Last year it was hot in Australia and the Bureau of Meteorology cried implicated ‘global warming’ [1] .
This year it’s cold and the Bureau of Meteorology is also crying implicating ‘global warming’ [2].
This is how the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper interpreted what Grant Beard from the Bureau of Meteorology had to say:
“AUSTRALIA is in the grip of a nationwide cold snap – and paradoxically, it could be another result of global warming.
Last summer was the hottest on record. But last month many parts of Australia reported record or near-record cold nights. The average minimum temperature was 1.69 degrees below the long-term average, making it the second-coldest June since 1950.”
A reader of this blog John McLean recently emailed me:
The [Australian] April average mean temperature was the 2nd coldest since 1961, surpassed only by 1974 (5th coldest since 1950), The May average mean temperature was 4th coldest since 1961, surpassed by 1968, 2000 and 1979 (7th coldest since 1970), The June average mean temperature was 3rd coldest since 1961, surpassed by 1982 and 1971 (5th coldest since 1950).”
And here’s more comment emailed from another reader of this blog:
“June has been drier than usual in South Australia with some parts of the state experiencing the lowest rainfall on record. …Adelaide has had its third-driest June on record.
The latest figures collated by the Bureau of Meteorology show Tasmania has recorded one of the driest months of June ever. … “Launceston Airport in particular has record its lowest rainfall total for June on record,” he said.
“Just 24 hours after its coldest day on record, Perth has recorded its driest start to winter. Perth has not recorded one drop of rain in the past 18 days, making it the driest start to winter since records began in the 1880s.
…”It’s also the driest start to the year to date in history as well,” he said.”
But hey, its raining in India:
“Mumbai commuters wade knee-deep as monsoon rains lash city. Commuters in India’s financial hub Mumbai waded knee-deep through water to reach their offices as torrential monsoon rains disrupted rail and air links and forced schools to close.
Municipal workers used shovels to clear clogged drains in the western city of 18 million people that has been pounded by heavy wind and rain since late Saturday.
“More than 40 domestic flights were cancelled and another 10 had to be diverted to other destinations,” a Government official said in New Delhi.
…The rains, which advance across the country from the southern tip, have stirred memories in Mumbai of last July when more than 400 people were killed by flash floods in the city.”
———————————-
[1] Click here for my blog post entitled ‘Last year: hottest on record’.
[2] Click here for the Sydney Morning Herald piece titled ‘Cold Spell’s Weird Cause’, 4th July.
This blog post was modified at about 5.30pm on 6th July following emails from several readers. As Dennis suggested in a comment earlier today, I was having some “fun” in the original post and at the expense of the Bureau of Meteorology.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You seem to be getting increasingly shrill and mendacious in your campaign to “baffle brains with bullshit” with respect to global warming.
You are dishonest in saying that the BOM has “cried global warming” in respect of the current cold snap. You note yourself that Mr Beard prefixed his opinion with “could be”. You also fail to quote the explanation he gives for his point of view.
Shame on you.
Simple really! Global warming gives you more sunny cloudless days. No clouds at night means you are more likely to receive frosts and hence lower temperatures. Hotter days and higher evaporation rates, colder nights and more frost events! Its not rocket science and it ain’t conducise to grain production let me assure you as a grain grower. Hyperinflation coming to a supermarket near you real soon! This time the problem is global and this year’s global grain crop will be well down. From 40 million tonnes to 10 million in Australia alone I am anticipating.
Hotter days? Higher maximum temperatures? Not here! Australia’s average maximum temperatures in April, May and June were -1.25, -0.53 and -0.42 deg C with respect to the 1961-90 average. These are respectively 4.36, 2.48 and 1.05 degrees lower than in 2005. Maybe this could be expected after an El Nino year but the Bureau of Meteorology says that 2005 was not such a year.
I’ve been watching the debate over global warming for a while, and most of it stems from the inability of many people to distinguish between ‘the climate’ and ‘the weather.’ Not being able to tell the one from the other is common enough that some have gone so far as to call it a “consensus.”
Jennifer has quite neatly encapsulated the absurdities that result from this sort of confusion.
Schiller.
