According to the annual climate statment from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released on Wednesday, the Australian mean rainfall total for 2010 was 690 mm which is well above the long-term average of 465 mm. As a result, 2010 was Australia’s wettest year since 2000 and the third-wettest year on record (records commence in 1900).
The statement explains that 2010 began with El Niño conditions in the Pacific followed by a rapid transition into La Niña during autumn. From January to May rainfall was generally above average in most areas except the western half of Western Australia and southern Tasmania. By July, La Niña conditions were well established and most areas of Australia experienced very much above average rainfall. The second half of the year (July to December) was the wettest on record for Australia.”
The complete statement is here.
Now all the data is in for 2010 it is possible to construct timeseries graphs for the Murray Darling and Eastern Australia. The above graphs were constructed at the Bureau site here.
These charts suggest Australia could be entering a new wet cycle. Click on the individual charts for a better and larger view.
These charts show that that all the modelling by the CSIRO and others, and all the reports including by Ross Garnaut and Sir Nicolas Stern claiming declining rainfall, were wrong.
This really is good news.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If they started earlier [in the 19th century] they would know that 1893/4 were also near-record years and the long-term rainfall graph would be a pretty horizontal line.
As it is now they’ll be claiming that increasing rainfall is a fingerprint of AGW.
Excellent news!
Don’t tell me that our climate is just behaving normally? (whatever that is!)
Well, well, well!
Wouldn’t it be good if we all went back to the drawing boad and started again and see if we could come up with the real answers to our climate puzzle rather than trying to defend one that is not holding water, or drought, or flood or whatever comes next!
Gillard and Brown take on Abbott over dams.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australia-must-overcome-dam-phobia-tony-abbott-urges/story-fn59niix-1225983587590
“These charts show that that all the modelling by the CSIRO and others, and all the reports including by Ross Garnaut and Sir Nicolas Stern claiming declining rainfall, were wrong.’
No they don’t. What nonsense. This statement TOTALLY misrepresents what CSIRO are saying. One swallow doesn’t make a summer.
This has been no swallow! We are back to a wet cycle. I dared not say so, but now I have seen the rainfall data for 2010. We have climate change! I haven’t been able to wipe the smile from my face this afternoon.
Ahh…LukeDesk, Labor apparatchik, the models are flawed.
BOM and the CSIRO should have seen this coming a year ago. With low sunspot numbers producing more cloud, then a Modoki El Nino quickly followed by the strongest La Nina since 1973. It’s not over yet and I fully expect a back to back Nina as in the mid 1950s.
With the world set to cool over the next 20 years it will be fascinating to watch those politicians, journalists and scientists, who have swallowed the green pill, try and justify their position to the general public.
BOM would be wise to follow the UK Met and stop making seasonal forecasts, unless they go back to traditional analysis and use the models as helpful tools only.
” With the world set to cool over the next twenty years…” divines Madame La Gordo. Evidence?
Gerald Meehl found a possible solar-La Nina link.Thing is ,La Nina like sea surface conditions and precipitation coincided most often with the peak of the solar cycle. Given the solar cycle is not regular [ 8 to 14 years so far observed] and ENSO events are not either,lining these things up is very difficult. And there is no lack of trying.
BOM and UK Met use ‘traditional’ analysis,and models of all kinds including probabilistic ones. Don’t you read the forecasts and note the methodology? There is no useful reason to discard one technique simply because a tabloid campaign has been directed against it. Three monthly prob forecasts always-ALWAYS-came with explanatory notes and caveats as to their limitations. Clearly this was too much to expect some of the public to read.
Jen you may be smiling but you have TOTALLY misrepresented CSIRO’s position. Quote at source pls from their published literature ! Can you substantiate your position from their research reports an publications.
Given your insistence on an evidence based blog – I will be interested in your evidence that their research has showed AGW causing a suspension on anti-ENSO and PDO phenomena.
El Gordo – “BOM and the CSIRO should have seen this coming a year ago. With low sunspot numbers producing more cloud, then a Modoki El Nino quickly followed by the strongest La Nina since 1973.” – pigs botty El Gordo – isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing. I knew this too !
Jen sez “These charts suggest Australia could be entering a new wet cycle.” – well do they – have a look at the year after after the 2nd highest value in your MDB series in the 1950s. Getting all sort of empirical now.
How exciting, we now have a couple of Labor Party apparatchiks. Poly, you have all the qualities of a Deltoid refugee and I expect we’ll all have lots of fun over the next few years, arguing over weather and climate.
You are both obviously aware of the natural step change in temperatures, where global warming takes a short break while climbing out of the LIA. Remember the fears of global cooling in the 30 years after WW2 and then the great climate shift of 1976 put the show back on track?
At the World Climate Conference in Geneva a few years ago, Mojib Latiff of Germany’s Leibniz Institute, said the world had stopped warming at the end of last century and we are entering ‘one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.’ Latiff is a well respected ‘warmist’, so I think it only fair that he should have first say.
So what I’m suggesting is that this cool phase may come to an end in a couple of decades, depending on Sol, but until then cool/wet conditions will prevail, comrades.
