“THESE days, it can be hard to imagine how Melbourne ever earned a reputation as the gloomy, rain-filled capital of the south. But, growing up in the 1970s, my memories are full of muddy ovals, local creeks in flood and catching tadpoles in puddles that lasted for months on end. How things have changed.”
This is how David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, began an opinion piece entitled ‘Our hot, dry future’ published by Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on October 6, 2008.
The piece continued,
“Since 1996, each successive calendar year has brought the city below-average rainfall. With 299 millimetres recorded so far this year, and with just three months to go, it seems virtually certain that this year will become the 12th in a row that has failed to get to the average of 650 millimetres. September 2008 was the driest on record in Melbourne, and the outlook for the remainder of the year suggests that below-average rainfall will continue…
“We also know that over the past 11 years Melbourne’s rainfall has been about 20% below the long-term average, and that south-east Australia as a whole has now missed out on more than a year’s worth of its normal rainfall over the duration of the event. The run-off into Melbourne’s dams has been 40% below average over this drought period compared with the longer term, while regional areas have fared even worse. And the drought hasn’t ended.”
Dr Jones goes on to blame climate change for the drought and warns there is worse to come.
I recognise that Dr Jones is an expert on predicting future climates, but I am not sure he has adequately explained the recent past climate of Melbourne.
Climate always changes and in a country like Australia climate tends to naturally cycle between periods where there is a dominance of wet La Nina conditions and then dry El Nino. The 1950s and 1960s were very wet along the entire east coast of Australia, but since 1976 the median state of the Pacific Ocean has been towards El Nino that is dry conditions. Indeed Dr Jones was a young boy when it was relatively wet while his adult life has been dominated by El Nino conditions. Of course the built environment has also changed. Melbourne is a much more affluent city now than it was 30 years ago and along with affluence comes laser levelling of sporting venues and much improved drainage and flood mitigation so ovals dry out relatively quickly, creeks are slowed and puddles in public places now a thing of the past.
But there is more to this story.
Bill Kininmonth, a meteorologist formerly with the Bureau, has made the following comment about how the recording of Melbourne’s weather has changed over the years and how the rain gauge in Melbourne’s central business district is now sheltered from the rain bearing winds of the southwest:
“Although Melbourne’s observations commenced in 1851 the location and environment have changed over that time. The earliest observations commenced at Flagstaff Hill and then they changed to the Observatory site south of the Yarra. For more than 100 years the observations have been taken from the present site on the corner of Victoria Parade and Latrobe Street. However there has been urbanisation. The site has clearly lost exposure to the cooling southerly winds and the rain gauge is sheltered from the rain bearing winds of the southwest.
“Clearly it is difficult to draw a conclusion about Melbourne’s climate and the possibility that it might be changing. The urbanisation of the site should make the record indicate a hotter and dryer climate, whether or not that has occurred. Essendon airport was a previous non-urban locality in the vicinity but that closed in the early 1970s. Tullamarine is the current site but was not open during the dry periods of the first half of the 20th century. Laverton, likewise an early site with long data has also been closed.”
I shall post more tomorrow on Melbourne’s total catchment rainfall and water storage levels in Part 2 of ‘How Melbourne’s Climate Has Changed: A reply to Dr David Jones’
*****************
Our hot, dry future, by David Jones, October 6, 200, The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/our-hot-dry-future-20081005-4udg.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Seems incredibly unscientific not to acknowledge the big climate shift/cycle that occurred mid ’70s.
As to it being hot, maybe he doesn’t go out much.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
As David Jones says, ‘The Bureau of Meteorology [BoM] and CSIRO … have been working to understand the drought.’ David was in fact one of the 11 authors of the ‘Drought Exceptional Circumstances’ report (DECR) that the Australian Government released on 6 July. It’s now over three months since that report was released, over two months since Dr David Stockwell published his critical evaluation at ‘Niche Modeling’, and one month since Dr Andrew Ash, Head of CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship, advised Dr Stockwell that “we” (I assumed that that meant the authors) “will provide a formal response to your [David’s] review of the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report that was forwarded to me [Ash] (dated September 3).”
I hope that David doesn’t spend too much time writing opinion pieces for The Age when he could be supporting his co-authors in validating the findings of the DECR and preparing the promised formal response to David Stockwell’s review of the report. I’ve made some further comments in relation to this matter in the last paragraph of a post I’ve just made on the ‘Aynsley Kellow on Popular Nonsense in Perth’ thread.
Oh Jennifer; I am so going to enjoy this thread
In view of dr david’s failure to adequately predict 3-monthly rainfall outlooks I would rather place my faith in Ian Holton’s work.
