YESTERDAY his Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Australia’s Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has studied the climate record and discovered that the number of hot days are increasing in western Sydney, more koalas are falling out of trees, and people sitting in traffic jams are forgetting to turn on their air-conditioning. You can read everything here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
My name is Mr Koala Bear and I’ve been studying his report.
Naughty Tim has NOT told the whole story.
There are a lot of problems with relying on Parramatta for hot days for western Sydney. Parramatta is not a high quality site according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Parramatta only has temperature recordings from 1970 and Parramatta is jammed with more and more cars and especially air conditioners making it even hotter.
Luckily, I’ve found a high quality site west of Sydney with temperature recordings back to 1923. A much better site if we want to know about hot days and climate change.
I split my counts of hot days at Bathurst into 10-year intervals and counted the number of days in each decade above 35.0 °C.
Now I will tell the story of two Tims.
Tim 1 was busy playing his vinyl Beatles records back in the swinging ‘60s when he looked at his data and became very alarmed because it showed that the number of very hot days for each decade had fallen from over 60 to about 20 in just 4 decades! The trend was very bearish.
Tim 1 was convinced that a new ice age was setting in and by the end of the century everyone in Australia would be living in igloos! Imagine koalas living in igloos!
Nearly 50 years later, Tim 2, the Climate Commissioner, was listening to Lady GaGa on his iPod, when he saw that the number of very hot days over the past 4 decades was rising very steeply. Tim predicted that EVERY day would be over 35C by the end of the century. The trend was very bullish: very scary for a bear.
Both Tims just looked at the last five decades and were alarmed.
The real story is that the climate changes.
Be careful not to fall into the Tim-trap of just following a trend for a short period and thinking that this will go on forever. It just does not happen that way with our climate.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Koala, 40 year VHD data from Bankstown Airport,Prospect Reservoir,Parramatta and Richmond RAAF support ‘Tim’s story’,which is founded on an exhaustively explained theory and observation. ‘Tim’s story’ was actually the Climate Commission report authored by Steffen and Hughes,with thanks to the ‘Scientific Advisory Panel’. Why don’t they get the credit? A koala misled by media,perhaps?
Your data from Bathurst is 100km west beyond the Great Divide and 700m higher up,and not subject to UHI
You claim that ‘climate changes’ -yes,climate science and geology told you- but won’t risk a projection for the next century with a physical argument to back it.
Hi Polyaulax,
I filled in time waiting for the world to begin 40 years ago, sitting by the fire, reading “The Sixth Winter” and worrying about Mr Schneider’s impending ice age. Thank God for climate science finally getting history started and saving us all.
Polyaux,
Which part of Tim’s story?
He told a lot of stories.
I am also non plussed by your point about not risking a projection and a physical argument?
What would that achieve in relation to this discussion?
Wasn’t the point that we still don’t know enough and that pretending we do is not achieving anything because the climate is changing despite us and our projections?
Polyaulax,
Why do you want a site subject to UHI – urban heat island effect?
For those who don’t know what this means – UHI refers to an increase in temperatures in cities relative to rural areas because of the local effect of buildings, cars and air-conditioners etcetera and not from anything to do with the global climate change.
Bathurst – desperate stuff Jen – not even in the Sydney Basin and it’s ongoing land use changes and sea breeze issues.
If we want to do these analyses lets see the full analyses – max, mins, hot days, cold days, hot and cold extremes.
And for the record – Tim is commenting on a report done by others. Bit of precision and attribution required here !
What’s disturbing is the ongoing uniformitarian averages-ist view here that each individual site must somehow behave in lockstep – there’s a number of issues
– local GHG energy balance, mesoscale changes in circulation patterns from changing GHG energy balance, moved station siting, land use change locally and regionally, UHI, station management
Trundling around in the undergrowth trawling to find a station what suits is hardly a major analysis. Meanwhile back at ACORN-SAT which did … gurgle http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/
Youtubes eh? docos on the cheap ….
sorry – which did do a major widespread analysis on best data available …..
Mr Koala should realize that it is only the ‘believers’ that are permitted to ‘cherry pick’ data in this way.
Perhaps Mr Watts could survey the selected BOM data points to assess the UHI effect and recommend alternative sites that would give a more accurate reading, accounting for Physical locale etc.
Off topic. Cannot wait for Jennifer’s ‘take’ on the sheep station ‘bird bath’ conundrum currently facing those concerned with removing man made dams that those inconvenient birds have converted into viable bio diverse habitat…. all that fresh water could do much to assist the ‘fresh water’ lakes at the Murray mouth. Are those Eco-loons having their cake and eating it as well? Is the law of unintended consequences in operation here?
Also Polyaux,
Your question here:
‘Tim’s story’ was actually the Climate Commission report authored by Steffen and Hughes,with thanks to the ‘Scientific Advisory Panel’. Why don’t they get the credit?
I don’t know about you…. but the release of that report to the media looked rather stage managed to me….It appears that Tim and the other 3 definitely wanted to take the ‘media’ credit.
I wouldn’t be pointing my finger at the media for that particular gaffe….the media did not accidentally turn up at that location and happen to find those 4 individuals with the newly released report in their hands and ready made comments (with $amounts attached) about the dire risks from rising oceans or the risks to Western Sydney.
…..not that I am a fan of the media BTW….far from it in fact….just don’t think they’re culpable for that particular misrepresentation.
Like Jen….I’m also wondering why the UHI index is now relevant?
I have no problem with its direct relevance to Western Sydney but I am struggling to understand what point you were trying to make?
There is an increasing risk of rising mortalities from heatwaves particularly for the elderly living in UHI. That conclusion was built up from analysing all available global data and subject to extensive review by sceptical reviewers. I find that increased risk alarming. You would need to be naive, have head in sand, be a blind and fried freddie, or a desperate with an agenda to leap from the particular to try and disprove the general. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable as every journalist and science communicator does to go from the general to the particular to give a message relevance. End of story.
So Luke,
Why did you post that BoM graph at the previous post?
The comments made by the CC were most definitely Sydney specific.
Also here is the conclusion from your latest link:
The new data show that Australia has warmed by approximately 1°C since 1910. The warming has occurred mostly since 1950.
What is the alarming revelation here or the link to rising sea levels that will wipe out $billions of property and infrastructure in Sydney and make people who get stuck in traffic jams crankier???
Seriously, I fail to see how a trend of 1degree over 100 years that may have been more noticeable since 1950 and may/may not be related to human activities and may/maynot be influenced by UHI…. can cause Tim to make such alarming predictions about Sydney’s future.
