Snow on the Dandenongs and the heaviest falls on Mt Buller for seven years provide further proof of “Climate Change”, if not of global warming. Keeping that distinction in mind is a precondition for not being swindled.
A second line of defence against mumbo-jumbo is to recall that the philosopher Karl Popper promoted falsifiability as essential to the logic of scientific enquiry. He reasoned that any hypothesis which is so structured as to be incapable of refutation is pseudo-science.
The “Climate-Change” band trumpets all data about rising temperatures as evidence to buttress their hypothesis. However, not so long ago they were perplexed by inconvenient truths such as the occasional severe winter. On the face of it, such cold snaps surely count against global warming? This is where the “Extreme Event” comes in handy.
The “Climate-Change” faithful now have the power to levitate above the embarrassment of awkward evidence. To deal with exceptions, they have conceived the metaphysical category of the “Extreme Event”. This phrase does not refer to weather which has extreme consequences, such as the past 48 hours in Victoria. The significance is altogether different. The “Extreme Event” is a device for ruling out the very possibility of contrary evidence and, thus, for denying the prospect of Popperian falsification.
The “Climate Change” sophists proceed thus: the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect does more than push up average temperatures. It also increases instability. So, while a denser greenhouse mostly makes the planet hotter/drier, it will also make it colder/wetter in some places at certain times.
That Janus outcome is indeed possible. Hence, to decide whether each event is evidence for or against one or other of the current explanations for the latest changes in climate, we need to specify causes. The devastation from Hurricane Katrina was so extreme because of policies of US governments. It is pseudo-science to attribute every hurricane or blizzard to an amorphous “Climate Change”.
If all swings in the weather are worshipped as manifestations of “Climate Change”, that hypothesis is elevated above the realm of rational enquiry. Its advocates have entered the domain of theology where all outcomes — even the cruelest — are accepted as God’s working in his mysterious ways to reveal his omnipotent Goodness.
by Humphrey McQueen in an article entitled:
How the “Climate-Change” faithful spin cold weather
at Crikey.com.au
Subscribe now.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer – “The significance is altogether different. The “Extreme Event” is a device for ruling out the very possibility of contrary evidence and, thus, for denying the prospect of Popperian falsification.”
Why would one event, hot or cold, be evidence for or against global warming?
Haven’t we progressed from “Its cold today therefore global warming is wrong”
For goodness sakes why would you even grace such crap with a blog entry?
Hence ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change.’
Katrina was a cat 3 hurricane (I experienced cat 4 hurricane Frances first hand in 2004) and the situation of New Orleans is well known. Recent papers have further weakened efforts to link hurricanes with recent warming.
Depends who you mean by ” we” Ender.
It’s hard to deny that if the recent record cold days had been record warm for this time of the year, we’d have plenty of expert commentary about this being further evidence of global warming.
And I’d further guess that many here wouldn’t raise a peep in protest.
Would be great if ‘we” had consistent traetment of this type of event – but double standards are the rule in politics.
What would the true believers say if this
http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/07/17/opinion/letters/doc469c06233d6fa067936413.txt
had been the offending post for example?
Consistent TREATMENT would be even better of course…..
Jennifer: After a quick glance this author also knows nothing about plodding through endless measurements or climbing up the steps of change.
It obviously too easy to force others to do that work for you Jennifer
We have thread after thread of crap in denial of climate change. What about some balance in the name of science where reason based in practice not creativity so common in political spin wins the day, just once hey.
So, “climate change” advocates think the Earth is a magic thermos bottle. If you fill it with something warm, it can become hot or cold. How convenient.
No wonder there’s earthquakes.
We had snow flurries during the night, at just over 500 m. elev, and today no newspapers for the fourth time this winter, because of road closures due to snow.
Elsewhere in the world: ‘Historic snow in Buenos Aires last week; first snowfall ther since 1918’.
‘Many Alaskan glaciers advancing again, incl. three of the largest which have advanced an amazing half km. in 6 months.’ This is consistant with an increasing no. of g’s advancing in many or. parts of the world. Also in many parts of the northern hemisphere, it has been a mild to cold summer so far. Very little comment from the ‘true believers’ on these facts!
In it’s May report, the BoM commented that the unusually warm autumn was consistant with a warming planet, and because of this, it forcast the trend to continue with a warm winter for Aust. (Given prominence in the media).
BoM June report: Had to admit one of the coldest Junes ever, with new lows set in many areas over a third of the continent. (Ignored by the media, except for The Australian). However the BoM went on to predict with confidence that the remainder of the winter, through to the spring would still be warmer. Can’t wait to see their report on July! Bet they will be sweating on August!
But this is deja vu, BoM style…
Last November, they confidently predicted that we would have an extremely hot summer… Of course their March report had to admit that nationwide, it was cooler then expected. (Not given much coverage in the media)… Ho hum.
Paul Biggs
the spin of climate change was created by the American deniers, as it was viewed as being less threatening than global warming. Don’t pin that one on us too.
The catastrophic AGW arguments have almost impenetrable defences. Hot weather, cold, wet, dry, they have them all covered. Then there are the “low”, “medium” and “high” scenarios, and the neat “they are projections not predictions” dodge.
There is one chink in the armour, though. You will never see predictions of climate change resulting in “fewer extreme events”. Not alarming enough. But in Australia, the most alarming extreme weather events, tropical cyclones, are on the decline. This decade has mostly produced below average cyclone numbers, even while tropical rainfall has been above average, and the 2000s are on track to be the quietest decade for cyclones since the 1960s.
So maybe, just maybe, catastrophic AGW is falsifiable after all.
Thank you Humphrey, for that piece of fantasy. Too bad the scientists say something completely different, so you wasted your time beating up a strawman.
braddles – “But in Australia, the most alarming extreme weather events, tropical cyclones, are on the decline”
Tropical cyclones are only one type of extreme event. Though they are huge and destructive they are less damaging to an economy than say a 3 year drought or a massive flood repeated 2 or 3 times in a short interval etc.
Additionally no-one has claimed that climate change from AGW will increase the number of tropical revolving storms. As the spawing of TRSs is a highly complex business and is affected by wind sheer in the upper atmosphere it is unlikely that AGW will produce better storm spawing conditions.
However as the fuel of TRSs is ocean heat, more fuel means that the storms that do spawn will have more fuel to get more intense faster. We should see an increase, not in the amount of storms, but a change in the intensity distribution. ie:of the storms that do form more will reach higher categories. This is what we are seeing at the moment.
For what climate scientists think and lots of links to the basic research read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
spawing that I managed to misspell twice should of course be spawning.
so Humprey McQueen is not an expert says Gavin. And I thought Gavin preferred life experience to expertise? in fact Gavin used to critise me for focusing too much on bits of data … now I’m too anecdotal? it seems impossible to please the doomsayers. 😉
We are now having an extreme event – winter – soon to be followed by another – summer. The inbetween bits are the normal times.
OK so we now know that braddles is just making it up as he/she goes along. AGW doesn’t make any predictions on cyclone numbers – just intensity. You might look up Vance, Ingrid, Nancy and Zoe.
The other usual fantasy is that you’re suggesting that AGW should be predicting massive numbers of extreme events RIGHT NOW. mmm hmmm Says who?
As for Humphrey, the fun loving bear’s stupid analysis above, it again shows the propensity of denialist dopes to pull ideas out of their bums and present them as data.
I did a guest post on cold event trends some time ago but why let actual numbers intrude.
What is actually hilarious is that Humphrey has noted the unusual nature of this cold snap. Haven’t had one for a while ? hmmmm a trend ?
Sid: I took photos yesterday of wide spread snow patches over the ranges to my west. From my window it seems most of is gone today but can you guess what issue remains?