Lets take a look at the key wheat producing areas of the world. There is drought which has decimated the southern grain belt of the Midwest in the US (check out KC Wheat futures). There is also drought unfolding in the Pacific North West (Washinton State) and the north of the Midwest (Dakotas) – check out todays wheat prices at the CBOT. Every Australian cropping area is on the brink of drought (Qld and most of NSW are definately already there). Argentina cannot get all its crop planted as conditions are too dry. North eastern China has been in drought for a number of years. India’s wheat crop this year was well down as a result of hot dry conditions during grain fill (the point where higher temperatures impact the most on grain yields), turning this once exporting nation into a net importer of wheat for the first time since 1999. Grain yields suffer as temperatures rise and precitation falls. You’ll all be in no doubt the world is ‘warmer’ when the price of grain hyperinflates this year. Forget the abberrations and yearly vartiations! The trend is in place. Just look at global grain stocks. They were already forecast to be at their lowest levels since the 1970s and that was assuming a 40 million tonne Australian grain crop for 06/07. Now with the drought, Australia will be lucky to crack 10 million and plunge global stocks down to extremely worrying levels.
Schiller – “and most of it stems from the inability of many people to distinguish between ‘the climate’ and ‘the weather.’ Not being able to tell the one from the other is common enough that some have gone so far as to call it a “consensus.””
However both you and Jen are committing this error. I am not sure you have a good handle on it.
Jen if you have learned nothing from this blog then you should stop bothering. With all the quality people that have contributed here you really should have got the fact that if it is cold today then this does not mean that global warming is not happening. The fact that most of them do not post anymore is possibly because you persist in posting misinformation like this and do not appear to learn.
If in 10 years the average global temperature has increased by a measurable amount then this will confirm what climate scientists are saying now. An indication of why the temperature record need to be so heavily processed to yield the underlying trend is exactly this. In the next 10 or 20 years there will be cold years and hot years however if AGW is correct then there will be an increase of average temperatures of 1° or maybe 2°.
So maybe the current climate does affect our lives after all – given the global effect on wheat stocks. So perhaps climate change if it changes the extremes of the distribution of climate – this might affect all our lives as much as health, nutrition and other issues quoted in recent posts as “more noble and important to humanity”.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Just add it to the list of things caused by AGW, as above.
I might be more honest and competent if Aaron Edmongs provided the proof of AGW,( however you want to define and measure it) is totally responsible for any variation in global grains stocks. Where is the cause and effect that uniqely ties it AGW.
Ender,
Jen is just having some fun.
She has not stated there is no such thing as global warming.
She has not passed judgement except to note that when it gets cold the Bureau says it is global warming and when it gets hot the Bureau says it is global warming.
I think this is worth noting.
I must remind myself that the record cold temps are caused by global warming. Normal cold temps are just a part of climate.
Ender how you going with that windmill? Better hurry, time is running out.
Malcolm – wheat yields are well correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index which is a measure of El Nino. You won’t find any correlations with AGW as it’s only just beginning. As they say on parade “WAIT FOR IT!”. So that’s being really silly (or maybe dishonest and incompetent). Climate seems to affect agricultural production. Maybe that qualifies me for a Nobel prize. A duh.
Moving right along – it would be interesting to know why southern Australia is so cold and dry? What’s the basic meteorological cause this year. And why did Grant Beard (BoM link above) make that throw away line. Presumably he had something in mind. And last year was record warm – that’s pretty f’ed up if you ask me.
And Rog speaking of reneweables did you see that new wave power generator that they have working off Port Kembla. I want one.
http://www.energetech.com.au/
Mimics the Kiama blow-hole apparently – which might impress the blow-hards here.
Dennis – “Jen is just having some fun. ”
Sorry I do not see it as fun. OVerall global warming leading to climate change could see cooling as the changes in local areas could well be a tendency to greater temperature extremes ie: hotter in summer and colder in winter. As a previous poster said if climate change means that an area dries out it will have more extremes as there will be less water vapour to moderate tempeartures.
Luke
I am well aware that Aust wheat yields would be tied to variations in El Ninos etc, but Edmonds claim was to global wheat yields.
I thought if C02 was making the atmosphere warmer then there will be more moisture in the air, which has to come down somewhere. More moisture leads to even more warming. At least, thats what flim flam Flannery is reportedly peddling.
Lets face it if the current level of statistical proof was applied to a supposed new life saving cure, it wouldnt get approval for use.
Cant even pass a credible cause and effect test Havn’t even settled the saturation argument in a credible way.
I’d prefer global warming to the recent frosty spell we’ve had here in the Adelaide Hills. It cost a fortune to heat the house.
It’s amazing how versatile global warming is. It causes not only warmth but also cold, increased storms and also droughts, the atmosphere has more water vapour, to account for the increase in the Antarctic icecap, and also less water vapour.
