Why have we been in an out of drought for the last 15 years? Why has the distribution of rainfall over Australia changed? Perhaps we have a combination of natural variability combined with stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric greenhouse gases, and atmospheric aerosol pollution. This is the subject of a note from Luke:
“Drought seems to be with us again in Australia. It seems we’ve been lingering in and out of drought for the last 15 years. The overall continental rainfall may not have changed but the distribution of rainfall certainly has.
Let’s forget about 2030 and 2070 for a while. Let’s focus on our history and the present day.
How well do we know our climate record? Is what we are experiencing normal or are there anthropogenic influences already affecting Australian climate?
Firstly, do we have longer droughts or more frequent droughts in our historical coral core records which extends over the previous 400 years than in the 120 years or so years of rainfall records?
How well do we understand our base background variability?
Eight, multicentury, porites coral cores were used to develop a 373-year chronology by cross-dating techniques adapted from dendrochronology.
Burdekin River runoff was found to be significantly inversely related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability for much of the period from the 1650s through to 1800, suggesting that ENSO-related teleconnections were as dominant then as in recent decades.
Indeed, the extremely dry mid-1760s to mid-1780s stand out as a period of anomalously positive correlation between river runoff and the NINO3 reconstruction. Weak ENSO teleconnections are apparent from the 1800s to 1870s, when conditions were possibly similar to those reported for the 1920s–1950s.
In the 20th century issues like the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) have perhaps confounded our analysis. The 1950s and 1970s were much wetter. There were more La Ninas and a consistently negative IPO index.
Any trend analysis using the 1950s is likely to show a drying trend. So are our trend graphs from the Bureau reflecting the extreme deficit of our current rainfall or the very wet 1950s and 1970s. Multidecadal influences like the IPO will confound trends to come in the future (assuming the IPO does actually exist and is not an artifact!).
But questions still remain. In particular, why have we had an increase in frequency of El Nino events since 1976 – including back to back events?
Trenberth hypothesised the Pacific might be entering a more El Nino like “mean state” in a greenhouse world. But other studies have indicated that it is too hard to tell what will happen.
The increase in El Nino frequency still exists. However the most modern review articles on how El Nino responds to a greenhouse world are inconclusive – some simulations increase the frequency but most show little change.
A worrying recent paper published in Science discusses a permanent Pacific El Nino event in the Pliocene when temperatures were significantly warmer than they are today. Might a permanent El Nino be still lurking in a globally warmed world yet to be revealed by better modelling: the Pliocene Paradox (Mechanisms for a Permanent El Niño)?
Drought of course is caused by more than total rainfall alone. Evaporation rate is an influence and streamflow is subject to the pattern of rainfall (heavy or light), evaporation, and antecedent catchment conditions.
Has the pattern of rainfall changed?
Light interspersed rainfall in a dry catchment produces no runoff.
Roderick and Farquhar (2004a) reported that pan evaporation rates decreased between 1970 and 2002 at many Australian observing stations, although subsequent correction of the data for instrumental changes showed that, Australia-wide, the trends in pan evaporation were not statistically-significant (Roderick and Farquhar 2004b, Jovanovic et al, 2006).
Evaporation itself is a product of radiation, humidity, wind and temperature – not just temperature. Alice Springs having a higher evaporation overall than a warmer Darwin.
Detailed modelling of historical pan evaporation by Rayner (2006) showed that the declining pan evaporation at many sites, is related to declining windiness. Wind and/or global dimming aerosols? However in the 2002 drought Nicholls (2004) found a much greater evaporative demand. High temperatures are again being mentioned in the context of this current drought. Might our future droughts be more severe in evaporative demand?
Coastal Queensland has seen few coast crossing tropical cyclones in recent decades. They are so needed to replenish dams and major aquifers.
Has there been a fundamental shift in oceanic or atmospheric processes?
Which brings us to the present day. I think there may be multiple players afoot. Might we have a combination of natural variability, tropospheric greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and atmospheric aerosol pollution that is already giving us climate change?
Is this implicated in our SW Western Australia and eastern Australian drying trends? And perhaps our tropical cyclone formation too?
I suspect there are already climate changes happening. Most land holders and water managers really want to know what’s happening in the next 5-10 years.
An area neglected perhaps in the discussion of future climate change. Might we already be in it! Is there more to come?
There are major economic, resource management, environmental and social issues at stake. And it may be already upon us.
I don’t know the answer to all these questions. But, the issues are confronting most Australians.
This is why we need a renewed effort using state-of-the-art modelling of rainfall scenarios for Australia.
Adaptation perhaps have been forced upon us now?
Some important papers on the topic well worth a read:
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;296/5569/895Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273Can ozone depletion and global warming interact to produce rapid climate change?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412Investigations on SW western Australia rainfall decline
http://www.cmis.csiro.au/healthycountry/updates/sep05/story3.htmThe response of the Southern Annular Mode, the East Australian Current, and the southern mid-latitude ocean circulation to global warming
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL024701.shtmlAntarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006…/2005GL024911.shtmlAerosols and how they can affect tropical circulation and rainfall; Observed Australian rainfall and cloudiness trends (especially the intriguing “north west Australia” pattern of long term rainfall increase)
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/lr_aerosols.pdfReviews of evaporation.
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/crc/ecarbon/publications/panevap_proceedings_050426.pdf
http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511171050_1.ppt“
———————————-
Thanks Luke.
I have started a new category Climate (Part 2) for this post and will place all new climate related blog posts here. The original Climate and Climate Change category is starting to take too long to down load.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Luke, did the coral bore holes give us a clue as to frequency and intensity of drought over the last 373 years? What about over longer time frames?
How close are we to knowing if the current drought situation is significantly different from the past?
Paul on your second question first. We do know on the numbers that the SE Qld runoff drought has this year surpassed the Federation drought. If you look at the comments in today’s paper you will see people saying it’s the ongoing nature of year after year that is making this drought exceptional.
People are also commenting about – a bit of rain but bugger all runoff (again).
If you look at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001671.html#comments
David Jones anomaly map shows some worst on record. I guess we need a 5 year percentile map to indicate the sequence is worst. Each drought is different but I’d suggest this drought is exceeding worst on our “rainfall record” in a number of places around the nation and getting worse. (we have to get every 5 year sequence and compare it to every other 5 year sequence in the record – not just add or multiply each year together or you’ll be hissed at for being a “decile adder”)
It could be that such sequences lurk in the recent historical past – say 500 years and are part of “normal background variation”. In other words our existing rainfall record is not a fully representative view of recent history.