We had some lads with a big jack hammer building a new metal fence through much of last week when the morning fogs crystallized. The talk back radio was full of black ice versus hoar frost discussion with our weather man.
My garden is still bone dry deep down. A very tall green spruce, one of three at the front has lost all its foliage. As Ender says “Tropical cyclones are only one type of extreme event”
In recent weeks a series of big lows crossed the Tasman Sea from SE Aus. I recall some one here going south from QLD to watch some surf as a real coastal drama unfolded in NSW.
As average sea levels creep up, all coast dwellers should consider the possible impacts of big tides, big swells and the duration of these major uplifting events. Homework for everyone with beachfront and artificial lake frontage starts with measuring the hockey stick curvature of sand dunes.
Temperature is only one measure in all AGW type studies. Ask your property insurer.
And as Sid spins and fibs his way with nose growing longer by the day we seem to have this CONVENIENTLY omitted by his cherry pluckin’ studies.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20070703.shtml
For those who are link o’phobic and don’t click the blue one.
It says in part:
“Cold June follows record warm May
June 2007 was the coldest June recorded in Australia since at least 1950, according to the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre. It comes close on the heels of the warmest May in many parts of Australia and the warmest autumn on record in eastern Australia.” {ENDS}
July ain’t finished Sid – wait for them to do the monthly roundup.
Of course the models don’t make predictions about anything that should be happening right now. That, after all, would be potentially falsifiable, which is the issue at hand in this blog post.
I didn’t say that AGW had been falsified, only that it was potentially falsifiable if extreme events don’t increase. But that base is covered too. Apparently a mere cyclone doesn’t count as an extreme weather event. Only the biggest and rarest cyclones will increase in number, we are told. As it happens, these are so irregularly spaced that it could take decades of data to prove a trend. So the models are safe from falsification for many years yet.
Just imagine, though, what would be said if cyclone numbers around Australia were increasing.
braddles – “Apparently a mere cyclone doesn’t count as an extreme weather event. Only the biggest and rarest cyclones will increase in number, we are told. As it happens, these are so irregularly spaced that it could take decades of data to prove a trend. So the models are safe from falsification for many years yet.”
No a cyclone is an extreme event and the increase in global warming will possibly shift the intensity distribution which can be measured.
However climate change can and will be measured by an increase in for example 1 in a hundred year events becoming more frequent. This will however take time as these trends are very slow to become apparent.
“Additionally no-one has claimed that climate change from AGW will increase the number of tropical revolving storms” – Ender
This claim is just absurd. Most public advocates of AGW have made exactly that claim for most of the past decade. It has been one of their most popular predictions; especially following the 2005 Atlantic cyclone season (inc. Katrrina). Just watch “An Inconvenient Truth” for a very good example.
The new “wind shear” theory has been trotted out only since the 2006 season sadly dissapointed the doomsayers. Since so much hot air had been invested in cyclones in the USA after Katrina, I suppose they needed an explanation for why 2006 was a damp squid. If the 2006 Atlantic season had a decent number of cyclones, Ender would not even have heard of “wind shear” yet!
From: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp“>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp”>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/C1.jsp
Intense Landfalling Tropical Cyclones of Northeast Australia
____
Reference
Nott, J., Haig, J., Neil, H. and Gillieson, D. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 255: 367-372.
The authors developed a 777-year-long annually-resolved record of landfalling tropical cyclones in northeast Australia based on analyses of isotope records of tropical cyclone rainfall in an annually-layered carbonate stalagmite from Chillagoe (17.2°S, 144.6°E) in northeast Queensland.
Perhaps the most important discovery of Nott et al.’s investigation was the finding that “the period between AD 1600 to 1800” – when the Little Ice Age held sway throughout the world – “had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period,” when the planet gradually recovered from this cold interlude and began to warm at a rate that rose to ultimately become what climate alarmists typically characterize as unprecedented over the past millennium or more, and when temperatures rose to a level they claim was equally unprecedented.
The four researchers write that “the only way to determine the likely future behavior of tropical cyclones is to first understand their history from high resolution records of multi-century length or greater.” Based on (1) this obvious truth, (2) their specific findings, and (3) the similar findings of Donnelly and Woodruff (2007) and Nyberg et al. (2007) in the Northern Hemisphere, it would appear that global warming at the very least will not lead to an increase in the frequency of occurrence of intense hurricanes over wide reaches of the globe, contrary to what climate alarmists such as Al Gore vociferously contend.
References
Donnelly, J.P. and Woodruff, J.D. 2007. Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African Monsoon. Nature 447: 465-468.
Nyberg, J., Malmgren, B.A., Winter, A., Jury, M.R., Kilbourne, K.H. and Quinn, T.M. 2007. Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years. Nature 447: 698-701.
Reviewed 18 July 2007
Humphrey McQueen is a scum sucking bottom feeder.
“The “Climate Change” sophists proceed thus: the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect does more than push up average temperatures. It also increases instability. So, while a denser greenhouse mostly makes the planet hotter/drier, it will also make it colder/wetter in some places at certain times.
That Janus outcome is indeed possible. Hence, to decide whether each event is evidence for or against one or other of the current explanations for the latest changes in climate, we need to specify causes. The devastation from Hurricane Katrina was so extreme because of policies of US governments. It is pseudo-science to attribute every hurricane or blizzard to an amorphous “Climate Change”. ”
It’s just shooting the messenger, pure and simple. If that is what the projections of Climate Warming indicate, that’s what they indicate. There will be a lot more energy in the atmosphere, and a lot more water vapour. If that means there will be more extreme weather, then that’s what it means. To say it’s a deception, designed to mislead to people, which is what he is claiming, is so debased it’s unbelieveable. Who am I to believe, science or an abusive opinion piece writer?
Even Kanoly, on ABC recently, let slip the fact that most of the recorded “warming” is not associated with an increase in extremes but, rather a serious outbreak of mildness. Kanoly mentioned that most warming was from an increase in night time minimums which was consistent with the trapping of insolation by CO2. He did not mention that it is also consistent with the trapping of insolation by clouds.
These are not extreme events. And the BoM is wrong to even suggest that a warmer May is some sort of extreme because every one of the temp records in such a May have already been seen in a March or April.
It is not surprising that a collection of highly conformist public servants might tend to view any variation from a narrow mean as some sort of extreme event. But the rest of us do not suffer altitude sickness when confronted by a colour other than beige.
The recent posts of the UK graphs (see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/2007_06.html )outline exactly where the changes have taken place that produced a 0.6C higher annual mean. And in every part of the record the primary contributors were an increasing number of slightly warmer records within the existing range of variation.
We saw three or four extended autumns rather than just the one or two of previous times. We saw more winter monthly means that were closer to the decadal mean. Nothing to scare the kids about at all.
The Victorians may not think so at present but the only species likely to be impacted by this kind of warming are the “brass monkeys”.
By the way, if the models are predicting an increase in extreme events and climatic volatility then they should also be calculating how much of the additional energy trapped in this greenhouse will be dissipated by increased circulation.
I admit to having no idea how much energy would be required to increase the rate of total oceanic circulation by 0.5km/hour, or the global mean wind speed by 1km/hour, but one can be certain that it is an awful lot.
Can any of our would be Climate Champions enlighten us on whether the climate modellers actually calculate the energy used in such a response and, more importantly, deduct it from their heat balances?
Or do they simply report these outcomes as a “threat” but fail to adjust their models for the enegy used?
The Greenies latch on to anything vaguely (accent on vaguely) scientific which is capable of casting an aura of ‘mystery’ upon Nature’s Processes.
Once they become sufficiently mysterious, they become objects of worship. As objects of worship, humans have no way of dealing with them, other than through atonement.