Piers Corbyn’s take on The 4th Jan Eclipse and UK VAT rise; Queensland floods;
Monster blizzards and supercold USA UK & Europe; and
the BBC -Met Office Goebbels-esque pact and Major flood years (or near years) 2011, 1992, 1973, 1954 & 1916 were all in the same phase of the eclipse cycle
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No1.pdf
Poor old Luke always trying on the con.
Remember his gloating here when farmers and towns were suffering the worst effects of the drought? A real charming nerk minus sufficient grey matter.
Anyhow what we can say now using BOM’s record—- 2010 is officially the highest rainfall year beating 1956 by 9mm, 796 mm 2010, 787mm 1956.
Also as I’ve said before the driest 10 year period of the record is 1935 to 1944 ( 402mm) not 2000 to 2009 ( 421mm ) so let’s get in some top engineers and fix up the catchment potential , because it’s definitely not a lack of rainfall that’s the problem.
Val – unfortunately Piers Corbyn didn’t predict the flooding – he had predicted a heatwave from Dec 25 to the new year for SE Queensland with temps up to 38C. We got a cold wet period instead.
He’s not always as right as he would have us believe.
Just to present a few more facts (instead of Luke’s BS) from the BOM MDB record—-
The average rainfall from 1900 to 1939 ( first 40 years) was 449mm.
Compare 1970 to 2009 ( last 40 years minus 2010 ) the average was 483mm or an average 34mm a year more rainfall than the first 40 years.
Just for interest the average rainfall 1900 to 1956 ( 57 years and 1956 being the record year up to 2010) was 461mm, but the average rainfall from 1957 ( low 312mm ) to 2009 ( 53 years ) was still higher at 474mm.
I know the fundamentalists here are as thick as bricks but the real facts of the entire BOM record show that the 1900 to 2009 average rainfall is 468mm and the first 10, 20, 30, 40 and 57 year records are below that 468mm.
The next 53 years of the record at 474mm is above the average and even the last 20 years 1990 to 2009 comes in at 462mm which of course includes the bad drought years 2000 to 2009. (421mm)
Remember over the entire period 1900 to 1956 ( 57 years)the average was only 461mm, still 1mm less than 1990 to 2009.
So the message is surely that more work has to be done on the catchment(s)?
More irrelevant misrepresentation Neville. We’re back to the whole of MDB ruse. Dreary me – and you wonder why CSIRO roll their eyes at you lot.
And you are a liar – I never gloated about farmers in drought. Never trust a denialist especially if they’re called Neville.
Anyway still no evidence to back up the accusations against CSIRO.
“because it’s definitely not a lack of rainfall that’s the problem.” – moronic Neville – so that why we’ve spent billions over decades in drought relief – coz there was no lack of rainfall. You twit.
Have a look at this Csiro paper MDB rainfall and runoff 1895 to 2006.
If you print out the two graphs on page 2 and draw a line from the high points in the first 50 years for rainfall /runoff you’ll find that the low point of the next 50 years is still above the high point of the previous 50 years.
Says it all really.
Sorry here’s the paper. http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/G6/potter.pdf
According to Peter Andrews when we first arrived the Darling river had huge wetlands that were 50km across and 20km deep that straddled the river. This slowed the water down on it’s way to the sea. The tributaries that fed the Darling were the same. The success he had with his farm rivers was they he slowed the water down thus stopping erosion and it allowed the water to spread out sideways into his paddocks. (that was the battle he had with the hydrologists who claimed the water wouldn’t move sideways into a paddock – he proved them wrong)
The huge wetlands across the Darling were burnt and destroyed to allow the steamboats to get up and down the river so they could get the wool and wheat out. The trees adjacent to the river were also destroyed to fuel the steamboats.
Today we don’t have the need for steamboats so why don’t we return the wetlands instead of building dams.
Poly, we cut luke some slack because he occasionally comes good with some papers and he does good impersonations; you can’t expect the same; you say this:
“Thing is ,La Nina like sea surface conditions and precipitation coincided most often with the peak of the solar cycle.”
This is contradicted by CR theory which is vindicated by recent CERN results;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/#more-29537
Cosmic rays increase during weaker solar periods; increased CRs means more cloud formation and La Nina conditions, so I would like your evidence to the contrary on that particular assertion.
Regarding PDO phase change, they are fairly regular; variations in the duration of the -ve and +ve phases does not detract from that; there was a clear phase change in 1976 to a +ve PDO and in 1998 another phase change.
Your defence of the MET is problematic; that is a scandal as this latest information suggests:
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2162-did-uk-government-keep-cold-winter-warning-secret-in-run-up-to-un-climate-conference.html
The public position of the MET was of course that the winter would be mild.
Val,please don’t push Corbyn without real assessment of his claimed achievements. He lucked out on one major prediction [E USA blizzard of 25-27] of five. The 29-31/12 E Coast blizzard never was[it was quite warm].The synchronous blizzards predicted for Europe and the UK also never eventuated. The SEQld heatwave never manifested. Yet he acts as though 1/5 is a towering succcess. He spends the rest of his time ranting incoherently,and inviting you to subscribe to his website. I guess once you’ve parted with your subscription fee,you have an incentive to ‘believe’.
Now you want us to consider more sweeping claims about a ‘link’ between a partial solar eclipse on the 4/1/11,which covered part of the NH,and the Queensland floods he so conspicuously failed to predict.