However I’m “hypothesing” on the papers listed at the bottom of my post that we do have some explanations for what we may be happening. Changes in southern circulation from a greenhouse/ozone interaction. We do have evidence of evaporative demand in droughts being more severe. And we do have an explanation of why NW WA is a wetter exception (Asian aerosol cloud – brown haze – changing regional drivers). And the jury is till out on why many El Ninos and very few La Ninas since 1976. One La Nina we did have was a fizzer.
So I’m obviously building a case for a possible anthropogenic effect. It’s a tad different to just looking at the historical record as we do have a physical mechanism as a driver in southern hemisphere change – not just statistics.
And something we haven’t seen coming – a sneaky interaction from the Southern Ocean. It would ironic that Australia would be subject to this – being mug punters, suckers for all sorts of rainfall forecasts, big climate debaters, and drought survivors.
Will try to get some better drought analyses over the coming week.
Is anthropogenic climate change causing this drought – maybe – maybe not. Still need more science to nail it. But the case grows. And it isn’t your classic IPCC type climate change straight out of the TAR – a bit more involved.
I think the national effort is running on a show-string and CSIRO and BoM need some big assistance in working through these complex problems.
Paul – re your first question. I can only give you a partial answer which you will have to make some inferences with our historical rainfall record. And of course being from Burdekin river discharge this biases the study’s applicability to Queensland and the dry tropics. However some reasonable inferences to the interaction with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) maybe give it some general applicability to eastern Australia.
Comparisons with instrumental records The luminescence master chronology was significantly correlated (r 5 0.82, 1894–1985) with the extended instrumental record of Burdekin River flow (Figure 7; Isdale et al., 1998). The luminescence series was also significantly correlated (r 5 0.65, 1891–1985) with an index of Queensland summer rainfall (Lough, 1997). The luminescence master chronology clearly identifed the extreme wet (e.g., 1974) and dry years such as 1902, the worst recorded drought year across Australia. Five of the years during the ‘Federation Drought’, an eight-year-long drought between 1895 and 1903 (Nicholls, 1997; Whetten, 1997), are identified by the luminescence master chronology as dry, with 1897 highlighted as an extreme negative event. The dry decades of the 1930s and 1960s are also reconstructed by the luminescence master chronology. Over the length of the record, the mid-1760s to mid-1780s stand out as a period of persistent and extreme dryness. Other dry decades are identifed in the 1650s, mid-1660s–70s, mid-1710s–20s, mid-1730s–40s, mid- 1760s–80s and 1790s. The luminescence master reconstructs the very wet decades of the mid-1880s–90s, 1950s and 1970s seen in instrumental records. Earlier high rainfall decades are indicated in the mid-1620s–30s, 1640s, mid-1720s–30s, mid-1750s–60s, 1810s and 1870s. Both interdecadal variability and interannual variability is suppressed within the nineteenth century.
From: Chronological control of coral records using luminescent lines and evidence for non-stationary ENSO teleconnections in northeast Australia
Authors: Hendy, E.J.1; Gagan, M.K.1; Lough, J.M.2
Source: The Holocene, Volume 13, Number 2, March 2003, pp. 187-199(13)
DOI: 10.1191/0959683603hl606rp
Affiliations: 1: Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 2: Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB3, Townsville M.C., Qld 4810, Australia
Filing this article from The Australian on the MDB: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20576814-601,00.html
and this is what I wrote for The Land published last Thursday: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/articles110.html .
Some more work on paleoclimate of relevance here (apologies for some http’s removed – but so Jen’s software doesn’t hold/zap the post, 2 full web links is the threshold)
k26.com/eyre/The_Lake/Papers/La_Nina_de_Australia/la_nina_de_australia.html – La Niña De Australia – Contemporary And Palaeo-Hydrology Of Lake Eyre
k26.com/eyre/The_Lake/Papers/Climag_2001.pdf Lake Eyre the ENSO Integrator – you will notice the QBO introduced.
The last two references are for those that may wish to invoke some more sophisticated solar and volcanic influences on southern hemisphere circulation and suggest I have the right hypothesis but wrong drivers. 🙂 Free kick.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/antarctic/MZ-Labitzke-2004.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.A22D..09S
But you’ll have to read them to find out !
Thanks Luke. Please don’t make me read all those papers! From your reading, can you say if the bore hole findings are an accurate representation of the instrument record?
Regarding statistical significance of current conditions, even if we are in the worst RECORDED drought, or even the worst in the 373 year proxy record, that alone is not sufficient to indicate statistical significance, or is it?
Luke, I see you have posted some more while I previewed this post. Haven’t looked at them yet.
Regarding El Nino and 1976, are solar system angular momentum changes given any credence in this work as a possible explanation for the increased El Ninos since then?
Given that Bob Foster says the next change in Pacific upwelling is due next year, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.
Paul – IMHO yes it’s a very good general match on major aspects of rainfall and streamflow in the region. I defer to the paper authors who say:
“This study has demonstrated for the first time that the cross-dating techniques adapted from dendrochronology can be successfully applied to coral records. Such an approach can ensure accurate dating of coral records. This study also highlights the need to combine records from more than one coral from a particular location to ensure dating accuracy and to demonstrate that a common environmental signal is being recorded. This study has confirmed that coral luminescence is a robust proxy for freshwater runoff to the Great Barrier Reef and that observations from a number of corals can be combined to provide a reliable proxy river runoff/rainfall record. The chronology of a previously published reconstruction of Burdekin River runoff (Isdale et al., 1998; developed from two of the coral cores analysed in this study), however, needs to be adjusted in the mid-nineteenth century, due to dating inaccuracies in one of the coral series, and shows no agreement with our chronology prior to 1730. ”
Yep know about Bob Foster suggestions with solar torque and IPO suggested interaction. Need some more evidence – can’t see how it works myself but willing to listen. I’m for the “a body of evidence supports” vis a vis “maybe it’s this”. A lot of good scientists have looked at solar (and still looking) but haven’t cobbled together a seriously supported mechanism. Of course all statistical solar stuff runs the risk of “Spurious correlations” due to the quasi-periodic aspects that El Nino introduces into the climate record. Makes life hard. (see Inigo Jones etc)
And oh – statistical significance – this is getting very philosophical – what’s climate ? – 30 years? since we’ve had rainfall records? the last 500 years or hey maybe since the last glaciation. But yep “worst” would be worst – that would be “significant” enough for me – if you had the data – but gets very debatable going before the actual rainfall record especially if ponder that the coral core Burdekin work probably doesn’t work for WA – limited wide area applicability. So if you’re a Fed policy wallah running a drought scheme you quickly get back to the historical rainfall record to avoid bottomless arguments.