Casting virgins into volcanoes is illegal in most jurisdictions, but casting money into bottomless pits is permitted everywhere. Especially if there are Greenies and government bureaucrats waiting at the bottom of the pit.
Well Bill – that’s why you should read publications not hearsay. CSIRO modelling has claimed any change in numbers.
The 4AR specifically says “Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a significant upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer lifetimes and greater storm intensity, and such trends are strongly correlated with tropical SST. These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 globally since 1970 even as total number of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins.” {ENDS}
But check the intensity of systems like Vance and Ingrid. Some theory even suggests a reduction in numbers from this increased storm intensity but there are other factors.
There was NO AGW prediction for 2006 or any year.
Moreover a trend over time. In any case there are a number of reasons for lack of systems in 2006 – wind shear, dust etc that have been discussed. Clearly global warming is not asserted to be the only driver of hurricane/cyclone behaviour.
So Bill stop pulling ideas out of your butt and start quoting some sources instead of “I read in a paper that a greenie said.. ..”.
And poor old Sid – I can see why he’s mortified and in need of a diversion.
Year to date is running second warmest globally on record. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jun/glob-jan-jun-pg.gif
Ian
Karoly did not let anything “slip”. Get over it man, take your pills.
Schiller.
“The Greenies latch on to anything vaguely (accent on vaguely) scientific which is capable of casting an aura of ‘mystery’ upon Nature’s Processes.”
That is exactly what Bob Carter does. The climate always changes. That’s as far as he goes. It’s a mysterious process we cannot understand.
Luke
how many of those ocean measurements are taken next to the barbeque?
Luke
I said that “most public advocates” of AGW have predicted increasing numbers of cyclones – and they have, AIT being a prominent example. I did not refer to “scientists”, the IPCC, or the CSIRO – just public advocates.
Are you allways so abusive to anyone who posts anything you don’t like?
Bill – increasing so unfortunately. This blog gets you that way.
Public advocates – weeeelll didn’t Gore actually say that category 4 & 5 systems had doubled in the last 30 years sourced from “Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688”
“then they should also be calculating how much of the additional energy trapped in this greenhouse will be dissipated by increased circulation” – gee is that so? WOW ! Quick ring them up and tell them.
“Or do they simply report these outcomes as a “threat” but fail to adjust their models for the enegy used?” – the old “so you haven’t been beating your wife trick”.
And Karoly actually was only partially right the diurnal range has not been narrowing in recent years. Check the 4AR !
I would like to make the following observation.
Australia had the coldest June recorded:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml
New Zealand was overall 0.6C below average in June:
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/mclimsum_07_06
Argentina was overall below average in June:
http://www.smn.gov.ar/?mod=clima&id=1
Southern parts of Brazil have had the coldest climatic winter in recent memory – including June:
http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=32&cod_texto=858
South Africa was very cold in June (also mentioned in the NCDC “extreme” cold weather events):
http://www.weathersa.co.za/Pressroom/2007/2007Jun29ColdWeather.jsp
http://www.weathersa.co.za/Pressroom/2007/2007Jun27GautengSnow.jsp
http://www.weathersa.co.za/Pressroom/2007/2007Jun24ColdSnap.jsp
http://www.weathersa.co.za/Pressroom/2007/2007Jun11LastWeek.jsp
So, it strikes me really odd that ALL the main Southern Hemisphere landmass in the Southern Hemisphere can be below average, yet according to the most recent NOAA/NCDC report, it’s the 12th warmest June EVER for the SH land with a +0.59C above average anomaly!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jun/global.html#Current-month
cheers
Arnost
Luke,
You know all the tricks! You wrote:
“Public advocates – weeeelll didn’t Gore actually say that category 4 & 5 systems had doubled in the last 30 years sourced from “Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688”
But if you go back more than 30 years the trend breakdown. That there were more severe hurricanes hitting the southern US during the 1940s was it? 😉
Bill Curry – “I suppose they needed an explanation for why 2006 was a damp squid. If the 2006 Atlantic season had a decent number of cyclones, Ender would not even have heard of “wind shear” yet!”
Anyone that has read even the smallest amount about hurricane formation is aware of wind shear and the effect on forming hurricanes. 2005 was such a bad year precisely because the wind shear was unusually low. You are ascribing a very low level of knowledge to me which is warranted in a lot of areas however I did read up on TRS formation because it is so interesting.
Certain people have claimed that AGW induced climate change will increase the frequency of hurricanes however I am not responsible for their lack of knowledge and neither is any other AGW advocate. The correct answers are there for these mistaken people just as much as for the deniers. Al Gore is not one of them as he in AIT referred to an increase in CAT4 and CAT5 storms which is in line with Kerry Emmanual’s work on hurricanes. This predicts what I have been saying that of the storms that do form more will reach higher intensities leading to an increase in the higher category storms because of higher SSTs.
Jen – you’re greatest exponent of tricks I’ve ever seen with post after post of cherry-picked denialism. I think it’s time for you to come out and declare your rampant AGW denialism. Anyway all jokes and good humour aside:
A reference pls if you’re gonna play ! This is an evidence based blog isn’t it? Not someone in a corridor told me .. ..
Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years
Kerry Emanuel
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency, and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Back on things cooling off – we’re all going to die in an ice age someone in a corridor told me.
Woo hoo – look at ’em go for the bait.
June was cold was it – ooooo here’s a wiggly data point – come on – as they say on parade at boot camp “WAIT FOR IT!”
So Luke you cherry-picked the time frame? There is not increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes?
Ender – I certainly withdraw my allegation that you had never heard of windshear!
At least you are willing to admit that many public advocates of AGW have been forecasting increasing cyclone frequency.
Yes actually I rang and arranged Kerry Emanuel to use that period. ROTFL Come on Jen – back up your previous assertion.
I’d still like to know who these public advocates were predicting for 2006.
“A second line of defence against mumbo-jumbo is to recall that the philosopher Karl Popper promoted falsifiability as essential to the logic of scientific enquiry. He reasoned that any hypothesis which is so structured as to be incapable of refutation is pseudo-science.”
How enlightening! Its seems the sceptics are not even up to date with their scientific philosophy. Popper is old hat, and definitely pre-quantum. The fact is that since the 1920s physics is essentially NOT falsifiable since it is theory (the English use of theory not the American) led rather than experimental led. There is NO way you can look inside an atom, all you can do is create a mathematical model of the atom, and if your observations of the external behaviour of the system accord with the mathematical model of its ‘mechanics’ than you have a workable model. How workable- well nuclear fission is pretty real, and based only upon theoretical modelling. The same applies to all numerical modelling. The model may not even represent reality- it just happens to explain what we see- thats modern science! This is obviously not the audience that wishes to chase up using models in a statistical/ensemble framework, but you can apply that exactly to climate modelling. You should probably drop Popper if you want to be current and read Thomas Kune.
What exactly is a ” Public Advocate”?
Gore?
Hansen?
Schneider?
Karoly?
Tony Jones?
Anyone who publicly propounds AGW theory – scientists or not?
All of the above?
Arnost,
that’s why we have scientists to study these things in depth, they don’t just say, “it strikes me really odd “, they go and investigate complex science in depth. It takes a lot of people, time and effort, but they do it anyway.
Thats right SJT, go away and study it!
The cold outbreaks that we are experiencing in the Southern Hemisphere have coincided with a very low phase of the Southern Annular Mode. The Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is an intrinsic climate mode like ENSO, but operating on different timescales. If you want to know more about SAM and how it effects SH weather variability (doubt it) look it up! Why do we know this, because we study the climate system everyday- unlike the pretenders on this site.
