The Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, yesterday announced that $7.6 million will be provided over four years to evaluate the effectiveness of cloud seeding in increasing rainfall in Queensland, Australia.
Mr Beattie said beginning next year (2007) a pilot project would be conducted in south-east Queensland using new “warm cloud” seeding processes.
The pilot project will be in collaboration with the Bureau of Meteorology and the United States National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Interestingly China already has a $50 million a year weather-modification program with the aim of increasing rainfall by up to 15 percent.
Indeed when the Chinese government’s 11th Five Year Plan kicked off earlier this year it included provision for the creation of 48 billion to 60 billion cubic meters of artificial rain annually. How many gigalitres is that?
So what about techno-fixes for global warming too? We could fertilize the ocean making more algae which sequester carbon? We could put sulfur particles into the stratosphere to cool the earth?
I can hear an environmental fundamentalists shout, “DON’T MESS with the climate!” But we already have?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
However, the current local SE Australian drought conditions appear highly likely to be part of a natural pattern ;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20980586-2702,00.html
Therefore it might make more sense to adapt – build more dams , recycle water , repair pipes , encourage domestic tank use etc.
60 billion cubic metres is 60,000 GL. A lot of water, several times the average Murray/Darling inflow.
It is good to see an Australian govt at least evaluate the process.
Cloud seeding can only produce an extra 10-15% but this can often be the difference between having runoff or not.
Assuming the technology actually works in SE Queensland (which remains to be proven)I think it’s important to see the technology as rainfall supplementation in average rainfall years not drought busting technology. If there’s little mositure to seed there’s little moisture. And does the extra rainfall get evaporated anyway – some interesting calculations for someone.
There are always side effects on technological intervention – will Toowoomba sue Brisbane over “stealing its water”. Does cloud seeding need legislative protection.
Is it a plot by Brisbane to force them back into recycling?
There are hints of what’s to come in the Gayndah hail cannon debate. Hail cannons being used to supposedly protect citrus crops from hail.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/widebay/200612/s1813771.htm
http://abc.net.au/news/items/200612/1811563.htm?widebay
http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/applications/LocalLawSearch/data/GAYN/26_Prohibition%20of%20Hail%20Cannons%202005%20LL_res14-09-05.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/widebay/stories/s1811369.htm
Of course the above debate pre-supposes hail cannons actually do anything at all !
Luke , I don’t think anyone would view cloud seeding as anything other than supplemental, no cloud = no possibility of rain assisted or not.
Seeding seems to be successful in Tasmania so I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in Qld. As to robbing Toowoomba of water I think that would be unlikely as rain systems generally pass west to east. Since Toowoomba is to the west(last time i looked) of Brisbane cloud seeding should only be of benefit to it. The cloud has to be seeded prior to the targeted area.
I expect the Toowoomba catchment will be a prime target anyway.
Luke, its great to be able to agree with you, for once.
My first thought was, “what about the people who will miss out on the rain, if its made to fall, unnaturally, in the Brisbane catchment.
I am getting very sick of Brisbane, & its demands on the rest of us.
Not quiet as sick of Brisbane, as I am of South Australia, & their demands.
Did you hear one of their citrus growers bitching about getting ONLY 80% of their irrigation allocation?
The poor dear, he should try 0%, for a couple of years, not bitch about how much of our water he doesn’t get. Strange, isn’t it? When we don’t have any water, it doesn’t run down the bl@@dy river.
Rojo – well rainfall is caused by a variety of systems in SE Qld so I’m not totally sure. In any case we don’t have to have reality or facts to start a legal action. Rationality doesn’t always win.
The situation in Tasmania is very different to anywhere else in Australia cold moist air undergoing orographic uplift over western Tasmanian mountains vis a vis the warm clouds being targeted in SEQ. Probably one area where the cloud physicists agree a useful result is possible.
I’ll wait till they do the trials to see if it works – which I understand will use the very new Doppler radar system at Mt Stapylton south of Brisbane. The radar can examine cloud physics and rainfall development in detail and maybe get around the 20 year statistical barrier with conventional cloud seeding trials.
I hope it works ! There will be a lot of interested onlookers. So maybe it will set off a whole new industry and way of life – or maybe be a big fizzer and never be heard of again.
But this is the sort of courageous research investments we need to make. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Good luck to the researchers !
