I’ve been reading about the Commission: the Climate Commission established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change.
Two of the commissioners, Professors Will Steffan and Lesley Hughes, have just published a report stating that New South Wales is becoming hotter and heatwaves will become more severe.
My name is Mr Koala Bear and I’ve been studying their report ‘The Critical Decade: New South Wales Climate Impacts and Opportunities’. And that is not what the data says, not all the data.
Scientist Basil Beamish begins at the beginning. He has plotted climate data for two sites in NSW for which there is data back to 1890: Bathurst (pink line in chart) and Observatory Hill (blue line in chart). One of these is an inland site and one is coastal. One is to the east of Parramatta, the site favoured by the Cimate Commissioners and one is to the west.
This data suggests that that it was hotter back in the period 1910 to 1930. It was indeed very hot at Bathurst in 1919 with more than 31 days above 35.0°C (pink line in chart). At Observatory Hill, the hottest year measured by days above 35.0°C was 1926 (blue line in chart).
If Professor Steffan and Hughes are going to make statements about temperatures trends they have an obligation to consider all the instrumental data that is available. I mean they have an obligation to begin at the beginning, not 1960 as they do in their very misleading report.
I am not keen on the idea of counting day above 35.0 °C by calendar year as a measure of global warming. A problem is that the calendar year separates the hot months in each summer; it arbitrarily splits this one discrete period into two repeatedly. But never mind, if the Commissioners want to do this they can. But they must start at the beginning.
Professors Hughes and Steffan have no business being Climate Commissioners.
I want to start a petition: Basil Beamish for Climate Commissioner!
************
Support independent media. Make a donation so Jen and I (Mr Koala Bear) can get this website a makeover. I want some new buttons linking to my Facebook site and also a petition for Basil Beamish for Climate Commissioner.
Send dollars here by bank transfer:
Jennifer Marohasy
BSB 06 4449
Account Number 10376039
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You can’t fool me. That’s not a real K bear – it can’t talk and real bears don’t like cherries. I checked this morning and it still hadn’t moved. In fact how could a bear email in?
It’s stuffed !
But it could be a drop bear. Looks like it was snapped shortly after dropping.
Far from Bathurst, here on the Midcoast of NSW, every single month had its highest recorded average max between 1910 and 1919. The exception was August, which was “hottest” (by average max temp readings, so we’re not playing loose with terms!) in 1946. We had our highest max for a single day in 2004, but nearly all our recorded monthly extremes (rain, drought, heat) were recorded long ago, some in the late 1800s. We had a couple of recent “record extreme” months – but they were for coldest by average lowest max.
I draw no conclusions from this – because it would be absurd to do so – though I think if those “hottest” months had occurred in the last decade, there’d be a number of people all too happy to draw conclusions. Know anybody like that?
As I’ve said before, this BOM info was for many years available on the web at Elders website and elsewhere. Now it isn’t.
Gidday Jen and Basil I have just posted on the Climate Commission propaganda.
I have shown how the Richmond RAAF data starting from Dec 1939 destroys their misleading storyline.
Dear Luke,
I just heard that the Queensland Office of Climate Change is disappearing. The Commonwealth Department of Climate Change is also shrinking by 30% next year. The science is settled, and with that trend firmly in place, I project they will all be gone soon. There is just no way to hide the decline.
Far too many government employees with nothing productive to do. Lets hope the trend continues.
Koala
What daredevil stunts leaping from the particular to a general when another general has been well established. ( then it is Ok to go to the particular as every science communicator does). I saw a relevant story about a photo of well developed biceps with the caption “You dont get them picking cherries!”
Bazza,
You need to be careful with that argument because it works both ways.
Just as an example,
The report found that there has been a noticeable average increase (1degree) in average hot days in Sydney..
Jen and her friend Mr Koala Bear exercised their right to question the data that has been used and found it wanting because it was Sydney specific and because our CC then drew a link to Western Sydney…..She and Mr Koala bear questioned how that link to Western Sydney could be done with the evidence that was used because the data was taken from a specific site and a specific timeframe.
I think that was a perfectly reasonable question.
I also think that could be defined as ‘cherry picking’….not necessarily by the scientists who wrote the report because we were never informed about their ‘terms of reference’ when they were commissioned to write this report….but our CC most certainly cherry picked.
The report stated that this warming trend could result in the increased risk of bush fires. (along with other risks that our CC threw in, like people getting crankier in traffic jams)
Let’s look at that bushfire one.
While on the surface it looks like a reasonable assumption that extra dry hot weather could increase the risk of damage to life and property in Sydney from bushfires….because dry hot weather, accompanied by dry hot winds, is most certainly a contributor to the incidence of bushfires.
However….the increased risk of damage from bushfires has been increasing anyway and the main reason for that is not the increase of hot days in Summer….in fact a few extra hot days will make very little difference to the major reasons why this risk is indeed increasing.
See the problem?
If you want to manage the risk of bushfire damage in areas like Sydney, then the only way to do that successfully is to manage the major causes.
So that would be things like…. well designed and well maintained firebreaks…..clearing of dry tinder in the undergrowth….keeping access (and therefore escape) roads clear of overhanging gum trees…..keeping gum trees away from property (because you may not be aware Bazza but as lovely as they are, gum trees are an extremely dangerous fire risk because they love to burn…just love it!)….a quick response process that allows firefighters to get straight into action rather than having to watch fires get out of control as they wait for all the red and green tape to be organised….some sensible back burning carried out before the worst of the summer hits…..and numerous other activities that are proven methods to reduce the risk of damage to life and property from bush fires.
What won’t make any difference whatsoever is a carbon tax and a grand experiment to stop the summers in Sydney from getting a few hotter days via global climate action and reducing our C02 emissions….because the possible threat of a few extra hot days in Summer in Sydney is not a major reason why we have an increased risk of bush fires.
So what were you saying about particular and general?
Dear Mr Bear
Good riddance. That’s just the political wing – the deeply embedded paramilitary wing is fine. They live on fumes and are hard to kill.
Dear Luke
I am looking at your little photograph on my large screen as I type away. I hope you wont mind me asking, but what sort of creature are you?
Koala
Jeez Debs we’re gonna have to put a carbon tax on your text. Dr Bazza may have been thinking about pages 24-26 here http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_050.pdf
Fire weather is fire weather. A duh.
Well I’ve been a bit of an ape arse lately according to Jen and carrying out dominance displays – like punching out my screen, throwing things, urinating on the walls, and showing my engorged red buttocks to the screen. I am a Gelada baboon – this is me smiling http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/export/sites/default/common/images/animals/animaldatabase5/Gelada_baboon_Susan_Scott.jpg_1409751166.jpg
Previously I was artistic – some say autistic http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media/collection_images/Alpha/OA1.1963%23%23S.jpg
Thanks Luke for the link to the bleeding obvious, concluding inevitably “In summary, the analyses undertaken here show that observed warming over Australia is robust to the choice of observing network, homogenisation technique and choice of statistical model used to describe multi-decadal changes in temperature.” But it aint robust against bear attacks, intuitives, vested interests, rednecks or conservative risk managers. Not to mention those who would pose as sceptics despite being illinformed on the current state of knowledge.
“Not to mention those who would pose as sceptics despite being illinformed on the current state of knowledge.”
Arrh, the knowledge aay. Oh, to be saartin in the knowledge! And what knowledge moight that be, Bazzarrh?
The Gergis et al. paper has revealed some startling ‘facts’ from dodgy proxies…they appear to have tortured the data to get the answer most appropriate to the cause.
http://www.smc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1000-years-of-climate-data-–-manuscript_and_Supplementary_April_2012_final1.pdf
But there is also some interesting stuff we may like to discuss.
Such as this…
‘From the reconstruction presented here, the LIA appears to have a signature in Australasian temperatures from ~A.D. 1500–1840. The coolest 30-year average temperature anomaly reconstructed between 1830–1859 was 0.44oC (±0.18) below the 1961–1990 average.’
As a believer in climate change and fan of global warming, I’m relieved by the assurances of our Green Betters that things are still warming. Who wants to be around when ENSO combines extra nastily with NAO and a bad dose of vulcanism? Let’s get those chic new coal power plants and nukes humming, so we don’t end up like like the Minoans and Mayans, blaming gods like bitchy old Gaia for our own stupidity.
In case anyone missed it, they nailed the hockey stick with tree rings etc.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-05-17_1000years_graph.html
Tsk tsk Bazza,
So much name calling.
It has become your MO.