The interesting thing about the SAM is that it has been trending positive for the last 30 years or so, and that we have had very few cold outbreaks in the last decade or so, which is why this one seems like a shock. What do you know- that trend is consistent with some model simulations of AGW.
Anyway- theres something else to sink your teeth into- I’m sure some of you will get on google and get out your pocket calculators and come up with something bizarre.
Too true, Space, but this case we do have Hansen’s projection, and it is pretty well correct.
People deride models here, but say nothing about the high school science they were taught. Do you people not realise, what they taught you an atom is very different from what an atom is really like?
Were you taught lies? Not at all, you were taught something you could understand that works to a certain extent. If you learn more, the models get more complex. The current state of the models still don’t explain exactly how an atom works. Despite all that, we can do amazing things with atoms, based on this imperfect knowledge.
For those who want to wait for “facts”, you will be waiting a long time.
Quantum physics brings in it’s own complications, as space says. I am not an expect on the matter, (it seems to turn my brain fuzzy when I try to understand it), but many of the things that quantum mechanics says are that there are things we can never really know for certain. That’s why, for example, we refer to the half-life of something. We can measure what proportion will decay in a certain amount of time, but we can never say exactly when it will have all decayed, because it’s all a matter of probability.
That’s what science is about now. Hence the difference between climate forecasting and weather forecasting. One says what the temperature will be tomorrow, and when the changes will occur, the other just says what the average temperature for the planet will probably be, and what the likely distribution of that temperature will be.
While not wishing to dispute the fact that there has been some increase in cyclone intensity, (whether its AGW related or not), I would make the following comments:-
-Since SST has risen over the past 30yrs any climatic output that has also risen over the same (shortish) period will show some correlation.
-Kerry Emanuel uses an (unspecified) index of intensity and duration. Whilst a very valid measure of potential destructiveness, this approach does suggest that neither intensity or duration showed a statistically significant upwards trend on its own? If they did, would he not say so? I would also presume that there is a natural correlation between these two variables anyway- ie stronger cyclones would tend to last longer. It seems that he may have needed to use a certain amount of statistical manouvering to get something statistically significant – which is very common in all sciences.
-KE suggests (tentatively) that it is not just due to AGW, but also multi decadal oscillations.
-KE comments to the effect that most previous work focussed on hurricane frequency – and shows no trend. Call me a cynic, but this strongly suggests that past “modelling” DID forecast increasing frequency. After drawing a blank on empirical evidence for increased frequency, the “modelling” changed and now forecasts what you can find – some increase in intensity. If not quite data mining, this suggests the “modelling” is often adjusted to suit the observations, which says little for AGW as a predictive science. My suspicions are that this sort of approach is very common in AGW!
I’m not a scientist, but I would have thought that higher SST and atmospheric temperatures ought to cause both more frequent and more intense cyclones – not one or the other. Perhaps there hasnt been enough warming.
So Space – you’re saying that SAM and/or the vortex has changed recently?
Arnost – Thanks for all that stuff on Southern Hemisphere June temperatures – it is interesting!
Perhaps Antarctica was warm, its about the only base you haven’t covered.
I think part of the explanation may be the averages NCDC/NOAA use – they seem to be using some sort of average for the 20th Century. That average would be significantly below recent temperatures. The local bureaus you quote may be using a more recent average (I think BOM uses 1961-90.
Bill
No you’re being most unfair – the index is far from unspecified. The maths is all laid out.
yes indeed multi-decadal oscillations are involved.
And I will call you a cynic as I can’t remember any main stream work that predicted an increase in numbers. I’m happy for you to quote some.
Indeed suggests only part of the power dissipation index is directly due to SST increases. He discussed wind shear but most of the decrease occurred before 1970. He does briefly discuss the importance of the temperature distribution of the upper ocean.
In other studies on Katrina specifically:
Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles in Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season, NCAR Scientists Conclude
June 22, 2006
BOULDER—Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic. Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. After effects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.
Previous studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century—and associated hurricane activity—to the AMO. But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming was also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth’s tropical and midlatitude waters. He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures—in effect, separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle. The results show that the AMO is actually much weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also quite active. However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.
Global warming does not guarantee that each year will set records for hurricanes, according to Trenberth. He notes that last year’s activity was related to very favorable upper-level winds as well as the extremely warm SSTs. Each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic SSTs due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, says Trenberth. However, he adds, the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity. {ENDS}
Luke; No the SAM has not done anything particularly unusual- just part of the normal bounds of variability- but at the extreme end of the low phase, and the lowest its been for some time- would have to check exactly how long. The SAM has a week to two week timescale, these very cold outbreaks are consistent with the SAM index for the last month or so- you can look on the CPC website for their AAO index and latest obs. We used to get them more regularly, could be part of a warming patter, but hard to partition the variability as with ENSO.
Ender, you previously stated that you were going to sell your coastal home and build an eco windfarm and you condemned those that doubted you.
So, hows the windfarm?
*sound of crickets playing cards*
SJT-
I think we can summarise the argument thus:
These people are not prepared to accept the statistical probability that, based on a range of the best numerical modes, CO2 is very likely to warm the atmosphere. However they are prepared to conduct an uncontrolled experiment on the actual climate system.
The only problem is Gavin, that sea levels are just not creeping up…Except in some IPCC fudged data sets. But maybe you have some clean data to prove your point. Do look forward to seeing it.
Sid: Next time you’re at the coast during a storm leave your mark in the sand at high tide. What’s the bet it won’t be there next storm?
Don’t like the beach? Take a hammer and chisel then leave your mark on a rock and start counting the number of times you get wet feet going back.
Lets be dinkum for the grandkids hey
rog – “Ender, you previously stated that you were going to sell your coastal home and build an eco windfarm and you condemned those that doubted you.
So, hows the windfarm? ”
Apart from being off topic it is also wrong and a bit twisted.
I am sure that no-one is the least bit interested in my retirement plans so I do not intend to grace this with an answer on this thread. If you want to start a discussion on alternative energy then you had your chance on the nuclear energy post where the crickets are chirping merrily.
Looking at the raw data there isn’t much of a trend in U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Malciolm – THanks for that. It ceratanly shows no trend to a simpleton to me. Give it to a statistician who needs to get something in a “peer reviewed journal” and I think you would be surprised at just how many trends he could find in that date.
A VERY cold night coming up for SEQ! There a likely to be a number of sub zero temps down to the coast. I heard that Yandina hit 0C before 11pm.
Rug up!
Jeez Bill – have a basic look at what you’re being presented 3,4 and 5 lumped together. One ocean basin. You’re not going to find anything in broad categories like this. You have underlying decadla oscillations which can increase or decrease particular seasons. You guys are very easily fooled/convinced.
Emanuel sought to see if the “energy” in storms had increased as you might expect of there was some accelerating influence. His index takes into account wind speed, storm area and storm lifetime.
It’s tad complex but totally explicit as a calculation – no stats tricks. And greater storm intensities and storm lifetimes have seen the index go bananas since the 1970s.
In our region contemplate Vance, Ingrid, Zoe and Nancy and you might start thinking.
Happy to send the paper to anyone who wants (through Jen).
P.S. Arnost yes all SEQ global warmers have not got their heaters on (Trust us) 🙂
Thanks for the data on SH temps, Arnost. Notice how the bimboscenti completely ignored the implications of it so they can maintain their little vaudeville patter.
I have given up on any coherent input from Luke, nothing but bile, sneer and spittle. So can anyone advise us as to what proportion of total solar energy is used in shifting 300 million odd cubic Km of water around?