Problem for policy wallahs is that four 1-in-20 droughts in decade tends to stretch the friendship with the guys upstairs in Treasury. So maybe our data record isn’t realistic – climate change – inadequate baseline – so back to square one. Hard n’est pas?
For anyone interested in the drought, the Feds have a new National Agricultural Monitoring System for drought – lots of GIS analyses
http://www.nams.gov.au/
For drought policy:
http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A06289
http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=A8478E40-850D-4745-BD7C31EA4F198786&contType=outputs
Current dam levels:
http://wron.net.au/teasers.html
Dealing with the new “bogyman” Jennifer Marohsay:
On drought and the Murray Darling system Jennifer says “The rainfall record for the Murray Darling Basin shows that there have been periods of as low rainfall in the past. Given this history, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest the current drought is a consequence of global warming”.
Jennifer with due respect to your connections elsewhere I say we are somewhere round the elbow of the hockey stick today and you can’t prove to the satisfaction of your readers that I’m wrong, in Land, this blog or our farmers in general.
My proof began this morning with unrolling my plastic covered copy of the Australian thrown down the driveway a little time after the Times. Guess what fell out? Dust, grit and leaves blown in by fierce gusts of winds over just an hour or so.
In ten years of salvaging my papers in the street here it has never been this bad. Today the whole sky is full of debris, so I’m quite angry again. The cost of all our food must go up, some on the land will starve, more and more old people will go back to carrying buckets.
The challenge in deniers versus doomsayers is to discover the weak. Winner takes all Jen.
Luke, yes it is hard. Let’s concentrate on the area of study and accept that the coral cores don’t give us any data on WA. And we use all the reliable records we have, in this case 373 years. Anything else is cherry picking.
If you want to make a case for anthropogenic causes of drought, first you have to show that the drought is different from what could occur naturally.
If this drought is statistically no different from what has come before, you can’t tell if your causes have made it worse than it would be without those causes. You could claim, with equal validity, that the drought is no worse than normal variation even though those causes have been operating. It’s simply impossible to tell if they’re having an effect if no effect can be detected.
I assume you know all this, else what is the point of your post?
Hence my question. There must be an overlap between the instrumental record and the later part of the coral bore holes. If the changes in the coral corelate well with the observed record, then that is a good basis for trusting the earlier part of the coral record, before the instrumental record.
So then they can construct a rainfall record stretching back 373 years, analyse it statistically, and determine if current conditions fit in with that record, or not.
You have read the paper, I assume, so is this what it is about, or something else?
Paul – the coral cores are just the entre of the post. Don’t dig too deep.
The point is in the ozone stuff at the bottom of the post.
What if a change in sourthern hemisphere circulation has moved our rain bearing systems is THE point. Read the reference abstracts. Blow the stats – I’m talking physical mechanisms. A worst on rainfall record drought (maybe even worst in 500 years for southern Australia) with those mechanisms are enough for concern. So yea there’s a STACK else !
Thanks for the pdf, Luke.
If you can show a significant change in rainfall, and you have a mechanism, then you have a theory. Jennifer’s paper seems to suggest that the drought is not the worst on record, never mind the last 500 years.
Of course, proxy reconstructions are a contentious issue!
Actually you wouldn’t need to br worst on record – a major spatial shift nationally would be enough. And David Jones map is showing worst of record patches on his anomaly map. Without much recent El Nino activity. The season is not over – an El Nino forecast. And the greenhouse kick hasn’t even started to bite yet.
I have obviously failed to persuade you that major changes perhaps are occurring and just starting to ramp up. Oh well we’ll give another 5 years and see how we’re all going.
Of interest Jen should give us the Murray-Darling flow story perhaps.
But of course hoping some relief comes – our thoughts to those enduring the current situation.
And while you clever scientist buffs wrangle with models and theories there is another side to our continuous drought and it’s the sheer number of current bushfires.
Any one who cares about impacts or doubts my sincerity on the issue should take an occasional glance through the satellite data on Sentinel.
http://sentinel2.ga.gov.au/Sentinel/imf.jsp
This month I was alarmed by the Bass Strait Islands fires. This region is normally another big part of our food bowl. Misty old King Island caught fire early this season. Cape Barren Island had six separate fire fronts this arvo. Hobart is another very bad story. Details of Tasmania’s current fires are easily accessed here.
http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/mysite/Show?pageId=colIncidentUpdates&ShowDets=3
Now go back and count the large number of fires on Sentinel across the north end of this dry continent.
Luke,
You can do a BOM map for the Murray Darling Basin at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi? .
The last really dry year was 2002. The last few years have been within the low range. But, hey we haven’t got all the data in for this year yet! It might end up a real shocker.
Inflows have been exceptionally low. And there is stuff that can be done about this.
More useful to perhaps study inflows and the stuff you have suggested in the above very useful post, than to throw one’s hands in the air and despair over ‘global warming’ as GAvin appears to be advocating.
Jennifer: I expect our full time science writers to tell it as it is right now then accurately follow the trend (recall our chats about ABC bias ). If you can’t see the fires or the despair apparent to other journalists in the major media then but all means go look at some major water storages, the Warragamba Dam or Lake Eucumbeen before telling users where the inflows have gone in previous history.
Jennifer there is not enough moisture out in the paddocks to fill a cup. Paul and Luke should not be dragged into any cover-ups either. Our battle is one of political will regarding our dwindling resources not science. People need to know how long we can go before those big dams will be empty.
For a most readable account of how ozone affects the circulation of the southern hemisphere see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/pubs/science-guide.pdf starts at page 42. For those who want a shorter summary than the papers in my post.
There are two recent power point presentation on the drought at Malcolm Turnbulls’s website, one from the BOM and one from the MDBC: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/downloads.aspx# .
Luke, don’t give up on me so quickly!
Here’s a quote from your post;
“How well do we know our climate record? Is what we are experiencing normal or are there anthropogenic influences already affecting Australian climate?
Firstly, do we have longer droughts or more frequent droughts in our historical coral core records which extends over the previous 400 years than in the 120 years or so years of rainfall records?
How well do we understand our base background variability?”
This is a fundamental question. From the conclusion in the paper on coral cores,
“Comparisons with proxy ENSO series suggest that recent evidence for decadal variability in the strength of ENSO and its teleconnections is not confined to the period of the instrumental record and has occurred over the past several centuries.”
From which I suppose they mean that changes in El Nino (and rainfall) have been similar in the past to what has happened more recently.
