FOR over a decade the Bureau of Meteorology, and CSIRO have been predicting on-going drought in the Murray Darling Basin. Hundreds of scientists have been employed –at the expense of tax payers – to run General Simulation Models all predicting the same outcome. This forecast decline has been blamed on global-warming and has resulted in far-reaching legislative changes, which by reducing the amount of water that can be allocated to grow crops, has affected employment in regional centers.
Yet when we look at the hard data, there has been no overall decline in rainfall. The wettest year in the Murray Darling Basin was 2010 – that is the wettest year since 1900 according to the official Bureau of Meteorology statistics.
It has also been repeatedly stated that the drought conditions are going to be most pronounced over the cooler months, specifically from April through to October.
Yet the Basin has just experienced its wettest September on record – that is the wettest September since 1900 according to the official Bureau of Meteorology statistics.
Some argue that the hoarding of water in the dams based on wrong forecasts by the Bureau of Meteorology has exacerbated current flooding particularly along the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers – perhaps also in the Lachlan River that runs through Forbes.
The problem is that the Bureau, working with the CSIRO, have become wedded to General Circulation Models, and the failed theory of anthropogenic global warming. Over the last year we have irrigators in the Murray Darling with very limited water allocations, paying ridiculously high prices for temporary water, during a season when even the Bureau was forecating above median rainfall: remember in May while Agricultural Minister Barnaby Joyce was announcing concessional loans, the price of ‘temporary water’, on the market – increasingly controlled by governments – had increased from $30 per megalitres to almost $300 per megalitres as a direct result of the water buybacks – and limited water allocations for ‘general security’ water licence holders. This is no way to run a productive agricultural sector.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The climatocrats are immune to reasonable accountability….so far.
It’s a pleasant,nay,glorious last 2months here in NW NSW with the rivers and sub-soil in prime condition.Most of the precipitation has been on the western watershed with deficiencies towards East.498mm at our property in the Nandewars.
For 3 of the last 6 years we have experienced extensive flooding in the MDB in that Autumn to Spring timeframe.
2010, 2012 & 2016.
Quote: “Some argue that the hoarding of water in the dams based on wrong forecasts by the Bureau of Meteorology has exacerbated current flooding …”
Check this BoM disaster after SA Water worked with the Bureau of Meteorology to plan water allocation. ABC, Sept. 2016:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/sa-government-wasted-water-by-pumping-into-mt-bold-reservoir/7860282
– SA Water pumps water from River Murray to Mount Bold Reservoir between April to June at taxpayer expense
– now been spilt out of the reservoir during last week’s heavy rainfall.
-“water that is spilled has a potential value of about $34 million if that was to be put on the water market, plus the cost of pumping that water.”
The pathetic failure and incompetence doesn’t stop there as environmental damage is …
“(R)eleasing water from the reservoir on the same day as heavy rainfall has caused a lot of damage in the area.
“You have a river management plan that is meant to look after the river and they released it and what they did was in fact just flush it out and blast the river like I’ve never ever seen before,” he said.
“Everyone that’s been down there would have seen where the dunes have been, never to come back, and they [SA Water] thought that that was the right day to do it?
“It’d be the equivalent of back-burning on like a 47C day, with spot fires on the hills and going ‘oh how did we lose some houses, how did this happen?'”
Quite so. How did this happen?
“But Water and River Murray Minister Ian Hunter defended SA Water’s actions.
He said SA Water worked with the Bureau of Meteorology to plan water allocation.”
Hi Jennifer, I sent my cheque to you last week.
A year to remember is the SEQWA disaster of 2010/11. Many forecasters who dealt in real data were predicting a wet year’s end. The Wivenhoe Dam should have been half-full at most, not nearly-full, and ‘they’ didn’t starting lowering the dam until it was too late. Ol’ Russ H might have said that even blind Freddy would have seen the need for action long before Noah’s rains came.
The thrust of my point, and no doubt many others too, is that ‘we’ need better rainfall prediction tools, rather than the fictional algorithms that are intended to fry the plebs into submission in order to further the ideological ambitions of the CCC (Church of Climate Change).
The MDBA continues to grandstand about the great work they are currently doing in the northern rivers catchments chasing some 10’s of GL of new environmental water while leaving the seriously depleted Murray Goulburn and Murrumbidgee systems fighting over expensive water trades.
The CSIRO’s so-called Sustainable Diversion Limits were never anymore than an academic construct imposed through a “Greens/urban” dominated but largely ignorant Commonwealth Parliament.
It will take a decade for MDBA reviews to hopefully to undo the damage while the EWH still struggles to use the water they already own.
You’re right Jen,
This is no way to run a productive agricultural sector.
The ‘real’ climate/weather/environment is obviously spectacularly uninterested in conforming to these politically popular forecasted ‘trends’.
The forecasting, particularly for seasonal/regional precipitation is not good.
Perhaps they all should pay more attention to the principles of ‘adaptive management’ that are enshrined in the NSW Water Management Act and the Federal Water Act 2007?
The STR is a major player, this perfectly good abstract ruined by a grant sentence at the tail.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3492/full
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/dry-conditions-keep-water-allocations-low-nsw/7167460?pfmredir=sm
Just to illustrate. Here is the outlook from February this year.
People like me are supposed to love these people!!
Yeah right!
Sydney Morning Herald Jan 4 2008
“IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.
He was speaking after the release of statistics showing that last year was the hottest on record in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT.
NSW’s mean temperature was 1.13 degrees above average. “That is a very substantial anomaly,” Dr Jones said. “It’s equivalent to moving NSW 150 kilometres closer to the equator.””
And is this just a strange coincidence?
The 2015 magnetic anomaly map looks sort of similar to the Sept 2016 rainfall anomaly map.
Mag (click on the picture of the map).
http://www.ga.gov.au/news-events/news/latest-news/latest-editions-of-magnetic-anomaly-grid-and-radiometric-map-released
Rain
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=daily&area=nat
Relating to the coincidence.
Geomagnetic modulation of clouds effects in the Southern Hemisphere
Magnetic Anomaly through lower atmosphere cosmic ray effects
“Here we show that in
the southern Pacific Ocean cloud effects on the net radiative
flux in the atmosphere are related to the intensity of the
Earth’s magnetic field through lower atmosphere cosmic ray
effects. In the inner region of the Southern Hemisphere
Magnetic Anomaly (SHMA) it is observed a cooling effect
of approximately 18 W/m2 while in the outer region it is
observed a heating effect of approximately 20 W/m2.”
http://mtc-m16.sid.inpe.br/attachment.cgi/sid.inpe.br/mtc-m16@80/2006/08.02.16.40/doc/grl21625.pdf
Good work Siliggy, it ticks all the boxes.
Australians (and especially politicians) will never learn, unless we have inquiries into these massive failures.
The list of needed inquiries currently stands:
1. The Climate Change Commission and its directors, as to whether their advice was faulty, and whether they were either incompetent or biased;
2. The BOM and associates (like SA Water) as to whether they are biased and deliberately distort scientific data;
3. The MDBA as to whether it was deliberately biased or relied on faulty (Climate Change Commission) data amongst others
4. An inquiry into the building of all desalination plants, and whether the various state governments relied on faulty information from the Climate Change Commission, amongst others
5. The South Australian Department of State Development (Energy) as to whether they failed to undertake proper engineering studies and have deliberately constructed an unstable power grid.
Without these public inquiries, with scientific facts given in public, with conclusions and consequences made, Australians will just make the same mistakes again.
fyi
I received an email from Kevin Long explaining that the last mega-drought in the Murray-Darling spanned the period 1790 to 1820.
Kevin Long, a long-range weather forecaster based in Bendigo, Victoria, went on to explain that he believes we are at the beginning of another mega-drought in the Basin because of the solar minimum and phase of the current lunar cycle.
“This year [2014] the peak of the northeast air tide is occurring in late November so we are at the start of that long dry period.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/03/mega-drought-for-murray-darling-predicted-by-kevin-long/
Looking at the annual rainfall graph, there is a better than even chance we are in for another big MDB flood.
Should the authorities be informed?
fyi
2014 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-03/news/47859692_1_rainfall-programmes-forecasts
2016 John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy: Forecasting Monthly Rainfall in the Bowen Basin of Queensland, Australia, using Neural Networks with Niño Indices for El Niño-Southern Oscillation
https://ai2016.net/accepted-papers/
The government talks about innovation. Independent researchers do it.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/predicting-rainfall-with-neural-nets-jennifer-marohasy/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/02/abc-rural-reports-on-new-rainfall-forecast-model/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/03/myth-and-the-bureau-of-meteorology/
Just a Big Boy’s Toy
“Indeed the peer-reviewed literature, including a new paper by John Abbot and me (see the journal Atmospheric Research, Volume 138, Pages 166-178), shows that statistical models that rely on pattern analysis will consistently outperform General Circulation Models such as POAMA.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/costly-climate-model-just-a-big-boys-toy/
consider moving to Noosa and enrolling in a PhD or masters in weather and climate forecasting using artificial intelligence.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/dont-retire-start-a-phd-in-paradise/
How’s the monthly rainfall prediction AI neural network computing coming along?
Jeez DaveR,
All these inquiries .Who do you want to setup and fund these inquiries ? Do you and your socialist mates want to create more and more committees and bureaucrats who suck on the teat of big government?
Personally Dave, I think this is a job for the private sector. The IPA could do the job even if they have to employ some people who can do science properly. Jennifer could run the show and it would be worth it.
Next year will shock the cooling skeptics.
Keep up the great work The bullshit coming from pollies and Green groups is a joke. The ABC is the worst, lefties at the worst.
Confused_Jane,
Thanks for asking about my work at CQU and the Climate Modelling Lab we were getting going, until the university terminated my adjunct position and closed the lab down in July last year. I don’t really understand why, but there is some explaination here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/about/
It was very upsetting given how much had been invested in both time and money; and that we were just getting a team together to start forecasting. That was all lost.
But I am not giving up; though in order to pay the bills I have had to do other things. The IPA has given me a job, including editing a book. You may like to make a donation towards its publication here: https://payments.ipa.org.au/cctf/
Melbourne water storages took a huge dive in 2006 to 40% full at year end and remained at near that level until it started roaring back up in 2010. It dropped to the lowest point during that period at 25.9 % full in June 2009.
It’s been good ever since and currently looks like hitting 75 % full by end 2016 (after snow melt), compared with 81% full in 2012 and 2013.
There’s a nice interactive graphic here where archival years can be collectively selected:
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/waterstorages/pages/storages-over-the-years.aspx
Other regional reserves such as the mighty Hume are mightily abundant.