He has nominated floods in 1916/18,1954,1973,1991/2 and 2011 as some kind of [mechanism undescribed] confirmation. “All had solar eclipses around 4th Jan and/or lunar eclipses a fortnight before/after”. What?!! Which floods in which river basins? What about all the many other major flood events of the last century in Queensland which he ignores. If he didn’t ignore them he’d see the strong correlation between Queensland flooding and summer!!! I suppose summer is correlated to solar/lunar eclipse cycles [sarc]
Let’s look at the Mar 2010 flood on the Condamine/Balonne.This record breaker is about to be ‘eclipsed’ by this Dec/Jan one. Well…there was a NH annular solar eclipse on 15/01/10. Yeah, over six weeks before the flood. Must be a connection,eh?
BTW – Naomi Oreskes – is the guest on today’s Science Show at 12pm.
Wrong ,cohenite. The ‘public position’ of the UK Met was that they no longer issued seasonal probabilistic forecasts. The reproduction of an automatically generated probability graphic by some third party does not and cannot constitute the ‘public position of the UK Met’. You as a lawyer should be totally aware of this. Particularly when the page carries a clear disclaimer in bold red! The bandying-about of this page as an official release is simply dishonest. If that’s what you feel you need to do to advance a case,I pity you.
At the end of November UK Met were repeatedly forecasting in daily,weekly and bi-weekly outlooks,increasingly cold conditions for December,in line with what eventuated and in line with their publicly-stated position that they_no_longer_issue_seasonal_forecasts. I call on you to produce an official UK Met forecast for this winter,all three months of it.
Here on the mid-coast of NSW, I’m in the bush and the bamboo a lot, and something has been very apparent to me since ’07. Westerly winds have lost their dominance. The frequent late winter and early spring westerlies have given way to more oceanic winds, and the lethal summer north-westerlies have not reappeared in the last nine or so years. The Big Dust came in on a westerly, but that was due to inland rain and siltation, not the strength of the wind.
I was very surprised by how the last El Nino, while reducing the storms which make the nitrogen soup for my bamboo, still delivered sufficient rain overall. More surprising was the persistence of the “new” wind pattern through an El Nino. This produced a very warm winter in real terms, since there were no three-day howling westerlies by day, with frost-making clear skies at night, as in previous events. (I should add that the previous two winters were damp and bitter, the coldest I can recall here – in real terms!)
After just a glance at recent SOI etc, I was certainly ready for the present drenching.
In 2005 I was in Rome during winter and was surprised by the phenomenon of winter thunder. Yet the last three winters have brought winter thunderstorms here to the mid-coast of NSW. I hesitate to say that we are “back to the fifties”, because rigid definitions and extrapolations are best left to those who, disappointed by their efforts to engineer humanity, have now applied their dogmatism and literal-mindedness to climate.
Luke you silly fool. Unlike you mad fundamentalists I don’t think we can easily produce drought or flood, I think I’ll leave that to natural CC.
Obviously my argument proves that rainfall has increased over the last 100 years and obviously we will endure drought and flood for the next 100 years interspersed with good average years as well.
Whether we fund drought relief or not is immaterial as a reaction to natural CC.
Poly, lawyers have an expression for disclaimers: money in the bank; a disclaimer does not absolve liability; they have no exculpatory signifigance at all; the actions of the MET in representing itself as a reliable forecastor make it liable for its failures and compensation to those who have relied on it to their detriment; that little aspect of the NIWA farrago is yet to be played out, despite luke’s crowing; and it doesn’t matter whether the MET hired peacocks to strut around with disclaimers, pork pies and Al Gore’s underwear hanging off them; the wrong representations still are their responsibility.
” I call on you to produce an official UK Met forecast for this winter,all three months of it.”
I don’t know about that but he is a summary of the MET’s sorry history:
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/2073-warm-bias-how-the-met-office-mislead-the-british-public.html
As a matter of interest the MET did warn of a cold winter; in 2005, with their usual degree of success:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-met-office-did-warn-of-a-bitter-cold-winter-in-2005/
And no lawyer wants your pity, just your money.
for what it’s worth here’s a screen grab of the MET’s temperature probability map issued October 2010
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/that-met-office-global-long-range-probability-map/
Oh lawdy,val,you’re shameless!. That’s the very graphic that is NOT an official forecast. It’s not even a winter forecast: it’s Nov/Dec/Jan. What part of ‘This does not constitute a seasonal forecast’ do you not comprehend? You can access that page ,enter your parameters and produce a probabilistic outlook. All the info is historic: it produces an odds outlook based on what precursor conditions usually balanced out as in the past.
Most of the UK lies in the 40-60% range which means that the odds for Nov/Dec/Jan being warmer [and therefore colder] than the mean are pretty much even. No confidence either way. Don’t make it out like its anymore than a footnote on chance. The stronger confidence for warmer than mean conditions to the NW has actually been borne out so far,a fact loudly ignored by you chaps.
Cohenite,piffle. No amount of misrepresentation makes that graphic an official forecast,either yours or ‘autonomous’ mind. The Met issued a press release-that was OFFICIAL- noting the misuse of that information.Now that IS taking responsibility for the issue.