Whether and which anthropogenic effects may have contributed to our current drought is at best highly speculative. It is equally possible that irrigation, fire reduction, reservoirs, CO2 increased greening, aerosols and other anthropogenic effects have actually reduced the conditions for drought here. History and the proxy record both indicate that extended periods of severe droughts are not uncommon natural climatic events, most especially in arid and semi-arid regions. There is evidence that mega-droughts have brought about the collapse of many past civilizations in various parts of the world. The Akkadian empire of Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom civilization of Egypt, the Harappan civilization of the Indus valley, the early Bronze Age civilizations of Palestine, Greece, and Crete, plus the Mayan and Anasazi civilizations of the Americas are but some examples.
The proxy record here indicates that even without any anthropogenic exacerbation we should expect and be prepared for periods of severe drought (and occasional super cyclones) with a centennial scale frequency. Whether anthropogenic effects have contributed to the current drought is largely academic. The important issue is what should we do to prepare for such events, both right now and for the longer term.
They’re saying they find good evidence for ENSO activity in the historic coral record and like this century the strength connections have varied. 1920s-1940s not a strong as 1980s-1990s for example this century.
But of course ENSO only explains about 50% of the rainfall variation. We have also have few Las Ninas of late, more Los Ninos since 1976 and and the recent neutral years (neither El Nino or La Nina type) have been dry as well.
I note from Jen’s excellent contribution from Malcolm Turnbull’s site that the current modelled Murray Darling inflows are among the 3 lowest on record. Not sure if the accuracy would allow an absolute “lowest”. But if the situation continues it will be a record soon ! We’ll see I guess. But a new record in itself is still not enough – you need some physical mechanisms to satisfactorily explain things might have a climate change component.
The modelled inflows put the SE Queensland Wivenhoe Dam catchment (Brisbane water supply) now beyond the 1902 drought and getting worse each day – so in SEQ runoff levels are now the worst on record. Level 4 water restrictions November 1st.
The other things to note in the MDB are high temperatures ongoing and year after year of low inflows. A cumulative effect. No “big wet” circuit breaker.
Walter – it might make a tad of difference if greenhouse is just getting going ! And it might make a difference to our overall attitude to adaptation investment and our international engagement on the climate issue. (and no – I don’t think signing Kyoto will fix the problem).
Of course drought for many of us is cognitive dissonance – it’s “abnormal” or “an act of God”. If it rains many of the lessons are lost, interest dissipates, and research curtailed. “The hydro-illogical cycle”.
Luke,
I found the discussion
http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511171050_1.ppt“
and elswhere on pan evaporation and evapororative demand very interesting, but so havn’t come across a similarly incisive treatment of evapotranspiration and its contribution to the climate system from Austalian meteorologists. ( Had a go myself tho, on Online opinion
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4130
Surely even in Australia Evapotranspiration is a significant component of water demand and is even more difficult to model precisely than, say pan evaporation. Its this part of GCMs that Ive been a little curious about for quite a while.
Any links Luke.
Cheers David
David – well the GCM guys model somewhat differently to crop modellers’ water balance methods – look about in http://www.apsru.gov.au/apsru/Products/APSIM/Apsim%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf for crop modelling.
With GCMs it’s a complex speciality area involving Land Surface Schema – try Googling on “Land surface scheme albedo surface roughness” and you will get a flavour of how it’s done.
Also this reference has some good discussion on evaporation and GCMs. http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/crc/ecarbon/publications/panevap_proceedings_050426.pdf
Sorry see http://www.apsim.info/apsim/Publish/apsim/soilwat2/docs/soilwat2_science.htm
in
http://www.apsim.info/apsim/Publish/apsimui/types.xml
Luke, Peru, & Chile were settled much earlier than Oz. Do they have rainfall records, which could be compared to the coral core info? This could, perhaps, confirm El Nino as the culprit for those long dries, or perhaps eliminate it.
If it can be confirmed that very long, drier than present, periods are part of our expected climate, with or without green house, it will be much easier to influence government to act.
Even evidence of fishing failure, & farming success would work.
Hasbeen,
Historical records plus lake and marine sediments from South America as well as central Pacific corals all indicate nothing unusual about the recent frequency and strength of El Nino events. Periods of greater activity have also occured.
Walter Starck
I haven’t seen it yet but for what looks like it may be an important El Nino reference have a look at:
http://www.erica.demon.co.uk/ELN.html
Hasby – yes there are numerous paleological records indicating Los Ninos has been with us for many millenia and some of these indicate back to back events – but El Nino is not enough to explain our current state IMHO opinion. Few Las Ninas – big wets – no coast crossing Qld cyclones – AND importantly neutral years not delivering any relief either. One hypothesis with evidence discussed in my opening post and scattered above is that we have had some fundamental changes in the latitude of high pressure systems which affect rainfall over the continent especially SW WA and eastern Australia. And that might be because of a interaction between greenhosue and ozone (or if you don’t believe the above – “normal variation” or if you read the Wenju Cai SW WA paper – BOTH !)
My hypothesis simply stated is that our climate is NOW a product of greenhouse + ozone + Asian brown haze + El Nino + Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation + some background variation + warmer temperatures + maybe less wind. Simply stated but a complex mix !!
That’s what the papers in my post imply.
(greenhouse and ozone affecting the polar vortex, brown haze indirectly causing NW WA to be wetter)
The question we might ponder – what happens when the ozone recovers – but then the greenhouse effect will be much stronger 2030-2050 perhaps?
And do we have drought reinforcing drought – secondary feedbacks – there is some evidence for that too.
But in closing – EL Nino only half the current story !
El Nino history is a complex subject:
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/5281/1531
Geoarchaeological Evidence from Peru for a 5000 Years B.P. Onset of El Niño
Daniel H. Sandweiss, * James B. Richardson III, Elizabeth J. Reitz, Harold B. Rollins, Kirk A. Maasch
For the tropical west coast of South America, where El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is most pronounced, archaeological and associated paleontological deposits in northern Peru revealed a major climate change at about 5000 years before the present (yr B.P.). The data implied the presence of stable, warm tropical water as far south as 10°S during the early mid-Holocene (about 8000 to 5000 yr B.P.). These data suggest that ENSO did not occur for some millennia preceding 5000 yr B.P., when global and regional climate was warmer than today.