Back in the 1980’s I was working in the US in the San Francisco Bay Area and after a long drought the dams there were shockingly low, only about 10% full I think before they were replenished.
Confused Jane,
As a producer living in the MDB, I commend the focus of Abbot & Marohasy.
If forecasters could start nailing regional seasonal precipitation outlooks, that would be HUGE!
At present, BoM has been over 50% WRONG!!! in this space the most glaringingly awful & regionally damaging, recent examples being 2013 & this season.
BoM has been given what can probably be described as a ‘legislative monopoly’ to monitor and report on seasonal water resources outlooks by the Water Act 2007.
That’s not working well.
@Debbie
An unspoken aspect of all this is that Jennifer did sterling work in unsuccessfully trying to prevent the politically/religiously motivated crap emanating from the MDBA that cripples you and others of the land.
Further downstream she tried very hard but failed to stop the utter lunacy around vested interests wanting constant unnatural fresh water in the SA lower lakes and prevention of naturally sustaining marine water inflows during drought via blocking man-made barrages across the Murray Mouth.
Even Tim Flannery suggested at one stage it might be necessary to save the lakes with seawater!
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!
Thanks Bob.
I agree.
Jen is a star 🙂
Jennifer, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/wettest-september-record-murray-darling/#comment-582508
I prefer to not increase govt spending by donating to your tax-deductible vanity publishing book, even if you are the editor and in need of an income.
Seeking ‘donations’ is what ‘churches’, greenies, charities and NGOs do, and not politically motivated publishers pushing their ideology. I see no reason why the Australian Taxpayers should be providing you or the IPA with special interest Welfare Support.
The Australian people repeatedly have voted for the dole under such circumstances.
I note there is no bona fide Libertarian Party nor one individual ever elected as such.
I also note your favourite book series is far from being a best seller – I say let the market decide what flies and what doesn’t and not TaxPayer Govt Funded Welfare for Special Needs Apparatchiks.
But that’s just my values – I doubt when on your death bed that you’ll have this book on your mind either.
..”.I doubt when on your death bed that you’ll have this book on your mind either”
That’s given me an idea, Jennifer.
If you have time and capability to get a book off the ground by yourself, you could scout around the internet for all my comments, and compile a book with the title…”It’s The Sun Stupid”. ( with the warning on the cover)…if you’re stupid enough to believe that man can warm the planet, put this book down and walk away.
I could probably just about remain anonymous.
This comment entitles you to go ahead with this, Jennifer.
It could be a rather small aside “light” book, which doesn’t interfere with your scientific work etc. Contact me if you think it’s a goer.
Confused_Jane wrote, (previous blog)
Question do greenhouse gases block incoming heat from the sun.
“No. sunlight passes straight through co2 and other ghg. Only after the sunlight it heats the surface the reflected infrared heat energy is then able to be reflected/deflected by ghg and that is what creates added warming of the atmosphere and surface temps.”
Which is clearly incorrect.
I know from personal experience the EM spectrum of sunlight has Ultraviolet from personal sunburn, a rainbow of visible light by using my inbuilt VL detectors and infrared by using the inbuilt IR detectors in the palm of my hand.
I found this very good resource with the basic information below
http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s2/02sun.shtml
If you look at Figure 4: Solar spectral distribution entering the lower parts of the atmosphere and take the area under the visible light and the infrared you get a split of VL: 40% to 50% and IR: 50% to 60%
I know too that visible light is scattered by the atmosphere by looking up and seeing the scattered blue light and during sunsets by seeing the penetrating red and yellow lights.
I would have thought it would be fairly easy to put infrared detectors in orbit pointing up and down in the same location to measure what the infrared differential actually is. Could even be monitored on an ongoing basis.
As viewed from space the earth is blue green and reflects most of the scattered blue light back into space or it would not be blue green.
What is left to be converted to IR radiation to create an energy differential from incoming to outgoing is the Red end of the VL spectrum. How much of this is converted to IR in the narrow GHG bands that may cause some man made warming.
Note that when mirrors/prisms are used to concentrate sunlight to create high temperature they are concentrating the IR spectrum to create the heat.
A Potential experiment here could be to filter out the IR radiation from sunlight and see if a mirror causes heating on various surfaces. (potentially using a hot mirror filter)
Regards
On second thoughts, there’s no need to contact me, just go ahead. If the book makes a mint…the proceeds are all yours.
Kind regards as usual,
Mack.
Here’s a good,recent post by Dr Roy Spencer looking at crop yields and rainfall since 1900. Here’s the link.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/global-warming-be-damned-record-co rn-soybeans-wheat/#comments
Wouldn’t it be much more effective and helpful for the world for Jennifer to publish a scientific review paper that points out all the major errors in climate science theory and prior paper’s errors – and get that published in a peer review journal like PNAS – than be a humble book editor?
Brian “I know too that visible light is scattered by the atmosphere by looking up and seeing the scattered blue light and during sunsets by seeing the penetrating red and yellow lights.”
Feel free to check this but it’s my understanding the primary causes of the earth looking blue from space and the sky being blue is due to water vapor and oxygen.
It’s too easy to just say someone is wrong, so Brian you’re simply wrong claiming I am wrong. You sound very confused between light and thermal radiation and the dynamic involvement of greenhouse gases which makes them behave differently from other gases.
That’s ok. You’re not the first person to be wrong about something. We all are sometimes. 🙂
“Feel free to check this but it’s my understanding the primary causes of the earth looking blue from space and the sky being blue is due to water vapour and oxygen.”
Sounds like Confused Jane doesn’t simply know that the colour of WATER is BLUE.
Hence the Earth is a “blue body” radiator….with a total emissivity of 0.82.
The Earth’s temperature is purely HYDROLOGICAL. WATER is what keeps the Earth at it’s temperature…no crap notion of any “greenhouse gases”.
Umm, “Sounds like Confused Jane doesn’t simply know that the colour of WATER is BLUE.”
Umm, why do you make up things like what you believe other people know and don’t know?
“the primary causes of the earth looking blue from space and the sky being blue is due to water vapor and oxygen.”
And the reason why ‘water appears blue’ is ….. what?
And the reason why water vapour is the most prodigious greenhouse gas on earth is …. what?
I know the answers however others may like to look up the answers for themselves. No guarantees. Some are enamored by the sound of their own voices on social media. As long as one is heard, nothing else matters. 🙂
“And the reason why water vapour is the most prodigious “greenhouse gas” on earth is …..what?
Well…you tell me,…because I regard water vapour as just that….water vapour.
You adhere to some quack “radiative greenhouse effect” whereby this “PRODIGIOUS GREENHOUSE GAS” wafts around in the air above the ocean waves, and because of RADIATION coming off it,, warms the water beneath ,more than it would be otherwise by the sun.
In fact, this “PRODIGIOUS GREENHOUSE GAS” would be mainly responsible for your 324w/sq.m. of “backradiation” belting down from the atmosphere…wouldn’t it ?,Jane.
You sure the oceans are not boiling, Jane.? Have you been reading too much of what the “grandfather” of “climate change” , Jimmy Hansen has to say? You know…flood the freeway, boil the oceans, coal trains of death,…and the like?
I see the loons who inhabit some alarmist sites have even got Hiroshima bombs worth of this radiative energy being “stored” in the oceans. I don’t whether.. the next time I go for dip in the sea..I’ll be cooked or irradiated. What’s your guess, Jane?
Neville October 17, 2016 at 6:59 am #
“Here’s a good,recent post by Dr Roy Spencer looking at crop yields and rainfall since 1900.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/global-warming-be-damned-record-corn-soybeans-wheat/
What makes it “good”? I wondered.
An important principle behind the scientific method is supposed to be about minimizing “bias” by following the data. That being all the related data and not only piecemeal approaches. Spencer’s post is an example of the later.
Spencer’s conclusion is “So, once again, claims of severe agricultural impacts from climate change continue to reside in the realm of science fiction….in the future, if at all.”
And yet the data he presents does not support such a view. Why? Because he offers zero data. He presents only his opinion of his own research. That’s not how science works, but it is how marketing, advertising, and biased hand waving attention seeking operates.
Science is not based upon vapid “assumptions” such as “Let’s assume the temperature and precipitation observations accurately reveal what has really happened. Has climate change since 1960 impacted corn yields in the U.S.?”
Precipitation records amount to more than annual / seasonal rainfall numbers – 300ml can fall in an hour or across several days, the latter being much better for crop yields than the former. This is obvious, and yet Spencer ignores it totally over the last few decades and the last one in particular.
Spencer in fact acknowledges “What I found was that there might be a small long-term decrease in yields due to climate change” – OK then, that’s an admission of a likely affect.
Is this surprising? No it isn’t. It is very well known and has been for decades now.
quote: “Key Message: Impacts to Agriculture
In the next few decades, longer growing seasons and rising carbon dioxide levels will increase yields of some crops, though those benefits will be progressively offset by extreme weather events. Though adaptation options can reduce some of the detrimental effects, in the long term, the combined stresses associated with climate change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity.”
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/regions/midwest#statement-16934
Who knew that? I did. I have read the reports years ago. Why doesn;t Spencer? or more to the point why is he not upfront about what the previous cliamte science research has presented? Why only focus on a small part of the story and not the whole story?
Manipulation and disinformation and influencing unknowing non-scientific reader’s “opinions” is not uncommon a thing. It’s called “marketing” of opinions and beliefs.
He then says “BUT it is far exceeded by technological advancements that increase yields.”
OK then, BUT “technological advancements that increase yields” has nothing to do with Climate or the weather.
Where is his research data that separates out the two drivers of crop yields? It is no where to be seen in this post of Spencers. Most genuine scientists and everyday academics provide their references, Spencer does not. This error does not support his “conclusions” – it totally undermines them.
That in itself is meaningful about him personally over time as it continually impacts upon his reputation as an academic and a credible scientist. There’s marketing and then there is the Data.
Spencer also says “….it would require predicting an average change in weather patterns, which climate models so far have essentially no skill at.”
Um, yeah. So? GCMs do not do predictions, that is not what they are designed for. They are skillful and they are useful when fit for purpose. Misusing and mis-categorizing GCMs and other climate models is not the fault of the Models but the fault of those who are misusing them.
Only recently have models being applied to regional climate settings wiht any degree of usefulness. They are far from accurate.
A few other basic scientific errors include his other statements:
“Every time there’s a drought, we are told that this is just one more example of human-caused climate change.”
