‘That exceeds the so-called Medieval Warming period of 1238-1267, according to the analysis reported today in the Journal of Climate by a 30-member team of international scientists, led by paleoclimatologist Joelle Gergis of Melbourne University.’

Gergis and the Climate Commission are pushing catastrophe in unison…

The quote is from today’s Oz.

That strong influence is now a 0.9 instead of a 1 degree increase in 50 years.
Can I ask an obvious question?
If this is alarming and risky, where is the evidence of
a) The damage already caused by this and
b) Our hopeless management of the damage that has been directly caused by a 0.9 increase or
C) a risk managent strategy that would correctly identify what the manageable risks are to Australia?

The word “reconstructed” – oh what a wealth of distortion and deception lies therein. I love that they went for .09 (±0.19!) rather than a simple 1. You can’t tell me that .09 isn’t more sciency-sounding.

So ingenious to adjust recent temps up on the grounds of “quality”, then use cooled-down and largely imaginary data from the middle ages. And your “skilful reconstruction” now comes with “eight stringent reconstruction ‘reliability’ metrics”! Buy now!

Sarcasm aside, somebody will have to pay for all these appallingly cheap stunts dressed up as scholarship.

Debbie – your list there are all quite possible from the science – you can just refuse to believe and vote accordingly.

I’m not refusing to believe….what a completely odd comment….and how does voting alter the science?
Voting alters politics doesn’t it?
Refusing to believe what in particular?

All quite possible from the science?
What on earth does that mean?

And Luke…seriously…if there is indeed such an alarming risk (possibly?) what are the best risk management strategies for these things?
Bazza claims that a Carbon Tax is the only card we have to play.
Do you?
I’m particularly interested in how we could manage the risk of people getting crankier in traffic jams in Western Sydney with a carbon tax….or why a carbon tax would be the only card to play to manage a risk like that?
And just to stray O/T a bit again….
your comment here:
one tries to rebut properly on incorrect information not obfuscate. I don’t begrudge the sector the money – but if it needs the money it’s not in control of its climate risk. That’s the point. If it was you’d know the probabilities already and be equipped to handle them.
and here:
au naturale and in the mode can’t manage your risks eh Debs? And fixed desk marketing too. Tsk tsk.
Your point is equally odd.
The whole point of risk management is actually to recognise there are risks and put in strategies to manage them. The risk in this particular instance is that Agriculture is vulnerable to climate variability. The management strategy is to provide a ‘safety net’ to agriculture when the climate inevitably delivers its extremes. It was also in place a long time before AGW obsession. It has also proved to be one of the best schemes globally as it doesn’t allow farmers to always rely on govt subsides….only when they truly need it because the weather has stepped outside manageable parameters. It also covers anothe risk created by financial circumstances re the dollar and interest rates.
The whole point Luke is that none of us…..including the scientists… are in control of the climate, nor do they know all the probablities…that’s actually the risk we need to manage….For some reason, the Flannerys of this world are claiming that we know enough to control the climate or stop the climate from changing…and that we should place our faith in them to stop the climate changing through a carbon tax.
Are you able to appreciate the difference?
At no time have I ever claimed I know all about the climate….quite the opposite in fact.
But I do know how to manage the normal risks we face with weather/climate in our ordinary day to day business life….and BoM etc are useful tools to help us do that.
I so wish that ‘climate science’ was more accurate with predictive work ….it would make my life much easier.
And Luke?
How could you begrudge the sector the money when it doesn’t owe you any money in the first place?
Aren’t you lucky the sector doesn’t begrudge the money it has poured into the economy?
Have you ever figured out how many bureaucrats and scientists are directly paid by the Agricultural sector?..Not that we begrudge them mind you.
And….sorry…but your assumptions are rather odd at times…..single desk marketting doesn’t cost the tax payer anything at all at anytime….and has nothing to do with climate…..so it was simply a snide and irrelevant comment on your part …..that’s a perfect example of obfuscation.
And why do you also feel the need to claim you’re on my side but I just don’t understand?
What don’t I understand Luke?
And what ‘side’….is there a ‘side’?

Abstract-

“This study presents the first multi-proxy warm season (September-February) temperature reconstruction for the combined land and oceanic region of Australasia (0°S-50°S, 110°E-180°E). We perform a 3000-member ensemble Principal Component Reconstruction (PCR) using 27 temperature proxies from the region. The proxy network explained 69% of the inter-annual variance in the HadCRUT3v SONDJF spatial mean temperature over the 1921-1990 calibration period. Applying eight stringent reconstruction ‘reliability’ metrics identified post A.D. 1430 as the highest quality section of the reconstruction, but also revealed a skilful reconstruction is possible over the full A.D. 1000-2001 period.

The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels. Following peak pre-industrial warmth, a cooling trend culminates in a temperature anomaly of 0.44°C (±0.18°C) below 1961-1990 levels between A.D. 1830-1859. A preliminary assessment of the roles of solar, volcanic, and anthropogenic forcings and natural ocean-atmosphere variability is performed using CSIRO Mk3L model simulations and independent palaeoclimate records. Solar and volcanic forcing does not have a marked influence on reconstructed Australasian temperature variations, which appear to be masked by internal variability.

In 94.5% of the 3000-member reconstruction ensemble, there are no other warm periods in the past 1,000 years that match or exceed post-1950 warming observed in Australasia. The unusual 20th century warming cannot be explained by natural variability alone, suggesting a strong influence of anthropogenic forcing in the Australasian region

† Aus2K project member data and other contributions from Kathryn Allen, Patrick Baker, Gretel Boswijk, Brendan Buckley, Matthew Brookhouse, Edward Cook, Louise Cullen, Mark Curran, Rosanne D’Arrigo, Pavla Fenwick, Anthony Fowler, Ian Goodwin, Pauline Grierson, Erica Hendy, Braddock Linsley, Janice Lough, Andrew Lorrey, Helen McGregor, Andrew Moy, Jonathan Palmer, Christopher Plummer, Chris Turney, Tessa Vance, Tas Van Ommen and Limin Xiong”

http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/showMultipleAbstracts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data-still-no-hockey-stick/#more-63640