Geology; July 2001; v. 29; no. 7; p. 603-606;
2001 Geological Society of America (GSA)
Variation in Holocene El Niño frequencies: Climate records and cultural consequences in ancient Peru
Daniel H. Sandweiss1, Kirk A. Maasch2, Richard L. Burger3, James B. Richardson, III4, Harold B. Rollins5 and Amy Clement6
Analysis of mollusks from archaeological sites on the north and central coasts of Peru indicates that between ca. 5800 and 3200–2800 cal yr B.P., El Niño events were less frequent than today, with modern, rapid recurrence intervals achieved only after that time. For several millennia prior to 5.8 ka, El Niño events had been absent or very different from today. The phenomena called El Niño have had severe consequences for the modern and colonial (historically recorded) inhabitants of Peru, and El Niño events also influenced prehistoric cultural development: the onset of El Niño events at 5.8 ka correlates temporally with the beginning of monumental temple construction on the Peruvian coast, and the increase in El Niño frequency after 3.2–2.8 ka correlates with the abandonment of monumental temples in the same region
A 6100 14C yr record of El Niño activity from the Galápagos Islands
Journal Journal of Paleolimnology
Volume 27, Number 1 / January, 2002
Melanie A. Riedinger1 , Miriam Steinitz-Kannan2 , William M. Last3 and Mark Brenner4
Lithostratigrahic and mineralogic analyses of sediments from hypersaline Bainbridge Crater Lake, Galápagos Islands, provide evidence of past El Niño frequency and intensity. Laminated sediments indicate that at least 435 moderate to very strong El Niño events have occurred since 6100 14C yr BP ( 7130 cal yr BP), and that frequency and intensity of events increased at about 3000 14C yr BP ( 3100 cal yr BP). El Niño activity was present between 6100 and 4000 14C yr BP ( 4600 cal yr BP) but infrequent. The Bainbridge record indicates that there has been considerable millennial-scale variability in El Niño since the mid-Holocene.
Quaternary Research 55, 97–104 (2001)
Correlations among Charcoal Records of Fires from the Past 16,000 Years in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Central and South America
Microscopic charcoal preserved in lake and swamp sediments from 10 sites in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and from 5 sites in Central and South America have been used to reconstruct longterm fire histories for these two regions. Comparison of these records demonstrates that fire is promoted during periods of rapid climate change and high climate variability, regardless of the presence or absence of humans. Broad synchrony of changes in corrected charcoal values in each region supports an atmospheric transmission of the climate signal via the dominant large-scale atmospheric circulation systems (Walker Circulation) that appears to have persisted since 16,000 cal yr B.P. Altered climate boundary conditions under the influence of changing El Ni ˜ no-related variability, insolation, sea level, and sea surface temperature all influenced the strength of this connection. Correlation of biomass burning records between the regions tends to increase in the Holocene. The main period of inverse correlation occurs during the Younger Dryas Stade, when extratropical climate most affected the tropics. The strongest correlation between the two regions postdates 5000 cal yr B.P., when El Ni ˜ no-related variability intensified. Fluctuations in tropical biomass burning are at least partly controlled by orbital forcing (precession), although extratropical climate influences and human activity are also important.
Great, thanks for that Luke. Now the possible point of argument.
The long, dry periods, 200 & 300 years ago, obviously, were not caused by green house, or by global warming, so why blame the present dry on it.
Surely, the most likely cause is what ever caused these severe droughts in the 1700 & 1800s.
It makes sense to me, to try to find that cause,
as first priority.
We should undestand the causes of historic drought first, before looking for new ones.
We just may have a lot further to go in this drought, without green house. If we have to add global warming effects, for what ever reason, to this drought, it’s probably time to load the covered wagons, & head for the Burdekin.
Hasbeen
Your comment, to wit,”We should understand the causes of historic drought first, before looking for new ones”, is so commensical I wondered why it has to be said at all.
But then I read the documents referenced by Jen in regard to the Malcom Turnball drought conference, and there it was.
The BOM National Climate Centre is saying one of the current drivers of El Nino is…you guessed it…
Climate Change.
What was that Starck comment about Eco Bureaucrats suffering from a saviour complex.
Luke: Been thinking for a while; what’s measurable different over all and your comment up front in this thread about shifting rainfall patterns didn’t mean a thing till I glanced at your BOM maps again yesterday. Recall in past input I relate to vortex?
I’m forever looking for signs of sheer but I’m letting you guess where it is. I love guessing what’s going on at the margin of any interacting systems as each unit tries to hold its integrity.
Had about an hour this morning earbashing some local bush firemen about light fuels and combustion flow but while I was busy they had their own long private discourse on our government responses to this dry season; that was the most interesting bit. As I said in another thread, the man down the street is our best feedback. I also asked others about their gardens and watering.
Jennifer: How far dare we go backwards in looking for a solution? I grew up with folk who easily recalled surviving a depression on the land. Uncle Harry was a respected water diviner in our district, he also fixed peoples rusted tanks with buckets of cement. My father dug our first dry well on uncle’s advice to intersect a stream that was deep under the hill. We later pumped it from far away where it rose to the surface in the valley below. One spring was not constant so we excavated more and saved them a submerged rusty tank lined with many buckets of concrete. Rotten tanks, ceased pumps, broken pipelines, and foul effluents all became a major focus in my development, so did regulations.
Three rungs a week in a 500 gall head tank was never enough even in good rainfall to be certain of adequate flow in a modern septic system. Houses I drew for our post war builders had to have two disposal systems dependent on fresh inflow. The bottom line for our cities is much the same today after discounting dishwashers and washing machines. At times I worked in major infrastructure upgrades with a greater focus on quality. These days I return to buckets and dishes as an alternative winding up the meter in excess of the minium. Not many will follow my lead on this but recycling grey water at home any other way is a very expensive or dangerous business.
Finding the minium consumption for any city now will be a brutal process. It’s this fact alone that must be understood not only by politicians but also by big irrigators. Getting a fair share by any body of any drop that falls in these hard times is unfortunately likely to be a long drawn out legal process at every level.
Folks; this battle is hardly started.
Malcolm & Hasby – I can only say – read the references and check the meteorology. The authors ain’t no eco-bureaucrats and BoM who are notoriously conservative are making their comments “advisedly”.
El Nino is not the major reason for the current predicament. Might top it off “nicely” this summer.
My opening post leaves the door open on natural variation but you should at least ponder all the evidence.
And leads to another interesting point. If you were PM what policy you run given the various uncertainties?
Luke,
The current drought has all the hall marks of an El Nino event, plain and simple. Your listing of all the other likely contributory causes is only an hypothesis by you, and is also expressed as an IMHO, by you.
If I were PM I would run the usual drought relief programs, because that is what the electorate and the farming community expect, and it is also fair and appropriate.
But I would insist on there being an additional source of advice, (Team A & Team B concept)to get some balance on the opportunistic nonsense being peddled by organisations of Govt, such as the CSIRO.
For proof of this just go and read the Executive Summary of the Report to the SA Govt. Doom and gloom nonsense projections based upon nothing more than models, designed to feed the media and the States political agendas.
Predictably the dumb nuts media in this state, and media Mike, have used the material to draw conclusions that are extreme. But the CSIRO is entirely complicit in this charade.