As soon as someone dares to comment, out comes that gun to shoot the messenger. 😉
Deb, you mean “intuitive, conservative redneck” is an insult?
Gav, guess what:
“A climate model was used in this study to carry out many different simulations of the past 1000 years.”
And guess what:
They found that the MWP was 0.09c cooler than the 20th c.
And the nat var only accounts for 0.1c
Arrh, the knowledge!
Yes Gavin, the Klimatariat has quickly sprung into action on this, to match up with Flummery on the ground for an all out effort, a last gasp at mass delusion before Julia’s putrid tax comes into force. Bring in Mann, let’s make a party of it.
Tree rings are notoriously unreliable.
They should have just used Vostok. It shows plenty of southern hemisphere warm periods:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/vostok-ice-core-50000.jpg
But sadly they are all warmer than the present one.
Gav, speaking of nailing hockey sticks with tree rings you might like to check Climate Audit:
“Imagine this argument in the hands of a drug trial. Let’s suppose that they studied 36 patients and picked the patients with the 10 “best” responses, and then refused to produce data on the other 26 patients on the grounds that they didn’t discuss these other patients in their study. It’s too ridiculous for words.”
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/16/schmidts-conspiracy-theory/#more-16091
What unbelievable moronic comments from the usual suspects. Face it guys – it’s way above your heads. You haven’t read it, haven’t digested it and if you did, it wouldn’t help.
Hope you’re observing Debbie – major new paper with heaps of detail and all you get is drongoism. Your colleagues are just tools.
I don’t have colleagues Luke,
I run my own business.
Haven’t read the paper yet either.
Will make up my own mind when I’ve read it.
I’m still annoyed that people who. loudly and publicly claim they are intelligent are arguing that stopping the climate from changing will somehow magically reduce the risk of bush fires in Sydney or even manage people’s tempers in Western Sydney.
No offense, but that looks like ‘toolish’ behaviour to me.
I hope for your sake they’re not your colleagues?
That is not a sensible or practical use of the data.
“major new paper with heaps of detail and all you get is drongoism.”
Is that right? All that “detail” that adjusts/removes/ignores inconvenient historic data and then processes it through models until they get their desired result?
And then when they’re caught out, go into years of denial and obfuscation?
Maybe that’s the “drongoism” you’re talking about?
In spite of your damascene renewal, old chap, you have probably cracked the right avatar.
What a plainfully stupid commentary sd. “And then when they’re caught out” – tell them to their face. “Processes through models” what a loopy comment. As I said it’s above your head.
Yes Debs – wake up and read the fire research on fire and weather and stop being so dense. “Stopping the climate” You really are just another denier foxing around on the science trying to look reasonable but you’re not. As for extremes and human behaviour try looking up “troppo”.
There is no magic Debs. There are clear implications of the science. The world should act.
“What unbelievable moronic comments from the usual suspects. Face it guys – it’s way above your heads. You haven’t read it, haven’t digested it and if you did, it wouldn’t help.”
It isn’t, I have, I have (mostly), and it did, in that order
First, the report is very selective in presenting its “evidence”. In the real world everything is happening, all the time, all over the Earth, and by deduction, Australia. In the real world, presenting only “highlights” is called cherry-picking. In the real world, the report would get short shrift if presented for peer review, even by a “consensus-friendly” journal. There’s not enough data to manufacture an argument, let alone a hockey-stick.
In the real Australia, coastal sites in general are not warming, and those that are warming have been doing so at a modest rate; most of these show no warming, or cooling since 1999. The report itself echoes this “Without the cooling sea breeze off the coast, Western Sydney residents feel the full effect of heatwave conditions”.
Port Kembla is the nearest ABSLP combined tide gauge/met station to Sydney, and shows no trend in air temp since 1999, SST shows a modest decline since installation in 1991.
The report even contains sufficient data to refute many of its claims and predictions, fairly unique IMHO. First there’s the much-discussed Parramatta/Sydney comparison. If hot days are to be taken as a measure of warming, as the report does, why does Australia’s biggest city show a downward trend since the late 1970s, over the very period that GW is claimed to have been operating? Have a look at that Figure 3 again. Parramatta shows hot days increasing, then decreasing, and rising again but there’s no apparent trend since 1999. Warm days for 2010/11 are about the same as in 1975-85. Where’s my global warming, dude?
The section on sea-level rise contains no data at all, except for the 20cm global rise the late 1800s (what’s that got to do with Australia?), all the “data” is tied to “projections” (guesses, some educated, some not). This report, and the entire “Critical Decade” is not a true assessment of the science, the data, nor any projected risks and consequent costs, because throughout, the assumption is that the very worst will happen and that nothing whatever will be done in mitigation. This could be the first report nominated for the Booker prize (The IPCC 2007 report doesn’t qualify as it contains some data and a few facts).
Diggers and Diggerettes will presumably expire gasping in urban heat islands, or will slide gracefully below the rising tides without a murmur. Local councillors will take photographs of their town’s disappearing beaches and cry into their meeting minutes as they paddle back to their unbearably hot council chamber. Forest authorities will watch as their raison d’etre smoulders away to nothing, fire-breaks uncut and trees unthinned. Tim Flannery will have already floated out through his dormer window and away into the sunset, buoyed up by hot air and horror of horrors, that architect of our future demise, methane. Every cloud has a silver lining.
What a load of pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated, over-hyped, unmitigated (told you!) alarmist codswallop.
Hey Luke, OT but would you mind skipping down to the wind turbine thread, having a read of the last few comments and giving me your thoughts?
Cheers, Derek.
The world should act?
Act on what?
There’s no shortage of ‘acting’, cast your mind back a few days.
I’m thinking of nominating Tim for an oscar or something similar.
Note also, that unlike you, I don’t need to load a gun and shoot you to make my point.
I am just little old me Luke.
I don’t come with a name tag.
“The world should act.”
What has made me most skeptical is the complete indifference, on the part of the climate preachers and our Green Betters, to emissions reductions. After the billions in debt, subsidy, tax, and trading, no sign of interest in emissions reductions! This applies to the blatant frauds like Gore and Flannery, but also to the more earnest-seeming people. It applies on the personal lifestyle level, and on the highest policy level. Apart from some fabulously expensive fetishism, which may result in trivial reductions, but is much more likely to increase them, nobody does anything about those dreaded emissions, and nobody wants wants to. Nobody.
Australia is gouged as never before to extract coal to get money. 70% of that is exported to be burnt in the exact same atmosphere as the one I’m breathing now. This can’t be slowed because of the need to feed more and more money into a debt-ridden and mismanaged economy (see “fabulously expensive fetishism” above).
When the enormous regrowth from the present 50s style cycle ends, when the parching Spring westerlies come back, there will be conflagrations – trust me on this one, I live on the forest fringe! When that happens, the fuel build-up will be all that matters, not some theory about numbers of hot days, confected to win back some lost ALP heartland. And do you think there will be some CO2 emitted then? How much CO2?
Imagine if the threat from human generated CO2, SO2, methane etc was real. Now ask two questions:
1. What measures would you put in place immediately?
2. Who are the absolute last people you would want to put in charge of implementing those measures?
Exactly!
ACORN-SAT, as Bazza has emphasised, the numbers on Australian extreme temperature trends. But you lot know better. Science drongoism in action.
I’ve waited years to hear this statement, “the world should act.” Well here’s your chance big mouth, tell us what that action should be once and for all.
No denials, no infantile abuse and the usual silly nonsense, just tell us what the world should do.
If you can’t or will not answer your own assertion then we know you’re just full of bovine excrement and we can have a good laugh at your big mouth, pea brain stupidity.
What’s the bet you can’t answer, but please prove me wrong.
Good questions you put Robert. “1. What measures would you put in place immediately?
2. Who are the absolute last people you would want to put in charge of implementing those measures?
I suppose you could take a punt on the coalitions policy which aims at the same redeuction in GHG by 2020, getting up, albeit at higher cost so you could just sit back, do a bit more background reading and relax if you can. Also keep pushing on the world scale. The answer to your second question is of course the coalition.
“I suppose you could take a punt on the coalitions policy ”
Nope.
“The answer to your second question is of course the coalition.”
Nope. The GetUp/Green elements, the Posh Left, the Fairfax perusing classes: these are the absolute last. Of course, there are plenty of them in the Coalition.
As to the which Federal policy is worse: anything involving global trading of a fragment of thin air will certainly be made to look good by all those shills, touts and stock-jobbers we neglected to lock up after ’08. Yes, there will be “beautiful sets of numbers” for a while, until people realise that they’ve been kissing an even bigger and uglier money-toad – dressed as a prince by GIM or Goldman Sachs.