>Dr Jones goes on to blame climate change for the drought and warns there is worse to come.
No he did not. BUT the drought affected regions are those which are predicted to dry strongly under global warming.
This has been our hottest, longest, driest drought, with the lowest runoff in southern Victoria’s history. Further information can be found at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs16.pdf .
David. It is written towards the end of your article:
“Should Victorians view this drought as climate change? This drought is now far beyond our historical experience. It is very difficult to make a case that this is just simply a run of bad luck driven by a natural cycle and that a return to more normal rainfall is inevitable, as some would hope.
“Climate change caused by humans is now acting to make droughts more severe and increasingly likely… ”
Come on! You blame climate change!
Also David, have a look at the temperature records for 1939 and you will find that your claim that recent temperatures in Melbourne are the hottest ever are false.
In the latest Quadrant Kininmonth states that warmer oceans mean more rain. I think there have been reports of the southern ocean being colder which would follow the argument. If my memory is incorrect where does that lead us.
I sent the following letter to The Age, but on climate matters this is rather like complaining to your mother-in-law about your wife.
—
Dear Sir,
The sustained fall in global average temperatures has brought plenty of responses from believers in manmade warming, Jones being the latest to appear in this newspaper.
Quite reasonably he mentions El Nino and La Nina conditions but he gives the impression that these conditions flip a switch and suddenly things happen. This is not the case at all as other staff at the Bureau of Meteorology have shown in their scientific paper that demonstrated the decrease in Australia’s rainfall is greatest around borderline El Nino conditions.
Jones did not mention that for most month between January 2002 and December 2007 a state of semi-El Nino existed, one the El Nino side of neutral but rarely reaching the arbitrary threshold. He also fails to mention that since 1976 the median state of the Pacific Ocean is towards El Nino when for at least the 30 years earlier it was towards La Nina.
Hot dry future for Melbourne? Unfortunately that’s highly likely. Manmade? Not at all.
———–
John McLean
Might I also add that Jone’s comments and the statement from BoM draw on data that in a practical sense is unavailable to anyone outside the Bureau of Met. (Purchasing that data from BoM would be inordinately expensive and then there’s the need to process it.)
In other words it is not possible to have independent validation of the claims made by the BoM and by Jones.
Some people might be prepared to take the claims on trust but given the gravity of the matter I for one am not.
When it follows the script, it’s a sign of “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, as predicted.”
When it doesn’t, “It’s not climate, it’s just weather.”
“a state of semi-El Nino existed,” woo hoo !
The term “climate change” allows the spivs to blame every extreme event from drought to flood on humans. But lets get back to the facts. The key claim made by the wankademics is that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming and that claim is at variance with the facts.
Global warming only ever apeared capable of trending towards the catastrophic when it was heavily influenced by El Nino and the PDO.
In their absence there is no warming at all, let alone warming that could become catastrophic.
We must not allow the term “climate change” to appear anywhere unchallenged.
‘there is no such thing as climate change, it’s because the rain gauge is next to a big building’
you guys are hilarious
Justin; IMO it’s highly likely there is more than one rain gauge in Melbourne and going back in time, even the kids had a jam tin placed out side for their school studies
gavin: “even the kids had a jam tin placed out side for their school studies”
are you in a third world country my (primary school in Sydney) had a proper rain gauge
His mind is in the third world, Jan.
Ian/Jan
We are, after all, talking about Victoria which isn’t all that much different to a 3rd world country.
Spangled Drongo – it would appear that in your linked graph the unexplained red trend line abruptly changes from a 5-or-more year moving average to a 1 or 2 year moving average in about 2005. That or someone’s just drawn in where they want temps to go. Pretty dishonest stuff.
Seems more like “Melbourne Warming phenomenom” not global because it ain’t happening anywhere else. All data is now pointing to a global cooling since 2002
Vincent,
Yes, you wouldn’t need to venture far from Melbourne, either:-
http://tinyurl.com/It-s-not-over-yet
Probably explains the snow season trend in the Australian Alps is shortening, with less snow remaining early in spring,
‘there is no such thing as climate change, it’s because the rain gauge is next to a big building’ –you guys are hilarious, says Justin.
Obviously Justin is too think to even contemplate the fact that if there is ONE next door to a building in Melbourne, then what confidence can you have in any of the others.
In any case the way their scum bag Premier behaved over the funding for the MDB, really means that leaving it up to the Victorians to manage Australias weather data sets is sets is a tall ask.