Until I had data that can be relied upon to support public policy in a logically consistent and credible manner, I would do nothing.
I wouldnt spend a dollar of anyones money based upon the advice of all the best economists in the country using the fastest super computers available, and projected only 10 years ahead.
So why would I bet the country, on some moonshine produced by climatologists using the same techniques and super computers, but looking 50 years ahead, and involving something as complex as the climate. It doesnt add up.
Luke, you appear unable accept that our current dry conditions, have happened before, recently, with out any GHG input, & could, perhaps, be happening again, for the same reason.
This, despite the science base of your position, reduces it to an ideologically driven one. This reduces your arguments to the level of the pseudo science, used so much today, by government, & green, alike.
We country folk have been subject to so much of it, that our antenna are highly sensitised to the bull shit baffles brains brigade. We know we are about to loose something, when ever they appear.
Overstating your case puts you in that company for many of us.
If we all “understand the causes of historic drought”, “accept that our current dry conditions, have happened before” and know that the “current drought has all the hall marks of an El Nino event, plain and simple”, ie, it’s all known, normal, predictable and it’s happened before and we’ve all been there for generations and got the T-Shirt, then why should my hard-earned tax dollars pay for drought relief to farmers who knew what was coming? Shouldn’t we forgo the tax-funded relief and just let global markets find the solution? Isn’t that the kind of approach people advocate here? “relief” = “subsidies” = govt intervention + market inefficiencies = bad.
So you’re saying we’re actually encouraging some agrarian socialism where we capitalise gains and socialise losses.
OK the argument to support in extreme drought would be:
(a) regional effect – can take out whole rrual towns as well
(b) subsequent environmental impact – no management = eventual weeds, ferals etc, overgrazing by roos in middle drought stage
(c) food production so special case
(d) national ethos identifies with the bush
(e) greenhouse effect caused by disgraceful emitting urbanites – agriculture a nett sink so they deserve some recompense
(f) global markets aren’t level anyway so this helps even things up !
(g) still transitioning to self reliance model
(h) tax system still not optimal for climate risk management
(i) urbanites expecting environmental dividends from the bush that cost
The argument against is stop whinging – no other business in town gets a break. Tough luck. Sell up and cut your losses.
Me – I’m still sympathetic but expect a bit of respect in return on some environmental issues.
Hmmm – fair enough. So I see words like b/s, pseudo science, future, superomputer, moonshine, models, gloom and doom, nonsense, CSIRO-complicit, opportunistic nonsense, ideological.
You don’t need and A and a B team. Don’t bother even assembling them. You knew the answer before you started.
I can see how difficult it is to communicate the results of science. We’re not even at first base.
For me to to think that you guys have read and considered the proposition, I’m just not hearing the “for and against” phrases that you’d expect from people have considered anything seriously. I see no checklist style argument. I suggest you’ve simply retreated into what you’re comfortable with.
El Nino is just beginning – you’re coming off the back of bad seasons – how many were El Nino? How much lead in to this drought was something else?
This is not about 50 years ahead – this is about NOW. This is not your bread and butter IPCC stuff.
You’ve mushed a whole bunch of old arguments together about 50 years time.
You might ponder the spatial and temporal scale of things too from SW WA, through Adelaide, Victoria, MDB, SW Qld, SE Qld. ANd how long it’s been going on. Way before this drought.
And said with respect – no disrespect.
Luke,
Your responses are typical of someone who confabulates the picture to support an already confused mind.
What is needed is a clear and unambiguous definition of just what the problem is, together with an impact statement of some sort, that enumerates the positives as well as the negatives.
When that is done, and only then, it would be appropriate to consider the range of feasible solution sets, that may be available, both long term and short term. Until that is produced then the work of people like the CSIRO who are only making 50 year projections, is just moonshine.
In the same way you take umbrage with people who may not have read the multitude of refernces you have taken the trouble to google, you should extend that same courtesy to others. Try reading the Excutive Summary Report referred to by others.
Already Mike Rann as ever the media tart is reported a saying in the todays Ragvertiser that Australia is going to be the most affected by GW of any country on earth. Where did he get that crap from I wonder. No evidence for this whatsoever, other than more CSIRO moonshine.
agrarian socialism indeed.
(a) & (b) are apparently already happening so why cause further delay?
(d) bushies already say city slickers are delutional about national bush ethos and the bush is in decline due to modern techniques, industrial scale farming and conservation demands etc
(e) greenhouse effect – need a change in practice so why fund current bad practice that can’t cope with natural, expected climate variation?
(f) 2 wrongs don’t make a right. we want an end to US farm bill & EU CAP don’t we? Blogs aside, hypocritical arguments don’t usually work.
(g) still transitioning – why delay it by funding old ways? (see e)
(h) so?
(i) urban enviro demands can and should be funded directly and separately, not under the guise of drought relief
I support support for continued food production (c) & I actually reckon that’s a pretty noble use for my tax dollars. However, is there any consistency in bush policy demands? That’s the crux of my devils advocate question.
Luke, I think there’s two different arguments running here.
One, is the current drought unusual on a timescale of hundreds of years? Walter says probably not, and I don’t think you’ve presented any evidence to show differently, although I haven’t read all the papers you linked to.
Two, what’s causing the current drought, and are anthropogenic factors involved? Discovering all the factors that go into causing a drought seems like a worthwhile task. Maybe droughts could be made less severe if we knew all about what caused them. I doubt if we’re anywhere close to that point yet, do you agree?
Regardless of what caused them, we still have to deal with them, just as people always have.
Malcolm, the “Green Left Daily” and the “Sunday Socialist” seem to be running a climate change scare campaign. It’s basically a fact free zone when it comes to climate change reporting, no claim is too bizarre to print.
Haven’t read the papers eh ? NOT READ !! OK I give in ! Maaattteee !
Paul – perhaps they’re caused by lack of rainfall and/or runoff? And those factors are subject to many interacting climate influences – maybe a combination of natural and anthropogenic. Of course management can also cause “drought” – overstocking, poor financial management?
We do know that El Nino affects about 50% of the rainfall variation. But we need to chase down neutral year droughts and perhaps decadal and anthropogenic effects. The papers listed are a start.
My role here is to attempt to draw people’s attention to new work on new climate influences which seem to have been ignored with “nah – what b/s”. But i’ll bet those same people have noticed things on their nightly weather charts if they thought about it.
The comments have nothing but ambiguous science for the poor punter (PP) who is making decisions now.
The question PP asks: will the rainfall story in the next 2 decades or so look like a sample from the last 100 or not. Has rainfall expectations changed? If you rely on stats you wont get unambiguous answers to that, but risky decisions have to be made.