Remember: Because, nobody, especially me, is really interested in reducing GHGs, my two questions are frivolous. A serious question is: when, if ever, will we expunge this destructive mass neurosis of Environmentalism and see a return to Conservation values.
Well Luke, precisely what ACTION or ACTIONS must be undertaken, and WHO should be in charge of implementing these?
What actions – firstly we get left wing extremist scientists to run the show, get rid of democracy, round up turds like Neville for the gulags or re-education, cap population – 0.5 children per family should be a start, and install lots of wind mills everywhere.
Well 10 out of 10 for your honesty Luke showing your full groupthink totalitarian inner self. Stalin and Hitler and any number of vicious psychopaths would be so proud of you.
I well remember Bob Santamaria remarking on some of the same gutless leftwing cranks phoning him and telling him how he would be dangling from the nearest light pole come the revolution.
But at least we know now the quality of assorted backside of the world we’re dealing with I suppose.
Time for some technical points. Does not matter whether you use calendar years or Enso years, the trend is obviously the same, only the annual variability will change. Second, it was well established a couple of decades ago that the last century in NSW was a game played in two halves. First half was hot and dry second half cooler wetter. (First half saw big irrigation development based on a drier period- second half gave scope to over allocate until the dry beginning around the recent turn of the century, ignoring the climate does not know which half it is in). So it is indeed misleading in NSW particularly to look at temperature trends without looking at rainfall. Should the climate commission have done that. Of course not. They are basing examples on well known evidence. But if you want to confuse people who are not going to base their ‘scepticism’ on evidence, then I suppose you can do what you like.
Luke, the brochures. Don’t forget the brochures.
I do not think Luke is real. I think he is some kind of computer generated, “oppositional,” reply system.
I so hope I am wrong, but the signs are there.
No one could be that naive.
When ‘will we expunge this destructive mass neurosis of Environmentalism and see a return to Conservation values.’
It may take a landslide victory for the Coalition, reducing Labor to a rump but leaving the Greens relatively unscathed, yet impotent.
The tax is scrapped and green adventurism scuttled, still the watermelons sit on their hands and whinge we wuz robbed.
In NSW the Coalition government splits over frakking and a new party is formed, attracting old greens and agrarian socialists to the cause of Conservation values.
Remember Luke, the first principle is that you should not fool yourself and you are the easiest to fool.
Fundamentally important too is a transfer of western capital to the less developed nations. And small local generation systems with no major grid.
I ran into a guy last week at the mall( ltns), says he’s retired now with a sea change so I ask when? “Oh about a year now” bought a block, had a house built. Then I ask what he had been doing since I left that group in late 90’s. To get his package, he had to job swap into groups and it seemed likely they both ended near where I started in the PS. What were you doing I asked “Oh a little spying” he said knowing I would guess the rest.
At a much earlier stage we had met in the refresher course for technical folk who had a smattering of electrical or electronics about the same time our first micro chips went mainstream. Restructuring for a generation had arrived. Analogue to digital conversion for many measurements enabled data bank strategies previously associated with accountancy.
But by then some had also learned the finer points of extracting signals from the either. S/N ratios that were once just a function of fine tuning became something else with pulse streams. Filtering the rubbish was a tricky business, however it should be old hat today. There is an outline here but go back to the origin, DSP
http://www.dspguide.com/ch14/1.htm
I also watched our chief minister last week ceremoniously lift her big flat screen TV onto a pallet, one of a semi load organised between Fed and State Govts, and first in the deal to gather old technology free of disposal fees. Now, who dares to infer we can’t analyse tree some ring data in this digital age?
It’s still GIGO gav, no matter how many filters it passes through on the way.
Filters only take stuff out. They don’t put stuff in.
And they can’t turn trees into thermometers.
This is more the sort of stuff you should be brushing up on gav:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/methane-hydrate-technology-fuels-a-new-energy-regime/article2433611/
sd, you actually understand gav-speak?
hats off to you
Back on theme. Would Basil B with his broadbrush goal-oriented approach to stats make a go of climate commissioner. ?. Well, I suppose Jen would have to put up a geologist with coal expertise. You would think there would be one Australian scientist with expertise in climate change research who could advance her cause. No , not one. what a farce. says it all.
Luke, don’t forget Green Jobs. And maybe more brochures, to explain about the Green Jobs? The glossy cover could show the day shift at Timmy’s Geothermia (artist’s impression). We’ll need the models to be twinkly-eyed larrikins, a bunch of dinkum, Milk-Arrowroot-munching Aussies in Akubras, who don’t mind hard yakka, but really love their mates and love Geothermia.
You can buy a lot of anti-carbon brochures with the skim from hundreds of millions of tons of coal exports.
The ultimate cherrypick by our Basil. As Nicholls et al (Aust Met Mag 53, 2004) “mean max temps increased across nearly all of Australia during the 20th century. The major exception was in parts of central and eastern NSW. Variations in mean max temps in NSW are strongly (negatively) associated with rainfall variations” Shame – what a fraud.
Bazza?
Your posts are confusing.
What are you trying to prove?
1st you say the 2nd half of last century was cooler in NSW and it is a well known fact.
Then you have one of your highly predictable shots at Jen and then you try to explain it away with rainfall?
The graph is just a simple plot of the temps from 2 sites in NSW from 1890.
Why is it upsetting you so much? I can’t see any attempt at fraud. It’s just a simple graph. Is there something wrong with the data that Basil has used?
Also Bazza?
Since when has it been valid to seperate rainfall from climate?
And maybe you need to supply a simple rainfall graph that correlates with this one and therefore validates whatever you were trying to say?
JW; my last punch was just a poke about the mutual recognition between true technical types. Seems we can count you out every time. A hint too, was the way we slide into each other’s shoes in support of evidence gathering techniques at the pointy end where a little science goes a long way in the practice.
Finding what is repeatable is not something one falls into though. You do the calculus and the other methods first. When I leave a link, I expect somebody inc SD to have at least a butcher’s before determining what the rest of us should trust.
There is too much discussion around the cherry picking issue an not enough about the methods actually used in each fresh publication. The kind of blog debate we have after some skeptic guru posts their own graph here or there stinks of ignorance in the extreme.
Moving averages versus what else? Get into the big picture with filters!
http://www.dspguide.com/ch14/2.htm
On Q&A last week; “What is the largest black body in the solar system?”
Hands up anyone who can’t fully understand the answer.
Deb; if you believe both BB’s plots are true climate indicators, not badly filtered in the case of the wildest, then a direct comparison with one and other is wrong.
Apples with apples please.
Debbie, you could cure some of your confusion by less writing, more reading, finding/downloading the Nicholls article, reading the Steffan article in todays Australian and realising you might have been conned. How would you estimate the risk of a record heatwave at/near your place by say 2020 – ask Basil? Or would you just use the historical probability, would you add a bit, what is the difference between managing risk and managing uncertainty???
Nicholls paper concluded it should be noted that the apparent 20th century cooling in New SouthWales is composed of two episodes: a mid-century cooling associated with an increase in rainfall (and presumably ‘natural’), and a late century warming not associated with rainfall changes. You can look at a simple comparison between two stations till the cows come home but it will tell you zero about the future unless you know a bit of context. It was all the shamans had but we can do better!
In an extremely round about way, our Green Betters are starting to concede some main points about the twentieth century climate which skeptics have been trying to make for a long time. The admission is framed as more patronising, lecturing and finger-wagging – but, hey, progress is progress!
As to the chances of any “record” event (to use a slob term), I’d say very high. But because computer models MUST be wrong – for reasons which should be apparent to a cow in a field – and because other predictive methods are still pretty flimsy, I can’t tell you if it will be a “record” hot or cold.
Robert, facts dont have to be conceded. as to your dilemma, “I can’t tell you if it will be a “record” hot or cold” there is a way off the horns. You would have to get ready and aim before you fire tho. I promise there are no computer models of future trends involved, just using the historical data. Fawcetts CAWCR Technical Report No. 050 states “In other words, areas with exceptionally low temperatures are becoming increasingly rare. Areas at or above the 95th percentile ( exceptionally high), however, are increasing over time, with relatively few “warm” spikes in earlier years (pre-1970) and frequent spikes in subsequent years (post-1970). That increase appears to be accelerating.” So come on Robert, have a go, you can do it – this is not racket science, which one is most likely – hot or cold – in the next few years.