I realise that the MET now provides short term forecasts only but on its official site it does refer to the generation of long range forecasts http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/what/pws
The Met Office provides a range of information under the Public Weather Service (PWS), which is funded by the UK Government. This includes generating everything from day-to-day site-specific forecasts to long range forecasts.
Just saying
“The Met issued a press release-that was OFFICIAL- noting the misuse of that information.Now that IS taking responsibility for the issue.”
Sure; it’s not our fault if information on a page open to the public and with the implication that it is our expert opinion is taken seriously by consumers of that page. Let me make it as plain as I can to a man who says “piffle”: this disclaimer by the MET:
“Raw data are displayed for use by
international meteorological centres.
This does not constitute a seasonal forecast for a given location”
at a site with access to be the public and which is broadcast by the media by their weather services with the imprimatur that this source is reliable, and all this happened, will not absolve the MET which predicted that the data clearly showed an 80% probability of warmer than average temperatures for November, December and January for Scotland and a 60-80% probability of the same for Northern Ireland, Wales and most of England; and the complete opposite occurred.
The MET’s behaviour neatly fits 2 legal principles:
Allegans contraria non est audiendus
Ambiguitas contra stipulatorem est
The MET’s actions contradict its denial; I would suggest its defence would be given short shrift in a court of law.
Well Poly it’s rope-a-dope here with the denialist goons. Neville could do well to read the actual paper he’s quoting !! As for ” Unlike you mad fundamentalists I don’t think we can easily produce drought or flood” – good grief ! Neville you’re just the pits. Has anyone suggested weather engineering?
The research has demonstrated potential anthropogenic influences at work in the lower MDB and in SW WA (in concert with natural variability) from STRi and SAM. Drawing a MacPaint line on some piddly time series is about the level of science you drips are capable of. Total misrepresentation. Now that’s rained up goes the denialist bullshit about “they said it would never rain again”.
I notice Jen hasn’t produced any evidence to back up her claims.
Anyway the flooding in Qld is obviously AGW influenced.
Cohenite you really don’t understand the first about probabilistic forecasting. If the probability is 80% something happens. What happens 20% of the time? Perhaps we need an IQ (and EQ for ranters) test before you get given the forecast?
The MO says on the MO website that the MO forcast for the coming winter is for milder than average.
Luke and Poly,
Do I detect denialist tendencies here?
Unfortunately for you silly Luke I’m drawing my conclusions from 115 years of rainfall/runoff history.
In other words this really happened , unlike your AGW forecasting fantasy.
I know you dislike facts with a vengeance but over the last 115 years of the record rainfall and runoff has increased over the latter half of the record.
It’s a good thing that you’re not involved in solving simple problems requiring you to look at available history and drawing obvious conclusions. What a dummy.
luke, perhaps you would favour us with a brief summary of the difference between statistical probability and certainty; so when the MET says there is an 80% probability that there will be mild winter how certain can joe punter regard that?
You reproduce the disclaimer accurately,cohenite. It is unambiguous. You then go off into fairyland. Yes,the page is technically accessible by non-meteorologists,but it is not a page ‘broadcast by the media’ on behalf of UK Met as the official public forecast. It has no status as a finished forecast,or even any guarantee that any of its content is incorporated in any way into an official forecast. What you are suggesting is like taking a few lines from the first draft of a manuscript,and claiming it as the finished article.
Since that page clearly has no standing as an official statement,it is not subject to your first legal principle. Therefore you become subject to your second,in attempting to manufacture an ambiguity [where there is none] and seeking to exploit it.
Poly, the MET ‘forecast’ probability chart comes from this site, yes?:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/specialist/seasonal/probability/glob_seas_prob.html
Then consider legs to stand on; this will be a guide:
http://wn.com/Peter_cook_Dudley_moore
Need I point out where the deficiencies lie..? Well yes, when dealing with Poly and luke one had better. Looking at the MET site which features its probability charts you will see at the bottom the word ‘legal’; at the legal link it, amongst other nonsense, says this:
“The Met Office aims to ensure that the Content is accurate and consistent with its current knowledge and practice. However, meteorology and climatology are inexact sciences which are constantly evolving and therefore any element of the Content which involves a forecast or a prediction may not be relied upon as though it were a statement of fact.”
Some salient points; the webpage has explicit and implied invitations to treat; it invites usage and offers condition for so doing; the purpose of the webpage is to present probability information about weather conditions over various terms; the implied level of expertise will be easy to establish and will be very high; therefore the normal standards of reprsentation will apply; it will also be easy to show that media outlets, which are specifically referred to in the conditions of usage, have presented the information on the page to public; this vicarious transmission does not mitigate the degree of responsibility for any representation, but in fact magnifies it if it can be proved the source anticipated such public dissemination because the information goes to a wider, reliant audience.
So, to the disclaimer; it is useless, deceased etc as per this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
When disclaimers are contradicted by presentation of expertise and established practice they are useless no matter how unambiguous [and there is no such legal term], and no matter if Moses brought them down from the mountain. But don’t let that stop you lecturing me Poly, it makes a change from luke.
Yep,that’s the page…and the official description of its official status is there in big,red letters.