That’s not true, and
“we have been warned that climate change is creating a “climate crisis”, with heat and drought reducing agricultural yields to the point that humanity will suffer.”
also not true. Certainly not by 2016 – so why is Spencer even talking about this?
“(More CO2 is well known to fertilize, as well as increase drought tolerance and make plants more efficient in their water use).”
Not true. Does not consider all studies and all accumulated Data today.
“The people I know in the grain trading business do not even factor in climate change…primarily because they do not yet see evidence of it.”
Not true. It’s the fallacy ‘appeal to popularity’ by only considering of a minor spectrum (people he knows) of all possible participants globally iow an extremely skewed unrepresentative and biased claim. That’s is not how credible scientists operate in the real world.
“but it is so overwhelmed by other positive factors,”
ie possible potential factors that have not been proven to be valid and correct, but merely assumed and claimed. That is not how genuine scientists operate either.
“IF varieties can be made more heat tolerant, it might be that there will be no climate change impact on yields.”
That is POSSIBLY true, but as yet it is far from proven and only lightly researched to date. Spencer provides no evidence or data yet again.
Of course IF drought resistant varieties can be forthcoming that in no way has any effect on the reality of global warming nor regional climate change impacts in the Mid-West.
“And even if they do occur, how do we know they were not caused by the same natural factors that cause those previous droughts?”
A: Climate Science research, empirical evidence, and accumulated scientific Data, that’s how.
“In fact, the last three years (2014-16) has seen the highest 3-yr average precip amount in the entire record.”
So what? Climate science (IPCC etc) have never said that the mid-west SHOULD be moving into a long term drought period with less than average rainfall around 2014-2016 anyway. No “models” are capable of making such predictions in recent past history.
This is known as a “strawman” where Spencer presents a framing of supposedly higher temps and droughts (false claims) not coming true. This is not “scientific”.
“the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s” was not an event purely caused by ‘weather’ – the seriousness of that drought and it’s effects was made far worse by human activities specifically cropping practices.
From the beginning Spencer asks: “The question is: Are (droughts) getting worse? And, has modest warming had any effects on grain yields?”
He does not in any way answer, let alone address those questions. I wonder why he decided to write it.
I suspect it’s another example of biased hand waving attention seeking attempting to influence public opinion and the political debates.
It’s got nothing to do with ‘science’. Spencer provides zero empirical evidence that “global warming” is not true, nor that it cannot have a negative effect on mid-western crop yields.
None!
This is what genuine science by credible scientists with empirical evidence looks like:
Published: May 24, 2016 Climate Change and Maize Yield in Iowa
“Our results suggest that even if maize were to receive all the water it needed, under the strongest climate forcing scenario yields will decline by 10–20% by the end of the 21st century.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0156083
plus
https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-midwest
The only thing social media and blog sites are good at is pointing people in the direction of where to view the scientific evidence for yourself.
Everything else that goes on here and elsewhere is like an argument between the Green and Orange Christians in Nth Ireland and it’s total lack of theological significance to atheists, Muslims or the Mormons in Utah.
A scientific approach always includes relevant high quality references – high school debating techniques are not necessary.
Jennifer, because you must support Science for a healthy planet and safer world, this generous $1000 option is for you to help “develop science-based solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/regional_information/midwestern-states.html
Not tax deductible, sorry.
Mack asks “What’s your guess, Jane?”
My best guess is that you have some entrenched personality disorder/s.
My second best guess is that you do not have the skills needed to understand difficult scientific processes of the complexity found in climate science research to date.
However the determining factor here is not so much your ‘intelligence’ but your lack of maturity and self-control and constant underlying rage that’s going on where ever you show up on social media sites.
My 3rd best guess is that some long term psychological counselling therapy would be helpful but it is very unlikely that has ever happened.
My 4th best guess is that this next item could be part of your problem:
Despite consequence Pathological Narcissists just can’t or won’t change. The
pathological narcissist can’t change a problem if they think they don’t have
a problem. But worse than that, the pathological narcissist can’t fix the problem when
they think you’re the problem.
Part of the problem is that Pathological Narcissists have a hard time
understanding psychological concepts. They have an impaired thinking,
impaired moods, impaired control of their impulses.
Their relationships are often chaotic and dysfunctional. They have trouble
perceiving and relating to situations and people. They have rigid inflexible thought and behavior patterns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7j2axIRja4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m58s
This may be insightful
http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com/what-is-bpd/bpd-overview/
TEST
http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/borderline.htm
or perhaps ASPD
Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated
Repeatedly violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty
Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, aggression or violence
Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others
Poor or abusive relationships
Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/home/ovc-20198975
But I really do not know.
I am merely “guessing” – which ironically enough is the sole basis for your opinions and beliefs about climate science Mack.
Arctic Ocean sea temps 10C above recent averages – no, that couldn’t be true, could it? I’ve been here before and still the data keeps pouring out endlessly in confirmations one after the other after the others.
http://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder-2016/oktober/det-vil-ikke-blive-koldt-paa-nordpolen/ –
Unfortunately text only in danish. But look at the illustrations.
Sea temperatures in the Arctic ocean now up to ten degrees C above 1971-2000 mean (the map).
The meteorologist Tonboe saying he expects arctic sea ice in the summer of 2017 to be “very weak”.
You don’t need to be a climate scientist or meteorologist to see that coming and coming and coming. Simply look at the data and the empirical evidence is more than enough. 🙂
Translate
https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmi.dk%2Fnyheder%2Farkiv%2Fnyheder-2016%2Foktober%2Fdet-vil-ikke-blive-koldt-paa-nordpolen%2F&edit-text=
It’s wet in the MDB and crops are doing swimmingly well in the Midwest USA and everyone knows there is no such a thing as ‘global warming’ let alone man-made global warming. Thank god for that hey?
Arctic methane gas emission ‘significantly increased since 2014’ – major new research
By The Siberian Times reporter 04 October 2016
New expedition in Laptev Sea suggests increase in the rate of underwater permafrost degradation.
The seeping of methane from the sea floor is greater than in previous research in the same area, notably carried out between 2011 and 2014.
‘The area of spread of methane mega-emissions has significantly increased in comparison with the data obtained in the period from 2011 to 2014,’ he said. ‘These observations may indicate that the rate of degradation of underwater permafrost has increased.’
Detailed findings will be presented at an international conference in Tomsk on 21 to 24 November. The research enables comparison with previously obtained data on methane emissions.
The team are examining how the ice plug that has hitherto prevented the exit of huge reserves of gas hydrates has today ‘sprung a leak’. This shows in taliks – unfrozen surface surrounded by permafrost – through which powerful emissions of methane reach the atmosphere.
Scientists are eager to determine the quantity of methane buried in those vast areas of the Siberian Arctic shelf and the impact it can have on the sensitive polar climate system.
Five years ago the professor has claimed: ‘We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across….These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere… Earlier we found torch or fountain-like structures like this… [photo]
‘This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100, but over a wider area, there should be thousands of them.’
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0760-arctic-methane-gas-emission-significantly-increased-since-2014-major-new-research/
But don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers …. besides they’re Russians and everyone knows that Putin is trying to take over the “free world” by force. 🙂
Quote Confused Jane…
“I doubt when on your deathbed that you’ll have this book on your mind either”
There’s something pretty pathological about you, too.
Mack October 17, 2016 at 3:14 pm #
Quote Confused Jane…
“I doubt when on your deathbed that you’ll have this book on your mind either”
There’s something pretty pathological about you, too.
OK, how about, well this : Jennifer, when you’re old and frail and using a walker in your 80s in the nursing home, will you be thinking about the great editing work produced in the Climate Change: The Facts 2017?
Does that salve your sensitivities Mack?
Because I agree with Senator David Leyonhjelm
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18530
Do you?
Could this help?
Psychology and global warming – pictures are worth a thousand words (at least for those with EYES that can SEE objective reality 🙂 )
By Prof. Jerry Kroth, a psychologist using empirical evidence from Psychology and Climate Science
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979, 2003, and 2010
http://youtu.be/tnEO2ysnO6Q?t=15m50s
The Arctic Sea Ice Minimum in 10th Sept 2016
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTgci8RmZIU
Jerry Kroth concludes (and he is far from alone in this view)
“And so it is, we have a large portion of the population that is convinced that they live in a different world, they live on fantasy island, they live out an delusory world in which Denial is the largest contributing factor to their consciousness on this issue.”
“So they have lost contact with Reality and to that extent they have an incipient collective mental illness, the same way an individual would have.”
Here is a minor correction to Jerry Kroth’s psycological bullshit…
“And so it is, we have a large portion of the population that is convinced that they live in a different world, they live on fantasy island, they live out an delusory world in which collective stupidity in the belief in old, outdated, unreal, crackpot greenhouse theory, is the largest contributing factor to their consciousness on this issue.”
“So they have lost contact with Reality and to that extent they have an incipient collective mental illness, the same way an individual would have”.
(I’ll just add a little extra here…)
They have a true and arrogant belief that humans can actually change the global climate. They have this Anthropogenic Global Warming fantasy based entirely on a wacko “greenhouse” theory…..which has, at its core,.. deluded, fantastical, calculations which arrive at a conclusion that there is insufficient solar radiation to keep the planet at it’s liveable, real temperatures, and there’s some mythical, magical properties of the atmosphere which converts a mythically solidly frozen earth to our real temperature.
They hold to this belief because it gives them significance…it being far more disconcerting to contemplate they have no effect on the climate, whatsoever.
Hi Confused_Jane
C_J. You indicated that Sunlight passes through the Green House Gasses and is captured as IR on the way back and I demonstrated that 50% to 60% of Sunlight is in fact IR. The adsorption by GHG is not selective, it happens in both directions and is confined to a very small band width of the total IR range. I am not wrong your statement was incorrect.
Regarding the colour of water, I checked as suggested, see Bohren, Craig F. Clouds in a Glass of Beer, Wiley: New York, 1987; pp155-170. Quote “It turns out that contributions to the observed color are made both by reflected skylight and by the intrinsic absorption of water”, Note here he means the adsorption of light other than blue.
So moving on, the “dynamic involvement of greenhouse gases” is that actually describing something in science?
Hi Mack
You said “Hence the Earth is a “blue body” radiator….with a total emissivity of 0.82”
That seemed very high to me indicating 82% of the incipient adsorbed LW is emitted as blue light. Checking that “pure water” is 0.96 so that sounds reasonable and in salt water appears to be higher. Note I say “adsorbed LW” because a significant proportion of light is directly reflected away due to polarisation. The simple test here is to put on polaroid glasses and tilt you head sideways.
I’m off to do some background reading… Keep blogging I’m having fun!
