands, not the decline. Particularly in the products that irrigated agriculture provides.
    However, we could argue forever over how big or small the contribution to Australia’s GDP is.
    Your statement at the previous post is fundamentally incorrect as an industry that contributes even a single digit positive GDP by definition cannot be a tax drain.
    As I also previously stated, we are currently in the process of proving that the much appreciated assistance received in the drought was a good investment 🙂

  84. el gordo January 8, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Excellent PDO graph Neville, it says a great deal about the hemispheric saw tooth, but I will have to give it more thought.

  85. gavin January 8, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

    Deb;I’ve been thinking down these comments that the ABS updated glossary is a good starting point

    however all the ABS issues can be a bit dry but it’s always worth a try by index

  86. Neville January 8, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    We may as well have a look at the 1900 to 2010 PDO graph that shows the cool phase that helped stimulate the next ice age scare in the 1970s.

    If we’re now starting another cool phase the size of that one it should really throw the cat among the pigeons. But it’s anyone’s guess.

  87. Luke January 8, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Facts are Debs – agriculture is a decreasing slice of GDP – the main reason for enviro problems and endless whinging. Why do we indulge you guys?

    Neville’s PDO graph gives stock to the concept that the PDO/IPO doesn’t exist – it’s simply a stats artifact of ENSO and anti-ENSO debris. Looks like noise.

    “Some scientists dismiss it as a statistical artefact created by the clustering of El Nino and La Nina events expected in a big random sample. Others see it as an independent physical entity, perhaps generated by a mechanism like that powering El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation but acting over a larger area and on timescales of decades against ENSO’s return period of just years.”

    It’s sort of interesting but useless – no predictability really. Sceptics love it even though warmists have done all the heavy lifting (so why do they even believe it?) Such lack of scepticism.

  88. Neville January 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Well Luke it’s beyond our comprehension I think. It’s a bit like the chicken or the egg. Is it a grouping of El ninos or La ninas that somehow add up to a bigger longer shift, either warming or cooling, who knows?

    But here’s a good debate between Scott Denning and Roy Spencer with zero hissy fits or abuse or swearing.
    Just two decent men debating the science and they both make a lot of sense. I just wish I had their brains and knowledge of the subject.

  89. cohenite January 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    “the PDO/IPO doesn’t exist – it’s simply a stats artifact of ENSO and anti-ENSO debris. Looks like noise.”

    What absolute piffle luke; the idea that the PDO is the “sum of direct forcing by El Nin˜o–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)” has been long supposed:

    But so what? So what that there are well delineated periods and oscillations where El Nino dominates and then La Nina that are described as +ve and -ve PDO’s? The point is natural variability which operates on a variety of time-scales.

    Another possible view of the connection between ENSO and PDO is that PDO may give form to an essentially random pattern by ENSO; a paper which explores this idea and the complexity of the macro-climate agents is here:

  90. spangled drongo January 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    “It’s sort of interesting but useless – no predictability really. Sceptics love it even though warmists have done all the heavy lifting”

    I’ll tell you one thing Luke, cyclones relative to IPOs are a lot more predictable than your catastro mates on that 1000 year drought in Neville’s earlier link.

    In 1976 when the el Nino arrived you never saw cyclones depart so quickly. The Tasman Sea, which has a reputation for being a windy and rough place, became so mild for so long that the yacht racing handicapping and design philosophy went from big boats with small sail areas to small boats with big sail areas as the likely winners of off-shore races.

    And what “heavy lifting” would that be?

    The only “heavy lifting” catastros do is shovelling garbage into GCMs.

  91. Robert January 8, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Yep, no more mucking around in the dirt. No more Debs. I suggest the mass of the country devote itself exclusively to coal exports, with the proviso that China, Korea etc not burn the coal. This slight limitation placed on the end user would obviate the world’s major enviro problem – at least as seen by those who believe in CAGW. Any decrease in demand for our coal could be offset by, you know, green jobs, eco-tourism and, I dunno,…brochure production, maybe?

    The cream of us could join GetUp and devote ourselves to posh radicalism. Dictatorship of the commentariat!

  92. spangled drongo January 8, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Warmist catastros performing more of that “heavy lifting”.

  93. gavin January 8, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    SD; you can’t contribute without those hack writers and second hand rhetoric, can you?

  94. spangled drongo January 8, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    According to Nicola Scaffeta the IPCC “heavy lifting” does not even include decadal and multi decadal oscillations in their GCMs:

  95. gavin January 8, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    I would much rather read something by our Dr Andrew Ash on say reluctance v restraint as applied to the full range of outback agricultural issues

  96. Luke January 8, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    IPO – Scott Power and Chris Folland. You guys are just so tedious. zzzzzzzzz

    Pretty hard to program in an oscillation that may not exist wot?

  97. gavin January 8, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Math gymnast or what SD ? Look at it!

    You have a couple of clowns analyzing only about a tenth of a worm there

  98. Debbie January 8, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Facts are Luke,
    Your statement re tax drain was incorrect.
    Use diversion tactics and dismissive comments as much as you like.
    It doesn’t change the facts.
    A positive GDP from Agriculture from whichever source you want to use means there is not a tax drain.
    We can argue ad infinitum about which is the correct figure. . . 12% , 4% or whatever. The point is and the point remains that Agriculture returns a positive economic result.

  99. Luke January 8, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

    Debs – lets see billions drought aid to support the climate masters over decades. A protected rice industry. A low share of GNP overall. Billions in fixing up your environmental stuff-ups.

    Pullease ! what a basket case

    and a piddly share of GNP – so get to the back of the queue dear.

  100. Robert January 9, 2012 at 12:04 am #

    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.

  101. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 7:10 am #

    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

  102. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 7:21 am #

    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.

  103. Luke January 9, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    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

  104. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    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.

  105. Luke January 9, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    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?

  106. Robert January 9, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    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?

  107. Robert January 9, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    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.

  108. Neville January 9, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    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.

  109. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    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.

  110. Luke January 9, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    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.

  111. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    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.

  112. Luke January 9, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    “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

  113. cohenite January 9, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    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.”

  114. Debbie January 9, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    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 ?? 🙂

  115. el gordo January 9, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Thanks for that cohenite, very useful knowledge.

  116. el gordo January 10, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    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.

  117. Debbie January 11, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    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 🙂


  1. Climate Capers | Cranky Old Crow - January 5, 2012

    […] Annual Climate Statement: Australian Bureau of Meteorology from Jennifer Marohasy by jennifer […]

Website by 46digital