During 2006 much was said and written about the “extraordinary drought” conditions here in Australia being a consequence of climate change.
I wrote various pieces suggesting that when all the data was in, rainfall for this last year, even for the Murray Darling Basin, would be within the realms of natural variability.
Well the data is now all in and here’s the rainfall graph for the Murray Darling Basin:
.
The Bureau of Meterology has also just published a summary for last year for rainfall with comment that:
“Preliminary data indicate that the average total rainfall throughout Australia for 2006 was about 490 mm, slightly more than the long-term average of 472 mm. However, it is unlikely that many Australians will remember 2006 as a wet year.
The near-normal all-Australian total was made up of well above average totals across the north and inland Western Australia cancelling out the well below average totals recorded in the southeast and far southwest.
Parts of southeast Australia experienced their driest year on record, including key catchment areas which feed the Murray and Snowy Rivers, as did parts of the Western Australian coast, including Perth. In contrast, record high falls were observed in parts of the tropics and inland Western Australia. It was the third-driest year on record for both Victoria and Tasmania, while for the broader southeast Australian region, which also takes in southeast South Australia and southern New South Wales, it was the second-driest.”
Here’s the graph from the Bureau’s report:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Seizing on data like this does not alter the fact that Adelaide, Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane people are screaming at their governments for more water. We can’t all move to the N W of WA in the next 50 years either.
Gavin, I haven’t seized on anything. You were telling us all last year that there is terrible drought because of climate change.
Yes we do have water problems in places like Brisbane, but not because it has been exceptionally dry … rather because the necessary infrastructure has not been built. The longer people like you bang on about climate change … the longer the politicians can keep shifting the blame. Try moving from the anecdotal to the whole picture?
The data doesn’t support the headline. There are regional differences, surprise, it’s a big country. What variances in the temporal and spatial patterns of rainfall?
Got some maps for us?
Unusually dry in the dry parts. Large areas. Real consequences. Food prices. Drought effects on the economy already. Talk of stagflation.
Jennifer is your 2007 policy to deny climate change? Not hot, not dry, polar bears not at threat. In 2006 you accepted warming, you just weren’t sure of the cause (despite giving your support to AP6 & their CO2 sequestering ambitions though). What’s the IPA position on climate change in 2007?
Jennifer: If I bang on, it may be because of what Dr James Hansen said (see Canberra Times headline today), but its generally because I look beyond my desk top and breakfast table top for clues to our environment.
CT “Less than ten years to save earth: expert”
One of the few things I’ve politely asked from contributors at this blog is that they use one name… now Pinxi continues to try a variety. Today its ‘La Pantera Rosa’. I’ve deleted several contributions from her this morning under that name, but being a tad arrogant she keeps reposting the same comment.
I guess it would also be good if people like Pinxi limited the number of comments they made in any one 24 hour period. It gets boring, eg. at the polar bear thread, when the question is rephrased many times and the answer continually ignored. Its potentially even more frustrating when the same commentator starts swapping and changing names.
I la Pantera Rosa. Pinksi her likes me to watsh! She found tired of rog peetty name insults whole of the time. She like evidence much but no coming. davidtokyo & george post very much into todo night long. La Pantera Rosa es ok, makes things rosy:
About 25 years ago, pre GW, I bought some country in Wide Bay. When I was complaining about the lack of rain, one February, a wise old farmer took the time to sort me out on this rainfall stuff.
From 66 years of rainfall records on his family property, he showed me that over 4.25″ of the “average” rainfall, was actually from cyclones.
“If you want to run a farm in wide bay, take 1.5″ off your January, & 1.25″ off your February rainfall expectations, & run on that”, was his advice.
He also told me my 3 acre dam would be dry, 30% of the time, if I used it for even minor irrigation, & it would fill, about once every 6 years.
Guess what? He was 100% right.
I have just totaled my rainfall record for 2006, for my property on the Albert, south of Brisbane.
16 mm less than average, & thats without a cyclone. Pretty good, “A”.
Good point, Hasbeen. Thats 16mm variation on an average of about 1000mm. Some drought in the South East corner, eh?