Hi Brian, loosen up and be real.
“Note here he means the adsorption of light other than blue.” of course, that’s why it’s blue! Doh! 🙂
There’s more to what I said than merely IR … it’s all in the science for anyone to discover – I’m not an unpaid volunteer and not interested in arguments over nothing.
“You indicated that Sunlight passes through the Green House Gasses and is captured as IR on the way back ”
I’m not bothered to go back and micromanage what I wrote before, but if it’s such a pain for you maybe insert the word “predominantly” twice in the sentence just quoted …. does that help you out and make it “sciency” enough to pass muster “Professor”?
Oh hang on this is a POLITICAL BLOG site not a Tutorial session at UQ with my PhD sponsor. If high standards are important to you spend your days at UQ and stay away from blog sites and other social media activities.
I hold to what I said earlier. I already knew why the ocean and sky is blue, and I also know why global warming is true and what is the main driver of that today.
And especially I know my suggestions of where to find accurate ‘science’ explanations are correct – I’m not the PR person (or printer) for the IPCC or UQ and never claimed to be.
Have fun!
Mack, that was really entertaining as usual. I am warming to your and others ideas about how to fix the problems of agw/cc bs and the other pressing problems of the world and nation.
Cessation of all govt funding for climate research wherever it is done.
Privatise the BOM
Privatise all Universities and Tafe networks
Stop all funding to Universities and students incl HECS (including Tafe)
Privatise all govt run schools and cease all funding to education.
Privatise every part of the electricity network.
Shutdown the dept of the environment at federal and state levels.
Repeal all Regulation of education, energy, electricity, and environmental protections.
Repeal all marine parks and fishing control regs, incl the GBRMP.
Declare all Unions and membership of them as illegal
Repeal all subsidies for renewable energy incl regulations for feed-in tarriffs for home solar panels.
Cut all unemployment welfare to a maximum of 6 weeks only
Cancel all rent assistance to all welfare recipients
Repeal the sole parent pension – healthy enough to have children your well enough to work.
Cut the old age pension by 50% and cancel all Pension card discounts
Reduce the company tax to 20%
Fix all personal income tax at a 30% flat rate, with no tax free amounts.
Introduce a $20 doctors/medical testing fee with Medicare only for old age/disability/sickness pensioners
Repeal the Medicare levy and abolish universal medicare
Repeal the private health insurance rebate.
Shutdown the ABC and SBS and sell off their assets to private enterprise
Stop all govt funding for environmental groups and other leftie NGOs
Repeal the anti-discrimination act and shut down the human rights commission.
It’s time for people to be responsible for themselves and enough of all these lefties in Universities and the ABC et al
Besides all that and the massive economic growth and employment it would generate the Federal govts Fiscal problems would disappear and the debt could be paid off in record time.
That and dig up all the coal and gas we can and sell it off to the highest bidder for export asap.
I’m serious too. I really am. I would really like to see all this happen in the next 12-24 months.
Goodness me!
Confused Jane is obfuscating….or perhaps just ranting?
The point remains that BoM’s forecasts have not been good, particularly their regional seasonal precipitation forecasts.
Perhaps BoM needs to ‘responsible for themselves’?????
And confused Jane takes a total black/white view of the politics.
I think this article by Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO on domestic violence in indigenous communities encapsulates a large part of the politics.
http://spectator.com.au/2016/10/black-womens-lives-matter/
Particularly this section
……
“Violence won’t end by throwing money at complex webs of overlapping untested programs.
If programs aren’t demonstrating to work by the outcomes they deliver, defund them, reallocate funding and keep testing programs until we find those that do!”
….
If we substitute the word ‘violence’ for just about any ‘politicised’ issue that is taxpayer funded I think he’s pointed out an endemic systemic failure here?
For example:
“Poor seasonal forecasting” won’t end …….
or:
“Poor river health” won’t end….
or
” Inequality in education” wont end….
or……????
Hi Debbie, no Confused Jane is NOT obfuscating…. nor just ranting. I’m serious, but how could I prove that? I can’t.
My comments above were spawned by a number of things but particularly Mack’s response to a repeated question of mine
“What do you like to see happen?”
That’s a fair enough question. You can understand that total sceptics like myself are up against the entire establishment ,schools, universities, media, (and I mean of all description, books, magazines, science journals, radio, TV news, TV documentaries etc) all blathering on about “climate change”.for the last 40 yrs or so. [plus more]
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/understanding-wild-wet-weather-across-southern-australia/#comment-582481
Not only that but Jennifer’s basic alignment with the IPA Libertarian ideals and so many others. I’m not saying I personally agree with such ‘solutions’ but frankly I am sick and tired of the endless arguments over these core moral social political ideology and collective psychological issues in Australian society and internationally.
I was also motivated to suggest what I said after hearing more of the same on Q&A last night. My repeated questions that only Mack answered were genuine – what would you like to see happen? My list above is my understanding of what people like Jennifer, climate science denialists and the IPA crowd and the RW of the LiIberal/Nationals are always bringing up as “serious” problems needing to be fixed.
So I have put some meat on the bones of these complaints by VERBALISING the sought after solutions that I believe most of the people who complain about it really would like to see happen.
I figured that if so many are so certain about everything, incl basic climate science and they continue after 25 years to shut up, then maybe the best approach is to simply surrender and let them have their way.
So I am serious if I could wave a magic wand and have the items listed above implemented then this would give those who believe in such solutions the opportunity to prove it works – once and for all. Open slather no restrictions go for it!
(plus given you mention it Debbie the repeal of all Aboriginal welfare support and special education and social welfare/health needs systems stopped – as in move to where the services are or live like a native wiht zero support – and face criminal prosecution for child neglect, abuse and domestic violence and the removal of children from dysfunctional drug/alcohol infused families at the same time)
If as Jennifer has repeatedly asserted and now yourself, if the BOM are corrupt, incompetent, fraudulent, useless, of no benefit to anyone, and staffed by AGW/CC dunces then shut it down totally. Save the tax payers money, sack them all, and tender out the services that people like you on “farms” require to the private sector asap – as in right NOW today.
I am sick and tired of being personally abused and insulted by people pushing their own personal belief systems (politics and climate science) and their social engineering idealistic beliefs, and repeatedly being accused of being an insane, leftie greenie socialist gullible idiot … even if I am not.
I surrender … I am putingit all back onto you now .. man up toe the line and demand what you really want to see happen be done. Put your name to it, form a “libertarian party” or whatever … get your fellow travellers to quit the LNP parties and join an poltial party that in fact openly and honestly represents what it is you REALLY TRULY WANT TO SEE HAPPEN …. take over the LNP now, while in office, get rid of Turnbull et al and put Abbott back in as PM and do whatever it takes – create a coup or suspend the constitution declare it a national emergency or however it can be done and push everything through that you want and the proof will be in the pudding .
If it works, if the IPA ideology is sound, within a couple of years 25 million Australians will be forced to abandon their “foolish” beliefs incl AGW/CC once and for all and we will then become not only the envy of the world but also the TEMPLATE for all other nations to follow.
Then beliefs in AGW/CC like holocaust denial can be outlawed as well, and we can all stop wasting our lives arguing about the science on social media sites world wide.
That would be a very good thing imho. It’s really such a waste as there are hundreds of millions who spend their lives doing just that.
and yes, I cannot prove it but I say I am very serious. I could not be more serious and firm about this.
Mack October 11, 2016 at 2:52 pm # IN FULL
@ Confused Jane
“What do you like to see happen?”
That’s a fair enough question. You can understand that total sceptics like myself are up against the entire establishment ,schools, universities, media, (and I mean of all description, books, magazines, science journals, radio, TV news, TV documentaries etc) all blathering on about “climate change”.for the last 40 yrs or so.
So the first thing I would like to see would be the removal from the school curriculum of this fear-mongering piece of crap science.
The second thing I would like is to see a politician ( better…a group of politicians) with the balls to stand up and say (better still, to chant in unison), AGW is bollocks. You’re lucky you’ve got Senator Malcolm Roberts.
I want to see the IPCC disbanded and an end to all these conference junkets. I want to see the enormous waste of money going into “climate change” research stopped
I would like to see the EPA revert back to its original task.ie to protect against environmental pollution.
Also the shutting down of old coal fired stations..to be up graded to the cleanist burning possible.
I’d like to not see so many bird-chopping.wind-mills visually polluting scenic landscapes.
That’s about all I can think of, for the moment.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/understanding-wild-wet-weather-across-southern-australia/#comment-582481
PLUS
hunter October 12, 2016 at 7:10 am #
Mack, I think you are on to something. Your list is a pretty good start.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/understanding-wild-wet-weather-across-southern-australia/#comment-582484
NO ONE ELSE WAS GAME TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS
So I am all for Jennifer marohasy, stop wastiung her time and talents editing another book on climate science, and am calling everyone (especiallly those not here reading like the IPA and the Right wing of the LNP ) to cut to the chase either get Marohasy setup as the Head of the new privatized ‘BOM’, or appointed as the new Federal Minister for the Environment and Energy or Minister for Science … or something like that.
eg Get her (or someone like her) to replace Bob Day on the family first ticket, and then quit to become a LNP upper house minister .. whatever, however it can be done, do it.
POrove you are right once and for all because I and billions of people on this planet are totally fed up with the arguments and endless put downs and SPIN and BS from all sides.
I quit … my life is done … I;m happy to die today … I have nothing to prove and have no regrets …. so over to you guys. PUT your money and your names and your action where your MOUTHS ARE ….. I’m calling you on that.
Especially Jennifer because it is her website and she has been on her personal/team crusade now for about 20 years (?) and yet nothing has changed one bit that I can see – bar the few CC repeals ushered in by Abbott in 2013.
Go for it. You’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Confused Jane.
You do appear to be obfuscating & ranting to me 🙂
You also have done a spectacular job of missing the point of Mundine’s article, along with Jennifer’s post.
The behaviour of way too many govt depts can indeed be likened to Mundine’s points, including BoM.
Debbie “You also have done a spectacular job of missing the point of Mundine’s article, along with Jennifer’s post.”
Well the floor is yours.
Tell me what I am missing in both your comments, Mundine’s article, and Jennifer’s posts.
Tell me what YOU believe Mundine and Jennifer “want to see happen now”
and then explain to me what you want to be done about the BOM and every other GOVT department you take issue with Debbie.
Go right ahead, take all the time and space you require to enlighten me better.
PS Debbie “You do appear to be obfuscating & ranting to me”
So tell me, when you go and read a book or a magazine that has content longer than a tweet or a typical “blog comment” do you also consider such detailed communication as “RANTING” too?