What if global temperatures actually fall during the next 10 – 20 years? Will everyone accept that AGW is a load of rubbish? Or will it be blamed on pollution, as per Rasool and Schneider, 1971?
Paul – “It’s amazing how versatile global warming is. It causes not only warmth but also cold, increased storms and also droughts, the atmosphere has more water vapour, to account for the increase in the Antarctic icecap, and also less water vapour.”
I am not sure what you are on about here however you have got it really wrong. I cannot believe that you would simplistically think that global warming of say 2° means that everwhere in the Earth will be exactly 2° warmer and that’s it.
Global warming, which if the overall evidence from the next 20 years or so does not conform to what we expect then WILL be certainly seen to be a load of rubbish, will possibly lead to climate change of some degree. No-one on Earth can predict what that climate change will be. Certainly the observed increase in sea surface temperatures will make more energy available for storms possibly increasing their intensity. The climate change could make some areas colder some greatly hotter. The Arctic, due to polar amplification, is feeling the effects most of all at the moment.
You are not only confusing weather with climate but also global warming with climate change.
Yes Malcolm Hill – global wheat yields ARE being affected by changes in weather patterns. Call that what you will but the effects are evident. Water shortages in Europe and the UK – just google it. Not rocket science. You think the wamring of the globe only affects Australia? Very naive.
Crops can now be more susceptible to winterkill in northern hemisphere cropping zones since less snow can fall or simply remain frozen during the days and overnight frost events absolutely cane overwintering crops (resulting from warmer winters). Snow generally insulates from this damage. This is the reason why around 10 million tonnes has been cut from Ukrainian winter wheat production.
It is hard work educating the world about food production but someone has to do it! Unfortunately the vast majority haven’t a clue how difficult it is to produce within the changing weather parameters. Never been riskier to plant a crop both in terms of weather uncertainty (both rainfall amounts and frost incidences) and rising input costs (all fossil fuel based). Why do you think corporate Australia has not interests where irrigation capacity is not available? Too risky even when prices appear likely to hyperinflate!
Malcolm
I think you’ll find global effects from El Nino not just Australia, and conversely with La Nina and other influences. That’s why Chicago commodity traders are interested.
In terms a credible cause and effect case – I’m utterly gob-stopped. Any reasonable scan of the global warming literature would yield more than a compelling case. You can nitpick any item but you’d have to very extreme to nitpick the whole lot, and be confident that it’s ALL wrong.
I dare suggest if you’re this far gone there’ll be nothing anyone can say to convince you. At that point it simply becomes ideological not science.
There is a very simple point. Wild weather affects humans dramatically already – food production, pests, disease, extremes of heat, cold and wild storms/hurricanes. Increase that occurrence over the CURRENT background and some of us will pay the price. The impact won’t be even either. Who wins and who loses.
I can’t believe you’ve brought up the saturation argument. Surely we’re not back at this level.
Luke and Aaron Edmonds,
You have explained the bleeding obvious, that crops are affected by weather.You have not shown that variations in Climate directly attributable to AGW, is causing global yields to fall.
They may be falling, but for other reasons.
I give up! I haven’t shown anything that’s true. Just highlighted that the global grain inventory situation has plummeted due to droughts in the US and now Australia and Argentina (three largest exporting nations), and winterkill in eastern Europe. Mere technicality to question whether you call that a result of normal weather variation or directly attributable to AGW.
BTW profiting nicely from grain futures! 😉 Those who view the future boldly and frankly profit handsomely!
Aaron
The how is one expected to interpret your very first post, namely
Simple really! Global warming gives you more sunny cloudless days. No clouds at night means you are more likely to receive frosts and hence lower temperatures. Hotter days and higher evaporation rates, colder nights and more frost events! Its not rocket science and it ain’t conducise to grain production let me assure you as a grain grower. Hyperinflation coming to a supermarket near you real soon! This time the problem is global and this year’s global grain crop will be well down. From 40 million tonnes to 10 million in Australia alone I am anticipating.
Jeez Macolm – you’re a hard case. As I said earlier in this thread – it’s too early yet to be seeing significant AGW impacts on crop yields. AGW is just getting going. I think there is clear evidence of that.
Now depending on how things work out – the effects won’t be nice and even – some people may be smiling and some crying in the dust. I hope you’re one of the lucky smiley ones.
And if El Nino concerns you as an Australian (which it should)you wouldn’t want any more of them or for that to become the norm would you?
Actually I don’t really know why this year should be so cold and dry down south. And last year was so hot.