Most of the urban public now live in a world of “virtual weather”, which has nothing to do with real rainfall or real temperature. It is whatever the departmental spivs and spin doctors want it to be, for whatever policy objective it is required for at the time.
We are governed and informed by the kind of pond life that are capable of adopting the policy that you can flog anything to a fool in crisis.
Happy New Year Mr Mott. Jennifer has new year rules:
1. Assume good faith from your opponent
2. Address only the argument
The dry conditions in southern and eastern Australia in 2006 have continued the long-term rainfall deficiencies in many regions, some of which extend back more than five years. Aspects of this multi-year drought are highly unusual and unprecedented in many areas.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20070103.shtml
“Most scientists agree this is part of an enhanced Greenhouse effect,” bureau senior climatologist Neil Plummer said.
“Temperatures are actually rising a little bit faster over Australia compared to the global average, and we know that of Australia’s 20 hottest years, 15 have occurred since 1980.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21005651-601,00.html
La Pantera Rosa, aka Pinxi, I’m curious to know why you would bother to repeat the new rules to Ian when in the last 24 hours you have broken every one more than once. perhaps you consider yourself some how special? do you see yourself as the special commentator at this blog who enforces the rules, while being exempt from the same?
“I guess it would also be good if people like Pinxi limited the number of comments they made in any one 24 hour period. It gets boring, eg. at the polar bear thread, when the question is rephrased many times and the answer continually ignored.”
Hi Jennifer,
I trust you will apply these rules to the likes of David at Tokyo. If she changed her name, maybe it means she is frustrated? Pinxi had asked a question (repeatedly) regarding your evidence on the polar bear thread.I can’t see that you have answered this really. Perhaps Pinxi and I are both missing something?
Apologies to all for going off topic here.
Ms LPR,
It seems CSIRO and BoM are in disagreement on this one;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20980220-2,00.html
No concensus here!
regards,
Jim
I think the consensus is quite good.
Seems Barrie Hunt does believe in greenhouse after all.
December 29, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rain-wont-end-our-problems-climate-expert/2006/12/28/1166895421393.html
AUSTRALIANS should not stop being concerned about climate change when the drought eventually breaks, a retired climate scientist has warned.
Barrie Hunt, the former head of the CSIRO’s climate modelling program, said there seemed to be widespread confusion about the causes of the drought sapping south-eastern Australia, with some people convinced it was entirely due to global warming.
Using climate models to try to replicate how weather might change over 10,000 years, Mr Hunt has concluded that the drought is part of a naturally occurring cycle of dry and wet periods in Australia.
But he said there were also clear signs that climate change was making the drought worse, with a run of record hot weather in recent years contributing to drier ground and record low run-off of rain.
“The temperature signals we’re getting are very clear, distinct greenhouse signals,” he said. “The warming over the past 10 years, you can’t explain that. There isn’t any great variability from year to year; it’s going up and up and up. If it was natural variability you would be having years of below-average temperature.”
But he said that judging the effects of climate change on rainfall patterns was much more complex. It could take another 20 to 30 years for a clear trend to emerge.
Mr Hunt said if people believed the drought was entirely caused by climate change, they might think it was no longer an issue once better rain returned.
“So it’s very important to feed into the public consciousness the fact that there is a lot of climatic variability going on, with which the greenhouse effect is interacting.”
Mr Hunt said it appeared likely that south-eastern Australia would become drier, with climate change increasingly responsible.
Off the pace Jim, Hunt has flipped as in Liz Minchin December 29, 2006 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rain-wont-end-our-problems-climate-expert/2006/12/28/1166895421393.html
“So it’s very important to feed into the public consciousness the fact that there is a lot of climatic variability going on, with which the greenhouse effect is interacting. Mr Hunt said it appeared likely that south-eastern Australia would become drier, with climate change increasingly responsible.” Will the PM acknowledge from the SCG.?
When oh when are some of us here going to understand that there is no such thing as consensus science.
Science is about empirical facts – not axioms stated on which most agree on, the Socratic method of deductive logic in other words.