Bazza,
I have no problem believing in a general warming since the 19th century, with a cool dip between the wars and (only possibly) right now. However, I have to tell you that if I hate the lax terminology displayed by those who speak of “records”, I am not in love with the expressions “warming” and “cooling”, though I use them myself – to my shame!
Recording a string of maxima and minima, for example, only tells us a bit about temperature, even within a day. For example, I’ve just experienced the “coolest” summer in memory, due to persistent cloud cover and the oceanic winds that have been dominating since 2007. This may well show as a “record cool” summer – I think at least one of last summer months was a “record cool” – but this kind of talk is frivolous in the extreme.
I have no trouble believing in a general warming called the Holocene, and some warm bumps within the Holocene. I have no concern if that manifests itself as an increase in hotter single days in recent years. (However, it’s also true that my trust in the many agenda-motivated humans who record, keep and manipulate climate data is now weak.)
Let’s leave the jail-bait, the blatant scoundrels like Gore, Flannery and Pachauri to one side. The great fallacy of sincere alarmists lies in their utterly unjustified belief that what has been will continue to be.
The ‘belief that what has been will continue’ is actually ‘justified’ -in reality,argued, refined and observed in excruciating detail,with caveats- in the scientific literature of the last 50 years. Many scientists have put up projections,and,sadly,they’re doing very well.
Rejectionists have been reduced to facetious ploys,misrepresentation and arguments from incredulity or unwitting ignorance… for instance here, in claiming that CC data is inadequate, surely one cannot rebut it by further recourse to inadequate sample sizes? What IS the argument anyway? That extremes in the early 20th century ‘prove’ that physics-based projections for the next century are false,or don’t matter?
Without the science,rejectionists then satisfy themselves that stymieing policy/winning popularity contests will thwart physics,even while we continue to unprecedentedly unpack billions of tonnes of carbon previously largely locked away from the active carbon cycle.
And Tony Price @comment 26 has got the Port Kembla SEAFRAME data wrong. Last years report shows a rising trend of 2.6mm/annum,accounting for all factors,at that site.
Too true, Poly. I will give Robert the benefit of the doubt on the Goethe scale of “Real obscurantism is not to hinder the spread of what is true, clear, and useful, but to bring into vogue what is false”.
Saying it’s so makes it so. What goes up must go up. And that perpetually unsettled thing called science is now settled. Of course, sometimes we learn something new about climate: namely, IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT. Great truths! Should help me get over my “rejectionism”. (Hey, cool new pejorative! Though I think they used it in Phnom Penh back in the 70s.)
No, the science is definitely settled. I’m off to get myself bled by leeches. If my rejectionism persists I’ll opt for some trepanning. I still can’t train my mind to look only at Western Antarctica and my eyes keep drifting naughtily to the Bering when I look at the Arctic maps. I know all those rejectionist scientists aren’t really scientists; Harold Lewis and Ivar Giaever are totally not physicists…but they keep trying to suck me in.
It’s hard to get one’s mind in proper alignment, to remember if we’re at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Thankfully, we have the Newspeak of our Green Betters.
Luke – the Craig Thomson of AGW. We all know the game is up, but he will keep mumbling warmist rubbish until he is forced out the door.
Still waiting for Luke, Bazz and Ploy to say something sensioble about what action is required, why it is required and who will implement.
So far the response is rubbish, typical AGW rubbish.
Luke – hang your head in shame – if its possible for an autobot to do so?
Just looking back through the many warmer-than-today periods of the holocene would give any sane, logical person good reason to believe that trace-gas alarmism just doesn’t rate.
If you also believe that the fate of the world is controlled by pos feedback and seriously threatened after over 4 billion years of survival then you are possibly the type that would pay a million dollars a year insurance premium for a half million dollar house.
And even when it is other peoples money that is paying the premium and you are getting a rebate, surely the craziness still shines through? No?
Bazza, speaking as someone who has read Faust numerous times (in the original German), I’d like to express my complete agreement with those quoted words of Goethe.
I personally can’t tell the difference between a Goethe and a Joist.
Except, I think, that Goethe wrote Faust and Joist wrote Ulysses
The problem with the doomers of course, is that they don’t lead the way:
http://azizonomics.com/2012/05/18/the-face-of-genocidal-eco-fascism/
Bazza,
Nice to see you referring to some of the publications on Australian temperature records. I will come back to that shortly.
Just for clarification, I am a Charterd Professional Mining Engineer, not a Geologist with coal expertise. I do however, have an honours degree in Exploration Geochemistry from the days when Geology was taught as a hard science and not the current terminology that is used of Earth Science. So I suppose that dates me a bit. My main area of expertise is in underground coal mine safety dealing mostly these days with issues of coal spontaneous combustion assessment and management and my face time in industry was spent working on issues related to gas hazards in underground workings. My focus has always been on safety of mine workers.
You refer to the Nicholls et al paper of 2004, but I prefer to use the Nicholls and Collins Energy & Environment paper of 2006, which shows the general pattern of hot days for Australia, with one slight problem. The data is only shown back to 1955, a good year I must admit, but in terms of showing the complete picture of hot days it fails in a similar manner to the Climate Commission report for NSW. I urge you to take the time to go to the BOM site and plot your own version of the hot days data for any of the long term sites (back to the 1800’s) or at least back to the start of the 1900’s and you will see a completely different picture. As Jennifer tried to point out in a previous post it is all to do with the timeframe reference you use as to what interpretation you can prove. In my case I prefer to look at the longer term picture (must be the geologist in me), but 50 years is not good enough. We need to look at things from the longer term perspective. Plot the trends and you might be pleasantly surprised with what you find.
cheers, Basil
Bazza?
How would I predict the risk of a near record heatwave near my place by 2020?
If it’s February I’ll give it a 50/50 chance.
When climate science is able to accurately predict even one month out, I’ll be prepared to accept it can give me useful information about 2020.
Actually go for a week first.
Too much reliance on weather forecasts and trying to manouvre around govt water policy has driven us mad just this week!
I think the Shaman if I knew him, would have been just as helpful.
You didn’t answer my questions BTW but loved the shot about my lack of research ability.
Basil Beamish admits he’s not a climate scientist, or even an earth scientist. He’s been bogged down for years studying hard science stuff and doing practical science stuff – at the coal face!
Hmmph! He’s no more a climate scientist than Freeman Dyson.
As Auden said when dining with T. S. Eliot: “Pass the salt, Tom.” (I just like to quote prominent authors so I sound kinda deep.)
Basil; after reading your post (thanks for the insight), I must say that you don’t seem to account for the most likely instrument errors encountered in temp records prior to about 1960.
I have tracked my own max/min thermometer on and off over a decade or so and have decided as an interested observer the thing on it’s own is quite insufficient for a proper scientific survey as there is no way of fixing even the frost point with the usual reset.
I guess BoM is dogged by similar uncertainties at almost every post prior to the installation of continuous recorders.
It’s a good point you make, Gav. And I’m told that modern electronic measurement has its own set of problems. On the ground metrology has always been difficult. It’s only straightforward when a reading finally becomes someone’s “data”, far away in a city.
What I find interesting is that Basil’s graph chimes well with readings taken well away from the ocean here on the midcoast. My impression of the early BOM is that they were gritty but modern-minded people who took their work seriously. I don’t expect their instrument work was perfect, but I expect it was good.
The records in my region indicate that the worst decade for sustained heat and drought was between 1910 and 1919. Every month but one had its highest average max in that period, the exception being August, which had its highest average max recorded in 1946. The drought periods, judging by monthly totals, were shockers. (There are no official temp records for my region before 1905 that I know of, but, if they exist, I’d love to see them, because Basil’s graph looks interesting to the far left.)
And those cool wet seventies, half a century on from that hot dry decade, can’t be dismissed. If they didn’t happen, then I wasn’t here.
Will Steffen has his critics.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/will-steffen-defends-climate-commission-report/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=will-steffen-defends-climate-commission-report
Gavin/Robert,
Good to see you raising those points. The good thing with looking at hot days is that you are looking at Tmax values >=35C from the BOM database which has an automatic filter to identify these. This makes it easy to spreadsheet the data. Only a small percentage of readings in any one year actually fall on the boundary of 35C itself, and I could refilter the readings by only including those above 36C say for years prior to 1960 as you suggest Gavin. However, I am not convinced that this is necessary and it certainly is not going to reduce the record years of number of hot days in the early 1900’s (as Robert rightly refers to) below the levels of those recently obtained, nor in a realistic sense is it going to dramatically alter the trends.