Aren’t we all a bit curious. Perhaps the meteorologists can inform us (just before we jump to why and AGW etc etc)
It is easier to read the markets than cop all this hell fire and brimstone preaching;
“Grain Futures Price Volatility To Continue
CHICAGO (Dow Jones) – Price volatility in corn, soybeans and wheat futures are expected to continue, predicted a University of Illinois marketing specialist this week.
“The wide swings in crop prices have resulted from changing expectations about U.S and world supply and consumption prospects,” said Darrel Good of University of Illinois in a press release.
Increased speculative trading has also contributed to the price volatility, Good said.
“Current prospects for hot weather in western and southern growing areas, along with areas of moisture deficits, suggest that crop condition ratings and yield expectations may decline in the near-term,” Good said.
“It would not be surprising to see (Chicago Board of Trade) December corn futures challenge the contract if high yield concerns persist through the end of the month,” he said in press release.
Soybeans are also expected to continue in the volatile trend.
“Large speculative trading will likely keep soybean prices more volatile than suggested by large supplies,” Good said. “(CBOT) November soybean futures appear to be well-supported above $6 with some reluctance to trade about $6.35. For now, a move above the recent trading range appears more likely than a move below that range. Downside price risk, however, is significant if the 2006 average yield is near trend value.”
There is also considerable uncertainty about the size of the U.S. winter wheat crop, spring wheat acreage and spring wheat production, Good said in the release. The USDA recently reduced the national and world wheat inventory estimates.
“While new highs in Chicago futures do not appear likely, some recovery from the recent decline is expected,” Good said in a press release.
Source: Holly Henschen; Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4118, holly.henschen@dowjones.com
Malcolm- “flim flam Flannery”. Great! I’ll have to pinch that.
Luke, what is the “clear evidence” of AGW that you referred to above?
Ender, I was poking fun at the earnest AGW faithful, who are able to believe several contradictory things at once, provided the gurus have declared Global Warming to be the cause.
Paul – gee so many 1000s of documents and papers one could post. I’ll post – you’ll nitpick. It will go on and on.
So searching for something of a summary – looking at the AGO site for something new try:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/publications/science2001-05.html
I’m sure it’s all totally wrong and just a big conspiracy.
Paul – “who are able to believe several contradictory things at once”
What contradictory things?
Paul – having been looking at the Bureau’s temperature anomaly maps on
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/temp_maps.cgi
It’s not all colder – Queensland is a warmer anomaly. And we have some cold aspects to WA last year too.
So here’s a stab at an hypothesis. The high pressure belt is lower in position. Explains in meteorological terms why the cold and dry?
But without global warming it would even be colder. You’d also have to factor in wind chill and wind speed I guess too.
There’s a growing body of evidence that southern hemisphere circulation is changing due to changes in Antarctic circulation and greenhouse.
So we have it colder because the high pressure belt has moved due to “global warming” indirect effects on circulation changes.
What about last year then ? Well WA still had a cold patch last year – the start of the effect? So maybe this the effect is stronger this year. Perhaps there was some balancing factor operating last year. Maybe we’ve gone over a threshold. Maybe random? Maybe I’m talking shite.
But there is a fair bit on changes in Antarctica being discussed in the science world.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N27/C1.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N27/C2.jsp
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/global.htm
Paul Williams
Here is but three sources of doubt, despite what
Luke may reveal.
The alarmists, and those who support the doctrine of vicarious salvation, will come back and naturally complain that the Idso’s are not real scientists,despite their credentials/cv’s, and F James Cripwell also isnt a real scientist despite having worked at the Cavendish Lab on Defence matters.
I am not coming down either way only to indicate that the situation is still not clear, despite all the hype and bull dust. I certainly wouldnt bet the bank based on the current “evidence”.
That should stir the poor darlings up a trifle.
Ender, have a look at Malcolm’s link, July 6th, 12.25.
Luke, the “evidence” you linked is just computer model predictions. Natural variability and “weather” can account for what we’re seeing.
Malcolm not even warm.
(1) nuh doesn’t show in the ozone modelling
(2) you want to believe in the PDO but not AGW – hah !
(3) plenty to dispel the argument – satellite have measured absorption bands moving in response to the forcing and there is more left.
All this stuff has been dispensed with long ago.
CO2 science – hah ! 101 Dalmantians or 101 objections.
So here we go – dimiss a vast amount of evidence in one direction, vast amounts of confirming studies, and just take potshots and long shots. It’s all just too tedious to play with.