Consensus science is pseudoscience!
So really this is a very stupid debate. We really don’t know whether AGW caused this drought – as we have had bad droughts in the past. Maybe this drought is making a record in headwaters of Snowy and Murray by now – but who cares – we really won’t know if AGW has changed drought frequency for sure for 30-40 years.
But we do have research suggesting an AGW enhancing component.
We do have research suggesting that the southern annular mode (SAM – ozone business) has move southern Australian rainfall patterns into the southern ocean.
Barrie Hunt has pointed out (WITH A HORRID MODEL !! yechy) that there probably is some nasty variability in the system long term.
So we probably have some extreme variability sexed up with anthropogenic influences.
Does it matter to you all that much?
ANYWAY – it’s nasty drought for those involved. Do we take stock this time and undertake some serious planning for better water security in this nation – rural and suburban? OR do we walk away when it rains and say “phew – back to normal” – “back to profligate use”. The “hydro-illogical cycle” turns again.
Anyway when it rains again salinity will be back so we can all bang on about that. A few disaffected souls have a score to settle with Jen on that one.
ABC article Dec 28 “New research from the CSIRO suggests the current drought is due to natural variation in climate, not the greenhouse effect”
“Barrie Hunt, an honorary research fellow at the CSIRO’s atmospheric research centre in Melbourne, has studied 10,000 years of climate variability in Australia” Oh dear, he must be quite old hey.
“I think it’s probably a bit too early yet to say” etc etc.
How long does he need?
Sorry folks but someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes
Luke/Bazza – suspiciously straw man!
I NEVER suggested that BH didn’t accept AGW – he acknowledges it in the article I linked to – but he does dispute any clear link between AGW and the current drought.
Climate change cannot influence anything – it is not a force, it is not a process, it is a totally subjective interpretation of weather over 30 years. It is a conclusion derived from physical phenomena constrained to the troposphere.
Climate change cannot cause a drought! Climate change is going on with which the greenhouse effect is interacting?
Codswollop – how can something which is part of “climate change” interact with itself, ie climate change.
I can see Motty hasn’t improved over Chrissy.
In any case he’s talking utter crap – BoM confirms a severe drought in the catchment. NRM runoff calculations now have the inflows as worst on record – so that’s that. Eat stats !
I think Qlder’s are sick of dudes from boutique farmlets and their little woodlots from northern NSW telling us what to do. Go home cockie !
Bring back the border gate.
Libby,
Feeling frustrated is no reason to pursue an issue or a person relentlessly. In my opinion Pinxi has a habit of doing the same, and has chased people like Ian Castles away. Indeed, I am often reluctant to enter a thread because I don’t feel like being bullied by Pinxi.
As regards the polar bear issue, I believe I have more than answered the question and provided the evidence. So you can’t see it, or don’t like it because Stirling has a different view? I have not thought much of your arguments/evidence on lung fish or polar bears … but I try and be respectful and I have not forced the issue.
In contrast I think you have provided great insight wrt to whales, dugongs and the baiji on many occasions. I have also appreciated your insight on bush meat etcetera.
It seems the temperature/rainfall data is like the interest rate/inflation data that the news bulletins used to love.As usual there seems to be something in it for everyone. Whatever the question global warming is to blame!
Here in our little patch of Australia, 2006 was the seventh driest year on record. Below details listed.
YEAR Mils.
1922 295.4
1925 339.9
1888 342.8
1919 353.6
1918 354.1
1915 356.7
2006 378.1
Two other bad years were ,
1957 381.2
1994 381.6
The 2002 drought, 411 mils.
In the long dry period from 1928 to 1948 there were a number of bad years in the 400 to 460 mil range, and in the period of the Federation Drought, 1896 to 1908, there were several bad years in the 450 to 550 ml range.
Uncomfortable, but all within the norm, no matter how hard the AGW spin doctors may try to prove otherwise.
In the lare 40’s and 50’s, extreme climatic, oops, weather events were blamed on ‘the bomb’. Remember?