Does the answer matter to a PP risk manager.?
Yes, because if the odds have not changed and are known, risk mangment can at least in theory handle the risk as it has attempted to over the last century with a bit of help from your friends when it was seen to be an exceptional bad trot. ( with some cost to the resource because that risk was mainly unknown).
But if you have uncertainty, then any prudent risk manager would want to take that into account and keep on monitoring until the odds are clarified.
So, what we might learn from a century of managing and mismanging drought is that some of the problem was man made in the sense of pasture droughts being caused by overstocking the paddock.
It might take less than a century hopefully to learn about drought from overstoking the planet.
My guess is given the obvious trend in temperatures and the difficulty of identifying change in the more variable rainfall series, that there is a good chance the rainfall regime has changed too.
My further guess is about 8 out of 10 poor but informed punters would assume that the rainfall in the next couple of decades wont look much like a sample from the last century. (And more likely anthropogenic than natural variation but a PP does not need to go there.)
So if you had to make a choice about rainfall over the next couple of decades, what is it?
No time to wait for ‘proof’.
Bazz
Luke, you claim that:
“You don’t need and A and a B team. Don’t bother even assembling them. You knew the answer before you started.”
Well, whether or not my mind is made up or not, and it isnt, I would have thought that the Team A/B has considerable merit, if only to make the case in a more credible manner, whatever that case is. It might also make the proponents behave with some integrity.
But I have heard and read more than enough to know that AGW, as peddled by its proponents, is more about politics,than facts.
I certainly have heard/read/seen enough to know that one cannot trust the so called climate scientists in CSIRO, and elswhere.
Again I say, have a read of the Executive Summary. Delusional nonsense, playing to the politics and deliberately so.
No responsible person in their right mind would bet the farm on the basis of this sort of academic and media beat up.
IT ISN’T made up !!?? Wow. Well Malcolm I tried. You need never read anything on AGW again by the sounds of it as it’s all obviously corrupt. Fair nuff.
Malcolm – nothing is going change any time soon as all those evil CSIRO, BoM and IPCC scientists will be there for some time. Are you actually saying that the authors of the papers I have listed but you haven’t read its seems, are “on the take” or “sus”. Wow. Dare I say we’re at an impasse then? Not much more to discuss.
But I will give you the courtesy of reading the dreaded CSIRO-SA report even though you seem to not be interested in reading my refs. A web link would help but I’ll Google away without one.
Meanwhile back on the farm – some people do have to bet the farm – Bazz is suggesting they need to make some decisions anyway. And perhaps poor Fed public servants and policy wallahs also have to decide on handing a few hundred million in relief (or not). And so what ya gonna do? The question of course is whether poor punter is also a mug punter? Can he/she be easily misled.
Is this the report that you are railing about :
http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/CSIRO%20Final%20Report.pdf
What is wrong with it specifically? Do you suggest CSIRO have fiddled that report or do you “just don’t like it”.
Luke, time for a Bex and a good lie down. If you’ve read and assimilated all those papers, why don’t you give us the guts of it? I read the coral core paper which you kindly sent to me, and came to the conclusion that the current drought conditions are not exceptional over the last 300 odd years.
None of the others seem to be about the pre-historical climate, according to the headings you put on them.
My point of discussion is about the extent to which the current drought is exceptional. An important question, as you state in your article, although obviously not the only question. After all, why look for exceptional causes for an effect that is not detectably exceptional?
Luke, you are still doing it. Just answer the question.
What caused the drought, dryer, & longer than the present conditions, 250 years ago?
When we know they occurred before green house, why not now?
When you refuse to even address this question, your argument looses much of its credibility.
If you want to progress your case, answer the question.
For heavens sake Paul move on from coral. I have written it and written it above. I think the longer term drying trend over a long period of time IS exceptional. And over a wide area. Backed up now by physical mechanisms including El Nino and OTHERS ! It just doens’t have to be a just record out the back of Cooma to be intersting ! Look more widely grasshopper and ponder the options.
Hasha – mate – 30 years now may be beat 20 years in the coral. El Nino then in the dim past and NOW is “A” driver. But there are other drivers. And the drivers we have now seem to be related to southern hemisphere fundamental changes caused by anthropogenic mechanisms.
Guys you are getting no breaks and no top-ups – it’s insidious and eating away. You know that song “slip sliding away”.
Read http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/pubs/science-guide.pdf starts at page 42 and see if helps. If it doesn’t you’re all numb nuts 🙂 OK just kidding.
Bloody hell – I need a Bex and scotch. The difference betwen the blog and a computer is that you only have to pound data into a computer once. Bugger it – I’m going off to talk to Bazza !
Bugger – Bazza is out with Kaza and Gazza down the pub. I’m going down too and getting rotten. You lot have driven me to drink.
Luke, if you didn’t want to talk about coral, why did you bring it up in the first place? Have fun at the pub.
He hasnt got time to go to the pub he is supposed to be reading the CSIRO crock of nonsense. Mind you,it might if he was pissed when doing so.
When you do read it Luke just remember that is was used as an intrument for creating public policy and expenditure, and thats despite the disclaimer.
So what does poor punter farmer do then? What to farm, when, how and whether to farm? I’d be trying to minimise potential losses, but can a farmer even make practical judgements on that with all these conflicting inputs?
riso – eyes bach from the pub and I’m gonn a take on the lot of yas.
I do want to talk about coral -e wus the intro duckshun. eewes wudden know a vortexy is it stole you runafll unda your eyes
So Hillsy me old mate – wots rung with the scsiro report? huh ? and hhooded live in southy austraklkiuan anyway – it’s fula poofs
I luv Pinx u know. itsa her cryillic faunts. she’s susg a good sought.
When you sober up, you might like to tell us whats right about it, assuming you have read it of course.
Malcolm – no don’t mess around. They ran their scenarios and have published the answers. What’s the issue. Stop beating around the bush.
Hi Paul,
I no you think the hockey stick is debunked, but do you accept the finding of the NAS report that there is high certainty that we currently have the highest temps for the last 400 years?
If so, then that is what makes the current drought more significant than other droughts over the last 300 years.
For a given level of rainfall, higher temps = worse drought.
Steve, I doubt that it is that simple, but maybe Australia does have more drought when global climate is similar to the MWP.
A big diesel truck rumbled across my cutter late this arvo and a pair of hobnail boots crunched up my front stairs and there was this guy with a big grin at the window looking in, “I was just seeing a mate over in the next suburb” he said. “LTNS” I replied.
Over a cupper I popped my usual question “Do you reckon any of this drought could be due to a man made climate change?”
“Sure” he replied and “It’s getting worse”.