And listen to your words “doctrine of vicarious salvation” and “alarmists” and “evidence” – says friggin who? This is purely rhetorical drivel. Tells me you have gone over a religious cliff yourself.
No Paul – “it’s all not just computer model predictions” – the Antartica stuff is observation on known phenomena backed up by modelling.
But why be soo shrill about it – who cares if it’s right or wrong – isn’t it all just very very interesting. Might you not even countenance the probability – I can easily myself say “mmm yes could just be random variability” but if you look into it you might start to think there is something in it. Has a reasonable mechanism which is a start. Do some Googling and see what you think.
As I said above – maybe I’m just talking shite. You’ll have to decide yourselves. Even without global warming I find the switch from record warm to cold pretty weird myself.
Thanks Jennifer for posting this article.
Some comments from Norwegian paper Dagbladet’s readers on this incident.
” I was a tourist in Spain and saw lot of bull blood”( a very Norwegian comment)
” I am principally not opposed to the idea why whales can’t be hunted like any other animal, but it is a reality that Norwegian whaling is a costly industry/employment and there is no reason why this protected industry is causing trouble for industries as whale watching where people can support themselves.”
Sorry for posting under the wrong thread!
I do wish that people would look at the data before making their claims.
Luke says “It’s not all colder – Queensland is a warmer anomaly.”
Really??? Like April mean temperature anomaly at +0.17, which is 1.72 below last year, May at -1.05 (0.94 below last year) and June at 0.02(1.81 below last year). April mean temp was the coldest for 7 years. May temperatures were cooler in 2001 and before that, in 1971. June mean temps were the 2nd coldest in 13 years.
Average maximum temps were all at least 1 degree cooler than last year (and April ‘s by 2.91 deg C). Interestingly the average maximum temperatures were lower back in year 2000.
The webpage is http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi
It seems that despite all the extra CO2 added since 1961 we can still have extended periods in which temperatures are lower than the 1961-90 average.
Luke,
I dont know what you are drivelling on about.
On the one hand saying I am “not even warm” ,”all this stuff was dispensed with long ago”,some thing about 101 dalmations, but then “maybe I’m just talking shite. You’ll have to decide yourselves.” etc. Yep, I have decided.
As for the switch from record warm, to cold being weird, this week is my 44th wedding anniversary.When we got married here in ADL all those years ago the weather was identical.
Intensely cold nights following clear days and all after a warm summer. I dont find it weird at all..just natural.If it is record now, and it is down to AGW then what was making it so, 44 years ago.
Not very scientific I know, but a vg reason why those of us who have been around just dont believe it. Thats not religion, its common sense.
I can also remember the heat waves of the early 1950;s.
Oh, by the way go and have a look at the BOM rainfall records for the whole of Australia for the last 100 years. The rolling average line is horizontal.Why?
John – you haven’t thought about things very much have you. But that’s your religious beliefs.
I do wish people would look at the data myself before they make their claims:
You’re quoting a single number for the size of Queensland. Yee haa !!
Have a look at the minimum temperature anomaly Australian map for the last 3 months. Maxiumum is a different story. But we have been in this thread discussing record low temps (which strangely are minima – wow !).
And without the extra CO2 it would have been even colder around the nation !!
And despite all the scientific material written on AGW we still have many disbelievers.
Malcolm – was talking about the high pressure hypothesis you rude bean brain, not your silly CO2 science tripe.
And as I said – might be random combination. If you don’t want to follow up my suggestion and have a look at some information – fine – wallow in your ageing ignorance.
And we’re talking record warm to record cold – so you were probably on another planet. Think about it.
Have a look at a spatial map of rainfall – it ain’t linear and that’s the entire point mate. Why is the rolling average of the nation linear – just lucky !
, and still the drivel flows,
Re: The Australian rain fall chart is the reference provided by John. It shows that over 100 years Australian rainfall has not diminished as a total measure, and if anything it has increased. That is hardly consistent with the alarmist theory that we will dry out, and our crops will diminish etc etc. There may be regional variations, but over all it is nothing unusual.
Similar to John, I have also looked at other information and dont need your dopey exhortations to do so. Judging by the logic of your arguments, I hope for everyones sake you are not a scientist.
Thats the benefit of being older and wiser, one can spot bull dust, and its propogaters from a distance
Malcolm – “It shows that over 100 years Australian rainfall has not diminished as a total measure”
However that is not the point. It is cold comfort for Western Australian farmers, for instance, that have seen a drop in rainfall that it has increased in Northern Queensland. With rainfall where if falls matters a great deal. The total measure is much less relevant.