Yes its all the americans fault there making the planet hotter. How arrogarant we humans have become. thinking that we can actually change the atmosphere. Co2 is such a puny gas not much of it really compared to n2 or o2 doubling of co2 will not do squat to the atmosphere it will only grow better plants. we should be very concerned with the approaching mounder minimum hey what made all this ice in the first place. better do your research on the sun instead its the only thing that drives the atmosphere not us
You should take your own advice Ender and delete the gratuitous comments.
Yep – them thar CO2 molecules need a good steak to beef’em right up. Little fellers can’t hold on to their radiation as darned as they try. I’d rather be one of those diatomic jobs and not shake my dipole every other moment.
How can a minimum be a mound? Is a minimal mound actually flat?
DJ from the BOM tells us why this winter is cold and wet.
http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=29647&category=National%20News
It never ceases to amaze me how the brainwashed man made global warming lobby, are prepared
to slander anyone and tell blatant lies to defend their standpoint. One prime example involves the channel 4 documentary ‘ The Great Global Warming Swindle ‘. I read AGW supporters trying to debunk the data presented in the programme, however this data is well established and much of it is contained in the IPCC report. As a consequence of this they are often effectively shooting
themselves in the foot.
Most of the problem with the IPCC scenario is the use of computer models which so-far, have
wrongly predicted the climate for the past 20 years. Also any data which threatens to
challenge the desired preconcieved conclusions is ignored. The final reports are edited by
civil servants with no scientific qualifications , who prepare a summary policy document, which does not accurately refect the findings and conclusions of the original report .
The result is a polical agenda document and not a scientific one. Anyone who doubts this should read the actual report and compare it with the summary document.
The IPCC’s exaggerations and errors parallel those of Al Gore in his notorious
sci-fi horror film, now being peddled to schoolchildren worldwide.
A referenced list of some of the dozens of fundamental scientific
errors in Gore’s film, which AGW supporters choose to ignore :-
· Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that
of the Middle Ages, promoted the flawed and debunked 1,000-year “hockey stick”
temperature chart (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005). Which the IPCC have removed
from their report.
· Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a
link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that has no basis
in scientific fact (IPCC, 2001, 2007).
· Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while
ignoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as warm or
warmer (Briffa et al., 2004).
· Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated
with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2
concentrations (Soon, 2005).
· Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50
years than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al.,
2005).
· Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only
true of a small region and the vast bulk of the continent has been cooling and
gaining ice (Doran et al., 2004).
· Gore mentioned the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf, but did not mention that
the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
(Pudsey & Evans, 2001, 2006; Vaughan et al., 2001).
· Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing. In
fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade
(Johannesen et al., 2005).
· Gore falsely claimed that global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s icecap,
actually caused by atmospheric dessication from local deforestation, and pre-
20th-century climate shifts (Cullen et al., 2006).
· Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and
other coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate is just 8in
to 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004).
· Gore implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, failing to
state that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other South American
glaciers are advancing (Polissar et al., 2006).
· Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, though NASA
scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably
to blame (Foley & Coe, 2001).
· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact
11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have
more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).
· Gore said the ocean absorbs heat from the Sun, when in fact the ocean takes
nearly all of its heat from the atmosphere, without which the ocean would freeze
over (Houghton, 2002).
· Gore said a review of 928 scientific papers had shown none against the
“consensus”. In fact only 1% of the papers were explicitly pro-“consensus”;
almost 3 times as many were explicitly against (Peiser, 2006).
· Gore implied that changes in temperature followed changes in CO2 concentration
in the past 500,000 years, but in fact temperature changes preceded changes in
CO2 concentration (Petit et al., 1999; Mudelsee, 2001).
Were these and other serious errors accidental? It is unlikely. Every single
one of the errors magnifies, overstates, or exaggerates the supposed
problem. Not one of the errors understates it.
The film also omits to make any of the following balancing points
Gore never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in alleviating
hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and democratizing
consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility.
Gore never acknowledges that there are many environmental, health, and
economic benefits of climatic warmth and the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2
content.
Gore neglects to mention that aggregate mortality and mortality rates due to
extreme weather events declined dramatically during the 20th century.
No bad – only about 10 porkies.
Andy
the models have been mostly correct with their predictions, if you mean they aren’t perfect, they never have been and they never will be.
Hansens prediction to Congress was pretty well spot on.
Porkies? List them you boorish moron.
Good post Andy.
“· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact
11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have
more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).”
False dichotomy. The bear population could be under stress from reducing ice, and recovering from overhunting at the same time.
The recent bout of cold weather was a welcome relief from nearly 6 years of unusually warm winters. Hopefully there are more cold ones to come. In the near term, weather models favour quite warm weather in NSW starting next week and extending into early August as a high pressure ridge parks itself over the Tasman. Perhaps by the end of the month July won’t turn out so cold.
Luke – You seem to think this work by Trenberth and Shea, (TS), refutes something or other I said about Kerry Emanuel’s work? I’m not clear what, or why, though. The TS work obviously relates to ocean temperatures not cyclones. Comments relating to cyclones in the Boulder press article seem to have been initiated by the journalist, clearly in order to enhance public interest in the article.
If Trenberth actually did attribute increased cyclone frequency in the North Atlantic to warming or AGW that conclusion is probably wrong. Obviously all oceans have warmed somewhat and yet global cyclone frequency has not increased. If there was a definite link then cyclone frequencies should be rising, at least in most basins – that isn’t the case. If Trenberth attributed Katrina’s strength to AGW that conclusion would also probably be wrong. Katrina was an intense cyclone but not uniquely so – and is a sample of one anyway.
The analysis from the National Hurricane Centre that Malcolm posted is really quite interesting. Admittedly it is for “strikes”, (not total cyclone numbers), and is only for the North Atlantic. For the North Atlantic the 1940s was the heaviest calendar decade, though the 2000s may well challenge. But most of the other heavier decades tended to be back between 1870-1920 – when global temperatures were undoubtedly significantly cooler than today. Certainly doesn’t do much to even confirm a link between SST and cyclones at all!
Bill – no – all you have is 3,4 and 5 linked together. You can’t see anything in that.
There’s no good reason to even suggest more storms. Faster and bigger storms may take more energy out of the oceans.
Trenberth partitioned up the SST contribution into Katrina and asserts a signficant AGW component above the AMO multi-decadal component. Was published in Geophysical Research Letters – controversial stuff. Appreciate the sample size of one argument etc but the result is still interesting.
The relatively recent international tropical cyclone meeting in South Africa puts the scientific community divided on this issue of AGW impact.
But just imagine that an AGW effect is happening. You would expect a difficult task to see a clear climate change signal coming through the fog of climate variability.
Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005
Kevin E. Trenberth
1
and Dennis J. Shea
1
Received 13 May 2006; accepted 24 May 2006; published 27 June 2006.
[1] The 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season (1 June to
30 November) was the most active on record by several
measures, surpassing the very active season of 2004 and
causing an unprecedented level of damage. Sea surface
temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical North Atlantic (TNA)
region critical for hurricanes (10 to 20N) were at record
high levels in the extended summer (June to October) of
2005 at 0.9C above the 1901–70 normal and were a major
reason for the record hurricane season. Changes in TNA
SSTs are associated with a pattern of natural variation
known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO).
However, previous AMO indices are conflated with linear
trends and a revised AMO index accounts for between 0 and
0.1C of the 2005 SST anomaly. About 0.45C of the SST
anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to
global warming and, based on regression, about 0.2C
stemmed from after-effects of the 2004–05 El Nin˜o.
Citation: Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea (2006), Atlantic
hurricanes and natural variability in 2005, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894.
BTW, Humphrey McQueen is a Marxist and former “Gang of Four” Maoist. For this reason alone we shouldn’t (Ian Mott excepted) take his intellectualizing too seriously.