Or is it really more about you do not LIKE what it is I have to say here? You simply just do NOT want to hear my own persnal opinions and explanations of what I know and/or believe and/or think?
I am asking you DEbbie to specfically explain to me what it is you DEFINE as RANTING and how it is that my last 3 posts QUALIFY as “ranting” in your personal individual OPINION?
I really want to know because at present you’re making zero sense to me by simply throwing that word around as if it is supposed to mean something of value to me or anyone else.
So, what makes a blog post RANTING but another a text communication?
PPS the same thing goes for YOUR use of the word ” obfuscating” Debbie
What is it EXACTLY that you believe I am rendering obscure, unclear, or unintelligible?
COPY and PASTE short sections as examples so I actually know what it is you;re having difficulty with understanding.
I forgot the obvious – Australia to permanently walk away from the UNFCCC and all climate treaties.
In fact permanently quit the United Nations itself, for that would kill a 100+ birds with one stone.
And the other obvious necessity is too make Islam illegal and practicing that religion in Australia banned.
with all those Muslims who refuse to do so to put on a military transports along with the refugees on manus, nauru and christmas island being delivered back to where they came at the point of a gun.
Now you’re just being silly, Jane, (hoping you’re not confused now)…but you did bring up one item on your list which I had forgotten about ie..
“Shutdown the ABC and SBS and sell off their assets to private enterprise”
Yes, that’s a good idea, after all, we’ve got rid of the NZBC years ago. These old govt. funded “broadcasting corporations” are well past their use by date. They serve as a propaganda mouthpiece for the govt…a hangover from WW2. Their bias to pushing the AGW propaganda in Australia has now obviously got well out of control. It needs to be hocked off to Murdoch. Think off the millions it will save the Aussie taxpayer.
Then again….my grand children love the Sqiggles….maybe not.
This is a comprehensive summary of the CAGW fraud that we’ve been suffering from for the past 30 years. Matt Ridley has truly outdone himself this time. Fancy wasting a trillion $ ( around the globe) on wind and solar for SFA return on the investment.
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/
But remember satellites have indeed shown a greening planet, but they’ve also shown that global coastal land has increased over the last 30 years. Rather stuffs up their so called dangerous SLR nonsense. The ABC’s Science show expert Robyn William’s forecast of 100 metres SLR by 2100 is a hoot. But is this really the best these ABC morons can do with over a billion $ of taxpayer funding every year? When will they wake up?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/
Debbie October 18, 2016 at 10:01 am #
“Confused Jane. You also have done a spectacular job of missing the point of […] Jennifer’s post.”
I assume you mean Debbie that I am also obfuscating about jennifer’s post. How is that, and what do you actually mean? Because I do not know what YOU are referring to when you claim that I am “missing the point”.
What point am I missing Debbie? How about you explain that to me.
I have read her article, and her refs. I understand what is being said. So what am I “missing” here?
Let me summarize my take away message of that:
“FOR over a decade the Bureau of Meteorology, and CSIRO have been predicting on-going drought in the Murray Darling Basin”
that “General Simulation Models all predicting the same outcome” of drought aka using the POAMA model ( I assume )
I wasn’t aware there were HUNDREDS of “scientists” in the BOM and CSIRO who were running GSMs, so that’s news to me.
Jennifer is alluding to gross errors in these “predictions” and noting the apparent effects on “agriculture” as a result of limiting water access in the MDB.
eg “Yet when we look at the hard data, there has been no overall decline in rainfall.” she says.
That “This is no way to run a productive agricultural sector.” when water prices are inflated unnecessarily by perhaps 10 fold ($30 vs $300)
Jennifer is suggesting there is a problem here at root being the BOM, the GSMs, the poor predictions, the confluence of AGW/CC “beliefs and practices” in how intermediate weather predictions are made for use by agriculture and water providers.
My take away message is that Jennifer feels that the BOM and the whole system is incompetent. (my word not hers – but she has already accused the BOM of intentionally manipualting temperature data to FIT the “AGW theory” – so incpomepetnce probably is not a strong enough word to reflect her “opinions” about the BOM.
You sound like you agree with jennifers various opinions and look up to her with high regard.
Jennifer also said regarding the 2016 winter/cooler rainfall period that it was “a season when even the Bureau (BOM) was forecasting above median rainfall”.
When we see her chart ref for winter 2016 that is exactly what happened post the prediction.
she also stated that: “It has also been repeatedly stated that the drought conditions are going to be most pronounced over the cooler months, specifically from April through to October.” and gave this ref http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml
I read that REF, did you?
It was published in April 2015, and not in 2016. It refers to 2015 cooler month rainfall being “The most recent seasonal outlook (Figure 7) indicates that it is likely to be wetter than normal over much of the Australian mainland.”
I don;t know how to see what their prediction was for mid-2016 up to and including Sept 2016 – so I cannot check Jennifer’s claims.
The current Figure 7 ref goes to info of OCT-DEC 2016.
So, as per the BOM sept rainfall was above avg as “predicted”?
That BOM article also said “However, natural variability still dominates Australian rainfall variability from one year to the next, and its influence is large enough to mask the impact of underlying rainfall trends in the short to medium term.”
In 2015 there was no El Nino showing in April, but in 2016 there was. That would include “natural variability” in my opinion, obviously meaning a higher than avg rainfall expected across the MDB all other things being aside.
What do you think?
The thought crossed my mind as to why Jennifer is using a april 2015 article of long term rainfall issues to discuss record rainfall in Sept 2016, while simultaneously making no mention of the major el nino event and it;s relationship to record rainfall.
But ours is not to question why… there but for the grace of god go far more expert experts than little o’ me. Yes?
I note Jennifer raises the issue of very high water prices, she seems to be asserting that ahs something to do with GSMs and the BOM “failed predictions” while simultaneously confirming the BOM did predict above avg rainfall.
So my take away message was basically that “I am confused” and figured it must all be above my pay grade.
Why the water prices are so high I have no idea. I have no knowledge nor experience about such matters.
Now that’s juts a summary, I could say more about what I see in Jennifer’s article but that is surely enough.
It seems obvious that neither you nor Jennifer have any faith in the BOM. I do not see anything in her article nor in the refs given that explains why that is so.
But I do get the point that you both are critical of the BOM.
Please fill me in as to what point I am still missing? If you don’t mind too much.
“FOR over a decade the Bureau of Meteorology, and CSIRO have been predicting on-going drought in the Murray Darling Basin”
It would nice to see the supporting refs for that assertion.
The BOM and CSIRO “predicting” “drought” non-stop from 2006 onward across the MDB.
I am not saying it is wrong, only that I have no data that confirms from BOM and CSIRO documents that assertion.
And rankly I wouldn’t know where to look nor how to search for it or recognise the docs that show such info.
Neville October 18, 2016 at 2:38 pm #
When and where did Robyn William’s **forecast of 100 metres SLR** by 2100?
I direct ref would be lovely, thanks.
Mack October 18, 2016 at 2:04 pm #
“Now you’re just being silly”
No I am not. I am not putting those ideas into YOUR personal mouth Mack. I am summarizing the “collective” right wingish libertarian pro-business anti AGW/CC anti-big government anti-all government brigades general complaints I have heard (and often been accused of supporting the opposite without even opening my mouth and saying a word)
I have heard calls for each of the items I have listed from across the spectrum be they current Politicians, poltical party executives. CEOs, Board members of huge corporations, IPA Sydney Institute Lowy Institute etc operatives their members and supporters, journalists, opinion pieces in the media, on Q&A and the like, on the Drum, on the news, on the internet, social media, blog sites on youtube, from Oz, to the UK to Canada to the USA to Europe at least during the last decade and longer.
Trump wants Obamacare repealed, and their are people here who would dance with joy if Medicare was abolished.
I simply summarized those things I could recall, and all these things have come from the mouths and text of people and Groups/Orgs who ALSO openly deny AGW/CC is real or valid or if it is even a problem to think one minute about.
I am simply saying I could not be bothered having such “arguments” wiht anyone anymore, nor hearing about it across the media anymore …. and truly hope that ALL those things would be done so once and for all they can PROVE their ideas work, are good for the nation by implementing them asap (legally or not I seriously do not care, just DO IT, suspend the Constitution to do it, I don;t care, juts DO IT and prove you’re all RIGHT as in correct versus just theoretically correct because you’re on the RIGHT …. the time for talking is over.
Put up or shut up? (yes I know that will never happen)
I also doubt that the most OUTSPOKEN Proponents for xyz CHANGE would actually take up the responsibility to form a Libertarian party and run for office, or for a Jennifer to actually accept the JOB as head of the BOM with the purpose of disbanding it or selling it off.
But I really do not know .. which is precisely why I am raising the flag here.
I will put to others of a similar ilk and see what they think too. If they actually do have the courage of their “convictions” and their CERTAINTY of their RIGHTNESS to actually act on them.
I am serious. It’s a direct challenge in fact to tie your fortunes to the flag pole and actually stand up and speak up for what you (everyone) really BELIEVES is important.
Telling me “I am not being serious” or “juts being SILLY” IS IMO A TOTAL cop out MACK.
IT’S NOT ABOUT ME
IT’S ABOUT WHAT YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING JENNIFER ACTUALLY STAND FOR or DON’T.
It’s an opportunity to be the change you have always cried about not being able to achieve.
What’s stopping any of you from creating a real Libertarian party and standing for political office?
Or convincing current Politicians from leaving their current party and joining yours version of the RIGHT WAY to do things?
Or is Jennifer (and you and millions of others) only all talk and no action nor committment to her Libertarian Ideals she flies on this Blog site and on the IPA website?
Are you folks “serious” ???
That’s the question being asked.
CJ.
Mundine, nor I advocated a repeal of everything.
As I previously commented….spectacular work on missing the point.
Here’s a basic definition of obfuscation for you
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obfuscation
That’s what I’m seeing.
The BoM link was forecasting precipitation trends.
3 out of the last 6 years ie 50% it was the opposite.
The only year it did actually happen (2013) BoM forecasted an 85% probability of ‘wetter than average’ for winter/spring.
So I guess you’re trying to argue that even though they’re not right….they’re not wrong??????
Debbie October 18, 2016 at 3:27 pm #
“CJ. Mundine, nor I advocated a repeal of everything.”
So? i never said you or him did. I am advocating a “repeal” of “everything” as already explained. You don’t have to agree. Nothing I said was directed at you personally Debbie. So, what’s your problem?
“That’s what I’m seeing (obfuscating).”