The CSIRO Barrie Hunt research posted by Jim above is most interesting – I assume it’s from the 10,000 year GCM long scale integration run which shows what drought variability might naturally exist in a “stationary climate”. Do we believe the GCM – maybe – we probably only have coral cores as other clues.
The research of climate change on El Nino frequency is divided from no change to an increase in frequency. Interestingly the very recent PNAS paper by Hansen speculates on no greater numbers of Los Ninos but more intense Los Ninos (as per the hurricane argument).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/39/14288
And of course we also have the effect of the ozone hole and polar vortex changing southern hemisphere rainfall patterns. And higher temperatures increasing drought intensity. (recent archives this blog)
So plenty to argue about on cause and effect and attribution.
I think there’s more to it than Barrie Hunt’s GCMs say.
But whether it be climate variation and/or climate change plenty of work to be done on improving water supplies and water use efficiency – dams, desalination, recycling, pipeline interconnects, groundwater, water efficiency and conservation, rainwater tanks, improved irrigation systems, seasonal climate forecasts, alternative cropping systems and better crop varieties (including GM). And we need the lot !
So if anything these droughts around the nation have been a very big wakeup call to treat drought as an ever present threat and to finally take a serious long term view to secure our water supplies.
P.S. Sidebar: Barrie Hunt also examined the MWP and LIA in his 10,000 year run and found:
“While a number of characteristics of the MWP and the LIA could have been partially caused by natural processes within the climatic system, the inability of the model to reproduce the observed hemispheric mean temperature anomalies associated with these events indicates that external forcing must have been involved. Essentially the unforced climatic system is unable to sustain the generation of long-term climatic anomalies.”
So an external driver – solar ? thermohaline? or??
http://www.springerlink.com/content/677kx61w6812gx81/
Pielke on “Deliberate Global Climate Modification – is it a Good Idea”
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/12/21/deliberate-global-climate-modification-is-this-a-good-idea/
Answer is “No!”.
Cloud seeding is not on the same level as the sulphur proposal discussed by Pielke in terms of climate modification. Sunscreening the planet versus making it rain harder/longer in select areas cannot reasonably be compared.
As the last resident survivor of the 1969 ‘drought-busting’ cloud seeding operation in Queensland, I can offer a few comments from that perspective of chasing towering CB over half of Queensland. The current proposal is about warm rain and there is no Australian experience of that. So Tasmanian experience is at least doubly irrelevant. All the barnstorming and fun in the fifties and sixties was about cold clouds. It could now be that the bigger systems needed to fill big dams near the coast are more likely to benefit from a warm rain process. But there were a few conclusions from the previous efforts that remain relevant. The statistical problems remain for all those who have moved on from the school of ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’. There will still be legal problems for those who did not care for rain at the time and for those down wind. (The legal fees will be a lot bigger than the evidence either side will be able to muster). The overall cost can perhaps be scientifically and economically justified in desperate times even if the benefits are problematic and given the other risks, if the water has high value. Nevertheless there are evergreen certainties. The photo opportunities will be fantastic, and at the end of the day when it rains big, the sun will set and the dust will settle and interest will wane.
Barry Tasmanian experience suggests cloud seeding works. Whilst the cloud systems are different this does not mean that it will not work for warm rain. At this stage the Qld govt are just trialing the process.
When “normal” rains return interest will wane but the information will be there for future reference.
Water is of extreme value when there is little, and lawyers need to make a living too.
Mr Beattie aims to utilise cloud coming from the West. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20978536-29277,00.html
Therefore those likely to have their rain robbed(Brisbanites) are the beneficiaries of the cloud seeding, in the form of usable water in storage, not running down the gutter.
I don’t think the sea will miss that little bit of rain falling inland either.
Some interesting information on the novel Thailand method (2 cloud heights, AgI, dry ice and salts)
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1113583861177B213
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4358535.stm
Although the published statistics make for interesting reading.
ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(2003)042%3C0920:ROOGCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JApMe..42..939W
Barrie Hunt must be a brave man indeed.
Not only does his research debunk the claims of ‘Mike of a Thousand Years Rann’; but it also flies in the face of the current global warming ideology at the CSIRO.
It is good to see that there are still some independant and unbiased researchers in that Organisation. One can only hope that he is not threatened with funding cuts,and worse, for his efforts, by the CSIRO, as was Professor Garth Paltridge, for questioning the AGW bias of the IPCC, by the same CSIRO.