“..the webpage has explicit and implied invitations to treat…” It is also not presented as an official forecast,and no other but UK Met has the right to present it as such a forecast.
“..the implied level of expertise will be easy to establish..” The stuff in big red letters will help you do that. Also the notes on how to use the information.
You must make the case that the “..wider,reliant audience” is indeed reliant on a page clearly labelled as not constituting a forecast for a given location.
“..it will also be easy to show that media outlets…have presented the information on the page to the public” OK ,off you go and point out where that page,in its unaltered form as presented by “Anonymous Mind”,has been presented to the public as an official forecast by UK Met. Should be easy. Should be able to find it on a weather forecast page in the Tele ,or on the Beeb.
Does anyone know why the flooded towns don’t have levee banks around them?
chrisl
It’s expensive to build levees around a town and besides, they were told by Flummery that it would never rain again.
Is it more expensive to build levees than to rebuild houses?
Rhetorical question. Dont answer.
By the way , there was some flooding in Melbourne back in Feb and for some houses that had had water through them, it was cheaper to knock down and rebuild than to repair. Everything is built out of MDF (sawdust) which explodes when wet.
“OK ,off you go and point out where that page,in its unaltered form as presented by “Anonymous Mind”,has been presented to the public as an official forecast by UK Met.”
That is not necessary to sustain a claim for misrepresentation; the gist will be sufficient, especially if repeated.
and I suppose I could ask what’s the use of a weather forecaster if it can’t actually forecast?
Cohenite – 80% would be 80%, not 99%. Of course it also might be 80% with low skill or significance due to low numbers in that group if analogues. If you want to understand seasonal forecasts, understand the technology.
IT IS NOT “I believe this deterministic forecast be 80% certain”
Neville – you’re a statistical nitwit. The drought around the Murray had patches of worst on record. That’s not the WHOLE MDB. I know you’re not that stupid – just playing hard to get.
my point is if the CSIRO; the BOM and now the MET disclaim all responsibility what do the taxpayers actually pay these entities for
I realise all entities have their apologists but what the purpose of these entities if they can’t do their job
Cohenite, you are mentioned in dispatches over at Ice Cap.
I’m sure some commentators here will agree
So apparently the Met Office isn’t useless after all. Just cruelly misunderstood.
It seems that the reason it didn’t provide an accurate forecast of this winter was not because it didn’t know bad weather was coming. It was because we were all so horrid last time it made a boo boo over the infamous “barbecue summer” that it decided it wouldn’t make its forecasts public any more.
Which means the real victim of this sorry story is not us (for having been misled about the extremity of cold we could expect this winter) but the poor old, much-put-upon, much-maligned, but basically splendid and well worth the £170 million it costs us every year Met Office.
Hurrah, Hurrah and Thrice Hurrah for those magnificent men (and women: let’s not forget the great Julia Slingo) at the Met Office!
Hmm. Is anyone else as unpersuaded as I am by this extravagantly implausible piece of spin? There’s a big clue in the identity of the fellow from whom it originated: Roger Harrabin. Yes, Roger Harrabin as in the BBC’s High Priest of Gaian Worship and Climate Alarmism.
Cont http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100070451/how-the-doomed-met-office-tried-to-spin-its-way-out-of-trouble/
Val,before claiming that BOM or CSIRO ‘can’t do their job’,you must realise how very many jobs they do. And when you criticise one of these ‘jobs’ you have to make sure you have got the thing described correctly. You won’t get much help from the Bookers and Delingpoles of this world.
Poly lets take seasonal forecasting; I realise that the MET don’t do this anymore but the BOM do
val – if you seriously believe someone has a 100% certain seasonal forecast for you – well chooo chooo – mate I have an ornate bridge to sell you.
So after disgusting and malicious misrepresentation of CSIRO’s position here on this thread this is what they ACTUALLY have to say !
http://www.csiro.au/science/climate-and-drought-in-eastern-Australia.html
I really cannot see how the probabilistic stuff takes much time or resources. They release two outlooks a month which are strictly limited in resolution. The process uses historic data and a set of current observations,integrated from BOMs own work and that of other agencies and companies, that are being made anyway for a host of other uses. They come up with some odds for above or below means over three months.
Every major national agency generates them as part of their suites of information analysis. They are of limited relevance to most of us,but they are kind of exciting as simple long-range maybes. Maybe we’d have more fun if we just punted on them…
UK Met still do it,they just won’t release a public product from it anymore because of manufactured {Corbyn,Delingpole.Booker,etc} outrage clogging up their resources and tarnishing their image. These guys are like Terminator robots,they actually want to destroy UK Met without having a coherent reason for doing so [beyond selling advertising],or having a workable alternative. Corbyn would be lost without UK Met; he needs their real time resources and he needs to attack them in order to build his business.
sorry don’t have any more time tonight to devote to this discussion
just to leave it with my point – I guess I really do expect entities to fulfil their public purpose with exactitude at least some of the time
Heres what MET published:
http://autonomousmind.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/met_office_3mo_temp_map_oct.jpg
This is a range of probable results; the null hypothesis is the average temperature which is as you would expect when attempting to predict future results of a variable with an adequate range of existing data. An 80% probability is a good odd bearing in mind that 50% is the coin toss result, but again it must be understood that what the MET is saying is that there is NO CHANCE of below average temperatures for the 2 month period it has speculated on in any of the covered regions. How wrong were they?