If you want to really test this I suggest you go to the BOM site and check the records for Forbes, which go back to 1872, with just a few incomplete years. To do this you need to:
1. Log onto the BOM site at http://www.bom.gov.au
2. Click the Climate & Past Weather icon
3. Click the Weather & climate data icon
4. Change the Data about drop down menu to Temperature (note Maximum temperature comes up as the default)
5. Enter Forbes in the Enter location window then press Find
6. Select Forbes NSW in the Matching towns window
7. Deselect Only show open stations by clicking on the tick in the box
8. Select the Forbes (Camp Street) station
9. Wait for the data to load then select Get Data (this will give you the valid data you need from 1872-1995)
10. Select the Forbes Airport AWS station
11. Wait for the data to load then select Get Data (this will give you the valid data you need from 1996-present)
12. Now you have access to any year you care to select at either site
13. Select the drop down menu Show in table
14. Select Days above 35C and they will be highlighted.
15. Copy the number of hot days for each month using a spreadsheet row for each year and total the number of hot days for each year.
16. Make a simple scatter plot of the data as per above in this article.
The purists will say you are stitching two different data sets together, but give it a go first and then we can discuss the finer points. I think you will be surprised by what you find.
Good luck and happy spreadsheeting. It should take you no more than an hour and I think you will find it an hour well spent.
cheers, Basil
Basil – ACORN-SAT have done the analysis – just do us the courtesy of putting up the alternative analysis. Comprehensively and not cherry-picks
sp – try formulating a thought and stop being carried around in our wake.
Luke,
Many thanks for the reference to the new data set release. There is no cherry picking going on here I am just alerting people to an opportunity to look at things for themselves and if I get a chance I will do a comparison between the datasets if possible, but remember this discussion is about the number of hot days per year not an average temperature value derived from area weighted algorithms.
People are trying to decide whether they are going to feel more uncomforable with what lays ahead in their region or more specifically their locality, so averaged values have little meaning to an individual. The trend in hot days can be quite different to the trend in cold nights, and it is possible that the average temperature is changing with time in a complex manner which is consistent with climate change as we are seeing it in the data records. I just like to make my own informed judgements based on the original data. It is the engineer in me saying do your due diligence.
I also find it astonishing that the projection of the number of hot days generated from the GCM models all seem so unrealistic. If you place them on a plot of hot days for any of the localities referred to in the reports that have been issued so far for Australia, the 2030 values do not make any sense with the historical record and the only way the levels can be reached is by some astronomical leap of faith from what I can see. It could also just be a terminology thing where the value projected is not what is being referred to in the reports.
cheers, Basil
Indeed Basil – so the best thing one could do to inform this debate is to get the highest quality set of stations for Australia and do the maths. Taking into account that non-Stevenson screen data will be biased. Making ad hoc one-off arguments on a station doesn’t necessarily tell a story.
ACRON-SAT has done that and had external review (part of due diligence). So look forward to the Australian sceptics revised or alternative analysis.
Basil; I say based on recent observations, it is rare for large temp variations to persist between regional centers and where they do, its the topography. Cooma, Canberra and Goulburn will be different to Eden, Narooma, and Nowra. Btw, never have less than three references at hand.
The predicted increases in hot days is fair enough too. I can say we have larger weather systems moving through our region than we once had, hence more extremes are likely. This year in Canberra, it’s going to be frosts for a change!
Comment on ABC radio today, expect more science to depend on collaboration between branches as all the easy stuff has been done.
Luke,
I have downloaded the pdf info on ACORN to get a perspective to the project. Just downloaded the ACORN data for Tmax at Richmond (QLD) and for 1910 first couple of months I do not see any degree of consistency in Temperature adjustments for Tmax. Some are up, some are down and some are exactly the same as that in the BOM original data set. Perhaps the adjustment algorithm goes through some crossover, but that does not make sense to me. Or am I missing something, (wind adjustment perhaps). At least if I do this entire site for comparison we will be able to see whether there is any major change to the hot days trend between the two data sets and what that means.
It will take me a bit of time to get the spreadsheets to line up for true comparison, but probably worth the exercise to remove those nagging doubts. Not sure if I speak for Australian sceptics, but I am sceptical by nature and training.
cheers, Basil
Basil, I think you are contesting the conclusion that “New South Wales is becoming hotter and heatwaves will become more severe.” That is a generalisation about the current climate and a future extreme. It has nothing at all to do with what happened at one station – a sample size of one. Even digging out one station that had higher temperatures back early last century does not allow you to make any statements about the future for that one station or any other. You are simply exploiting spatial variability. Even Jen said “If Professor Steffan and Hughes are going to make statements about temperatures trends they have an obligation to consider all the instrumental data that is available”. ( true, she was talking more about the period used). You would not make inferences about mine safety from one sample that supported your hypothesis, whatever it is. Further you have ignored Nicholls work on the changing relationship between temperature and rainfall which invalidates naïve conclusions on earlier data. If you want to “prove” (your word) that NSW is not becoming hotter and heatwaves will be less severe, standby for the Nobel Prize.
I’ve just deleted a few comments that Mr Koala felt were off topic.
I would like to see a plot of ACORN and raw data for Richmond and other places. Looking forward to seeing the plots once Basil has had time to process… no rush.
Polyaux,
I just re read your comment thinking you may have wanted to contribute something useful to the discussion and I missed it.
Second reading leads me to the same conclusion.
I think you need to get out more?
And Bazza?
If you so wholeheartedly agree that you sit on some all knowing, academically superior, moral high ground and the rest of us ill informed great unwashed are asking stooopid questions, then I offer you the same advice.
Jen, Basil and Mr Koala have simply pointed out a rather glaring anomoly in the report and the further outrageous claims made by our CC.
Change the timeframe and surprisingly the statistical conclusions change.
Further, the stated alarming (supposedly) risks, are manageable in practical ways.
We already knew that we’re vulnerable to the vagaries of climate.
Jennifer; don’t give Basil a too larger task cause he is up against experts on extremes as Bazza says an he would be trying to overturn fundamentals in IPCC 4
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-2-3.html
Steffan et al probably come after Nicholls in this sphere,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-2-3.html
Also; in all these debates besides having a minium of 3+ references, there is a need to consider heat exchanger dynamics in all major atmospheric events as a matter of course. The magnitude of fronts and vortexes etc won’t show in temp data and that’s the pity of any half baked analysis.
In the end, Climate is more than frosts and heatwaves.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-experts-should-stop-their-cherry-picking/story-fn558imw-1226362753742
‘What a folly to put all our bets on the proposition that there is only one cause of global warming. Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions may not significantly alter future climate.
The risk-averse strategy is to assume climate change will occur and to take action to alleviate the effects of that change.’
And Gavin?
How profound of you!
‘In the end, Climate is more than frosts and heatwaves.’
You think?????
I hope all of us are now relieved about that now.
Of course….that means we probably don’t need to be quite so alarmed about it.
And as the above points out….assume it will change and take action to alleviate the effects of the change.
So Luke, Bazza, Poly, Gav et al…..no one says it isn’t going to change….that is actually a given…it never stays the same…or haven’t you noticed?
So Fire risk?
Is the threat of a few extra slightly warmer days the major risk or is it that we have stopped taking action to alleviate the major causes of uncontrollable bush fires?
Health problems amongst the elderly due to UHI? (in Western Sydney???)
Is the threat of a few warmer days in Summer (on average) the major risk or is it that we are refusing to contemplate very simple management strategies to make the lives of these people more comfortable? It is a problem BTW….we do indeed have an aging population and we do indeed need to come up with better ways of caring for them….but the biggest problem is NOT the threat of a few extra warmer days in Sydney.
Rising Oceans?
Is the threat of a few extra warmer days the major problem or is it that humans like to settle near the coast even though they know (and have always known) that the ocean loves to keep altering the coastline?
I could continue….but I’m assuming that you get my drift?
And Bazza,
If you don’t know the answer to this question:
what is the difference between managing risk and managing uncertainty???
I will re affirm my advice to you above:
You need to get out and about a bit more….you appear to have lost the plot entirely when it comes to identifying risk and putting in strategies to manage it.
Splitting hairs about certainty and uncertainty is purely an attempt at obfuscation….nothing more, nothing less.
But…if you truly want me to play….