The now retired Barrie Hunt is only saying it could be in the realms of natural variability as shown by some work he did years ago with a model with no external forcings. So what Barrie is not saying is as ever much more interesting. He is obviously and logically not able to rule out the current contribution from all the other forcings now likely to be operating. So I imagine punters like Sid will want to cover both possibilities. firstly ‘she’ll be right,just another bad drought’ or maybe the rainfall pattern has already changed in harmony with the temperature one. If he wants absolute proof he is on the wrong planet.
So easily they chose false idols. So uncritically. That sounds good – we’ll go with that .. ..
Bravery comes with retirement quite often. Barrie has retired ! Why would you think Barrie is unbiased? Simply coz it suits your world view.
It’s a GCM run of 10,000 years Sid – why do you chose to believe it. I thought you guys were anti-model? Does it represent current El Nino properly. Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation?
And which bit exactly flies in the face of CSIRO AGW belief. I think you’ll find Barrie also believes.
Can we not have climate variability and anthropogenic forces happening at the same time.
Serious questions Sid – not just ragging ya !
And you wouldn’t like what he has to say about MWP and LIA – in that the climate system needs a shove – not enough variation in the system by itself to make the changes.
Rann asked at that briefing what happened if the drought continued into the next year – he got an off the cuff flippant answer – was not part of the briefing which was said on TV by the Prime Minister. What a perpetuating urban myth. The press loved to run it. Now the same press are backpeddling and moving away from climate change on the basis of a bit of cold weather.
All these bits and pieces of science are VERY poorly communicated.
Probably explains why CSIRO mainstream ignores all this flak and bluster and just keeps doing the research professionally.
It’s not a question of ideology – it’s simply what the research says – I think Sid would like them to fiddle the numbers to make results comfortable with his world view. That’s religion Sid – not science.
Would you think Barrie’s GCM is that different to CSIRO’s other GCMs? Maybe it’s the same GCM used to do the climate chnage work?
‘Just another bad drought’. Well yes it is. And we are hurting from it. However, if no more rainfall before years end, wewill come in at fourth worst on record. Which is still pretty bad!
‘In harmony with temp.’ Well, the gentle warming which started again in the 1970’s, now seemes to have peaked in 1998, except with the ‘anomaly’ of 2005′ (the BoM’s so called “hottest year on record”, which wasn’t.).
But no, that’s wrong, we only have cold anomalies like a white christmas in australia and Melbourne recording it’s coldest Christmas Day on record.
So you’re sure we’re in a cooling trend then Sid ?
In 10 years time the trend will not have continued upwards?
In ten years time? The truth is that we just don’t know!
When it comes to understanding the dynamics of our ever changing climate system;- we’re still in kindergarten. Of course we should continue, and increase, research into the complexities of climate,and to strive to understand it’s workings better. But let’s not be obsessed with one miniscule input to possible effects on climate;–man made CO2 emmissions.
The AGW lobby seems to want to destroy the economy of democratic civilisation, in an attempt to lower emissions. This is counter productive, as only strong economies can fund and drive the science, that will eventually come up with new sources of base load energy.
So Barrie Hunt has retired. Well, he is still brave, but it does make it easier for him to avoid the ‘political commissars’ of the CSIRO climate division.
The BoM, like the CSIRO, seem to want to turn raw data into modelled trends and graphs, which often give a different picture to, for instance, raw temperature data.
‘The Australian’ newspaper, to it’s credit, publishes the BoM’s rawtemp. data, daily, for simple souls like me. The record daily max. & min. temps. for capital cities, always make good reading. Here is example from yesterday’s paper. (Our deliveries are a day behind; but I’m sure today’s will be similar).
RECORDS: Canberra, High, 1957; Low, 1956: Sydney, High, 1896; Low, 1945: Brisbane, High, 1976; Low, 1993: Melbourne, High, 1909; Low, 1878: Adelaide, High, 1939; Low,1907: Perth, High,1926; Low, 1901: Hobart, High, 1961; Low, 1906: Darwin, High, 1936; Low, 1992:
If you follow these daily, ther will
be some record highs in recent years; but as many, if not more record lows!
Nope – percentile 10 minima are decreasing trend. Frosts are decreasing. That is the trend. Graph some data Sid and stop cherry picking ! You really are rewriting history.