Along with Polyaux….what exactly are you trying to defend/argue here?
Jen,I just point out that UHI/no UHI will influence raw numbers to some extent,confounding simplistic comparisons. Yet another factor in why Bathurst is not a good analog. Another reason is that the station may be in the ‘hi-qual’ pool but it’s not quality controlled back all the way to 1923,so I don’t think the four Sydney sites I’ve cited are at such a quality disadvantage as may be thought.
Debbie,climate science has empirically-based historical prediction [Tyndall,Arrhenius,Callendar et al,]specific physical bases,and a lot of empirical science and observation, for its confidence in projecting a long term global temperature rise from burning fossil fuels,while taking natural variability into full account.
OTOH,Koala has made a projection based on nothing more than saying ‘the climate always changes’. Surprisingly ;),I don’t think the ‘we don’t know enough’ argument is supported by evidence!
Clarification:
Off topic comment above suggests sarcasm.
The conundrum facing those dealing with the Toorale sheep station fiasco serves to illustrate the extraordinary complexity of ‘mucking about’ with ecosystems. We are going to need a skeptical radar to distinguish between ‘junk science’ as often employed by NGO’s (WWF etc) with a particular barrow to push (witness ‘silent spring’ etc) and infiltration of junk science in the IPCC as evidenced by Donna Lafambrose.
How do I know Mr Koala is a real Koala?
Last time I saw koalas they could not talk and I know for a fact their paws cannot operate laptops and try setting up a desk top in a gum tree, no way a Koala wrote this post.
Someones having a lend of ol Jack here. NO way am I believing a stoner Koala over a dinosaur scientist who can talk to the Planet itself (and get answers), a man who can tame, Gaia (thats the earth for ignoramuses) to give free energy lots of it sometime next decade, just you wait and see, a mate of an ex Prime Minister who used to write real bona fide Kiddy stories on his days off.
Sheesh, no way Blinky Bloody Bill wrote this post.
Simple reason recent Australian is way weirder than any fiction ever created. The lunatics aren’t in charge of the asylum, they took over the country.
Nice try.
Surprisingly Polyaux,
I think Luke may have partly nailed it at the previous post when he said:
Scientists like to argue!
Surprisingly,
As a business person and a food and fibre producer, I believe that is proving to be a totally impractical basis to undertake any form of genuine risk management….which leads me to Bazza’s comment…..and these questions……
So how would you manage that risk of increasing mortality among the elderly due to heat waves and the UHI factor Bazza?
And Bazza….seriously…..do you think that will be a particularly alarming problem in the relatively temperate climate of Sydney? Seriously?
And Bazza…..what about the poor elderly people who freeze and have mortality isues due to cold in other parts of Australia?
Does the plan of introducing a carbon tax/ETS/carbon price that will apparently stop the global climate from changing assuage your increasing feelings of anxiety?
As a non scientist….who is getting completely sick of all this obsession with pretending that climate scientists have a crystal ball….I would offer one suggestion that supplying the elderly with RC air conditioners would be an excellent way to manage both those risks….or maybe if they already have air conditioners…….give them access to cheaper power so they can afford to switch them on.
Or maybe….if they’re going to be over run by the oceans anyway….move them to higher ground inland in summer and higher ground back near the coast in winter.
And believe it or not….if we’re truly talking about managing risk…..there are at least another 100 suggestions ….all with a much cheaper price tag…..and a much better chance of solving ‘the stated risk’.
Not that I doubt global warming (or cooling), but what an extraordinary set of stunts! It’s the old wall-of-verbiage trick.
Every comment by Luke, Polyaulax and the ever-departing Bazza is rebutting a point which was never made. The most extraordinary would be this invitation to actually join the ranks of the trendoids and extrapolators:
“…won’t risk a projection for the next century with a physical argument to back it.”
Kind of saying that they won’t respect you till you’re as crazy as they are.
Anyway, Jen, you’ve brought them out in force. Obviously, this is is a sensitive matter with certain people. Now, if I might just try my hand at one of these twisty, keep-’em-busy stunts:
We now know enough to say that the ‘we don’t know enough’ argument is supported by evidence is unsupported by evidence. Get all that?
Link to that rather ironic Toorale story:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/m-for-australias-biggest-birdbath/story-fn59niix-1226356765380
Even more ironic as the NSW Office of Water has just released a paper for submissions re shepherding water, based on the Toorale shepherding experiment here:
http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-management/Water-recovery/Water-shepherding/default.aspx#say
Debbie, answers are readily available to all your questions. You learn more by doing your own research instead of mindlessly asking questions designed to obfuscate. How would I manage the risk? Show a bit of compassion and go with the evidence. Is it a risk in Sydney ? – apparently yes. Heat related deaths estimated to be up over six fold to 1300 by 2050 from a Fact sheet I came across. Longer fire season. Fewer deaths from cold is another story for Jen to run with. Does a carbon tax help. As world leading emitter with carbon dependent economy and already most vulnerable to climate variability , it is the only card to play.
What would you do? Ask more questions, query the data etc etc etc., drum up traffic for Jen, steer it back to water, but don’t do your own research.
Debbie, your attitude to risk management seems to be to find a bit of uncertainty about how much the risk has changed, and then bravely assume the risk has not changed. Is that true? Not even mug punters do that.
Since CAGW is a fiction but Conservation is critical, coal should cease to be wasted by being burnt in aging and inefficient facilties. The overhaul will take a long time yet it hasn’t even started. In coal and uranium rich Australia, we are generating power in clunkers!
Coal should cease to be wasted in the manufacture, here or overseas, of energy supply systems which are wasteful and inefficient. The answer for our new fetish-zone, Western Sydney, is to be ready for extreme heat and cold by having abundant, cheap and reliable power from the best source, which is, just at present, coal.
Winter is coming to Oz. Many are going without heating. Meanwhile, we will continue depend on aging coal facilities and on the revenues from the export of a whacking 70% of our massive, and rather too frantic, coal production. Should blackouts begin as a result of insane closure proposals, our Green Betters will have arguments as to why it should be so. Because they can always find words. In the manufacture of impenetrable walls of verbiage, they are indeed industrious.