What is the uncertainty you want to manage?
zzzzzzzzz
Apologies Debbie for not clarifying my earlier question “How would you estimate the risk of a record heatwave at/near your place by say 2020 ?”. You replied “when climate science is able to accurately predict even one month out, I’ll be prepared to accept it can give me useful information about 2020.” So to be sure I will be more specific. I am not talking weather forecasts. It is I think a nub question about how people decide if a particular risk has changed enough for them to do something different. ( yes I know climate is always changing, you have played that card). Lets say this time – will the risk in 2020 in Feb be greater than it has been say since you started farming? It can only be yes or no. (I could say something else from climate science about the risk in February – it will be greater in June than Feb but that is trivial. There are other climate drivers, apart from the seasonal one, that change weather odds.) For arguments sake lets accept the possible climate related change in Feb risk is important if crops are vulnerable. I suppose you could adapt and change your planting time. But you might be uncertain whether the risk has changed enough to bother? So will the risk in 2020 in Feb be greater than it has been say since you started farming? I’m OK with one word Yes/No answer or maybe a maybe or don’t know or don’t care.
Bazza,
I’m not particularly concerned about whether you’re OK with how I do and/or don’t answer your questions…..it actually didn’t even cross my mind. I wasn’t aware that there were rules associated with answering your questions.
It would be nice however if you ever bothered to answer mine.
It seems the ony thing you’re willing to offer is more questions after you first try to insinuate that my question was (in your superior opinion) a stoooopid question….or perhaps (in your superior opinion) the wrong question?
If I wanted to…I could soooooo easily use your own tactic and point out that your questions about my crops (IMHO) were stoooopid questions or perhaps (IMHO) the wrong questions….if we’re talking about successful cropping….
And thanks for the highly enlightening lecture about there being other climate drivers other than seasonal ones.
Obvioulsy, because I’m so incredibly ignorant and rejectionist about these things and I’m just an over protected farmer….. I couldn’t possibly have known that…or had a hope of understanding that.
BTW….I don’t have the luxury of deciding whether I’m uncertain enough to decide whether the risk has changed enough to bother…..( I don’t covet that luxury either)
Thinking like that is an absolute sure fire way to end up doing absolutely nothing at all.
good luck Debbie.
Thanks Bazza,
I wish you luck in whatever it is you do as well.
I can see that you deeply believe that we’re all doomed in some manner if we don’t try this ‘grand experiment’ to mitigate climate change.
I think I’m just more pragmatic than you and believe our risk management strategies should be far more focused if indeed we’re at risk from future extreme weather events…that will be worse than what we’re already vulnerable to.
A simple example is the stated risk of more uncontrollable bush fires.
Is this what we call the difference betwen managing risk and managing uncertainty?
Apparently it’s climate prediction but I suspect that some would say it’s only weather prediction.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/elnino-australia-idINDEE84L09M20120522
‘ “Nobody is going to say that the models are 100 percent accurate, but if you look at the climate models, the risk of El Nino has gone up in recent weeks,” said Andrew Watkins, manager of climate prediction at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
‘ While the seven models hint at a return to El Nino, the World Meteorological Organization said last week it still maintains its neutral outlook for the second half of the year.
To me….the message is …..we’re uncertain ?
There are vague warnings about the type of crops that could be damaged….but what would you do Bazza if you were one of these farmers?
The only way to avoid the uncertainty is to not farm at all…..is that a good strategy?
Well Debs – you blew it for a chance for a good discussion with someone knowledgeable. I think Bazza is saying there’s more than enough evidence for some AGW impacts without getting down to catastrophic – but potentially seriously inconvenient.
So we’re not aiming to convince you, take your money or change your life – moreover and exploration of risk management or not under uncertainty. You could have had an interesting exchange. hmmmmmm
meanwhile back in the entrenched positions…..
Luke,
It’s a bit hard to have an interesting exchange when specific questions are not answered and comments are ridiculed as basically ‘unintelligent’.
You seem to forget that by nature I would be a results orientated person.
Think about the ‘results’ that I would be seeing.
More specifically in relation to this comment from you:
‘So we’re not aiming to convince you, take your money or change your life’.
I live in the MDB Luke….that’s exactly what is happening here.
You may be right…. there could possibly be impacts from AGW without (having) to get down to catastrophic……. but what does….. but potentially seriously inconvenient mean?
How is that any different?
The point of the post remains that our CC used this latest report to make some claims about risks associated with changes in climate….and it’s still based on AGW and associated ‘carbon price’ policies.
Those included such things as increased bushfire risks and increased risk to the elderly and very young due to heat stress and catastrophic damage to property and infrastructure due to sea level rises.
My objection was that these risks can be managed already….and don’t require a plan to try and mitigate the climate.
When I questioned Bazza on this, Bazza claimed that a carbon tax is ‘the only card to play’ but then related it to our already known vulnerabilty to extremely variable climate….as if I wouldn’t be aware of that fact?
The report also concluded that there was an average 1 degree rise and predicted a rise in the number of days over 35 in summer in Sydney.
Jen and Basil checked the ranges (timeframes) in the statistical analysis and noticed there was a rather glaring anomoly….specifically….if the ranges are changed the statistical conclusions change….even more…. that the first half of last century had more days over 35 than the second half…in Sydney….which our CC was focusing on….but also NSW in general.
Bazza calimed that Basil’s graphs were farcical and even fraudulent….they’re rather strong words don’t you think?
I couldn’t see anything farcical or fraudulent in that graph….it was a relatively simple graph using publicly available data. Maybe not as sophisticated as ACORN and SAT….but there wasn’t anything inherently wrong with the way he plotted the information.
I then got asked:
whether I’m uncertain enough to decide whether the risk has changed enough to bother….
With a specific push to corner me into making a ‘prediction’ about the climate in 2020. (and only yes or no was acceptable)
I pointed out that I can’t make business decisions based on that sort of information….because the truth is…I would end up making the decision to not farm at all if I messed with my head like that!
Here is another example here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201205/s3509192.htm
An excerpt:
“We’re looking at several models at the bureau and we survey them quite regularly, and of those seven models, five of them now and just edging into the El Nino territory round about spring,” he said.
“Two of them are a bit below that, but they all sort of have a fair bit of spread, so a bit of uncertainty, but the risk is starting to rise for El Nino later in the year.”
The weather bureau is also indicating a warmer winter for much of the country, but says it’s not yet related to the possible El Nino.
South-western Western Australia has an 80 per cent chance of exceeding average temperatures over the next three months.
There’s likely to be less winter rainfall across much of the country too, with the bureau saying much of the continent only has a 30 to 45 per cent chance of exceeding average rainfall.
So how do I use this information in relation to uncertainty Luke?
As I pointed out earlier….it is just claiming with some percentages….a degree of uncertainty.
If I wanted to avoid uncertainty I would go back to my original career which means that I would be paid every week by the taxpayer because I worked in Education.
I have learned to accept that farming and business in general is fraught by uncertainty.
I actually don’t have a huge problem with the fact that predictions and projections are uncertain.
It will be excellent if they can one day be confidently done…..that will certainly make my life easier….but we simply aren’t there yet.
I am however completely over people pretending they are certain…or that the ‘science is settled’….I have seen no evidence of that….have you?
The argument ends up becoming circular ….and then it seems we have to take ‘sides’ or as you say ‘entrenched positions’.
I disagree….if we took the politics out….most of us would have no trouble accepting that there is uncertainty when we make predictions about the climate….even the ‘economic climate’…..or the ‘political climate’.
It hasn’t actually been about the science for a long time…..I sincerely wish it was.
Well Debbie – against my best judgement to keep engaging you
there are decisions at various scales
Weather – now to 10 days hence
Intra-seasonal – Madden-Julian Oscillation – “40 day wave” (perhaps a more northern Australia thing)
Seasonal 3months – 9 months – ENSO, IOD, SAM, STR
Interannual – not sure what we really have to offer
Decadal – “loose associations” with IPO/PDO
-Decadal to Centennial – climate change scale?
Interglacial – Milankovitch cycles
So the main action for you I assume is weather and seasonal.
Seasonal decisions I presume are about whether to plant, what to plant, what variety to plant, likelihood of planting opportunities, likelihood of late frosts, how much fertiliser to go with, buy in animals, sell animals, drought feed, agist, borrow money etc
Structural decisions get into the decadal to climate change area – what type of orchard, what varieties, how big a dam, what size property, acquiring property, income variation from climate variation, buying big machinery, tax structure. Interesting for olives for example – vernalisation threatened or reduced if climate warms too far.
Forecasts are all probabilistic – minority odds occur at every throw of the dice. So there are no 100% or even 80% technologies. Forecast utility varies spatially and temporarily. Many don’t get that. Autumn for example is a “predictability barrier” to some extent.