Putting the gauges alongside buildings is not surprising for them.
…. and the empirical evidence for AGW is?
Oh… that’s right. There is none…
Just a hypothesis, base on an assumption that the physical properties of CO2 will be significant, backed up by computor models, using Data that gets “adjusted” to fit.
Have I summed it up right?
I hope those computer modelers don’t moonlight for finance modeling!!!!
FDB,
Ignore the red line altogether if it worries you.
What the graph is saying is that since satellite data began in 1979, there is no net warming.
And ’79 temps were similar to 1940, from which time there has been an 800% increase in ACO2.
But no net warming.
Probably explains why the Arctic is melting hey spanglers? Oh that’s right – the satellite doesn’t include that bit.
800% increase hey – far out dude !!
Luke said:-
Tosser!
Read the article. Says exactly the opposite. Are you purposely obtuse, or just plain dumb?
In the end covers of the BoM’s centinary book there is a interesting series of diagrams showing rainfall patterns over Australia for the past 100 years.
If I correctly recall the period of greatest area below 1/3 average rainfall was in the 1920’s.
Great visual representation of rainfall in Australia.
But only for the last hundred years, a blink of time in human occupation of Australia.
>“Victoria’s snowfields have had a big winter and the conditions are still excellent for spring skiing, says Jim Darby.
An urban myth that one. If you look at the Snowy Mountains it was one of the worst snow covers on record. No snow before July and all gone by October. Snow Mts data is freely avaliable from Snowy Hyro.
Jen is #2 coming?
Is Bill writing his alternative analysis up for peer reviewed scientific publication so that the scientific community with dozens of papers now published on the southern Australian drought can see where they are wrong?
The Word,
As directed at Luke Bsc Hons
” Tosser! Read the article. Says exactly the opposite. Are you purposely obtuse, or just plain dumb?”
What took you so long to work that out.?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Check out the arctic sea ice re freeze this year.
As for Luke I vote for “tosser” and “just plain dumb”
Luke,
What, ya don’t reckon ACO2 has increased 8 times since 1940?
I thought you read all the alarmist statistics.
And these happen to be right.
Luke says: “Probably explains why the Arctic is melting hey spanglers?”
If you look at the graphs on the International Arctic Research Center (in corporation with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Advanced Earth Science and Technology Organization of Japan) you will see that arctic ice is growing
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Also some graphic photos from 13/10/2007 and 13/10/2008
show increase.
They can be viewed here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Ice_07vs08.jpg
Spangled Drongo – not true. A trend line is extremely useful for interpreting a noisy graph, provided it isn’t someone’s fanciful felt-tip pen giving them what they want to see. A consistent 5-year moving average trend line, overlaid on your provided graph by means of actual calculations, would leave us with over 0.3 degrees of warming since 1979.
Has David tried to sidestep an issue here or doesn’t he know his geography?
“The Word” quotes an article in which we find ‘ “Victoria’s snowfields have had a big winter and the conditions are still excellent for spring skiing, says Jim Darby.’
David responds “An urban myth that one. If you look at the Snowy Mountains it was one of the worst snow covers on record. No snow before July and all gone by October. Snow Mts data is freely avaliable from Snowy Hyro.”
“Victoria’s snowfields” … “look at the Snowy Mountains”??
David, those mountains are in NSW.
FDB,
You are quite right!
According to satellite data the difference in net warming is maybe +0.3 degrees C over 30 years [probably less], and this is about the standard annual deviation.
IOW, the effect of 30 years of global warming has been no greater than the change commonly seen in a single year.
David – watching their denial is great fun. What guys eh?
I suppose they’ll be publishing real soon (not!).
Oh here we go again, the never ending crapology about whether or not people have published in the elitist and highly selective/biased and demonstrably inadequate peer review process.
Its the same same game that saw people like David not speaking up, ie publishing, about Gores nonsensical extrapolations.
As for you Tosser boy it wouldnt make any difference, you dont properly read what is published anyway.
Luke says “watching their denial is great fun. What guys eh?”
How about your incorrect statement that the arctic ice is melting when in fact it is growing?
Great fun, eh guys?
>“Victoria’s snowfields” … “look at the Snowy Mountains”??
There is no long-term snow data for Victoria.
Snow & weather doesn’t care much for borders – low rainfall and warm temperatures have occurred both north and south of the Murray.
Both areas were snowless until well into July then a dry and warm September finished the season finished the snow off quickly.
These are all readily observable facts.
david,
You guys make me laugh, sometimes! Last time I checked, Perisher was in the Snowy Mountains.