The reference station analysis set gives us a good handle on trends:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
Have a look at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
Maximums up, minimums up more, diurnal range reduced, sea surface temperatures up.
That’s 1910-2005 – Sid do you refute these trends?
Capital cities with their changing environments and resited stations would be the LAST places you’d look at.
“The AGW lobby seems to want to destroy the economy of democratic civilisation” – says who? That’s a fairly big pre-supposition Sid and requires the democratic process to enact such things. Do you think any western government would survive long by “wrecking the economy”?? Muck it up and be voted out for 20 years.
Yelling at the climate scientists doesn’t make the issue go away.
And forget climate change for a while – lets just look at climate variability. Clearly millions have been spent in drought aid coping with this drought. Let’s get seriously economically rational – let’s let you all go broke and we’ll import our food or have it produced by corporates – probably cost effective. Don’t want to wreck the economy supporting farmers who can’t cope with their business environment. (In cae you’re wondering I don’t actually support that measure but the philosophical hard line leads there).
Oh and cherry pick this one !
December 29, 2006
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) — A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada’s Arctic, scientists said.
The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada’s remote north.
Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.
“This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead,” Vincent said Thursday.
In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.
The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.
goes on .. .. ..
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html
techno-fix that
Barrie Hunt is kept busy at his local Liberals branch in Frankston but he finds time to reassure us on the drought. He speaks from old climate models.
His Liberal Monarchist loyalties haven’t faded.
Guernsey-born Mr Hunt, a research scientist with a government agency, explains: “When you come to Australia, you feel at home. The laws are very similar, they speak the same language and they drive on the correct side of the road”
Hell will freeze over before Mr Hunt abandons the monarchy. He is upset by the sniping at the Queen in Australia’s press, particularly Rupert Murdoch’s pro-republican newspapers. Mr Murdoch spoke out yesterday in favour of a “yes” vote, warning that Australia would suffer a “loss of self-respect” if it rejected a republic.
Mr Hunt has a novel response to the argument that Australia needs its own head of state. “Why don’t we start our own monarchy?” he says, straight- faced. “We could invite Princess Anne over. That would keep the feminists happy. And I believe her eldest son is a terrific young man, so there would be no problem with the succession.”
Well, as a farmer, we have a very good risk assessment and management strategy in place, to cope with all known risks, includ. drought. And Aust. farmers are far less subsidised then most. It would be interesting to see large scale food imports from overseas come in ,as a large proportion would be GM! Would this overtax the resources of Greenpeace? Would they have enough troops to chain themselves to all the dock gates around the nation?
So the large slab of ice north of Canada means we are ‘crossing the climate threshold’. the tipping point etc etc. Last year, we heard similar alarmist reports, when a huge chunk broke off in Antarctia. 115 k’s long it was claimed to be a world record. Wrong, the largest measured chunk was 200 km long by 60 km wide. That was in 1956…pre AGW. And then of course, during Captain Cook’s antarctic voyage in 1772, he sailed round a huge iceberg, estimated to be about half the size of Tasmania. That’s larger then 11,000 football fields.
GM’s fine by me. We can always hoodwink the Greens if the people are hungry. So let’s stop drought subsidies now.
It’s not carving chunks that’s the issue Siddles – it’s the background – “This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead,” Vincent said Thursday.”
Relax Sid – we’re just getting started. Long way to go yet.
Maybe it was Tassy?
Jen says:
“So what about techno-fixes for global warming too? We could fertilize the ocean making more algae which sequester carbon? We could put sulfur particles into the stratosphere to cool the earth?
I can hear an environmental fundamentalists shout, “DON’T MESS with the climate!” But we already have?”
Queensland has a problem with beetles in its cane fields. I believe a certain South American toad may be the answer we have all been looking for.
By the way, I support testing of cloud seeding technology. It’s the other ideas that have me worried. I hope you’re only joking.
Re Cloud seeding in Queensland, Just how effective will it be at increasing runoff, while there might be some largely unproven and probably small increases in rainfall this has to translate into runoff. High potential evaporation and water use by trees/grass will surely severly limit additional runoff delivered to dams, might be good for greening the pastures for the beef industry though. Sounds a bit like pissing tax payers money against the wall, or perhaps in someone’s pocket, are we back to the “special projects” of the “Joe era”.