I have lived on our farm for over 30 years. We have no town near us to influence weather, we are in the middle of natural pasture, we do not plough to influence heat levels. We are on the very edges of the snow falls. Absolutely nothing around our area has changed in that time.
The weather we are currently experiencing is not EXTREME, it is not even UNUSUAL, except that after 6 years of drought we are now having the sort of winter we always USED to have.
The snow clouds are in fact a fantastic bonus, because the nearest major dam freshens and fills via snow melt off in the highlands at its source. It has not had good melt offs for well over 6 years.
In the 30 years we have been here, I have seen at least 3 “waves” of winter temperatures. When we first came, we experienced a 45o summer, followed by an early autumn with very light snow falls at -1o.
I recall a conversation with someone who had spent their whole lives in the same place, who said that this reminded them of their childhood winters – remember this was someone 30 years ago, remembering 30 odd years before.
Gradually the winters ‘softened’ and we did not get the snow falls. Then they deepened and we got snow, softened again through the drought years and we are back to snow.
Our rainfalls have not changed outside of the drought years, our summer temperatures have not changed – they still stink. In the early years here, we would get windy Septembers – you could set your clock by them. Then they changed and were a LOT less windy. Then came back.
When we first came here I very quickly observed that on the half hour trip home from town, at a certain point the temp would always cool. A lovely bonus in the 45o summers. An old winter expression stated that our area was “an overcoat cooler than the local town”. In autumn and spring, I could leave home with my jacket buttoned, undo it halfway in, take it off in town, then repeat that procedure to get home.
We have very clear differentiations between the seasons, yet I can go to the top of our property and see the local town.
Why is it that we as humans do not trust our own memories but must be so influenced by the scare words used in the media, such as “extreme”?
Don’t rely on the media reports, on scientists – get out there in the different areas and talk to the OLD locals. The amount of country folk who do NOT believe in global warming is huge because we live with weather – we do not spend our whole days looking out windows at what is happening, we work IN it. Most farming families keep rainfall guages and can tell you to a mill how much rain they had in a given year, some for over 100 years.
I was at an Ag meeting recently where the Dept showed us rainfall graphs for the last 50 years and the same patterns showed up over and over again.
In the country areas, nature has its own cycles and seasons, yet I would guess that most of the global warming enthusiasts are city folk who see nothing but concrete, skyscrapers and the little bit of blue between them on a daily basis and have no experience of the true spectrum of natural change. A blanket statement that I am sure will be attacked by all and sundry.
We know nature can destroy us in an instant – through volcanic/earthquake activity, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc, etc – yet we still believe we are mighty enough to destroy it first! Come on folk, get some perspective, get some facts out in the countryside, stop looking at computerised data and think for yourselves!
Then if you still think humans activity is at fault, at least I will respect your views a little more.
Sue – I’m gobsmacked by your your “romantic” view – tell that to northern belt wheat farmers who have seen personally (crunch crunch) and through data their frost frequency fall off dramatically.
Tell that to those dependent on the Wivenhoe catchment that is still watching a drought that has vastly surpassed the Federation drought.
Tell that to residents of south-west Western Australia who commissioned a special research effort to find out why their rainfall has declined over decades.
Tell that to the rainfall map of Australia where the north-west has progressively become wetter where the SW and east has progressively become drier.
And especially tell that to Federal Treasury who would love to save those billions in unneeded drought aid. You see if the farming community is so well “at home and comfortable” in a non changing environment you won’t need any help will you? You see they’re very worried about whether they can keep doing this under climate change.
Why have there been few La Ninas since 1976 – count them !
Why very few tropical cyclones making landfall on the populated Queensland coast.
Sue – Australian farmers have a history of inability to manage droughts.
Tell us why vast tracts of northern Australia are grazed bare as a baby’s bum by farmers who cannot balance climate variability without stuffing the landscape.
I’m utterly appalled (seriously) by the cluelessness of your analysis. Talk to your industry bodies about their concerns for climate variability.
Sue – you might live in Sleepy Hollow – many don’t.
You’re the one that needs to get out and have a wider look. Computerised data my foot !
I think I upset you Luke!
1. You know from a previous lot of posting that I know very well how to research, so forget the “romantic” aspect.
2.I am part of an Australia wide organization with Women in Ag, so I am not isolating my own knowledge.
3. The comment on farmers re drought is one of the most uneducated comments I have heard you produce.
4. Our industry bodies are in fact govt bodies – receiving funding through the govt, supporting most govt views and viewed with distrust by most farmers.
5. I was clearly not analysing. I was stating from personal interaction with this area over 30 years. My husband has worked on properties all over the state during much of that time and can support my comments on a broader scale.
In 1649, an English freedom fighter John Lilburne wrote – “Aspersions being the known marks of corrupt Statesmen, and usually working no other effect, but the discredit of the Aspersers.”
For interest sake, where do you live Luke?
– I now live in SEQ Qld now but have lived all over Australia in locations other than capital cities.
Well Sue you don’t seem to accept that billions of dollars have gone out in drought support seemingly forever and it’s ongoing and getting worse. No you tell me – if I own the local hardware store and I fall on hard times I’d probably have to sell the store. Too bad – so sad – no matter how much I’v poured love into the business. So why should we pay for people to keep running unprofitable enterprises – sell up and get out. That’s what other businesses have to do. No exceptions. And it’s often the same people each drought.
And not only drought support. Think National Heritage Trust, think zillions on ongoing Murray Darling Basin woes.
There is a massive imbalance with European farmers encounter with drought – the expense for government, the lack of preparedness, the suicides, the land degradation, the animal welfare issues, the sheer cost. It’s an ongoing administrative and economic nightmare for government, states and Federal – if you don’t see that you’re not on the page. Stressed out and burned out rural counsellors.
If you want to read an up close and personal woman’s view – try Jill Kerr Conway’s “Road from Coorain”. Is this your experience Sue – do you know people like this?
{STARTS} Conway was born in Hillston, New South Wales in the outback of Australia. Together with her two brothers, Conway was raised in total isolation on a family owned 18,000 acre (73 km²) tract of land, Coorain (aboriginal word for “windy place”), which was eventually expanded into 32,000 acres (129 km²). On Coorain she lived a lonely life, and grew up without playmates except for her brothers. She was schooled entirely by her mother and a country governess.
Conway spent her youth working the farm; by age 7, she was an important member of the workforce, helping with such activities as herding and tending the sheep, checking the perimeter fences and lugging heavy farm supplies around. The farm prospered until a drought that would last for seven years. This drought and her father’s worsening health put an increasing burden on her shoulders. But this ended abruptly when she was 11 and her father drowned in an unfortunate diving accident, while trying to extend the farm’s water piping. {Drowned or suicide left perhaps unknown}.
Initially Conway’s mother, a nurse by profession, refused to leave Coorain. But after three more years of drought she was compelled to move Jill and her brothers to Sydney, to allow them to lead a normal life. {ENDS}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Ker_Conway#The_Road_from_Coorain
And if you’ve let your own industry organisations getting dollar for dollar subsidies get into the wrong hands the only people to blame are yourselves. Unelect your officials and take charge! Or save me my dollar contribution for research and withdraw ! {But you won’t coz whinging is easier}
So where do you live Sue – in a nice high rainfall zone in south east Australia I suspect.
Oh Luke, we had this discussion on drought subsidies on another posting – I gave you figures and the thread died away. And you know from that thread that the only drought money we ever received from the govt, had to be repaid and was many years ago.
Come on mate, move on, that argument is tired and is easy to refute.
This thread is about the expressions ‘climate change’ versus ‘global warming’. And that is where the conversation started.