Skill by MET in this exercise which it has been doing for decades, is measured by how well the results support them; this is scientific certainty which is measured by replication of a result; this is another set of odds by which the MET can be judged: that is how often do they get it right; a couple of spectacular failures may get them adverse publicity but if over a couple of decades their odds distribution of the range of predicted temperatures is more right than wrong then you would say they are doing something right.
They aren’t; their success rate is < 50%; you would be better off flipping a coin, or as Poly says, punting on them. As for speculation about future climate change due to AGW; the idea that a failure rate by MET with the short term stuff gives them credibility with the long term is farcical. Given this Poly's claim that MET's image is being tarnished is superflous.
if you can’t ask the Met office what the weather will be for the next 3 months – who can you ask?
Isn’t that what they are paid to do?
Luke, it was Nev Nicholls who pushed the argument for an intensification of the sub-tropical ridge and in this article by Melissa Fyfe we see the power of spin.
Dr Timbal also has a lot to say and the casual reader may have walked away with the impression that it was no ordinary drought, with climate change more that a bit player.
The only one with any sense was ex MDB Authority chief Rob Freeman, who said the floods will return.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html
Jennifer,
“We have climate change! I haven’t been able to wipe the smile from my face this afternoon.”
8>)
Luke,
could you please hold down the screeching? You woke us up here in cool Southern California!!
KookyKat – Jen still hasn’t substantiated her position. The end.
El Gordo – incapable of reading English eh?
Did I miss something?
‘When they ran simulations with only the ”natural” influences on temperature, such as changing levels of solar activity, they found there was no intensification of the subtropical ridge and no decline in rainfall.
But when they added human influences, such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone depletion, the models mimicked what has occurred in south-east Australia – the high pressure systems strengthened, causing a significant drop in rainfall.’
Those sophisticated US models are flawed, or Neville Nicholls had the Wong end of the stick.
Good stuff El Gordo, interesting to prove just how wrong those mugs were.
The Age article shows that Freeman was the only one who wasn’t behaving like a fundamentalist mad fanatic, like the loons here.
Let’s check just some of the drought breaking rain we’ve had over the last twelve months.
The BOM record now includes 2010 rainfall and we find that MDB has set a new record beating 1956 by 9mm.
Victoria has received the 5th highest rainfall on record.
SE Aust has the 4th highest rainfall on rec.
SA has the 3rd highest rainfall on rec.
Southern Aust has the 3rd highest on rec.
NSW has the 3rd highest on rec.
Eastern Aust has the 2nd highest on rec.
Australia has the 3rd highest on rec.
Amazing what a cool phase ipo/pdo + strong la nina + negative IOD can achieve.
Really proves the value of those BS climate models when they can be comprehensively proven wrong in a little over 12 months.
Just shows how accurate these stupid projections are likely to be over the next 90 years, Cohenite’s coin toss would beat them blindfolded and cost sweet FA to make the forecast.
Meanwhile these stupid models are totally useless and will cost countless billions ( world wide =trillions) to achieve less than a 50% toss of a coin.
Here’s the BOM record http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=5
Nicholls said in this paper that ENSO and the IOD had little to do with the drought, which is ludicrous, although his suggestion that SAM might have an influence, is worth looking into.
http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/TH1515_Nicholls.pdf
All climate models are all wrong all the time. Also, to use an Oakeshottism, they are not useful in their wrongness. They are simply useless.
Apart from all that, they’re fine.
The CSIRO are still saying it is going to get drier than normal in the coming years. This press release was as recent as last October.
http://www.csiro.au/news/Study-indicates-a-changing-climate-in-the-south-east.html
O/T It is still possible to get 50/1 with UK bookmakers that the Thames will freeze over at London Bridge before April. With the change in the hydrology it may not get up.
And look at this, The climate models finally paid off.
It’s all natural variation.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jan/6jan2011a5.html
Very good, spangles, time to break out the bubbly.
SORRY FOR SHOUTING LIKE THIS but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8248146/The-Met-Office-fries-while-the-rest-of-the-world-freezes.html
(selective cut and paste)
A vivid little reflection of how our whole official system has gone off the rails was the award in the New Year’s Honours List of a CBE, one rank lower than a knighthood, to Robert Napier, the climate activist and former head of the global warming pressure group WWF-UK, who is now the Met Office’s chairman. The more the once-respected Met Office gets lost in the greenie bubble into which it has been hijacked, the worse it becomes at doing the job for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, and the more our Government showers it with cash and honours.
Meanwhile, in the real world, another weather-related disaster is unfolding in the Sea of Okhotsk, off the coast of Russia north of Japan, where the BBC last week reported that a group of Russian “fishing trawlers” had got stuck in “30 centimetres” (a foot) of ice. It didn’t sound anything too serious. But, as my colleague Richard North has been reporting on his EU Referendum blog, the BBC underestimated the scale of what is happening by several orders of magnitude.