So you have to decide how to incorporate the forecast into the decision analytic – and what the economic and resource consequences are if minority odds occur (i.e. most people would see as “wrong” but it’s not really wrong – just the way it is).
Often farmers say the forecast accuracy isn’t enough or way the forecast is formulated isn’t useful. This is what discussions need to be about to improve matters.
Some people who make forecasts have noticed disturbing trends in their forecast indices and so may have developed an interest in climate change as consequence. So they have not come to AGW as a bleeding heart cause seeking greenie. Moreover it’s crept up on them and exposed itself.
And further they then may have calculated how income variation is related to climate and what happens if those odds change. e.g. for dryland croppers hypothetically – 3 out of 10 make profit, 3 out of 10 lose, 4 out of ten break even. What if that becomes 2,4, 4 from AGW? Are you still viable?
Deb; Luke’s answer above is fair enough imo based on your expectations re answers
Today I caught the tail of a report on ABC National that mentioned your MI mob and their backdown re the recent floods round Yenda. I suggest MI stuffed up if they ignored the potential of that weather system
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201205/s3509067.htm
Gavin,
While I agree that there was a stuff up…..that was not the reason.
Firstly and foremostly, nobody but nobody predicted that we would have over 700ml inside a week….with over half of that falling in the space of 12 hours….directly into the Mirool Creek flood plain catchment…..so they didn’t ignore ‘the potential’ because ‘the potential’ was not highlighted.
I might also add that similar messes occured in the ACT and surrounds did they not?
MI are also not ‘our mob’….they are the semi privatised, retail delivery arm of the NSW Office of Water and NSW State Water….essentially a bureaucracy…..and essentially a monopoly.
The ‘stuff up’ was they failed to act because they were sitting on their hands waiting for Ministerial approval and legal advice on a weekend….or to make that even clearer and relevant to my post about fire risks….they had to wait for all the red and green tape to be ticked off.
By the time they were given ‘permission’ to act the situation was already out of control.
Further to that, the drainage systems and the flood mitigation works were in a serious state of disrepair because they have only been focusing on ‘water savings’ and they also beliiiiieeeeeeved that we were never going to have excess water again. It led them to do such brilliant things like permanently cement shut the flood gates on the main canal because they leaked a little bit.
BTW….they haven’t backed down Gavin….far from it….they’re in the process of divesting themselves of any legal responsibility or any accountability.
Luke,
In the interests of brevity.
Thank you for engaging without your usual insinuations about peoples’ lack of interest or intelligence.
I don’t want to offend you but most of what you say about ‘decision making’ as it relates to weather/climate is already known by farmers…and the work of organisations like BoM have helped along the way.
They do take risks and always have and, of course, in our land of ‘drought and flooding rains’ they do come unstuck sometimes. But …Luke….in general it is usually a good story….especially in areas that have been purposely developed as Agricultural. They are getting better and better.
This century…we have now had a 1:100 plus year drought and also a 1: 100 plus year wet.
That is against the odds but as any good statistician knows….probability….though inexact….has a slightly better than even chance of guessing what will happen next.
In reality….what are the odds of either of those absolute extremes occuring again in the near future?
And should we all stop farming because there is a chance that will happen? Because, in reality, that’s the only way that farmers can be certain they won’t sometimes come unstuck.
That does not mean that we shouldn’t learn some lessons about the recent 1:100 plus events….we should….but it has very, very little to do with AGW….it has much more to do with a failure on the part of our policy makers to upgrade infrastructure in concert with the development that they have encouraged…and also to pretend that they haven’t make mistakes.
I also believe that many who work in the field of climate science genuinely want to help farmers in their constant battle with the uncertainty of climate/weather.
Those people however are not pretending they do have all the answers nor are they claiming that farmers are to blame for things like the recent drought.
May I also point out that the asthetic pleasure of allowing bush to grow up to your back doors in suburbia is a major reason why there is an increased risk from bushfires in Sydney and that the human preference for congregating on coastal fringes is the main reason why there is a risk from damage to property from the ocean and the UHI index is the main cause for increased heat in cities….it is not AGW?
So essentially….if we remove the ‘alarmist’ agenda that has attached itself to the hypothesis of AGW….we could all then follow this advice from the Australian Artcicle I posted earlier:
‘What a folly to put all our bets on the proposition that there is only one cause of global warming. Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions may not significantly alter future climate.
The risk-averse strategy is to assume climate change will occur and to take action to alleviate the effects of that change.’
That would of course not suit what we have now labelled ‘the alarmist or warmist agenda’ but as a farmer I have little time for or interest in ‘political agendas’.
Nope – do the most basic research on fire weather. Fuel load + temperature, wind and humidity on the day. Fire weather = fire weather.
UHI + more AGW extremes + inland from reduced sea breeze = hotter still
No there’s only one possible cause for recent warming unless you believe in fairies. If you have a solar driver or other mechanism race to publication for Nobel Prize.
The persistence of autumn rainfall decline in southern Australia has more than a plausible AGW mechanism – Timbal STRi
For heavens sake.
The sectors historical dependence on Exceptional Circumstances (EC that keeps on going for 30 years) illustrates your ability to adapt by yourself is poor. More extreme events in a greenhouse world = more pain for the bush.
” but most of what you say about ‘decision making’ as it relates to weather/climate is already known by farmers” – is it really? Hah ! you should make a fortune doing training then
Nope,
you’re splitting hairs.
Eg re fire risk.
Which is more likely the major cause and the real risk?
Increased (and poorly managed) fuel load or AGW?
Both – major spread in fire weather
You’re just so squirmy on basic science
Nope,
I’m focusing on correctly identifying the manageable risks.
You’re focusing on defending the ‘science’ because you are incorrectly assuming I am attacking it.
I’m not.
Pay attention please.
I did not say that AGW is not a potential risk.
Which is the manageable risk if we want to protect human life, human property and public infrastructure in Sydney?
Nope – Part of the manageable risk is a global deal on greenhouse. Just because you can’t do it solo in your back paddock or Australia solo can’t do it doesn’t diminish the need to consider action.
I agree all you can do solo or locally is live somewhere else or fuel hazard reduction. Fuel hazard reduction will not always be enough on big fire days. Management systems and capacity to respond are overwhelmed on massive fronts.
And action won’t reduce the risk to zero – we’re talking about increased risk.
Anyway – le de dah
Of more relevance is my 3,3,4 to 4,2,4 scenario above?
And you might consider if you were running Treasury – at what point would you consider that drought odds had changed? How would you make the judgement (analysis) Debs?
And BTW it’s an interesting question that has been asked.
Nope,
You have answered a different question.
That was not my question.
Part of the manageable risk? How big a part Luke? And in comparison to what? That’s the question.
Who said action would reduce the risk to zero? I don’t believe that is achievable either…Our native bush loves to burn….no question about that….and if conditions are right….a bush fire will start….no question about that either…..the question was definitely about identifying the major risks that we should work on managing….IN SYDNEY….which is how our CC used that report.
Who said there wasn’t increased risk? There is definitely increased bush fire risk, but is the major risk AGW and is AGW the major culprit in Sydney?
Of course events can overtake us….whoever said they can’t?
We’re only stupid if we don’t learn the lessons those events teach us.
And your 3,3,4 to 4,2,4 is a statistical probability question working on double guessing future trends…..and it ignores that we’re not in control of all the variables….and it also assumes climate is the ONLY variable and the ONLY risk to farming…..which is completely unrealistic…..just an interesting academic exercise.
But if you like…considering you’ve mostly refrained from being rude and dismissive….I’ll play.
At the moment, considering the other variables that affect farming….and the fact that we have just had a 1:100 year drought event….those 4,2,4 odds look more than acceptable to me…..because the probability in actual fact is this:
that out of those 4,2,4 odds….none of them are likely to be extreme…just a bit above or below average or the long term trends.
Which is not that big a deal really.
I agree looking long term 3,3,4 looks nicer…but it doesn’t really matter in terms of the academic exercise….because the probability of them being extreme events is still the same.
There is also a probability that one of those 4,2,4 odds will be tending to the extreme….and there is also a probability that it could combine with a poor exchange rate, or a rapid rise in interest rates or a glut in global markets or some rather ordinary govt policy decisions…..
So there isn’t really a simple academic statistically generated scientific answer…but it’s still an interesting academic exercise in statistics.
I’m not interested in playing on the EC question until you answer the question you have been directly asked every time you try to bring it up.
Do your sums.