Yes Luke, I’m able to make up my own mind, thanks. Were you calling my comments shrill? Perhaps you should go and re-read some of your own, now that’s shrill! Luke, you’ve got to expect some people will disagree with you if you post here. It’s quite ok for that to happen, and there’s no need to get hysterical when it does.
Malcolm – You’re looking at one number for all of Australia. Perhaps you can tell us how many cubic kilometres of water it is too. Wow !
Let’s have one number for the temperature of the galaxy or maybe the rainfall for the universe.
You haven’t looked at any other information or we’d have a cogent discussion underway.
I give up. Yea whatever mate. Slumber on into senility which started 44 years ago.
Paul – read your own ongoing style for shrill.
Ender,
I well understand that where rain falls is what matters. But the inference that is evident in the 100 years rainfall record, and its rolling average is that, in toto, there is no change in the overall quantum of rain, in fact it has increased. That is contrary to what some alarmists portray.
How and Why is there regional variability…I dont know.
As for Loopy Lukes comment that the 100 years record is but one number I would have thought it was 100* the number of stations, and is depicted in graphical form. From this, one can discern trends, one of which is a rolling average graph, which itself cant be single number.
All pretty obvious when one has had a proper education, and done things with their life.
Also for those of us with roof mounted Solar Hot water services, the suppliers tell us that the last time they were frozen up, was exactly 28 years ago.I wonder what caused it to do that, at that time. By all reports it was also after a long hot summer, but I havn’t checked the data.
The AGO document referred to above, and produced by one Will Steffen is a major piece of work, as far as it goes.
It competely fails to discuss the issue of the scenarios, and the difficulties that exist with these, and as used by the IPCC.
Given that the Steffen document does heavily rely upon models,( as Paul Williams said) the influence of the scenarios, and their carbon outputs, materially affects the ranges of future temperatures that may or may not be likely.
This blog has covered this matter extremely well. The patience and clarity of writing by Ian Castles was first class stuff. One wonders why the AGO has to use a “blow in” who conveniently ignores the contribution of Castles and others, to produce something that is selectively alarmist, is a concern.
Perhaps the AGO feels it is under threat, or uncertain.
Ender,
I well understand that where rain falls is what matters. But the inference that is evident in the 100 years rainfall record, and its rollng average is that, in toto, there is no change in the overall quantum of rain, in fact it has increased. That is contrary to what some alarmists portray.
How and Why is there regional variability…I dont know.
As for Loopy Lukes comment that the 100 years record is but one number I would have thought it was 100* the number of stations, and is depicted in graphical form.From this, one can discern trends, one of which is a rolling average graph,which itself cant be single number.
All pretty obvious when one has had a proper education, and done things with their life.
Also for those of us with roof mounted Solar Hot water services, the suppliers tell us that the last time they were frozen up, was exactly 28 years ago.I wonder what caused it to do that, at that time, and by all reports it was after a long hot summer, but I havn’t checked the data.
The AGO document produced by one Will Steffen is a major piece of work, as far as it goes.
It competely fails to discuss the issue of the scenarios, and the difficulties that exist with these, and as used by the IPCC.
Given that the Steffen document does rely upon models, the influence of the scenarios, and their carbon outputs, materially affects the ranges of future temperatures that may or may not be likely.
This blog has covered this matter extremely well. The patience and clarity of writing by Ian Castles was first class stuff. One wonders why the AGO has to use a “blow in” who conveniently ignores the contribution of Castles et al.
The Steffen document is selectively alarmist.
Perhaps the AGO is under a funding threat.
You might consider what the mean of two hypothetical populations are – say one around wetter and one around drier. Say 100 and zero.
Do you think the average of 50 represents anything.
“How and why there is regional variability I don’t know” – something to remember !
The importance of Castles contributions is vastly overexaggerated by those disposed to the contrary point of view.
Malcolm – it’s not worth continuing any more discussion. Your ignorance of matters is simply breathtaking. Failing to grasp the spatial nature of things sums your abilities up neatly.
Then tell me, oh know all
Why is a graph of Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies for Australia since 1910( with a five year rolling mean) any different to the same thing for rainfall over the same period, and using a 11 year rolling mean.?
One shows anomalies from a predetermined value the other shows absolute values, but apart from that just what is the difference.. spatially.
Malcolm – “I well understand that where rain falls is what matters. But the inference that is evident in the 100 years rainfall record, and its rollng average is that, in toto, there is no change in the overall quantum of rain, in fact it has increased. That is contrary to what some alarmists portray.”