So? Doesn’t mean I am obfuscating, only that you think I am. You might be wrong, more than the BOM is wrong. (shock horror)
AND
“The BoM link was forecasting precipitation trends.
3 out of the last 6 years ie 50% it was the opposite.
The only year it did actually happen (2013) BoM forecasted an 85% probability of ‘wetter than average’ for winter/spring.”
And where is all that “data” situated in Jennifer’s article or in her refs Debbie?
How can you have a go at me for “missing the point” when none of that info was included in the first place?
Maybe you are the one who needs to switch onto that definition, not me.
I’m done “explaining” myself to someone who ignores everything already clearly said.
CJ.
Sigh 🙁
Reread your comment @ 9:01 am.
@ Jane,
You let slip further upthread…
—“not a Tutorial session at UQ with my PHD sponsor”.
On the strength of that, and reading your postings here, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re an extremely bright and talented young person, with hopefully, a rosy future ahead. Although some of my comments may have come as a bit of a jolt,.. I’m sure at your age you’ll be able to adapt, modify and overcome.
Here’s wishing you all the very best for your future,
Mack
Jane here is the Bolter’s interview with the Williams donkey in 2007. Very easy to find, just google “Robyn 100 metres Williams”. More clueless idiocy from their ABC.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/warming-williams-exaggerates-again/news-story/bd841ce72e89cf5fe9e838c020f3486a
Oh and NOAA’s tide gauge data shows Sydney SLR trend to be 0.65mm year and Brisbane 0.09mm a year. That’s just 2.6 inches and 0.36 inches per century. But SLR over the 20th century was about 8 inches. Or so they say.
Of course Paris COP 21 is just BS and a fra-d according to Dr Hansen . He started this CAGW garbage in 1988, yet even he knows that their mitigation con is BS.
As the Bureau of Meteorology said in a special climate statement last week, the Murray Darling Basin had its wettest September on record, continuing a string of wet months.
“The May to September period was Australia’s wettest on record, with each of the five individual months ranking in the 10 wettest in the last 117 years,” the report said.
Special Climate Statement 58 – record September
rains continue wet period in much of Australia
Issued 12 October 2016
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs58.pdf
31 pages it was issued the same day jennifer put her article here
Thanks Mack for your kind words.
here’s a tip – do not believe everything you read in the newspapers or on the internet.
Actually, do not even believe what you think you just read was what was being said.
Better still there are times when you should not even believe your own thoughts are your own.
The world is full of manipulation. Listening to an Obama speech in 2004 or a climate lecture by Monckton should be enough to prove that in spades. Peace!
Neville, what you wrote was
“The ABC’s Science show expert Robyn William’s forecast of 100 metres SLR by 2100”
You used the word “forecast” but that is not what he said at all. Bolt asked him a question, and he gave a ridiculous stupid dumb answer in the moment. So what?
The IPCC and climate scientists are not responsible for what idiotic things are said by “pseudo journalists”
For example from RW science show:
“Jeff Severinghaus claims columnist Andrew Bolt used his research to argue that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.”
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/reporting-co2/3396878
So what? So what nothing. The same things go with the errors presented by Al Gore – it is totally irrelevant to the empirical evidence and the literature itself.
imho even the IPCC media releases and summaries are often crap and/or totally confusing and pathetic examples of clear communication of the facts.
The ABC does not represent the findings of climate science papers nor individual scientists. neither does Bolt, nor does any “media” operation – period.
It’s small minded and self-defeating to base any opinion about science on what someone said in the “media” even if they say a scientist said it. It’s 100% unreliable.
To make judgments about climate science based on what someone says on a blog site or a TV radio show is so far beyond ludicrous it’s bordering on delusional and insane.
Still billions keep doing it and ignore the actual empirical evidence by being distracted by attention seekers trying to make a name for themselves – even those whose intentions are good screw it up.
Read the peer reviewed science papers and listen to what the real experts say over time. Email them direct with questions. Most reply.
Robyn Williams is not a climate scientist. Neither is Jennifer, nor John Nicol or their partner John Abbot and neither am I.
No rational person would go to a comic book store if their intention is to mine for gold and strike it rich. Yet in this world of gullible and biased fools, people rely on biased media and the various in-competencies and inbuilt flaws in it to then believe they “learnt something true” about AGW/CC “facts”.
May as well go to a tarot card reader seeking a cancer diagnosis. That’s just dumb and stupid too.
Debbie October 18, 2016 at 6:13 pm #
CJ.
Sigh ?
Reread your comment @ 9:01 am.
Yes, read it and I wrote it too. So what? Do you have a point to make or what?
Maybe your husband (?) is a mind reader, unfortunately I am not. sheesh.
Professor Pitman’s centre will shift more of its focus to the study of climate extremes after securing funds from the Australian Research Council last month.
“There is some emerging evidence that the system is redefining itself,” Professor Pitman said.
Has Jennifer and her Johns missed the boat again to secure proper funding for “research”? Must be a conspiracy against them.
CJ.
In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.
Telling us now (after the event) that it was the wettest Sept on record is not the point.
Your post at 9:01 yesterday claims I advocated repealing all indigenous support etc.
I’m sure there are plenty of nice people, with nice families and nice pets who work in all these places.
That’s not the point either.
Mundine’s point was that we’re funding systemic failures.
Jennifer’s point about BoM was similar.
Australia is a large land mass with a relatively small population.
It’s not necessarily a good idea to fund programs that are not delivering outcomes.
Your black/white , all or nothing, view of politics and your hyperbolic statements are amusing, but also indicate to me that you’re only interested in obfuscating and defending the ‘status quo’.
Out here in the real weather/climate/environment we work on delivering on community expectations. We aren’t particularly interested in lame excuses for non performance.
If things aren’t working or not delivering, it’s a good idea to figure out how to change the system so that it does work better.
One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
But Jane even their ABC can tell the truth and present the facts sometimes. Here is a Catalyst story of Narrabeen man where they drop in the info that SLs on our east coast were 1.5 metres higher just after the Holocene climate optimum. That much warmer period saw SLs reach much higher levels just 4,000 years ago.
Here’s the transcript and link. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
Narrabeen Man
(19/06/2008)
7:30 mins – Windows media – Real Player
Comments
Paul with skeletal remainsIn 2005, when contractors were digging a trench for electricity cabling north of Sydney, they made a gruesome discovery.
Unbeknown to them, their find was to lead to an intriguing forensic investigation and eventually uncover a 4,000 year old killing mystery.
Dr. Jo Macdonald from Cultural Heritage Management led the expedition and uncovered some remarkable forensic information about who this person was, where this ancient man came from and even what he ate.
However, it turns out that Narabeen Man is far more unique than first thought. Not only is he the oldest dated skeleton in Sydney, he provides scientists with the earliest evidence yet of ritual punishment among indigenous Australians.
Dr. Paul Willis follows the forensic path that pieces together the mystery of a brutal killing that occurred some 4,000 years ago.
TRANSCRIPT
Narration: This is a story of a most remarkable death, a long time ago, and a very unremarkable location.
Dr Paul Willis: On this spot 4000 years ago there was a particularly grizzly death. It was a very violent event that is the earliest recorded ritualised killing in Australia.
Forensic science and modern indigenous culture have combined to work out what happened here at the Octavia Street bus stop.
Narration: The startling discovery occurred here at Narrabeen on Sydney’s northern beaches in January 2005 when contractors were digging a trench for electricity cabling. In doing so, they unearthed the remains of a skeleton
After a trip to Glebe Coroner’s Morgue the remains were turned over to archaeologist Jo MacDonald …and a forensic process followed…
Dr Macdonald: A find exactly like this has never been found before in Australia.
Narration: The first thing that Jo needed to do was to establish the time of death. A small sample was sent to the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory in California for Carbon dating. And the result was astounding.
Dr Macdonald: The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised.
Narration: 4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today.
Paul: So that spit would have been much narrower. The water levels in the Narrabeen lagoon would also have been higher and it would have acted like a saline estuary.
Narration: And there were aspects of the find that aroused Jo’s suspicions: this was no ordinary burial.
Dr Macdonald: No certainly it doesn’t appear to be a burial at all.
Paul: What told you that?
Dr Macdonald: His posture he certainly looked as though he’d been flung on the ground he had one arm across his neck and his head had been shifted off the top of his veritable column// Most formal burials that you find in Australia are in particular postures and certainly wasn’t one of them.
Narration: To physical archaeologist Denise Donlon, there were many features that indicated this was the skeleton of an aboriginal man.
Dr Denise Donlon: The shape of the base of the nose which is particularly Aboriginal and of course the very large teeth and strong tooth ware indicating a traditional Aboriginal diet.
Narration: Denise helped excavate the skeleton back in 2005.
Dr Donlon: I estimated from his limb bones that he was 183cm tall, which is about six foot in the old terminology and this is very tall for an Aboriginal man and the average height for Aboriginal men was five foot six.
Paul: So he really was quite tall?
Dr Donlon: Yes unusually so.
Allan Madden: Even when we looked at this guy, this guy seemed to be very thick boned; he was very tall for Aboriginal people that were in this region here in and around the Ku-ring-gai Garrigal mob.
Narration: And from early in the excavations, it was obvious that Narrabeen Man had met a violent end…
Paul: So what wounds have you found?
Dr Donlon: The most amazing wound was found here in this lumber vertebra and it was a spear tip embedded in the vertebra. And you see it actually here in this bag.
Paul: What does that tell you?
Dr Donlon: Well that would have actually passed through his abdomen from the front and the side and would have caused immense damage to the abdominal cavity.
Allan Madden: The most common spear around this area was the fishing spear, you had ceremonial spears here, then you had hunting spears, for different animals that you hunted there were different tips that would penetrate and couldn’t come out and that was the same with death spears.
And I think this feller got the bloody lot of them.
Paul: Death spears are of composite construction that is they’ve got a central wooden shaft and along and embedded in resin along two sides of the head would be a number of small sharp pieces of stone like this called backed artefacts; there could be a couple of dozen in the head of a death spear. And Narrabeen man was the victim of at least three of this kind of spear.
Narration: Richard Fullagar has been taking a close look at the wear patterns and fractures on the 17 backed artefacts found at the grave site.
Paul: Now these are really tiny little chips of rock how much damage could they actually do to a human?
Dr Richard Fullagar: Well in this case they killed him.
Narration: One spear entered from the front, cutting the intestines and a kidney and lodging in the spin. A second spear was thrown from behind and also lodged in the spin. A third spear ricocheted off the skull, which was also hit with another sharp implement. Other artefacts suggest more spears were embedded in the body but they did not do any damage to the bones.