Although several smaller ships have now escaped, the two largest are still trapped in up to six feet (two metres) of ice – including one of the world’s biggest factory ships, the 32,000-ton Sodruzhestvo. They still have more than 400 men on board. Three Russian ice-breakers, including two huge 14,000-tonners, are engaged in what looks like a forlorn bid to free them. A 14,000-ton ice-breaker can scarcely clear the way for a ship well over twice its size. And as the weather worsens, with gales, blizzards and visibility often reduced to zero, the chances of helicoptering the men to safety seem sadly remote.
The mystery is why the Russians should, in the middle of winter, have allowed such a fleet of ships into a stretch of sea known as ”the factory of ice”. This is because all the rivers which empty into it from the Russian coast lower its salinity, making it prone to rapid freezing. But the Sea of Okhotsk has long been held out by the world’s warmists as an example, like the Arctic, of waters which, thanks to global warming, will soon be ice-free.
As we know from Prof Slingo, however, all this cold weather we are having at the moment is a local event, “very much confined to the UK and Western Europe”. Perhaps the Russian fishing fleet took the word of the Met Office, assuming that ice was a thing of the past. As the ice-breakers struggle to reach the hundreds of trapped men, and still-thickening ice threatens to start crushing the hulls of their ships, it seems that, short of a miracle like that which saved the Chilean miners, a major tragedy could be unfolding.
end of quote
(how scary is this – public funds spent to rescue a Govt agenda to which we are all victims one way or another)
Here is an abstract by Gillet et al. (includes Phil Jones) which states that during the positive phase of SAM there are ‘anomalously wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa.’
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2006/2006GL027721.shtml
At the moment SAM is positive, so this appears on the surface to be a reasonably good theory. Climate change is not as complex as the warministas would have us believe.
“Really proves the value of those BS climate models when they can be comprehensively proven wrong in a little over 12 months.”
What a half-wit you are mate. “comprehensivly proven WRONG in 12 months.” LOL !
Do you ever think about what you write.
You’re simply talking shit Neville and reams of it. Totally misrepresenting the science. You’ve gotten statistical analyses and models all messed up between your two neurones.
El Gordo – The issue is “is there any evidence of why we have had persistent rainfall deficits in southern Australia and SW WA. Is there any case for an AGW influence (that’s SOME influence) ”
Whether the drought breaks or we NOW have a La Nina is irrelevant. Long term is the issue. The current moment is “AN EVENT” in a long series. “An” event. El Gordo you of all people must be at least close to trying to understand what the core science is saying. I am honestly disgusted at the level of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by your mates here.
After reading all these posts there’s only one conclusion I can come to.
It’s obvious that our scientists haven’t cracked it yet.
I think they should keep trying but I don’t think they should keep defending stuff that is obviously not working.
It’s a bit like our medical scientists as they work towards finding the cure for diseases like cancer and parkinsons etc.
They are finding more pieces of the puzzle and they can now diagnose and treat the symptoms way more effectively but they still haven’t nailed it yet and at least they’re mostly humble enough to say so.
In contrast…our climate experts have also diagnosed somewhat and they are recognising some of the patterns but they are loudly crowing that they have the answers and they so obviously don’t have enough of them yet.
Some humility and a willingness to keep looking for the real answers would be absolutely marvellous.
If their models aren’t working then they don’t have the right answers to the climate riddle yet!
All they’ve managed to do is to recognise some of the patterns and also some of the symptoms.
If 2010 is wetter than 1956 and we have a massive flood after a crippling drought then our weather is being just about normal isn’t it?
Go back to our early Australian History and our early Australian literature and pick up on one of the common themes. It’s our ancestors in a constant battle with the extremes of our highly variable and unpredictable climate.
Nothing much has changed.
Luke, you’re getting yourself in a knot about nothing. I don’t believe this precipitation EVENT is any different from the mid-50s or mid 70s, but they were clearly concerned that the drought had lingered longer than might have been expected.
As I mentioned on a previous thread, the natural cycle of flood and drought was recognized earlier in the nineteenth century by Jevron and others. Nothing has changed, so it would be in all our interests if BOM and the CSIRO took out the CO2 forcing in their models.
BOM should also look further back, starting with William Dawes’ meteorological journal from 1788-1791 and explain why Sydney was a degree warmer than now, without UHI.
El Gordo thanks for that tippet ‘BOM should also look further back, starting with William Dawes’ meteorological journal from 1788-1791 and explain why Sydney was a degree warmer than now, without UHI.’
Can you get access to that journal on line?
val
Yes, it’s called Dawes’ Meteorological Journal (Historical Note No 2) and it came to light only fairly recently, thanks to Robert McAfee of Macquarie University, who rediscovered it in the library of the Royal Society in London.
It was published in Canberra (1981) by BOMs Dept. of Science and Technology.
val
I bought a hard copy online, which may be the only way to get it. Unfortunately, it’s in the form of microfiche and most libraries no longer have this old technology.
Here is something I stumbled across since you reactivated me.
http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Environmental-History-2010-Gergis-envhis_emq079.pdf
Dawes’ best mate in Sydney was Watkin Tench. A prominent editor and commentator of Tench’s work is Tim Flannery. Don’t know what Prius Person Tim made of this:
“At 9 a.m., 85 degrees. At noon, 104. Half past twelve, 107½. From one p.m. until 20 minutes past two 108½. At 20 minutes past two, 109. At Sunset, 89. At 11 p.m., 78½. [By a large Thermometer made by Ramsden, and graduated on Fahrenheit’s scale.]…
But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February, when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded: but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world. Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height. It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes’, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.”