If you go to the link below and watch the video, you’ll see the local reporter proclaiming it the best winter in years for skiing (especially cold and snowy July & August). Looks like fun!
http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/index.php
TheWonk – sample size of one – LOL
Malcolm – publishing not necessary. Especially if you’re a shonky dodgy sceptic – eh?
Arctic ice growing – well let’s hope so – a thing called the boreal winter? But have a gecko at the Figure 4 – check out how much first year ice now – oh yea !
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure4.jpg
Record low volume? http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
David I think we need a drongo index.
Luke
Boreal Winter?
Those two photos were taken on the same day – twelve months apart.
Sign up for the index Luke
Luke Bcs Hons
I rather be called a shonky donk sceptic than a pretentious academic twit with the reading comprehension of that sack full of wet mice –on Prozac.
Sigh …
Dear Malcolm
Point (1) It appears that the ice will now refreeze as the boreal winter onsets and so the pack will (ahem) grow again – I was being drool
Point (2) one finds an increased area now of first year ice – much less second and third year ice than 2007 – perhaps thin ice of some concern – hence the ice volume issue. Sigh….
Part 2 is now here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/how-melbourne%e2%80%99s-climate-has-changed-a-reply-to-dr-david-jones-part-2/
I’ve looked at the records of ice gain and retreat since 1979 and the year to year swings can be massive… there are examples of warming or cooling periods that are in the 5 year range; perhaps one could argue 10 year trends in some cases. There is definitely a downward trend in the Arctic over a prolonged period but the trend could plausibly change and move in a different direction for a long period of time.
The bottom line is that there is not enough satellite data for anyone to know what is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’. But there is good historical evidence to suggest that the low ice cover we’ve seen in this region has happened many times, even in this century.
Everyone can argue the ice cover topic until they turn blue in the face but the bottom line is that we’ll probably need another 50 years of data to know what the normal range is. But neither the “Alarmists” (who want to claim we’re on the edge of catastrophe) nor the “Deniers” (who want to stress that because we are now already above 2005 levels for this time of year, this is all cyclical) will want to wait this long before pontificating.
I’m horrified that my idea to make a great inland sea using a channel from SA to the dry salt lake Lake Eyre has already been proposed by smarter people then me years ago, this would have a milding effect on all of Australia especially erm Victoria and South Australia! To think these fires could of been a whole lot less if not avoided altogether makes me furious, over what uranium in the desert? The cost of building a channel?? What of cost the loss of life and communities?
Want to stimulate the economy give people jobs to build the channel not give junkies $5k to have babies, sometimes I wonder about this country I really do, even the Yanks know what effect the great lakes have on weather there.
I arrived in Australia in June 1967 and by the end of that year Melbourne had experienced its worst drought – in living memory. Monthly rainfall records from 1967 to the end of 2009 shows that droughts were followed by wet periods and then, by 2007, we were in another (cyclic) drought of sorts. When we think Melbourne we are really grouping a significant area in which there are equally significant efficiencies and deficiencies in rainfall. Werribee, Laverton to just mention two, have climatic conditions that would have long heard residents claiming climate change. however, their climate has nothing to do with climate change it’s within normal limits of acceptance.
Add a heaped ladle of confusing behaviours: all living things and particularly plants continue evolving, some, even before the “drought”, were in irreversible decline. The problem is that observers and commentators need to have lived, observed and computed what is really occurring locally before concluding that we are all in the grip of climate change. Observing incremental growth of trees can indicate what the effects the lack of optimum rainfall has on tree growth and to the best of my knowledge many trees have continued growing well despite all fears and claims.
What confuses many are the actions of municipalities such as the Melbourne City Council who in February of 2010 covered lawns in which trees grow with mulch, much of it infused with oil. The emotional response of most people will be “tree care in action” the truth is the mulch is wrongly positioned, but it’s neat, and it’s far too late to do any real good. It’s feel good mulch. The benefit would have been best received seven to ten years ago. To that that, drip irrigation was installed in early 2009, slicing through the roots of all trees. Some die as most of their hair roots had been severed. Adding to the damages, the MCC has a contractor who carries out its contractual obligations and in doing so drives their vehicles over the irrigated, often soggy lawns, compacting soils in which all of those supposedly valuable trees grow. Unless you have observed many trees being removed you the reader will not know. But if in the course of casual conversation you happened to correct a piece of information saying that most mature trees in the suburbs die from injury and neglect and not climate change, you are at worst considered a climate change denier or as in my case asked to explain.
Ivan Earl, Consultant Arborist. Melbourne. Australia