Allan Madden: He hasn’t been initiated; if he was he would have his front two tooth been removed or knocked out as the case may be. And that was in and around this area in the Sydney basin that was the initiation rituals that a lot of the young boys went through to become men.
Paul: As you can see Narrabeen Man has all of his upper front teeth and he’s thought to be thirty to forty years of age, so either he’s not from the local area or the practice of knocking out front teeth at initiation had not started 4000 years ago.
Narration: Perhaps another clue to his origin can be found by examining the contents of his stomach that were recovered inside to the body.
Dr Donlon: In the stomach region we found these tiny fish bones which must have been his last meal, it’s interesting because this is also consistent with stable isotope analysis which was done of the bone which also showed he had a marine diet.
Paul: So this suggests he was a coastal dweller?
Dr Donlon: Yes absolutely
Paul: So Narrabeen Man was a tall Aboriginal male who lived by the coast but not necessarily in that area and who died a violent ritualised death some 4,000 years ago.
But who was he and why was he killed in such a horrific manner?
Allan Madden: He must have done something very bad to the mobs here, for what he would have done that would only be speculation on my behalf, but the way the wounds are and what we see of him it would have been something really bad.
And it’s also interesting that C.J. thinks it’s OK / forgivable for Williams to say something ‘dumb’ or… let’s face it… ‘alarmist’ but not for anyone like Jennifer who has different opinion?????
That’s not particularly ‘democratic’ of C.J. I would suggest?
Spot on Debbie , but that’s part of their corruption and fra-d. Here’s the alarmist UK Cowton site that makes it easy to check the IPCC preferred HAD 4 data.
If you go back to 1850 and check the warming trend per century over the past 166 years you find only 0.5 c/century.
But the PR Lloyd study found there was an average temp variability of 1 c per century over the last 8,000 years. He used both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores for his study.
So we have only half that temp variation that would be considered normal during a warming trend. And that slight warming came at the end of the LIA, plus ongoing data adjustments and homogenisation etc. Something just doesn’t add up. Here’s that Cowton Uni site.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“To make judgments about climate science based on what someone says on a blog site or a TV radio show is so far beyond ludicrous it’s bordering on delusional and insane.”
Who’s doing that?
You, CJ, seem to choose not to understand that the promoters of AGW only move in one direction with their propaganda when it comes to telling their side of the story.
Robyn Williams isn’t just “someone”, he is the ABC science presenter and his lack of scientific scepticism in making such a remark should send a signal even to you that this sort of silly hyperbole should not come from someone in that position who wants to be taken seriously.
Is the CAGW agenda really so hard to see?
Ken Stewart has updated the UAH V 6 satellite data for Sept 2016. The global trend is about 0.18 c per hundred years since 1998. But using monthly trend it is 0.39 c per century since 1998.
Australian LT temp has been cooling for the last 18 years and the south polar region has been cooling since Dec 1978.
The global LT trend since 1978 is 1.2 c per century.
Werner Brozek has used Nick Stokes’ data to calculate that UAH V 6 has shown no stat significant warming for 23 years. That’s for well over half the record. And RSS V 3 LT shows no stat sig warming for over 22 years. Nick Stokes is not a AGW sceptic. Here is Ken’s link.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/the-pause-update-september-2016/
spangled drongo October 19, 2016 at 9:44 am #
CJ says “To make judgments about climate science based on what someone says on a blog site or a TV radio show is so far beyond ludicrous it’s bordering on delusional and insane.”
THE DRONGO ASKS “Who’s doing that?”
Are you blind DRONGO?
Obviously Neville is right here http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/10/wettest-september-record-murray-darling/#comment-582560
and obviously Andrew Bolt was too.
Thankfully I am not that dumb or gullible.
Debbie October 19, 2016 at 9:20 am #
And it’s also interesting that C.J. thinks it’s OK / forgivable for Williams to say something ‘dumb’ or… let’s face it… ‘alarmist’ but not for anyone like Jennifer who has different opinion?????
That’s not particularly ‘democratic’ of C.J. I would suggest?
—-
Debbie, is english a 2nd or 3rd language for you? I ask because there is a pattern where you total fail to comprehend simple english.
Is there a special reason why you are making FALSE accusations against me by claiming I say things or think things that I have not said nor thought?
Debbie October 19, 2016 at 6:33 am #
“In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.”
You speak of “missing the point” Debbie ?
WHERE in Jennifer’s article or the ref links she provided is the information that “In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.” ?
Because the article that I READ said this – AND I QUOTE IT – “a season when even the Bureau (BOM) was forecasting above median rainfall”.
“Your post at 9:01 yesterday claims I advocated repealing all indigenous support etc.
I’m sure there are plenty of nice people, with nice families and nice pets who work in all these places.”
NOT TRUE – I DID NOT CLAIM THAT ABOUT YOU AT ALL. I have already “explained” it and won’t do it again. Please stop making false accusations about me.
“One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.”
I totally agree. And I practice it. 🙂
Neville October 19, 2016 at 9:42 am #
Spot on Debbie , but that’s part of their corruption and fra-d.
The way that comments reads to me Neville is that you a simultaneously labeling me “an alarmist” and accusing me of being “corrupt” and “fraudulent”.
Is that what you intended?
[ the above is a practical lesson for people (similar to Debbie for example) who need to improve their online communication skills using TEXT ]
Robyn Williams is not a climate scientist – he’s media host.
This what climate science looks like when you see it.
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/
Have any questions or complaints?
Then Email James Hansen direct via jeh1 AT columbia.edu
Andrew Bolt and the ABC and even BRIAN COX and Malcolm Roberts are all superfluous and none of them “represent” climate science or climate scientists.
IF at any time readers here have an issue or problem with the ABC then the appropriate place to take them is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/robyn-williams/2913842
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm
I am not responsible for the actions of the ABC nor Robyn Williams’ science show.
To lay such issues at my feet on this blog site and/or to expect that I have some kind of “responsibility” or “duty” to address them is totally inappropriate, irrational, self-defeating, a waste of time and ludicrous in the extreme.
I’d even go so far as to label such attempts as delusional and bordering on the ‘insane’.
….. and Offensive.
“2 deg C global warming could be dangerous” says Jimmy Hansen
So could fast, low flying pigs.
CJ.
You have also made some spelling/grammar errors when writing on here.
Unlike you apparently, I just assumed you made a mistake or auto correct got you.
To focus on that IMHO is yet another example of obfuscating.
Somewhere upthread I linked the ‘water resources outlook’ information from DPI Water last Feb, they use BoM’s information.
CJ you cannot be serious? We know what their science???? looked like when we read the Climategate emails and noticed how silly Mikey Mann used data upside down to deliver some of his findings. You must live in fairyland?
Of course Cgate forced decent scientists like Judith Curry to be far more sceptical overnight. Mann is so clueless that Mark Steyn wrote a quick book just quoting from scores of scientists who were appalled by his stunts, bad science and total lack of integrity.
Here’s the Bolter and Steve McIntyre discussing the Cgate emails scandal.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bolt+report+steve+mcintyre+youtube&view=detail&mid=E8E160C3CED7527751C2E8E160C3CED7527751C2&FORM=VIRE
Also here’s Muller exposing the hockey stick and Mann’s hide the decline con.
“You have also made some spelling/grammar errors when writing on here.”
omg, crucify me forthwith Debbie.
Is that all you have? It appears so.
Neville, whatever. Do keep ignoring the science and the facts and the data and the observations and the thermometers and the melting ice and ……. everything else.
You have been conned buddy. Blame me for living in a fairy land if you wish, but you’re the one looking in the mirror.
Mack October 19, 2016 at 3:11 pm #
“2 deg C global warming could be dangerous” says Jimmy Hansen
So could fast, low flying pigs.
Well Mack, in my reality temperature exists. Low flying pigs do not.
Your ‘debating’ skills and logic needs much improvement.
But is only an internet blog site – therefore it is deemed as “acceptable” and for some really smart and clever and intelligent and even profound wisdom
To me it is not and never will be.
CJ.
You’re clearly not interested in commenting on the actual issues raised and questions asked by Jennifer.
You’re clearly far more interested in casting vague personal insults and also interpreting other comments as black/ white all or nothing.
ie obfuscation.
Whether you like it or not, BoM is seriously underperforming in the area of regional seasonal precipitation outlooks.
Your basic answer to this issue seems to be that even though they have quite clearly been ‘not right’ in this space they can still be shown to ‘not wrong’.
That’s not a good position to take if the desired outcome is improved performance.
From my perspective, as someone who would almost adore BoM if they could show measureable improvement in this area, Jennifer is making a valid observation.
It’s also concerning that BoM has been given more legislative power in this space via the Water Act 2007.
Neville wrote – “The ABC’s Science show expert Robyn William’s forecast of 100 metres SLR by 2100”
I replied partly with – “Bolt asked him a question, and (Robyn Williams) gave a RIDICULOUS STUPID DUMB answer.”
I do not know how her thinking operates, but somehow Debbie (October 19, 2016 at 9:20 am # above) considers such a reply as
“C.J. thinks it’s OK / forgivable for Williams to say something ‘dumb’ ”
I’d label that reply/opinion as ‘ethereal’ – seems not to be of this world.
I’m am always keen to help others help themselves and recommend this fairly new ‘science’ based site operated by scientists very highly.
Are readers having difficulty (or don’t have the time) separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to “claims” made in media reports about climate science?
“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”
These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.[1]
[1] Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.
http://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/
“Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring”
Published in Forbes, by Robert Bradley Jr. – 23 Sept. 2016
Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
“This picking of quotes that are convenient for Robert Bradley Jr.’s narrative while ignoring what most climate scientists say is one of the most used rhetorical tools of this piece.
“The other is the use of offensive emotional language to reduce the critical thinking of his readers. People should know that Forbes is nowadays just a blogging platform.”
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/climate-exaggeration-backfiring-robert-bradley-jr-forbes/
I felt this was a great example to review from Climate Feedback because the two things Victor mentions above happens on this site all the time.
“while ignoring” – what I have actually said and meant – “one of the most used rhetorical tools”
“use of offensive emotional language” – directed at me or others like Robyn Williams or “climate gate” whilst trying to “guilt me” into being responsible and accountable with a duty to “explain and respond” when it has nothing to do with me nor my values, what I think, know or believe.
Of course I am only using “me” as but one example of hundreds who have passed through this site [it is not about me.] A blog site little different than any other anti-climate science distortion blog site.
And so like Forbes.com, people should know that jennifermarohasy.com is nowadays just a blogging platform – with little to nothing to do with genuine scientific rigour openness or accountability.