Now our drop in once in a while casual friend is about to retire down south with his new metal lathe and milling machine on the truck, spent his youth in a boys home then became a brickie. Although he had no formal education that could count for much here other than a lifetime working outdoors he saw in a minute from Luke’s maps above the proof of what he instinctively knew.
What’s wrong with the rest of you?
How did he know it was man made?
Paul: Let me ask you a silly question, who qualified you to know what isn’t man made? I wrote my last quick comment thinking about which posters here have a practical bone in their body. This was about a man who made himself into a popular builder through working on many projects. He is now about to try and produce his own inventions in retirement.
Paul: I have spent a lifetime working with such practical people from many other disciplines, builders of industry, makers of machines, transporters and crafters of resources. How dare you ask: “How did he know it was man made?”
Jennifer: There is more to reading between the lines than asking Paul silly questions.
“Water reform doomed to fail” is only the opinion of Andrew Macintosh from the Australia Institute but he sums up the issue of hopeless water rights distribution and late reform today next to our editorial in the Canberra Times. It’s just one aspect of a man made crisis as we sink deeper in dust.
On the front page is another headline “Outcry as ABC moves on bias”. Not before time you say!
Ahhh somebody want’s to quell programs like the 7.30 report we had about Bourke last night.
Logic tells some of us that parched country should be abandoned.
We can’t see it or tell it as it is. Why? Ultra cynical me knows it’s about our money and where it flows.
Gavin, no one qualified me to say climate change isn’t or is man made. Take care when you climb down off that high horse.
Paul: I am merely responding to the zeal of some contributors including you who insist on returning to their same old same old stance on everything.
The sceptic’s constant demand for proof can work for both sides of the argument if that is all we are after. The more mature will learn quickly and move on. After all, its only personal opinion at every level that counts in the end. Even the common man has a vote. Today we should be noting what Cullen says, tomorrow someone else.
Gav I’ve heard all kinds of practical folk saying of late ‘nothing like this has been seen before’ eg firefighters and in saying that, they are referring to the lore handed down from their predecessors too. There are also folk of the land who talk of such warning signs such as when the trees bloom twice. But some of the punters here don’t want to hear that.
if you want to hear from practical people and try to understand historical factors at the same time, then yuo ask the traditional peoples who have long oral histories of folk lore and guiding principles (where they still exist) – some of those predate some scientific records. eg havent we got us some ice-lovin peoples way up in that other hemisphere whose oral traditions lead them to conclude, bugger, the ice cover has never been less in collective historical memory or the kills leaner, it’s sad & scary’. But the clever dicks respond ‘what would you know you primitives? you’ve probably been paid to say that by greenpeace’ etc etc, or ‘say, so what? if yu can’t prove it’s not manmade then what can we do anyway and it suggests we’re not to blame?’
Still awaiting Hillsy’s critique .. .. ..
If after reading the Report Commissioned by the Govt of SA from the CSIRO shonks you cannot see the deficiencies in it as a document upon which to base a substantial piece of public policy, which was then used to publically further misrepresent the position, then nothing I can say will influence your naive view of the world.
But you might like to re read the disclaimer which indicates that even they thinks it is frought( probably inserted at the insistence fo their legal advisers), then re read the Recommendations at the end, and also do a higlight of all the internal cop-outs.
Generating meaningful information from a regionally based climate models when the grid resolution can be over 300km is just nonsense. But when they are suss anyway on a national and international basis it is a distortion of reality
But in order to get their pieces of silver they produced loads of twaddle. If it was a prospectus it would be tossed in the bin. But to spend more tax payer dollars, thats quite OK.
I would agree that the fault lies equally as much with the client as the consultants. But when its politically motivated anyway, and by both parties, who cares about substance and relevance… and cost.
not sure the above rant is about folks but some people can’t help themselves.
Bleat bleat bleat. What a total whinge. So you don’t have a clue then and just don’t like it.
Somehow I don’t think they got rich out of it.
I think you’re a nasty bigoted shonk, and your attack is underhanded and scurrilous. Go jump.
Charming.
Got taken off your usual patch of just googling for responses to bignote yourself so turns nasty.
You can talk mate. Look at your response. Intellectual/factual content = 0.0 Face it – you are bigoted beyond redemption. And you’re clueless as to what you’re on about.
Any reponses I make are relevant and specific unlike your total lack of any input except abuse towards people you know nothing about and have never met.
Now as we were discussing .. .. southern hemisphere climate change
The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (Belgium) reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.
So you think that drawing credible inferences from climate models which use data points that can be up to 300km apart ie bigger than some parts of the regions in question, is quite OK, and that is good science.
Even John Zillman says that regional modelling is not on.
Well if I am a bigot, then I am in good company.
and BTW, the way states make use of regional models IS involving SH climate change.
Further your latest googling reference says that…. stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula “driven principally by human-induced climate change”
How do they know that, and how do they separate out background natural variabilty I wonder.More models I guess.
Been wondering all evening; is a shonk a forcing or a feedback or something related to the Advertiser?
John Zillman is certainly entitled to his experienced opinion but perhaps he’s not a front line practitioner anymore. A number of others would disagree including – oh let’s see .. .. um how about the European Stardex program. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/stardex/.
So what was the actual resolution of the models used then ? You’re telling the story.
And the latest wasn’t a google either. Do you think I’m just Google trawling until I get a story. You’re a nitwit.
Incidentally Malcolm how would such a genius as yourself study the phenomeon of climate without modelling. Just how might you do it?
It doesnt take much to comprehend that climate modelling has a very important place, if used correctly. Its when people who use these tools induce others to draw inferences that are way out side the scope of capability, and are therefore making an entirely inappropriate use of the tool. The phrase making a silk purse out of an sows ear comes to mind.
BTW Luke you should be careful about your own assumptions as to who I may know or not know in that illustrious organisation, but I will admit that the piece of work I object to, probably took place under the previous management regime.
It is also most noticeable that one of the quotes used in the infamous Sunday Mail article referred to by Paul Williams was by no other than…..?
If you are so knowledgeable about these matters, why ask me. You should already know it anyway, after all it is pretty basic stuff.
No answer the question. What resolution are the models. You’re making the point.
We have pages and pages of detailed explanation of what they have done, why, the issues not well done, future work needed and you don’t seem to able to string any sentences together with any scientific criticism – so I think you’re just an old whinger.
So what – Pearman was quoted in some other context and the answer was cut and pasted into the stupid digital terrain inundation article. Is that Graeme’s fault – did he know that. How old are you Malcolm?
And who does use climate modelling correctly then as you imply. Can’t be CSIRO, BoM, the IPCC, the Antarctic survey – I wonder who’s left?