Bazza,
Your attitude to risk management seems (IMHO) to be based on you never ever, ever, ever ,ever having had experience in managing risk where you personally have to manage it…..you’re only interested in identifying a ‘potential risk’ and then it seems (IMHO) figuring out a way to make everyone else pay for it and while they’re at it feel ‘noble’ about it…or ‘compassionate’. That’s just fuzzy warm inner glow stuff and nothing to do with the real business of risk management…..nothing at all….nada…..zippo.
What fact sheet that you came accross?
Who produced it?
Did they outline risk management strategies?????
And PLEEEAAAASE don’t even get me started on managing fire risk…..I deliberately stayed away from that one!
And BTW I didn’t ask if a carbon tax would help….
So what does this mean?
As world leading emitter with carbon dependent economy and already most vulnerable to climate variability , it is the only card to play.
The only card???????
PARDON???????
ROFL!!!
BTW….do you know the definition of obfuscate?
Hint….it doesn’t include asking a direct question…..but does definitely include the way a direct question might be answered.
“Your attitude to risk management seems (IMHO) to be based on you never ever, ever, ever ,ever having had experience in managing risk”
LMAO Do better Bazza ROFL ….
Don’t forget the ‘personally responsible for it’ …bit Luke….that would include being personally fiscally responsible…..just to make sure that we’re clear here and that no one is inadverdently obfuscating.
And just to make sure….to try and avoid the infuriating problem of obfuscation…please don’t mix up the difference between ‘identifying’ risk and ‘managing’ risk….because in business terms….they are seperate isues in the business of ‘risk management’….but do note it is actually called ‘risk management’….not ‘risk identification’…..there may be a reason for that.
🙂
Thanks Debbie.
I know this is like an argument with a mad man, but tell us Bazza how would reducing our whopping 1.3% by 5% by 2020 (co2 emissions) help to reduce the CAGW threat.
Your extra deaths by warming numbers is absurd because we know from all around the globe that warming saves lives and cooling costs lives. Every country in the world experiences more winter deaths than summer deaths or don’t you understand this simple point?
And Bazza Juliar and Labor are trying to export more coal, gas etc not less or haven’t you noticed? See Martin Ferguson recently imploring the Vic govt to export more coal and turn the Latrobe valley into another Pilbara.
We’re the only bunnies punished for using cheap energy but they couldn’t care less about co2 emissions produced from the use of our 75% cheap exports. Same co2 emissions and same planet last time I looked, but we lose the jobs and industry overseas.
So what’s your problem Bazza, still can’t understand simple kindy maths and simple logic and reason?
And please answer all the points above, afterall you’re the one wanting to put a price on co2.
Just a tip it won’t change the climate,droughts, floods, temp or our well being by a jot and simple maths proves my point conclusively.
Bazza – given the billions Debbie’s sector has had for “drought relief” over last 30 years and more – maybe that explains her problem with the risk concept. She doesn’t have to worry as you’re looking after her.
Here are some of the statements made by Professor Lambeck regarding the new climate report.
He says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by “about a degree” over the last century.
“There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.
“Whether that’s part of a long term trend or whether that’s part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that’s something that we don’t know yet because our records are too short.”
“The underpinning parts – the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in intoglobal temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere – these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information,” he said.
“Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.”
“We’re not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that our forecast.”
“But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.”
Are these the comments of someone who is fully clear about the science? “We’re not totally clear on that ….’ doesn’t sound good at all.
The only thing he believes he is certain about is the CO2 increase leading to temp increase.
The biggest increase in temps in global temps was from the 1970s to the 1980s – about 0.30C with an increase of around 14ppm in CO2 from 1981-1990.
From 1991 to 2010, the temp increase has been only 0.25C with an increasing level of CO2 (16ppm in the 1990s and 18ppm last decade). So less temp rise with increasing CO2.
Also the jump in global temps from 1910-1940 was about 0.4C with very little increase in CO2 and then a drop in temps from 1945-1975 of about 0.15C with increasing CO2.
So something here has a negative feedback – they just don’t know what it is.
Initially any temp rises were to lead to higher levels of water vapour – that is the real GHG as there is so much more in the atmosphere than CO2. But more WV leads to clouds so we could have lower daytime temps but warmer night time temps. But they can’t factor this in, they won’t factor in the sun and they can’t factor in pressure systems, especially blocking systems which affect regional weather.
Their models are just models, I’m afraid. Until the scientists can explain these discrepancies mentioned above and factor in all climatic elements, we really will never be ‘totally clear’.
Debbie and Neville deserve each other so I wont fuel there infinite capacity to nitpick whilst revealing nothing of any value to anybody. I have a risky business to run. I appreciate Debbie has big risks relating to water security and climate change but the rural sector in general does get a bit underwritten against adversity. Small businesses just get smaller.
What “risky” business are you in bazza? Please don’t say wind or solar; I couldn’t stand the irony.
“But they can’t factor this in, they won’t factor in the sun and they can’t factor in pressure systems, especially blocking systems which affect regional weather.”
Huh ? but they do – lordy me this is so basic
e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1301/pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047794.shtml
Bazza’s a risky sort of guy …. LOL
Bazza what a gutless cop out, you’re like Luke, you won’t answer my argument because you can’t answer it. It’s as simple as that, so why don’t you admit it? But wait perhaps you’ve aware of some new maths like 25% of something is greater than 75% of the same product?
Mitigating AGW by OZ reducing co2 emissions is a total con and a fraud, easily understood by a 5 year old child so why don’t you grow up and start thinking for yourself.
If you want to live by adopting babyish assumptions you can’t blame us for sticking in the verbal boot.
BTW I’m curious like Cohenite, just what type of business do you run? Certainly you can’t hope for success if you can’t understand simple maths and simple logic and reasoning.
Also what do you think of the Labor govt’s idea of turning Vics brown coal fields into another Pilbara? How does that help the planet’s co2 emissions and your concerns about CAGW I wonder?
Luke,
I knew you would bring that up….you’re getting rather predictable on this one.
Has it ever occured to you that Drought relief….and Flood relief BTW….are actually risk management policies designed around the fact that climate is highly variable in Australia and that they have been in operation long before AGW became an obsession?
Has it ever occured to you that this method actually costs the Australian tax payer much, much less than other forms of rural subsides in the counries that we compete with globally?
Has it ever occured to you that the fact that Australian farmers do not get to depend on Govt subsides all the time, has actually contributed to them being some of the more productive and globally competetive and very efficient users of resources, in fact so efficient that other countries look to Australian farming practices when they modernise their farming practices?