It isn’t alone but other sites are much MUCH MORE offensive (and run by extreme control freaks) than this space is or has ever been. So that’s a credit to Jennifer imo.
Just sayin’ and only an opinion based on the empirical evidence. It’s been “interesting” that’s for sure. 🙂
CJ , you are certainly living up to your name. I’ve given you the HAD 4 data that shows just 0.5 c warming per century since 1850. I’m giving you the IPCC preferred data-set and yet you just ignore it because it doesn’t help your silly argument.
And that slight warming comes after the end of a minor ice age. Do you expect it to get even colder? I’ve also shown that the sat data has shown no statistically significant warming for 23 years. I’ve also shown peer reviewed studies that disprove their so called dangerous SLR.
BTW the Leclerq et al world glacier study showed a slowing of retreat since 1950, so that doesn’t help your alarmist nonsense either.
Death from extreme weather events have dropped by 97% since the 1920s, polar bear population has risen 4 fold since the 1950s, Antarctica has been cooling over the entire sat record and the WAIS has been cooling for 18 years, Greenland warming in the early 20th century was faster than the warming since 1990s.
I could go on but you seem to be a lost cause and just ignore PR studies. Perhaps you prefer more modelling that has so enthralled the media over the last 30 years?
“A blog site ….anti climate science distortion blog site?”
Empirical evidence?
Huh??????
ROFL 🙂 🙂 🙂
Real time data is quite clearly demonstrating that BoM is underperforming.
People in my demographic would absolutely love them if they actually started delivering better than 50%, rather than making ‘sciency’ sounding excuses.
Sorry, CJ, blogsites do not form the basis of AGW judgments, they simply support what has been put forward by one side or other of the debate and are quoted that way.
e.g., if I see something supporting my observations of no, or very little SLR in the recent decades of “climate change” I will quote it but my scientific reference is simply the fact that in my geodetically and tectonically stable part of the world the highest astronomical tides are lower than they were 70 years ago.
I believe that’s what’s known as sticking your head out the window.
Y’know? Like not being prepared to be brainwashed by bed your favourite wetting gurus like James Hansen et al.
Or even your favourite bedwetting gurus
One of the errors our ABC have chosen to make in the promotion of their strong advocacy for CAGW is the choice of the wrong Brisbane thermometer site.
The BoM list two, one of which no longer exists and hasn’t for the last 22 years but it is the one whose averages are quoted by our ABC. It was also 30 metres higher than the current one which made it cooler and exaggerated any current warming.
After numerous complaints by me, and probably others, they have been forced to use the proper one but they still manage to quote certain mid day temperatures as above average when they are often below.
Like with Robyn Williams, it is always only one way traffic.
spangled drongo, what are talking about? How does the ABC quote a non-existent thermometer site?
How do you define “their” in regard to the ABC – who specifically are you speaking about? The CEO, the Board, 7.30 report, the news desk, four corners, the various weather forecasts, or playschool writers?
who “they have been forced to use the proper one ” and what was that “force” and who is “they”?
what does “quote certain mid day temperatures as above average when they are often below” mean and where is the evidence for all these assertions?
Seriously, your comment makes no sense whatsoever. I have never heard anything about some “site” causing such “havoc” or that the one’s at fault are “these unnamed people/departments” inside “our ABC”?
Lastly what name did you use when lodging your complaints they claim to have made?
was it “spangled drongo” or was it John Abbot?
Debbie October 20, 2016 at 10:40 am # & Debbie October 20, 2016 at 9:47 am # , I don’t care what you say while you continue to ignore this:
Debbie October 19, 2016 at 6:33 am #
“In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.”
WHERE in Jennifer’s article or the ref links she provided is the information that – “In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.” ?
Because JENNIFER said in the article – the empirical evidence is at the top of this page and I QUOTE IT again for the 3rd time now –
“a season when even the Bureau (BOM) was forecasting above median rainfall”.
Whine all you wish, slander and ridicule all you want, make up words to put in my mouth but until you address that and my other questions and comments as far as I am concerned you do not exist because you are not worth having a conversation with while continuing to be so disingenuous and incompetent at dialogue.
In fact you have been utter OBFUSCATING – and boy now that truly is ironic.
Neville October 20, 2016 at 10:37 am #
” I’ve also shown that the sat data has shown no statistically significant warming for 23 years ”
And that is fundamentally incorrect.
As are the other things mentioned.
Believe what you want to believe. It’s not my problem, nor is it my responsibility to correct you nor provide you with the correct up to date data and analysis.
That’s your job.
Besides I truly do not care what you believe or think about such matters.
And in case anyone is interested, I do not care if the BoM is exceeding it’s statutory minimum standards / goals or under performing.
I also not care what sites they have chosen to be used to national temps comparisons and hand on to whoever calculates global temps.
It’s a non-issue to me. If it;s an issue for you well congratulations, That doesn’t mean I have to care nor do I feel any obligation to say a single word about it just because others including Jennifer see it as important.
I repeat this url it’s a goodie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEO2ysnO6Q&feature=youtu.be&t=15m50s
Will there be anything else?
(Maybe saying to much gets in the way?)
–
“In Feb this year, the BoM forecast dry for this season.”
–
“a season when even the Bureau (BOM) was forecasting above median rainfall”.
–
ARE BOTH THESE STATEMENTS TRUE?
YES or NO
Ah, CJ, there is nothing like the belief, religion, faith or whatever you like to call it of a true believer.
Check these two Brisbane temperature sites for yourself:
The old one, Brisbane Regional Office, 040214 and the new one, Brisbane, 040913, approx. 1k apart and 30m diff in altitude.
The old one has not recorded any temps since 1994, lists temps from 1887 to 1986 and is 30m higher so will have much cooler temps particularly in a growing city like Bris. It is made for AGW advocates like our ABC and they never let a chance go by.
Too bad if they have to cheat. They know most people including CJ and the rest of the faithful would never pick it.
The new one is current and lists temps from 1999.
CJ you’ve just confirmed that you think science is a religion. I’ve quoted PR studies that back up what I’ve stated to be the case. But you ignore this and choose to believe religious dogma over data.
Neville October 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm #
CJ you’ve just confirmed that you think science is a religion. I’ve quoted PR studies that back up what I’ve stated to be the case. But you ignore this and choose to believe religious dogma over data.
Neville do please PHUCK OFF … you are an idiot.
spangled drongo October 20, 2016 at 3:17 pm #
The old one, Brisbane Regional Office, 040214 and the new one, Brisbane, 040913, approx. 1k apart and 30m diff in altitude.
YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED EVERY SINGLE THING I SAID AND CARRY ON LIKE A BLATHERING IDIOT.
HOW DUMB ARE YOU? SERIOUSLY
HOW CAN THE ABC PROVIDE TEMP INFO FROM A SITE THAT IS UNOPERATIONAL OR DOES NOT EXIST?
and in regard to this OFFENSIVE DUMB STUPID COMMENT
“Ah, CJ, there is nothing like the belief, religion, faith or whatever you like to call it of a true believer.”
YOU CAN PHUCK OFF AS WELL
CJ, thanks for confirming your stupidity but did you check those sites?
Of course you didn’t.
Instead of asking dumb questions you might be a little better informed if you had.
TUT, TUT, LARDY Jane that’s just about the response I would expect. These people love their religious dogma but hate data , observation and logic and reason. This is like the good old days, but Lukey used the F instead of PH.
Surprise, surprise that AEMO has found that the wind generators were the major problem that caused the SA blackout. Of course coal and gas power worked fine throughout. So the super expensive, unreliable, renewable rubbish is a disaster.
Of course renewables won’t make a scrap of difference to the weather/climate or temp in twenty years or one thousand years. Just ask Flannery, Hansen and the scientists behind the RS and NAS report. Also look at the PR ice core studies that back this up.
CJ
I linked the DPI Water outlook from Feb as additional information.
They use BoM’s information.
So I suppose that both are from BoM?
I don’t know about ‘true’ though 🙂
Here is this month’s video of the Matt Ridley talk at the Royal Society. This brings most of the science about AGW up to date.
Here is the Bolt link to the latest AEMO inquiry update for the SA blackout.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/report-wind-power-caused-the-sa-blackout/news-story/dcccd7c1476bd678fab84b7816c9e180
And CJ.
I live and work as a producer in the MDB.
You may not care about BoM’s performance, but all of us who do work out in the real weather/climate/environment would like nothing better than improved seasonal forecasting from BoM, especially, but not only, precipitation and water resources outlooks.
Instead we’re getting lame ‘sciency’ sounding excuses and long diatrabes focusing on meaningless nationwide averages and trends.
Jennifer, as you seem to be claiming, may or may not have exaggerated about the increases in funding & employment in BoM but her basic observations are valid…unlike people like Williams whose exaggeration was way over the top and validated ‘alarmism’.
BoM has been gifted way more influence via policy and legislation…..and of course taxpayer funding.
As Mundine pointed out in his article about domestic violence…..are all these programs actually delivering on outcomes?
Why is it sensible to up the media noise and the funding if the programs aren’t delivering?
‘Will there be anything else?’
Yes, as a member of the Denialati its my belief that our star is the main driver of climate change and its hubris to think humans have any real part to play.
What do you think of that?
I tend to agree that temperatures are no longer an issue, except that its been unusually warm around the world according to the Guardian.
If the MDB experiences the biggest flood in recorded history, is it because of regional cooling or global warming?
Ha! el Gordo 🙂
Good question…good comment.
If there was a ‘like’ option you just got one from me.
I’m not a member of any such team as ‘denialati’ but of course the sun & it’s behaviour + such simple things as the hydrological cycle have way more influence on our weather/climate than anything related to homo- sapiens.
& the hubris emanating from way too many quarters is becoming a joke. 🙂
Ta Deb
I’m only sorry I came to the party too late, its hard to find a useful troll these days and I’m badly in need of combat.
I last linked to this discovery of the IOD on Jennifer’s blog years ago. But because we’ve had so much rainfall this month (caused by a strong negative IOD) over SE OZ I suppose it should be linked to again.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-causes-big-dry-drought-mystery-solved
They have generated the IOD record back to about 1890. During the last big drought there were many strong positive IODs, but no negative changes. Stupid Flannery and the BOM’S 2008 explanation that we may not see rains again that would fill our dams was pseudo- science garbage. But were is the Flannery/ BOM/ MSM correction and public apology?
Sorry “rainfall this month” above refers to Sept not Oct. Of course the neg IOD was a major cause of the wet winter over SE OZ as well.