This BTW…wasn’t a question….it was a deliberate attack….and you’re starting to sound like a broken record on this one:
For heavens sake.
The sectors historical dependence on Exceptional Circumstances (EC that keeps on going for 30 years) illustrates your ability to adapt by yourself is poor.
Is that right Luke?
Why would we be adapting by our little old selves? That would only be the case if we were just feeding and supplying and manufacturing for our litle old selves wouldn’t it?
Adapt to what in particular? The fact that sometimes we get delivered this scenario, quoted directly from you (with my little addition to make it directly relevant)?
Management systems and capacity to respond are (sometimes) overwhelmed on massive fronts.
The actual question is here:
And you might consider if you were running Treasury – at what point would you consider that drought odds had changed? How would you make the judgement (analysis) Debs?
What point?
Judgement (analysis)?
Doesn’t it depend on what it is you’re trying to achieve?
Isn’t that the real question?
What does Australia expect from Agriculture?
And also…if there are expectations from Australia….what does Agriculture need from Govt Policy in order to deliver on those expectations?
Your questions and your comments in this regard seem to imply that you think we should should abandon Agriculture because it’s turning into a waste of money.
I hope I’m incorrect….hopefully it’s just that problem of “scientists like to argue” that you offered at an earlier post????
There’s a Fahrenheit/Celsius fractional distribution audit of all ACORN-SAT stations at http://www.waclimate.net/round/australia-acorn.html and also an analysis of the new BoM dataset by Ken Stewart at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/acorn-sat-a-preliminary-assessment/
What a cop out. Refuse to answer the question eh ? Worried you’ll you’ll be trapped eh? Sorry Treasury wants to know. And you’re outvoted by a increasingly belligerent disconnected suburbia – expect no favours and a reducing interest. But Bazza and I are on your side – you just haven’t got there yet.
At some point Debs you would learn more from indulging a discussion – well at least in an exchange of views. I won’t be coming around to collect or anything.
Enjoy the implications of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/another-fingerprint/#bib_1 (from the empirical obs !)
Excuse me?
Where did I cop out Luke?
Why am I getting a lecture all of a sudden?
I’m not worried about being trapped Luke….I thought we actually were having a civil discussion…for a nice change.
Were you attempting to trap me?
You have thrown that one up many many times and I always always answer in the same manner and with the same supplementary question….except for the very very first time when I did indeed take a swipe because I found the tone of the question rather offensive….not my usual MO…and I apologise for way back whenever that was.
All I did really was try to qualify why you keep asking that one and perhaps gently move you accross to some better questions that we could civilly discuss.
So in all fairness….seriously….who’s actually copping out here?
Was that your only problem with my last post….why didn’t you comment on the rest of what I wrote?
Why have we suddenly moved on to new topics?
I thought you were more interested in the probability question…..3,3,4… 4,2,4.
Was that answer OK?
Do you work for treasury?
Are you positive that’s what they want to know?
I believe (with all due respect) that treasury has done those sums and they’re reasonably comfortable with the side Agriculture lands on the ledger….and find Agriculture a good investment.
It is after all the second best GDP earner in OZ….consistently….even, paradoxically, in the middle of the millenium drought….admittedly a long way behind mining….but also a fair way ahead of the others.
But feel free to disagree….but if you keep wanting to ask that question….just explain what’s wrong with the sums.
In the interest of this discussion Luke even though you have inexplicably introduced radical new (and IMHO totally irrelevant) material….why would suburbia be getting increasingly belligerent and disconnected? (Of course you’re correct…they are…but I don’t believe it’s me they’re angry with and it’s not me they’re voting against)
Has that got anything to do with the science/agriculture/what we were discussing, or, is it maybe something else entirely?
And Luke….I don’t have a comprehension problem….I’m non plussed that you are talking about sides. What is my side that you’re on? What haven’t I got to yet? I have no idea what you are inferring here….none….nada….zippo….
I have always said that I find much of the climate science useful….but….some of the projective work is being used inappropriately by the politics….and the results of that behaviour are not pretty.
The latest example being the way our CCs used the report that has been highlighted in this post.
What else do you want from me?
Is it to do with science or Agriculture or statistics?
Jeez Debs – I was simply hoping that you might explore the notion of when would an institution handing out Exceptional Circumstances funds (that’s exceptional !! including Gulf of Carpentaria floods and mouse plagues too) would think that for climate at least – things had changed. All bets are off. Probabilities are worse than we think. The last 120 years is no indicator of the next 120 years in terms of variation.
Simply an exploration of your views of how one would answer such a question.
Not that it matters so much now after http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201203/s3454127.htm
And ROFL http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201205/s3509826.htm
I’m not sure what you think those reports prove Luke,
1st one just says that the drought aid is over because there is no longer any drought declared areas.
2nd one is pure speculation and very amusing because we have also been told the exact opposite on many occaisions.
I also notice you have decided to ignore everything else we were discussing.
Don’t you want to answer my questions?
Did I do OK with the probability question?
Why did you introduce the increasingly belligerent and disconnected suburbia?
How can you be certain that the last 120 years are no indication for the next?
If the probabilities are worse than we think (which doesn’t make sense BTW) what do you want farmers to do about it?
It appears that you want me to start panicking about something that I can’t really change.
As far as managing risk goes, I can really only work with what I can change.
What do you think Australia expects from Agriculture?
It still appears to me that you don’t think we have anything worthwhile to offer.
I don’t believe that’s the case.
I’m on Deb’s side too.
While watching this thread go 100 + without my help (and too busy elsewhere) some old issues have returned to msm; projected downturn for aluminium smelting in oz being the latest but let’s consider the relevance of agricultural subsidies first. I perceive a drift between city dwellers and the bush is affecting our culture.
Last night I gave one grand daughter a big lecture on the phone about self driven nutrition programs for young adults at college or job seekers away from home after she admitted attendance failure due to long running minor illness had interrupted her school studies. I seems about a dozen of her kin also didn’t have regular fruit or veg in their diet so I recommended every one watch “River Cottage” too. But my folk are not city dwellers, so where did I go wrong? I t has to be other media driven peer pressure.
http://shop.abc.net.au/products/river-cottage-treatment
For decades I have campaigned against grand subsidy for industry where we taxpayers have little or no control of global manufacturing strategies. We had bizarre completion between states in building infrastructure to give away power for aluminium, chemical, pulp & paper, steel and vehicle production however home grown research in these industries has been jerky to say the least.
If we don’t own the industry in some part, nothing saves our jobs in the end. So Deb, who has a slice of yours?
Which one Gavin?
I produce for several different industries.
If you’re talking about foreign ownership, where are the policies, (in particular relevance to this post which is about climate change policy) that are protecting us from foreign ownership?
How is this political obsession with weather/climate protecting any of our industries from foreign ownership?
Agricultural or otherwise?
Luke you say “No there’s only one possible cause for recent warming unless you believe in fairies “ and yet, NASA and other reports suggest at least 40% of the 20th century warming was solar based, on top of that we know that human activity such as land clearing, land use and urban heat effects have also contributed in part to recent pleasant warming. On top of that we also know that just a 1% change in cloud cover is all that’s required to account for the mild change we have seen. We also know that it is acknowledged that clouds are poorly understood. Couple that with ocean currents and our improving but still limited understanding…..and your comment screams how rusted onto the dogma of co2 that you are.
Following the Russian’s recent report suggesting temp will cool further over the next decade or so, it seems that we should be thankful for recent warming. Because almost everybody agrees that marginal warming is more beneficial than cooling!?
So given that all the models predict much higher warming than is being seen and none predicted a stasis in temp for the last decade…it doesn’t look good for believers in co2 leading to 2-5c temp increases by the end of the century …does it?…..you Alarmist!!
Chris,
Thanks for those links.
It appears that Ken Stewart has already done a lot of the legwork that Basil was going to do as far as checking the ACORN SAT data goes?
Seems as usual that variability rules?
Russian research eh ….ooooooo I see.
BTW Gavin,
can you explain how that cottage idea would enable us to feed all those people who don’t even posses a garden because they live in CBDs?
Farmers would have no probs doing that, neither would hobby farmers, but if it was the over riding philosophy, a lot of people would starve.
Many millions live and work where they can’t grow their own, not just because they don’t have the room but because the area doesn’t have the right climatic/soil/seasonal/hydrology etc conditions.
I like the idea for myself, already do that, but in that respect I’m fortunate. I can actually produce extra for those who can’t.
Some of those also produce and manufacture what I can’t.
Usually works OK.