And also Luke has it ocured to you, that seeing as I am indeed a farmer who has been farming (interestingly) for exactly 30 years….I might actually know how often people receive drought relief (or flood relief) and how it works and how incorrect that oft repeated comment of yours is?
I believe those programs need to be much better managed….but let’s not forget they’re run by bureaucrats.
As usual BTW….I direct you to the same simple flaw in that argument.
Do a simple calculation….what drought relief has cost over the last 30 years and what Agriculture has produced in the same timeframe.
On which side of the ledger does the fiscal balance land?
Who is fact looking after whom?
Also….just to be clear about this….which sector has consistently run second to mining as a positive contributor to GDP?
And Luke….has it ever occurred to you that climate variability is only ONE of the risks that Australian agriculture is exposed to and therefore has to manage?
There are plenty of others….and I bet you’ll never guess what I have found to be the biggest risk for farming practices in my area….it creates more risk for us than climate variability.
And Bazza,
So sorry that you feel I’m nitpicking….I wasn’t attempting to.
Forgive me if I’m mistaken but weren’t you the one who said the risk was about elderly people being more likely to die from heat in Sydney?
When I offered a couple of risk management ideas to deal with those risks and then asked you a quite specific question about how a carbon tax/price/ETS could solve those quite sepcifically identified risks… as usual… you started shooting the messenger.
You also seem (IMHO) to be suffering from the highly myopic position that the ONLY risk we are facing and the ONLY risk to manage is AGW?
How simple life would be if that were the case 🙂
Nev, it is not about maths – no man is an island.
So in other words you climate digital natives supposedly at one with your variability having seen it all and being completely au fait – au naturale and in the mode can’t manage your risks eh Debs? And fixed desk marketing too. Tsk tsk.
Meanwhile back at Parramatta today – heading for a top of 21 overnight and a brisk night a 7. What extremes – hah !
Bathurst of course 18 and -2 – hey that doesn’t look correlated at all !! Look at that Bathurst is cooling.
Geeezzz Bazza I think I’ll go down the paddock and talk to a post. You’re making about as much sense, but are you related to Gav by any chance?
So you want OZ to have a co2 tax of $23 ( rising year on year) a tonne and then a full ETS but can’t even answer the simple question, why do you we need it and how will it change the climate or temp.
You know there was a time when the left claimed to be the promoters of the scientific method and certainly claimed to believe in logic and reasoning, but now they resort to all sorts of looney nonsense to try and cover their backsides.
You may wish to believe in babyish nonsense and blatant fraudulent con tricks but don’t expect everyone else to be so mindlessly stupid.
I read somewhere that Australia’s a pretty big place where all the blokes are called Bruce and all the girls are called Sheila, where the “outback” is out front as well, and which gets extremes of drought, rainfall, high and low temperatures and the occasional cyclone to blow away the cobwebs. What’s all the fuss about then?
I also read that they’re partial to barbies over there. I don’t understand why the populace is so keen on plastic dolls, but each to his own.
luke, you really are desperate and dateless; the 1st paper posits computer modelling of anomalous cold regional events due to future warming but of course the issue is, IF future warming does occur what causes it. That question is answered by the 2nd and 3rd papers, both permutations of Meehl’s sunspot climate nexus theory; that’s sunspot, as in solar not AGW.
Struth Tones maybe you’re not a raw prawn after all (mate!).
Cohenite – such obfuscation – you can take over from Debbie. Paper 1 is all about blocking. Other papers are about modelling investigations of things solar. Doesn’t happen according to Mr George (above). Paper 1 is also for uniformitarian average-ists. Sigh ….
You’re a funny guy luke; your ‘blocking’ paper says:
“Future projections indicate that CAOs – defined with respect to late-twentieth century climatic conditions – will decline in frequency by 50 to 100% in most of the Northern Hemisphere during the twenty-first century.”
That would be a good thing wouldn’t it since a blocking event is the essential precursor to extreme climate events?
And does that mean that we have gone through an ‘extreme’ climate event period? Which would be astounding since every indice does not suggest we have had an abnormal amount of ‘extreme’ events.
And if “future projections” [how very Rex Mossop of them!] say in effect future extreme events are going to decline even below the average, normal period we have had, isn’t that not only an excellent thing but a total contradiction of AGW projections of hotter heat and colder cold and wetter wet?
Luke,
As far as obfuscation goes.
You win.
Hands down.
I’m not sure you were after that particular award.
But (IMHO) you absolutely have my primary vote for that one.
If you’re ever truly wanting to have that debate about EC relief and why the govt ever contemplated offering it, please let me know.
I have always, always asked you that question in exactly the same way.
You have always, always avoided answering it.
Look up the definition of obfuscation and you may possibly understand why you have my vote.
Oops,
forgot to ask another question Luke.
What is your problem with fixed desk marketting and how is that even remotely relevant to this discussion?
BTW, has it occured to you that my identity as a farmer does not specifically mean that one of the crops I produce is rice?
I am not just a hokey pokey redneck rice farmer Luke. Have never been just a rice farmer. But. . . I do indeed grow rice.
Cohenite – not really at all (and this is way off topic now) – cold air outbreaks CAOs) exist in the world. They are cold and not frequent but not uncommon either. e.g. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ask/article_47ee836a-03ec-11e0-8c83-001cc4c03286.html
Vavrus et al are merely reporting the little know fact that CAOs still occur in the modelled system (and why) but decrease in frequency and change somewhat in location in a greenhouse world. It’s all not that surprising and is very interesting. So it’s not surprising either that things don’t behave uniformly as faux sceptics may assume. Circulation systems redistribute energy and are in turn driven by energy. Outcomes are not always totally obvious.
The point of reintroducing this most interesting CAO paper (and I hope it’s interesting to you too as I only try to give you quality material) is about the modelling of blocking phenomena.
and again here in some detail
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/28/433834/warming-arctic-fuels-cold-surges-snowy-winters-another-study-finds/?mobile=nc blocking ….
Debbie – one tries to rebut properly on incorrect information not obfuscate. I don’t begrudge the sector the money – but if it needs the money it’s not in control of its climate risk. That’s the point. If it was you’d know the probabilities already and be equipped to handle them. But if you like tell us why the government (and which one) decided to offer it.
Debbie – Jen will be along soon to clock us for being O/T. fixed desk marketting – simply an approach to managing risk again. And I’m sure you’re an efficient thoughtful rice producer. We’re on your side – you just haven’t worked that out yet.
O/T is correct & that’s another result of obfuscation.. .and you still avoided answering the same question after firing the same shot.