Oh Jennifer, You really shouldn’t have picked at that old scab again. Mr Castles compared different years and played semantics in trying to defend his claim that Australia does not give less than the OECD average in aid. The official figures are out now – that author was right, Mr Castles not.
“.. Australia will still be near the bottom of the list of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) donor countries, coming 18th out of the 22 countries.”
http://www.worldvision.com.au/wvconnect/content.asp?topicID=138
” The Reverend Tim Costello this morning chided the Federal Government and his brother over what he regards as its appalling and misleading record on foreign aid.”
“Tim Costello says that while other countries are increasing foreign aid, the Howard Government has slashed its budget.”
It’s off topic but this is the 2nd or 3rd time you’ve made such an accusation about Mr Castles, Jennifer, hence I’m responding.
Regarding Mr Castles arguments that misrepresented the amount of aid that Australia donates, consider:
“Tim Costello says there’s a lot of spin concealing just how little Australia spends on foreign aid.”
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1791625.htm
Jim – sorry if it sounded hay man-ish.
Look there will be a number of views on this issue. Neville Nicholls attributed extra severity in the 2002 drought due to temperature and AGW – he’s quite conservative. CSIRO are investigating changes in southern oscillation which show links with rainfall decline and the ozone hole.
There’s lots of research going on, some speculation. Come back in 40 years and you may have very good statistical proof. One needs to remember that AGW is just getting started. Wait till you get 2 x CO2.
And nobody said you can’t have a bit of both natural and anthropogenic going on. Does it matter that much? Our national response to water resources, drought and drought planning does matter !
If we did have more droughts due to climate change the Feds would have to adjust their drought assistance scheme though. After on/off droughts since 1991 I think treasury are getting nervous.
Gee maybe Sid lives on Christmas Island – we’ll assume from various hints that it’s Breeza district somewhere – he make wish to clarify. If it is, then the data indicate that he would not be in extreme drought. – Yes agree. Don’t give us the exact grid co-ords Sid or we’ll know how to select the Exocet trajectory program.
Louis – you little beauty. “Climate change is going on with which the greenhouse effect is interacting” – I thought you used to say the the greenhouse effect was bogus. Now it’s interacting?
Pinxi ( aka Capt´n Pugwash etc etc )
“davidtokyo & george post very much into todo night long.”
different time zone dear ;9
Jennifer are we parting ways over our understanding of what constitutes evidence and how it should be used to support a point?
To answer your questions, as I see it, you dodge accountability for your claims. You select convenient items, argue that uncorrelated data amounts to evidence, or you use weak evidence and ignore other contributing factors. You publicly discredit the findings of experienced scientists without good reason but don’t like being questioned yourself.
Given that you heavily promote an evidence-based approach, influence policy in your job, and are leading the AEF on evidence-based science, can you do a post on your standards for identifying relevant evidence and describe good practice for drawing conclusions from valid evidence? It might clarify matters.
I doubt that the media will grill the BoM on the accuracy of their Annual Climate Report.
The whole Report is presented from the position of promoting AGW.
The report notes that there have now been more then five straight years of drought in parts of SE Aust.”Aspects of this multi-year drought are highly unusual and unprecented in many areas,” it says.
This is plainly untrue and misleading, in many areas. The present spell is in no way, unusual or unprecented. In fact it is quite insignificant when compared with the 1928/48 period; or with that of the Federation Drought period. And the BoM knows it. However the BoM also knows that a compliant media will not take them to task over it.
Does anyone take the pink panther seriously? the bumbling and incompetent Inspector “pinksy” Clouseau has had one too many shots in the dark.
Pinxi,
When you are not pursuing me because you didn’t like my answer to one of your questions, you are posing another question. I have other things to do. This blog is not about me answering all YOUR questions? This blog is not so you can question my integrity every other day and continually cross examine me. Rather it is for the sharing of information.
What about you providing a definition of evidence? What about you providing a guest post on polar bears?
Nevertheless, I provide the following information in good faith, but should it be insufficient for you, please don’t pursue me for more, because I owe you nothing.
On the subject of evidence… whole text books have been written on what constitutes evidence and definitions perhaps vary between disciplines.