No-one in the AGW camp is saying that an overall decrease in rainfall is a test that AGW is true or that AGW will increase rainfall. What is said is that climate change will possibly change the distribution of rainfall disadvantaging some areas and maybe advantaging others. For the people in the area with less rainfall will see devasting effects similar to what we are seeing in Darfur now. Even the areas that get more rainfall may not be better off initially as this could cause flooding.
“How and Why is there regional variability…I dont know.””
No, and neither do I, nor really does anyone else accurately, which makes a policy of plunge on regardless all the more dangerous and stupid.
Ender
Thank you for that, because that was what I thought.
Can you help me with an explanation as to what the hell this chap Luke is on about. I do not see any difference between the way temperature and rainfall is measured and displayed in a spatial sense, other than one uses an absolute measure, and the other an anomaly.
I spent 30 odd ( very odd ) years diving for abs in western vic, and so I followed the weather maps intently for many years. Every year, usually in may/june, we get a phase of high pressure systems sitting ( for days sometimes )over eucla, bringing stable and cold sunny weather right across the southern part of the continent. Frosts and no rain. They are punctuated by the occasional front, sometimes vigorous and wet, but more often weak and relatively rainless. The abalone catches usually peak in may/june, with low swell and light winds, giving more days of access to the roughest bit of coast on the mainland. After 4 or six weeks of this regime, ( which usually happens AFTER the usual april/early-may season-opening rains),the highs tend to get smaller and briefer, and become part of the quicker progression of highs and more intense lows across the bight, until august at least. All things being equal, and they never are, this pattern brings enough rain to get a crop off.
This year is a carbon copy of 1983. After an opening rain as per usual, we had a spate of slow moving, large highs, as usual. Then, we had a few showers, and the system settled into another spate of highs..not too unusual, perhaps, but then another and another.
By this time it was mid/late june, the usual time for the pre winter HP phase to be well and truly over.
The papers were already full of records for cold and such…and nearly a MONTH later we STILL have a fat high over ceduna….no sign of nor-westers before fronts, the fishermans harbinger of more severe (rainy ) weather systems. The pattern continues, and it seems much like 1983, which was indeed a bad drought year.
However, reference to 1983 should remind us that we got out of that drought the very next year by an ingenious aussie method. We elected Bob Hawke and the rains came down!
As for your continuing AGW debate, i have to confess to being from the natural variation school. Furthermore, I am sure that if the thames and rhone were freezing over more often, ( like the 70’s ) “climate modellers”, catastrophists, and assorted fellow travellers and carpetbaggers would still be telling us that some sort of human agency was responsible. ( jet vapour trails, global dimming agents like aerosols, photochemical smog and particulates, whatever ). We would then be told that we should all give up our evil ( consumerist?)ways, lest we ruin the fragile(!) earth etc.
Remember, the hypothesis/theory only has to be a BIT plausible for the argument to be made that the precautionary principe should therefore hold sway, and that even the small risks of catastrophe demand a huge policy response. Sound familiar?
phil – “As for your continuing AGW debate, i have to confess to being from the natural variation school.”
So the gigatons of CO2 that we are putting in the atmosphere is just doing nothing at all?? The fact that we have increased CO2 from 270 to 390ppm is a well measured physical fact. What do you imagine the extra heat that this extra CO2 is doing?
Malcolm – Luke is saying what I am saying that regional distribution of rainfall is what matters not the absolute amount.
Ender
Of course thats what would matter etc,I have acknowledged that repeatedly. But if we dont know how regional variabilty occurs then why isnt the summnation of rainfall not a reasonable measure, in EXACTLY the same way a temperature chart for the whole of OZ, is UNIVERSALLY used to show that the continent is warming in toto.
To be consistent why dont people also say it is the regional variations in temperature that will matter.
But they dont, and there are plenty of examples, including the Will Steffen/AGO document.
The Oz wide temperature chart is used, but not the rainfall.Cant have it both ways
Ender……the fact of increased co2 levels is indeed accepted……but your next sentence fails to make any sense. ” What do you imagine the extra heat that this extra co2 is doing? ” is an interesting string of words, but it is not a coherent sentence in the interrogative mode. ie it is not actually a question.
I would be pleased to adress your question if i could decipher it. Have another go.