However,
The point remains that our CC leapt a huge chasm and outlined some risks that were definitely Sydney specific that were supposedly generated by the report and connected to AGW.
Those alarming conclusions were sea levels up by 1.1 metres and a subsequent loss of property and infrastructure in Sydney.
Increased incidence of bushfires.
Elderly at higher risk of mortality due to increased number of hot days (over 35) in Sydney.
And the amazing less understood issue of people getting angrier in traffic jams in Weatern Sydney.
From the others who also appeared by his side we heard further alarming future consequences related primarily to health issues in Sydney.
Somehow, when Jen points out these claims are not supported by the evidence, we have individuals here making a fuss because she is either cherry picking, ignoring UHI, and then told to ignore it, told her data base was too narrow and then too wide. . .shall I go on?
When specific questions were asked, the personal shots were fired.
So just for the record Polyaux and Luke (because Bazza sort of answered yes to this question), do you really believe that our CC drew reasonable, science or evidence based conclusions from that report?
“So it’s not surprising either that things don’t behave uniformly as faux sceptics may assume. Circulation systems redistribute energy and are in turn driven by energy. Outcomes are not always totally obvious.”
luke, it is not “faux sceptics” who don’t understand the lack of uniformity in the climate: from the Curry study:
““The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
From the Vavrus study:
“Future projections indicate that CAOs – defined with respect to late-twentieth century climatic conditions – will decline in frequency by 50 to 100% in most of the Northern Hemisphere during the twenty-first century.”
Give me a break.
Cohenite – oh give me a break – lovely diversion from BLOCKING in models ! One study is about NOW and a transition – the other is about a future state. Issues – non-linearity in response, counter-intuitive aspects AND BLOCKING in models.
Debbie – your list there are all quite possible from the science – you can just refuse to believe and vote accordingly. BTW here is the actual report http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/NSW-report_final_web.pdf
Poly wiped the floor with Jen’s temperature rebuttal.
But fear not – Abbott and the Tories will be in soon and all this AGW stuff will be closed down. You won’t have to bother about it. (until it happens)
A fresh report in “breakfast” today, I assume by researchers from the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Science gives new light on tree rings and other evidence for the trend in our recent climate
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/am-with-tony-eastley/4016130
Karoly was one of two commentators, but at time of posting the report is not in the transcript, however I reckon these links relate to the thread enough to debate.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3453705.htm
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/07/good-reason-to-whinge.html
Luke says,
‘Doesn’t happen according to Mr George (above).’ I presume you are referring to me.
Read the following article carefully, Luke. One of your mob believe.
First this statement.
‘Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide.’
Then note the section where it says:- ‘Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg – the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)’.
And then Trenberth still wants to know where the extra heat has gone.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html
Every time someone writes a paper showing causal relations between solar activity and temperature, they are dismissed.
My point is that your mob believe that CO2 drives CC. All other forces are either dismissed or diminished. That’s why your models will have trouble predicting future climate or hindcast.
Ian – we don’t believe only CO2 drives climate – we believe there are many forcings at play simultaneously. And that they work according to physics.
Trenberth’s problem has been answered here on a previous thread recently. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/believing-the-oceans-will-keep-warming/
Prof Graham Farquhar has responded to this “Journal of Climate” doc in the expected manner for those (me too) who don’t find substitutes for our RT instruments so palatable however IMO the methodology used for this study will take some knocking.
McIntyre has received more Yamal data and still can’t find the fabled hockey stick. So what’s wrong with those lying trees, about as good as the delusional liars and fraudsters pushing the mitigation of CAGW fraud.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data-still-no-hockey-stick/#more-63640
“Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”
Abstract-
“This study presents the first multi-proxy warm season (September-February) temperature reconstruction for the combined land and oceanic region of Australasia (0°S-50°S, 110°E-180°E). We perform a 3000-member ensemble Principal Component Reconstruction (PCR) using 27 temperature proxies from the region. The proxy network explained 69% of the inter-annual variance in the HadCRUT3v SONDJF spatial mean temperature over the 1921-1990 calibration period. Applying eight stringent reconstruction ‘reliability’ metrics identified post A.D. 1430 as the highest quality section of the reconstruction, but also revealed a skilful reconstruction is possible over the full A.D. 1000-2001 period.
The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels. Following peak pre-industrial warmth, a cooling trend culminates in a temperature anomaly of 0.44°C (±0.18°C) below 1961-1990 levels between A.D. 1830-1859. A preliminary assessment of the roles of solar, volcanic, and anthropogenic forcings and natural ocean-atmosphere variability is performed using CSIRO Mk3L model simulations and independent palaeoclimate records. Solar and volcanic forcing does not have a marked influence on reconstructed Australasian temperature variations, which appear to be masked by internal variability.
In 94.5% of the 3000-member reconstruction ensemble, there are no other warm periods in the past 1,000 years that match or exceed post-1950 warming observed in Australasia. The unusual 20th century warming cannot be explained by natural variability alone, suggesting a strong influence of anthropogenic forcing in the Australasian region
† Aus2K project member data and other contributions from Kathryn Allen, Patrick Baker, Gretel Boswijk, Brendan Buckley, Matthew Brookhouse, Edward Cook, Louise Cullen, Mark Curran, Rosanne D’Arrigo, Pavla Fenwick, Anthony Fowler, Ian Goodwin, Pauline Grierson, Erica Hendy, Braddock Linsley, Janice Lough, Andrew Lorrey, Helen McGregor, Andrew Moy, Jonathan Palmer, Christopher Plummer, Chris Turney, Tessa Vance, Tas Van Ommen and Limin Xiong”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/showMultipleAbstracts
Luke?
Debbie – your list there are all quite possible from the science – you can just refuse to believe and vote accordingly.
I’m not refusing to believe….what a completely odd comment….and how does voting alter the science?
Voting alters politics doesn’t it?
Refusing to believe what in particular?
All quite possible from the science?
What on earth does that mean?
And Luke…seriously…if there is indeed such an alarming risk (possibly?) what are the best risk management strategies for these things?
Bazza claims that a Carbon Tax is the only card we have to play.
Do you?
I’m particularly interested in how we could manage the risk of people getting crankier in traffic jams in Western Sydney with a carbon tax….or why a carbon tax would be the only card to play to manage a risk like that?