My training is as a biologist.
In my early years some great teachers impressed on me the power of observation and the importance of distinguishing between what you saw and what you thought you saw.
I discovered just getting this right is a real skill … and accurately recording what I saw was not always easy.
They taught me important skills for experimentation and successful field work.
Indeed I am referring to a skill that is learnt over time, that becomes habit and that can require great discipline.
Then there is another way of answering your question, and it is by way of reference to a quote from Thomas Huxley. He has written:
“My business is to each my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonise with my aspirations. Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian concept of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before each fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only began to learn content and piece of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.”
PS I think I will post the Huxley quote as a new thread.
Sid – you don’t know some areas are not worst on record without a 5 year percentile analysis – have you got one !
Jennifer, Indeed surely we are not blogging about misleading crumbs thrown to chummy chooks with less, or worse simply selective info at their finger tips. Your newspaper article ( The Land) says “Indeed we are all now expected to do something about climate change, but not expected to make up our own minds on the issue. One of my concerns with the blind focus on carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming is that it ignores the many other factors which may be contributing to changed weather patterns. ” Indeed your mind should now be made up on your concerns, as I now expect it is( very exciting for me to get from you please even a feel for how you killed uncertainty, it is clearly the enemy, but then again maybe you were generating it , spinning a tangled web by diverting to minor issues) so then what is your attribution table/ranking for the influence of all our current changed weather patterns,perhaps in % terms compared with demon CO2 of the blind focus. (And there are lots of ways to go blind.) So I now conclude your clever and contrived blog actually generates more uncertainty than it removes. What a wonderful world that wouldn’t be.
Bazza,
Im just trying to understand, not confuse.
Luke has written a bit on this issue at this blog, check out one of his guest posts under the climate category (1 and/or 2) … he tries to tease apart different components with a focus on ozone as well as co2 etcetera.
Reading from an IPCC document in front of me influences might include, additional to co2:
stratospheric ozone, trosopheric ozone, sulfate, black carbon from fossil fuel buring, organic carbon from fossil fuel burning, biomass burning, aerosol indirect effects, land use and solar.
The paper seeks to measure radiative forcing for the year 2000 relative to 1750. The ‘aerosol indirect effect’ seems to potentially have had a rather large cooling influence?
Seems to much records…coldest December in NZ in 78 years and warmest December in Norway since temperature measurements started (1900)…what conclusions can be made???
Extreme weather patterns???
Jennifer you’re not doing field research, you’re dismissing the work of those that do. You write politically motivated opinion pieces and promote your public profile. You downplay your long-running industry funded biases as you sit behind a desk and dismiss the science of established and respected field researchers. I treat you more kindly than you treat them.
You make claim to noble standards but don’t apply them with rigour or intellectual honesty. Pity Thomas Huxley whose words get abused so. In politically charged posts you claim to have evidence when you can’t draw the connection between the opinion and the cherry-picked data. Given your repeated claims to represent evidence-based science it’s reasonable to expect that you have a considered position on this and you accept requests for the evidence underlying your claims with defensive denial. Evidence is not something you selectively isolate to support a pre-decided opinion.
It’s concerning that you claim to represent objective science when scientific findings that contradict your opinions are put before you and you refuse to even acknowledge them. This happened in the polar bear thread. Who is fooled? As a biologist you must know to consider the broader ecological system influences that instead you choose to ignore.
I think Mr Hunt has oversimplified the issue of heat and reduced runoff. Once a soil moisture profile has been depleted then no amount of additional heat will have any impact on the runoff from the next rainfall event.
As it has done for millions of years, the land soaks up as much of each rainfall event as it needs to restore full moisture profiles and the rest flows into the creek.
The heat can speed up the depletion of the profile between events but in a context of drought, this is not relevant because the profile is already depleted.
And Luke, the BOM is plain wrong when their maps show Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coasts in serious drought. The records simply do not support that view. A drought is certainly underway in the Brisbane valley and the Dam catchments but the BOM maps do not colour code each recording point accurately.