When nor-westers combine with peak summer heat the effect is far more lethal than a mere heatwave such as 2004. I’ve witnessed it in the early eighties and early noughts, but never experienced mass wildlife deaths as described here, even though I live surrounded by parrots, bats and the like.
Ah, the summer of 1790-1791!
The paper by Gergis et al. may have solved a problem for me. The extra one degree warmer at Observatory Hill 1788-91, which I imagined may have come about because I was translating his data from F to C incorrectly.
‘The study showed that there is very good agreement between the historical and modern temperature records, with the exception of slightly higher readings in the summer months and marginally cooler winter temperatures. This may be due to the way the thermometers were exposed: that is, the early absence of Stevenson screens…’
Yep, that may account for it.
thanks el gordo for that info and thanks Robert
BTW Warwick Hughes has some info on the use of Stevenson screens http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/index.php?s=stevenson
El gordo that’s a fascinating link; thanks so much and I’ve posted the link on Warwick Hughes blog (with attribution to you) and the Climate Conversation blog;
Jennifer that link deserves a post of its own in my view;
Positive SAM also brings floods to South Africa, with 50 people dead and thousands homeless, it has been declared a national disaster.
“We have requested the national government to declare the Eastern Cape a national disaster,” said Provincial Minister of Social Services Pemmy Majodina. “We are going to need billions of Rands to help residents reconstruct their homes and repair the damage caused by the floods.”
Robert, el gordo, val,
For birds to die in flight from my experience in the sandhills it has to be around 120 f in the shade [49 c] and then it is only the odd one. For a flock to die [I’ve never seen that] I would assume it would need to be hotter.
thanks spangled, that’s an interesting comment; I’ve been in the outback in heat of about 120f and never seen birds die in flight; so that’s a fascinating comment
Well as usual Warwick is into his ritual BoM bashing and introducing more conspiracy theories by the minute based on my flippant comment to a flippant El Gordo. http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/index.php?s=stevenson
Most of the very few examples quoted are from Queensland, where the Stevenson screen was progressively introduced over the period 1888-1892 (approx). Wragge’s original intention was to set up the network with Stevenson screens from scratch, but because of a shortage of proper screens, some lower-order stations started out with improvised screens such as the infamous Cloncurry beer crate. The handful of early stations in Tasmania (where Wragge was also influential) also appear to have used Stevenson screens from the mid-1890s. WA and SA seem spotty (and WA simply didn’t have that many stations much before 1910). The biggest issues with non-standard screens pre-1910 were in NSW and Victoria, which in that era was where many of the stations were.
Mentioning dates as approximate and “circa” are far from precise and simply lobbyist techniques. And trivia like the arrival of Wragge may be historically interesting but doesn’t date the stations precisely.
While Queensland seems to have had Stevenson screens in widespread use by the mid-1890s, BoM report a high failure rate of the various quality control tests in many cases before 1910 than after, suggesting issues with data quality other than screen type.
Thanks for that, Luke.
From the Gergis et al. paper (above) there is a suggestion that William Dawes’ temperature record slightly overestimate maximum temperatures compared with modern twentieth-century observations.
It may have been human error or a technical glitch.
Des Moore has an article today on the BOM’s annual statement published on 5 January: Climate inquiry needed
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6997
his conclusion
This latest display of highly questionable opinions and supposedly factual statements by “experts” strengthens the case for a proper independent inquiry.
“some lower-order stations started out with improvised screens such as the infamous Cloncurry beer crate”
Luke,
Specifications for SSs vary enormously and just because this Cloncurry SS was made from a beer crate doesn’t mean that it would necessarily have any more temp variation than any other SS.
There were many, many more temp readings in excess of 50 c on stations and recorded in daily diaries that the BoM have never seen and some of those verandahs where the thermometers were kept were cooled by water trenches with spinnifex wicking that drew up the water to be evaporated by the breeze. These systems were common in the spinnifex country and were beautifully cool.
A thermometer in such a situation recorded 122 f [50 c] on the day I saw a bird fall dead in flight.
I recall it was a windless day, the windmill wasn’t turning [what’s new] and I had to hook the bore up to the “walking beam” and drive it with an air cooled Lister diesel to water about a thousand head of cattle out in the sand hills.
Please forgive my ignorance but all of these graphs have set me wondering something. I live in California and we have a distinct “dry” season (our summer from about May until October) and a wet season when we get most of our annual rain from November through April. Does Queensland have a similar patter? The reason for my question is that graphs that show precipitation on an annual basis by calendar year can be misleading. If Queensland’s rainy period is, like California’s, split across the boundary between years, the rainfall on one season will be shown across two years on an annual graph. A dry season with unusually low rainfall might partially mask an unusually wet rainy season.
In California, our precipitation graphs are available in a “water year” format where a “water year” begins during our dry period in June and so captures the entire rainy season across the calendar year boundary. Is there a similar graph for Queensland that shows seasonal rainfall and not annual?