And just to stray O/T a bit again….
your comment here:
one tries to rebut properly on incorrect information not obfuscate. I don’t begrudge the sector the money – but if it needs the money it’s not in control of its climate risk. That’s the point. If it was you’d know the probabilities already and be equipped to handle them.
and here:
au naturale and in the mode can’t manage your risks eh Debs? And fixed desk marketing too. Tsk tsk.
Your point is equally odd.
The whole point of risk management is actually to recognise there are risks and put in strategies to manage them. The risk in this particular instance is that Agriculture is vulnerable to climate variability. The management strategy is to provide a ‘safety net’ to agriculture when the climate inevitably delivers its extremes. It was also in place a long time before AGW obsession. It has also proved to be one of the best schemes globally as it doesn’t allow farmers to always rely on govt subsides….only when they truly need it because the weather has stepped outside manageable parameters. It also covers anothe risk created by financial circumstances re the dollar and interest rates.
The whole point Luke is that none of us…..including the scientists… are in control of the climate, nor do they know all the probablities…that’s actually the risk we need to manage….For some reason, the Flannerys of this world are claiming that we know enough to control the climate or stop the climate from changing…and that we should place our faith in them to stop the climate changing through a carbon tax.
Are you able to appreciate the difference?
At no time have I ever claimed I know all about the climate….quite the opposite in fact.
But I do know how to manage the normal risks we face with weather/climate in our ordinary day to day business life….and BoM etc are useful tools to help us do that.
I so wish that ‘climate science’ was more accurate with predictive work ….it would make my life much easier.
And Luke?
How could you begrudge the sector the money when it doesn’t owe you any money in the first place?
Aren’t you lucky the sector doesn’t begrudge the money it has poured into the economy?
Have you ever figured out how many bureaucrats and scientists are directly paid by the Agricultural sector?..Not that we begrudge them mind you.
And….sorry…but your assumptions are rather odd at times…..single desk marketting doesn’t cost the tax payer anything at all at anytime….and has nothing to do with climate…..so it was simply a snide and irrelevant comment on your part …..that’s a perfect example of obfuscation.
And why do you also feel the need to claim you’re on my side but I just don’t understand?
What don’t I understand Luke?
And what ‘side’….is there a ‘side’?
gav, where is the link to the proxy study?
“The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267,”
The word “reconstructed” – oh what a wealth of distortion and deception lies therein. I love that they went for .09 (±0.19!) rather than a simple 1. You can’t tell me that .09 isn’t more sciency-sounding.
So ingenious to adjust recent temps up on the grounds of “quality”, then use cooled-down and largely imaginary data from the middle ages. And your “skilful reconstruction” now comes with “eight stringent reconstruction ‘reliability’ metrics”! Buy now!
Sarcasm aside, somebody will have to pay for all these appallingly cheap stunts dressed up as scholarship.
Mr Koala Bear? Puhlleaze. I vote for Mr Dropbear.
The conclusion to Gavin’s link is the amazing bit,
The unusual 20th century. . . . .suggesting a strong influence of anthropegenic forcing in the Australasian region.
That strong influence is now a 0.9 instead of a 1 degree increase in 50 years.
Can I ask an obvious question?
If this is alarming and risky, where is the evidence of
a) The damage already caused by this and
b) Our hopeless management of the damage that has been directly caused by a 0.9 increase or
C) a risk managent strategy that would correctly identify what the manageable risks are to Australia?
‘THE first comprehensive reconstruction of Australasian climate reveals that the period beginning in 1951 is the warmest in the past 1000 years.
‘That exceeds the so-called Medieval Warming period of 1238-1267, according to the analysis reported today in the Journal of Climate by a 30-member team of international scientists, led by paleoclimatologist Joelle Gergis of Melbourne University.’
Gergis and the Climate Commission are pushing catastrophe in unison…
The quote is from today’s Oz.
Given what’s known and guessed (some call it “reconstructions”) of Earth’s climate past, I’d say .09±0.19°C demonstrates remarkable stability in the past 1000 years. My electro-mechanical room thermostat works in a range ±1°C spanning 2°C, identical to the “tipping-point threshhold”, beloved of some prophets of doom. So if global temperatures rise by 1.99°C we’ll be OK, and 2.01 will spell disaster? That 2°C was invented as a “target” for the Copenhagen conference, as its inventor has said, for policy-makers who can’t get their head round anything more complicated than 23$ a ton(ne).
In any case, average global temperature is meaningless as a measure. It’s a statistic, pure and simple. It’s equivalent to averaging the room temperature, oven temperature, ‘fridge and freezer temperatures in your kitchen and pretending the result means anything at all.
cohers, I don’t think they used these:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Robert, if they can detect 0.09c warming in the bottom of world’s oceans over the last 60 years, I suppose that same nine one hundredths is no trouble to “reconstruct” for 750 years ago.
They obviously take themselves very seriously. It seems the MSM do too.
spangled drongo
I work in a field where we work to tolerances much finer than that, and we can prove every single one of our finding!
I’ve just about given up on this agw scam now, it’s getting to a stage where I feel sorry for people like Luke who, having attached themselves to the wagon, can’t afford to let go.
cohers, I think this might be the database:
http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/aus2k/metadatabase
Mark A,
While I understand your frustration, please don’t ‘give up’.
Part of the strategy is to continually force feed us all this work that isn’t at all answerable to the controls that you have mentioned above.
Part of the strategy is to make alarming claims by extrapolating inexact data to the outer ranges and using ‘worst case scenarios’ as if they were an urgent reality.
You know….things like millions upon millions of climate refugees by 2010…..dams never filling again…..oceans overtaking $billions of property and public infrastructure……drier and drier autumns in SE Australia…..elderly people in Sydney (?) expiring from heatwaves…..increasing uncontrollable bush fires…..a raft of ‘heat related’ and ‘heat stress related’ health risks…..and that list is getting longer and longer.
It seems if you are a CC you can now even make comments like it will cause people in western Sydney to be crankier than they already are when they get stuck in traffic jams…and people like Luke, Bazza and Polyaux will inform us that claims like that can be backed by scientific evidence….we are just ignorant….. and…. the media will print it as ‘factual’
Your even tempered ‘common sense’ approach to this is needed from more people….not less.
Prof Flannery has predicted dire things for Western Sydney normally a Labor stronghold where the faithful are deserting the ship.
So along comes the Prof with a Western Sydney projection.
Presumably there is a correlation between voting trends & global warming.
The good news is the Queensland is very safe for the foreseeable future.
Just evasive squirmy stuff Debbie You’ve been informed. Risk response to information is a political decision.