Ann – trends Ann – trends – you need to graph some trends not get overly fixated on one record (fun though it is). Have a re-read of my “Is Global Warming Cool” post and look at the trend in low percentile minimum temperatures. Anyway AGW is a long term thing – years to go and lots of CO2 warming built in already. We have a saying “one swallow doesn’t make a summer”.
I also note that the BOM’s five year means don’t lag the annual data. The mean peaks in the same year that the data peaks, as in 1980, above.
One must only conclude that this BOM 5 yr mean either;
1 includes two years ahead as well as two in arrears (weird) or
2 the graph is plain bollocks
It was my general understanding that a five year moving average was an average of the current and previous four years. But hey, if that doesn’t tell the right story then, what the heck, every other department uses shonked up data.
That’s all I wanted to hear you say Ian – I can now rest – “A drought is certainly underway in the Brisbane valley and the Dam catchments.”
NRM has excellent simulations of the inflows and historical comparison IMHO. They have the numbers and the validation and it’s worst on record (> 1902) for inflows – but who cares really.
So it’s a very bad drought. A pub argument on “worst” or the cause (AGW vs Natural) but the engineers will win on the numbers. But too many people in SEQ and more coming, profligate waste of water, not enough planning and maintenance.
But if you want to rail against policy – building dams, rainwater tanks, recycling – go right ahead and kick at will.
Of course it’s the crisis we had to have isn’t it – same with health, power grid, children in care – nobody would spend any big dosh without a crisis – it’s the way we all now are.
If you tried to develop a new SE Qld water policy when Wivenhoe was 75% full they’d laugh at you.
You need the power grid to shit itself in a heatwave/storm sequence to make people take note.
Hi Luke,
Gonna check out your post…but I have zero intention to discuss climate issues with you guys.
I have already been flogged and crucified in the GMO thread,LOL!
I belong in the animal kingdom…
Ian interesting point – I would have though you’d do 5 years take a mean and put the first point over year 3. Then move the sequence along one and redo – next point over year 4 and so on. Also means you have to stop before the end. They seem to have put first point over year 6 to start ??
But I won’t say they’re shonks – we’ll do what’s called “ask”.
Ann – we don’t flog people who are polite and charming. 🙂 And we would never crucify a lady.
Oh OK – the first graph is an 11 year moving average. The bottom graph is a 5 year moving average.
So for 11 year – add first 11 years and first value goes over the mid-point – year 6 – and so on and on. SO it is right.
Luke,
” Ann – we don’t flog people who are polite and charming. 🙂 And we would never crucify a lady.”
this will come back and haunt you one day 😉
Unless it’s George wearing a nice frock.
Lukeylook,
Next time you want to try and crucify me, make sure you ask what I´m wearing first ;O) If it´s the wee black number, all´s ok .op
It would seem that the only place to put a record of the average of the past five years would be in the last year of the sequence. Ditto for for 11 year averages.
And Luke, a drought in Esk does not mean a drought in Cleveland, Noosa or Surfers.
Well I’d put at the midpoint myself.
On your last point about Cleveland etc – agree.
Come and live in the western suburbs of Sydney and see how hot it is all year round…Global dimming is the new word not climate change or global warming..
Where I live the storms – sometimes called hot storms never have rain anymore only severe lightning…I watch weekly as some of Sydney does have rain but we hardly ever do anymore.
El Nino followed by La Nina is devestating the entire Mainland of Australia…The Darling River dried up in places…1500 farmers per week leaving the land-1 farmer every two days committing suicide, there is devestation on a grand scale right now…
What if it the rains dont come in time-what if El Nino/La Nina just continue in the pacific for years to come, what then??
Most dams around Australia are completely dry..Stage 5 water restrictions in most of NSW…Total water restrictions on the central coast..Goulburns dam dried out two years ago and just had some welcome rain…but the salinity is the real worry..
Homes cracking everywhere in Sydney-92% of NSW in total drought..Its almost like the 83-87 drought only far worse. We wont recover from this for decades..Free trade agreements killing the farmers…
The Central west of NSW is cracking so much that if it does rain in the near future it will just wash away more land…
did you know your a google whack