To stir you up i might point out that the proposition that higher co2 CAUSES warmer climes is not a fact like the fact of the higher co2 levels themselves. Rather it is an elaborate hypothesis, backed by all manner of maths, models, and arguments sifted from all sorts of sources and proxy databases. This not to say the hypothesis is either true or false, just that it is not a fact. And i have trouble finding a geology professor that can take the proposition seriously..Funny that.
Nevertheless the proposition may indeed be essentially correct. If i could make a bet for my grandkids to cash-in one day i’d put my money on it coming to pass. ( which is the only proof of a predictive proposition ) I’d of course be also betting that nothing much will ever get done about emissions either.
If we miraculously switched to a nuclear electicity/hydrogen economy over the next 50 years, and we didn’t get any warming, the original co2 warming proposition would remain problematic. That is, undecided.
The world would be a safer healthier and wealthier place anyway.
Another fact we have is the (slightly problematic ) graph of world temperatures in the modern era, which show phases of warming and cooling since the 1860’s, with the warming phases more prolonged than the cooler ones, ( as in the seventies ) resulting in a net rise to our current level.
This apparent fact then generates a pivotal argument over the explanation of the last 15 years or so? …. ie whether GW is in fact AGW!
Lets distil the chain of logic of the whole debate.
FACT 1980’s….Humans are pumping out enough co2 to explain the measured increase in the atmosheric levels. ok.
Original Proposition. Human induced increases of co2 levels will probably cause warming. General agreement even. 15 years pass.
FACT The last 15 years or so have been warmer.
Conclusion….The proposition is correct by virtue of the fact it’s ALREADY warmed up!
This is not good enough.
The chain of logic reminds me of the russian professor who had trained a flea to jump on his command. After demonstrating this remarkable feat he pulled off all the fleas legs and called on it to jump again. It didn’t of course.
“SEE!” said the professor…” FLEAS CAN’T HEAR WITH THEIR LEGS OFF!”
The proposition that humans have ALREADY done it, AGW is a much stricter formulation of the original hypothesis, and given the extent to which it constrains the supposed mechanisms (linking emissions to climate) into such a TIGHT TEMPORAL LINKAGE to the increase in emissions, that it (the AGW )idea becomes a most UNLIKELY EXPLANATION of the late 20th century climate cum temperature jiggles.
This does not mean that the original proposition will prove incorrect, (or is indeed unworthy of action!)
In time. Who knows..we may have a cold snap for a while, like the 1860’s…that’d might bring the original theory into some ( needless? )disrepute, forcing those who put political expediency in front of rigour in the first place to make the argument I’m actually putting now…that random/short term movement is always there, and shouldn’t be used to make an argument for or against the original proposition!
I am certainly convinced that the move toward a more carbon constrained economy is a prudent idea. ( not at the expense of broadacre farmland though…go nuclear )
Phil – “What do you imagine the extra heat that this extra co2 is doing? ” is an interesting string of words, but it is not a coherent sentence in the interrogative mode. ie it is not actually a question.”
You absolutely right I left out a 2 words. That should have read:
What do you imagine the extra heat that this extra co2 is TRAPPING IS doing?
So for the next part of your argument is that the Earth would have heated up anyway and that the fact that we are emitting CO2 at the same time is just a co-incidence.
1. We know for a fact that greenhouse gases trap logwave raditation.
2. We know for a fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have increased over what we can see in ice cores as normal levels.
3. We have observed from satellites that the longwave raditation from the Earth has decreased.
4. We know for a fact that our society emits CO2 that was sequestered and that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is of fossil origin.
5. We have observed nearly a 1° rise in global average temperatures.
Thats the chain of logic that leads scientists to think that the recent rise in temperatures is caused by humans. In this case it is impossible to remove the extra greenhouse gases as an experiment so the actual hypothesis is unproven. You have to use an analog of Earth in a computer to remove them and guess what the Earth does not warm as much as we hypothesise. Again it is not what you think a mistake in logic as your strawman argument implies but a scientific theory that fits the observed facts.
Hi Phil
Greetings from the land of the big fat high. I was very interested in your observation that the current weather pattern is similar to 1983. That was one of the few years of the 80’s that we grew a good crop. If selective observations equal predictions, then you are very good news for us.
But seriously, having lived with the weather and its impacts for so long, and having over 100 years of rainfall records available, I cannot discern any changing pattern. The whole bloody lot is highly variable – including which patches actually grow crops during widespread droughts.
Quite simply, if it is not raining in winter in southern Australia, it will be dry, cold and frosty at nights. Been happening for years.
you are all right i agree stongly i love sally
c2344fc0dfd1 Keep writing so good posts