As to where I live – we have farmed on the south east coast, for 30 years inland NSW, a family member is near Lightning Ridge farming and has been in the Territory, another at Tamworth, another Gunnedah, friends in Victoria, lower-mid & coastal NSW, acquaintances in mid/outback QLD, Gulf country NT, , SA and VIC. WA is probably the only state I have not had much to do with re farming areas. Family, friends and acquaintances have farmed between 130 to 5 years in some of these areas, on properties ranging from 150,000 acres to 5.
I am aware that it is contemporary thinking to trust university educated people rather than the hands on and I personally only have Ag College training, however many of those people have Uni degrees in various studies including non-agricultural and quite a few sit on boards and the like these days.
Is there any way that list may give me some credibility and allow this conversation to remain thoughtful and helpful to other readers?
South-east coast – yes figured as much.
Sue you have plenty of credibility as an experienced farmer. But I’m simply arguing the point. It’s not a personal attack nor am I seeking to be abusive.
– you seem to be making 3 points:
(1) you’re not seeing any climate trends/movement of significance
(2) farmers are completely relaxed and at home with their current climate
(3) Your industry organisations are govt run fronts
I’ve argued my view above
Sue – straight drought family assistance, freight subsidies, the interest gap on reduced interest loans do not get repaid. Check where most of money goes.
Now you see – I don’t mind you guys getting these funds (although many libs do) – simply this is not the sign of a sector self reliant in its natural environment. AND nice dodge on NHT and Murray Darling billions too. The local panel beater would love to get such support when times are lean.
It’s not a question whether one can crutch a sheep or not, so the appeal for dirt under the finger nails doesn’t get you many points.
This is fundamental stuff. Is Australian agriculture and pastoralism completely at home in its existing variable climatic environment (forget climate change for a minute) – economically and ecologically. I’m suggesting it’s not and the current climatic environment is very challenging. More challenging than a European or North American environment in many respects.
If we have climate change and it does as some suggest become warmer and drier in the south-east – or rainfall patterns favour the north-west of the continent you guys will need to adapt.
Many of your colleagues are very interested in this stuff and want the very best information.
PS Luke – all our children could drive by the age of 7, helped feed stock, took time off rotationally to help at shearing – picking up bellies and dagging,throwing fleeces, sweeping – have driven trucks for hay harvest, helped with fly blown sheep, lamb marking, stick & rock picking, fencing and etc. One daughter bought her own bull. Sons first proper job at 16 was earning an adult wage on crutching trailers – handling over 1000 per day. Then on vege farms in QLD driving tractors, getting paddocks ready for the next planting.
For fun – they would camp in the creek and skinny dip, shearing shed parties with midnight strolls in the dark. Camp fires. Made their own speedway tracks.
Conway’s life is still being repeated by many of the outback women I have met at Ag College, Luke. School of the Air ends at High School. They don’t send their children away to boarding school for the social prestige, but to give them an education.
The only comment I would disagree with is that Conway’s mother took them to the city to lead a “normal life”. I think the bush life gives them greater values and benefits than a childhood of locked doors, fearful parents and concrete playgrounds could ever do.
Sorry last comment posted before your response came through.
I haven’t commented on the Murray millions because I haven’t followed it. If you are referring to the buying up of water licences, big companies like Elders IXL and Twynams have bought most up them. And remember cotton is a huge water user and AMP and Packer are major players in cotton, not the average farmer (most of whom hate the stuff because of the heavy chemical use that HAS been the situation).
Comments on the NHT relates mostly to community groups and the like, so no comment unless it is going to impact on my actual land ownership.
Don’t forget the govt own all the land outside of private land – well over half Australia – so any money they provide for enterprises on the land they manage is up to them and the voters.
re you comment – “Is Australian agriculture and pastoralism completely at home in its existing variable climatic environment (forget climate change for a minute) – economically and ecologically. I’m suggesting it’s not and the current climatic environment is very challenging. More challenging than a European or North American environment in many respects. If we have climate change and it does as some suggest.”
Yes, yes, yes – farmers that I know in all areas are constantly consulting agronomists and keeping up with new changes. We direct drill now, are using more and more native grasses that our Ag Depts once almost demanded we remove. Areas like Walgett are now prime wheat areas because of new types of dryland wheat. Once upon a time every farmer would have thought the idea of western divisions being the new wheat areas one of the biggest jokes they had ever heard!
More farmers are moving into goats because of their suitability to the Aus climate, breeding their sheep flocks to remove fly-blow susceptible animals. Have you heard of biological shearing, where the animal is injected with a large dose of a natural hormone causing a break in the wool, so that it can be peeled off? It works and works very well.
Does everyone really think that we farm as our ancestors did, even as our own fathers did? The change is as marked as the current range of enterprises that farmers offer. Once upon a time Merino sheep, hereford meat, friesian milk, wheat – now 100’s of different breeds depending on the area of Aust you farm in. Add cream to your milk with a Jersey cross, add wagyu to your beef and produce something the Japs pay a premium for, in the tropical areas add some bos indicus, in the cold areas, bring in your European breeds.
We started with goats – cashmere and angora caught in the blackberries and died. Wild bush does disappeared into the neighbours before you got home. Then in the mid 90’s the south african Boer goat appeared and voila! Cross them with ferals and youhave an intelligent beast, great meat quality, good temperament – perfect.
Luke once upon a time, you would never produce veges over our side of the Blue Mountains, now vege farms are proliferating out here. Mushroom growers needed the moister coastal climate, now they too grow in the Central West.
And it is not because our climate has changed to suit them, rather that the methods of growing have developed to allow their production in different climates.
Yes you may find some farmers that have climate concerns, but as with the majority, I stand very firmly behind my statement that we have returned to a winter that we are very familiar with – it is not extreme.
And rather than panic, you will find most farmers will continue to be as productive as they are able to be in the climate.
Even water is an issue that can be controlled given the right thought process and investigation – I have seen farmers using plastic under crops – and depending on the colour – they get a different level of heat and weed control.
Farmers are probably the biggest users of modern technology and crop advances you will find Luke.
Sue – the MDB investments and NHT funds are not being spent at the local panel beater – any guesses where. You can choose not to find out if you don’t want to.
So no climate concerns – all those articles on the recent drought were just fluff? Just the previous lot in the early 1990s? Beggars belief Sue.
Try being a rural counsellor during the next drought.
Luke – to rehash info (from a govt site) on a previous posting. “As you will also have noted on the first site you listed and which should be of great interest to Luke is the following comment – “In addition, in November 2006, drought relief in the form of income support and interest rate subsidies was extended to include small business operators who derive at least 70 per cent of their turnover directly from agriculture. Examples of agriculture-dependent small businesses that may be eligible include contract harvesters, fencing contractors, seed, feed and fertiliser suppliers, livestock transporters, shearing contractors and suppliers of farm machinery and equipment.”
And to fully emphasize my comment “I stand very firmly behind my statement that we have returned to a WINTER that we are very familiar with – it is not extreme.”
Yes indeed – the declarations are regional. And the smaller towns and inhabitants are usually there simply as support infrastructure. They’re part of the agricultural complex. So ? Why should they get support when the local panel beater doesn’t? And shows my point – we have whole regions that can’t cope !
But again get a breakdown on numbers and see what sector got what!
Yes they’re your regional mates. Which is fine but not how economic rationalists see things.
And I REALLY have to smile ” a winter that you’re familiar with” – Sue you’re familiar with all the winters. The first mistake is thinking “back to normal” – because “what is normal?” Normal is all the good and all the bad. New normal might be ??
I think off-farm income is essential. Do many of your friends use income deposits.