So vote with Abbott and Hockey (soon) and all your uncertainties will be swept away as the climate programs are junked. So then you won’t have to concern yourself.
Don’t blame us for the data and the trends. BTW if you want the 99.9% confidence interval uncertainty it will be too late.
The Gergis press release has caught the attention of Watts and ‘Latitude’ in comments made the observation that ‘The first 500 years were falling into the LIA….the last 500 were rising from the LIA.’
They want to see the paper….
It is clear that Luke is more concerned with the politics than the science.
He see’s AbbottAbbottAbott everywhere. Luke suffers from Abbottphobia – the same affliction as Penny Wong
Thank you Luke,
So….forgive me for taking a little bit of a stretch here…..
But you seem to be saying it isn’t about the science after all?
And Luke…..please tell me why Abbot and Hockey (soon) will be able to sweep away my uncertanties as the climate programs are junked? When did I say that I want all the climate programs junked… or… that would end uncertainty? Or for that matter that I don’t want to concern myself????? Or that Abbot and/or Hockey are somehow more trustworthy? I haven’t seen anything from them that would convince me of that particularly….have you?
I will say however, it’s probably not too hard for them to do something a little better…but haven’t really seen any evidence to make me certain (or sweep away my uncertainties).
BTW I’m not expecting all my uncertanties to be swept away (as nice as that sounds)…..nor do I see any evidence a 99.9% confidence level can be assured from this type of projective work….especially on a global scale……not unles we use some completely unscientific circular reasoning and find out in 50 (?) years time that the oceans didn’t rise that far after all (?)
That’s why I’m mocking our CC and other AGW celebs….they’re trying to claim they can sweep away all our uncertanties.
There is always risk and uncertainty Luke….and if we’re talking about climate/weather…..risk and uncertainty is actually the given…..that is not a new and amazing concept (not in my world anyway). That has never meant that I don’t find the work of departments like BoM useful.
I can see no evidence that they’re prophetic however or that they have the ability to wipe away all my uncertainties. (as lovely as that would be)
Somehow ‘the agenda’ is trying to convince all of us that it is the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’….it is causing those of us who have to live with the day to day uncertainties of weather/climate and actually work in it, rain hail or shine….to laugh at them…..and I’m sorry Luke…..but if you truly want to defend those outrageous claims….then my mirth extends to you too.
I’m also not blaming you (us?) for the data and the trends….If you are someone who feels you’re being blamed I think you’re being way too over sensitive….I think most of them (us?) are just trying to do their job….it’s not their (our?) fault that their (our?) work gets used out of context and for purposes other than their original intention.
Both you and Polyaux also sort of pointed that out earlier in this discussion…when you pointed out our CC’s weren’t the authors of these reports.
But think about this….Who commissioned those reports? Who paid for their production? Doesn’t that imply ownership of sorts?
My objection has always been that this work has been hijacked and used inappropriately.
Governing must be hard. I couldn’t do it. So I never aspire to have a good government, just one that’s less than terrible. The present lot may be okay people, but they don’t belong anywhere near the seats of power. Abbott’s single greatest virtue is that he is not Julia Gillard (or Christine Milne).
It’s a pity that so much money and energy have gone into manipulating rather than acquiring knowledge. But CAGW believers have one consolation. As droughts, floods, heatwaves and megastorms come and go, as they always have and always will, the old climate crew will be able to say I-told-you-so forever. If the Global Cooling alarmists get lucky and we go into a Mini Ice Age, there’ll be time for warmies to adjust to that. (They adjusted after ’79.)
When the climate establishment is purged and most schemes are wound down, our Green Betters will have what they really want, and have it in perpetuity: a sense of superiority and a bottomless fund of indignation and self-justification.
Robert,
I am also developing an increasingly sneaking suspicion that the ‘alarmists’ (and unfortunately that does not just apply to the climate alarmists) actually think that claiming ‘I told you so!’…when we already knew it was a possibility anyway…. means something more than it actually is….and apparently….is a spectacular new and incredibly amazing way of managing risk????
Unfortunately, like you, I’m not convinced the ‘other side’ has the intestinal fortitude to stamp out the outrageous extremes of this type of behaviour…even though Luke appears to be hanging his hat on that a little?
I hope Luke’s right….the outrageous extremes are doing a great deal of damage to genuine climate research and genuine scientists…..because I do indeed respect their work and their ability to research and test theories….I do indeed use their work as a useful indicative tool when I make decisions in my business….have just made a rather important one today re timing of irrigating our winter cereals in the next 7 days….it’s a ‘risk management’ decision…related to predicted rain…. from BoM….as well as another O/S site that we use in conjunction….amazingly.
I hate seeing these people so poorly used and abused….some of them are my friends.
Debbie – if that’s what the research says – climate science shouldn’t back away from it. e.g. increased hot days means increased fire risk. However that is usually countered by “well greenies won’t allow hazard reductions”. But really that’s a separate issue and an additional issue.
Do you want science to telescope the punch, nuance the message to nothing, or state the implications?
Science should inform policy, the community and government. Those structures make their evaluations in terms of risk perception, and wider social and economic considerations.
Yes, Deb, I felt that way the first time I saw a graph of the PDO. It explained so much, without pretending to precision or prediction. Observing the El Nino of ’09 unfold with a greater oceanic influence than those before ’07 was fascinating (if unnerving). It was a sappy, almost Euro spring, with few westerlies (in spite of the Big Dust) and there was enough rain in the end to bring on the new bamboo shoots. Yet it was an El Nino, as predicted, and it showed in many ways. Imagine if climate indicators could be better understood and further developed, with more resources and no politics! Who cares if things get rorted or bungled occasionally, when the potential gains are so big!
The great climate disasters have already occurred – in the Sporer and Maunder Minima, for example – at stupendous human cost. Because food and insulation from climatic extremes are so fundamental to humans, it’s worth risking and even wasting billions on climate research. The trouble is, we’ve already wasted trillions on a bizarre political cult. We need to keep the baby (eg BOM) and throw out the bathwater (eg David Jones).
Fascinating – so under David Jones you now have more data available than ever before. So Robert must think that’s a waste too. And who says it’s wasted – you? Based on what? Newspaper reports, op eds and blog posts? really …
Why should acquired data be a waste? Why should the BOM not acquire even more relevant data, with complete freedom? The BOM’s been around since the early 1900s, and old Henry Hunt, who did his best in the near hopeless task of trying to make just a little sense of Australia’s climate. He may not have been an instinctive genius like Goyder, but he had the necessary patience and humility for the task. He needed both when he got things wrong! Henry was in the job a long time, and finally won the respect of the man in the paddock.