The other issue is that the tax year falls on the boundary of the season break – El Nino start or finish. So would the agricultural tax year be better at Xmas or FBT year – March? June causes people to maybe make sell /no sell decisions right when they don’t need to.
Anyway all a bit bolshy – your anecdotes on the goats were pretty interesting. What is the market for goat products? Always interested in better herbivores more suited to different landscapes. Camels in Central Qld – and some have suggested getting rid of Prickly Acacia with elephants ? Silly – but if you’ve seen some infestations I don’t know. Mustering would be fun.
Luke: After a late read down this thread I was about to comment to Sue about their entering into a slack life style with these wonderful goats. I posted elsewhere before reading this lot about how dry our region is. Hint; goats don’t like the wet!
Sue: I have to say now the difference between us is I don’t expect to see goats in any significant numbers ranging through the ACT in the short term, but your placid animals may have been ideal in our rough country a while after the bad fires.
It’s sad to see the vacant grassless blocks again after trying to get authorities more interested in weed control including grazing. For a short time we had black cattle everywhere but there was no local hay. There is a sign up now outside town where city folk are asked to bring bread for the remainder. Goats on the other hand would certainly browse the scrub re-growth between good seasons.
Gavin – when we first came here 30 years ago, we brought our old dairy herd of Friesians crossed with Hereford – which in an almost total Hereford area was an anomaly the older fellows looked at with raised eyebrows. Yet our calves fattened early and raised excellent prices.
However, cattle suffer in droughts, especially dairy cows with high feed requirements.
With our total lack of knowledge of sheep we bought in western sheep – used to the dry temperatures. Our moister climate made blow-fly strike a nightmare. And while I can understand for a city person that mulesing seems an awfully cruel enterprise, watching maggots eat into living flesh is far, far worse.
So, over the years we worked out which and what animal suited. The family initially bought 1600 acres with only an outside fence, that had only been grazed, so was covered in weeds and blackberries.
My husband – who ran the place for his family – was flat-out fencing over 27 kms, building yards, a shearing shed, machinery shed, etc, than we looked at the weed situation.
We did not have the funds for sprays – ruinous costs – so looked at goats. The cashmere and angora were originally meant to bring in an income as well as be a control, but of course, once caught in blackberries – potentially dead. And the berries ruined their fleece.
So the boer goat was a godsend. We went through a family farm battle – as is often the case – finally purchased a portion of the farm we had worked on for virtually no wage for most of the years and are now independent of the family. another godsend.
Somewhere during 8 years of legal battles, we realized that the original 200 does and 3 boer bucks had turned into several 1000, (obviously with some sold along the way), had eaten almost every weed and berry on the place (saving conservatively $200,000 in sprays), and did not require all the constant level of work every other animal did. By clearing the berries, we have been able to heap the dead fallen timber and burn it, exposing any rabbit burroughs. Getting rid of rabbits has allowed more native grasses to flourish – red grass, native clover, etc. Which is ideal dry fodder for any animal in summer and more importantly handles dry conditions better than supered pastures. Another drought bonus.
In fact, we have helped a neighbour with agistment of sheep over the last 2 years, while carrying a full complement of goats.
My husband has to work to pay off our mortgage, so all he has to do on the weekends is go around the boundaries to double check for pop-holes, caught goats, etc – then keep up the farm maintenance. Currently he is converting a set of round sheep yards he built into first class goat handling yards, so we can pull down the bodgy ones we created out of necessity several years ago.
Every now and then I will be driving into town and see the flock ‘visiting’ the neighbours. I can stand by the side of the road, bip the horn and yell at them, and off they go home – knowing full well they shouldn’t be there. Very intelligent animals. People driving past me look a little scared though.
During the 6 years of drought we have not fed them any supplementary feed, have not had to do more than worm them a couple of times, and have not lost many. In the 80’s drought starving sheep had trouble lambing and crows would eat the lambs as they were being born.
The goats kid without any trouble whatsoever and we have never found a pecked kid yet. We have 2 maremma dogs that roam the paddocks living with the goats. A neighbour saw one goat who had twins and she had left one behind. One of the dogs picked the abandoned kid up and followed the mum, putting the kid down every time she stopped until she took up with both kids.
The only problem with a goat is if you make it a pet – they can harass worse than a DNR official! And you must have good fences with firm bases – they prefer to go under.
Thanks for your interest – again not to the topic, but there you go…
Very interesting comments Sue. Amazing how adaptable/ innovative humans can be.
regards Toby
Toby: I think our Sue could write a book on goats, living in the country……..but she is totally wasted on land rights issue as presented here by one or two who feel victimised by the NSW system.
Sue: You are obviously not a naturally bitter person and I’m certain you have a great deal in common with folks like I knew off the blog and long before IT based systems got in the way of good relationships through the bush.
I remain curious about where you are farming and it relates to how your goats replaced dairy cross breeds. Your district must be getting drier.
Toby – I think the human mind is the most adaptable amazing element this world has available to it. There is no point in history where individual have not risen above a circumstance that should essentially have put them “in the grave” and we should not doubt their ability to do so in the current world climate.
Can I say here that I normally do not participate in blogs because they tend to become places for people to abuse, malign, denigrate and ignore the opportunity to learn. Humans are better than that and to act that way is like spitting in the face of centuries of human intelligence and counting it worthless. My son is a singer in a heavy metal band and writes the lyrics. He reads dictionaries & thesauraus’ trying to find words to evoke a thought process, wanting his listeners to think. He tries never to use the f word, nor offer platitudes. He wants his listeners to find their own way to an answer by opening their own ability rather than just feed on another’s thoughts.
I can’t say I am a fan of the music, but I treasure my son and what he is trying to do. He works at being human – sadly many bloggers work at being less than.
Gavin – can you explain what you mean when you say “but she is totally wasted on land rights issue as presented here by one or two who feel victimised by the NSW system.” ?
Re our area – central west of NSW – we do need more rain about now, but as I look out my window, I see a creek that is flowing very well, hills that are still oozing water into it, grass cover over the whole property and happier looking trees! The goats are all in kid, fat and happy – what more could a farmer ask for
re conditions for boer cross goats – they do not like wet conditions. If you see a goat with its tail up it is happy, down it is unhappy. They need a certain amount of rough food in their diet – so when it is wet, dry roughage is not so easy to find – however I would think it would be a matter of finding the right blend of goat for those wetter areas. Perhaps a more European blend.
Actually, I have realized that the flow of this thread still relates to the topic, because to a greenie, they may still hate what we do as farmers just because we are farmers. And so the issue of climate change, where it doesn’t matter what the weather is or isn’t doing – someone will totally believe it all relates to global warming.
And I just realized I have been guilty of the same thing. When I use the term greenie, I am referring to those who would essentially stop our world as we know it, when many of the readers here may see a greenie as a person who sincerely wants to help the world and its inhabitants. So saying greenie as a blanket comment shows my bias, doesn’t it.
Perhaps I should say watermelon to indicate that I mean the “green on the outside, red on the inside brigade”. What do you think?
Sue: A problem with this thread lies partly with our construction of absolutes. After a while we have to believe in that construction and its application to everything. To start the process of resolution some one needs to back down. That’s the key.
I can’t believe how people can get so wound up over the politics of land use even though the PM thinks he can call up his external powers to resolve the MDB water issue. Settling this one will take some time through the court
Take a leaf out of late Rick Farley’s book on political craft for the Australian bush.
Greenies and rednecks should develop an interest in all forms of music. For me it started with Irish melodies, rag time, learning the barn dance and listening to brass instruments behind the band room on the beach in the dark.
We take too much for granted in this electronic age even with our entertainment. A veteran jazz player said “thanks” to us last week for just turning up to a “live” performance.
Likewise with blogs we don’t get much out of lonely threads.