Waste? The BOM has never been a waste. However, give our Green Betters a little more time and scope…
SD, thanks, I will look at that source when the Karoly paper becomes available since gav is not going to provide a link now.
Luke,
What sort of question is this?
Do you want science to telescope the punch, nuance the message to nothing, or state the implications?
I have no idea what you’re actually trying to ask me here.
I am not and have never criticsed the behaviour of the scientists who are doing their job….I don’t want to ask any more of them than they are capable of giving or what they’re supposed to give…..and as far as I can see, this particular branch of science, which I do in fact use and appreciate in my everyday life as a useful (but not exclusive) tool, has been sorely used and abused…because their scientists have been asked to give in both those ways…(more than they’re capable of giving and more than they’re supposed to give)
So in this resepct I mostly agree with you:
e.g. increased hot days means increased fire risk. However that is usually countered by “well greenies won’t allow hazard reductions”. But really that’s a separate issue and an additional issue.
With the caveat that if we’re truly talking about risk management…..they’re not seperate issues.
Because risk management needs science but if no one is going to manage the risk properly then the science was wasted.
And in this respect I only partly agree with you or maybe I mean I would insert ‘partly’ in the sentence?
Science should (PARTLY) inform policy, the community and government. Those structures make their evaluations in terms of risk perception, and wider social and economic considerations.
If you’re trying to corner me into saying that ‘politics’ does not inform the ‘science’ ….or even partly inform the science…..ummmm….good luck with that one…..because that would not be true would it? That’s probably one of the good reasons why we need an election isn’t it?
That does not mean however…..that I believe we should trash the scientists or their work that does help us all gain a better understanding of the world around us…..and I’m sure you’ll still find a way to take an argumentative stance over that……so, knock yourself out…..I like scientists and what they do but I don’t think that scientists are infallible or that they possess 99.9% certainties about climate….because Luke…..some of them are my friends and they’re just as disgusted with the way their work has been hijacked as I am.
They put all those caveats and probability formulas all over their work as well as their % of certainty re long term climate/ weather projections…and every time the pollies or the bureaucrats commission a report from them….with extremely narrow terms of reference sometimes….what do they say when they wave these reports in our faces?
Go back 2 days….there’s an excellent example right there from our CCs.
So if their work gets abused in that manner….why do we keep getting more and more and more of it?
Debbie –
Well politics can obviously direct science to an area of practical interest e.g. is this drought exceptional and why. How do I allocate the nation’s water resources among competing interests. What is a sustainable yield.
Politics might also inform science that certain adaptive/mitigation/fix options for certain problems are socially or economically or morally unacceptable/unpalatable/restrictive.
Politics might also prioritise a science agenda or science portfolio (certainly given it’s paying the bills – but that doesn’t give the funder the right to expect rigged answers either).
However insidiously politics can also shut down whole areas of science thereby sweeping unpalatable conclusions under the carpet? Is this desirable and how would tell that from “just prioritising”
So who says the recent work was abused? And how would you separate that from “I just don’t like the message” and suffering cognitive dissonance indigestion.
“Science should inform policy, the community and government. Those structures make their evaluations in terms of risk perception, and wider social and economic considerations.”
Every so often, Luke, you state something quite profound, as in this case. Yes, science should inform policy; it shouldn’t dictate it. Science is not written on tablets of stone, it shifts with knowledge, yet at the same time changes colour with politics. At the moment, the bulk of climate and environmental research is strongly tinted green. Green as in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF (Worldwide fund for not considering the bleedin’ obvious), and green as in greenback dollars.
In the past, local and national governments adopted a “wait a bit and see” approach, very practical, very sensible, and serving to minimise cost by at least aiming at the target, a moving target at that. These days, we have state and local authorities in Oz and elsewhere preventing building on land which “may, could, or might” be at risk many decades into the future, based on predictions which change as often as the tides they’re supposed to predict.
Worse, those same authorities spend your money, our money, on costly surveys which show which parts of Sydney, or Cardiff (Wales) will be flooded, or are at risk of flooding, not only if nothing is done in mitigation, but in the case of Cardiff, assume no EXISTING defences are in place. Cardiff has a tidal barrage which keeps out tides of 14 metres (imagine that at Murray mouth!), and could cope with several more. That’s fraud, it’s lies, it’s alarmism of the worst kind, it’s designed to scare people, and it’s NOT “informed policy”.
Deb; going back to Mark A “I work in a field where we work to tolerances much finer than that, and we can prove every single one of our findings” in response to SD, lets say you lot have an elevated opinion all round when it comes to judging other people’s work.
This latest Australian combination of effort in part verifies the Hansen method in finding his hockey stick. I maintained the LIA -MWP are as much nonsense as we can have without RT temp measurement and I intend to find asap how good other evidence is for a smoother pre data temp history.
You guys do not have a monopoly on quality review or technology.
All those emus running around on Emu Plains are affecting the climate in Western Sydney. They run around , they get sweaty, they raise the temperature.
Hope the cars and aircons in the last 40 years can compensate for that.
We need a level playing field here.
Gavin,
Nobody has that monopoly…..and nobody should. That’s a terrifying thought!
That is the whole point in a lot of ways.
Tony explains part of the reason why above.
Luke,
Who says the recent work was abused?
Are you asking me for particular names or was it more to do with the next ‘I don’t like the message’ comment.
It’s not the ‘message’ per se Luke….the rest of your comment actually points that out.
Even you and Polyaux were a bit annoyed that this report was hijacked by our AGW celebs….and seriously…..you can’t possibly believe that some of those extrapolations had any real basis in Science…..or that there was any concern about Australia as a whole.
It was Sydney specific and then Flannery took a huge leap and made it specific to Western Sydney.
How much did any of that have to do with using the work of scientists in a sensible or useful manner?
BTW….that’s a rhetorical question again…sorry….sometimes it’s the best way to make the point….especially when dealing with rhetoric in the first place.
Gavin:
“I maintained the LIA -MWP are as much nonsense as we can have without RT temp measurement”
Denial, pure and simple, no other word for it.
After Tony “the bulk of climate and environmental research is strongly tinted green. Green as in Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF”, I googled the elements this statement to find out how it shapes up downunder, and guess what? I found that hockey stick here!
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-05-17_1000years_graph.html
.